management indicator species reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · mis is...
TRANSCRIPT
MIS Report Page 1
Management Indicator Species Report
Mosquito Grazing Allotment Management Project
American River Ranger District
Tahoe National Forest
Prepared By:
____/s/ Roy Bridgman______ __________ Date:_2 February 2016____________
Roy Bridgman
Wildlife Biologist
American River Ranger District
And
__/s/ Dan Teater________ _____________ Date:_ 2 February 2016_____________
Dan Teater
Fishery Biologist
American River Ranger District
MIS Report Page 2
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Mosquito Grazing Allotment
Management Project on the habitat of the thirteen (13) Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in
the Forest (NF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) (USDA 1990) as amended
by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record
of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007a). This report documents the effects of the proposed action and
alternatives on the habitat of selected project-level MIS. Detailed descriptions of the Mosquito Grazing
Allotment Management Project (hereafter Mosquito Grazing Allotment) alternatives are found in the
Mosquito Project Environmental Analysis.
MIS are animal species identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed
December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource
Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in
the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) Forest Plan as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD directs
Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the
habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or
habitat trends of MIS, as identified in the TNF Forest Plan as amended.
1.a. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS Habitat
Project-level effects on MIS habitat are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This involves examining the impacts of the proposed
project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would
change the habitat in the analysis area.
These project-level impacts to habitat are then related to broader scale (bioregional) population and/or
habitat trends. The appropriate approach for relating project-level impacts to broader scale trends
depends on the type of monitoring identified for MIS in the Forest Plan as amended by the SNF MIS
Amendment ROD. Hence, where the TNF Forest Plan as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment ROD
identifies distribution population monitoring for an MIS, the project-level habitat effects analysis for that
MIS is informed by available distribution population monitoring data, which are gathered at the
bioregional scale. The bioregional scale monitoring identified in the TNF Forest Plan, as amended, for
MIS analyzed for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment is summarized in Section 3 of this report.
Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS generally involves the following steps:
Identifying which habitat and associated MIS would be either directly or indirectly affected by the
project alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project.
Summarizing the bioregional-level monitoring identified in the Forest Plan, as amended, for this
subset of MIS.
Analyzing project-level effects on MIS habitat for this subset of MIS.
Discussing bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of MIS.
Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at the bioregional
scale for this subset of MIS.
These steps are described in detail in the Pacific Southwest Region’s draft document “MIS Analysis and
Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination” (May 25, 2006) (USDA Forest
Service 2006a). This Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report documents application of the above
steps to select project-level MIS and analyze project effects on MIS habitat for the Mosquito Grazing
Allotment.
MIS Report Page 3
1.b. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Bioregional
Scale
The bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the TNF’s MIS is found in the Sierra Nevada Forests
Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (ROD) of 2007
(USDA Forest Service 2007a). Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is identified for all twelve of the
terrestrial MIS. In addition, bioregional scale population monitoring, in the form of distribution
population monitoring, is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. For
aquatic macroinvertebrates, the bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological Integrity
and Habitat. The current bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the MIS is
discussed in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF
Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).
MIS Habitat Status and Trend All habitat monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the
Forest Plan as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a).
Habitats are the vegetation types (for example, early seral coniferous forest) or ecosystem components
(for example, snags in green forest) required by an MIS for breeding, cover, and/or feeding. MIS for the
Sierra Nevada National Forests represent 10 major habitats and 2 ecosystem components (USDA Forest
Service 2007a), as listed in Table 1. These habitats are defined using the California Wildlife Habitat
Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2005). The CWHR System provides the most widely used habitat
relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (ibid). It is described in detail in the
2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).
Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the Sierra Nevada Forests. Habitat trend is the direction
of change in the amount or quality of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing habitat status and
trend is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).
MIS Population Status and Trend All population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the
Forest Plan as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The
information is presented in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service
2010a).
Population monitoring strategies for MIS of the TNF are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests
Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Population
status is the current condition of the MIS related to the population monitoring data required in the 2007
SNF MIS Amendment ROD for that MIS. Population trend is the direction of change in that population
measure over time.
There are a myriad of approaches for monitoring populations of MIS, from simply detecting presence to
detailed tracking of population structure (USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E, page E-19). A
distribution population monitoring approach is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS in the 2007 SNF
MIS Amendment, except for the greater sage-grouse (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Distribution
population monitoring consists of collecting presence data for the MIS across a number of sample
locations over time. Presence data are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods, such as
surveys (population surveys), bird point counts, tracking number of hunter kills, counts of species sign
(such as deer pellets), and so forth. The specifics regarding how these presence data are assessed to track
changes in distribution over time vary by species and the type of presence data collected, as described in
the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).
MIS Report Page 4
Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend For aquatic macroinvertebrates, condition and trend is determined by analyzing macroinvertebrate data
using the predictive, multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS)
(Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to
reference condition within perennial water bodies. This monitoring consists of collecting aquatic
macroinvertebrates and measuring stream habitat features according to the Stream Condition Inventory
(SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005). Evaluation of the condition of the biological community is based upon
the “observed to expected” (O/E) ratio, which is a reflection of the number of species observed at a site
versus the number expected to occur there in the absence of impairment. Sites with a low O/E scores have
lost many species predicted to occur there, which is an indication that the site has a lower than expected
richness of sensitive species and is therefore impaired.
2. Selection of Project level MIS
Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the TNF are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests
Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The habitats and
ecosystem components and associated MIS analyzed for the project were selected from this list of MIS, as
indicated in Table 1. In addition to identifying habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), CWHR
type(s) defining each habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column), and associated MIS (3rd column), Table
1 discloses whether or not the habitat of the MIS is potentially affected by the Mosquito Grazing
Allotment (4th column).
Table 1. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment
Habitat or Ecosystem Component
CWHR Type(s) defining the habitat or ecosystem component1
Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator
Species (Scientific Name)
Category for
Project Analysis2
Riverine & Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) aquatic macroinvertebrates 3
Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types)
montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC)
fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca)
3
Sagebrush Sagebrush (SGB) greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) 1
Oak-associated Hardwood & Hardwood/conifer
montane hardwood (MHW), montane hardwood-conifer (MHC)
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
3
Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley foothill riparian (VRI) yellow warbler
(Dendroica petechia) 3
Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM), freshwater emergent wetland (FEW) Pacific tree (chorus) frog
(Pseudacris regilla) 1
Early Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and
3, all canopy closures Mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus)
3
Mid Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir
(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 4, all canopy closures
3
Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest
ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy
closures S and P
Sooty (blue) grouse (Dendragapus obscures)
3
Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest
ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D),
and tree size 6.
California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis)
2 American marten
(Martes americana)
northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)
Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in green forest hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus)
2
Snags in Burned Forest Medium and large snags in burned forest (stand-replacing black-backed woodpecker 2
MIS Report Page 5
fire) (Picoides arcticus)
1 All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast height; Canopy Closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy closure); Tree size classes: 1 (Seedling)(<1" dbh); 2 (Sapling)(1"-5.9" dbh); 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9" dbh); 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9" dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh); 6 (Multi-layered Tree) [In PPN and SMC] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 2 Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project. Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.
The greater sage-grouse, Pacific tree frog, California spotted owl, American marten, northern flying
squirrel, hairy woodpecker, and black-backed woodpecker will not be discussed further in this analysis
because, while their respective MIS habitats or ecosystem components exist in the grazing allotment, they
would not be affected by the proposed action. Spotted owls, marten and other sensitive species are
discussed in more detail in the Biological Evaluation for this project.
An aerial survey in the summer of 2015 documented extensive conifer tree mortality throughout the
Sierra Nevada, resulting from the multiple stressors of overly dense stands, a multi-year drought, and
increased activity from wood-boring insects. Although additional areas are expected to be affected by
this widespread mortality and identified areas are expected to spread, the survey documented 1,409 acres
of conifer mortality in the Mosquito Allotment alone. This mortality is expected to have varied effects on
habitats, much like fire, by reducing competitive pressure and shading on understory oaks, shrubs, and
herbaceous plants; reducing overstory canopy cover preferred by mature forest-dependent species, and
providing numerous snags for cavity-dependent and insectivorous species such as flying squirrel, marten,
and woodpeckers. Some of these dead and dying trees would be removed where they pose a hazard to
roads.
The MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Mosquito Grazing
Allotment, identified as Category 3 in Table 1, are carried forward in this analysis, which will evaluate
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the habitat of these
MIS. The MIS selected for project-level MIS analysis for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment are: aquatic
macroinvertebrates, fox sparrow, mule deer, mountain quail, sooty grouse, and yellow warbler.
3. Bioregional Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level
Analysis
3.a. MIS Monitoring Requirements
The Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest
Service 2007a) identifies bioregional scale habitat and/or population monitoring for the Management
Indicator Species for ten National Forests, including the TNF. The habitat and/or population monitoring
requirements and results for TNF’s MIS are described in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional
Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and are
summarized below for the MIS being analyzed for the Biggie Project.
Habitat monitoring at the bioregional scale is identified for all the habitats and ecosystem components,
including the following analyzed for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment: riverine & lacustrine; shrubland;
oak-associated hardwood & hardwood/conifer; and riparian.
Bioregional monitoring is conducted for aquatic macroinvertebrates. An Index of Biological Integrity
(IBI) and habitat condition and trend are measured by collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates and analyzed
using the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins 2003) to
determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to reference condition
within perennial water bodies. In addition, stream habitat features are measured according to the Stream
Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005).
Population monitoring is conducted at the bioregional scale for fox sparrow, mule deer, and yellow
warbler. Distribution population monitoring consists of collecting presence data for the MIS across a
number of sample locations over time (also see USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E).
3.b. How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met
Habitat and/or distribution population monitoring for all MIS is conducted at the Sierra Nevada scale.
Refer to the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) for details by habitat and
MIS.
4. Description of the Proposed Project
Proposed Action. In order to meet the purpose and need for action, the proposed action consists of the
following:
1. Authorize cattle grazing on the Mosquito Grazing Allotment consistent with the 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:
MIS Report Page 8
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 Forest Plan
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.
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
MIS Report Page 9
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. The Permittee would construct and provide annual maintenance (prior to bringing the herd onto the
allotment), on the following new structural improvements (Cattleguards (see below) associated with
fences will be installed and maintained by the Forest Service):
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.
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.
9. The Forest Service would construct and provide annual maintenance (prior to bringing the herd
onto the allotment), on the following new structural improvements:
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
MIS Report Page 10
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:
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.
10. Permittee would provide annual maintenance on the following existing improvements to aid in
management of the Allotment:
Mosquito Corrals, Holding Field and Dellar Springs drift fence; sections 22 and 23, T14N, 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,
11. The Forest Service would provide installation and/or maintenance on the following
cattleguards/gates associated with the Allotment Boundary Fences:
MIS Report Page 11
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.
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 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.
12. 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 Pacific Southwest Region Water Quality Management Handbook (2011). 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 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
MIS Report Page 12
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.
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)
7. 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:
Spruce Creek Tributary above arched culvert; section 18, T14N, R13E.
Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat Reservoir), section 16, T14N, R12E
Bear Wallows Creek; section 10, T14N, R12E.
South Branch Grouse Creek; section 2, T14N, R12E.
MIS Report Page 13
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:
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.
Move instream watering sites outside the riparian areas and onto hardened surfaces, such as
landings or other compacted sites.
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 2 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 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 2, below (BMP Range-2).
Table 2. Key Areas to be Monitored in the Mosquito Allotment.
