Draft Environmental

United States Impact Statement Department of Agriculture High Uintas Wilderness Forest Service Domestic Sheep Analysis Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest and Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District,

Ashley National Forest June 2019 Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Cover Photo – Domestic Sheep in the Henry’s Fork Drainage on the Gilbert Peak Allotment.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis i Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest and Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District, Ashley National Forest Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah Responsible Officials: David C. Whittikiend and Jeff E. Schramm Forest Supervisor Forest Supervisor Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Ashley National Forest 857 West South Jordan Parkway 355 N. Vernal Avenue South Jordan, UT 84095 Vernal, UT 84078 For more information, contact: Paul Cowley, Staff Officer and Interdisciplinary Team Leader Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095

This document is available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44503

ABSTRACT: This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is a public document that discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed action and alternative actions for permitted domestic livestock grazing management within the ten allotments located in the High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis project area. This document follows the format established in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508). It includes a discussion of the need for the proposal; alternatives to the proposal; the physical, biological, social and economic impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. The document is tiered to the FEIS and record of decision (ROD) for the 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and the FEIS and ROD for the 1986 Ashley Forest Plan, as amended.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Acronyms and Abbreviations AMP Allotment Management Plan ANF Ashley National Forest AOI Annual Operating Instructions AU Animal Unit AUM Animal Unit Month BA Biological Assessment BCI Biotic Condition Index BE Biological Evaluation BHS Bighorn Sheep CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHHR Core Herd Home Range CRCT Colorado River Cutthroat Trout CWA Clean Water Act DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DWQ Division of Water Quality (Utah) DWR Division of Wildlife Resources (Utah) EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FR Forest Road FTR Forest Trail FWS Fish and Wildlife Service HUW High Uintas Wilderness LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LTA Land Type Association

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis iii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

MA Management Area MIS Management Indicator Species MVPE Minimum Viable Population NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NF National Forest NFMA National Forest Management Act NRLMD Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction NS North Slope PFA Post Fledging Area ROC Risk of Contact ROD Record of Decision SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions TES Threatened, Endangered, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species TSS Total Suspended Solids UWC or UWCNF Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior WC Wasatch-Cache National Forest

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis iv Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iii Executive Summary ...... xix Background Information and Purpose of Project ...... xix Proposed Action ...... xix Purpose and Need ...... xx Public Participation and Input ...... xxi Tribal Participation and Input ...... xxi Identified Issues and Concerns ...... xxii Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background and History ...... 2 Proposed Action ...... 3 Project Area Location ...... 3 Scope of Analysis ...... 3 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 5 Relationship to Other Acts, Regulations, Permits, and Plans ...... 6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 7 Ashley National Forest ...... 7 Range ...... 8 Goals ...... 8 Standards and Guidelines ...... 8 Riparian Areas ...... 8 Goals ...... 8 Standards and Guidelines ...... 8 Wasatch-Cache National Forest ...... 8 High Uintas Wilderness Standards and Guidelines ...... 12 Desired Conditions ...... 12 Forest Service Manual Provisions ...... 14 County and State Plans ...... 14 Decisions to Be Made Based on This Analysis ...... 15 Process ...... 15 Tribal and Public Involvement ...... 16 Scoping Process ...... 16 Tribal Input ...... 16 Public Input...... 16 Other Agencies ...... 17 Public Notice and Comment Periods ...... 17 Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action ...... 17 Environmental and Social Concerns ...... 18

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis v Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Concerns Outside the Scope of this Analysis ...... 19 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ...... 20 Introduction ...... 20 Development of Alternatives ...... 20 Best Available Information ...... 21 Alternatives Considered ...... 21 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 22 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing (Environmentally Preferred Alternative) ...... 22 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Continued Management (Agency Preferred Alternative) ...... 22 Management Requirements Common to All Allotments ...... 27 Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis ...... 28 Reduction in the Number and/or Size of Allotments ...... 28 Increased Domestic Sheep Stocking and Expanded Seasons of Use ...... 29 Expanded Analysis Area ...... 30 Allotment Conversion from Sheep to Cattle ...... 30 Relocation of Livestock to Other Forest Service Allotments ...... 30 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 30 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 41 Introduction ...... 41 Range Vegetation...... 41 Affected Environment ...... 41 Rangeland Terminology and Definitions ...... 47 Methodology ...... 49 Information Sources ...... 49 Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination ...... 49 Bounds of Analysis...... 50 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...... 50 Existing Condition ...... 50 Rangeland Vegetation – Common to All Allotments ...... 50 Alpine Vegetation ...... 51 Riparian Vegetation ...... 53 Subalpine Vegetation ...... 53 Bedding, Salting, Watering Spots, Trailing and Camps ...... 53 Rangeland Vegetation – Allotment Specific ...... 55 Gilbert Peak Allotment ...... 55 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 56 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection ...... 56 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation . 56 Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork Allotment ...... 57

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis vi Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 58 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 58 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 58 Red Castle Allotment ...... 58 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 60 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 60 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 60 East Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment ...... 60 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 62 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 62 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 62 Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment ...... 62 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 65 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 65 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 65 Fall Creek Allotment ...... 65 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover...... 66 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 66 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 66 Ottoson Basin Allotment ...... 66 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 67 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 67 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 67 Oweep Allotment ...... 68 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 69 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 69 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 69 Painter Basin Allotment ...... 69 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 70 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 70 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 70 Tungsten Allotment ...... 71 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 72 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 72 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 72 East Fork Sheep Driveway ...... 72

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis vii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover ...... 75 Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection...... 75 Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation ...... 75 Effects Analysis ...... 76 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 76 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 76 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover...... 76 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection ...... 77 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation . 77 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 78 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover...... 78 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection ...... 79 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation . 80 Cumulative Effects ...... 81 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover...... 81 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection ...... 82 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation . 82 Summary of Effects ...... 83 Hydrology ...... 84 Affected Environment ...... 84 Precipitation Patterns ...... 85 Drainage Patterns and Water Features ...... 85 Stream Channel and Riparian Area Conditions ...... 88 Sheep Driveways ...... 88 Hiking Trails ...... 93 Riparian Areas ...... 93 Water Quality ...... 95 Wetlands ...... 97 Floodplains ...... 98 Municipal Watersheds ...... 98 Measurement Indicators ...... 99 Methodology ...... 100 Information Sources for Water Resources ...... 100 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 100 Bounds of Analysis...... 101 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 101 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects ...... 101 Existing Condition ...... 101 Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Condition of Wetlands and Riparian Areas ...... 101

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis viii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Water Quality ...... 102 Effects Analysis ...... 102 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 102 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 102 Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Condition of Wetlands and Riparian Areas...... 102 Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Water Quality ...... 103 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 103 Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Condition of Wetlands and Riparian Areas...... 103 Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Water Quality ...... 103 Cumulative Effects ...... 104 Summary of Cumulative Effects ...... 105 Summary of Effects ...... 105 Soils ...... 105 Affected Environment ...... 105 Soil Condition ...... 107 Methodology ...... 107 Information Sources ...... 108 Assumptions Made for Analysis ...... 108 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 109 Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination ...... 109 Bounds of Analysis...... 110 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 110 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects ...... 111 Existing Condition ...... 111 Resource Indicator 1 – Soil Erosion ...... 116 Resource Indicator 2 – Soil Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement) ...... 119 Additional Factors Affecting the Existing Condition ...... 120 Effects Analysis ...... 122 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 122 Resource Indicator 1– Soil Erosion ...... 122 Resource Indicator 2 – Soil Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement) ...... 123 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 123 Resource Indicator 1 – Soil Erosion ...... 123 Resource Indicator 2 – Soil Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement) ...... 124 Cumulative Effects ...... 124 Dispersed Recreation ...... 124 Shared Use of Sheep Corridor Areas ...... 125 Summary of Effects ...... 125 Terrestrial Wildlife...... 126

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis ix Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed and Candidate Species ...... 126 Affected Environment ...... 126 Introduction ...... 126 2000 LCAS: ...... 127 W-C Forest Plan: ...... 128 NRLMD Livestock Grazing Management: ...... 128 Setting ...... 128 Methodology ...... 129 Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination ...... 131 Bounds of Analysis ...... 131 Existing Condition ...... 131 Effects Analysis ...... 131 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 131 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 131 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 132 Cumulative Effects ...... 133 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 133 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 133 Summary of Effects ...... 133 Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 134 Introduction...... 134 Determination of Sensitive Species Potentially Affected ...... 134 Affected Environment ...... 137 Great Gray Owl ...... 137 Northern Goshawk ...... 137 Bighorn Sheep ...... 139 Methodology ...... 145 General Methodology for All Species ...... 145 Risk of Contact Model – Specific to Bighorn Sheep ...... 145 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 155 Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination ...... 156 Bounds of Analysis ...... 156 Spatial and Temporal Bounds ...... 156 Existing Condition ...... 156 Effects Analysis ...... 157 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 157 Effects Common to All Species ...... 157 Great Gray Owl ...... 159 Northern Goshawk ...... 159 Bighorn Sheep ...... 160 Cumulative Effects ...... 164 Cumulative Effects for Great Gray Owl and Northern Goshawk ...... 164

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis x Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects for Bighorn Sheep ...... 165 Summary of Determinations...... 168 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 168 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 168 Introduction...... 169 Ashley National Forest Management Indicator Species ...... 169 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Focal Species ...... 170 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (Migratory Birds), and Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species ...... 170 Affected Environment ...... 171 Golden Eagle – Ashley NF MIS ...... 171 Lincoln’s Sparrow and Song Sparrow – Ashley NF MIS ...... 172 White-tailed Ptarmigan – Ashley NF MIS ...... 173 Rocky Mountain Elk – Ashley NF MIS ...... 173 Mule Deer – Ashley NF MIS ...... 174 Methodology ...... 176 Measurement Indicators ...... 176 Bounds of Analysis ...... 176 Existing Condition ...... 176 Effects Analysis ...... 177 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 177 Effects Common to All Species ...... 177 Management Indicator Species/Focal Species ...... 178 Birds of Conservation Concern (Migratory Birds) and Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species ...... 179 Cumulative Effects ...... 179 Summary of Effects and Findings ...... 180 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 180 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Current Management...... 181 Fisheries and Aquatics ...... 181 Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and Focal Species .. 181 Affected Environment ...... 182 Colorado River cutthroat trout, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians ...... 182 Colorado River cutthroat trout ...... 182 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates...... 182 Amphibians ...... 183 General Drainage Patterns and Water Features ...... 183 Methodology ...... 183 Information Sources ...... 184 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 184 Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination ...... 184 Bounds of Analysis ...... 185 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 185

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xi Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects ...... 185 Existing Condition ...... 185 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Trout Populations, Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians ...... 186 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Channel Stability...... 186 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Wetland and Riparian Condition ...... 186 Effects Analysis ...... 187 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 187 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 187 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 188 Cumulative Effects ...... 189 Increasing Recreational Use on the Allotments ...... 190 Aquatic Management ...... 190 Summary of Effects and Findings for Sensitive, MIS and Focal Species ...... 190 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 191 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 191 Wilderness and Recreation ...... 191 Affected Environment ...... 191 Background and History ...... 191 Class I Areas ...... 192 Class II Areas ...... 192 Class III Areas ...... 194 Setting ...... 194 Methodology ...... 195 Information Sources ...... 197 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 197 Measurement Indicators ...... 198 Rationale for Choosing Resource Indicators and Measures ...... 199 Bounds of Analysis...... 200 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 200 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects ...... 200 Existing Condition ...... 200 Untrammeled ...... 200 Naturalness ...... 201 Undeveloped ...... 201 Solitude/Primitive/Unconfined Recreation ...... 201 Effects Analysis ...... 202 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 202 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 202 Untrammeled ...... 202

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Naturalness ...... 202 Undeveloped ...... 203 Solitude/Primitive/Unconfined Recreation ...... 203 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 204 Untrammeled ...... 204 Natural ...... 205 Undeveloped ...... 205 Solitude/Primitive/Unconfined Recreation ...... 205 Cumulative Effects ...... 205 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects ...... 206 Livestock Based Outfitter/Guide Operations ...... 206 Backpacking Based Outfitter/Guide Operations...... 206 Cumulative Effects by Alternative ...... 206 Untrammeled ...... 206 Naturalness ...... 207 Undeveloped ...... 208 Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation ...... 208 Summary of Effects ...... 208 Environmental Effects ...... 208 Degree to Which Alternatives Address Wilderness and Recreation Concerns ...... 209 Socio-Economics...... 210 Background Information ...... 210 Historical Information of the Counties ...... 211 Duchesne County ...... 211 Summit County ...... 212 Uinta County ...... 212 Affected Environment ...... 213 State of Utah ...... 213 Duchesne County, Utah ...... 214 Summit County, Utah ...... 215 State of Wyoming ...... 215 Uinta County, Wyoming ...... 215 Methodology ...... 216 Information Sources ...... 219 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 220 Bounds of Analysis...... 220 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 220 Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects ...... 221 Measurement Indicators ...... 221 Rationale for Choosing Resource Indicators and Measures ...... 222 Existing Condition ...... 222 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Sheep Production (Ewes/Lambs) ...... 223

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xiii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment ...... 223 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Direct, Indirect and, Induced Economic Benefit ...... 224 Effects Analysis ...... 224 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 224 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 225 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Sheep Production (Ewes/Lambs) ...... 225 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment ...... 225 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Economic Benefit ...... 225 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management ...... 226 Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Sheep Production (Ewes/Lambs) ...... 227 Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment ...... 227 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Economic Benefit ...... 227 Cumulative Effects ...... 227 Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing ...... 227 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Current Management...... 227 Summary of Effects ...... 228 Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues ...... 228 Chapter 4 – List of Contributors, Agencies, and Individuals Informed or Consulted ...... 229 Contributors ...... 229 Forest Service ...... 229 Cooperating Agencies ...... 229 Other Agencies, Governments, and Individuals Informed or Consulted ...... 230 Tribal Units of Government and Tribal Organizations Informed ...... 230 References ...... 231 Appendix A ...... 248 Index ...... 250

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xiv Draft Environmental Impact Statement

List of Tables

Table 1 - Project area legal description by meridian, township, section, and range...... 4 Table 2 - Percent utilization of key grass or grass like vegetation, by vegetation type, for rangelands in satisfactory condition...... 10 Table 3 - Greenline stubble height at the end of the growing season, by riparian class, for rangeland satisfactory condition...... 10 Table 4 - Allotment details from the 2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Final EIS...... 11 Table 5 - Acres, livestock class and number, and grazing season for the allotments in the project area1. 26 Table 6 - Summary of resource effects by alternative...... 32 Table 7 – Findings for Wildlife, Aquatic Organisms and Fish for Each Alternative.1 ...... 36 Table 8 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects...... 49 Table 9 – Summary of comparison of environmental effects on rangeland vegetation by alternative...... 84 Table 10 - Major streams, rivers and watersheds for each of the allotments...... 85 Table 11 - Miles of stream in the High Uintas domestic sheep project allotments...... 88 Table 12 - Summary of information on stream bank trampling where sheep driveways crosses perennial streams within allotments and along sheep driveways that lead to the allotments...... 90 Table 13 - DWQ 2016 305(b) and 303(d) assessment listing for waters in project area...... 95 Table 14 - Summary of total suspended solids (mg/L) collected at main drainages below project allotments...... 96 Table 15 - Wetland area within the allotments in the project area by wetland type (acres)...... 98 Table 16 - Resource indicators and measures for alternatives’ direct and indirect effects...... 99 Table 17 - Resource indicators and measures for existing condition...... 102 Table 18 - Resource indicators and measures for alternatives’ direct and indirect effects...... 104 Table 19 – Soil resource indicators and measures for assessing effects...... 110 Table 20– Examples of long-term effects on soils in the range monitoring studies...... 111 Table 21 – Summary of Soil Condition Data...... 112 Table 22- Estimates of soil impacts from summarized from Power Point summaries, hydrologist reports, and range specialist data...... 118 Table 23 - Listed TEPC species of Duchesne and Summit counties, UT ...... 127 Table 24 - Primary Lynx Habitat Allotment Overlap on the Ashley National Forest by Vegetation Type Acres...... 132 Table 25 – Primary and Secondary Lynx Habitat Allotment Overlap on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest by Vegetation Type Acres...... 132 Table 26 - USDA Forest Service sensitive (S) species occurrence within the allotments...... 136

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xv Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 27 - Uintas BHS ROC with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2018)1 ...... 145 Table 28 - Uintas BHS ROC with BLM domestic sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2018)...... 147 Table 29 -Uintas BHS ROC for Private Land with known domestic sheep use (USDA Forest Service 2018)...... 148 Table 30 - Uintas BHS ROC with BLM allotments and Private Lands with known domestic sheep use (USDA Forest Service 2018)...... 149 Table 31 – Existing Overlap with CHHR, ROC, and Potential 3rd Alternative Overlap and ROC...... 163 Table 32 - Uintas BHS Cumulative ROC with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments and non-Forest Service lands with domestic sheep (USDA Forest Service 2019)...... 165 Table 33 - Terrestrial MIS designated in the 1986 Ashley Forest Plan...... 169 Table 34 - Rocky Mountain elk population estimates and objectives for each subunit on the Ashley NF...... 174 Table 35 - Mule deer population objectives and estimates in selected subunits on the Ashley NF...... 175 Table 36 – Ashley National Forest macroinvertebrate MIS and associated habitat requirement and tolerance description...... 182 Table 37 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to aquatic resources...... 184 Table 38 - Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition...... 185 Table 39 - Resource indicators and measures for both alternatives (direct and indirect effects)...... 189 Table 40 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects on wilderness character related to issues concerning this analysis...... 198 Table 41 - Wilderness resource indicators and measures for the existing condition and Alternative 1. .. 203 Table 42 - Wilderness visitors and sheep encounters. Approximate Number of Visitor/Sheep Encounters by Allotment per Year (Appendix D and E)1 ...... 206 Table 43 – Summary of Cumulative Effects by Alternative...... 207 Table 44 - Summary comparison of environmental effects on wilderness resources...... 209 Table 45 - Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key concerns...... 209 Table 46 – Federal lands managed by the Forest Service in Duchesne and Summit Counties in Utah and Uinta County in Wyoming...... 210 Table 47- Historic sheep population data for the states of Utah and Wyoming, and Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah and Uinta County, Wyoming...... 214 Table 48 - Wyoming range sheep budget for 1,000 ewes for an operation where the lambs are sold in the fall of each year...... 218 Table 49 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing economic effects of domestic sheep grazing in Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah and Uintah County, Wyoming...... 221 Table 50 – Exisitng Condition (if stocked as authorized) for sheep production, primary employment and the economic benefit to the communities of Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah and Uinta County, Wyoming

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xvi Draft Environmental Impact Statement

from domestic sheep grazing on the ten domestic sheep allotments in the High Uintas Wilderness, 2017...... 222 Table 51 - Estimated direct, indirect and induced employment benefiting Duchesne, Summit and Uinta counties associated with domestic sheep grazing on ten sheep allotments in the Uinta Mountains...... 223 Table 52 - Estimated direct, indirect and induced economic benefit to Duchesne, Summit and Uinta counties associated with domestic sheep grazing on ten sheep allotments in the Uinta Mountains...... 224 Table 53 - Sheep production, primary employment and the economic change to the communities of Duchesne County, Utah, and Uinta County, Wyoming, from continuing grazing of domestic sheep on the ten domestic sheep allotments in the High Uintas Wilderness, 2017...... 226 Table 54 - Summary comparison of effects to the social economic resources in Duchesne, Summit and Uinta counties in response to reauthorizing grazing in the High Uintas Wilderness domestic sheep allotments...... 228 List of Figures

