ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

PIGEON WATER ALLOTMENT

ROOSEVELT-DUCHESNE RANGER DISTRICT,

ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

PIGEON WATER ALLOTMENT

ROOSEVELT-DUCHESNE RANGER DISTRICT

ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST

Responsible Agency: U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Ashley National Forest

Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District

P.O. Box 981

Duchesne, Utah 84021

Responsible Official: Joseph R. Bistryski

District Ranger

Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District

P.O. Box 981

Duchesne, Utah 84021

Contact Person: Allen Huber

Rangeland Management Specialist

Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District

P.O. Box 981

Duchesne, Utah 84021

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose and Need for Action................................................................................................. 1

Forest Plan Direction............................................................................................................. 1

Decisions Needed.................................................................................................................. 2

Permits Required................................................................................................................... 2

Allotment Management Plans................................................................................................. 2

Reference Materials............................................................................................................... 2

Ecological Units..................................................................................................................... 2

Key Issues.............................................................................................................................. 3

Non-Key Issues...................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 Alternatives

History................................................................................................................................... 6

Utilization Standards and Mitigation Measures...................................................................... 8

Alternatives............................................................................................................................ 8

Alternatives Dismissed from Further Analysis...................................................................... 10

Alternatives Considered Throughout the Analysis................................................................. 11

Comparative Analysis of Considered Alternatives................................................................ 12

Chapter 3 Effected Environment and Environmental Consequences Discussed by Ecological Unit

Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 15

South Face 2 Ecological Unit ................................................................................................ 15

South Face 3 Ecological Unit ................................................................................................ 17

South Face 6 Ecological Unit ................................................................................................ 19

South Face 9 Ecological Unit ................................................................................................ 20

Parks Plateau 4 Ecological Unit ............................................................................................ 20

Appendices

Appendix A............................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix B............................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix C............................................................................................................................ 22

Appendix D............................................................................................................................ 24

Appendix E............................................................................................................................ 29

References Cited.................................................................................................................... 30

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE PIGEON WATER ALLOTMENT

ROOSEVELT-DUCHESNE RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction

The Pigeon Water allotment is located along the south slope of the Uinta Mountains and is part of the Ashley National Forest (refer to General Location map in back of document). The Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District administers the allotment. The Pigeon Water drainage, which runs through the allotment, is recognized as a secondary tributary of the Rock Creek drainage. Water runs through the drainage intermittently. Currently, there are 5 summer-fall grazing permits that allow 172 cow-calf pairs to graze. The table below provides current statistics for the Pigeon Water allotment:

Allotment	Grazing Season	Cattle Grazed	Total Acres	Suitable Acres	Total AUM's
Pigeon Water	6/16 – 9/25	172	3,342	2,662	773

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for action is to provide seasonally available forage and water for livestock on the Pigeon Water allotment. The purpose of the proposed changes to the current grazing system and/or carrying capacity is to improve conditions and trends of parts of the allotment that currently do not or may not meet desired condition under the current grazing system.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and analysis for domestic livestock grazing as required by Public Law 104-19 section 504.

Forest Plan Direction

General direction for the management of the Pigeon Water allotment is given in the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) in Chapter II p. 9-10, Chapter IV p. 1-59, and Chapter V. Management area "n" is dominant on the allotment covering perhaps as much as 90% of the total acres. Other Forest Plan Management Areas found on the allotment include f and k. Management Area Prescriptions for these areas (Forest Plan Chapter IV) are as follows:

Area f: dispersed recreation roaded, where dispersed recreation is favored over other resources.

Area k: Maximum water yield recreation.

Area n: Range of resource uses and outputs with commodity production modified for amenity production.

Prescriptions of all these management areas allow permitted livestock grazing. Also, standards and guidelines for each of these management areas include protection of riparian, wildlife, and other values.

Decision Needed

The Roosevelt-Duchesne District Ranger is the official responsible for deciding on an alternative to implement continued livestock grazing or whether to discontinue livestock grazing as discussed in the alternatives within this document.

Permits Required

If the decision allows the continuation of livestock grazing, term grazing permits would be required to authorize this use. Currently, there are 5 ten-year term grazing permits on the Pigeon Water allotment. Grazing permits would include the "Terms and Conditions" which would meet management prescriptions and attain desired future condition of the rangelands. Standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and the respective mitigation measures identified in this document would also be integrated into the permits.

Allotment Management Plans

If an action alternative is selected in the decision, allotment management plans (AMP) for each allotment will be modified, if necessary, to reflect the alternative selected by the Responsible Official.

Reference Materials

Range monitoring studies cited in this Environmental Analysis are included on an atlas of range studies kept at the Duchesne District Office, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne, Utah, and at the Supervisors Office at Vernal, Utah. Data and photographs associated with these studies are located at both offices in 2210 or 2060 files (refer to Appendix D for study summaries). Also, Range Allotment Analysis studies (RAA) referred to in this document are on file in Allotment Folders in 2210 files at the Duchesne District Office, Duchesne, Utah. Data from ranges studies helped formulate existing condition and desired condition.

Ecological Units

Existing condition, desired condition, environmental consequences, cumulative impacts, and mitigation are discussed by ecological unit as delineated in the Land Systems Inventory of the Ashley National Forest (refer to Chapter 3). Ecological units associated with the Pigeon Water allotment under analysis are displayed on Maps 37 and 51 and are available upon request from the Duchesne District Office or Supervisors Office in Vernal (refer to Ecological Units map in back of document). Ecological units are identified and have been described using ecological values such as geology, slope, aspect, elevation, soil, and vegetation. Variations between capability, productivity, and sensitivity are addressed in relation to these units. The ecological units associated with the Pigeon Water allotment include South Face 2 (SF2), South Face 3 (SF3), South Face 6 (SF6), South Face 9 (SF9), and Parks Plateau 4 (PP4). Chapter 3 summarizes ecological values and conditions in relation to livestock grazing on the allotment.

Key Issues

Public input on the management of these allotments were invited through public notices posted in newspapers (Uinta Basin Standard), in Ashley National Forest's Guide to Public Involvement Opportunities, and the mailing of scoping documents to interested persons or organizations. A review of scoping can be found in the analysis file (file code 1950) at the Duchesne District Office.

Nine responses were received during scoping. From these responses and input from the Interdisciplinary Team, the following key issues were identified for focusing the environmental analysis. Key issues similar to those that have been identified in several other scoping and environmental analyses of other livestock allotments of the Ashley National Forest are included.

Issue 1: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing on desired conditions for: watersheds, water quality, soil, long-term productivity, nutrient cycling, and composition and structure of vegetation on uplands as well as riparian areas?

Ground cover is the principal protection against raindrop splash erosion and sheet erosion (Farmer 1995, Osborn 1955, Blackburn et al. 1986). Plant cover near the ground surface is more effective than canopy cover (Simanton et al. 1991; Khan et al. 1988). [Thus ground cover effective in stopping raindrop splash and sheet erosion consists of plant cover near the ground surface, plant litter, and rock.] Soil protection maintains long-term productivity and water quality. Erosion is the greatest potential threat of livestock grazing to soils. Presence of litter also provides a measure of nutrient cycling because from litter nutrients are cycled. Where ground cover is maintained at or near potential levels, desired condition for watershed and soils, including nutrient cycling is indicated. Plant community composition also provides a reflection of nutrient cycling and long-term productivity. Where perennial plants dominate plant communities with moderate to high value for watershed protection, desired conditions for watershed and soils are indicated. Plant communities dominated species have potential to dominate in the absence of livestock indicate nutrients are being maintained at levels needed to maintain ecosystem function. Thus, ground cover and plant community composition are indicators by which water quality, soils, and watershed conditions can be evaluated.

Community composition along streams can indicate stability of stream banks and related values (Winward 1992). It is desirable to have stream banks with green lines dominated by communities with high value for stream bank stability as listed by Winward (1992). Green lines are the bands of vegetation at the interfaces with the water of streams. Plants of high value for stream bank stability are those with inherent capacity to hold stream banks together against the force of water and maintain desired stream configuration including width:depth ratios favorable for fish habitat. There is generally a high correlation between desired stream configuration and dominance of plant communities with high value for stream bank stability. Close grazing in riparian areas tends to decrease communities of high value and replace them with communities of lower value. Managing grazing to maintain green line communities with high value for stream bank stability will help achieve and maintain desired stream configuration. Green line plant communities become of decreasing importance as rock control of streams increases. Vegetation and rock controlled stream reaches are highly related to geomorphology, land types, landforms, and stream types. Lower gradient streams which typically run through alluvial fines such as lake plain landforms are typically controlled by vegetation. Steep gradient streams in narrow rocky canyon ecological units are typically controlled by rock.