Unit Unit Name Plot ID Plot Name Location Site Type
27D Peavine Ridge 2701Spg Bear Wallows T14N,R12E,Section 10 Spring
27B Spruce Creek 2702Spg Bear Spring T14N,R13E,Section 18 Spring
27B Spruce Creek 2703Spg Spruce Creek Trib. Above
arched bridge T14N,R13E,Section 18 Spring
27A Big Oak Flat 2701Pnd Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat
Pond) T14N,R12E,Section 17 Pond
27C Mosquito
Ridge 2705Spg
Frazier Creek Spring
Complex T14N,R13E,Section 6 Spring
27D Peavine Ridge 2702Stm Lower Peavine Creek T14N,R12E,Section 15 Stream
27C Mosquito
Ridge 2704Spg
Little Grizzly Spring
Complex T15N,R13E,Section 31 Spring
27C Mosquito
Ridge 2701PtL Little Grizzly Peatland T15N,R13E,Section 31 Peatland
27D Peavine Ridge 2703Stm South Branch Grouse Creek T14N,R12E,Section 2 Stream
27A Big Oak Flat 2701Oak Big Oak Flat T14N,R12E,Section 17 Oak Woodland
MIS Report Page 14
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 1 (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.
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.
MIS Report Page 15
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 3 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.
Table 3. Proposed Monitoring in the Mosquito Allotment
Monitoring Activity/ Type of
monitoring
Indicator or Standard Where Monitoring Would Occur Frequency of Monitoring
Streambank Disturbance
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.
Low to Mod-Low gradient stream reaches of: 1. Bear Trap Creek 2. Frazier Creek Spruce Creek
Annually
Riparian Habitat Disturbance
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.
Riparian Habitats: 4 Springs – Upper Spruce Creek; Bear Spring; Bear Wallows; South Branch Grouse Creek; Little Grizzly Creek; and Frazier Creek.
Annually
Deerbrush Utilization
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.
Wherever vegetation treatments occur with an objective of retention of deerbrush within the community
Following two years after treatment or
incident.
Herbaceous Vegetation Utilization
Limit utilization of upland herbaceous vegetation to no more than 50% of annual growth.
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
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.
Monitor Riparian shrubs in low to mod-low gradient reaches of: 1. Frazier Creek 2. Grouse Creek
Annually Rotate through one-third of
the sites every year.
Noxious Weed Monitor supplemental feed areas during occupancy and for up to two years after to determine if noxious weed seeds present.
Areas identified by the permittee where he provides supplemental feed.
Annually and for up to two years after
occupancy.
Note: Monitoring is of both implementation and effectiveness and would occur while livestock are present and after they have left the
allotment
Alternative 2, No Action
Under the No Action alternative, grazing would be discontinued in the Mosquito Allotment and the
proposed actions and improvements described under the Proposed Action would not be necessary.
Structures related to grazing, such as water troughs, corrals and fencing, would be removed if and when
feasible. The No Action alternative would not preclude activities that have already been approved in this
area or those being planned as separate projects, such as ongoing fire suppression, road maintenance, and
dispersed recreational uses.
MIS Report Page 16
Figure 1. Mosquito Range Allotment
4.a. Comparison of the Effects of the Alternatives to MIS Habitat Listed below in Table 4 are the current and predicted post project California Wildlife Habitat Relationship
(CWHR) vegetation classifications that are used throughout this document to describe changes to selected
MIS habitat types. These classifications describe the dominant vegetation type (tree species), tree size,
and canopy cover. The MIS are defined in terms of CWHR habitat types important to each species
throughout the Sierra Nevada Bioregion as described previously. By showing changes to important
habitat attributes i.e. canopy cover, we can quantify effects to habitat. By quantifying changes to CWHR
classifications we can identify the status and trends of those habitat types within the proposed project and
within the bioregion. Changes to CWHR classifications are discussed for all MIS habitat components
affected by the proposed project.
The spatial extent (totaling approximately 27,000 acres) of the analysis area is largely contained within
the extent of proposed allotment boundary, recognizing that the entire extent would not be utilized
because it is steep or unsuitable for grazing. The boundaries around the southern and northern portion of
the allotment are steep river canyons associated with the North Fork of the Middle Fork American River
Canyon, the Middle Fork of the American River Canyon, and Duncan Creek. Approximately 2,600 acres
in the northeastern Trap Line portion of the allotment is currently not being grazed. Figure 1 displays the
MIS Report Page 17
allotment boundary for analysis, while Table 4 lists the habitat within the allotment boundary and the
predicted effects of the action alternative to that habitat.
Table 4. Summary of Changes to MIS Habitat Extent
within the Project and Analysis Area Before and After Treatment.
MIS Habitat Pre-Treatment
Habitat/ Project Area1
Post-Treatment Habitat /
Analysis Acres1
Change in Habitat1
Riverine & Lacustrine 111.2 miles 111.2 miles 0
Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types) 1,072 1,072 0
Oak-associated Hardwood & Hardwood/conifer 7,495 7,495 0
Riparian 26 26 0
Early Seral Coniferous Forest 2,366 2,366 0
Mid Seral Coniferous Forest 5,193 5,193 0
Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest 1,268 1,268 0
Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest 9,156 9,156 0
1 Listed in acres unless otherwise noted. Vegetation data derived composite from multiple sources and methodologies, using
the best available existing data. Inside the TNF boundary, the majority of data was derived primarily from photo interpretation and hand delineated polygons. Mapping methodology consisted of photo-interpretation using natural color 1:15,840 scale aerial photos taken in the summer of 2005. Hand delineated polygons used Digital orthophoto data from National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) data from 2005 (5 meter) as a geo-reference index. Where data coverage was lacking, TNF ‘veg2000’ was used. It was originally derived from photo interpretation and hand delineated polygons using 1980 aerial photos, and was later updated using year 2000 photos. Vegetation was classified according to “strata type”, and later cross walked to CWHR. Post-treatment vegetation data derived from modeled outputs from the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). The vegetation layer was edited based on burn severity in the American Fire area and project-specific stand exam data within treatment units in the recent Big Hope salvage project and the Biggie vegetation management project.
5. Effects of Proposed Project on the Habitat for the Selected Project-Level MIS
The following section documents the analysis for the following ‘Category 3’ species: aquatic
macroinvertebrates, fox sparrow, and mule deer. The analysis of the effects of the Mosquito Grazing
Allotment on the MIS habitat for the selected project-level MIS is conducted at the project scale. The
analysis used the following habitat data: stand exam data in treatment units, aerial photo derived
vegetation maps (based on aerial photography taken in 2000 and 2005, updated after the 2013 American
Fire), and ground verification. GIS analysis was conducted using the most recent Tahoe National Forest
Vegetation layer which has been updated to include field verified plots within the project units and
changes to vegetation as a result of the 2013 American Fire.
Detailed information and cumulative effects at the bioregional scale on MIS is derived from in the 2010
SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).
Riverine/Lacustrine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates)
Habitat/Species Relationship
Aquatic or Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI) were selected as the MIS for riverine and lacustrine habitat
in the Sierra Nevada. They have been demonstrated to be very useful as indicators of water quality and
aquatic habitat condition (Resh and Price 1984; Karr et al. 1986; Hughes and Larsen 1987; Resh and
MIS Report Page 18
Rosenberg 1989). They are sensitive to changes in water chemistry, temperature, and physical habitat;
aquatic factors of particular importance are flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade.
Project-level Effects Analysis – Riverine/Lacustrine Habitat
Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade. The analysis area
consists of the approximately 102.6 miles of perennial streams and 8.6 miles of seasonal streams, which
provide potential macroinvertebrate stream habitat.
Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area: The spatial extent (totaling about
27,000 acres) of the analysis area is defined as all watersheds that contain project units, which include the
following four hydrologic unit code (HUC) 7 watersheds: Grouse Creek, Peavine Creek, Middle Fork
American River – Big Mosquito Creek, and Lower Duncan Creek. No Lakes or Reservoirs (Lacustrine
habitat) occur within the analysis area. Riverine habitats (perennial and intermittent streams) within the
analysis area, totaling approximately 110.8 miles. Surface flows are intermittent to perennial depending
upon the type (e.g. rain and/or snow) and amount of annual precipitation, and relative position within
each watershed. Minimum flow volumes in all but the main stems are generally less than two cubic feet
per second (cfs) at base summer flows. Flow of the main stems may exceed several hundred cfs during
peak flows. Intermittent montane streams within the analysis area primarily transport small materials
(e.g. gravels and fine sediments) due to their limited energy potential while the main stem perennial
streams will transport larger materials. Water surface shade along montane streams varies greatly
throughout the analysis area. Habitat factors selected for aquatic macroinvertebrates within the analysis
area are mainly impaired by past wildfires that have affected flow, sedimentation, and shading.
The existing condition of stream channels in the project area was determined by conducting Proper
Functioning Condition assessments at nine geographically dispersed sites. This assessment is a consistent
approach for considering hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition (soils) attributes and processes to
assess the condition of riparian-wetland areas and to determine how well the physical processes are
functioning (USDI, 1998). Seven of the nine sites showed the stream being in proper functioning
condition while two are considered functioning at risk.
The proper functioning sites are typical of the moderate to high gradient channels in the project area.
These are steep, high-energy channels with bedrock or boulder-lined beds. Their floodplains are very
narrow, leaving the channel constrained within narrow, steep canyon walls. The channels are stable and
access by cattle is difficult. Therefore, impacts from grazing are minor.
One of the two sites that are functioning-at-risk is located on an unnamed tributary to Peavine Creek. This
site does not appear to be experiencing any detrimental impacts from grazing. Rather, this stream reach is
at-risk due to past disturbances that resulted in channel incision of up to 4 feet, leaving vertical, bare,
unstable banks. The incision has also lowered the local groundwater table which has thus limited the
extent and abundance of riparian vegetation along this reach.
The second functioning-at-risk site is along Spruce Creek, near the Greek Store site. This is a low
gradient (<2%) reach which is easily accessible by humans and cattle. This site has a mix of incised (up to
2 feet), and stable reaches, but contains limited riparian vegetation compared to the site’s potential. The
current condition is the result of past uses, including roads and water diversions, along with impacts from
grazing. The trend of the condition at this site appears to be slightly upward.
In addition to PFC assessments, streambank alteration monitoring was conducted at eight sites throughout
the project area. Three of these sites were the same as the PFC sites. Monitoring followed established
protocols outlined in the Region 5 Rangeland Analysis and Planning Guide (USDA 1997) to determine if
MIS Report Page 19
the sites met the standard for limiting stream bank disturbance to 20% of the stream reach. The results
showed that all sites met the standard except for the reach along Spruce Creek near Greek Store; which
had 51% disturbance.
In 2013 and 2015, riparian habitat conditions were assessed by Botany and Rangeland specialists at 34
sites across the allotment. These sites included streams, ponds, seeps and springs. Results of these surveys
show that four seep/spring locations were highly impacted by cattle trampling; the other 30 sites were in
acceptable condition?. Further field work by the botany crew revealed that about half of the springs the
crew visited had 30-40% bare soil from cattle trampling.
As stated above, easy access to natural water features in the project area by cattle is limited. Most
perennial stream miles are located in the bottom of steep canyons. Other perennial streams are steep, with
stable rocky beds, which are not particularly susceptible to impacts from cattle traffic. This leaves a
limited number of low gradient stream segments, wetlands, and spring/seep locations that are easily
accessible by cattle and also sensitive to cattle impacts. These accessible sites are generally located on
more gentle sloping ground near the ridge tops and are experiencing impacts from cattle trampling.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Within the footprint of proposed activities, there are approximately 110.8 miles of riverine habitat. Flow –
Livestock grazing can result in collapsed stream banks, which results in wider, shallower stream courses.