Figure 1 - Project area vicinity map...... 4 Figure 2 - Allotments within the project area...... 24 Figure 3 – Sheep driveway system to access the allotments...... 25 Figure 4 - Aerial view of the head of Lake Fork drainage. Photo taken 27 July 1995 depicts numerous alpine plant communities influenced by topography, aspect, wind, and snow accumulation. Note the numerous late persisting snow beds...... 42 Figure 5 - Study A11-4. 2005. Near Smiths Fork Pass, head of Yellowstone ...... 43 Figure 6 - Study A12-15E. 2013. Gilbert Creek Basin, Uinta drainage...... 44 Figure 7 - Study A23-14. 2001. Ottoson Basin, Lake Fork drainage. View of sub-alpine meadow dominated by timber oatgrass, alpine sagewort, slender-leaf ligusticum, and tufted hairgrass...... 44 Figure 8 - Study A12-15. 2013. Gilbert Creek Basin, Uinta drainage. View of a gray-leaf and plane-leaf willow community with an herbaceous understory of timber oatgrass, Ross avens, single-spike sedge, and tufted hairgrass...... 45 Figure 9 - Study W18-10E. 2007. East Fork of Blacks Fork, Blacks Fork drainage...... 46 Figure 10 - Study A12-33E. 2003. Gunsight Pass. The left image depicts talus slopes consisting of shale material in Henrys Fork drainage of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, where pocket gopher activity is common. The right image depicts talus slopes consisting of quartzite in Painter Basin of the Ashley National Forest, where pocket gopher activity is absent to rare. Photos were taken from the same camera point. 46 Figure 11 - Study 10-6. 2001. Oweep Basin, Lake Fork drainage. View of a snow bed with a late snow- release date (foreground) and an early-to-mid-summer snow-release date (background beyond blue line). Note the differences in vegetation and ground cover. Pyrenean sedge, sibbaldia, and alpine pussytoes dominate vegetation cover in the late-persisting snow bed...... 47 Figure 12 - East Fork Sheep Driveway and rangeland resource studies...... 73 Figure 13 – Watersheds within the project area...... 86 Figure 14 – Rivers, Reservoirs, and Water Quality Sampling Sites...... 87 Figure 15 - Dense willow along edge of meadow where sheep graze...... 89

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xvii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 16 - Typical break in stream bank vegetation where sheep access water...... 89 Figure 17 – Summary of information on streambank trampling...... 90 Figure 18 - Sheep Driveway stream crossings in the project area...... 91 Figure 19 - Little East Fork Blacks Fork River at sheep driveway and hiking trail stream crossing just above confluence of the East Fork Blacks Fork...... 92 Figure 20 - East Fork Blacks Fork River at sheep driveway and hiking trail stream crossing...... 92 Figure 21 - Upper Henry’s Fork at sheep driveway and hiking trail stream crossing...... 93 Figure 22 - Sheep crossing along the creek. Minor chiseling of the ...... 94 Figure 23 - Sheep grazing in distance and little adverse effect on stream ...... 94 Figure 24 – Small wet meadow with little sign of impact, even though the area appears to have been recently grazed. Painter Basin Allotment, ...... 113 Figure 25 - Multiple trails along main hiking trail to Gunsight Pass – ...... 114 Figure 26 - Approximate one acre area of compaction and accumulated sheep excrement. Red Castle Allotment...... 114 Figure 27 - Portion of sheep driveway in the Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork ...... 115 Figure 28 - Portion of sheep driveway called Cache Hill. This area is on Red Pine Shale and effective ground cover is measured 62% less where the trailing is concentrated...... 115 Figure 29 – Sheep Driveway illustrating four areas of severe soil impacts and rated in unsatisfactory condition...... 117 Figure 30 – Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) and vegetation cover types that intersect lynx habitat...... 130 Figure 31 - Goshawk Territories that overlap the High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Allotments. 140 Figure 32 - Uintas Bighorn Sheep combined herd estimates (estimates from all five herds lumped together) from 1996-2018. Based on yearly herd estimates from the UDWR. (USDA Forest Service 2019) ...... 143 Figure 33 - ROC Model - Forest Service Summer Domestic Sheep Allotments...... 150 Figure 34 - ROC Model - Forest Service Winter Domestic Sheep Allotments...... 151 Figure 35 - ROC Model - BLM Winter Domestic Sheep Allotments...... 152 Figure 36 - ROC Model – BLM Summer Domestic Sheep Allotments ...... 153 Figure 37 - ROC Model - Private land with known domestic sheep use...... 154 Figure 38 – Condition Classes Within the High Uintas Wilderness...... 193 Figure 39 – Major Trails and Points of Interest in the Project Area and Adjacent Areas...... 196 Figure 40 - Trend of all sheep and lambs in Wyoming from the 1920s to 2004 (United States Department of Agriculture 2004)...... 216

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xviii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Executive Summary Background Information and Purpose of Project The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWC) and the Ashley National Forest (ANF) propose to continue to permit livestock grazing within the High Uintas Wilderness domestic sheep analysis area (hereafter abbreviated to the “analysis area”) that would meet or move toward direction in both Forest’s Plans and project-specific desired conditions. The project analysis area is located in Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah on the Evanston- Mountain View and Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger Districts. The project area is located approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Duchesne, Utah, and about 42 miles west-southwest of Manila, Utah and about 40 miles southeast of Evanston, Wyoming. The analysis area contains approximately 160,410 acres within Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah. The future management of 10 existing domestic sheep allotments is being evaluated in this draft EIS. The 10 grazing allotments are: Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork Blacks Fork and Middle Fork Blacks Fork on the north facing slope of the Uintas, and Fall Creek, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Tungsten, and Painter Basin on the south facing slopes. Livestock grazing has occurred in this area since the late 1800s. The project area is currently permitted to graze up to 10,300 ewe/lamb pairs and up to 3,000 dry ewes. Two alternatives were developed in detail for this environmental analysis. Each action alternative was designed to be viable and consistent with Forest Plan direction. Alternatives developed were based on the following themes: (1) no action, i.e., no grazing (environmentally preferable alternative) and (2) continue current livestock grazing management (Forest Service proposed action). In addition to the two alternatives analyzed in detail, there were five alternatives that were considered, but not analyzed in detail. These potential alternatives included: • reducing the number and/or size of allotments to reduce bighorn sheep and domestic sheep overlap; • increasing the number of sheep authorized to graze, increasing the allowed season of use, and allowing grazing every year on each allotment (an alternative proposed by Uinta County, WY); • expanding the analysis area to include the West Fork Blacks Fork allotment; • converting the allotments from sheep to cattle; or • relocating the permitted sheep to unstocked allotments. The proposed action is expected to result in limited impacts on the physical environment and moderate impacts on the biological and social environment. Proposed Action The UWCNF and Ashley National Forests are proposing to authorize grazing on five allotments on the UWCNF and five allotments on the Ashley National Forest. Livestock grazing would be authorized using Forest Plan direction to meet or move toward the desired conditions identified in the relevant Forest Plan. The proposed action (Alternative 2) is consistent with the County and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xix Draft Environmental Impact Statement

State Plans that would be impacted by this decision per 40 CFR 1506.2 (d). The allotments in the project area on the UWC include Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork Blacks Fork, and Middle Fork Blacks Fork; on the Ashley they include Painter Basin, Tungsten, Oweep, Ottoson Basin, and Fall Creek. The Forests are also proposing to continue to use the sheep driveway that allows sheep to access the allotments from their winter range on private lands. There are a total of approximately 52.2 miles of sheep driveway that are used to access these allotments; of this, 13 miles occur outside of the allotments, while 39.2 miles are within the allotments. Within the allotments themselves, the sheep driveway systems total about 17.8 miles in the East Fork Blacks Fork; 11.8 miles within Red Castle; 6.9 miles inside of Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork; and 2.7 miles within Gilbert Peak. The sheep driveway is located entirely on the UWCNF and does not extend into the Ashley National Forest, although, the Ashley allotments, except for Fall Creek, are accessed by the sheep driveway system. The sheep driveway begins at the Wyoming state line off of the National Forest, and utilizes a system of County and Forest Service roads before entering the allotments. There are a total of 9.5 miles of driveway that are co-located with the road system. Additionally, there are about 35 miles of recreational trails that utilize the sheep driveway. The sheep driveway is the only way for producers to access summer range without trucking animals onto the Forest1, and as such is a part of the proposed action and will be analyzed for effects. Domestic sheep have accessed the Fall Creek allotment from the south slope by trailing up the Rock Creek trail and drainage. The grazing season for the allotments lasts from early to mid-July and ends in September. There are a total of approximately 160,410 acres in the project area, and there are up to 10,300 ewe- lamb pairs and up to 3,000 dry ewes that are permitted to graze these allotments at any one time. Within the individual allotments, sheep are herded in annual rotation patterns during the permitted season of use. The Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, and East Fork Blacks Fork allotments are on a rest rotation management system, with two allotments grazed and one allotment rested in a given year. The Painter Basin and Tungsten are likewise on a two-year rest rotation cycle; only one allotment is grazed in any given year. The Fall Creek allotment is permitted to the Ute Tribe and has not been used since 1977. Due to the difficulty of accessing the allotment, it is unlikely that this allotment would be used in the future. However, the Ute Tribe may decide in the future to graze that allotment if conditions and circumstances should change. Table 1 presents the information for each allotment with respect to acres, numbers of sheep permitted, and the length of grazing season. Purpose and Need The primary purpose of this project is to comply with the court approved settlement agreement issued in 2013 in response to the litigation brought against the US Forest Service for utilizing a Categorical Exclusion for use in granting authority to graze livestock on allotments. In conjunction with the primary purpose, the other main purpose of this project is to provide forage for permitted domestic livestock grazing in a manner that maintains or moves conditions toward achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions, as documented in the associated Forest Plans. As

1 Even if the permittees did truck sheep to the Forest, most of the allotments would not be accessible without still using portions of the driveway to get sheep to their respective allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xx Draft Environmental Impact Statement

such, there is a need to evaluate the impacts of the current livestock management and alternatives to that management. The analysis is limited to evaluating whether or not livestock grazing should be permitted in the analysis area, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives. Public Participation and Input The High Uintas Wilderness (HUW) Domestic Sheep Analysis has gone through three public comment periods to date. The first public comment period was for the initial scoping for the project when an Environmental Assessment (EA) was proposed to be the analysis that would be used. That scoping period was initiated on May 23, 2014. Due to public comments, concerns with the differing opinions on the science involving pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and other considerations, a decision was made to change from an EA to an EIS. On December 1, 2015, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register, which ran for 30 days. This was then followed up by the scoping period for the EIS, which started on February 16, 2016. In addition to publishing the scoping letter, the Forest Service also published a legal notice in the Salt Lake Tribune, the Uintah Basin Standard and the Vernal Express on February 23, 2016. During the original EA scoping period, 364 scoping letters (both hard copy and electronic versions) were sent to tribal representatives, the public, units of government, and other interested parties. In response, 28 comments were received. As a result of the Federal Register publication of the NOI, the Forest Service received 26 comments. Lastly, for the EIS scoping period, the Forest Service sent out 331 scoping letters (both in hard copy and electronic format) to tribal members, interested parties and individuals, and other government and local agencies. As a result of that scoping effort, 32 responses have been received to date. All of these comment periods were made public on both the Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache web pages. Lastly, this project is posted on the Forest Service’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), which is available on the internet for the public to access at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest- level.php?110401 for the ANF and http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110419 for the UWC. Tribal Participation and Input During the original scoping period for the EA, the scoping documentation was sent to five Ute Tribe representatives and one tribal organization. No comments were received from the Ute Tribe during that scoping period. During the scoping period for the EIS, scoping was expanded to additional tribes. In addition to the Ute Tribe contacts mentioned just above, four additional tribal representatives were notified of the project from the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation, and the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation. No comments from these tribes were received during that scoping period. An invitation for formal consultation was sent to the Ute Tribe from the Ashley National Forest on May 30, 2018. The Fall Creek allotment is under permit to the Ute Tribe and is located on the ANF.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xxi Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Identified Issues and Concerns As a result of these various comment periods, and also from internal discussions with Forest Staff and our cooperating agencies, two issues were identified, and a variety of concerns were also brought forward. Two primary issues were identified through the public participation process from scoping and also from the release of the NOI. In addition, our cooperating agencies provided valuable input, along with our internal staff. The two issues identified include: • Issue 1: The continuation of sheep grazing would result in the likelihood of pathogen transmission to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. • Issue 2: Discontinuing sheep grazing would have negative social and economic impacts to the permittees, and the local and surrounding communities. Other environmental and social concerns were identified through scoping. Many comments received during the public comment periods were not considered key issues because they have been mitigated in the same way in all alternatives, or were not significantly affected by any alternative, or were outside of Forest Service jurisdiction. Some of these concerns are already regulated by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The resource concerns with the greatest potential to be impacted, while not key issues, are addressed as environmental considerations in Chapter 3 of the draft EIS. Some of these concerns are presented below. A complete summary and list is provided in the project record.

• Wildlife Concerns o Reduced predator control o Potential impacts to Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and Regional Forester Sensitive species o Reduced wildlife habitat and habitat fragmentation • Water and Soil Concerns o Stream sedimentation and water pollution o Stream bank erosion and riparian vegetation loss o Sheep driveway impacts to soils and watersheds. o Soil erosion, compaction (reducing infiltration), and increased runoff o Negative impacts to soil nutrient cycling • Fisheries and Aquatic Organisms o Impacts to aquatic organisms and invertebrates o Impacts on spawning conditions and fisheries habitat • Vegetation and Ecology o Vegetation damage from grazing and sheep bedding o Damage to alpine tundra o Increases in non-native species o High concentrations of sheep droppings o Sheep trailing and grazing impacts on non-capable lands

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xxii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Recreation and Wilderness o Grazing impacts to the designated High Uintas Wilderness Area o Grazing impacts to recreation In order to find more of a balance between Alternatives 1 and 2, to help address the two key issues, and in response to our public and environmental groups, the first of the additional potential alternatives described in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis was closely scrutinized as a third alternative to carry forward. A team of resource specialists from both Forests, and some of the cooperating agencies that represented agriculture and some that had jurisdictional authority over wildlife was organized to objectively consider a variety of alternatives and determine their feasibility. These alternatives were then brought back to the full interdisciplinary team (ID Team) for a discussion and evaluation of their merits and deficiencies. Alternatives 1 and 2 were already known prior to the ID Team’s deliberations. A third alternative of reducing the number and/or size of allotments to remove the bighorn sheep and domestic sheep overlap was then developed and evaluated with respect to the issue of pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Although this alternative removed the overlap from Forest Service land, it did not remove the overlap on BLM and private lands. As such bighorn sheep would still have a high risk of contact with BLM and private lands with domestic sheep, and would still be at a high risk for likely pathogen transfer to occur, regardless of any reductions or removal of domestic sheep by the Forest Service. Thus, this potential alternative did not address an unresolved conflict or issue and was eliminated from a complete evaluation by other resource areas, and not carried forward in a detailed analysis.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis xxiii Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action Introduction The USDA Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Wasatch-Cache2 and Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans), and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. By definition (40 CFR §1502.1), the purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) “…is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions.” The NEPA process enables the Responsible Official to make decisions with an understanding of the proposal’s environmental consequences and allows the USDA Forest Service to disclose to the public the nature and potential consequences of proposed actions. It is important to note, that impacts, even significant impacts (as defined by 40 CFR 1508.27) are permissible in an EIS. Document Structure The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is organized into five parts: Purpose and Need for this Project: Chapter 1 includes information on the background and history of the project proposal. Chapter 1 also presents the purpose and need for the project, and provides a description of the project area location. This section also details how the USDA Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of each of the alternatives analyzed in detail which includes the activities associated with each alternative. Chapter 2 also provides a discussion on alternatives considered but not carried forward for more detailed analysis. This chapter also provides a comparison of the different alternatives being considered. Lastly, Chapter 2 concludes with a detailed set of design criteria, which are an integral part of the proposed alternative, and monitoring requirements after implementation. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Chapter 3 describes the affected environment for each resource, which is a description of the area as it relates to the estimated

2The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache (UWC) National Forest has two Forest Plans: one specific to the Uinta Planning Area (southwest of the project area), and one specific to the Wasatch-Cache Planning Area which includes this project area and areas west and north of the project.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

effects from each resource that is analyzed. Chapter 3 provides a discussion on the methods that were used by each resource specialist to gather information and make professional conclusions about how the alternatives would impact resources. Chapter 3 also presents the measurement indicators used to compare and contrast effects to each resource, and the boundaries for both space and time where the effects would be measureable for each resource area. Chapter 3 then describes the existing condition for the project area, and the environmental effects of implementing the selected alternative. This analysis is focused on the issues and concerns identified through the public comment period and scoping; those resources that may have effects from the alternatives; as well as requirements of other laws and policies. This document was developed using a resource-based analysis. This analysis contains those resources which either could be affected from the proposed action, or are required by law or regulation to evaluate. Issues are defined as cause and effect relationships, which link actions to environmental effects (Forest Service Handbook, 1909.15, Section 12.41). Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members and Persons Consulted: Chapter 4 provides a list of preparers and staff consulted during the development of this EIS. Chapter 4 also provides a list of other agencies and tribal organizations that were involved in the scoping process. Appendices: The appendices include project maps as well as a literature cited section to support the analyses presented in the EIS. A reduction of paper as specified by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500.4 has been an important consideration in the preparation of this EIS. Additional documentation is located in the project record (i.e., a compilation of documents prepared for this project), which can be reviewed upon request. This document, as well as the scoping letter and other information, is also available on both the UWC and the ANF web pages at: HUW Domestic Sheep Analysis Project (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44503). Background and History In 2007, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, now the UWC, along with other forests in the Region issued decisions authorizing grazing on specific allotments using a provisional categorical exclusion (CE) authorized by Congress. On December 13, 2010, the United States Forest Service was sued by various groups3 challenging the UWC and other forest decisions to authorize grazing on allotments pursuant to the CE authority. On November 7, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho approved and adopted the parties’ Stipulated Settlement Agreement resolving the case. The settlement agreement stipulated in part that the UWC would prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and issue a new decision for the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork Blacks Fork, and the Middle Fork Blacks Fork allotments. In reviewing the management of these domestic sheep allotments it became apparent that the effects of grazing should be considered for both the north and south slope of the Uinta Mountains because sheep are trailed from the north slope of the Uinta Mountains to the south slope for the

3The plaintiffs were: Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Utah Environmental Congress.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

summer grazing season. Therefore, the analysis was extended to include the Painter Basin, Tungsten, Oweep, Ottoson Basin, and Fall Creek sheep allotments on the Ashley National Forest (ANF), which are the domestic sheep allotments on the south slope of the Uinta Mountains. Proposed Action Based on current information, the UWC and ANF are proposing to authorize grazing on five allotments on the UWC and five allotments on the ANF. Livestock grazing would be authorized using the applicable Forest Plan direction to meet or move toward the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plans. The allotments range in size from just under 12,000 acres to over 25,000 acres, for a combined total of approximately 160,410 acres. Of those acres, approximately 143,971 acres are located within the wilderness, or about 90 percent of the project area. There are up to 10,300 ewe-lamb pairs and 3,000 dry ewes that are authorized to graze the allotments in any given year. In order to access the allotments, the sheep trail over an established driveway system. This driveway network would continue to be utilized for access to the allotments. For a more detailed description of the proposed action, see Chapter 2. Project Area Location The project analysis area is located in Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah on the Evanston- Mountain View and Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger Districts, respectively. The project area is located approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Duchesne, Utah, and about 42 miles west- southwest of Manila, Utah and about 40 miles southeast of Evanston, Wyoming as displayed in Figure 1 below. The project analysis area includes allotments located in the High Uintas Wilderness on both the north and south facing slopes of the central ridgeline. The allotments include the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork Blacks Fork, and the Middle Fork Blacks Fork, which are on the north-slope, and the Fall Creek, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Tungsten, and Painter Basin, which are on the south slope of the Uinta Mountains. The legal description for the area is presented in Table 1. Scope of Analysis The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the issuance of livestock grazing permits, given considerations of rangeland condition, wildlife, and wilderness, as well as other Forest Plan goals and objectives for both Forests. The analysis does not address recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (i.e., where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock since these are minor uses and do not measurably contribute any effects regarding the relevant issues and concerns in this analysis. The analysis will not address the general appropriateness of livestock grazing in designated wilderness because that has been determined by Congress. Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture” (Public Law 88- 577). Livestock grazing was established and occurring in the Uinta Mountains prior to passage of the Wilderness Act and is allowed to continue (if it is consistent with other legal requirements) based on Public Law 88-577; as such, this analysis will not address whether or not livestock

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

should or should not be allowed to graze in the wilderness. More discussion on congressional intent relative to livestock grazing in wilderness is presented later in the report. Finally, this analysis did not address changing wilderness management area themes, settings, desired conditions, standards, guidelines, or the allocations themselves since they were decided in the Forest Plans and accompanying amendments.