Potential effects to streams from livestock grazing are high for stream types recognized by Rosgen (1996) where vegetation-controlling influence is high to very high. Thus, environmental analysis of livestock grazing in relation to stream configuration should focus on stream types where vegetation and not large rocks or bedrock is the controlling influence. Some stream types where smaller poorly anchored rock is a controlling factor might be considered sensitive.

Ground cover in uplands as well as in riparian areas and status of the green line vegetation have a bearing on water quality. In addition to the potential to decrease cover and influence erosion that degrades water quality, the presence of livestock also has the potential to affect water quality by increasing fecal coliform and other bacteria and contribute to nutrient loading in water. State standards for water quality provide criteria for evaluating effects of livestock grazing.

Issue 2: What are the effects of competition between wild ungulates and cattle?

Forage preferences indicate much greater potential for competition between elk and cattle than deer and cattle. Both elk and cattle show high preference for grasses on this allotment. Deer use the allotment primarily as a transitional range in spring and fall. Standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan limit forage utilization by livestock of key browse species on big game winter range to 20%. Intensity of permitted grazing and management systems need to be compatible with wildlife values.

Issue 3: What are the effects permitted livestock grazing on T.E.S. wildlife species and their habitat?

The Pigeon Water allotment is within the range of for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, three-toed woodpecker, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, boreal owl, and the great gray owl. Livestock grazing is expected to have minimal effects upon these species and will not likely result in trends toward federal listing of the species if desired condition is realized and/or maintained (refer to Wildlife Biological Evaluation in Project File). None of the areas associated with the allotments under analysis are considered primary lynx habitat. This is based upon the Ashley National Forest Lynx Analysis Units (refer to project file). Also, Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), is not a federally listed species, but has been recognized as sensitive by the state of Utah. A discussion on sage grouse and its habitat can be found in Chapter 3 under the South Face 3 Ecological Unit.

Issue 4: What are the effects to permittees and the established traditional grazing use of this allotment?

Permittees depend on the allotment to provide seasonal or summer pasture for livestock. Providing for permitted grazing within the concept of sustained yield provides long-term economic benefits to their ranch operations.

Issue 5: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing on the spread of noxious weeds?

Livestock grazing can contribute to the spread of some noxious weeds, however, weed information collected from the District's Noxious Weed Inventory indicates that the infestation and spread of noxious weeds are mostly associated with travel (roads), recreation, and timber cutting, and ground disturbing activities (U.S Department of Agriculture, Noxious Weed Inventory). Most weeds sites associated with livestock grazing are at or near water developments where significant ground disturbance around the development has occurred.

Non-Key Issues

Other concerns or issues raised during scoping were determined to be less significant or beyond the scope of this analysis. These issues will be discussed in this section and resolution for each will be reached under one or several of the following categories: 1. The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action. 2. The issue has been decided by law, regulation, or other previous decision. 3. The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made. 4. The issue is not supported by scientific evidence.

Issue 1: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing and evasive exotic plant species on T. E. S. plant species?

No threatened or endangered plant species are known to be growing on the Pigeon Water allotment (refer to Plant Biological Evaluation in Project File). Also, no populations of Ute lady tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) were found following botanical surveys.

Issue 2: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing in relation to predator control?

Predator control, as implemented by Wildlife Services on the Ashley National Forest, is directed by an Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice published in 1996. Under this decision, annual evaluation of the predator control program is exercised and control actions are based upon recorded livestock losses to predators. Predator control on the allotment under analysis has been nonexistent or minimal at best. The program is beyond the scope of this document and will not be further addressed in this analysis.

Issue 3: What are the effects of intensive, long-term livestock grazing on the spread and density of forest stands outside their natural variability?

Approximately 1000 acres of the Pigeon Water Allotment consists of aspen (refer SF6 Ecological Unit described in Chapter 3). This large stand of aspen is approximately 4 miles in length and is between 0.25 and 1.0 miles in width. Coniferous forests (principally lodgepole pine) are located above, mountain big sagebrush-grass communities are located below, and both vegetation types are adjacent to the aspen belt. Very little conifer invasion within the aspen belt has been observed. Also, all stages of aspen regeneration have been observed in the stand. Aspen regeneration has taken place with decades of livestock grazing. Currently, no apparent adverse effects to aspen because of livestock grazing have been observed. However, some noticeable effects from wild ungulates are apparent. These aspen have been preferred habitat by elk in the spring and early summer months. During this time, elk have tendency to gnaw and rub the aspen bark. Elk also feed on the new year’s leaves, which occasionally creates a high lining effect on the trees. The bark of many trees has been scarred and has turned black due gnawing and rubbing. These effects may make trees more susceptible to disease and blight.

Issue 4: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing on water quality?

One small spring-fed stream is located within the allotment and is part of the Pigeon Water drainage. The Pigeon Water drainage is a tributary of Rock Creek. The stream that runs through the allotment is intermittent. Surface water flow is apparent throughout much of the summer, but only when annual precipitation is above average. Surface water from the drainage does not enter Rock Creek but is absorbed into the soil far above the confluence. Because of these factors, effects of livestock grazing on water quality are expected to be minimal at best.

Chapter 2

Alternatives

History

Pertinent to the development and analyses of alternatives is the history of permitted grazing on these allotments. A summary of grazing for the Pigeon Water allotment is provided in the table below. This history shows adjustments in numbers of livestock and seasons of use (U.S Department of Agriculture, Allotment Folders). Current analysis of this allotment indicate that another adjustment in management and/or carrying capacities may be needed to achieve overall desired condition identified in the Forest Plan.

Pigeon Water Allotment
Years	Permitted Numbers	Season of Use	Animal Months
Pre-1957^a	N/A	N/A	N/A
1957-1969^b	128	6/01 - 10/15	585
1970-1997^c	172	6/16 - 9/25	585
1998^d	128	6/16 – 9/25	435
1999^e	172	6/16 – 9/01	447

^aConsiderable historic information was lost or misplaced following the transfer of Rock Creek drainage and its associated records from the Wasatch National Forest to the Ashley National Forest. Pigeon Water was a common-use (both cattle and sheep) allotment during this time.

^bConverted to a cattle allotment in 1957. 2-unit grazing system implemented.

^c4-unit rest rotation grazing system implemented.

^dPermittees accepted a voluntary 25% reduction in livestock numbers.

^ePermittees accepted a voluntary 25% reduction in time.

Historic analyses indicate that past grazing practices had adversely affected the watershed, soil, and vegetation associated with the Pigeon Water allotment. Prior to 1957, use was season long and cattle and sheep grazed the allotment in common. No records of grazing impacts on the allotment are available for this time period. However, the unsatisfactory vegetative conditions and the downward trends reported from other allotments under similar management schemes were expected on the Pigeon Water allotment. Between 1957 and 1969, allotment records indicate that a 2 unit (one high elevation unit and one low elevation unit) grazing system was used. Range inspections from this era noted that the “range condition [on the allotment] was poor” (Kuhns 1959, Range 2210 Allotment Folder). Kuhns’ observations indicated that use by livestock in the Gooseberry area was “upwards of 80% by ocular estimate, bare ground openings of 3’ or larger” were evident. Kuhns also noted that Antennaria [was] moving in [and] seedlings [were] being pulled up.” On a key area near the lower spring, Kuhns observed the “utilization on key grasses [was] 60% by ocular estimate.” He indicated that “Antennaria [was also] invading the small openings” in a flat near the spring. During this time period, allotment records also noted frequent trespass of permitted sheep and tribal cattle.

In 1969, the Forest Service implemented a management plan that would “maxim[ize] sustained-yield use of forage in compliance and priorities of multiple use standards, stabilize and retain soil in place, and maintain or improve water yields from the watershed within the allotment” (Management Plan 1969, Range 2210 Allotment Folder). Actions associated with this plan included the implementation of a 4-unit rest rotation grazing system, the fencing of management units and the allotment boundary, the development additional water, and the spraying approximately 900 acres of sagebrush with herbicide. The 4-unit rest rotation system is the current grazing system on the allotment. It should be noted that the 1969 management plan adjusted both livestock numbers and the grazing season; however, animal months for the allotment remained the same as the old 2-unit system (refer to grazing history table above). Range inspections and monitoring data indicate that current animal months assigned to the allotment probably exceed the true carrying capacity for the allotment. Range inspections indicate that cattle have often had to graze the rest unit prior to leaving the allotment at the permitted time. Utilization records also show that allowable use standards (50%) have frequently been surpassed. Furthermore, several range studies indicate that vegetative conditions on some areas within the allotment are currently not in satisfactory condition and upward trends at these sites are questionable (refer to Appendix D). An adjustment in management referred to in the proposed grazing alternative (Alternative D2) below is indicated.

