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.