Figure 1 - Project area vicinity map.

Table 1 - Project area legal description by meridian, township, section, and range. 1 Meridian Township Sections Range 6th Principal 12N 10, 15 117W 3N 21, 27, 28, 33, 34 12E 2N 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15-17, 12E 20-36 2N 25, 36 11E Salt Lake 2N 19, 24-27, 29-36 13E 2N 8, 16-36 14E 2N 19, 30 15E 1N 1, 12, 13, 24 11E 1N 1-36 12E 1N 1-36 13E

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 Meridian Township Sections Range 1N 1-36 14E 1N 2-10, 15-36 15E Salt Lake 1S 1-5 12E 1S 5,6 13E 1S 1-36 14E 1S 1-36 15E 3N 6 5W 3N 1-11 6W 3N 1-6,9,10,16 7W 3N 1, 2 8W 4N 5, 6 3W 4N 1-12, 17-20 4W Uintah 4N 1-24, 26-28, 30, 31 5W 4N 7-36 6W 4N 11-36 7W 4N 14, 15, 22-27, 34-36 8W 5N 19, 29-32 3W 5N 21-36 4W 5N 1-28, 30, 31 5W 1Includes all or partial sections. Purpose of and Need for Action The primary purpose of this project is to comply with the November 7, 2013 settlement agreement resolving Western Watersheds Project et al. v. United States Forest Service, Case No. 10-cv-612 ELJ-REB. In conjunction with the primary purpose, the other main purpose of this project is to provide forage for permitted domestic livestock grazing in a manner that maintains or moves conditions toward achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. Providing forage for permitted domestic livestock is desirable in this analysis area because of the following: • Where consistent with other Forest Plan goals and objectives, there is congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). • It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans (36 CFR §222.2 (c); and Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2203.1). • It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on rangeland resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1). Livestock grazing is a discretionary action by the Forest Service and there is an overall need to analyze the possible effects in order to continue or modify the grazing authorization. In order to accomplish the above purposes, there is a need to objectively evaluate the existing conditions

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and the effects of domestic sheep grazing on these 10 allotments, especially in regards to rangeland condition, impacts to wilderness and recreation, natural resources, and socio- economic impacts. Relationship to Other Acts, Regulations, Permits, and Plans It is Forest Service policy to conduct its operations in a manner that ensures the protection of public health, safety, and the environment through compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, orders, and other requirements. This DEIS considers whether actions described under its alternatives would result in a violation of any Federal, State, or local laws or requirements (40 CFR §1508.27), or would require a permit, license, or other entitlement (40 CFR §1502.25). Some of the acts, regulations, and executive orders that the Forest Service must be in compliance with include: NEPA, National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSA), Clean Water Act (CWA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Wilderness Act, Environmental Justice Executive Order, and the 2001 Roadless Rule. Brief descriptions of these regulatory requirements are provided below. • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. Using the NEPA process, agencies evaluate the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions. Agencies also provide opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations. The purpose of this act was to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of humans; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) – The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests. This act also requires that projects are in compliance with those resource management plans. • Endangered Species Act (ESA) – The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. "Endangered" means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "Threatened" means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. • Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSA) – This act authorizes and directs that the national forests be managed under principles of multiple use (outdoor recreation, range, timber,

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

watersheds, wildlife, and fisheries) and to produce a sustained yield of products and services, and for other purposes. • Clean Water Act (CWA) – This act established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Some of the key points of the act include: established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States; gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry; and maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. • National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) – The NHPA directs federal agencies to take into account the effect of any undertaking (a federally funded or assisted project) on historic properties. "Historic property" is any district, building, structure, site, or object that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because the property is significant at the national, state, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture. Typically, a historic property must be at least 50 years old and retain integrity. • Wilderness Act (WA) – This act created the Wilderness Preservation System and immediately established 54 Wilderness Areas across the nation. The Act provides for adding new Wilderness Areas to the system. It also gives guidance on how to manage an established Wilderness Area. Some of the specific prohibitions in wilderness areas include motorized use, timber harvest, and development. • Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (EJ) – This executive order directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The order also directs each agency to develop a strategy for implementing environmental justice. The order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment, as well as provide minority and low-income community’s access to public information and public participation. • 2001 Roadless Rule – The 2001 Roadless Rule establishes prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting on 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. The intent of the 2001 Roadless Rule is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management. Forest Plan Consistency The National Forest Management Act requires all Forest Service actions and projects to be consistent with Forest Plans, unless a project specific amendment is prepared. By tiering this project to the FEIS and ROD for both Forest Plans, and the HUW Management Plan, it is expected that all applicable requirements would be met. This project would be consistent with the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache Forest Plans. Ashley National Forest The project area on the Ashley NF is located entirely in the High Uintas Wilderness with a management area (MA) designation of “i”. The Forest Plan that was published in 1986 identifies goals, standards, and guidelines for the management of the wilderness. In 1997, the High Uintas

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wilderness Management Plan final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and the accompanying record of decision (ROD) were published which amended these Forest Plan goals, standards, and guidelines. Range Goals • Achieve satisfactory ecological condition on all rangelands. Maintain or obtain plant diversity to meet the requirements of NFMA. (USDA 1986, IV-32). Standards and Guidelines • Rangelands in unsatisfactory condition and which will not or cannot be improved will not be allocated to livestock grazing (IV-32). • Improve rangeland classified as unsatisfactory where cost effective (IV-32). • Sheep allotments that remain unutilized for a period of 5 years may be considered for conversion to another class of stock or closed (IV-32). • Continue a coordinated pest and predator control program with the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (IV-32). • Revise range allotment plans to be consistent with the Forest Plan (IV-32). • Priority for new range structural improvements will be to develop water sources where there are no available sources within one mile. Design for development will allow for use by game animals and birds (IV-33). • Give priority to restoring needed existing structural improvements before constructing new ones (IV-33). • Protect springs and seeps from grazing livestock where resource damage is occurring (IV- 33). • Place additional responsibility and accountability on the permittees for livestock management and obtain at least 50 percent permittee participation in all range improvement construction and reconstruction costs (IV-33). • Adjust allotment boundaries to reduce operating and management costs where possible (IV- 33). • Limit forage utilization by livestock of key browse species on big game winter range to 20% (IV-33). Riparian Areas Goals Protect and enhance the unique and valuable characteristics of riparian areas. (USDA 1986, IV- 45). Standards and Guidelines • Manage vegetation in riparian areas to be in good or excellent ecological condition, with a stable or upward trend (IV-46). • Allow a maximum of 50% use of current year’s growth on browse species in riparian areas (IV-46). Wasatch-Cache National Forest

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This project is within the Wasatch-Cache planning area both in and outside of the High Uintas Wilderness and land management direction is found in the 2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Revised Forest Plan. Management prescriptions in the project area include a mix of 1.2 (Wilderness Opportunity class II), 1.3 (Wilderness Opportunity class III), 1.5 (Proposed Wilderness), 3.1A (Aquatic Habitat Emphasis), 3.2d (Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis Developed), 4.1 (Backcountry Non-Motorized Emphasis) and 5.1 (Maintaining/Restoring Forested Ecosystem Integrity). The High Uintas Wilderness Plan direction was incorporated into the revised Forest Plan. The goals that are applicable to this project include Goals 2, 3, and 10. The project is consistent with Goal 2 - Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health (proper functioning of physical, biological and chemical conditions). Provide for long-term soil productivity. Watershed health should be addressed across administrative and political boundaries. (p. 4-17 to 18). The project supports the Forest-wide Goal 3 of Biodiversity & Viability and Forest-wide Goal 10 of Social/Economic Contributions. Goal 3 emphasizes sustained diversity of species at the genetic, population, community and ecosystem levels. The Forest emphasis is on maintaining vegetative communities within their historic range of variation that sustains habitats for viable populations of species (p. 4-18 to 20). Goal 10 recognizes the forest resource contribution to the social and economic well-being of local communities by promoting sustainable use of renewable natural resources and by participating in efforts to devise creative solutions for economic health (diversity and resiliency). This goal includes providing timber for commercial harvest, forage for livestock grazing, exploration and development opportunities for mineral resources, and settings for recreation consistent with goals for watershed health, sustainable ecosystems, biodiversity and viability, and scenic/recreation opportunities (p.4-23, WCNF). There are a number of sub-goals that are also applicable to the project. These sub-goals include: • 2H. Maintain and/or restore diversity, productivity, vigor, and regenerative capacity of native and desired non-native riparian and wetland plant communities to provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems. • 2I. Maintain and/or restore soil productivity to improve watershed functioning through managing ground cover, soil compaction and vegetation. • 3I. Maintain viability of species-at-risk (including Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species and unique communities); • 3J. Manage Forest Service sensitive species to prevent them from being classified as Threatened or Endangered and where possible provide for delisting as Sensitive (FSM 2670); and • 10C. Manage livestock grazing levels and operations on suitable lands for sustainable forage use within properly functioning conditions. Applicable standards (S) and guidelines (G) include: • (G21) - For projects that may affect Forest Service Sensitive species, develop conservation measures and strategies to maintain, improve and/or minimize impacts to species and their habitats. Short-term deviations may be allowed as long as the action maintains or improves the habitat in the long term; and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (p. 4-37) • (S24) As a tool to achieve desired conditions of the land, maximum forage utilization standards for vegetation types in satisfactory condition using traditional grazing systems (rest rotation, deferred rotation, season long) are as follows (p. 4-51) (Table 2). Table 2 - Percent utilization of key grass or grass like vegetation, by vegetation type, for rangelands in satisfactory condition. Percent Utilization Key Grass Condition Vegetation Type or Grass like Upland and Aspen Satisfactory 50 Crested Wheatgrass Satisfactory 60 Riparian1 Class I Satisfactory 50 Riparian1 Class II & III Satisfactory 60 1Riparian, away from greenline. • (S25) As a tool to achieve desired conditions of riparian areas, maximum forage utilization standards (stubble height) for low to mid elevation greenline species in Class I, II, III (see Forest Plan Appendix VII) riparian areas in satisfactory condition are as follows: (Key species being grazed include water sedge, Nebraska sedge, and/or wooly sedge.) (p. 4-51) (Table 3) Table 3 - Greenline stubble height at the end of the growing season, by riparian class, for rangeland satisfactory condition. Greenline Stubble Height at End of Growing Riparian Class Condition Season Riparian Class I Satisfactory No Less Than 5” Riparian Class II Satisfactory No Less Than 4” Riparian Class III Satisfactory No Less Than 3” • (S26) For all rangelands, including big game winter range and riparian areas, permit no more than 50% of the current year’s growth on woody vegetation to be browsed during one growth cycle (i.e., when use has reached 50% allow no additional livestock use). (p. 4-52) • (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (p. 4-37) • (G71) As a tool to achieve rehabilitation of upland, aspen, and riparian communities away from the greenline that are not meeting or moving toward objectives (i.e., in unsatisfactory condition), maximum allowed forage utilization will be 30 to 40 percent. (p. 4-52) • (G72) Modify grazing practices that prevent attainment of desired future conditions for vegetation and/or aquatic resources. (p. 4-52) • (G74) Stock driveways and trailing routes will be located outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas unless terrain and/or vegetation are prohibitive. When driveways and trailing routes must pass through Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, they will be located and livestock moved through them in such a way to minimize the extent and/or severity of potential damaged caused by trailing. (p. 4-52)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• (G75) Annual operating instructions (and/or Allotment Management Plans) should be evaluated and additional site-specific objectives defined if needed for any or all of the following five parameters: o stubble height on selected key species on the greenline; o stubble height on selected key species and/or the amount of bare ground within the riparian zone but away from the greenline; o riparian woody browse utilization (trees and shrubs); o stream bank trampling on key reaches; and o stubble height and/or incidence of use on key species in the uplands. (p. 4-52) The project area is located in the Eastern Uintas Management Area. The Rangeland/Livestock Grazing Desired Future condition states: “From the Hayden Fork drainage to the east, if sheep permits for upper elevation allotments are voluntarily waived without a preference, permits will not be reissued and allotments will be closed to domestic livestock for purposes of future bighorn sheep habitat.” (p.4-201). The Record of Decision of the Forest Plan states: “Seven additional allotments totaling 17,600 capable acres are identified for closure in the event that permits are voluntarily waived without preference, to expand bighorn sheep habitat on the North Slope Uinta Mountains. These allotments were identified in Appendix I of the FEIS of the Forest Plan.” (Alternative 7 ROD-19). Four of the identified seven sheep allotments, and their approximate acreage are identified in Table 4 below. Table 4 - Allotment details from the 2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Final EIS. Allotment Total Acres Livestock Type East Fork Blacks Fork 25,976 Sheep Gilbert Peak 12,468 Sheep Henry’s Fork/Hessie Lake 13,932 Sheep Red Castle 12,293 Sheep

1Note that the table only lists the allotments within the project area as presented in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2003 FEIS. Some allotment boundaries have been modified to improve livestock management and correct mapping issues. Specific to the High Uintas Wilderness in the Wasatch-Cache Planning Area, the following Forest Plan goals include: • Allow natural processes to shape terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and • Cooperate with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in managing fish and wildlife (FSM 2323.3).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

High Uintas Wilderness Standards and Guidelines Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to the wilderness and that are applicable to this project are listed below: • MA-01-003 - (S) All classes: Alkalinity will not be reduced more than 10% of the baseline in all surface waters. • MA-01-004 - (S) All classes: State of Utah water quality standards will be met for acceptable amounts of coliform bacteria in waters for their specific beneficial uses as defined by the State Standards of Quality of the Waters of the State. • MA-01-005 - (S) Class I: no more than 15% of all use areas have erosion class 1 characteristics, 0% erosion classes 2 and 3. • MA-01-006 - (S) Class II: no more than 25% of all use areas have erosion class 1 characteristics, no more than 15% have erosion class 2 characteristics, 0% erosion class 3. • MA-01-007 - (S) Class III: no more than 50% of all use areas have erosion class 1 characteristics, no more than 25% have erosion class 2 characteristics, 0% erosion class 3. • MA 01 012 - (S) Reintroduction of species is considered appropriate only if species is indigenous and was extirpated by human induced events. Transplants are limited to indigenous species as determined by UDWR. (FSM 2323.33a) Indigenous species, which are classified as Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive receive priority for transplant. • MA-01-013 - (G) Maintain natural vegetative composition and diversity. • MA-01-016 - (S) Permit no more than 10% of the habitat for sensitive plant species to be adversely altered by human uses. • MA-01-017 - (S) Alpine vegetation types - 85% of potential ground cover. Aspen vegetation types - 85% of potential ground cover. Riparian vegetation types - 85% of potential ground cover. • MA 01 022 - (G) Grazing of livestock established prior to September 1984 shall be permitted to continue, subject to regulations. Manage allotments to protect the wilderness resources (FSM 2323.22). • MA 01 023 - (G) As wilderness AMPS are revised, include wilderness resource objectives. • MA 01 027 - (G) Issue no new sheep and cattle grazing permits in areas currently unobligated. • MA-01-028 - (G) Coordinate management of livestock and recreation use to protect the wilderness character of the area. • MA-01-29 - (G) Regulate grazing use on and adjacent to heavily used recreation areas to prevent deterioration of wilderness resource and minimize user conflicts. Desired Conditions Many National Forests identify resource conditions that are functioning in a satisfactory or optimum state as a desired condition. The WC and the Ashley Forest Plans do not identify desired conditions as desired conditions per se: rather, the WC Forest Plan identifies desired conditions within the standards and guides as well as the Region 4 Range Analysis Handbook (2005), and supporting documentation by S. Goodrich (2015); and the Ashley identifies desired conditions from different sources including regional direction The desired conditions are also contained in specialist reports, other supporting documentation, as well as regional and national guidance. For