Widening of the stream can result in the water table and resulting stream flow going underground or
reduce the above-ground velocity. In addition, trampling of riparian seedlings by cattle can prevent new
conifer growth thereby reducing shading vegetation so soil and snow is exposed to direct solar radiation
and rapid melting and runoff (Derlet et al 2010).The Mosquito Range Allotment Management Plan is
expected to improve stream bank conditions by monitoring and adhering to less than 20% stream bank
disturbance, as directed in the Forest Plan. Livestock will be removed from any area of the allotment
when riparian shrub browsing levels over 20% occur, indicating a change in livestock preference from
grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation. Protection of riparian shrubs will
help maintain channel stability and structure, thus maintain stream flow, for aquatic invertebrates.
Sedimentation – Sedimentation as a result of cattle grazing can occur as a result of collapsed stream
banks. The Mosquito Range Allotment Management Plan is expected to improve stream bank conditions
by monitoring and limiting grazing effects to less than 20% stream bank disturbance, as directed in the
Forest Plan. Mature riparian shrubs hold stream banks, which in turn maintain stream flow and prevent
sedimentation. Browsing of riparian shrubs will not exceed 20 percent of the annual leader growth of
mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. The new fencing
improvements and reconstruction of existing improvements (page 69 of the Aquatic Biological Evaluation
Teater 2016) are designed to improve aquatic habitat conditions where they are impacted by cattle.
Water surface shade – Riparian shrubs provide some water surface shade. Browsing of riparian shrubs
will not exceed 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20
percent of individual seedlings. Livestock will be removed from areas of the allotment when excessive
browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing
woody riparian vegetation. The Mosquito Grazing Allotment Plan is expected to maintain or improve
water surface shade.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: The analysis area includes portions of both the
Upper Middle Fork and the North Fork Middle Fork American River watersheds. Main streams that are
MIS Report Page 20
tributary to the Upper Middle Fork include Big Mosquito Creek, Spruce Creek and Duncan Creek. Main
streams that are tributary to the North Fork Middle Fork American River within the project area include
Peavine Creek, Grouse Creek, Frazier Creek, Little Grizzly Creek, Bear Trap Creek and Deep Canyon.
This spatial extent was chosen to encompass connected watersheds that may be effected as a result of the
proposed project without extending so far as to potentially mask effects on lacustrine/riverine habitats
from the Mosquito Allotment when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. The analysis area is temporally defined to extend 20 years before and after the present; in
correlation with the estimated longevity of vegetation treatments.
The project is located within nine 14-digit hydrologic units (HU) which range in size from about 3,900 to
over 9,200 acres. These 14-digit HUs are nested within larger HUs as shown in table 6. Watershed
condition has been assessed at the 14-digit HU for this project.
Table 5. Project Area Watershed Hierarchy.
10-digit HU
Watershed
12-digit HU
Subwatershed
14-digit HU “Drainages”
Acres
North Fork Middle
Fork American
1802012804
59106
Secret Canyon-North
Fork Middle Fork
American 180201280401
24341
Deep Canyon 18020128040102 5319
Upper North Fork of Middle Fork
American 18020128040104
3956
Peavine Creek-North
Fork Middle Fork
American 180201280403
21613
Grouse Creek 18020128040301 5211
Peavine Creek 18020128040302 5485
North Fork of Middle Fork
American River-Bear Wallow
18020128040303
5946
North Fork of Middle Fork
American River-El Dorado Canyon
18020128040304
4978
Upper Middle
Fork American
1802012803
71011
Duncan Creek
180201280301
15097
Lower Duncan Canyon
18020128030102
7825
Brushy Creek-Middle
Fork American
180201280303
18440
Middle Fork American River-Big 9238
MIS Report Page 21
Mosquito Creek 18020128030301
Middle Fork American River-
Brushy Canyon 18020128030302
9207
Timber harvests, fuel reduction projects, and wildfires in the last 40 years (acres shown in Table 6) have
occurred over much of the Mosquito Allotment, which has periodically affected the timing and volume of
flows by reducing canopy closure and evapotranspiration (resulting from reduced tree density and
associated water uptake), while increasing stormflows and sediment movement. Reductions in canopy
closure likely altered the timing of flows (e.g. increasing the rate of snowmelt and causing peak flows to
occur earlier in the season) while reductions in evapotranspiration may have increased the volume of
surface flows if annual precipitation exceeded water uptake in treated stands. The magnitude and
duration of these effects likely varied by treatment (e.g. greater magnitude and longer duration in
aggressively harvested areas and severely burned areas than in lightly thinned or burned areas) and are
generally thought to be slight in magnitude (e.g. flow volume would change subtly) and to last until re-
growth began affecting available water.
Table 6. Past Treatment within the Mosquito Analysis Area
Treatment Types Acres
Fuels Treatment/ Site Preparation for Planting 5595
Burning (piles, jackpot, underburn) 6756
Reforestation 5532
Clearcut Harvest 2730
Commercial Thinning 3398
Pre-Commercial Thinning 7229
Note: These treatments often overlap in space; for example, site preparation and
reforestation typically occurs after clearcut harvest.
Sedimentation likely increased slightly and temporarily with past timber harvest, although recent
management practices, including riparian buffers, generally prevent or greatly mitigate the potential for
sedimentation. Prescribed burning is unlikely to have measurably affected sedimentation due to the low
intensity of the fire and the abundance of remaining ground and canopy cover immediately after burns.
Wildfires occurring in the past 75 years in the Mosquito Allotment include about 7,800 acres associated
with the 2001Star, 2007 Ralston, 2008 American River Complex, and 2013 American Fires, which is
about 29% of the allotment affected at varying levels of fire severity. Prior to 2001, the only fires in the
allotment area consisted of about 8,000 acres that burned between 1900 and 1924.
Stream shading has been affected very little by vegetation projects occurring over the last 20 years
because riparian buffers retain vegetation adjacent to streams. Past wildfires have greatly reduced or
eliminated vegetation adjacent to a relatively small percentage of streams in the analysis area. In contrast
to timber harvesting and prescribed burning, wildland fire exclusion has likely reduced flows and
sedimentation and increased stream shading by increasing vegetative cover.
Recent actions within the Mosquito Allotment include the Big Trees Ecological Restoration and Duncan
Dispersed Recreation Site Improvement projects and chipping large burn piles built in landings for
biomass removal (approximately two acres in the Spruce project area). The Big Trees project (198 acres)
is not expected to affect riverine habitat because only small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), and a limited
MIS Report Page 22
number of large hazard trees will be removed. The Big Trees project will also include low-intensity
prescribed burning which may slightly increase sediment in nearby streams. The Duncan project is just
outside the allotment boundary and is not expected to affect riverine habitat because only a limited
number of large hazard trees will be removed. Chipping burn piles in landings is not expected to affect
riverine habitat because it will not occur within riparian buffers.
Many of the salvage and other treatments within the recent American Fire (2013) have already occurred,
while others are ongoing and will continue for several years. Approximately 1,616 acres of these projects
are within the analysis area, and include 988 acres of hazard tree removal along roads and trails, 350 acres
of burned timber salvage, and 278 acres of tree planting. These treatments are expected to have the same
effects described above under past actions for fire salvage and tree planting and under the proposed action
for hazard tree removal. Wildland fire suppression is expected to continue with effects as described for
past actions. In contrast to timber harvesting and prescribed burning, past and ongoing wildland fire
exclusion likely reduced flows and sedimentation and increased stream shading by allowing continued
vegetative growth.
Table 7. Current and Ongoing post-fire Treatments within the Mosquito Allotment
Treatment Types Acres
Roadside Hazard Tree Removal 988
Tree Salvage and Reforestation 350
Reforestation 278
Total 1,616
Reasonably foreseeable future actions (Table 8) proposed within the Mosquito Allotment include the
planned Biggie and Cuckoo Fuel Reduction and Vegetation Management Projects, both of which are
almost entirely within the allotment. They are both vegetation management projects under development
that include similar stand thinning and fuel reduction activities.
Hazard tree removal and tree planting are not expected to affect habitat factors for aquatic
macroinvertebrates during the 20 year analysis period due to the limited number of trees that will be
removed that would have potentially fallen into streams, and the period of time it will take for planted
trees to increase stream shading. The projects are currently in the planning stages but propose to treat
approximately 5,700 acres within the Mosquito Allotment. Effects to habitat factors of the aquatic
macroinvertebrates as a result of these projects are expected to be insignificant. Minimal and short term
increases in sedimentation, increased flow, and a decrease in stream shading are not expected to be
measurably affected. Short term effects of the Cuckoo Project are not expected to coincide with the
Biggie Project because timelines for expected implementation would not overlap. All activities proposed
would follow Riparian Conservation Objectives and management requirements which include stream
buffers.
Table 8. Planned Projects (Biggie and Cuckoo) within the Mosquito Allotment
Treatment Type Acres/ Miles
Ground-based Thinning and Follow-up Fuels Treatments 2,795
Cable Thinning and Follow-up Fuels Treatments 572
Pre-commercial Thinning 1,073
Prescribed Burning 666
Rust-Resistant Sugar Pine Treatments 68
Roadside Fuelbreak 13 miles
Roadside Hazard Tree Removal 94 miles
MIS Report Page 23
Treatment Type Acres/ Miles
Total 5682/ 107 miles
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: A conclusion regarding scale of cumulative effects to habitat in
relation to total amount of habitat in the analysis area is that changes in flow and water surface shade are
expected to be insignificant, especially considering the implementation of the more stringent SNFPA
guidelines. Sedimentation is expected to be continuing under the range allotment management plan
because cattle will still have access to the streams, but is expected to be reduced from existing. Flow and
water surface shade are expected to be maintained or slightly improved.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Direct effects to lacustrine/riverine habitat would not occur
because no action would be taken.
Habitat factors for analysis for aquatic macroinvertebrates are flow; sedimentation; and water surface
shade.
Flow – Stream flow without livestock grazing is expected to eventually return to pre-grazing conditions.
Stream depth, channel stability and structure, may increase because of improved riparian vegetation
condition. This may increase stream flow volume, as less water would be going underground.
Sedimentation – Stream bank revegetation is expected to increase and hold the substrate on the banks,
thus primarily natural sedimentation from high spring runoff flows would be expected.
Water surface shade – Riparian shrubs provide some water surface shade. Browsing and trampling of
riparian shrubs by livestock would not occur. Shading by trees would not be affected by the No Action
Alternative, except the young sprouting trees that would be eaten or trampled by grazing would be able to
grow.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: The livestock effects that would contribute to
cumulative effects would not occur. Channel morphology would improve at a greater rate than under the
Action Alternative, including reduced sedimentation and erosion because there would be no grazing-
related stream bank disturbance. Rills and gullies would have riparian re-growth at a faster rate, with an
overall improvement of the stream channel benefiting benthic macroinvertebrates.
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: A conclusion regarding scale of cumulative effects to habitat in
relation to total amount of habitat in the analysis area is that changes in flow and water surface shade are
expected to be insignificant, especially considering the implementation of the more stringent SNFPA
guidelines. Sedimentation, flow and water surface shade are expected to be maintained or improved by
the no allotment.
Summary of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale
The TNF Forest Plan (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale Index of
Biological Integrity and Habitat monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; hence, the lacustrine and
riverine effects analysis for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project must be informed by these
monitoring data. The sections below summarize the Biological Integrity and Habitat status and trend data
for aquatic macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and
population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service
2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
MIS Report Page 24
Habitat and Index of Biological Integrity Status and Trend: Aquatic habitat has been assessed using
Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) data collected since 1994 (Frasier et al. 2005) and habitat status
information from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) (Moyle and Randall 1996). Moyle and
Randall (1996) developed a watershed index of biotic integrity (IBI) based on distributions and
abundance of native fish and amphibian species, as well as extent of roads and water diversions.