Utilization Standards and Management Guidelines

Applicable to all alternatives are the following utilization standards and management guidelines:

1. Limit overall forage utilization in coniferous and aspen stands to 40% by weight of all species. Use at any one site will be no more than 40%. This provides a forage base for forest dwelling species.

2. Overall use of key browse species by livestock will be limited to 40%. Alder-leaf mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, fendler ceanothus (Ceanothus fendleri), yellowbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), and serviceberry are included as key species. Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. pauciflora) and rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus) might be considered key browse species. However, cattle use very little of it on the allotment, and thus there is no apparent need to monitor livestock use of these species. Also, the overall degree of hedging on sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush by wild ungulates during the winter on this allotment has not yet indicated an abundance of these shrubs as a limiting factor for elk and deer populations.

3. Overall use of graminoids and forbs (by weight) will be limited to 45% under season long use, 50% with deferred use, and 60% under rest rotation use. This utilization standard may be converted to stubble height for some key species at applicable locations.

4. Allow a maximum of 50% use of current year's growth on browse species in riparian areas (Forest Plan (IV-46).

Alternatives

The following alternatives were developed within the framework of the management strategies developed by the Forest-Range Task Force (1972). Although they were developed in 1972, potential effects of livestock grazing have not changed, and these alternatives remain applicable to livestock grazing. They provide a broad spectrum of management styles. The above utilization standards, mitigation measures, and management guidelines are applicable to all alternatives in which livestock grazing is included.

Alternative A (Management Strategy A of the Task Force). Environmental management without livestock. This is the no grazing alternative required by NEPA. It serves as a baseline for comparing effects of any grazing alternatives.

Alternative B1 (Management Strategy B of the Task Force). Environmental management with livestock. Livestock use is within the apparent present capacity of the range environment. Investments for range management are applied only to the extent required to maintain the environment at a stewardship level in the presence of permitted livestock grazing. Investments for implementing may be low for some resource classes. No attempt is made to achieve livestock distribution.

Alternative B2 (Modification of Management Strategy B). Herding of livestock is applied to achieve livestock distribution. Livestock use is within present capacity of the allotment. Investments for range management are applied only to the extent allowed by wilderness designation and other constraints. In wilderness, improvements are constructed only where needed to protect wilderness resources (Forest Plan IV-26). Carrying capacity is based on maintenance of indigenous plant communities and inherent ecological and geomorphic processes.

Alternative C (Management Strategy C of the Task Force). Extensive management of environment and livestock. Management systems and techniques, including fencing and water developments are applied as needed to obtain relatively uniform livestock distribution and plant use, and to maintain plant vigor. Management seeks full utilization of the animal unit months available for livestock grazing within a multiple use concept, management area prescriptions, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The application of cultural practices to enhance or maximize livestock forage production by cultural practices such as plowing, herbicide application, and seeding are deemed inappropriate under this alternative.

Alternative D1 (Management Strategy D of the Task Force). Intensive management of environment and livestock. All available technology for range and livestock management is considered. Management seeks to maximize livestock forage production consistent with constraints of maintaining the environment and providing for multiple use, management area prescriptions, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Existing vegetation may be replaced through improvement in growing conditions. Structures may be installed to accommodate complex livestock management systems and practices. Advanced livestock management practices are commonplace. Cultural practices to maximize forage production may be considered. This is the current management strategy or no action grazing alternative. This alternative includes the current grazing system for the Pigeon Water allotment, implementation of fences and improvements to encourage livestock distribution, and the current livestock carrying capacity for the allotment will remain unchanged.

Alternative D2 (Management Strategy D of Task Force with adjustments in Pigeon Water livestock carrying capacity and/or management practice). This is the proposed grazing alternative (this is the preferred alternative). This alternative includes the grazing management, vegetation, cultural practices, and structural improvement strategies described in alternative D1. However, this alternative includes an adjustment in livestock carrying capacity and/or adjustments in management strategy for the Pigeon Water allotment. Current carrying capacity or season of use will be adjusted to a level that should lead to stable or upward vegetation and ground cover trends on all areas of the allotment.

Alternative E (Management Strategy E of the Task Force). Environmental management with livestock production maximized. Stewardship of soil and water are required. Timber may be completely removed. Multiple use is not a constraint. Since the Forest Service is subject to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, this alternative is considered inappropriate for these allotments and will not be considered further in the analysis.

Alternative X (Management Strategy X of the Task Force). Management at an exploitative level. Grazing in a manner that depletes the soil or vegetation without regard to sustained yield. This is considered inappropriate as an alternative for this allotment and will not be considered further in the analysis.

Alternatives Dismissed from Further Analysis

The management area of the Forest Plan that dominates this allotment is n, with small amounts of f and k. Multiple use is a constraint on these areas. Sustained yield is mandated in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Based on direction in the Forest Plan and in the act before mentioned, Alternatives E and X are not appropriate and will not be considered further in this analysis.

Alternative B1: Management under this alternative would be similar to that practiced on the allotments prior to the 1960's. This type of management is conducive to season-long concentrations of cattle in riparian and other favored areas. Livestock distribution is critical to achieve multiple use goals and desired condition for this allotment as defined under affected environment in this assessment. If livestock are present even at low numbers, distribution is important to prevent concentration of livestock in riparian and other areas of concern. Alternative B1 would not be conducive to achieving or maintaining desired condition or multiple use management. Past analysis on these allotments leads to decisions to discontinue this type of management and to implement different management systems. Experience on these allotments in latter decades has verified the decisions to move away from management under Alternative B1. For these reasons this alternative will be dropped from further analysis.

Alternative B2: Structural improvements to achieve distribution, including fences and water developments, have long been in place on these allotments. Removal of fences and using herding techniques as the tool to achieve distribution is neither necessary nor would it likely be any more effective than the current structures. Designated wilderness issues addressed by this alternative are not applicable on these allotments since their boundaries are not within designated wilderness. This alternative is not indicated as appropriate for these allotments and shall be dropped from further analysis.

Alternative C: In 1969, approximately 900 acres on the Pigeon Water allotment was mechanically sprayed with herbicide. Also, prescribed fire might be considered a cultural practice. This tool is indicated to be important to maintaining desired condition under concepts of an ecological approach to management. Prescribed fire has been used on the Pigeon Water allotment and is currently considered a viable option for management of these rangelands. Therefore, Alternative C is indicated as inappropriate and will not be considered further in this analysis.

Alternatives Considered throughout this Analysis

Alternative A (No Grazing Alternative): Without livestock present, desired conditions for watershed protection and plant community composition and structure are indicated with elk and deer as the only large ungulates on the area. Studies associated with these allotments indicate that historic management strategies and carrying capacities primarily contributed to the loss of vegetative vigor on parts of the allotment. With desired conditions indicated for this alternative, it will receive additional evaluation in this analysis.

Alternative D1 (No Action Grazing Alternative): Alternative D1 is the current management strategy in place for the Pigeon Water allotment. This is the no change in grazing alternative. Current management seeks to maximize livestock forage production consistent with constraints of maintaining the environment and providing for multiple use, management area prescriptions, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All available technology for range and livestock management has been or may be employed to achieve these objectives. This alternative achieves multiple use management and desired conditions on some or parts of the Pigeon Water allotment; however, it is questionable that desired condition for ground cover and plant community composition can be sustained throughout the allotment. Current carrying capacity and/or season of use for the allotment indicates risk of sustaining desired conditions.

Utilization and range study data indicate that the Pigeon Water carrying capacity is above its sustainable threshold. Data shows that over the last ten years, cattle consistently grazed the rest unit in order to fulfill the permitted time on the allotment. Even with the use of the rest unit, cattle often exceeded allowable use (50%) of vegetation in at least some of the units and were often forced to go home early due to the lack of forage. Trend data also indicates that some areas on the allotment do not meet desired condition and positive trend is questionable under current management. An Adjustment in the carrying capacity and/or season of use with possible adjustments in management strategies discussed in Alternative 2 appears more appropriate for the allotment. Since this is the no action grazing alternative, it will be carried further in the analysis.

Alternative D2 (Proposed Action Grazing Alternative): Alternative D2 includes one component of multiple use that is excluded in Alternative A. If Alternative D2 can produce and maintain desired conditions and provides sustained yield within a multi-use concept, it is indicated as appropriate for the Pigeon Water allotment.