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ease of reference and convenience, these desired conditions are described below for each Forest. Desired conditions for range vegetation for the WCNF include the following: • Greenline Ecological Status: (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. • Ground Cover: (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. • Desired Plant Communities (Cameron and Huber, 2018) Plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control). Dominance is defined as 60% or more of composition as determined by ocular cover, weight, or other methods that define composition. This includes both woody and herbaceous species. Documentation associated with photography and other notes as well as measurements from studies are sources for determination of dominance. Values of plants for watershed protection are listed in the Region Four Range Analysis Handbook (December 9, 2005) and in a supplemental document by the Ashley National Forest (Goodrich, 2015-03-12). Desired conditions for range vegetation on the Ashley are described below. • The Forest will maintain a quality range program, managed to optimize the production and use of forage on all suitable range to the extent it is cost effective and in harmony with other resource uses (ANF- Forest Plan, IV-3). • Livestock grazing is recognized as an appropriate use of wilderness. Results of livestock grazing are consistent with desired condition of water, soils, wildlife, and vegetation (ANF – Forest Plan, Amendment 12, p. 3). Desired conditions for soil and water resources for the WCNF and Ashley NF are described below: • Based on the desired conditions described in the 2003 Wasatch-Cache NF Plan, the desired future conditions for soil and water resources for the study area are that riparian areas have a range of vegetative structural stages, provide a transitional zone between upland terrestrial habitats and aquatic habitats, and have the features necessary to achieve stable stream channels and diverse habitat conditions. Desirable riparian vegetation occupies the historical floodplain, and riparian areas provide for fish, wildlife, and water quality requirements. • Riparian vegetation and large woody debris reduce erosion, maintain water quality, filter sediment, aid floodplain development, improve floodwater retention, improve groundwater recharge, develop root masses that stabilize stream banks, and develop diverse channel characteristics. These channel characteristics provide habitat, water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for desired native and non-native fish viability and other designated beneficial uses, while supporting biodiversity. • Soils maintain 85 percent or more effective ground cover as defined by the potential for a given vegetation type. (Standard 7: WC 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Soils have 15 percent or less (area extent) of detrimental soil disturbance, including soils altered by compaction, puddling, displacement, and severely burned soils. (Guideline 4: WC 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan) (2551.3 Soil Quality Guidelines: FSM 2500- 2011-1). • For most soils, soil quality is maintained, as defined by the ability for soils to sustain productive vegetation and hydrologic functions of regulating, filtering, and storing water. (Desired Future Conditions: WC 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan) (2551.03 Policy: FSM 2500- 2011-1). Forest Service Manual Provisions • 2202.1 – Range Management: To manage range vegetation to protect basic soil and water resources, provide for ecological diversity, improve or maintain environmental quality, and meet public needs for interrelated resource uses. • 2202.1 – Range Management: To provide for livestock forage, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource values dependent on range vegetation. • 2202.1 – Range Management: To contribute to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood. • 2202.1 – Range Management: To provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and management of grazing animals. • 2670.22 - Sensitive Species: Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become Threatened or Endangered because of Forest Service actions. • 2670.32 - Sensitive Species: Assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. • 2670.45 - Forest Supervisors: Coordinate forest programs with other federal agencies, states, and other groups and individuals concerned with the conservation of threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species. • 2670.46 - District Rangers: Coordinate district activities with interested state and federal agencies, groups, and individuals concerned with the conservation of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive species. County and State Plans We also considered the available County and State land management plans that have been produced for this area. Each of these plans supports agriculture and allowing the continued use of allotments by permittees; none of these plans endorses more restrictive allotment management, or the closure of allotments. Alternative 1 is not consistent with these plans. However, the proposed action is entirely consistent with these plans. The plans that were reviewed in detail and utilized for this report include: • 2011 Uinta County, Wyoming – Comprehensive Plan as amended; • 2017 Duchesne County, Utah – Duchesne County General Plan; • 2017 Summit County, Utah – Summit County Resource Management Plan; • 2018 State of Utah Bighorn Sheep Management Plan; • 2018 State of Utah Resource Management Plan; and • 2019 State of Utah and Forest Service MOU For Bighorn Sheep Management.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For a more detailed discussion of the Socio-Economic content of each of those plans that we considered in relation to this project, please refer to the Socio-Economic Resource Report in the project record. Also, the Utah BHS Management Plan was utilized in the analysis of impacts to bighorn sheep, which is fully discussed in Chapter 3 of this report in the Terrestrial Wildlife section. Decisions to Be Made Based on This Analysis This EIS will disclose the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. A separate ROD, signed by the Responsible Officials, will disclose the rationale for choosing the selected alternative, discuss the rationale for rejecting other alternatives, and disclose how the decision responds to the relevant issues. The decision that the responsible officials will make in the ROD is whether or not to authorize some level of livestock grazing on all or none of the analysis area given considerations of Forest Plan desired conditions, goals and objectives, and public input. If a decision to authorize grazing is made, term grazing permits, allotment management plans (AMPs), and annual operating instructions (AOIs) will be issued, consistent with the ROD. These documents are simply implementing documents and do not constitute decision points. Process The Responsible Officials for this project are David C. Whittekiend, the Forest Supervisor for the UWC and Jeff E. Schramm, the Forest Supervisor for the ANF. This project was initiated in the spring of 2014 and uses an interdisciplinary approach that integrates physical, biological, and other science resource areas to analyze the project area and identify any areas that have potential resource concerns. An Interdisciplinary (ID) Team of resource specialists has assessed the potential effects and consequences of implementing the proposed action for the project area. The resource specialists are comprised of Forest Service staff from both Forests, as well as a group of cooperating agencies. The Forest Service entered into Cooperating Agency Agreements with the following organizations: the State of Utah; the State of Wyoming; Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah; Uinta County; Uinta County Conservation District; and Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Cooperating Agencies are fully functioning members of a traditional Forest Service ID Team; the cooperating agencies for this project provided special expertise that the Forest Service did not have, and helped to develop and evaluate the alternatives, draft various specialist reports and elements of this document, and helped to review the DEIS. This DEIS documents the analyses of the effects the proposed action would have on the specific resources within the project area. The proposed action is designed to allow use under specific management restrictions to protect and maintain the natural resources within the project area, and to adhere to the standards set forth in each Forest Plan. The ID Team and Responsible Officials have considered Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and management practices, together with public and agency issues and concerns. The ID Team evaluated the affected area, developed the proposed action, evaluated environmental consequences, and analyzed the proposed action through a resource-based environmental analysis, which is documented in this DEIS, and its associated project record.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Select members of the ID Team also critically evaluated the consideration of other alternatives, but did not carry those forward for a complete and detailed analysis (see Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis). Tribal and Public Involvement Tribal and public participation helps to identify concerns and issues with a proposed action released during the scoping period. This input is essential for the Forest Service to develop a proposed action, which meets the purpose and need for the project, and is responsive to the concerns of the tribes and public. This information enables the Responsible Officials to make decisions with an understanding of their environmental consequences. The public participation process also allows the Forest Service to disclose the nature and potential consequences of the proposed activities on National Forest System lands. Scoping Process The HUW Domestic Sheep Analysis has gone through three public comment periods to date. The first public comment period was for the initial scoping for the project when an Environmental Assessment (EA) was proposed to be the analysis that would be used. That scoping period was initiated on May 23, 2014. Due to public comments, concerns with the differing opinions on the science involving pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and other considerations, a decision was made to change from an EA to an EIS. On December 1, 2015, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register, which ran for 30 days. This was then followed up by the scoping period for the EIS, which started on February 16, 2016. In addition to publishing the scoping letter, the Forest Service also published a legal notice in the Salt Lake Tribune, the Uintah Basin Standard and the Vernal Express on February 23, 2016. Tribal Input The Forest Service shares in the United States’ legal responsibility and treaty obligations to work with federally-recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect the Tribes’ ceded territory rights on lands administered by the Forest Service. As such, the policies of the Forest Service toward federally recognized tribes are intended to strengthen relationships and further tribal sovereignty through fulfilling mandated responsibilities. During the original scoping period for the EA, the scoping documentation was sent to five Ute tribal representatives, and one tribal organization. No comments were received from the Ute tribe during that scoping period. During the scoping period for the EIS, scoping was expanded to additional tribes. In addition to the Ute tribe contacts mentioned just above, four additional tribal representatives were notified of the project from the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation, and the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation. No tribal comments were received during that scoping period. Public Input During the original EA scoping period, 364 scoping letters (both hard copy and electronic versions) were sent to tribal representatives, the public, units of government, and other interested parties. In response, 28 comments were received. As a result of the Federal Register publication of the NOI, the Forest Service received 26 comments. Lastly, for the EIS scoping period, the

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service sent out 331 scoping letters (both in hard copy and electronic format) to tribal members, interested parties and individuals, and other government and local agencies. As a result of that scoping effort, 32 responses have been received to date. All of these comment periods were made public on both the Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache web pages. Lastly, this project is posted on the Forest Service’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), which is available on the internet for the public to access at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest- level.php?110401 for the ANF and http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110419 for the UWC. Other Agencies The scoping documentation for the EIS was sent to State and local government agencies. These included the State of Utah; State of Wyoming; Duchesne County Commissioners; Summit County Commissioners; the Uintah County Commission; the Daggett County Commission; the Sweetwater County, Wyoming Commission; Town of Mountain View, Wyoming; the Uinta County, Wyoming Commission, and the Evanston, Wyoming Planning Department, among others. Additionally, scoping documentation was sent to the Uintah County Public Lands Specialist; the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality; the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; the USDI Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Fish and Game; the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, and Agriculture Research Service; and the US – Environmental Protection Agency; US Department of Energy; and others. Comments were received from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, the Duchesne County Commission, Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture, and the State of Utah from the original EA scoping period in May 2014. Comments from the NOI and EIS scoping period in the spring of 2016 were received from the US EPA, Uinta County Commissioners, Wyoming, the Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture, the Uinta County Conservation District, and the Duchesne County Commission. Public Notice and Comment Periods As described in the cover letter accompanying this DEIS, there is an opportunity to provide your input during a 45-day comment period on the proposed action disclosed in this document. The cover letter attachment also provides information on how to provide comment. To gain standing to object to this project, you must comment during this 45-day comment period, or have provided comments during the scoping period for this project. The official comment period will begin one day after the publication of the legal notice in the Vernal Express, Uintah Basin Standard, and Salt Lake Tribune newspapers. Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action As a result of these various comment periods, and also from internal discussions with Forest Staff and our cooperating agencies, two issues were identified, and a variety of concerns were also brought forward. An issue identifies a cause and effect relationship from an action and leads to the consideration of an alternative means to accomplish the purpose and need.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

“Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision-maker and public to understand. Issues are best identified during scoping early in the process to help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider . . . . An issue should be phrased as a cause- effect statement relating actions under consideration to effects.”4 The comments and their associated issues and concerns are addressed and identified as a Comment Matrix for the original scoping period in May, 2014 (see the project record); comments from the EIS scoping period were responded to directly by ID Team members and are contained within the project record. Throughout both scoping periods and NOI comment period, the issues and concerns brought forward remained consistent. Two primary issues were identified as a result of the scoping process. • Issue 1: The continuation of sheep grazing would result in the likelihood of pneumonia pathogen transfer to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. • Issue 2: Discontinuing sheep grazing would have negative social and economic impacts to the permittees, and the local and surrounding communities. Environmental and Social Concerns Concerns are questions raised in public scoping that were determined not to require detailed analysis, because they either are already decided by other laws and regulations, or because impacts that could be caused by the proposed action are not anticipated. In some instances, concerns can be addressed through implementation of Forest Plan direction, project stipulations, or clarification of the project’s intent. Other environmental and social concerns were identified through scoping. Many comments received during the public comment periods were not considered key issues because they have been mitigated in the same way in all alternatives, or were not significantly affected by any alternative, or were outside of Forest Service jurisdiction. Some of these concerns are already regulated by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The resource concerns with the greatest potential to be impacted, while not key issues, are addressed as environmental considerations in Chapter 3. Some of these concerns are presented below. A complete summary and list is provided in the project record. • Wildlife Concerns o Reduced predator control o Potential impacts to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species o Reduced wildlife habitat and habitat fragmentation • Water and Soil Concerns o Stream sedimentation and water pollution o Stream bank erosion and riparian vegetation loss o Sheep driveway impacts to soils and watersheds

4Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 12.4.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

o Soil erosion, compaction (reducing infiltration), and increased runoff o Negative impacts to soil nutrient cycling • Fisheries and Aquatic Organisms o Impacts to aquatic organisms and invertebrates o Impacts on spawning conditions and fisheries habitat • Vegetation and Ecology o Vegetation damage from grazing and sheep bedding o Damage to alpine tundra o Increases in non-native species o High concentrations of sheep droppings o Sheep trailing and grazing impacts on non-capable lands • Recreation and Wilderness o Grazing impacts within the High Uintas Wilderness Area o Grazing impacts to recreation Concerns Outside the Scope of this Analysis Some concerns identified during the various comment periods were beyond the scope of this analysis and are presented below. • Forest Service policy and process and closing allotments. • Cost effectiveness of various methods for data collection of domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. • Whether or not cattle may carry diseases detrimental to bighorn sheep. • Have indigenous species changed since 2003? • Does the Utah DWR really need more land for bighorn sheep habitat?

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Introduction This chapter describes the alternatives developed to meet the purpose of and need for action and address the key issues identified in Chapter 1. The proposed action and alternatives, including the no-action alternative, are described and compared. Two alternatives were developed; the no- action alternative and the proposed action alternative. This chapter also provides a summary of how each alternative responds to the two identified issues, and the concerns that were brought forward. Section 102 (e) of NEPA states that all Federal agencies shall, “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of actions in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” Two alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail. These alternatives include the No Action, No Grazing Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action, Continued Management Alternative (Alternative 2). Issues serve to highlight the effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the purpose and need for the proposal while reducing adverse effects. Issues are used to highlight direct cause and effect relationships between the proposed action and Forest resources. Concerns are questions raised in public scoping that were determined not to require detailed analysis, because they either are already decided by other laws and regulations, or because impacts that could be caused by the proposed action are not anticipated. In some instances, concerns can be addressed through implementation of Forest Plan direction, project stipulations, or clarification of the project’s intent. Because issues and concerns were identified during scoping, additional alternatives were considered during this analysis to help address the issues and concerns identified in Chapter 1 above. Development of Alternatives The NEPA requires that Federal agencies consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. However, there are no specified number of alternatives that are required to be analyzed. Furthermore, alternatives have to meet the purpose and need of the project and also address any unresolved conflicts or issues. Per 36 CFR §220.5 (e): “The EIS shall document the examination of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. An alternative should meet the purpose and need and address one or more significant issues related to the proposed action. Since an alternative may be developed to address more than one significant issue, no specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed.” That being said, because an alternative was not carried forward for a more in-depth analysis, it is still included in the range of alternatives. “The range of alternatives considered by the responsible official includes all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that are analyzed in the document, as well as other alternatives

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement eliminated from detailed study. Alternatives not considered in detail may include, but are not limited to, those that fail to meet the purpose and need, are technologically infeasible or illegal, or would result in unreasonable environmental harm.” (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 14.4) In order to find more of a balance between Alternatives 1 and 2, to help address the two key issues, and in response to our public and environmental groups, the first of the additional potential alternatives listed below in the Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis section was closely considered as a third alternative to carry forward. A team of resource specialists from both Forests, and some of the cooperating agencies that represented agriculture and some that had jurisdictional authority over wildlife was organized to objectively consider a variety of alternatives and determine their feasibility. These alternatives were then brought back to the full interdisciplinary team (ID Team) for a discussion and evaluation of their merits and deficiencies. Alternatives 1 and 2 were already known prior to the ID Team’s deliberations. A third alternative of reducing the number and/or size of allotments to remove bighorn sheep and domestic sheep overlap was then developed and evaluated with respect to the issue of pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Although this alternative removed the overlap from Forest Service land, it did not remove the overlap on BLM and private lands. As such bighorn sheep would still have a high risk of contact on BLM and private lands with domestic sheep, and would still be at a high risk for likely pathogen transfer to occur. For a visual representation of where BLM and private lands are located in relation to the project area, please refer to Chapter 3 - Figure 35, Figure 36, and Figure 37. Thus, this potential alternative did not address an unresolved conflict or issue and was eliminated from a complete evaluation by other resource areas, and not carried forward in a detailed analysis. Best Available Information The information presented in this DEIS is based on the best available information and high quality science. The scientific literature is the highest quality that is available at the time. An important consideration is that the exact location and amount of any activities could vary upon implementation. Field surveys by project specialists were crucial in calculating and analyzing the data used in resource evaluations. Calculations are based on skilled interpretations of aerial photos and maps; application of professional judgment from field observations and evaluation of data; and information acquired from review of relevant, scientific literature. New information may present itself in the process that would require implementation strategies to be altered. Approximating some numbers, such as acres, or miles of road, allows flexibility to adapt to the information collected from more intensive field review. The information in this DEIS is also based on high quality and the most current scientific literature that is available. Alternatives Considered Two alternatives were developed in detail for this environmental analysis process. Each action alternative was designed to be a viable alternative consistent with Forest Plan direction. Alternatives developed include Alternative 1: no action, no grazing and Alternative 2: proposed action, continued management. There were also several alternatives considered, but dropped

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statement from detailed analysis for this DEIS; those alternatives are presented in the Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis section below. The alternatives presented in the next section represent a range of reasonable alternatives, given the key issues for the proposed action. References to “permitted livestock” apply to animals authorized under a grazing permit (i.e., where the primary purpose is livestock production) and is not applicable to recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (i.e., where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock. Alternatives Considered in Detail Two alternatives are described and analyzed in detail as follows: • Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing: This alternative directly responds to the issue of pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. • Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management: This alternative directly responds to the issue of socio-economic challenges to the communities and allotment permittees. Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing (Environmentally Preferred Alternative) The CEQ regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that a no-action alternative be developed in an EIS as a benchmark from which the agency can evaluate the proposed action. However, “no action” in livestock management planning is defined as no permitted livestock grazing (USDA Forest Service 1996b; Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 2209.13). The permitting of sheep grazing is a discretionary action that must be evaluated under NEPA, and a NEPA-based decision made to authorize livestock grazing (except as otherwise provided by the Rescissions Act of 1995 and other related legislation). This alternative proposes to discontinue permitted livestock grazing within the analysis area. The use of the sheep driveway south of the East Fork-West Fork junction of the Blacks Fork would be discontinued. Existing term grazing permits would be cancelled under the time period provisions of FSH 2209.13 and would not be renewed. No permits authorizing sheep grazing on the allotments in the analysis area would be issued. There would be a two year waiting period before implementation could begin. For the first two years, Alternative 1 would resemble Alternative 2 with respect to grazing impacts. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Continued Management (Agency Preferred Alternative) The UWCNF and ANF are proposing to authorize grazing on five allotments on the UWCNF and five allotments on the ANF. Livestock grazing would be authorized to meet or move toward the desired conditions identified in and consistent with the Forest Plan. Alternative 2 is consistent with the County and State Plans that are relevant to this decision – see 40 CFR 1506.2(d). The allotments in the project area on the UWC include Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, and Middle Fork-Blacks Fork; on the ANF they include Painter Basin, Tungsten, Oweep, Ottoson Basin, and Fall Creek (see Figure 2).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The Forests are also proposing to continue to use the sheep driveway that allows sheep to access the allotments from their winter range on private lands. There are a total of approximately 52.2 miles of sheep driveway that are used to access these allotments; of this, 13 miles occur outside of the allotments, while 39.2 miles are within the allotments. Within the allotments themselves, the sheep driveway systems total about 17.8 miles in the East Fork Blacks Fork; 11.8 miles within Red Castle; 6.9 miles inside of Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork; and 2.7 miles within Gilbert Peak (Figure 3). The sheep driveway is located entirely on the UWCNF and does not extend into the Ashley National Forest, although, the Ashley allotments, except for Fall Creek, are accessed by the sheep driveway system. The sheep driveway begins at the Wyoming state line off of the National Forest, and utilizes a system of County and Forest Service roads before entering the allotments. There are a total of 9.5 miles of driveway that are co-located with the road system. Additionally, there are about 35 miles of recreational trails that utilize the sheep driveway. The sheep driveway is the only way for producers to access summer range without trucking animals onto the Forest5, and as such is a part of the proposed action and will be analyzed for effects. In the past, domestic sheep have accessed the Fall Creek allotment from the south slope by trailing up the Rock Creek trail and drainage. However, there is no specific driveway that is identified. The grazing season for the allotments lasts from early to mid-July and ends in September. There are a total of approximately 160,410 acres in the project area, and there are up to 10,300 ewe- lamb pairs and up to 3,000 dry ewes that are permitted to graze these allotments at any one time. The Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, and East Fork Blacks Fork allotments are managed under a rest rotation system, with two allotments grazed and one allotment rested in a given year. The Painter Basin and Tungsten are likewise on a two-year rest rotation cycle, only one allotment grazed in any given year. The Fall Creek allotment is permitted to the Ute tribe and has not been used since 1977. Within the individual allotments, sheep are herded in annual rotation patterns within the allotment during the permitted season of use. Due to the difficulty of accessing the allotment, it is unlikely that this allotment would be used in the future. However, the Ute tribe may decide in the future to graze that allotment if conditions and circumstances change. The exact trailing route would be established if and when that occurs. Table 5 presents the information for each allotment with respect to acres, numbers of sheep permitted, and the length of grazing season. Appendix A presents more detailed information on the allotments to include grazing days, animal days, and percent of the total animals on each allotment.