According to this analysis, seven percent of the watersheds were in excellent condition, 36 percent were
in good condition, 47 percent were in fair condition and nine percent were in poor condition.
Sierra Nevada MIS monitoring for aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates (BMI) was conducted in 2009
and 2010 (Furnish 2010). Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from stream sites during both the
2009 and 2010 field seasons according to the Reachwide Benthos (Multi-habitat) Procedure (Ode 2007).
The initial BMI data from 2009 and 2010 found 46% (6 of 13) of the surveyed streams indicate an
impaired condition and 54% (7 of 13) indicate a non-impaired condition (see USDA Forest Service
2010a, Table BMI-1). This is similar to the IBI conditions estimated by Moyle and Randall (1996).
Therefore, current data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that status and trend in the RIVPACS scores
appears to be stable.
Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
Habitat Trend: Because implementation of the action alternative would result in slight to non-
measurable changes in flow, sedimentation, and stream shading, the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project
is not expected to alter the existing trend in the habitat or aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra
Nevada bioregion.
Shrubland (West-Slope Chaparral) Habitat (Fox Sparrow)
Habitat/Species Relationship
The fox sparrow was selected as the MIS for shrubland (chaparral) habitat on the west-slope of the Sierra
Nevada, comprised of montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), and chamise-redshank
chaparral (CRC) as defined by the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR) (CDFG
2005). Recent empirical data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that, in the Sierra Nevada, the fox sparrow
is dependent on open shrub-dominated habitats for breeding (Burnett and Humple 2003, Burnett et al.
2005, Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007).
Project-level Effects Analysis - Shrubland (West-Slope Chaparral) Habitat
Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of shrubland (chaparral) habitat [CWHR montane
chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), and chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC)]; (2) Acres with
changes in shrub ground cover; and (3) Acres with changes in CWHR shrub size.
Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area: The spatial extent of the analysis
area consists of the 27,000-acre Mosquito Allotment, which includes the full potential extent of grazing
but in practice includes a buffer of steep areas in some portions that would not usually be affected.
Approximately 1,072 acres of shrubland habitat occurs within the Mosquito Allotment. While relatively
little of the allotment is dominated by shrub habitat, it occurs in the understory and in openings
throughout the allotment, particularly along roadsides. The shrub species include manzanita
(Arctostaphylos sp.), deer brush and buck brush (Ceanothus sp.), bear clover (Chamaebatia foliolosa),
and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica). An oak relative that grows as a shrub and occurs prolifically in
openings in the Mosquito Allotment is the dwarf tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus var. echinoides.
The dwarf tanoak can be confused with bush chinquapin Chrysolepis sempervirens, another shrub
occurring in the allotment; tanoak can provide some foliage and acorn forage for deer, although
MIS Report Page 25
chinquapin does not appear to provide very good forage. Nonetheless, all the larger species of shrubs
provide cover for many wildlife species, nesting habitat for birds, and forage for pollinators and other
insects and insectivorous birds.
Shrub cover and size occurs in various stages throughout the analysis area. Shrubs are rapidly colonizing
the area burned in the American Fire within the allotment and are most dominant in the area burned in
2001 in the Star Fire. A monitoring inspection of use and condition after the end of the 2015 season
found heavy use in the Big Oak Flat area, including heavy utilization of deerbrush in places, but extensive
remaining oaks and shrub species in many areas with little or no grazing pressure. Bear clover and other
species receive little or no grazing pressure from cattle, but provide important forage to wintering deer.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Cattle grazing on the allotment would not greatly affect the
availability of shrubs, but they will browse shrubs where they occur and are palatable, generally favoring
the young, tender shoots. Cattle briefly reduce shrub forage temporarily, but most of the plant, including
existing root systems and banked seed remain and new growth would resume the following season.
Ongoing monitoring of deerbrush, which is the favored shrub species, would monitor overall grazing
pressure and require moving or removing the cattle if over 50% of annual growth is browsed. The
existing level of cattle browse of shrubs is heavy in some areas, but overall, the shrub cover does not
appear to be declining, which is consistent with research that found moderate browse of deerbrush
stimulates rapid re-growth, providing maximum forage for cattle and wildlife (Huntsinger 1996). Heavy
browse, which occurs in concentrated areas near water sources or salt sites, tends to adversely affect shrub
growth and density. Some shrublands are also declining due to shading from increasingly dense tree
cover.
Other shrub species likely receive much less browse pressure due to their reduced palatability or location;
nonetheless they provide forage, cover, and plant diversity for wildlife species, including deer. Because
cattle browse is expected to have limited effects on shrub cover, availability, and survival, no long term
gains or losses in this habitat type are expected.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: Past timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and
wildland fire exclusion activities have affected shrubland habitats in the analysis area. Fire exclusion has
likely reduced the amount of shrublands present on the allotment as forested stands grow denser and
shade out shrubs. Additionally, most vegetation management activities intended to benefit forests,
including understory fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and stand thinning result in reduced shrubland
habitat, as they are actively reduced by mastication and burning or gradually outcompeted by overstory
trees. As shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8, the allotment has been, is currently, or is planned to be subjected to
various treatments that would affect shrub densities. These vegetation management projects associated
with forest stand management and fuels reduction would have much greater effect on shrublands than the
proposed cattle allotment. Some of these treatments would affect understory conifers and roadsides more
than shrublands, and some of these areas would rapidly recover shrub habitat. Timber removal activities,
particularly clearcutting on private land and plantation thinning, can increase shrub cover temporarily, but
these areas typically receive follow-up treatments such as herbicide or reforestation to reduce shrub cover.
Conversely, fire exclusion increases stand densities and understory fuels, which may support larger, high-
intensity wildfires. Large wildfires and subsequent salvage harvest of trees result in a rapid conversion to
a briefly herbaceous vegetation that is quickly replaced by shrubland, many of which are adapted to fire
and will resprout from the roots after fire or seeds will be scarified by heat and grow new plants. Much of
the portions of the analysis area within the recent Star and American fires support a shrub-dominated
MIS Report Page 26
habitat. Nearby, on the Eldorado National Forest, the King Fire burned nearly 100,000 acres in 2014.
Post-fire shrub habitat with an overstory of snags is sometimes referred to as complex early seral habitat.
Beyond the allotment boundary, the surrounding landscape contains extensive areas that burned in
wildfires and are still dominated by shrubs. The portions of the analysis area within the Middle Fork
American River canyon, which are south-facing and typically thin-soiled also tend to favor shrub cover,
or a larger component of shrubs in oak woodlands. Roadsides and openings also provide disturbance and
limited tree cover that supports shrubland.
Climate change is another important cumulative effect on shrubs in the area. Some of the anticipated
effects include increasing global temperatures, reduced snowpack accumulations, increased probability of
extreme events such as fires, and resulting changes in land use patterns and management (Spittlehouse
and Stewart 2003). Climate models suggest that shrub densities will increase in montane forests as
drought and higher temperatures lead to more frequent and more intense fires, removing conifer cover and
providing opportunities for rapid colonization of openings by shrubs (Cayan et al 2006; Battles et al
2006). In addition, productivity of conifers in a warmer climate, particularly pines, would be greatly
reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (ibid.).
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Although the analysis area for the Mosquito Allotment has been
subject to extensive vegetation management, including fuels reduction, that would affect shrub cover,
overall, shrublands have expanded in the area as a result of recent large wildfires. Due to the temporary
nature of cattle browse, the planned monitoring to limit over-browsing, and the large allotment area, the
proposed action, combined with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,
would not result in long term adverse cumulative effects to shrubland habitats.
Summary of Fox Sparrow Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale
The TNF Forest Plan (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and
distribution population monitoring for the fox sparrow; hence, the shrubland effects analysis for the
Mosquito Allotment must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The
sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the fox
sparrow. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the
2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby
incorporated by reference.
Habitat Status and Trend: There are currently 1,009,681 acres of west-slope chaparral shrubland
habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is
slightly increasing (changing from 8% to 9% of the acres on National Forest System lands).
Population Status and Trend: Monitoring of the fox sparrow across the ten National Forests in the
Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of
a monitoring effort that also includes mountain quail, hairy woodpecker, and yellow warbler (USDA
Forest Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Fox sparrows were detected on 36.9%
of 1,659 point counts in 2009 and 44.3% of 2266 point counts in 2010, with detections on all 10 national
forests in both years. The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on passive point count
surveys) was 0.563 in 2009 and 0.701 in 2010. These data indicate that fox sparrows continue to be
distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. In addition, the fox sparrows continue to be
monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count, spot
mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional
Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra
Nevada scales indicate that, although there may be localized declines in the population trend, the
distribution of fox sparrow populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.
MIS Report Page 27
Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Fox Sparrow Trend: The
moderate to low affect to shrubland density on the Mosquito Allotment would not alter the existing trend
in the habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of fox sparrows across the Sierra Nevada
bioregion.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Direct effects to shrubland habitat would not occur under the
No Action Alternative because no action would be taken. Habitat conditions immediately following
selection of the No Action alternative would be equivalent to the current condition. Under the No Action
alternative, existing shrubland would be retained and new growth would not be affected by cattle. Shrub
cover and size generally would increase as shrubs continue to mature along current trajectories, while
some would continue to decline under forest cover.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As described above, past timber harvesting,
prescribed burning, and wildland fire exclusion activities have affected shrubland habitats in the analysis
area. Past fire exclusion has likely reduced the amount of shrublands present in the analysis area as
forested stands grew denser and shaded out shrubs. The current dense condition of the forest in the
allotment boundary supports this conclusion. Additionally, most vegetation management activities
intended to benefit forests, including understory fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and stand thinning
result in reduced shrubland habitat, as they are actively reduced by mastication and burning or gradually
outcompeted by overstory trees. As shown in Tables 6-8, the proposed project would contribute very
little to the cumulative effects of other projects that would reduce shrub densities, including burning,
chipping, and mastication; under the No Action alternative, these projects would still affect more areas
and recent wildfires have overwhelmingly favored shrubland habitat by removing tree cover and
stimulating new shrub growth. Some areas affected by the Star (2001), Ralston (2006), and Peavine
(2008) fires are still dominated by shrubs.
Climate change is another important cumulative effect on shrubs in the area. Some of the anticipated
effects include increasing global temperatures, reduced snowpack accumulations, increased probability of
extreme events such as fires, and resulting changes in land use patterns and management (Spittlehouse
and Stewart 2003). Climate models suggest that shrub densities will increase in montane forests as
drought and higher temperatures lead to more frequent and more intense fires, removing conifer cover and
providing opportunities for rapid colonization of openings by shrubs (Cayan et al 2006; Battles et al
2006). In addition, productivity of conifers in a warmer climate, particularly pines, would be greatly
reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (ibid.).
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Shrub cover and size generally would increase under the No Action
alternative as shrubs mature along current trajectories. Portions of the shrublands within the analysis area
have been affected in the past 20 years, both by wildfire and by treatments. Both effects generally return
to near pre-treatment levels of shrub ground cover and size class within the timeframe of the analysis
period and wildfires tend to increase shrub cover in relation to trees with the increased light and space
available. The No Action alternative would have a minimal effect on shrub cover as unbrowsed leaders
allowed shrubs to grow larger somewhat quicker. Combined with the effects of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, no grazing would not result in adverse cumulative effects to
shrubland habitats.