Alternative D2 is similar to Alternative D1 where current management seeks to maximize livestock forage production consistent with constraints of maintaining the environment and providing for multiple use, management area prescriptions, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All available technology for range and livestock management has been or may be employed to achieve these objectives under this alternative as well. However, an adjustment in carrying capacity and/or season of use for the Pigeon Water allotment is indicated. The adjustment in carrying capacity and/or season of use should reflect a value that will sustain desired condition and produce stable or upward vegetative and watershed trends throughout the allotment. Also, adjustments in the management strategy for the Pigeon Water allotment may also be employed if deemed necessary. In addition, all structural improvements associated with the four allotments under analysis will be properly maintained and will meet Forest Service standards outlined in the grazing permit prior to grazing of livestock. This alternative will be carried further in the analysis.

Comparative Analysis of Considered Alternatives

Alternative A: Desired condition can be achieved without influence of livestock. Ground cover, plant vigor, long-term productivity, stream bank stability, and other concerns associated with desired condition are expected under this alternative.

Alternative D1: Under this alternative, desired condition is expected on some or parts of the allotment under analysis. Long term range studies indicate that desired condition for ground cover, plant vigor, and long-term productivity in aspen communities of the SF6 and in most sagebrush communities of the SF2 and SF3 ecological units has been achieved and is expected to be maintained (refer to Chapter 3). However, many of the small meadows in the SF2 and SF3 ecological units currently do not meet desired condition and are considered at risk under current management. As indicated in the allotment history, range inspections revealed that cattle often grazed the rest unit prior to leaving the allotment at the permitted time and allowable use standards (50%) for availble forage was frequently surpassed. These factors indicate that carrying capacity under current management is above its sustainable threshold.

One intermittent stream is located within the Pigeon Water allotment. Surface water seldom flows throughout the summer months. Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) are the common plant species associated with this riparian corridor. The riparian community type, composed of these three species, is considered late seral and is rated moderate to high in stream bank stability (Winward 2000). These factors indicate desired condition. On the other hand, desired condition of several upland meadows located parallel and adjacent to the stream corridor is considered at risk. Two long term trend studies (Range Studies 51-10C & 51-11B) reveal two active head cuts in meadows vegetated primarily with Kentucky bluegrass. The sediments from these head cuts apparently move into and are deposited in the drainage from run-off associated with snowmelt or thunderstorm events. One head cut (Range Study 51-11B) is located within a shallow drainage that carries diverted run-off from the main road. Water run-off from the road may be influencing head cut activity at this site. Also, pussytoes (Antennaria microphylla), a species that increases with disturbance, is common in some of the meadows (Range Study 51-11D). Historic changes in management strategies have improved condition and trend within these meadows, however, desired condition for many of these meadows have not been realized under this alternative. It is questionable whether current management can sustain desired condition for all resources.

Alternative D2: Risk to desired condition by the presence of livestock is a potential. Under this alternative, however, risk is low as indicated by the adjustments associated with this alternative and by a series of management adjustments implemented over the years under Alternative D1. Range studies and notes indicate that conditions and trends have improved under Alternative D1, but data also indicates that problems associated with this alternative can be improved with the implementation of Alternative D2. Adjustments of carrying capacity and/or season of use and management strategies indicate a positive effect on the upland meadows associated with this allotment. Also, management strategies (i.e temporary fencing, rock fill, grading and seeding of head cut, reroute road run off, etc.) may include methods to stop the active head cuts located in the meadows.

Issue 2: What are the effects of competition between wild ungulates and cattle?

Alternative A: Under this alternative, there will be no competition between wild ungulates and permitted livestock. In conjunction with this alternative, maintenance of fences along the National Forest boundary on the Pigeon Water allotment will be the total responsibility of adjacent landowners. These fences serve to prevent non-permitted livestock from accessing Forest Service lands. Landowner operations adjacent to the Forest could benefit from nonfunctional boundary fences.

Planning and funding of prescribed fire to enhance to enhance elk forage and curtail woody vegetation will be a function of wildlife and fuel management programs without the support of range betterment dollars.

Alternative D1: Competition for summer forage is an inherent feature of this alternative. Range studies (Range Study 51-7) indicate that competition for summer forage between livestock and elk currently is of minor significance. The Pigeon Water allotment is associated with the Yellowstone Subunit of the South Slope Herd Unit. The elk herd management plan for this herd specifies 5500 head of elk. Elk herd numbers were established based upon guidelines adopted in House Bill 25, which were strongly influenced by agricultural interests. 1999 Aerial counts indicate that current elk numbers are estimated at or above 6500 head. The rapid growth of elk herds on the South Slope Herd Unit coupled with data indicating that competition is minor provide evidence that current intensity of permitted livestock grazing has not been a limiting factor for elk.

Estimated 1999 herd count numbers for the Yellowstone Deer Herd Subunit was 8700 head, which is below the 12,000 head projected for the subunit. Effects to mule deer are indicated to be minimal by the low level of competition and often complementary relationship between cattle and mule deer. Current intensity of permitted livestock grazing has not been a limiting factor for mule deer. Both elk and cattle show high preference for grasses on this allotment. Range studies have not revealed any noticeable impacts by livestock on browse species deemed important for deer. The current management and carrying capacity on the allotment appears compatible with elk and deer values.

Alternative D2: Competition for summer forage is also an inherent feature of this alternative. The discussion presented in Alternative D1 above is applicable for Alternative D2. The adjustments in carrying capacity and/or season of use and in management strategies are not expected to increase or create new impacts on wild ungulate values.

Also, planning and funding of prescribed fire to enhance ungulate forage and curtail woody vegetation on the four allotments will be shared by wildlife, fuels management, and range betterment funds. This also reflects the Forest Service's commitment to multiple use standards and ecosystem management principles.

Issue 3: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing on T.E.S. wildlife species and their habitat?

Alternative A: Under this alternative, there will be no effects on T.E.S. wildlife species and their habitat due to permitted livestock grazing.

Alternative D1: Under this alternative, livestock grazing may have adverse effects on the T.E.S species listed below in areas where desired condition is not currently realized. However, these areas have not been recognized as critical habitat for species federally listed and proposed/candidate species occurring within the analysis area. The analysis area is within the range of for spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii), three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), and the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) (refer to Wildlife Biological Evaluation in Project File). None of the areas associated with the allotments under analysis are considered primary lynx habitat. This is based upon the Ashley National Forest Lynx Analysis Units (refer to Project File).

Alternative D2: Of the federally listed and proposed/candidate species occurring within the analysis area, no species or critical habitat is expected to be jeopardized. Again, the analysis area is within the range of for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, three-toed woodpecker, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, boreal owl, and the great gray owl. Livestock grazing is expected to have minimal effects upon these species and will not likely result in a trends toward federal listing of the species if desired condition is realized and/or maintained as specified within this document and according to the Forest Plan (refer to Wildlife Biological Evaluation in Project File). Again, none of the areas associated with the allotments under analysis are considered lynx habitat. This is based upon the Ashley National Forest Lynx Analysis Units (refer to Project File).

Issue 4: What are the effects to permittees and the established traditional grazing use of these allotments?

Alternative A: Under this alternative, there will be no economic return to the permittee.

Alternative D1: Under this alternative, economic return to the permittees of the Pigeon Water Allotment will not change.

Alternative D2: The economic return to the permittees associated with the Pigeon Water allotment will be adversely affected. An adjustment in carrying capacities and/or season of use will reduce returns to effected permittees.

Issue 5: What are the effects of permitted livestock grazing on the spread of noxious weeds?

Alternative A: Under this alternative, there will be no effects of permitted livestock grazing on the spread of noxious weeds.

Alternative D1: The spread of noxious weeds due to livestock grazing under this alternative will be similar in effects to those described in Alternative D2.

Alternative D2: Livestock grazing can contribute to the spread of some noxious weeds, however, weed information collected from the Pigeon Water allotment indicate that the infestation and spread of noxious weeds are mostly associated with southwesterly wind patterns. There are relatively few weed sites on the allotment (U.S Department of Agriculture, Noxious Weed Inventory). These sites are musk thistle infestations that have spread eastward by wind currents from larger infestation sites in the Rock Creek drainage. No weed sites have been identified at or near allotment water developments. The District's Noxious Weed Inventory addresses and implements a plan to eradicate or control these weeds from further spread. Other introduced species not deemed noxious are planted and/or are growing on the four allotments, but are not recognized as a threat to vegetative communities.