5Even if the permittees did truck sheep to the Forest, most of the allotments would not be accessible without still using portions of the driveway to get sheep to their respective allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2 - Allotments within the project area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3 – Sheep driveway system to access the allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5 - Acres, livestock class and number, and grazing season for the allotments in the project area1. Allotment Acres Livestock Grazing Season National Forest Number-Class Uinta-Wasatch- Gilbert Peak2 11,896 1,400 ewe/lamb July 11 – Sept. 10 Cache Uinta-Wasatch- Hessie Lake-Henry’s 14,539 1,400 ewe/lamb July 11 – Sept. 10 Cache Fork2 Uinta-Wasatch- Red Castle 14,857 1,300 - ewe/lamb July 6 – Sept. 10 Cache Uinta-Wasatch- East Fork-Blacks Fork2 25,440 1,350 - ewe/lamb July 6 – Sept. 10 Cache Uinta-Wasatch- Middle Fork-Blacks 16,855 1,200 - ewe/lamb July 11 – Sept. 10 Cache Fork Ashley Painter Basin3 14,756 1,200 ewe/lamb July 12 – Sept 6 or 1,500 ewes without lambs Ashley Tungsten3 16,149 1,200 ewe/lamb July 12 – Sept 6 or 1,500 ewes without lambs Ashley Oweep 16,686 1,400 ewe/lamb July 15 – Sept 10 Ashley Ottoson Basin 12,620 1,300 ewe/lamb July 15 – Sept 10 or 1,500 ewes without lambs Ashley Fall Creek4 16,612 1,100 ewe/lamb July 1 – Sept 30 Totals NA 160,410 10,300 ewe/lamb5 NA 1Note that the table does not include the driveway acres but does include the days of travel on the driveway. 2Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, and the East Fork-Blacks Fork allotments are managed based on a rest rotation schedule. Two allotments are grazed in any given year, and one allotment is rested with no livestock grazing. Total animals on all three allotments at any one time would be 2,800 ewe/lamb pairs. 3Painter Basin and Tungsten are on a rest rotation schedule with one allotment grazed for 2 years, while the other allotment is not grazed for 2 years. Total animals at any one time on these two allotments would be 1500 ewes or 1200 ewe/lamb pairs. 4Fall Creek is permitted to the Ute Tribe. This allotment has not been grazed since 1977. 5The total number of ewe/lamb pairs is reflective of the three year rest rotation of Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, and East Fork Blacks Fork, and the two year rest rotation of the Painter Basin and Tungsten allotments. The on-date is the earliest date which the sheep herd is permitted to cross the Forest boundary coming onto the National Forest. The off-date is the latest date which the sheep herd is required to cross the Forest boundary going off the National Forest (Table 5 above). However, Annual Operating Instructions may adjust the on or off-date to an earlier or later date than shown by up to two weeks. Sheep trailing to their respective allotments use the East Fork Sheep Driveway. Ashley National Forest permitted sheep also trail across the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest to access the Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Painter Basin, and Tungsten Allotments. These sheep herds trail to Ottoson Basin (through the East Fork-Blacks Fork drainage across Red Knob Pass) and Oweep (through the Little East Fork-Blacks Fork drainage across Squaw Pass), Painter

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Basin (through the Henry’s Fork drainage across Gunsight Pass) and Tungsten (through the East Fork-Smiths Fork drainage across Smiths Fork Pass) Allotments via the East Fork Sheep Driveway on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Livestock management practices for these allotments consist of requirements that the producers must follow. These requirements are listed in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) for each allotment, which are available in the project record. These instructions may vary from year to year and are tailored to each allotment. However, there are standard requirements common to all allotments which are presented below. Management Requirements Common to All Allotments • Sheep Herding Practices o Sufficient herders will be provided to achieve proper distribution, protection and management of livestock on the allotment as outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions. o Sheep are to be bedded where night overtakes them. As a general rule no bed grounds will be used more than one night, except in emergencies or prior approval of the Forest Officer in charge. o Sheep will not be bedded, shaded or salted on live water, recreation trails or roadways. o Sheep will be bedded as far as possible from live water sources as the topography will allow. o Permanent salt grounds will not be allowed; salting areas will be randomly rotated each year. Terrain permitting, salt will be placed 100 feet off roads and trails and at least 300 feet from streams and lakes. Salt will be moved from areas where utilization standards and guidelines have been reached as allowed by the Annual Operating Instructions. o Sheep will be open herded, allowed to drift rather than trailed whenever possible. Dogs would be used to a minimum to prevent bunching of the band and heavy trampling. o Sheep trailing along streambanks will be minimized. o When forage utilization standards and guidelines have been met in an area, unit or allotment, the sheep will be removed from that area. o Livestock will be distributed and grazed as outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions. o Dead livestock on Forest Service administered land within 300 feet of any live stream, spring, or roadway will be promptly removed and disposed of properly. • Herder Camps o Herder camps will be kept and left in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Garbage will not be allowed to accumulate at the camps. All garbage from old and new camps will be packed out by the permittee. No refuse or garbage will be buried or left on the Forest. Garbage will be packed out on the return trip from supply trips. o Sheepherder camps that were established on the allotments several decades ago and prior to establishment of the High Uintas Wilderness Area, and have been used historically by the permittee(s), will be permitted campsites by the permittee as long as no further impacts (beyond what has occurred) to vegetation, soil, and water quality

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

shall occur. Some of these camps may be within 200 feet or less of trails, lakes, streams, springs, and other campsites. o Established herders camp tent frames, salt cabins, holding pens, hitching rails, mangers etc. constructed and used historically prior to establishment of the High Uintas Wilderness area may remain in place and continue to be used. If a herders camp location is abandoned all structures will be removed or cleaned up when the camp is moved or relocated. Temporary conveniences (lashed tables, beds, etc.) will be dismantled. o Herders will practice minimum impact camping techniques when in the wilderness, including: . Terrain permitting, newly established camp sites will be located at least 200 feet from trails, lakes, streams, springs, and popular campsites. . Horses will not be tied directly to trees for any longer than 1 hour; methods for controlling/containing horses for longer periods include, but are not limited to, high lines, temporary hitch rails, picket lines, rope corrals, portable electric fences, etc. Locations of high line, hitch rails, temporary corrals etc., when used for extended periods will be located at least 200 feet from live water as topography allows. . Stakes used for horse picket lines and tents will be pulled and properly disposed of when the camps inside the wilderness are not being used. • Other o All hay and straw brought onto the National Forest must be certified weed free. o All predator control will be in accordance with Federal and State laws, and regulations. Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis In response to the various public comment periods to date, and also from internal staff discussions, additional alternatives were considered as well. However, these alternatives, while considered, were not carried forward for a more detailed analysis because they either did not meet the purpose and need of the project, did not substantially reduce a resource conflict, or were not implementable. Five additional potential alternatives were considered and are respectively described in more detail below: • reducing the number and/or size of allotments to reduce bighorn sheep and domestic sheep overlap; • increasing the number of sheep authorized to graze, increasing the allowed season of use, and allowing grazing every year on each allotment (an alternative proposed by Uinta County, WY); • expanding the analysis area to include the West Fork Blacks Fork allotment; • converting the allotments from sheep to cattle; or • relocating the permitted sheep to unstocked allotments. Reduction in the Number and/or Size of Allotments An alternative was proposed internally to address the issue of possible pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep by reducing the number and/or changing the allotment boundaries of available domestic sheep allotments to reduce contact with bighorn sheep. The

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement allotments under consideration for closure were Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Painter Basin, and changing the boundary for the Tungsten allotment. These four allotments experience a direct overlap with the estimated area that bighorn sheep typically use in the Uintas. This area is also known as the bighorn sheep core herd home range. This overlap is predicted to result in a high risk of bighorn sheep contact (likely one to multiple bighorn sheep contacts a year) to these four domestic sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2018). That being said, this potential alternative was an attempt to remove overlap and the high risk of bighorn sheep contact with lands that have domestic sheep use. This potential alternative was also an attempt to still meet the purpose and need and support the domestic sheep grazing in this area that has been on- going for decades. The Uintas bighorn sheep and their associated threats and risks, both on and off the Forest were assessed to fully evaluate the risks and benefits associated with this potential alternative. This potential alternative was compared with the existing conditions regarding risk of bighorn sheep contact with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments and other lands (BLM and private) that have domestic sheep use. Eliminating this threat on the National Forest Lands where the overlap occurs would reduce the risk of contact of BHS with lands that have domestic sheep on these allotments. However, risk of contact would continue to be high because of the overlap that would still occur on BLM and private lands. Eliminating all of the threat (risk of contact) on the 10 Forest Service domestic sheep allotments is analyzed in the no action alternative. It was concluded that while this potential alternative would remove the overlap with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments, overlap and a high risk of bighorn sheep contact would still occur with non-Forest Service lands (BLM and private) that have domestic sheep due to land ownership patterns, topography in the region, and the bighorn herd’s location. Thus, even if all domestic sheep were removed from all Forest Service allotments, there would still be multiple bighorn sheep contacts a year with lands supporting domestic sheep (BLM and private), and the Uintas bighorn sheep herds would still be at a similar risk of periodic disease outbreaks from the possible transfer of respiratory pathogens from domestic sheep that occur on those lands. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis. For a more detailed discussion on the process of evaluating this possible alternative, please refer to Chapter 3 – Terrestrial Wildlife – Consideration of a Third Alternative. Increased Domestic Sheep Stocking and Expanded Seasons of Use Uinta County, WY proposed an alternative to continue current domestic sheep grazing with increases in stocking rates, expanded seasons of use, and authorization to graze each allotment every year. No mention is made in their review of stocking rate and grazing season reductions as to why those actions were taken by the Forest Service.6 This alternative was suggested for inclusion to return to historic stocking rates and grazing seasons. While this alternative would help to address the socio-economic issue, it does not address the issue surrounding pathogen transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep. Furthermore, this alternative does not address concerns related to impacts to natural resources. Therefore, this alternative was not carried forward in a detailed analysis.

6See the letter from Uinta County to the Forest Service dated August 7th, 2018.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 29 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Expanded Analysis Area An alternative was suggested to expand the analysis area from 10 allotments to 11 allotments and include the West Fork Blacks Fork allotment, which is the allotment west and adjacent to the East Fork Blacks Fork and the Middle Fork Blacks Fork on the north slope of the Uintas, located on the UWC. This alternative was suggested for inclusion because of the potential for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to be present in the allotment and also for other natural resource related concerns. In September of 2009, a decision was signed for an EIS which was a detailed analysis of sheep grazing on the West Fork Blacks Fork. This decision is still considered to be current and reflective of the conditions that were analyzed at that time. Because of having a fairly recent decision, creating an additional alternative with the West Fork Blacks Fork was not carried forward in a detailed analysis. Allotment Conversion from Sheep to Cattle A suggestion for an alternative was proposed to convert the existing sheep allotments to cattle allotments. One of the primary reasons this would not be feasible is because the elevation of these allotments is considered to be too high for cattle to do well, and additionally, the terrain in several places on these allotments is too steep to be suitable for cattle (State of Utah, 2018a). In addition, fences would likely be required to implement a rotation schedule for the allotments. Another factor that makes this potential alternative not feasible is that to do this would require sheep producers to sell off all of their animals and purchase a new class of livestock. At present, the existing livestock operations are set up for sheep and not cattle, and to convert over would be costly if not financially and biologically impossible for the permittees. Relocation of Livestock to Other Forest Service Allotments Early in the process, the Forest Service was looking for viable alternatives to separate domestic sheep from bighorn sheep herds. One proposal was to re-locate the domestic sheep from these allotments to other existing, vacant Forest Service allotments elsewhere on the Forest. After a thorough assessment of the available allotments, two were found vacant on the Ashley National Forest; however, these allotments are in close proximity to the Flaming Gorge population of bighorn sheep. The UWC has 10 vacant allotments; however, six of those allotments are interspersed with private land to make the livestock grazing operations function well. Two allotments are within three miles of an existing herd of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and a third allotment is on the Stansbury Mountains where a bighorn sheep herd was recently reestablished. Another challenge with this potential alternative is that it would require the sheep producers to truck their animals to an allotment, as none of the vacant allotments can be accessed via trailing from Wyoming. This would pose a serious financial hardship on permittees. As a result of these factors, it was decided to not move this possible alternative forward for a detailed analysis. Comparison of Alternatives Both alternatives are presented in terms of their effects on resources in the project area. Table 6 presents the estimated impacts by resource indicators in a qualitative fashion for ease of comparison. Only those indicators that revealed a measurable difference between alternatives are presented in the table. Table 7 presents the findings for terrestrial wildlife, aquatic organisms,

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and fish. Resource effects are analyzed and described in Chapter 3 in the environmental consequences section.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 31 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6 - Summary of resource effects by alternative.1 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Will meet or exceed 85% of Expected to meet or exceed 85% ground cover. In the alpine, of potential. Exceptions include ground cover is expected to areas along the East Fork Sheep Vegetative Cover Percent Ground Cover recover to potential within 3 to Range driveway and localized areas 20 years with discontinuing Vegetation associated with bedding, salting, livestock grazing – thus restoring watering spots, and camps. this element of natural integrity.

Expected to meet or exceed Expected to meet or exceed 90% Percent Late Seral 90% for greenline vegetation for greenline vegetation and late Greenline Vegetation Vegetation and late seral vegetation. seral vegetation. Exceptions would include some stream crossings. Approximately 90% of wetlands would remain in reference Condition of Wetlands and Wetland Condition Almost 100% of wetland areas condition. Wetlands that are not in Riparian Areas Rating would be in reference condition2. reference condition are along the sheep driveway and would continue to be impacted.

Hydrology Number of Stream 57 (used for hiking trail 72 (70 on WCNF along driveway; Water Quality Crossings crossings) 2 on ANF)

Length of Perennial 320 (WCNF - 285 from hiking along the sheep driveway; 35 1,235 (WCNF – along sheep Stream with Bank from hiking not on sheep driveway); 150 (ANF) Trampling (feet) driveway); 0 (ANF)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Additional compaction and displacement where there are new Improvement in areas with areas of concentrated use; current soil compaction and however previously used areas erosion. Recovery could be Soil Compaction and would recover. Those areas include Soil Disturbance anticipated between three and Displacement salting and bedding grounds, and 15 years, and up to forty or more sheep herder camp sites. There years, in areas with the most soil would be no net increase and the compaction.3,4 existing condition is expected to continue. Soils Additional compaction and displacement where there are new areas of concentrated use; Sheet, Rill and Gully however previously used areas Increased stability of surface Erosion; Litter and Soil would recover. Those areas include Soil Erosion soils, increased litter and organic Deposition; and salting and bedding grounds, and matter, and reduced soil erosion. Pedestalling sheep herder camp sites. There would be no net increase and the existing condition is expected to continue. Terrestrial Wildlife Threatened Acres of aspen, mixed Minimal (difficult to quantify) No change anticipated from and aspen, sagebrush, increase in vegetation. existing condition. Vegetative Cover Endangered and willow vegetation Species cover type ROC is 0 for all 10 allotments in High ROC for Gilbert Peak, Hessie the project area. High ROC Lake-Henry’s Fork, Painter Basin, Forest Service remains on Non-Forest Service and Tungsten. Moderate ROC for Risk of Contact (Bighorn Sensitive Risk of contact lands (BLM and private). Red Castle and East Fork Blacks Sheep Only) Species Fork. Low ROC for Middle Fork Blacks Fork, Oweep, Ottoson, and Falls Creek.6

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 33 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Fisheries and Aquatic Organisms Length of stream bank 320’ (used for hiking trail 1,235’ on UWCNF with increased crossings) on UWCNF. 0’ on 150’ on ANF. Forest Service trampling by livestock ANF. Sensitive (feet) Species and Management Sediment Delivery and Indicator or Streamside Cover Focal Species

Stream length % with 0.04% on UWCNF, 0.15% on UWCNF, 0.02% on trampling 0% on ANF. ANF.

The majority of wetlands would remain at reference conditions. Condition of Wetland condition Almost 100% of wetland areas However wetlands along the Wetlands/Riparian Areas rating would be in reference condition. sheep driveway would continue to be impacted. Reissue permits authorizing 7 sheep bands to graze on 9 Authorized actions by None. This would be a reduction allotments. Potentially 8 bands Wilderness Untrammeled Federal land in 7 permitted bands. could graze on 10 allotments if the managers and Ute tribe chooses to graze Fall Recreation Creek at a later date. 143,971 acres still being grazed by domestic sheep, physically Displacement of native occupying up to 160 acres if Fall All competition eliminated from Naturalness wildlife by domestic Creek were to be grazed. 143,971 acres sheep Existing prior to Wilderness designation

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 1 permanent structure would 43 existing temporary structures remain; 43 temporary structures would be maintained. There is a Wilderness Number of structures eliminated possibility of adding around 3 more and Undeveloped related to domestic with the return of grazing to the Recreation sheep permitting Fall Creek Allotment. Existing prior to Wilderness designation Numbers of visitors None Solitude or primitive and encountering domestic 9% of those visiting the area unconfined recreation sheep Ewes/lambs grazed on the Number of Up to 10,300 ewe/lambs and up to 0 allotments Ewes/lambs 3,000 dry ewes

38 (Employees would be retained Socio- Direct, indirect, or induced7 Number of employees 0 and 4 may be hired if the Fall Economics employment Creek Allotment were restocked.)

Dollars brought to the community from sheep Millions of dollars 0 $2,569,335 grazed on allotment 1Only those resource indicators and measures that present a measurable difference between alternatives are presented in this table. For a full discussion of indicators and measures, see Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences. 2Refernce condition is defined by The 2015 Utah Geological Survey Wetlands report as pristine sites without any anthropogenic (human) alteration. 3While there would be no new soil compaction, there would still remain about 57 stream crossings that would continue to be compacted with soil displacement from recreational use. 4 No new compaction along the sheep driveway, but approximately 27 acres with high compaction and erosion impacts would still remain, taking up to a lifetime or more to recover. 5There are approximately 27 acres of high impact along the sheep driveway, where sheet, rill, and gully erosion are actively occurring. The 27 acres occur in isolated, short (0.5 mile length) segments at various locations in the driveway and accounts for less than three percent of the driveway. 6Refer to Table 24 for ROC specific numbers. 7Induced employment or benefit refers to that tertiary level of economic impact that results from employees and producers purchasing supplied and services.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 35 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 7 – Findings for Wildlife, Aquatic Organisms and Fish for Each Alternative.1 Wildlife Category Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Terrestrial Wildlife May affect, not likely to adversely Canada lynx No Effect affect. Threatened, Endangered, and Not likely to jeopardize continued Sensitive Species Wolverine No Effect existence of the wolverine or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Western yellow-billed cuckoo No Effect No Effect Mexican spotted owl No Effect No Effect Peregrine falcon No Impact No Impact Spotted bat No Impact No Impact Townsend's big-eared bat No Impact No Impact Bald eagle No Impact No Impact Boreal owl No Impact No Impact May impact individuals, but would not Great gray owl Beneficial Effect2 cause a trend toward the federal listing or cause a loss of viability. Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Flammulated owl No Impact No Impact Species Three-toed woodpecker No Impact No Impact May impact individuals, but would not Northern goshawk Beneficial Effect2 cause a trend toward the federal listing or cause a loss of viability. Columbia sharp-tailed grouse No Impact No Impact

Gray wolf No Impact No Impact

Pygmy rabbit No Impact No Impact May impact individuals, but would not Bighorn sheep Beneficial Effect2 cause a trend toward the federal listing or cause a loss of viability. Sage-grouse No Impact No Impact

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wildlife Category Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Terrestrial Wildlife Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Red-naped sapsucker No Effect No Effect Species Warbling vireo No Effect No Effect Grazing the five WCNF allotments and Would not affect the trend of the the associated sheep driveway system goshawk population on the would not affect the trend of the WCNF (only terrestrial focal goshawk population on the WCNF or species on WCNF) or impair the Northern goshawk3, 4 impair the ability of the Forest to ability of the Forest to contribute provide well-distributed habitat or to the ecological conditions contribute to the ecological conditions necessary to support this necessary to support habitat for the species. species.