MIS Report Page 28
Oak-Associated Hardwoods and Hardwood/Conifer Habitat (Mule deer)
Habitat/Species Relationship
The mule deer was selected as the MIS for oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer in the Sierra
Nevada, comprised of montane hardwood (MHW) and montane hardwood-conifer (MHC) as defined by
the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR) (CDFG 2005). Mule deer range and
habitat includes coniferous forest, foothill woodland, shrubland, grassland, agricultural fields, and
suburban environments (CDFG 2005). Many mule deer migrate seasonally between higher elevation
summer range and low elevation winter range (Ibid). On the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, oak-
associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer areas are an important winter habitat (CDFG 1998).
Project-level Effects Analysis - Oak-Associated Hardwoods and Hardwood/Conifer Habitat
Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat
[CWHR montane hardwood (MHW), montane hardwood-conifer (MHC)]; (2) Acres with changes in
hardwood canopy cover; and (3) Acres with changes in CWHR size class of hardwoods.
Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area: The spatial extent of the analysis
area consists of the 27,000-acre Mosquito Allotment, which includes the full potential extent of grazing
but in practice includes a buffer of steep areas in some portions that would not likely be affected. An
estimated 7,495 acres of oak-dominated woodland exist within the Mosquito allotment, although many
oaks also occur as a component of areas otherwise dominated by shrubs or conifers. The oaks present in
the allotment are largely black oak (Quercus kelloggii) but also includes canyon live oaks (Quercus
chrysolepis), particularly in the thinner soiled, exposed south-facing portion of the allotment in the
Middle Fork of the American River. As described in the section about shrublands, the chinquapin and
tanoak in the allotment are shrub forms and do not contribute to overstory tree habitat, although they
contribute important browse in the form of leaves and nuts.
The Mosquito Allotment is located within the Blue Canyon Deer herd, which is roughly defined by the
foothills in the west, the Sierra Crest in the east, Bear River in the north and the Rubicon River in the
south (Figure 2). The herd is dispersed on 458,000 acres and is largely migratory, moving below
snowline (about 4,000 feet) in the winter to forage on available acorns and shrub and oak leaves and back
upslope in the spring and summer to forage and give birth in meadows and riparian areas. A limited
number of deer remain do not migrate upslope in the summer. The California Department of Fish and
Wildlife prepared management plans for every deer herd and delineated general areas within the range.
The Mosquito allotment includes about 2,800 acres of the total 23,000 acres of Critical Winter Range for
the Blue Canyon deer herd (about 12% of the total), along with 17,000 acres in Winter Range and 10,000
acres in Summer Range. Little Oak Flat is located just west of the allotment boundary and also provides
numerous oaks and is also part of the critical winter range.
MIS Report Page 29
Figure 2. Mosquito Allotment in relation to the Blue Canyon Deer Herd
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: The area contains numerous oaks in a variety of age classes,
even with a history of cattle grazing on the Mosquito Allotment. Cattle browse can reduce new growth
from young oak trees; although they likely have very little effect on larger, mature trees. The canyon live
oak trees are not as palatable to cattle, but also provide important winter forage for deer, particularly
because they are evergreen and an acorn-producer. Cattle do not likely affect availability of acorns for
deer in the fall, because they don’t directly affect mature, acorn-producing trees, because acorns are poor
forage for cows, and because they have left the allotment before acorns have ripened and fallen.
The management of the grazing allotment includes ongoing monitoring and a measure from the Forest
Plan to protect hardwood regeneration by limiting browse to no more than 20% of annual growth of
seedlings. If excessive browse occurs, cows can be moved elsewhere on the allotment, the season can be
shortened, or the number of cows can be reduced. For saplings and larger trees, cattle browse is expected
MIS Report Page 30
to have minimal effects, so no specific measures were developed to protect them. Existing browse
appears to be low to moderate overall, with some areas of concentration.
The proposed 20% utilization standard is expected to be sufficient to prevent a change in the existing
acres of oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat, and would also prevent changes in
hardwood canopy cover and size class of hardwoods. Any long term changes to these habitat factors for
this analysis would be minimal. This standard and guideline would ensure sufficient regeneration of
hardwood stands, minimizing the potential for changes in habitat type or canopy cover over the long term.
The Mosquito Allotment has experienced ongoing grazing under similar livestock use levels for many
years; the main change in the current project is better monitoring, mitigation of some problem areas, and a
slight change in the allotment boundary, so the current conditions, well-stocked with oaks of various age
classes, are expected to continue.
The relationship of the oak woodlands in the analysis area to the Blue Canyon deer herd bears some
discussion. The project area affects important areas for deer, particularly the critical winter range, which
was specifically identified in the Forest Plan. Winter range is important because the fawns arrive from
the summer range on their first migration post-weaning in relatively poor condition. Sufficient cover
from winter temperature extremes and remaining forage for the unproductive winter season are vital for
these young deer to survive and to resume their upslope migration in the spring.
The 7,500 acres of oak woodland in the allotment makes up about 12% of the total 60,000 acres or more
of oak-dominated woodland within the boundary of the Blue Canyon deer herd. The Mosquito Allotment
is the only portion of the Blue Canyon Deer Herd’s range that is grazed, affecting less than 10% of the
herd’s total area. As described above, the current effect of the cattle to oak canopy, acorns, and size
classes for deer appears to be limited; thus the effect to the local herd does not appear to be substantial.
The area within the allotment and just outside associated with Little Oak Flat appears to receive little or
no browse and brush, grasses, acorns, and oak saplings are widely available to wintering deer. In
addition, the steeper portions of the river canyon, which are difficult and unattractive for cows to traverse,
are accessible by deer. Additional forage and cover for the herd likely occurs elsewhere for this species,
and the recent American Fire (2013) is expected to produce substantial new palatable shrub and oak
growth.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: Past timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and
wildland fire exclusion activities have affected oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitats in
the analysis area. Fire suppression has allowed vegetation to become dense in the allotment (and
throughout much of the Sierra Nevada) and has crowded oaks with dense conifer. The two large wildfires
in the allotment have killed many conifers, opening up areas for brush and oaks. Most oaks, while easily
damaged by fire, will resprout from the roots and have an advantage unless reforestation activities occur.
Young oaks and resprouting oaks do not provide substantial acorn crops (mast) for foraging animals such
as deer, although they may provide important cover and leafy forage. Oaks may take 75 years to reach a
size to produce substantial acorn mast, although resprouting oaks after fire grow more rapidly, using the
existing root system. Oaks are not typically targeted in other management activities, and so typically are
left during fuels reduction, mastication, and commercial harvest activities. Some oaks may be removed if
they pose a hazard to roads or other uses.
The planned Biggie and Cuckoo projects that are located within the Mosquito Allotment boundary would
benefit oak woodland habitat by reducing the density of conifers and specifically thinning around large
oaks. The existing oaks would be retained and have more space, light, nutrients, and water to grow.
Reforestation activities and prescribed burning may have adverse effects on individual trees. The Forest
Plan and updated prescriptions designed to incorporate Sierra forest strategies (North et al 2009) favors
oaks by creating openings around oaks. The various plantations are likely to be managed with
MIS Report Page 31
consideration to protecting and enhancing oak woodlands as described in the Forest Plan. Areas within
private timberlands, while applying relatively aggressive harvest prescriptions, tend to retain oaks where
they occur within a stand.
Climate change is another important cumulative effect on oaks in the area. Some of the anticipated effects
include increasing global temperatures, reduced snowpack accumulations, increased probability of
extreme events such as fires, and resulting changes in land use patterns and management (Spittlehouse
and Stewart 2003). Climate models suggest that hardwood densities will increase in montane forests as
drought and higher temperatures lead to more frequent and more intense fires (Cayan et al 2006; Battles
et al 2006). In addition, productivity of conifers in a warmer climate, particularly pines, would be greatly
reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (ibid.).
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Portions of the oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer
habitats in and near the allotment were affected by the Ralston, Big, American, and Star fires of the past
20 years. These fires have had the biggest effect on oak woodland habitat in the area in the past 20 years,
reducing the number of large acorn-producing trees and reducing the extent of competing conifers. While
other vegetation treatments have been relatively limited in the oak woodlands, they also tend to reduce
conifer cover while retaining oaks. The planned treatments in oak woodland and the minimal anticipated
effect from grazing would contribute to this effect, which would similarly help to offset the effects of
dense conifers associated with historic and ongoing fire suppression. These treatments will continue to
affect canopy cover and size class through and beyond the timeframe of the analysis period. The minimal
adverse effects of the proposed action, combined with the effects of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, would not result in any loss of or long term adverse cumulative effects to oak-
associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitats.
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Direct effects to oak-associated hardwood and
hardwood/conifer habitats would not occur under the No Action alternative because no action would be
taken; i.e. no grazing would occur on the allotment. Habitat conditions would remain the same as the
current condition. Oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer cover and size would generally
increase as these habitats mature along current trajectories.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As described above under the proposed action,
past timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and wildland fire exclusion activities have greatly affected
oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitats in the analysis area. Fire suppression and
continued recruitment and growth of conifers has led to crowding of oaks with dense conifer overstory.
In the analysis area and in the surrounding landscape large wildfires have killed many conifers, whereas
most oaks, while easily damaged by fire, will resprout from the roots, rapidly overtaking conifers. Young
oaks and resprouting oaks do not provide substantial acorn crops (mast) for foraging animals such as deer,
although they may provide important cover and forage from leaves. Black oak and live oak tend to
survive relatively well even with conifer crowding, although recruitment of new trees may be limited by
heavy shading.
The planned Biggie and Cuckoo projects that are located within the Mosquito Allotment boundary would
benefit oak woodland habitat by reducing the density of conifers and specifically thinning around large
oaks. The existing oaks would be retained and have more space, light, nutrients, and water to grow.
Reforestation activities and prescribed burning may have adverse effects on individual trees. The Forest
Plan and updated prescriptions designed to incorporate Sierra forest management strategies (North et al
2009) favors oaks by creating openings around oaks. The various plantations are likely to be managed
with consideration to protecting and enhancing oak woodlands as described in the Forest Plan. Areas
MIS Report Page 32
within private timberlands, while applying relatively aggressive harvest prescriptions, tend to retain oaks
where they occur within a stand. The various wildfires and planned vegetation management projects
would contribute to the restoration of oak-associated habitats.
Climate change is another important cumulative effect on oaks in the area. Some of the anticipated effects
include increasing global temperatures, reduced snowpack accumulations, increased probability of
extreme events such as fires, and resulting changes in land use patterns and management (Spittlehouse
and Stewart 2003). Climate models suggest that hardwood densities will increase in montane forests as
drought and higher temperatures lead to more frequent and more intense fires (Cayan et al 2006; Battles
et al 2006). In addition, productivity of conifers in a warmer climate, particularly pines, would be greatly
reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (ibid.).
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer cover and size would
increase as these habitats mature along current trajectories. Planned vegetation management treatments
generally continue to affect canopy cover and size class through and beyond the timeframe of the analysis
period. The oak woodland would continue to develop, particularly in the post-fire landscapes and
planned openings and thinning of conifer overstory. The No Action alternative would have a slight
beneficial effect of reduced browse of oaks, this effect, combined with the effects of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in long term slightly beneficial cumulative effects to
oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitats in the allotment boundary, contributing to the
surrounding habitat.