Chapter 3

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Discussed By Ecological Unit

Discussion

The environment of the allotment is discussed by ecological unit as delineated in the Land Systems Inventory of the Ashley National Forest. Ecological units in association with the Pigeon Water allotment may be viewed on the Ecological Unit map in back of this document. Location of studies referred to in this and other chapters are displayed on Range Studies Atlas located at the Duchesne Ranger District and Forest Supervisor’s Offices. Also, a summary of these studies is provided in appendix 2. Desired and existing conditions are addressed by ecological unit. Inherent capabilities of the land and known values are the basis for desired condition. Values are consistent with management area prescriptions and standards and guidelines given in the Forest Plan. Values of plants for watershed protection are listed in Region Four Range Analysis Handbook of May 18, 1993. This analysis is tiered to the Forest Plan EIS sections concerning livestock grazing, wildlife, and water and soils management.

South Face 2 Ecological Unit (SF2)

These are steep (20-60%) southerly facing, moderately gullied, colluvial, shoulder slopes that are mantled by material derived from the overlying Bishop Conglomerate. SF2 slopes are being formed by the chemical and mechanical undercutting of the Park City Formation with the resultant mass down hill movement of the Bishop Conglomerate material that covers the slopes. This cover commonly includes rounded gravels and cobbles. Mountain big sagebrush/blue bunch wheatgrass communities are common. Based on work of Hironaka et al. (1983) and Jensen (1990) this is indicated to be the expected dominant plant community. Other common grasses include muttongrass and needle-and-thread grass. Ross sedge (Carex rossii) is a wintergreen graminoid that is highly desired on SF2 for it winter value to wild ungulates. Hairy goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa) is a common forb that is often moderately to closely used by elk and deer in winter on SF2. Bitterbrush and yellowbrush are occasional in places and lacking in many others. The steep southerly slopes provide favorable habitat for cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); however, range studies at selected study sites within this ecological unit do not indicate a presence of cheatgrass (Range Study 51-4, 51-6, 51-11). Nevertheless, cheatgrass is an expected component of SF2 communities and the presence of this weedy annual on the allotment is probable.

When present, cheatgrass responds vigorously following fire. However, in some environments, cheatgrass can be expected to advance into and increase without grazing and without fire (Svejcar and Tausch 1991, Tausch et al. 1994, Monsen 1994, Kindschy 1994). Approximately 700 acres of sagebrush were burned on the Pigeon Water allotment in 1998 and 1999. Many of these acres were burned within the SF2 ecological unit. Trend studies established in the 1998 burn areas did not indicate a significant flush of cheatgrass (Range Study 51-6, 51-10). Trend studies are also in place to monitor response of cheatgrass and native perennial grasses following 1999 prescribed fire. Trend of perennial graminoids will be used to evaluate criteria for desired condition for this ecological unit associated with the Pigeon Water allotment.

One small spring-fed stream is located within the SF2 ecological unit and is part of the Pigeon Water drainage. The stream is intermittent. Surface water flow is apparent throughout much of the summer in above average precipitation years. The stream is not considered a fishery, but supports a narrow channel of riparian. This riparian zone adds diversity to the landscape. Nebraska sedge, Kentucky bluegrass, and Bebb willow primarily vegetate the riparian and its adjacent meadows. Study site 51-11B indicates an active headcut within the drainage. The headcut is located within a Kentucky bluegrass meadow and feeds sediments into the riparian zone. Nebraska sedge appears to be trapping and depositing much of the suspended sediments within the drainage below the headcut. Though small in size (i.e. approximately 10’ across), the headcut indicates unsatisfactory condition and positive trend is questionable under current management.

Nearly all of SF2 ecological unit is included in management area n (range of resource uses and outputs) of the Forest Plan. Again, this designation recognizes a variety of appropriate uses on the Forest, which includes livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. The slopes associated with this ecological unit are capable of producing high-quality summer forage for livestock, but are not as productive as the SF3 ecological unit. These slopes are used less by cattle than those of SF3. In some areas of the SF2 ecological unit cattle utilization has been low to moderate for many years. Also, these southerly-exposed slopes are often free of snow and may be used as winter forage by elk and probably to a lesser extent deer. However, the SF2 ecological unit is not considered critical winter habitat for wild ungulates (refer to discussion in SF3 ecological unit above).

Desired Condition for SF2:

1. Ground cover greater than 85% of potential.

2. Sagebrush canopy cover between 5-20% over most of the ecological unit.

3. Understory dominated by perennial graminoids and forbs with moderate to high value for watershed protection and elk.

Studies 51-4 and 51-12 indicate potential for ground cover (including rock) for SF3 is between 85% and 90%. Desirable understory species include but are not limited to: bluebunch wheatgrass (Elymus spicatus), muttongrass, needle-and-thread grass, Ross sedge, and hairy goldenaster.

South Face 3 Ecological Unit (SF3)

These are bench and step lands formed by geologic slumping that has been relatively inactive in recent times. Livestock grazing has had little effect on this process. The steps are covered with rounded gravels and cobbles of Bishop Conglomerate. These gravels and cobbles are present in much of the soil profile. On the benches, finer alluvium has accumulated to form soils of relatively low course fragment content. These lands (especially the toe of the steps) are areas of water discharge. Springs and seeps are found at several places on the ecological unit.

Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. pauciflora) and needle-and-threadgrass (Stipa comata) communities dominate many of the step slopes while mountain big sagebrush/thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus) communities are common on slump benches where soil fines have accumulated. Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) is present in some places but not in abundance. Some of SF3 ecological unit was sprayed with 2,4-D in 1971 to reduce sagebrush and increase grass. The effects of the treatment persisted for approximately 15-20 years after which sagebrush returned to pretreatment cover. This falls within the expected return interval for sagebrush following disturbance (Winward 1991). Black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) and some mountain brush communities were not treated with herbicide in 1971 because of their high value as browse for deer and elk.

Many of the benches and steps were treated with prescribed fire in 1998 and 1999. Approximately 700 acres on the allotment were treated. The purpose of these burns was to enhance the quantity and quality of livestock and elk forage with the removal of sagebrush. Winward (1991) indicated that mountain big sagebrush ecosystems have developed with an historical 10-40 year fire interval. He further determined that sagebrush and grasses are consistently found in youthful vigor with fire intervals of less than about 30 years. In addition, Winward (1991) found the most favorable understory conditions (i.e. ground cover and plant composition) where canopy cover of mountain big sagebrush ranged between 15-20%. Beyond these levels, this shrub greatly restricts understory vigor and production.

The SF3 ecological unit located within the Pigeon Water allotment is included in management area n (range of resource uses and outputs). This designation recognizes a variety of appropriate uses on the Forest, which includes livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. This ecological unit is capable of producing high-quality summer forage for livestock and is expected to provide the major forage base for permitted livestock grazing under any strategy. This is due to size of the ecological unit on the allotment, slopes mostly less than 30%, relative high forage production, and somewhat favorable distribution of water.

The ecological unit is preferred by elk as a spring and warm, open winter range. The prescribed burns of 1998 and 1999 are expected to improve forage for elk by reducing sagebrush and increasing grass thus easing the potential competition between cattle and elk for available early summer forage. Deer also use this ecological unit as a transitional range in spring and fall. The SF3 on Pigeon Water is not considered critical winter range for neither elk nor deer. Rangelands below the Forest boundary (i.e. Tawana Flat) are primarily selected as suitable winter range by wild ungulates. Also, the shrubs associated with the SF3 ecological unit do not have a hedged appearance common to other shrubs sites deemed critical for wild ungulate winter habitat. Monitoring studies coupled with the history of permitted grazing on this allotment indicate desired condition can be achieved and maintained at this time with concurrent use by cattle and elk.

Sagebrush has value on this ecological unit for sage grouse and other sagebrush associated species. Habitat value for sage grouse is increased by maintenance of a healthy grass/forb understory, and by providing sagebrush which is tall enough to be available as winter forage (14-16 inches)(Mitchell 1996). Winward (1991) indicated favorable understory conditions with 15-20% canopy cover of mountain big sagebrush. Beyond these levels, this shrub greatly restricts understory vigor and production, which limits foraging opportunities for both elk and sage grouse at most times of the year. The only instances in which cover values in excess of 20% would be desirable are for sage grouse nesting or where there are significant concentrations of wintering grouse. Therefore, sagebrush cover levels which are generally <20% will provide the best mix of habitat values for the wildlife species using the area within the allotment.

Sage grouse is not a federally listed species, but has been designated sensitive by the state of Utah. The lower end of the allotment falls within an area recognized by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) as potential or known breeding and/or nesting for sage grouse Refer to UDWR Known Sage Grouse Area map in back of document. No active leks have been documented on the allotment to date (Thacker 2000). Also, most of the winter range for sage grouse in the Rock Creek-Lake Fork area is considered below and off this allotment. Although active leks and nesting have not been documented on the allotment, it remains a potential, and scattered inclusions of 1-3 acres of sagebrush with greater then 20% canopy cover could provide nesting habitat for sage grouse.