Management Indicator Species or No Effect on the ANF No Effect on the ANF Focal Species

May benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to Would not affect the trend of golden the trend of golden eagle eagle populations on the Forest or Golden eagle populations on the Forest nor impair the ability of the Forest to impair the ability of the Forest to provide well-distributed habitat for this provide well-distributed habitat species. for this species. May benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to Would not affect the trend of Lincoln’s the trend of Lincoln’s sparrow sparrow populations on the Forest or Lincoln’s sparrow populations on the Forest nor impair the ability of the Forest to impair the ability of the Forest to provide well-distributed habitat for this provide well-distributed habitat species. for this species.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 37 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wildlife Category Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Terrestrial Wildlife May benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to Would not affect the trend of song the trend of the song sparrow sparrow populations on the Forest or Song sparrow populations on the Forest nor impair the ability of the Forest to impair the ability of the Forest to provide well-distributed habitat for this provide well-distributed habitat species. for this species. Sage-grouse No Effect No Effect May benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to Would not affect the trend of white- the trend of the white-tailed tailed ptarmigan populations on the ptarmigan populations on the White-tailed ptarmigan Forest or impair the ability of the Forest nor impair the ability of Forest to provide well-distributed the Forest to provide well- habitat for this species. Management Indicator Species or distributed habitat for this Focal Species species. May benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to Would not affect the trend of elk the trend of the elk populations populations on the Forest or impair the Rocky Mountain elk on the Forest nor impair the ability of the Forest to provide well- ability of the Forest to provide distributed habitat for this species. well-distributed habitat for this species. May benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to Would not affect the trend of mule deer the trend of the mule deer populations on the Forest or impair the Mule deer populations on the Forest nor ability of the Forest to provide well- impair the ability of the Forest to distributed habitat for this species. provide well-distributed habitat for this species.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 38 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wildlife Category Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Terrestrial Wildlife May benefit migratory birds, and Would not adversely affect the habitat Broad-tailed hummingbird would not adversely affect the or populations habitat. May benefit migratory birds, and Would not adversely affect the habitat Black-rosy finch would not adversely affect the or populations habitat. Cassin’s finch No Effect No Effect Birds of Conservation Concern May benefit migratory birds, and Would not adversely affect the habitat and Utah Partners in Flight Prairie falcon would not adversely affect the or populations Priority Species habitat. May benefit migratory birds, and Would not adversely affect the habitat Golden eagle5 would not adversely affect the or populations habitat. May benefit migratory birds, and Would not adversely affect the habitat Willow flycatcher would not adversely affect the or populations habitat. Three-toed woodpecker6 No Effect No Effect Fisheries and Aquatic Organisms7 Columbia spotted frog No Impact No Impact May impact individual boreal toad, but would not cause a trend toward their Boreal toad No Impact Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive federal listing or cause a loss of Species viability to their population. Bonneville cutthroat trout No Impact No Impact Northern leatherside chub No Impact No Impact Southern leatherside chub No Impact No Impact May impact individual Colorado River cutthroat trout, but would not cause a Colorado River cutthroat Region 4 Sensitive Species No Impact trend toward their federal listing or trout8 cause a loss of viability to their population.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 39 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wildlife Category Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Terrestrial Wildlife May impact individual Colorado River cutthroat trout, but would not cause a Colorado River cutthroat trout No Impact trend toward their federal listing or cause a loss of viability to their MIS and Focal Species population. Healthy/stable populations of Healthy/stable populations of aquatic aquatic macro invertebrates will macro invertebrates will continue to Aquatic macroinvertebrates continue to occur throughout the occur throughout the project area project area regardless of regardless of alternative chosen alternative chosen

1Botanical species are not presented here because the determination was made that there would be no effect for Threatened and Endangered species, and no impact to Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive species. The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation are located in the project record. 2The findings from Alternative 1 would be identical to Alternative 2 for the first 2 years because the allotments would not be vacated until 2 years after the decision was made. 3The Northern goshawk is a focal species for the WC Planning Area and a Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species. 4The Northern goshawk is an MIS for the Ashley NF and a Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species. 5The golden eagle is also an Ashley NF MIS. 6The three-toed woodpecker is also a Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species. 7Fish species that are on the USDI-FWS TES list are not presented here because there was no effect. For further information, please refer to the Biological Assessment for Fisheries in the project record. 8The Colorado River cutthroat trout is a WC Planning Area Focal species.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction This chapter describes the affected environment, which includes the physical, biological and human aspects of the resources within the project area that may be changed through implementation of an action(s) of a proposed alternative. The affected environment describes the setting for each resource as it relates to the potential impacts of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the methods used to conduct the analysis for each resource, the measurement indicators to compare and contrast the effects of each alternative, and the bounds of each resource analysis in terms of how far the effects are measurable in space and in time. In addition, the existing condition is also described for each resource, and is used as a baseline to compare and contrast the effects of both alternatives. The existing condition is presented according to the measurement indicators for each resource. This chapter also presents the foundation for the scientific and analytic basis for comparison of all alternatives. Detailed information on the effects analysis is also located in the project record and contained within individual resource reports. Effects are classified as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Direct effects are the immediate impacts as a result of an action, while indirect effects are also caused by the action, but occur later in time or farther removed in distance. Cumulative effects are those effects that result when the effects of other actions (Federal or non-Federal) overlap in both space (geographical area) and time with the effects generated by an alternative. The effects for each alternative will be discussed based upon the measurement indicators and bounds of analysis and will be consistently used for direct, indirect and cumulative effects for each alternative. Cumulative effects are determined by adding up the effects from one of the action alternatives and then combining those effects with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future effects to create a combined cumulative effect. Only those resources that were associated with an issue, or that had an effect as a result of either alternative are presented in the discussions that follow. Resources that were analyzed and the determination was no effect regardless of alternative are not presented here for brevity. That information is available in the project record and on the project’s webpage. Those resources that were not included in this report include heritage, threatened and endangered species for botanical resources and fisheries, air quality, and visuals. Additionally, while there are Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that are part of the allotments (Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Middle Fork Blacks Fork, and East Fork Blacks Fork), grazing is an allowed activity within Roadless areas, so an effects analysis for IRAs has not been prepared. Other resources such as timber, engineering, and special uses were not impacted by this project, so no resource reports were prepared. Range Vegetation Affected Environment Rangelands located within the grazing allotments are found in both alpine and sub-alpine settings. Since alpine plant communities are more variable and diverse than those found in sub-alpine

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 41 Draft Environmental Impact Statement areas a discussion describing their nature will occur, with the exception of mesic meadows, wetlands, and stream riparian communities. Since these communities are compositionally similar in both alpine and sub-alpine settings, they will be discussed together. Alpine vegetation within the allotments is a complexity of communities of high elevation that consist of an array of plants highly adapted to harsh environmental conditions (Figure 4). Plants are typically low-growing, mat-forming, and/or dwarfed in their structure. Alpine communities are highly diverse across the landscape and their presence or absence are conditional on topography, geology, aspect, snow accumulation and persistence, wind exposure, rodent activity, soil moisture, temperature, and other factors that help form habitable niches (Baker 1983; Billings 1973; Goodrich 2004, Goodrich 2006, Johnson and Billings 1962; Walker and others 1993; Willard 1979, Brown 2006). Such variation creates a mosaic of plant communities that are usually small in size, differ considerably in species composition and potential ground cover, and where rapid changes in plant composition occurs over short distances (Romme and others 2009). Uniform plant communities of large size are rare (Osburn 1958). Most communities consist either of a dominant species or have co-dominant species that describe the community. Species richness varies by community, from a few plants to 20 or 30 species, with most of these occurring in trace amounts (Brown 2006).

Figure 4 - Aerial view of the head of Lake Fork drainage. Photo taken 27 July 1995 depicts numerous alpine plant communities influenced by topography, aspect, wind, and snow accumulation. Note the numerous late persisting snow beds. Brown (2006) described 50 alpine plant communities within the Uinta Mountains. For example, on wind-swept summits and windward slopes where snow cover is limited or absent, curly sedge and cushion plants are community dominants; however, where snow-release occurs in early June, Kobresia, single-spike sedge, and Ross avens are common (Figure 5). In snow beds where snow- release dates extend beyond July, Sibbaldia and alpine pussytoes often dominate those sites.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Black alpine sedge communities often form at the base of a large talus slopes where running water from late-persisting snow beds keep soils moist throughout the growing season.

Figure 5 - Study A11-4. 2005. Near Smiths Fork Pass, head of Yellowstone drainage. View of Ross avens, kobresia, and curly sedge alpine community. Several riparian and wetland communities are found in both alpine and sub-alpine environs of the Uinta Mountains. These communities are found in wet to saturated areas, often associated with peat-filled lakes or glacial depressions, poor fens, on floating peatlands adjacent to open water, or along streambanks of running water (Lewis 1970, Chadde and others 1998). Water sedge is by far the most common community. Plane-leaf willow is often a co-dominant in communities with better drained soils (Figure 6). Because many wetlands and riparian areas are dominated by a single species, plant species richness is relatively low (about 5 species). Ground cover is at or near 100 percent for these communities (Brown 2006).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 43 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 6 - Study A12-15E. 2013. Gilbert Creek Basin, Uinta drainage. View of plane-leaf willow and water sedge community. Vegetation composition of most alpine and sub-alpine meadows can be highly variable, but tufted hairgrass is a major component in nearly all of them. Soils are relatively deep, well-watered, but drained (Lewis 1970). These communities are generally of high production and ground cover (>90 percent). Species richness ranges from 15 to 19 plants in most meadows (Brown 2006). Plane- leaf willow and tufted hairgrass are typically co-dominants in the moist-soil communities, while timber oatgrass, alpine sagewort, and single-spike sedge are more common in mesic meadows (Figure 7).

Figure 7 - Study A23-14. 2001. Ottoson Basin, Lake Fork drainage. View of sub-alpine meadow dominated by timber oatgrass, alpine sagewort, slender-leaf ligusticum, and tufted hairgrass.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Low and dwarf shrub communities are represented in dry alpine and sub-alpine settings. Of these, grayleaf willow is most common and grows in well-drained soils. Communities of this willow can be found on steep rocky or talus slopes to benches or basins of gentle gradient. Willow crown cover can reach as high as 35 percent. Herbaceous cover consists of an array of sedges, grasses, and forbs with timber oatgrass, Ross avens, and single-spike sedge often present (Figure 8).

Figure 8 - Study A12-15. 2013. Gilbert Creek Basin, Uinta drainage. View of a gray-leaf and plane-leaf willow community with an herbaceous understory of timber oatgrass, Ross avens, single-spike sedge, and tufted hairgrass. Pocket gophers are inherent in several alpine and sub-alpine communities of the Uinta Mountains. Their activity reduces vegetation biomass and increases bare soil. Distribution and abundance of pocket gophers are related to plant community type, soil drainage, duration of snow cover, ground water, aspect, soil texture, and likely geologic substrate (Figure 9).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 45 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 9 - Study W18-10E. 2007. East Fork of Blacks Fork, Blacks Fork drainage. View of pocket gopher eskers and mounds in an alpine setting. Note the increase of bare soil due to pocket gopher activity. Due to some differences in contributing factors, pocket gopher activity in some alpine basins is rare while common in others. For example, pocket gopher activity is common in the Henrys Fork Basin where the substrate has a high shale content, but rare in Painter Basin where the substrate consists primarily of Precambrian Quartzite (Figure 10).

Figure 10 - Study A12-33E. 2003. Gunsight Pass. The left image depicts talus slopes consisting of shale material in Henrys Fork drainage of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, where pocket gopher activity is common. The right image depicts talus slopes consisting of quartzite in Painter Basin of the Ashley National Forest, where pocket gopher activity is absent to rare. Photos were taken from the same camera point. Snow bed communities are highly variable in several features and these are most influenced by the snow-release date. Vegetation composition is a strong indicator of snow duration. Plants such as tufted hairgrass, alpine bluegrass, Parry’s rush, and alpine sagewort are found in snow beds

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement with early snow release dates. In late persisting snow beds, Pyrenean sedge, cloud sedge, alpine buttercup, and Engelmann sedge are quite common (Figure 11). Ground cover varies from an average of 98 percent in black alpine sedge to as low as 62 percent in alpine buttercup communities. Bare soil is more common in snow beds than other alpine communities and rock represents a large portion of ground cover in many communities (Brown 2006).

Figure 11 - Study 10-6. 2001. Oweep Basin, Lake Fork drainage. View of a snow bed with a late snow-release date (foreground) and an early-to-mid-summer snow-release date (background beyond blue line). Note the differences in vegetation and ground cover. Pyrenean sedge, sibbaldia, and alpine pussytoes dominate vegetation cover in the late-persisting snow bed. Rangeland Terminology and Definitions There are a variety of rangeland specific terms utilized in the discussion of the existing condition and the effects section below. In order to provide an understanding of what those terms mean, those definitions are present below. Dominance: Dominance is defined as 60% or more of composition as determined by ocular cover, weight, or other methods that define composition. This includes both woody and herbaceous species. Documentation associated with photography and other notes as well as measurements from studies are sources for determination of dominance. Close herding: Sheep are kept in a tight bunch by the herder and/or with the use of dogs. Sheep are not allowed to spread across the landscape but are restricted and kept in a closely bunched manner as they graze. (Stoddart et. al., 1975; SRM, 2005) Desired Conditions (ANF): Total ground cover equal to or greater than 85 percent of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock, with plant communities dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control), and stream bank stability is equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential for all perennial streams.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 47 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Desired Conditions (UWCNF): Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standards (S7, S24, and S25) and Guidelines (G7) and having plant communities dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control). Ground cover: The percentage of material other than bare ground and erosion pavement, covering the land surface. It may include live vegetation, standing dead vegetation, litter, cryptograms, and rock ¾”. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent (USDA, 2005). Heavy use: Greater than 50 percent grazing utilization and does not permit desirable forage species to maintain themselves (Holechek et. al., 2004; Klippe and Bement, 1961). High ground cover: Ground cover is 85 percent or more (Brown, 2006). High impact: Obvious sheep use (i.e. droppings, trailing, and utilization) with effects to rangeland resources as they relate to desired conditions. Light impact: Obvious sheep use (i.e. droppings, trailing, and utilization) with no to negligible effect to rangeland resources as they relate to desired conditions. Light use: Between 10 percent and 30 percent grazing utilization and allows palatable species to maximize their herbage producing ability (Holechek et. al., 2004; Klippe and Bement, 1961). Low ground cover: Ground cover is 85 percent or less (Brown, 2006). Moderate impact: Obvious sheep use (i.e. droppings, trailing, and utilization). May or may not effect rangeland resources as they relate to desired conditions. Moderate use: Between 30 percent and 50 percent grazing utilization and allows palatable species to maintain themselves but may not permit them to improve in herbage-producing quality (Holechek et. al., 2004; Klippe and Bement, 1961). Negligible use: Less than 10 percent utilization. Open herded: Sheep spread naturally across the landscape. Sheep are allowed to move slowly as they graze. Sheep are allowed to move from one are to another as they graze rather than being bunched up and herded. (Stoddart et. al., 1975; SRM, 2005). Satisfactory Condition: Meeting desired conditions or trending towards desired condition. Unsatisfactory Condition: Not at or trending towards desired conditions. Plants of a Moderate to High Value for Watershed Protection (or Erosion Control): Values of plants for watershed protection (or erosion control) are listed in the Region Four Range Analysis Handbook (December 9, 2005) and in a supplemental document by the Ashley National Forest (Goodrich, 2015-03-12). Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection include numerous species of perennial graminoids, willows, and broad-leaved forbs. • High – Plant has aggressive growth habits, persistent in plant structure, high potential biomass, and/or good soil-binding root-rhizome-runner system in established stands. • Moderate – Plant that has moderately aggressive growth, moderately persistent plant structure, moderate potential biomass and/or moderate soil-binding root-rhizome-runner system in established stands.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 48 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Low – Plant that has poor growth, persistence, biomass and/or a soil-binding root system that makes it generally inadequate for erosion control. Methodology Analysis of vegetative conditions for the allotments and sheep driveway are based on approximately 1,200 long-term studies permanently established within the project area (Gilbert Peak = 50 studies, Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork = 48 studies, Red Castle = 81 studies, East Fork- Blacks Fork = 122 studies, Middle Fork-Blacks Fork = 66 studies, East Fork Sheep Driveway = 80 studies, Fall Creek = 66 studies, Painter Basin = 180 studies, Ottoson Basin = 157 studies, Oweep = 129 studies, and Tungsten = 239 studies). Trend and condition were determined from those studies that have been re-visited at least once following establishment. Condition without trend is indicated from some studies with a single visit. Several monitoring methods are or have been used to gather data for condition and trend analysis. These include but are not limited to repeat photography, photo plot, line point intercept, vegetation ocular macroplot, nested frequency and greenline. Older study types that provide background information but are not currently used include site analysis and Parker 3-Step. Information Sources This report was prepared using the best available information at the time that included a review of relevant literature and UWCNF and ANF studies (Cameron 2017-04-28b; Huber 2016; Cameron and Huber 2018-05-16). This report also incorporates information obtained from numerous field visits to the project area. Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination Soil, vegetation, and streambanks are the resources that were selected to compare and contrast the effects of both alternatives on range vegetation. Resource indicators and measures were developed for these selected resources. These indicators and measures are described in Table 8 below, and the supporting rationale for those indicators is provided after the table. Table 8 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects. Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Soil Ground cover Percent ground cover Vegetation Plant species Dominance of high and moderate plants for watershed composition protection Streambanks Greenline vegetation Percent late seral vegetation Soil: Measuring percent ground cover ensures the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan standard (S7) “Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type.” is being implemented and followed. Additionally, ground cover is suggested by a large volume of literature to be the main element of soil conservation (Goodrich and Cameron, 2014-02-10). Maintenance of ground cover facilitates sustainability of long-term productivity of plant communities, and this is conducive to compliance with state water quality standards (Goodrich and Huber, 2018-03-27). Vegetation: Plants with moderate to high value for watershed protection have characteristics that provide protection against raindrop splash and sheet erosion. Characteristics of these plants such