Summary of Mule Deer Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale
The Tahoe NF Forest Plan (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat
and distribution population monitoring for the mule deer; hence, the oak-associated hardwood and
hardwood/conifer effects analysis for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project must be informed by both
habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and
distribution population status and trend data for the mule deer. This information is drawn from the
detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS
Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Habitat Status and Trend: There are currently 808,006 acres of oak-associated hardwood and
hardwood/mixed conifer habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two
decades, the trend is slightly increasing (changing from 5% to 7% of the acres on National Forest System
lands).
Population Status and Trend: The mule deer has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various
sample locations by herd monitoring (spring and fall) and hunter survey and associated modeling (CDFG
2007, 2010). California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducts surveys of deer herds in early
spring to determine the proportion of fawns that have survived the winter, and conducts fall counts to
determine herd composition (CDFG 2007). This information, along with prior year harvest information,
is used to estimate overall herd size, sex and age ratios, three-year average populations, and the predicted
number of bucks available to hunt (CDFG 2007, 2010). These data indicate that mule deer continue to be
present across the Sierra Nevada, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales
indicate that, although there may be localized declines in some herds or Deer Assessment Units, the
distribution of mule deer populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.
Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mule Deer Trend: Grazing
authorized under Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project will not result in changes in the acres of oak-
associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat, acres with changes in hardwood canopy cover, or
acres with changes in CWHR size class of hardwoods; therefore, grazing authorized under the proposed
MIS Report Page 33
action alternative would not lead to a change in the distribution of mule deer across the Sierra Nevada
bioregion.
Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) Habitat/Species Relationship: The yellow warbler was selected as the MIS for riparian habitat in the
Sierra Nevada. This species is usually found in riparian deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods,
willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CDFG
2005). Yellow warbler is dependent on both meadow and non-meadow riparian habitat in the Sierra
Nevada (Siegel and DeSante 1999).
Project-level Effects Analysis – Riparian Habitat
Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of riparian habitat (CWHR montane riparian (MRI) and
valley foothill riparian (VRI)). (2) Acres with changes in deciduous canopy cover (Sparse=10-24%;
Open=25-39%; Moderate=40-59%; Dense=60-100%). (3) Acres with changes in total canopy cover
(Sparse=10-24%; Open=25-39%; Moderate=40-59%; Dense=60-100%). (4) Acres with changes in
CWHR size class [1/2 (Seedling/Sapling)(<6”" dbh); 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9" dbh); 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9"
dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh)].
Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: The Tahoe National Forest GIS data
layer from which the CWHR habitat types are derived for this analysis does not generally delineate
narrow riparian corridors along perennial or intermittent channels as montane riparian habitat, but
nonetheless lists about 26 acres in the project area, associated with perennial stream channels (Table 4).
More likely, these habitat types exist in patches along portions of the perennial channels and would not
typically exist in any of the intermittent stream channel segments.
The montane riparian habitat type occurs within the allotment area, and may include alder, aspen, black
cottonwood, wild azalea, willow, white alder and dogwood (CDFG 1988). It typically occurs as a narrow,
often dense grove of broad-leaved, tall deciduous trees with a sparse understory and at higher elevations
may not be well developed or may occur as a shrub stage only (CDFG 1988). The riparian habitat quickly
responds to disturbance, such as fire, due to the dynamic nature of riparian areas, but in areas subjected to
fire suppression, they may be limited by overstory shading by conifers.
The perennial and intermittent streams within the allotment are also summarized in in the riverine and
lacustrine habitat analysis section above, and include those flowing into the Middle Fork of the American
River to the south: the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the American River, Duncan Canyon, Peavine
Creek, Grouse Creek, Spruce Creek, and Big Mosquito Creek. There are other minor portions of
intermittent channels in named and unnamed drainages within these areas (Map 1).
Throughout the project area, the perennial channels generally contain narrow bands of riparian vegetation,
mostly restricted to riparian shrubs with little herbaceous vegetation, and are usually heavily shaded by
overstory conifer trees. The perennial channels tend to occur on the steeper gradients, limiting the width
of the developed riparian habitat. The intermittent channels contain minimal amounts of riparian
vegetation where it exists at all. There is also limited riparian habitat near various natural and man-made
springs and ponds in the allotment.
MIS Report Page 35
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: The predominant grazing standards and guidelines, as they
relate to the habitat factors for riparian habitats are:
Monitoring of riparian areas for impacts
Installation of fences in known impacted riparian areas and special aquatic features
Install water troughs in some areas to reduce impacts to riparian areas
Prohibit supplemental feed or salt in RCAs or within 300 feet of water
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).
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)
Grazing can directly and indirectly affect riparian habitats in a number of ways, including browsing of
riparian habitat, trampling of roots and seedlings, cutting into streambanks with hooves, and reducing
water availability for vegetation. Additionally, past grazing on the Mosquito Allotment was poorly
contained, and cows moving off the allotment impacted sensitive riparian habitats elsewhere in the
landscape; measures to improve existing drift fences would prevent the escape of cattle and impacts to
these other riparian areas.
With the application of the standards and guidelines, while adverse effects may occur, there is direction to
monitor and change management to prevent habitat degradation. The included management standards
and planned actions would reduce impacts to sensitive riparian areas and monitor ongoing utilization to
prevent the loss of this habitat. The proposed action, by including monitoring and preventive measures, is
not expected to result in any change in the acreage of riparian habitat. By limiting overgrazing and
fencing some important areas, riparian habitat will develop more density and provide some undisturbed
refuge areas that are currently grazed. The existing areas and plants are expected to benefit from reduced
stream impacts, reduced browse of new growth, and improved watering sites.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: The analysis area is the 27,018 acres of land
encompassed by the grazing allotment boundary; cattle have access to much of the private timber and
other land within the allotment boundary as well as the National Forest land. Past mining, timber
harvesting, prescribed burning, and wildland fire exclusion activities have affected riparian habitats in the
analysis area. Fire suppression has allowed vegetation to become dense in the allotment (and throughout
much of the Sierra Nevada) and has crowded riparian areas with dense conifer. The two large wildfires in
the allotment have killed many conifers, opening up these areas and reducing competition with smaller
riparian species. Species such as willow, while easily damaged by fire, will resprout from the roots and
have an advantage unless reforestation activities occur. Unlike oaks and conifers, riparian species
typically grow quickly, reaching larger sizes in several decades and providing typically productive leaves
MIS Report Page 36
for insects and birds throughout. Historic mining likely degraded riparian habitat, by using and degrading
water in operations, by clearing vegetation in mining operations, and during dredge mining which eroded
streambanks and associated vegetation. Mining activities have slowed considerably in the last several
decades compared to historic levels and dredge mining has ceased by a state moratorium. While dredge
mining will soon resume, these actions would fall under more restrictive permitting that would limit
riparian disturbance. Riparian areas are recognized in forest management for their importance and
typically avoided during vegetation management. Sometimes this avoidance results in benign neglect, as
conifers overtop and limit light for willows, cottonwoods, aspens, and other riparian species.
The planned Biggie and Cuckoo vegetation management projects that are located within the Mosquito
Allotment boundary would not directly affect riparian areas, but would avoid thinning or driving heavy
equipment near streams that can damage these areas or cause erosion. Prescribed burning may have
beneficial effects in some areas where it opens up the conifer canopy in riparian areas. Areas within
private timberlands, while applying relatively aggressive harvest prescriptions, tend to also protect
riparian areas, but similarly do not typically include beneficial measures. A planned aquatic organism
passage (AOP) project to replace an undersized culvert on Peavine Creek is also within the allotment.
This action is expected to specifically benefit aquatic organisms, but would likely benefit the surrounding
habitat by allowing the more natural flow of the stream and associated organisms and their complex
interrelationships.
Climate change is another important cumulative effect on habitats in the area. Some of the anticipated
effects include increasing global temperatures, reduced snowpack accumulations, increased probability of
extreme events such as fires and flooding, and resulting changes in land use patterns and management
(Mallek et al 2012; Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). Climate models suggest that hardwood densities will
increase in montane forests as drought and higher temperatures lead to more frequent and more intense
fires (Cayan et al 2006; Battles et al 2006). In addition, productivity of conifers in a warmer climate,
particularly pines, would be greatly reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (ibid.) and shrub and
grassland habitats would increase in more frequent fire landscapes (Mallek et al 2012). The anticipated
changes associated with climate change would be complex, resulting in changes in interactions of
ecosystems and of species, providing some with selective advantages. While we can predict general
changes at the large scale, the complexity of the interacting factors makes it hard to predict the effects at
the local level.
Other ongoing activities occurring in the project area include road maintenance, small-scale mining plans
of operation, and dispersed camping and other recreational activities, which may have minor site-specific
cumulative effects to habitats in the analysis area but these activities occur at a very small scale in relation
to the project area and this habitat type. The greatest anticipated changes to riparian habitat would likely
result from ongoing fire suppression and conversely, wildfire and climate change. The Forest Plan
standards and guidelines along with the monitoring and adaptive management plan included in the action
alternative for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project, changes in the habitat factors for this analysis
(acres of riparian habitat, acres with changes in deciduous canopy cover, acres with changes in total
canopy cover, and acres with changes in CWHR size class) will be too small to measure.
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: The cumulative effects from this project to the habitat factors for
riparian habitat (acres of riparian habitat, acres with changes in deciduous canopy cover, acres with
changes in total canopy cover, and acres with changes in CWHR size class) would be too small to
measure.
MIS Report Page 37
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Direct effects to riparian habitat would not occur because no
action would be taken. Habitat conditions immediately following selection of the No Action alternative
would be equivalent to the current condition. Under the No Action alternative, existing riparian habitat
would be retained and new growth and associated aquatic areas would not be affected by cattle, so
riparian stands would likely develop more quickly and occur with greater density. Nonetheless, it is
unlikely that riparian habitat would actually expand into other areas (increase acreage). Riparian plant
cover and size generally would increase as shrubs and trees continue to mature along current trajectories,
while some would continue to struggle or decline under forest cover.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As described above, past mining, timber
harvesting, prescribed burning, and wildland fire exclusion activities have affected riparian habitats in the
analysis area. Past fire exclusion has likely reduced the amount of riparian habitat present in the analysis
area as forested stands grew denser along streams. The planned Biggie and Cuckoo vegetation
management projects in the allotment are largely intended to mitigate some of the forested stand density,
although not in riparian areas. The lack of cattle grazing pressure in riparian areas would contribute to the
beneficial effects of other projects and ongoing climate change to riparian habitat.
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Riparian cover and size generally would increase under the No Action
alternative as these areas continue to grow along current trajectories. Most of the riparian habitat within
the analysis area is within the boundaries of recent fires, and has likely been affected by these fires.
Wildfires tend to increase riparian plant cover in relation to trees with the increased light and space
available. The No Action alternative would have some level of effect on riparian plant cover as
unbrowsed leaders allow shrubs to grow larger somewhat quicker. Combined with the effects of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, no grazing would likely have a slight beneficial effect
on riparian habitats in the allotment.
Summary of Yellow Warbler Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The Tahoe NF Forest Plan
(as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population
monitoring for the yellow warbler; hence, the riparian habitat effects analysis for the Mosquito Grazing
Allotment Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The
sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the yellow
warbler. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the
2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by
reference.
Habitat Status and Trend: There are currently 38,140 acres of riparian habitat on National Forest
System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is stable.
Population Status and Trend: Monitoring of the yellow warbler across the ten National Forests in the
Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of
a monitoring effort that also includes mountain quail, hairy woodpecker, and fox sparrow (USDA Forest
Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Yellow warblers were detected on 13.7% of
160 riparian point counts in 2009 and 19.4% of 397 riparian point counts in 2010; additional detections
were documented on upland point counts. The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on
riparian passive point count surveys) was 0.166 in 2009 and 0.309 in 2010. In addition, the yellow
warblers continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian
point count, spot mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the
2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the rangewide,
MIS Report Page 38
California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the
Sierra Nevada is stable.
Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Yellow Warbler Trend:
Grazing authorized under the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project is not expected to result in changes in
the acres of riparian habitat, acres with changes in deciduous canopy cover, acres with changes in total
canopy cover, or acres with changes in CWHR size class, nor will the proposed action lead to a change in
the distribution of the yellow warbler across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.
Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) Habitat/Species Relationship.
The mountain quail was selected as the MIS for early and mid seral coniferous forest (ponderosa pine,
Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Early seral
coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of seedlings (<1” dbh), saplings (1”-5.9” dbh), and pole-
sized trees (6”-10.9” dbh). Mid seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of small-sized trees
(11”-23.9” dbh). The mountain quail is found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of
conifer and deciduous forest and woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer,
and broods are seldom found more that 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from water (CDFG 2005).
Project-level Effects Analysis – Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat
Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of early (CWHR tree sizes 1, 2, and 3) and mid seral
(CWHR tree size 4) coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and
eastside pine) habitat [CWHR ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red
fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, 3, and 4, all canopy closures]. (2) Acres with changes in
CWHR tree size class. (3) Acres with changes in tree canopy closure. (4) Acres with changes in
understory shrub canopy closure.
Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: The Mosquito allotment contains
2,366 acres of early seral coniferous forest and 5,193 acres of mid seral forest within the allotment (a
combined total of 7,559 acres), that would potentially be affected. Early and mid seral coniferous forest
make up about 27% of the allotment and include a number of young conifer plantations. The allotment
predominantly consists of transitory range, with the primary forage being deerbrush (Ceanothus
integerrimus). Early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat types in the allotment contain palatable shrubs
in their understories including deerbrush.
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: The habitat factors for this analysis are acres of early and mid
seral coniferous forest habitat, acres with changes in CWHR tree size class, acres with changes in tree
canopy closure, and acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure. Effects to early and mid seral
coniferous forest habitat would be limited to changes in the understory shrub canopy closure; grazing is
not expected to affect tree density or condition in these habitat types. As previously described, the
following measure specifically limits cattle browse of deerbrush, the most common and palatable shrub
species in the allotment:
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
MIS Report Page 39
fire or any vegetation treatment, such as mastication or other mechanical manipulation used to release
timber stands.
Grazing has the potential to alter understory shrub canopy closure directly by both browsing and physical
damage to individual plants by brushing against branches or trampling young plants. Although grazing
undoubtedly reduces or limits understory shrub cover, monitoring and limiting browsing to 50 percent of
the annual growth of deerbrush (as indicated by the number of leaders browsed) is expected to maintain
deerbrush stand health and productivity, as well as other shrub species. The allotment has been
experienced ongoing grazing under similar livestock use levels for many years and shrub cover and
availability remains good. As described for oak woodland, most of the cattle use occurs in the central
portion of the allotment, while the steep river canyons to the north and south receive very little use; these
areas provide relatively undisturbed cover and forage for wildlife, while the central portion receives
heavier use. In addition, the northeast portion of the allotment (Trap Line) would be left largely ungrazed
because of the placement of a drift fence at the western end. Continuation of grazing under the current
level with a limit of 50 percent use of the annual growth of deerbrush, may reduce the density of
understory shrubs in some sites, but will result in minimal net change in the overall understory shrub
canopy closure. There would be no change in total acreage of these habitat types within the allotment.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: Past timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and
wildland fire exclusion activities have affected shrubland habitats in the analysis area. Fire exclusion has
likely reduced the amount of understory shrubs present on the allotment as forested stands grow denser
and shade out shrubs. Additionally, most vegetation management activities intended to benefit forests,
including understory fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and stand thinning result in reduced understory
shrubs, as they are actively reduced by mastication and burning or gradually outcompeted by overstory
trees. As shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8, the allotment has been, is currently, or is planned to be subjected to
various treatments that would affect conifer and shrub densities. These vegetation management projects
associated with forest stand management and fuels reduction would benefit early and mid-seral conifer
habitat by reducing densities and the associated risks from insects, disease, and fire, but typically reduce
associated understory shrubs; regardless, these treatments have a much greater effect on these habitats
than the proposed cattle allotment. Plantations in the Cuckoo and Biggie project areas are proposed for
thinning which would increase the likelihood of these developing into mid seral conifer habitat. Some of
these treatments would affect understory conifers and roadsides more than shrubs, and some of these
areas would rapidly recover shrub habitat. Timber removal activities, particularly clearcutting on private
land and plantation thinning, can increase early seral stand habitat and associated shrub cover temporarily,
which eventually become mid seral habitat.
Conversely, fire exclusion increases stand densities and understory fuels, which may support larger, high-
intensity wildfires. Large wildfires and subsequent salvage harvest of trees result in a rapid conversion to
a briefly herbaceous vegetation that is quickly replaced by shrubland or early seral conifer plantations.
The recent American Fire (2013) resulted in over 7,000 acres of reforestation, including over 600 acres in
the Mosquito Allotment boundary.
Climate change is another important cumulative effect to early and mid seral conifer habitats in the area.
Some of the anticipated effects include increasing global temperatures, reduced snowpack accumulations,
increased probability of extreme events such as fires, and resulting changes in land use patterns and
management (Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). Climate models suggest that conifer establishment and
survival is threatened by hotter droughts and more frequent fires, potentially converting conifer forest to
oak or shrub habitats that can rapidly recolonize from fire. In addition, growth rates of conifers in a
warmer climate, particularly pines, would be greatly reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (Millar
and Stephenson 2015). The proposed grazing practices within the Mosquito Allotment would contribute
very little to the more extreme effect of climate change.
MIS Report Page 40
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Direct effects to early and mid seral habitat would not occur
because no action would be taken. Habitat conditions immediately following selection of the No Action
alternative would be equivalent to the current condition. Under the No Action alternative, existing early
and mid seral conifer forest would remain (comparable to the proposed action) while understory shrub
cover would be retained and new growth would not be affected by cattle. Shrub cover and size generally
would increase as shrubs continue to mature along current trajectories, while some would continue to
decline under forest cover.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As described above, past timber harvesting,
prescribed burning, and wildland fire exclusion activities have affected shrubland habitats in the analysis
area. Past fire exclusion has likely reduced the amount of early and mid seral conifer habitat present in
the analysis area as forested stands grew larger and denser. The current dense condition of the forest in
the allotment boundary supports this conclusion, although fires, clearcuts, and past logging have set many
stands back to early and mid seral condition. Additionally, most vegetation management activities
intended to benefit forests, including understory fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and stand thinning
result in reduced understory shrub habitat, as they are actively reduced by mastication and burning or
gradually outcompeted by overstory trees. As shown in Tables 6-8, the proposed project would
contribute very little to the cumulative effects of other projects that would reduce shrub densities,
including burning, chipping, and mastication; under the No Action alternative, these projects combined
with recent large wildfires have greatly affected the vegetation condition, favoring more open and
younger habitats and more shrubs.
As described above, climate models suggest that conifer establishment and survival is threatened by
hotter droughts and more frequent fires, potentially converting conifer forest to oak or shrub habitats that
can rapidly recolonize from fire. In addition, survival and growth rates of conifers in a warmer climate,
particularly pines, would be greatly reduced, slowing recovery of forest habitats (Millar and Stephenson
2015). The proposed grazing practices within the Mosquito Allotment would contribute very little to the
more extreme effect of climate change.
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Tree overstory would continue to develop in early and mid seral
conifer stands and shrub size generally would increase under the No Action alternative along current
trajectories without the additional grazing pressure on the understory shrubs. Portions of the early and
mid seral conifer forest habitats within the analysis area have been affected in the past 20 years by
wildfire and timber treatments or are proposed for treatment in the Biggie and Cuckoo projects. These
treatments tend to increase shrub cover in relation to trees with the increased light and space available.
The No Action alternative would have a minimal effect on shrub cover as unbrowsed leaders allow shrubs
to grow larger somewhat quicker. Combined with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions, no grazing would not result in adverse cumulative effects to early or mid seral habitats.
Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale
The Tahoe NF Forest Plan (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat
and distribution population monitoring for the mountain quail; hence, the early and mid seral coniferous
forest effects analysis for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project must be informed by both habitat and
distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution
population status and trend data for the mountain quail. This information is drawn from the detailed
information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest
Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
MIS Report Page 41
Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 530,851 acres of early seral and 2,776,022 acres of mid
seral coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierra mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National
Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend for early seral is
decreasing (changing from 9% to 5% of the acres on National Forest System lands) and the trend for mid
seral is increasing (changing from 21% to 25% of the acres on National Forest System lands).
Population Status and Trend. Monitoring of the mountain quail across the ten National Forests in the
Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of
a monitoring effort that also includes fox sparrow, hairy woodpecker, and yellow warbler (USDA Forest
Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Mountain quail were detected on 40.3 percent
of 1659 point counts (and 48.6% of 424 playback points) in 2009 and 47.4% of 2266 point counts (and
55.3% of 492 playback points) in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. The
average abundance (number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.103 in 2009
and 0.081 in 2010. These data indicate that mountain quail continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra
Nevada National Forests. In addition, mountain quail continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra
Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, and breeding bird survey protocols.
These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008).Current
data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of mountain quail
populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.
Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mountain Quail Trend.
Grazing authorized under the proposed action of the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project will result in no
change in the acres of early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat, no change in acres with changes in
CWHR tree size class, no change in acres with changes in tree canopy closure, and minimal site-specific
changes understory shrub canopy closure. Any changes from proposed grazing will not lead to a change
in the distribution of the mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.
Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat [Sooty (blue) grouse]
Habitat/Species Relationship.
The sooty grouse was selected as the MIS for late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine,
Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is
comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures
less than 40%. Sooty grouse occurs in open, medium to mature-aged stands of fir, Douglas-fir, and other
conifer habitats, interspersed with medium to large openings, and available water, and occupies a mixture
of mature habitat types, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and conifer stands (CDFG 2005). Empirical data from the
Sierra Nevada indicate that Sooty Grouse hooting sites are located in open, mature, fir-dominated forest,
where particularly large trees are present (Bland 2006).
Project-level Effects Analysis - Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat
Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa
pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat [CWHR ponderosa pine (PPN),
Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy
closures S and P]. (2) Acres with changes in tree canopy closure class. (3) Acres with changes in
understory shrub canopy closure class.
Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: The proposed alternative includes
approximately 1,268 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest within the allotment boundary that
could potentially be affected (less than 5% of the analysis area overall). As noted previously, the primary
MIS Report Page 42
palatable forage on the allotment is deerbrush, although other palatable shrubs and other plants occur as
well.
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: The habitat factors for this analysis are acres of late seral open
canopy coniferous forest habitat, acres with changes in tree canopy closure class, and acres with changes
in understory shrub canopy closure class. Any potential direct and indirect effects to late seral open
canopy coniferous forest habitat would be restricted to potential changes in the understory shrub canopy
closure.