Desired Condition for SF3 Ecological Unit

1. Ground cover at or above 85% of potential. Studies on SF3 indicate potential for ground cover is about 80-90%.

Studies 51-5, 51-6A, 51-7, 51-8, and 51-9 indicate potential for ground cover (including rock) for SF3 is between 80% and 95%. Desirable understory species include but are not limited to: thickspike wheatgrass, muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), needle-and-thread grass, Kentucky bluegrass, and sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda).

2. Sagebrush canopy cover between 5-20% over 80% of the area with less or more than this in some areas with average height of sagebrush at least 14-16 inches.

Due to values of the ecological unit for sage grouse, monitoring for season and intensity of sage grouse use will continue in coordination with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. This monitoring will be used as a basis for future projects to manage sagebrush cover.

3. Bitterbrush, serviceberry and other shrubs of moderate to high value for deer and elk in fall-spring with crown cover up to 20%.

4. Understory dominated by perennial grasses with moderate to high value for watershed protection and for elk and cattle including thickspike wheatgrass and needle-and-thread grass.

South Face 6 Ecological Unit (SF6)

Stable aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities with little evidence of coniferous tree advancement are the major vegetative descriptor of this ecological unit. On the Pigeon Water allotment, the SF6 ecological unit is a continuous stand of aspen that ranges from 0.25 to over 1.0 mile wide and is approximately 4 miles long. These stands of aspen currently have little to no conifer encroachment. Mountain big sagebrush-grass communities and small, isolated meadows consisting of grasses and forbs are associated with these aspen stands.

This ecological unit and associated vegetation are highly selected by elk in the spring and early summer. During this time, elk use many of the aspen trees within of this ecological unit. The bark of many trees is scarred and black. The SF6 ecological unit is also an important calving area for elk. This ecological unit is also considered transitional range in the fall as elk move to winter range at lower elevations.

The SF6 ecological unit is an important summer-early fall forage base for permitted cattle. Most of the acres associated with the two upper units of the allotment are classified SF6. Most of the forage used by cattle in these units is from this ecological unit. Ranges studies currently indicate that desired condition for ground cover and vegetative composition is satisfactory.

Desired Condition for SF6

1. Ground cover greater than 84% of potential. Potential for ground cover in most aspen stands on the Ashley National Forest is near 100%.

Studies 37-12C and 37-13 indicate potential for ground cover (including rock) for SF3 is between 90% and 100%. Desirable understory species include but are not limited to: elk sedge, Kentucky bluegrass, and nelson needle-and-thread grass, mountain brome (Bromus carinatus).

2. Understory vegetated with plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection.

3. Aspen cover at or near potential.

4. Desired condition for sagebrush communities included in this ecological unit is the same as for SF3.

South Face 9 Ecological Unit (SF9)

This ecological unit consists of steep ridges with 25%-50% slope. These ridges are armored with large boulders with some talus. The SF9 ecological unit forms initial break below flatter PP4 uplands and SF6 slopes vegetated with aspen. These slopes may be have engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), sub-alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and sometimes seral aspen growing on them. The SF9 ecological unit is not used by nor is it accessible to livestock due to the steepness of slope, high boulder content, fallen timber, and limited available forage. This ecological unit is not impacted by domestic ungulates; therefore, desired condition will not be discussed in this document.

Parks Plateau 4 Ecological Unit (PP4)

This ecological unit consists of mostly forested plateaus with nearly flat, broad gently-rolling upland surfaces and slopes. These plateaus are described as isolated flat-topped mountains separated by steep walled canyons historically eroded with ice and flowing water. Lodgepole pine is the most common tree that vegetates this ecological unit. Lodgepole can be found growing alone at mid elevations; however, it is often mixed with seral aspen at lower to mid elevations and engelmann spruce and subalpine fir at higher elevations. Understory vegetation may consist of but is not limited ross and elk sedge (Carex geyeri), whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), and Oregon grape (Mahonia repens). Cattle seldom use this ecological type due to limited forage, dense or fallen timber, and the lack of water. Ungulate forage of any abundance is mostly restricted to openings created by timber harvest, mountain pine beetle epidemics, or fire. The dense coniferous cover in this ecological unit is often used by elk for calving and hiding cover especially when adjacent ecological units with aspen.

The PP4 ecological unit is of comparatively low value for livestock and higher value for wildlife. Community dynamics are driven by lodgepole pine which regenerates rapidly and densely following fire. This process has been little affected by livestock. For these reasons desired condition is not developed in this analysis. Desired condition of past analyses that have covered this area has included ratio of openings and early seral communities to those of high percent cover of lodgepole pine. Cattle are not expected to noticeable influence seral stages on this unit.

Appendix A

Summary of Public Comments and Responses (Reserved)

Appendix B

Best Management Practices

Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed to meet water quality objectives identified in the Forest Plan and State Water Quality Standards. They are derived from the R1-R4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.22) to minimize the effects of activities on soil and water resources. Applicable BPMs to livestock grazing are listed below:

11.02 Soil and water resource monitoring and evaluation reference monitoring of stations located in adjacent drainages.

11.03 Watershed improvement planning and implementation reference watershed improvement inventory and ecological unit-stream type association.

13.04 Renegotiation of surface disturbed areas. Maintenance of ground cover >85% of potential. See vegetation condition monitoring for objectives.

15.02 General guidelines for the location and design of roads and trails relationship to gully development.

17.02 Controlling livestock numbers and season of use reference vegetation condition.

17.03 Controlling livestock distribution. Reference erosion features and vegetation condition.

Appendix C

Ecological Values and Conditions Associated with Livestock Grazing on the

Pigeon Water Allotment

Watersheds, water quality, soil, nutrient cycling, and composition and structure of vegetation

Soil protection facilitates maintenance of long-term vegetative productivity, watershed health, and water quality. Where ground cover is maintained at or near potential levels, desired condition for watershed and soils, including nutrient cycling is indicated. Ground cover, which consists of plant cover near the ground surface, litter, and rock, is the principal protection against both rain-drop splash and sheet soil erosion (Farmer 1995, Osborn 1955, Blackburn et al. 1986). Plant cover near the ground surface is more effective than canopy cover in stopping rain-drop splash and sheet erosion (Simanton et al. 1991, Khan et al. 1988). Erosion generally leads to degraded watershed conditions.

Retention of litter on ground surface is also essential for nutrient cycling. On rangelands, nutrients are recycled primarily from plant litter. Community composition also provides a reflection of nutrient cycling and long-term productivity. Where plant communities are dominated by perennial plants with moderate to high value for watershed protection, desired condition for watershed and soils are indicated. Plant communities dominated by plants, which have the potential to dominate in the absence of livestock, indicate nutrients are being maintained at levels needed to maintain ecosystem function. Thus, ground cover and community composition are indicators by which water quality, soils (including nutrient levels), and overall watershed conditions can be evaluated.

Livestock grazing has the potential to reduce ground cover and increase bare soil by removing vegetation, which reduces plant, and litter cover. Many plant species most preferred by livestock are also rated moderate to high in value for watershed protection (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region 1993). The plants that provide the bulk of livestock diets (dominant grasses and shrubs) are also those with competitive ability to drive community dynamics of some stages of plant succession. Where intensity of grazing is high enough to weaken these plants, desired vegetation is often replaced by plants of lower resource values. It is desirable to maintain plant communities dominated by plants of moderate to high resource value for watershed protection as well as ungulate forage. As a measure of nutrient levels and general ecosystem function, it is also desirable to maintain plants that would be major drivers of plant community dynamics in the absence of livestock. Community composition along streams can indicate stability of stream banks and related values (Winward 1992). It is desirable to have stream banks with greenlines dominated by communities with high value for stream bank stability as listed by Winward (1992). The greenline is the band of vegetation at the interface with the water of streams. Plants of high value for stream bank stability are those with inherent capacity to hold stream banks together against the forces of water and maintain desired stream configuration including width:depth ratios favorable for fish and other aquatic habitat. There is generally a high correlation between desired stream configuration and dominance of plant communities with high value for stream bank stability.

Close grazing in riparian areas tend to decrease vegetative communities of high value and replace them with communities of lower value. Grazing should be managed to maintain greenline communities with high value for stream bank stability, which will help, achieve and maintain desired stream configuration. It is important to recognize that greenline plant communities are of vital importance along stream reaches, which are vegetation controlled. Greenline plant communities become of decreasing importance as rock control of streams increases. Vegetation and rock-controlled stream reaches are highly related to geomorphology, ecological units, landforms, and stream types. Lower gradient streams, which typically run through alluvial fines such as lake plain landforms, are typically controlled by vegetation. Steep gradient streams in narrow rocky canyon ecological units or landforms such as broken hill slope talus are typically controlled by rock. In this setting, greenline vegetation is often of little effect in determining configuration or other stream features.