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 49 Draft Environmental Impact Statement as the aggressive growth habits, persistent plant structure, high to moderate potential biomass, and/or good-moderate soil-binding root-rhizome-runner systems in established stands hold up better to raindrop splash and sheet erosion events than the characteristics of low value watershed protection plants (i.e., poor growth, persistence, biomass and/or soil-binding root systems that generally make it inadequate for erosion control) such as annual grasses like cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection 1) intercept raindrops and protect the soil surface from the impacts of raindrops; 2) help disperse surface flow and slow it down; and 3) help hold the water in place longer than bare soil and thus allows for greater infiltration (Osborn, 1955; Musgrave, 1955). All of these actions help reduce soil erosion and runoff which in turns helps improve water quality. Streambanks: Measuring percent late seral vegetation (measure) along the greenline vegetation (indicator) ensures the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Guideline (G7) “Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70 percent or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60 percent or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40 percent or more late-seral vegetation communities.” and ANF desired condition streambank stability is equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential are being implemented and followed. There is a strong relationship between the amount and kind of vegetation along the greenline and streambank stability (Winward, 2000). Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct/indirect and cumulative effects is the project area, which includes all ten allotments as defined by their respective allotment boundaries and the East Fork Sheep Driveway as described in the Affected Environment section above. The temporal boundary is defined as beginning from the establishment of the Forests until a future change in management that changes the number and season of use of domestic sheep in the project area. Existing Condition Rangeland Vegetation – Common to All Allotments Based upon approximately 1,200 different study sites located throughout the project area, the plant communities grazed by livestock are in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28; Huber, 2016). Satisfactory condition is defined as meeting desired conditions or trending towards desired condition. For the UWCNF, desired condition is defined as the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standards (S7, S24, and S25) and Guidelines (G7) and having plant communities dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control). For the ANF, desired condition is defined as total ground cover equal to or greater than 85 percent of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock, with plant communities dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control), and stream bank stability equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential for all perennial streams. Values of plants for watershed protection are listed in the Region Four Range Analysis Handbook (December 9, 2005) and in a supplemental document by

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 50 Draft Environmental Impact Statement the Ashley National Forest (Goodrich, 2015-03-12). Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection include numerous species of perennial graminoids, willows, and broad- leaved forbs. These elements are consistent with existing livestock grazing management and comply with current direction in the Forest Plans and other applicable laws, regulations, and higher level decisions. Current condition and trend for rangeland vegetation and study summaries on all allotments and the East Fork Sheep Driveway, concurrent with livestock grazing, are incorporated into this range analysis (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; Cameron and Huber, 2018-05-16). Studies cited with a W prefix indicated the study is located on the UWCNF while studies cited with an A prefix indicate the study is located on the ANF. Alpine Vegetation Alpine vegetation has complex mosaic patterns (Baker, 1983; Billings, 1973; Bryant and Scheinberg, 1970; Cox, 1933; Douglas and Bliss, 1977; Goodrich, 2009; Johnson and Billings, 1962; Marr, 1967; Stanton et al., 1994; Walker et al., 1993; Willard 1979). The complex often includes plant communities that may cover several acres, but often cover only a few square feet (Billings and Bliss, 1959; Marr, 1967) with gradual or rapid compositional changes occurring over short distances of a foot or a few feet (Choate and Habeck, 1967; Helm, 1982; Osburn, 1958). On Trail Ridge, Rocky Mountain National Park, Willard (1979) considered the distribution of winter snow accumulation to be the primary controlling factor of vegetation patterns with pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) activity the second most important factor, and various frozen ground phenomena as the next important. Other factors listed by Willard (1979) include moisture, degree of soil development, and type of parent material. Patterns of wind and topography, as reflected in distribution of snow and moisture, control vegetation above treeline (Komarkova, 1979). These patterns often result in deep snowbeds on southerly or warm aspects as well as other aspects. Regardless of aspect, snowbed communities form where snow persists into mid-July or longer. Where snow cover persists into mid and late summer in some years, snowbed semi-barrens are found (Brown 2006). Livestock grazing is a minor factor in increased bare soil and decreased vegetation in many snowbed communities. Pocket gophers are important geomorphic agents (Burns, 1979; Thorn, 1978; Yoo, 2005) that have the ability to control plant community dynamics (Larrison, 1942; Sherrod et al., 2005; Willard, 1979), soil features (Sherrod, 1999; Sherrod and Seastedt, 2001), and contribute to erosion (Stoecker, 1976; Thorn, 1978). Evidence of soil movement by northern pocket gophers is recognized by eskers (casts, soil tubes, earthen cores, infilled tunnels), mounds and earth plugs. Eskers are composed of soil moved above ground and into the snowpack as the animals clean and extend their underground burro systems. When the snow melts, these eskers, left on the surface of the ground, are evidence of winter activity. Mounds are concentric piles of earth pushed to the surface of the ground by pocket gophers as they feed and develop or extend their underground burrow systems. Thorn (1978) recognized the important but largely ignored role played by pocket gophers, and he recommended accepting gopher ecology as an integral geomorphic variable, rather than as an aberration to be avoided in research site selection. A summary paper (Goodrich and Cameron, 2011-01-20) and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 51 Draft Environmental Impact Statement a power point presentation (Goodrich et al. 2015-03-01) dealing with pocket gophers are included in the reference section. Strong influence of northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) on geomorphology, erosion, and plant community dynamics is recorded for areas with little or no history of livestock grazing, and includes those from the Niwot Ridge & Boulder City Watershed area of Colorado (Burns 1979; Goodrich et al. 2002-08-15; Komarkova 1979; Osburn 1958; Sherrod and Seastedt 2001; Sherrod et al. 2005; Thorn 1978; Thorn 1982) and from Rocky Mountain Park (Goodrich et al. 2002-08- 14; Willard 1979). These studies were conducted in areas free or relatively free of livestock grazing. These papers provided evidence that livestock grazing is not a necessary precursor that influences pocket gopher activity on soils and plant communities. These papers also provide evidence that pocket gopher activity will not necessarily decrease if livestock are removed from pocket gopher selected areas. In contrast, the upper Uinta drainage of the Uinta Mountains with a history of livestock grazing have been noted for the absence of pocket gophers (Field, 1928; Goodrich, 2006-03-15; Goodrich and Huber, 2006-02-13; Goodrich and Huber, 2009-03-02; Goodrich and Huber, 2014-02-20). Hayward (1952) did not see any evidence of pocket gopher activity in his study area in the Uinta drainage where livestock grazing had been permitted for nearly five decades prior to his study. Absence of pocket gophers in much of the Leidy Peak area of the Uinta Mountains with a long history of livestock grazing has also been noted (Goodrich, 2010-01-16). Absence or near absence of pocket gophers in areas grazed by livestock provide additional evidence that pocket gopher abundance can be independent of livestock grazing. Alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. Patterns of vegetation indicate plant communities and ground cover are determined by inherent factors as discussed above. Duration of snow cover, drainage patterns, and pocket gophers are controlling inherent factors. Where sheep graze in the absence of pocket gophers, ground cover is often greater than 85 percent. Where pocket gophers are more abundant, ground cover is reduced. Other areas with low percent ground cover can be divided into two groups. The first group includes snowbeds, Red Pine Shale barrens, and scoured drainage-ways. Sheep have equal access to these areas that have high percent ground cover as they do to areas that have low percent ground cover. To assume conditions in these areas are a result of sheep is inconsistent with inherent features of the land. The second group includes generally small and confined areas of less than 0.2 acre as a result of mineral licks for both wild and domestic ungulates and trail-stream intercepts (less than one percent of the project area). For example, see studies A12-15C2-D, A12-26F, A12-33D, A12-35, A22-16B4, W18-10A1/2, W18-31A1 and W18-32C3 (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition. For example, see studies A10-3B, A10-9A, A11-2A, A11-2C1, A11-3A, A12-12A, A22-12A, A12-14A, W19-2, W19-38A and W20-2A1 (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). Plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection dominate. For example, see studies A9-1A-B, 10-5A, A10-10A, A11-3A, A11-4C-D, A12-2B, A12-15A, A12-23B, A12-26G, A12-27C, A22-7G, A22-11A, W18-4, W19-8 and W19-31B (Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016 and see the project record for a complete list).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 52 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Riparian Vegetation Sheep do not prefer to graze in riparian areas (Platts 1981; Platts 1987). Some use does occur, but the utilization of key riparian species is negligible to light, often more than six inches is left along the greenline after grazing (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28a; Cameron, 2017-04-28b). Large willow fields are common after a century of livestock grazing, and willows are increasing. For example, see studies A10-1, A11-2A-B, A11-3B, A12-7A-B, A12-8, A12-22, A22-17A, A23-4A-B, A24-13CW19-19A, W19-19C and W19-30A (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). Using willows as indicators, light impacts from sheep grazing are reasonably concluded for the project area. Monitoring indicates greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28a; Cameron, 2017-04-28b). Dominance of greater than 85 percent of the greenline by late seral species is demonstrated for several reaches of streams. For example, see studies W19-23A1, W19-30A and W19-35A (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). High percent late seral vegetation at greenline studies also indicate sheep have a limited influence on streambanks. Exceptions for high percent late seral vegetation are found for short reaches at trail crossings (see study W19-15B), mineral licks (see study W18-12E2B), and after failure of beaver dams. For example, see studies W18-32C1, 19-31A1 and 19-37C1 (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). Beaver appear to be the primary biological agent of disturbance along streams. Some stream reaches are strongly influenced by construction and failure of beaver dams. This process results in early seral species dominance and scoured stream channels within and below beaver ponds. With time, late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with sheep grazing, and such trend indicates satisfactory condition. Subalpine Vegetation Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28a; Cameron, 2017-04-28b). For example, see studies A23-3A, A23-16A, W8-43, W8-60 and W20-31 (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. For example, see studies A23-1, A23-3A2, A23-16A, W8-46B, W10-8 and W19-2 (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Huber, 2016; and see the project record for a complete list). Bedding, Salting, Watering Spots, Trailing and Camps Sheep are generally bedded on the driest portion of the meadows. Moderate to heavy forage utilization, trampling, and increased sheep droppings occur on these sites. The average size of these beds grounds is about ½ acre. Due to the restriction of bedding the sheep at only one bed ground per night, ground cover at bed ground sites is generally adequate to protect soils and vegetation is dominated by plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. For example, see studies W19-29 and W18-33A. These areas account for less than one percent of the project area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 53 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

There are no permanent designated salt grounds. Instead, salt is placed on rocks or hollowed out logs. Generally, these areas are less than a ¼ acre in size. Moderate to heavy forage utilization, trampling, decreased ground cover and increased sheep droppings occur on these sites. Salt placement is rotated each year. Due to salt placement being rotated every year these sites usually recover to pre-salting conditions within a few years. Some bare soil directly around the rock or log may be visible longer. These areas account for less than one percent of the project area. There are numerous places scattered throughout the project area where the sheep water. Some of these are located along streambanks and some are wet meadows where there is standing water available. Water spots are numerous and well distributed throughout the project area. As such, sheep do not have to congregate and travel as one herd to water, but rather small groups of sheep (i.e. generally less than 200 sheep per group) naturally water next to areas where they are grazing. This practice has minimized trampling effects at water spots. Watering areas receive some trampling resulting in exposure of some bare soil. If located next to live water some sediment enters into streams, however this is minor compared to natural processes (i.e., beaver and their associated activities) and historical management practices (i.e., tie hacking activities). Water spots are generally quite small, usually less than 1/10 acre in size and not all of these are located next to live streams. These areas account for less than one percent of the project area. Trailing outside of the East Fork Sheep Driveway does occur on each individual allotment by the sheep permitted there. Sheep are managed to minimize trailing effects. Sheep are open herded with the minimum use of dogs. Trailing occurs when sheep are moved from unit to unit as designated in the annual operating instructions. This trailing is minimized however by timing the move into the next unit with when the sheep have naturally grazed up to the unit boundary. Some trailing occurs within the units themselves. Trailing across wet meadows knocks down the grasses and forbs, but does not have any long lasting impact on the plants. Experience has shown that the plants recover by the next year and evidence of sheep trailing through the wet meadow vegetation is not visible until the activity occurs again that year. Trailing across dry meadows has a more lasting effect. There are visible trailing signs left over from year to year in the form of reduced ground cover on the trails. Many of these same sheep trails are used by recreational livestock and as such compound the reduction in ground cover. Where sheep trails are not also used by horses (i.e., recreational livestock and sheepherders) erosion is not evident, but there are places along the main recreation trails where some erosion has been caused by a combination of recreational use, sheepherder horse use and sheep trailing. Sheepherder camps were established when sheep first started to graze the allotments at the turn of the century. Some of these camps are still used today. During the past few years, the permittees have made a concerted effort to pack out all old accumulated garbage as well as any new garbage. The permittees have also cleaned up and packed out garbage left over from recreational use of these camps. Because most of these camps have been used annually over the past 100 years, some of them have bare, compacted soil and look like an established campsite. These areas are generally less than a ¼ acre in size and they have not expanded in size. These campsites do not have active soil erosion occurring and account for less than one percent of the project area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 54 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Rangeland Vegetation – Allotment Specific Gilbert Peak Allotment Based upon approximately 50 different study sites located throughout the Gilbert Peak Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17). Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. Alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. Patterns of vegetation indicate plant communities and ground cover are determined by inherent factors as discussed above. Duration of snow cover, drainage patterns, and pocket gophers are controlling inherent factors. Where sheep graze in the absence of pocket gophers, ground cover is often greater than 85 percent. Where pocket gophers are more abundant, ground cover is reduced. Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition with the exception of one site (see Study 19-30E). However, Study W19-30E indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and not sheep grazing. Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. For example, see Studies W10-8, W19-19C, W19-30E, W19-34 and W20-2A1 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see the project record for a complete list). Historically, there were concerns about headcuts south of Dead Horse Park. The main part of the erosion area is about 0.25 acres, which is less than one percent of the allotment. These headcuts do not appear to be caused by domestic livestock. For example, slow movement of erosional features have been documented for numerous sites in the alpine of the Uinta Mountains (Zobell et al. 2015-03-03). Additionally, scarps in alpine sod have been noted for Rocky Mountain National Park where livestock have not been grazed (Willard 1979) and on Niwot Ridge, Colorado with little history of livestock use (Goodrich et al. 2002-08-15 study sites NR5 & NR6). Seven years of measurements between 1996 and 2014 indicates the advancement of headcuts south of Dead Horse Park have moved an average of 1.8 inches in 18 years (or 0.1 inches per year). About 40 percent of this headcut movement is direct related to pocket gopher activity (0.7 inches of the 1.8 inches). Monitoring indicates satisfactory conditions in this area (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see study W20-2B). The cirque east of Dollar Lake, referred to as Funnel Gorge Basin, is dissected by several funnel gorges. Debris fans of large rock debris have developed below the gorges (Rapp, 1960). Torrent ditches follow the gorges and cross the debris fans and extend across the valley bottom. Processes associated with these geomorphic features exert control on rangeland condition and trend in this basin. Currently, there has been healing and increase in ground cover concurrent with livestock grazing. However, an intense thunderstorm or rapid snowmelt event or a combination of both could revert to conditions observed in photos taken in 1960, regardless of livestock grazing as demonstrated in studies W20-4A, W20-4B and W20-4C (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see the project record for a complete list). Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate the wet meadows (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 55 Draft Environmental Impact Statement see studies W19-15A and W19-23B2). Large willow fields are common after a century of livestock grazing, and willows are increasing (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see studies W19-19A, W19-19C, W19-30A, W19-30B, W20-4A, W20-4B, W20-4C, and W20-4E). Using willows as indicators, light impacts from livestock grazing are reasonably concluded for the Gilbert Peak Allotment. Monitoring indicates greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17). Dominance of greater than 85 percent of the greenline by late seral species is demonstrated for several reaches of streams. For examples, see studies W19-23A1, W19-23A2, W19-23B1, W19-23B3 and W19- 30A (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see the project record for a complete list). Exceptions are found for short reaches at trail crossings (see study W19-15B) and after failure of beaver dams. Beaver appear to be the primary biological agent of disturbance along streams. Some stream reaches of the Henry’s Fork are strongly influenced by construction and failure of beaver dams. This process results in early seral species dominance and scoured stream channels within and below beaver ponds. However, with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing. Such trend indicates satisfactory condition of beaver influenced areas. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7). Thirty ground cover monitoring studies indicate Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7) is being met. One ground cover monitoring study indicates Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7) is not being met and it is not a result of livestock grazing (see study W19-30E and discussion above). Resource Indicator and Measure 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • All twenty-nine plant monitoring studies indicate plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • All twelve greenline monitoring studies indicate that Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Guideline (G7) is being met. In summary, monitoring indicates satisfactory conditions on the Gilbert Peak Allotment (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17). Thus indicating satisfactory conditions can be maintained with continued sheep grazing at the level of permitted use of the past few decades.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork Allotment Based upon approximately 48 different study sites located throughout the Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12- 17). Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. Alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. Patterns of vegetation indicate plant communities and ground cover are determined by inherent factors. Duration of snow cover, drainage patterns, and pocket gophers are controlling inherent factors. Where sheep graze in the absence of pocket gophers, ground cover is often greater than 85 percent. Where pocket gophers are more abundant, ground cover is reduced. Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition. Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. For example, see studies W19-2, W19-3A2, W19-3B and W19-3C (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see the project record for a complete list). Historically, there were concerns about headcuts on Flat Top Mountain. The main area of the erosion area is about 0.2 acres, which is less than one percent of the allotment. Monitoring indicates the headcuts are most likely a natural waterway channeling snowmelt water down the drainage during the spring and undercutting banks in the process. As the outside banks cut, the waterway migrates in that outward direction. Sheep grazing along undercut banks most likely cause some of the undercut banks to slough off sooner than if left entirely to the influences of the yearly spring water flow. As the waterway moves laterally, the vegetation moves into the inside bank areas where there is less water cutting forces. Native, perennial plants are colonizing the depressions behind the cut about as rapidly as the headcut advances. It appears the waterway is not increasing in width. Slow movement of erosional features has been documented for numerous sites in the alpine of the Uinta Mountains (Zobell et al., 2015-03-03). Additionally, scarps in alpine sod have been noted for Rocky Mountain National Park where livestock have not been grazed (Willard, 1979) and on Niwot Ridge, Colorado with little history of livestock use (Goodrich et al., 2002-08-15 study sites NR5 and NR6). This demonstrates these types of erosional issues can be present without domestic sheep grazing. This waterway appear to be an inherent features of the watershed system. Monitoring indicates satisfactory conditions. For example, see studies W19- 3A1, W19-51 and W19-51A (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016- 12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see the project record for a complete list). Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate the wet meadows (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see studies W19-2, W19-31B, and W19-31D). Large willow fields are common after a century of livestock grazing, and willows are increasing (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see studies W19-3A2 and W19-3B). Using willows as indicators, light impacts from livestock grazing are reasonably concluded for the allotment. Monitoring indicates greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17). Dominance of greater than 85% of the greenline by late seral species is demonstrated for several reaches of

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 57 Draft Environmental Impact Statement streams. For example, see studies W19-23A1, W19-23A2, W19-23B1, W19-23B3 and W19-45 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12- 17; and see the project record for a complete list). Exceptions are conditions that occur after failure of beaver dams. For example, see studies W19-31A and W19-31A2 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17; and see the project record for a complete list). Beaver appear to be the principal biological agent of disturbance along streams. Some stream reaches of the Henry’s Fork are heavily influenced by construction and failure of beaver dams. This process results in early seral species dominance and scoured stream channels within and below beaver ponds. However, with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing. Such trend indicates satisfactory condition of beaver influenced areas. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7). All twenty-eight ground cover monitoring studies indicate Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7) is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • All twenty-one plant monitoring studies indicate plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • All nine greenline monitoring studies indicate that Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Guideline (G7) is being met. In summary, monitoring indicates overall satisfactory conditions on the allotment (USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Goodrich, et al., 2016-12-20; Zobell et al., 2016-12-17). Thus indicating satisfactory conditions can be maintained with continued sheep grazing at the level of permitted use of the past few decades. Red Castle Allotment Based upon approximately 81 different study sites located throughout the Red Castle Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. Alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. Patterns of vegetation indicate plant communities