Grazing has the potential to alter understory shrub canopy closure directly by both browsing and physical
damage to individual plants by brushing against branches. The proposed action would monitor browse
levels and limit browse to 50 percent of the annual growth of deerbrush, which is expected to maintain
stand health and productivity of this species and other, less palatable shrub species. As described in the
shrubland section, some areas receive higher utilization, but others receive little or no browse; overall, the
allotment contains substantial stands of deerbrush, not only as an understory in late seral open canopy
areas, but also in shrub-dominated areas and as an understory in oak woodland areas. Continuation of
grazing under the current level of use with a limit of 50 percent use of the annual growth of deerbrush,
may result in site-specific microhabitat changes to understory shrubs, but will not result in a net change in
the overall understory shrub canopy closure.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: The planned Biggie and Cuckoo vegetation
management projects would reduce conifer densities and temporarily reduce shrub cover, but would likely
provide increased shrub cover overall by creating openings in the canopy and by encouraging new growth
in declining stands with prescribed burning. Ongoing management activities occurring in the project area
such as road maintenance and small-scale mining plans of operation are not expected to contribute to
cumulative effects on late seral open canopy forest or the associated shrub understory. The insect
mortality and low and moderate severity areas of recent wildfires in the Mosquito Allotment shifted some
areas to a more open canopy condition and have allowed for more colonization by understory shrubs.
Continuation of grazing under the level of use prescribed under the proposed action may result in site-
specific microhabitat changes to understory shrubs, but is not expected to result in a net change in the
understory shrub canopy closure in the allotment. In combination with the past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions discussed above, the proposed action will have minimal cumulative effects to
late seral open canopy coniferous habitat. With implementation of TNF Forest Plan standards and
guidelines along with the monitoring and adaptive management plan included in the proposed action for
the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project, changes in the habitat factors for this analysis will be minimal
and will foster stable early and mid seral coniferous habitat.
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Continuation of grazing authorized under the proposed action will not
affect the acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat, acres with changes in CWHR tree size
class, or acres with changes in tree canopy closure. There may be site-specific changes to understory
shrub canopy closure within these habitats, but overall these effects are expected to be minimal; therefore
there will be minimal cumulative effects from this project to the habitat factors for analysis.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Direct effects to late seral open canopy habitat would not occur
because no action would be taken. Under the No Action alternative, existing late seral trees and
MIS Report Page 43
understory deerbrush and other shrubs would be retained and new growth would not be affected by cattle.
Shrub cover and size generally would increase as shrubs continue to mature along current trajectories,
while some would continue to decline under forest cover. Shrub cover is expected to be somewhat denser
in some areas without cattle browse but would resemble current, grazed conditions overall.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As described above, past timber harvesting,
prescribed burning, and wildland fire exclusion activities have affected late seral open canopy conifer
habitat in the analysis area, including understory shrubs. Past fire exclusion has likely reduced the
amount of shrubs present in the analysis area and created more closed canopy forest than open, as stands
grow denser.
The planned Biggie and Cuckoo vegetation management projects would reduce conifer densities
somewhat and temporarily reduce shrub cover, but would likely provide increased shrub cover overall by
creating openings in the canopy and by encouraging new growth in declining stands with prescribed
burning. The thinned timber stands are being managed for relatively dense canopy (>40%) and are
expected to develop denser mature stand conditions over time. Ongoing management activities occurring
in the project area such as road maintenance and small-scale mining plans of operation are not expected to
contribute to cumulative effects on late seral open canopy forest or the associated shrub understory. The
insect mortality and low and moderate severity areas of recent wildfires in the Mosquito Allotment shifted
some areas to a more open canopy condition and have allowed for more colonization by understory
shrubs. The effect of not grazing would contribute only slightly to the cumulative effects to the
understory shrubs in the late seral open canopy habitat type, but would not affect overstory trees.
Cumulative Effects Conclusion: The no action alternative will not affect the acres of late seral open
canopy coniferous forest habitat, acres with changes in CWHR tree size class, or acres with changes in
tree canopy closure. The understory shrub canopy closure within these habitats would benefit slightly, but
overall these effects are expected to be minimal; therefore there will be minimal cumulative effects from
the no action alternative to the habitat factors for analysis.
Summary of Sooty Grouse Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale
The Tahoe NF Forest Plan (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat
and distribution population monitoring for the sooty grouse; hence, the late seral open canopy coniferous
forest effects analysis for the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project must be informed by both habitat and
distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution
population status and trend data for the sooty grouse. This information is drawn from the detailed
information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest
Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 63,795 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest
(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat on National Forest
System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is decreasing (changing from 3%
to 1% of the acres on National Forest System lands).
Population Status and Trend. The sooty grouse has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various
sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, point counts, and breeding bird survey protocols, including
California Department of Fish and Game Blue (Sooty) Grouse Surveys (Bland 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006);
California Department of Fish and Game hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment
(CDFG 2004a, CDFG 2004b); Multi-species inventory and monitoring on the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit (LTBMU 2007); and 1968 to present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada
MIS Report Page 44
(Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that sooty grouse continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada,
except in the area south of the Kern Gap, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada
scales indicate that the distribution of sooty grouse populations in the Sierra Nevada north of the Kern
Gap is stable.
Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Sooty Grouse Trend. Grazing
authorized under the proposed action of the Mosquito Grazing Allotment Project will not result in any
change in the acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat, no change in acres with changes in
CWHR tree size class, no change in acres with changes in tree canopy closure, and minimal site-specific
changes understory shrub canopy closure. The minimal anticipated changes will not lead to a change in
the distribution of the sooty grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.
MIS Report Page 45
References
Allen, A. W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Marten. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
FWS/OBS-82/10.11, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Battles, J.J. , T. Robards, A. Das, K. Waring, J.K. Gilless, F. Schurr, J. Leblanc, G. Biging, and C. Simon.
2006. Climate Change Impact on Forest Resources. Report from the California Climate Change Center.
CEC-500-2005-193-SF.
Bland, J.D. 1993. Forest grouse and mountain quail investigations: A final report for work completed during
the summer of 1992. Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth St.,
Sacramento, CA.
Bland, J.D. 1997. Biogeography and conservation of blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus in California.
Wildlife Biology 3(3/4):270.
Bland, J. D. 2002. Surveys of Mount Pinos Blue Grouse in Kern County, California, Spring 2002. Unpubl.
report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814.
Bland, J.D. 2006. Features of the Forest Canopy at Sierra Sooty Grouse Courtship Sites, Summer 2006.
CDFG Contract No. S0680003.
Brown, C. 2008. Summary of Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) Occupancy in the Sierra Nevada within
the range of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Sierra Nevada Amphibian Monitoring
Program draft assessment, January 18, 2008.
Burnett, R. D., and D. L. Humple. 2003. Songbird monitoring in the Lassen National Forest: Results from
the 2002 field season with summaries of 6 years of data (1997-2002). PRBO Conservation Science
Contribution Number 1069. 36pp.
Burnett, R.D., D.L. Humple, T.Gardali, and M.Rogner. 2005. Avian monitoring in Lassen National Forest
2004 Annual Report. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 1242. 96pp.
Cayan, D. A.L. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Franco, and B. Croes. 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in
California: An Overview. Report from the California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2005-186-SF.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer
Habitats and Populations in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. February 1998. 57pp.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004a. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final
Environmental Document. August 5, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish
and Game. 182 pp + appendices.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and
California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version
8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008).
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2007. Deer Hunting Final Environmental Document,
April 10, 2007. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 80pp +
appendices.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. Date supplement to the California Fish and Game
Commission regarding: Recommended 2010 Deer Tag Allocations (Updated 2009 Deer Harvest and
Population Estimates). April 21, 2010. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and
Game. 34pp.
Derlet RW, Richards JR, Tanaka LL, Hayden C, Ger KA, et al. (2012) Impact of summer cattle grazing on
the Sierra Nevada watershed: Aquatic algae and bacteria. J Env Pub Health 2012: 1–7. doi:
10.1155/2012/760108
Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab, S.L.
MIS Report Page 46
Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region
- Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp.
Furnish, J. 2010. Progress report on monitoring of aquatic management indicator species (MIS) in the
Sierra Nevada Province: 2009-2010 Field Seasons. December 2010. 6pp.
Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2008. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the
Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2007: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-
11052007-174). June, 2008. 29pp.
Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2009. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the
Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2008: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-
11052007-174). April 2000. 29pp.
Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2010. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the
Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2009: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-
11052007-174). March 2010. 29pp.
Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive model for
assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national forests. Completion Report.
Western center for Monitoring and Assessment of Fresh Water Ecosystems. Utah State University. Logan,
Utah 23 pp.
Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.
Huntsinger, L. 1996. Huntsinger, L. Grazing in a California silvopastoral system: effects of defoliation
season, intensity, and frequency on deerbrush, Ceanothus integerrimus. Agroforestry Systems, 34: 67-82
Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern Rocky
Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9(5):1041-1058.
Hutto, R.L., and S.M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds. The
Condor 108:817-831.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity
in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5,
Champaign, IL.
Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V.A. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of fire
and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of the western United
States. Studies in Avian Biology No.25:49-64.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 2007. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Multi Species Inventory
and Monitoring: A Foundation for Comprehensive Biological Status and Trend Monitoring in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. Draft Report.
Mallek, C., H.Safford, and S. Sawyer. 2012. A summary of current trends and probable future trends in
climate and climate-driven processes in the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forest and the neighboring Sierra
Nevada. Internal Report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp
Millar, C.I. and N.L. Stephenson. 2015. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance.
Science. 349(6250): 823-826. Moriarty, K.M. 2009. American Marten Distributions over a 28 Year Period: Relationships with Landscape
Change in Sagehen Creek Experimental Forest, California, USA. Thesis for Master of Science, Oregon
State University; Presented August 19, 2009, Commencement June 2010. 108pp.
Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. Pages 975-985 in Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Assessments and scientific basis for management options, Vol
II, chp 34. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, CA 95616.
http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C34.PDF
North, Malcolm; Stine, Peter; O’Hara, Kevin; Zielinski, William; Stephens,Scott. 2009. An ecosystem
MIS Report Page 47
management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.
Ode. P.R., A.C. Rehn and J.T. May. 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal
California streams. Environmental Management 35:493-504.
Ode, P.R. 2007. Standard operating procedure for collecting macroinvertebrate samples and associated
physical and chemical data for ambient bioassessments in California. California State Water Resources
Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioassessment SOP 001.
Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring benthic
macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental Management 8:75-80.
Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatial-temporal variability and the study of aquatic insects.
Canadian Entomologist 121:941-963.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and
Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada
Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird
Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available on-line:
http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html.
Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. Plumas Lassen Study 2006 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 182pp.
Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2008. Plumas Lassen Study 2007 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 310pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2007.pdf
Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2009. Plumas Lassen Study 2008 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 223pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2008.pdf
Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2010. Plumas Lassen Study 2009 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 184pp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2009.pdf
Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of
fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15(5):1535-1549.
Spittlehouse, D.L. and Stewart, R.B. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in forest management. BC Journal
of Ecosystems and Management. 4 (1): 1-11.
USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm
USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Draft - MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5
Environmental Coordination, May 25, 2006. Pacific Southwest Region. 3pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species
Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2006.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National
Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests
MIS Report Page 48
and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2009. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2007. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2007/
USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National
Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests
and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. December 2010.
132pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2008.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/
USDA Forest Service. 2015. Biggie Fuel Reduction and Vegetation Management Project Environmental
Analysis. Tahoe National Forest Service. Foresthill, CA.
USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Biggie Fuel Reduction and Vegetation Management Project Biological
Analysis for Plants and Animals. Tahoe National Forest Service. Foresthill, CA.
USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Biggie Fuel Reduction and Vegetation Management Project Biological
Evaluation for Wildlife. Tahoe National Forest Service. Foresthill, CA.
USFWS. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the
California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register: May 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number
100, pages 29886-29908.
Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck., tech. coord. 1992.
The California Spotted Owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133,
US Forest Service, Albany, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/projects/wild/gtr_133/gtr133_index.html
Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V.Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, C.Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary
distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography
32:1385-1407.