Numerous range studies on the Pigeon Water allotment indicates structure, composition, and dynamics of plant communities can be similar without livestock or with livestock grazing where livestock are intensively managed and carrying capacities fall within suitable ranges. These studies also indicate that an acceptable level of ground cover and watershed protection has been or can be achieved and maintained concurrent with livestock grazing (U.S Department of Agriculture, Monitoring Studies Inventory).

Appendix D

Summary of Range Studies

Summaries for range studies located on the Pigeon Water allotment are provided below. Information includes study names, associated ecological unit(s), cultural practices and other history, ungulate uses, years the study sites were visited, and the current vegetative trends and conditions at the study sites. Alternatives discussed within this document were influenced by the data summarized in these range studies.

STUDY NAME: Gooseberry Spring STUDY NUMBER: 51-4 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF2 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush treated with herbicide in 1971. USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 51-5 YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1982, 1988, 1995 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: This is a Utah Division of Wildlife Resource trend study. The site is located within blacksagebrush-mixed mountain brush-grass. Ground cover estimates in 1982, 1988, and 1995 were 71%, 79%, and 92% respectively. 51 species of plants were observed at the site. Vegetative conditions appear satisfactory and trend appears upward to stable.

STUDY NAME: Upper Gooseberry STUDY NUMBER: 51-5 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush controlled by herbicide in 1969. USE BY UNGULATES: Sheep and cattle grazed in common on the allotment since before the establishment of the National Forest. The allotment was assigned to cattle grazing only in 1959. Pigeon Water also provides browse and forage for deer and elk. Several hundred head of elk utilize the site during spring and early summer and late fall. The elk population has greatly increased in the area since the 1970s. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1968,1972,1995 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: The site is located within a mountain big sagebrush-native grass community. Canopy cover of shrubs (primarily sagebrush) was estimated in 1968, 1972, and 1995 at 24%, 15%, and 12% respectively. Ground cover was estimated at 84% in 1968 and 1972 and 85% in 1995. Vegetative condition appears satisfactory and within desired condition parameters. Vegetative trend appears to be stable.

STUDY NAME: Pigeon Water 8400 STUDY NUMBER: 51-6A-B ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF2, SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Burned with prescribed fire 1998. USE BY UNGULATES: Use is similar to that described in Study 51-5 YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Study 51-6A is located within mountain big sagebrush-native grass community. Prior to burning, sagebrush canopy cover at the site was estimated at 23%. Principal understory species include muttongrass, sandberg bluegrass, and needle-and-threadgrass. Ground cover was estimated at 96%. Vegetative conditon at the site appears satisfactory and trends stable to upward. Study 51-6B are photos of dry meadow openings between sagebrush. Ground cover in the openings was estimated in 1996 at about 50%. Many weedy species were found growing (i.e. goldenaster). Loss of ground cover in openings appears to be a result of intensive prolong grazing over the years. Vegetative condition in the openings is unsatisfactory and trend downward.

STUDY NAME: Upper Gooseberry Meadow STUDY NUMBER: 51-7 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: livestock and elk utilization study set up in 1997. USE BY UNGULATES: Use similar to that described in Study 51-5. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1968, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Site is located in a dry, open meadow adjacent to mountain big sagebrush communities. Meadow consists of Kentucky bluegrass, thickspike wheatgrass, and various forb species. Ungulates tend to concentrate use in this and nearby meadows. The elk-cattle utilization study at this site currently does not indicate a significant competition for summer forage between wild and domestic ungulates. Data does show that cattle capture the majority of available forage at the site. Average utilization over the last two years has been approximately 55%. Ground cover was estimated at 75%. The vegetative condition of the meadow shows ability for improvement (i.e. increase in grass frequency and density) and trend is probably stable to downward.

STUDY NAME: Upper Gooseberry 8550 STUDY NUMBER: 51-8 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush treated with herbicide 1990. USE BY UNGULATES: Similar to Study 51-5 YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1996 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Mountain big sagebrush, muttongrass, and needle-and-threadgrass are the principal species at this site. Sagebrush at the site was treated with herbicide in 1990. Canopy cover of sagebrush was measured at 0.5% in 1997. Ground cover was estimated at 90%. Vegetative conditions appear satisfactory and trends stable to upward.

STUDY NAME: Pigeon Water 8650 STUDY NUMBER: 51-9A-B ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush treated with herbicide in 1969; burned with prescribed fire 1999. USE BY UNGULATES: Similar to Study 51-5. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1967, 1976, 1979 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: These two sites are located within mountain big sagebrush-native grass communities. Prior to burning, sagebrush canopy cover was estimated between 25% to 30%. Grasses consist of needle-and-threadgrass, muttongrass, sandberg bluegrass, and thickspike wheatgrass. Ground cover estimates in 1969, 1976, and 1979 were 80%, 92%, and 81% respectively. In 1998, ground cover in sagebrush was estimated at about 80%. Vegetative trends at these site appear to be stable for the last 30 years.

STUDY NAME: Pigeon Water 8520 STUDY NUMBER: 51-9B ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush treated with herbicide in 1969; burned with prescribed fire 1998. USE BY UNGULATES: Similar to Study 51-5. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1998 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE:

STUDY NAME: Boundary Pond STUDY NUMBER: 51-10A-E ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush treated with herbicide in 1969; burned with prescribed fire 1998, 1999. USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 51-5. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1975, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: This study incorporates six sites with four found on the Pigeon Water allotment. Two of the four sites (51-10D-E) are located in sagebrush-native grass communities. These sites were burned with prescribed fire in 1999. Prior to the burn, sagebrush canopy cover was estimated between 5% to 10%. Ground cover percentages were about 85% which is within desired condition for this ecological type. Vegetative condition appears satisfactory and trend stable to upward. Studies 51-10 A & C are located within meadow swells vegetated primarily with Kentucky bluegrass and are adjacent to mountain big sagebrush communities. Study 51-10C has an active headcut located in the Kentucky bluegrass swell. Ground cover in the swell is estimated at about 80%. With headcutting apparent, condition of the swell is unsatisfactory and current trend appears downward. Study 51-10A is void of headcutting and ground cover is about 95%. Vegetative condition in this meadow appears satisfactory and trend stable to upward.

STUDY NAME: Lower Key Area STUDY NUMBER: 51-11A-D ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF2 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush treated within herbicide in 1969, spring near sites has been developed for ungulate use, utilization studies at 51-11A & C, and 50’ x 100’ exclosure was constructed along the narrow riparian zone (51-11C). USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 51-5. Allowable use by livestock in this unit is usually met along this riparian zone prior to any other part of the unit. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1959, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1997, 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Four sites are associated with this study. One site is located within a sagebrush-native grass community. Crown cover for sagebrush was estimated between 25% to 30%. Ground cover was estimated at about 80%. Average utilization at this site for a three year period was about 20%. The other three studies are located along the riparian zone or within open meadow adjacent to the riparian zone. The drainage is Intermittent. Surface water flow is apparent throughout most of the summer in average to above average precipitation years. Nebraska sedge, Kentucky bluegrass, and Bebb willow primarily vegetate the riparian and its adjacent meadows. Study site 51-11B indicates an active headcut within the drainage. The headcut is located within a Kentucky bluegrass meadow and feeds sediments into the riparian zone. Nebraska sedge appears to be trapping and depositing much of the suspended sediments within the drainage below the headcut. Though small in size (i.e. approximately 10’ across), the headcut indicates unsatisfactory condition and trend at the site. Water diverted from the Pigeon Water road appears to have influence on the head cut. Study site 51-11C is a contrast photo inside and outside the exclosure. In 1998, ground cover outside the exclosure was estimated at 95% along the within the riparian zone. Ground cover inside the exclosure was estimated at or near 100%. Vegetation consists of Nebraska sedge, Kentucky bluegrass, and bentgrass. Vegetative condition at this site appears satisfactory and trend is at the least stable. Study site 51-11D is located within the Kentucky bluegrass meadows adjacent to the riparian zone. The data at this site indicates a high percentage of pussytoes at the site. This usually indicates a history of intensive and prolonged grazing within the meadow. Ground cover is estimated at about 80%. Improvement in condition is apparent. Trend of pussytoes is unknown at this time.

STUDY NAME: Gooseberry Spring STUDY NUMBER: 51-12 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF2 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Spring developed for ungulate use. Livestock utilization study. USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 51-5. Allowable use by livestock is usually met in this meadow prior to any other part of the unit. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1997, 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Site is located in a open meadow adjacent to sagebrush. The meadow consists primarily of Kentucky bluegrass. Cattle tend to concentrate use in the meadow. Average utilization over the last three years have averaged 54%. Ground cover was estimated at about 85%. Ground cover percentages in the meadow has room for improvement.

STUDY NAME: Gooseberry Browse STUDY NUMBER: 51-13 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF2 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush and other browse shrubs treated with herbicide in 1969. USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 51-5. Also, the site is highly desirable for deer browse. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1966, 1997 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Photos from this study indicate that serviceberry crown cover has increased since 1966. In 1997, serviceberry was estimated at 21% and sagebrush was estimated at 12% crown cover. Trend for browse shrub species appear stable to upward.

STUDY NAME: Pigeon Water Burn 1999 STUDY NUMBER: 51-15 A-B ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF3 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Site burned with prescribed fire in 1999 USE BY UNGULATES: Same as study 51-5 YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Site was burned with prescribed fire in 1999. The site supports sagebrush with a native grass understory. Canopy cover for sagebrush prior to burn was estimated between 15% and 20%. The return and overall increase of native grasses and forbs is expected following the removal of sagebrush. Also, desired condition for ground cover (80% or greater) is expected 3 to 4 years following the burn. Trends are expected to be upward to stable.

STUDY NAME: Pigeon Water 9100 STUDY NUMBER: 37-12A-C ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF6 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Sagebrush site burned with prescribed fire in 1998. About 20% of the sagebrush at the site was burned. Studies 37-12 A & C are utilization studies. USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 37-14. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1959, 1996, 1997, 1998,1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Three sites are associated with this study. One is located in sagebrush-native grass (37-12A), another in an open meadow adjacent to sagebrush and aspen (37-12B), and the third in an aspen stand (37-12C). Prior to burn, the sagebrush canopy cover for Study 37-12A was estimated at 21%. The understory consists of native grasses with a ground cover estimate near 80% which falls within the parameters of desired condition. Also, a flush of grasses and forbs are expected 3-4 years following the burn. The open meadow at Study 37-12B consists primarily of Kentucky bluegrass and everywhere aster. Ground cover in the meadow was estimated at about 75% which indicates improvement is needed to meet desired condition for this ecological type. The site burned in 1999; however, the burn is not expected to have a significant affect on condition or trend in the meadow. At study 37-12C, ground cover under aspen was estimated at about 90% which is within desired condition. Understory species include Kentucky bluegrass and dandelion. Over the last three years, utilization at this site has averaged 46%.

STUDY NAME: Upper Unit Meadow STUDY NUMBER: 37-13 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF6 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Livestock utilization study. USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 37-14 YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1997, 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Site is a small meadow opening surrounded by aspen stands. Six graminoids species with dandelion provide the majority of vegetative ground cover in the meadow. In 1997, ground cover was estimated at 90% which satisfies desired condition for this ecological unit. Utilization by ungulates at the site averaged 53% over three years. Vegetative condition in meadow appears satisfactory and trends appear stable or upward.

STUDY NAME: Salt Tub STUDY NUMBER: 37-14 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF6 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Livestock utilization study. USE BY UNGULATES: Cattle utilize the forage associated with aspen during later summer months. Elk graze the area primarily in the spring and early summer. The aspen stands are also a primary calving area for several hundred elk. Deer also use the area for cover and forage. YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1997, 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: Site is a small meadow opening surrounded by aspen stands. The principal species in the small opening include dandelion, everywhere aspen, and Kentucky bluegrass. In 1997, ground cover was estimated at 82% which appears to be under desired condition for this ecological unit. Utilization at the site has averaged about 50% to 55% over the last three years. Improvement of vegetation condition and trend at this site is indicated.

STUDY NAME: South Corner Spring STUDY NUMBER: 37-20 ECOLOGICAL UNIT: SF2 CULTURAL PRACTICES, FIRE, AND OTHER HISTORY: Site was burned with prescribed fire in 1998 USE BY UNGULATES: Same as Study 51-5 YEARS OF VISIT TO THE SITE: 1998, 1999 TREND AND CONDITION INDICATED AT THE SITE: The site is a protected pocket which supports sagebrush with a native grass understory. Prior to burn, sagebrush canopy cover in the pocket was estimated at about 25%. One year following the burn, lupine and thickspike wheatgrass are the principal species in the burn. Desired condition for ground cover (84% or greater) and species composition are expected in 3 or 4 years following the burn. Trends are expected to be upward to stable.

Appendix E

Forest ID Team

Below is a list of ID team members associated with the Environmental Assessment of the Pigeon Water Cattle Allotment:

Allen Huber Rangeland Management Specialist

Sherel Goodrich Forest Ecologist

Byron Loosle Forest Archeologist

Kurt Pindel Wildlife Biologist

Darlene Koerner Forest Soil Scientist

Ronnee Sue Helzner Forest Hydrologist
References

Blackburn, W. H.; Thurow, T. L.; Taylor, C. A. Jr. 1986. Soil erosion on rangelands. In: proceedings, Range Monitoring Symposium, Society of Range Manage. Denver, CO. 31-39.

Farmer, M. E. 1995. The effects of anchor chaining pinyon-juniper on watershed values and big game animals in central Utah. Manuscript of Two Journal Articles Presented to Department of Botany and Range Science, Brigham Young University. 46 p.

Goodrich, S. 1999. Ecological site description: Parks Plateau 4 (PP4), Uinta Mountains Section. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. 15 p. (Electronic File in Eco/2210/RangelandHealth/PP4Example).

Hironaka, M.; Fosberg, M. A.; Winward, A. H. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin number 35. Moscow, ID: Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Univ. of Idaho. 44 p.

Jensen, M. E. 1990. Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada. J. Range Manage. 43: 161-166.

Khan, M. J.; Monke, E. J.; Foster, G. R. 1988. Mulch cover and canopy effects on soil loss. Trans. of the Amer. Soc. Agr. Engr. 31:706-711.

Khuns, XX.; 1959. Range inspections. Pigeon Water Allotment Folder. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne Ranger District, Duchesne, UT. 2210 files.

Kindschy, R. R. (1994). Pristine vegetation of the Jordan Crater Kipukas: 1978-91. In: Monsen, S. B.; Kitchen, S. G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 85-88.

Mitchell, D. 1996. Sage grouse in Utah. Paper developed for the Utah Sage Grouse Conservation Work Group. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 6 p. plus appendices.

Monsen, S. B. 1994. The competitive influences of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) on site restoration. In: Monsen, S. B.; Kitchen, S. G. compilers. 1994. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands: 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 43-50.

Osborn, B. 1955. How rainfall and runoff erode soil. In: Water. The yearbook of agriculture 1955. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 126-135.

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

Simanton, J. R.; Weltz, M. A.; Larsen, H. D. 1991. Rangeland experiments to parameterize the water erosion prediction project model; vegetative canopy cover effects. J. Range Manage. 30:44-49.

Svejcar, T.; Tausch, R. 1991. Anaho Island, Nevada: a relic area dominated by annual invader species. Rangelands 13: 233-236.

Tausch, R. J.; Svejcar, T.; Burkhardt, J. W. 1994. Patterns of annual grass dominance on Anaho Island: implications for Great Basin vegetation management. In: Monsen, S. B.; Kitchen, S. G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 120-125.

Thacker, R. 2000. Personal communication.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Allotment Folders: Pigeon Water. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne Ranger District, Duchesne, UT. 2210 files.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Rangeland ecosystem analysis and management handbook. FSH 2209-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 4 ch.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Management Plan 1969. Pigeon Water Allotment Folder. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne Ranger District, Duchesne, UT. 2210 files.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monitoring Studies Inventory. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne Ranger District, Duchesne, UT. 2060 or 2210 files.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Noxious Weed Inventory. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne Ranger District, Duchesne, UT.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 1993. Rangeland ecosystem analysis and management handbook. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 4 chapters.

Winward, A H. 1991. A renewed commitment to management of sagebrush grasslands. In: Miller R. F., editor. Management in the sagebrush steppe. Special Report 880. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 2-7.

Winward, A. H. 1992. Stream bank stability ratings. In: Technical Riparian Work Group. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region Four. Appendix 1.

Winward, A H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p.

Responsible Agency: U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Responsible Official: Joseph R. Bistryski

Contact Person: Allen Huber

Rangeland Management Specialist

Table of Contents

Comparative Analysis of Considered Alternatives

Discussion

Desired Condition for SF3 Ecological Unit

Desired Condition for SF6

Summary of Range Studies

Appendix E

Forest ID Team

Ronnee Sue Helzner Forest HydrologistReferences

Ronnee Sue Helzner Forest Hydrologist
References