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and ground cover are determined by inherent factors as discussed above. Duration of snow cover, drainage patterns, and pocket gophers are controlling inherent factors. Where sheep graze in the absence of pocket gophers, ground cover is often greater than 85 percent. Where pocket gophers are more abundant, ground cover is reduced. Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition. Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. For example, see Studies W8-33, W18-4, W18-5, W18-8A and W19-1B1 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04- 28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15; and see the project record for a complete list). Historically, there were concerns about headcuts on Bald Mountain. The main part of the erosion area is about 0.25 acres, less than one percent of the allotment. Monitoring indicates the headcuts are most likely a natural waterway channeling snowmelt water down drainage during the spring and undercutting banks in the process. As the outside banks cut, the waterway migrates in that outward direction. Sheep grazing along undercut banks most likely cause some of the undercut banks to slough off sooner than if left entirely to the influences of the yearly spring water flow. As the waterway moves laterally, the vegetation moves into the inside bank areas where there are less water cutting forces. Native, perennial plants are colonizing the depressions behind the cut about as rapidly as the headcut advances. It appears the waterway is not increasing in width. Slow movement of erosional features has been documented for numerous sites in the alpine of the Uinta Mountains (Zobell et al. 2015-03-03). Additionally, scarps in alpine sod have been noted for Rocky Mountain National Park where livestock have not been grazed (Willard 1979) and on Niwot Ridge, Colorado with little history of livestock use (Goodrich et al. 2002-08-15 study sites NR5 & NR6). This demonstrates these types of erosional issues can be present without domestic sheep grazing. This strongly suggest past sheep grazing likely did not cause this apparent waterway but rather the waterway is a natural part of the watershed system. Monitoring indicates satisfactory conditions (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15; see studies W18-6, W18-7 and W18-7A). Trailing seems to be the most conspicuous evidence of sheep grazing. Sheep impacts are high on the slopes east of Bald Mountain where they trail down into Red Castle Basin. Small areas of noticeable impact are seen on Bald Mountain (approximately 9 acres). These areas of high impact are a small fraction of the total allotment (less than one percent). In many places high percent ground cover is found adjacent to the main trail. Intensity of trailing appears to have been reduced in recent decades. For example, see studies W19-6A, W19-6B and W19-6C1 (USDA, 2017-04- 28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20: and see the project record for a complete list). Historically, there were also concerns about Broadbent Meadows. The main part of the area of concern is less than 200 feet by 55 feet (about 0.25 acre) which is less than one percent of the allotment. Broadbent Meadows is along the sheep driveway where it crosses the East Fork – Smiths Fork Creek. It is also used moderately to heavily by horse users accessing the wilderness area (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; and see study 19- 41C). This use also contributes to the conditions found at this site. Monitoring in the late 1990s indicated unsatisfactory conditions. Additional monitoring in the early 2000s indicated satisfactory conditions because of a trend toward Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan direction (i.e., Guideline 7). Recent monitoring in 2015 indicated study sites are in satisfactory condition (meeting Wasatch-

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 59 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cache Forest Plan direction and an upward trend from the late 1990s). For example, see studies W19-41A1, W19-41A2 and W19-41A3 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; and see the project record for a complete list). Large willow fields in the allotment are common after a century of livestock grazing, and willows are increasing (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; and see Study W19-7A). Monitoring indicates greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20). Dominance of greater than 85 percent of the greenline by late seral species is demonstrated for several reaches of streams. For example, see Studies W19-35A, W19-35B, W19-36B, W19-37A and W19-43 USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20; and see the project record for a complete list). Exceptions are found after failure of beaver dams. Beaver appear to be the primaryr biological agent of disturbance along streams. Some stream reaches are influenced by construction and failure of beaver dams. For example, see Studies W19-37C1, W19-37C2 and W19-37C3 (Cameron, 2017-04-28b and see the project record for a complete list). This process results in early seral species dominance and scoured stream channels within and below beaver ponds. However, with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing. Such trend indicates satisfactory condition of beaver influenced areas. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting RWCFP Standard (S7). All thirty- six ground cover monitoring sites indicate RWCFP Standard (S7) is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • All thirty-eight plant monitoring studies indicate plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992).Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • All fourteen greenline monitoring studies indicate that RWCFP Guideline (G7) is being met. In summary, monitoring indicates satisfactory conditions on the Red Castle Allotment (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-20). Thus indicating satisfactory conditions can be maintained with continued sheep grazing at the level of permitted use of the past few decades. East Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment Based upon approximately 122 different study sites located throughout the East Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015- 01-18). Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. Alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. Patterns of vegetation indicate plant communities and ground cover are determined by inherent factors as discussed above. Duration of snow cover, drainage patterns, and pocket gophers are controlling inherent factors. Where sheep graze in the absence of pocket gophers, ground cover is often greater than 85 percent. Where pocket gophers are more abundant, ground cover is reduced. Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition. Areas of bare soil are generally small and confined areas of less than 0.2 acres as a result of mineral licks for both wild and domestic ungulates and trail-stream intercepts (less than one percent of the allotment). For example, see Studies W18-10A1/2, W18-31A1 and W18-32C3 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015- 01-18; and see the project record for a complete list). Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see Studies W18-10B2, W18-10C, W18-12A, W18- 12F and others). Exceptions are found along trails that are for the most part narrow (i.e., 1-3 ft. wide) and closely flanked by vegetation of high value for soil protection (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see Studies W18-29B and others). Monitoring indicates greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition. Dominance of greater than 85 percent of the greenline by late seral species is demonstrated for several reaches of streams. For example, see Studies W18-19A, W18-19B, W18-20 and W18-21A (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see the project record for a complete list). Exceptions are found after failure of beaver dams and mineral licks (see Study W18-12E2B). Bare ground associated with this disturbance is an area of about 100 feet long and 20 feet wide (less than 0.10 acre). These and other minor exceptions make up a small fraction of the total riparian areas. This is less than one percent of the allotment. Beaver appear to be the major biological agent of disturbance along streams. Some stream reaches are strongly influenced by construction and failure of beaver dams. For example, see Studies W18- 32C1 and W18-32C2 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see the project record for a complete list). This process results in early seral species dominance and scoured stream channels within and below beaver ponds. However, with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing. Such trend indicates satisfactory condition of beaver influenced areas. Additionally, other disturbances, including debris flows, have been colonized by perennial plants. For example, see Studies W18-32A2 and W18-32A3 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04- 28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see the project record for a complete list). Low gradient reaches are dominated by water sedge and other herbaceous species with comparatively little willow (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01- 16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18). Higher gradient reaches are dominated by plane leaf willow at higher elevations and taller willows at lower elevations. These relationships are consistent with

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 61 Draft Environmental Impact Statement differences in site capability. Width/depth ratio of streams generally appear to be consistent with gradient, size of stream, and size of bed materials. Apparent decrease in willow cover in select areas happened in an eight-year period in which sheep were absent in four of the eight years. For example, see Studies W18-25D, W18-25E and W18-25F (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see the project record for a complete list). Demise of willow in absence of livestock is documented for other areas of the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. (Goodrich, 2016-09-01). In many grayleaf willow communities, conifer encroachment is apparent and the trend indicates many willow stands will eventually be replaced by spruce. Repeat photography has shown increase of conifer into willows. For example, see study W18-10G (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18; and see the project record for a complete list). Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting RWCFP Standard (S7). All thirty- nine ground cover monitoring studies indicate RWCFP Standard (S7) is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • All eighty-one plant monitoring studies indicate plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • All forty-six greenline monitoring studies indicate that RWCFP Guideline (G7) is being met. In summary, monitoring indicates overall satisfactory conditions on the East Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b, Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-16; Goodrich et. al., 2015-01-18). Thus indicating satisfactory conditions can be maintained with continued sheep grazing at the level of permitted use of the past few decades. Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment Based upon approximately 66 different study sites located throughout the Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016- 12-15). Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 62 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. Patterns of vegetation indicate plant communities and ground cover are determined by inherent factors as discussed above. Duration of snow cover, drainage patterns, and pocket gophers are controlling inherent factors. Where sheep graze in the absence of pocket gophers, ground cover is often greater than 85 percent. Where pocket gophers are more abundant, ground cover is reduced. Other areas with low percent ground cover include snowbeds, Red Pine Shale barrens, and scoured drainage-ways. Sheep have equal access to these study sites with high percent ground cover as they do to these low percent ground cover areas. Areas with low percent ground cover appear to be inherent features of the alpine. Monitoring indicates ground cover is in satisfactory condition. Plant communities, plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. For example, see studies W8-35, W8-43 and W8-43B (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15; and see the project record for a complete list). Historically, there were concerns about gullies in an apparent old burn area near timberline. For example, see studies W18-41, W18-41B and W18-52 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04- 28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15; and see the project record for a complete list). The size of weathered skeletons of burned trees indicates some mature trees were in the area at the time of the fire. Burning of this high elevation forest appears to have had heavy impacts to the soil and plant community as seen in 1964 photos. For example, see studies W18- 52, W18-52A and W18-52B (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12- 14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). However, conditions documented at study site W18-40 strongly support that duration of snow cover and other inherent disturbances are affecting resource conditions in the old burn. Currently, repeat photography indicates upward trend for plant cover and gullies. For example, see studies W18-52, W18-52A and W18-52B (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). Based on aerial imagery, the entire length of the burned slope with the gulley is about 700 feet. The area represented by studies of the W18-41 and W18-52 series is about 10 acres. This area represents less than one percent of the allotment. The resource conditions of this burned area are not representative of the allotment. Historically, there were concerns about headcuts on Brush Creek Park (see study W17-15HC). Monitoring indicates the headcuts are most likely a natural waterway channeling snowmelt water down drainage during the spring and undercutting banks in the process. Other inherent factors should also be considered are: 1) the substrate and history of erosion associated with this substrate with and without livestock grazing in many areas of the Uinta Mountains, 2) the factor(s) that killed the mature forest that once occupied the site and 3) the effect of a late melting snowbed in this area as it could be the factor of origin as well as a factor of persistence and perhaps further cutting. Patterns of erosion seen in the dead forest above Brush Creek Park are the patterns of drainage, not typical grazing patterns. The apparent natural waterway channels are cut into materials that appear to be derived from Red Pine Shale. Similar barrens and semi barrens are found in this material throughout the Uinta Mountains. Slow advance of cutting has been found at many headcuts, wind scarps, and ephemeral drainages in the Uinta Mountains (Zobell et al. 2015- 03-03). Scarps in alpine sod have been noted for Rocky Mountain National Park where livestock have not been grazed (Willard 1979) and on Niwot Ridge, Colorado with little history of livestock

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 63 Draft Environmental Impact Statement use (Goodrich et al. 2002-08-15 study site NR5 & NR6). The old burn (referenced above) most likely widen and deepened the natural waterway channel following a moisture event after the fire. If grazing were a major factor, then adjacent sites and particularly those above the natural waterway channel might be expected to show signs of high impact from sheep. However, this is not the case. Study W17-15, which is next to a sheep camp and where sheep impacts are expected to be more present, has had nearly 100% ground cover since 1962 as documented by studies monitored again in 2001, 2007 and 2014. Use of forage at and around the site by sheep is light (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). The only impact noted by sheep in over 50 years of monitoring on Brush Creek Park occurred in 2016 when sheep trailed through part of this area (approximately 330 feet) numerous times and trampling damage on drainage banks was evident. This sort of use was not seen when the site was visited in the 2001. This trampling was likely a one-time event as herders have been directed to avoid sheep use of this area at lease since 2002. However, this one-time event may be beneficial to this site. When the sheep trampled the banks they effectively sloped off the vertical banks. This could facilitate plant colonization on the banks, possibly speeding up the healing process. Also, given the time of year the sheep trampled these banks it is possible the sheep also effectively planted seed into the banks as they were trampled – helping to revegetate the banks. Continued future monitoring of this site is need to determine if the one-time event by the sheep along a portion of the natural waterway is beneficial. All these factors strongly support that sheep grazing is not a major factor at this site relative to the other inherent processes that occur here. Again, the area impacted is approximately 330 feet long. This represents a small fraction of the allotment (i.e., less than 1% of the allotment). Condition of this area is not representative of the allotment (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). There were also concerns along a stream reach on the Middle Fork-Blacks Fork (see study W8- 46C). The main part of the area is approximately 200 feet along the streambank, which is less than one percent of the allotment. Monitoring in this area strongly indicates that streambank vegetation and stream channel migration dynamics are a function of factors other than sheep, primarily: 1) high water flows cutting into dry banks and through oxbows, 2) beaver-driven processes associated with the construction and failure of beaver dams (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15; see study W8- 70; and the project record for a complete list) and 3) photographic evidence strongly suggest this area was used as splash dam area during the height of the tie hacking period in the 1930s. Additionally, forage use by sheep has been documented as negligible to light in this area since 2004. Trend is indicated to be upward in this area by increase of willow and late seral sedge cover. For example, see studies W8-46D, W8-46E, W8-70 and W8-71 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). Monitoring indicates greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition. Dominance of greater than 85 percent of the greenline by late seral species is demonstrated for several reaches of streams. For example, see studies W8-61, W8-62 and W18-39 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04- 28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15; and see the project record for a complete list). Exceptions are found after failure of beaver dams. For example, see studies W8- 46C and W8-70 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement et. al., 2016-12-15; and see the project record for a complete list). Beaver appear to be the primary biological agent of disturbance along streams. Some stream reaches are influenced by construction and failure of beaver dams. For example, see studies W8-46D, W8-46D2 and W8- 70 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016- 12-15; and see the project record for a complete list). This process results in early seral species dominance and scoured stream channels within and below beaver ponds. However, with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing. Such trend indicates satisfactory condition of beaver influenced areas. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting or moving towards RWCFP Standard (S7). Twenty-four ground cover monitoring studies indicate RWCFP Standard (S7) is being met. One ground cover monitoring study indicates RWCFP Standard (S7) is not being met and it is not a result of livestock grazing (see Study W17-15HC and discussion above). Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • All 34 plant monitoring studies indicate plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Seven greenline monitoring studies indicate that RWCFP Guideline (G7) is being met. One greenline monitoring study indicates RWCFP Guideline (G7) is not being met and it is not a result of livestock grazing (see Study W8-46C and discussion above). In summary, monitoring indicates satisfactory conditions on the Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28b; Zobell et. al., 2016-12-14; Cameron et. al., 2016-12-15). Thus indicating satisfactory conditions can be maintained with continued sheep grazing at the level of permitted use of the past few decades. Fall Creek Allotment Forage producing areas of this allotment are mostly found in alpine cirque basins, timberline meadows, and sub-alpine meadows. About 66 monitoring studies are established on the allotment (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Some of these studies span a 36-year period. These and other studies indicate little change in plant composition and ground over that time period. Ground cover is dominated by rock and bare soil, with minimal vegetation, in some persistent snowbed sites. Where persisting snow lay does not occur, plant and litter cover dominate ground

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 65 Draft Environmental Impact Statement cover in alpine and sub-alpine meadows and open areas. Bare soil is higher and is expected to be higher in meadows and snowbed communities selected by pocket gophers. Willow cover and density seem to be static in Fall Creek and upper Rock Creek, unlike the increases documented on the Tungsten and Painter Basin allotments where sheep grazing has continued to the present. The Fall Creek Allotment has not been grazed by sheep since 1977. In the 15-year period from 1963 to 1977 it was used a total of eight years by sheep. The increase of willows on the Tungsten and Painter Basin allotments implies that sheep grazing is not a factor in the static condition of willows on the Fall Creek Allotment. Conditions and trends on this allotment appear to be driven by climate, topography, and other inherent factors, and appear consistent with site potential. These inherent processes appear to be the driving factor determining the pattern and composition of vegetation as well as the amount of ground cover on the allotment. These factors are compatible with desired conditions and vegetation and ground cover trends are stable. ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met on the Fall Creek Allotment. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover Total ground cover equal or greater than 85% of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock. • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting towards desired condition. All seven study sites indicate desired condition for ground cover is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • Plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Streambank stability is equal to or greater than 90% of potential. • All two stream segment camera points indicate that streambank stability rating of 8 or higher is achieved (Winward, 2000). Greenlines are dominated by plants of high value for erosion control. These two studies indicate desired condition is being met for streambank stability. Ottoson Basin Allotment Based upon approximately 157 different study sites located throughout the Ottoson Basin Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition and trends are stable or perhaps upward in some cases (USDA, 2017; Huber 2016). Desired condition is currently being met and current grazing management practices are in compliance with ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. The alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. In all communities, plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate vegetation cover. At every study site, ground cover exceeded 85 percent of potential. Headcuts, incisions, and debris flows in the alpine turf were

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 66 Draft Environmental Impact Statement observed on this allotment (refer to studies A10-10C1 and A23-14B), but are of lesser concern than in Painter Basin. These were located near or at the base of large talus and boulder slopes. Study photos indicate little to no change in ground cover, soil loss, or species composition has occurred over time and concurrent with sheep grazing (studies A22-12A, A22-14A and A22-14C). Many photos also show rocks anchored in the alpine turf with lichens extending to soil level. Plane-leaf willow (Salix planifolia) communities are common throughout the allotment. Communities range from willows of low growth (refer to studies A9-3, A22-12C, A22-15A, A23- 15A and A23-16A) to tall, robust fields with shrubs up to three feet tall (studies A9-3B-G, A10-1B, A22-15A1-A5 and A23-15B). Variations of growth forms in plane-leaf willow are related to inherent factors. Sheep grazing has light impacts at best on plane-leaf willow communities. Minimal conifer encroachment into willow fields has been documented. No obvious hedging of willow in Ottoson and Upper Lake Fork Basins has documented. A couple of nominal increases of willow canopy concurrent with sheep grazing has been documented at studies A10-1 and A22-17A. One slight decrease of willow cover over a 39 year period was documented at study A22-15B. Snowbed plant communities are common on the allotment (studies A9-4, A10-10A and A23-21A- C). These are areas where snow accumulates beyond normal snowfall depths due to wind. Depth and duration of snow in snowbeds is highly variable and is dependent on position, shape, gradient, aspect, and land features. Depth of snow and average release dates influence plant composition, ground cover, and rock lichen abundance or absence. Sheep grazing is a limited factor contributing to increased bare soil and decreased vegetation in most snowbed communities, due to the lack of vegetation, the long duration of snow, and the inability for vegetation to establish in an extremely short growing season in these areas. Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate vegetation cover in wet meadows and greenlines of streams. Numerous studies document satisfactory riparian conditions in moist to wet meadows on the allotment with stable trends (study A22-16A). Studies depicting stream segments are numerous on the allotment. In every instance, greenline vegetation conditions were rated high to excellent (refer to studies A22-16C-F, A22-16B5, A23-1B, A23-6, A23-13A-H and A23-27B-G). Studies A22-16B and A23-6 demonstrate stable greenline vegetation conditions. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover Total ground cover equal or greater than 85% of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock. • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting desired conditions. All nineteen or more study sites indicate desired condition for ground cover is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • Plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Streambank stability is equal to or greater than 90% of potential.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 67 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• All five studies (one greenline monitoring study and four stream segment camera points) indicate that streambank stability rating of 8 or higher is achieved (Winward, 2000). Greenlines are dominated by plants of high value for erosion control. All five studies indicate desired condition is being met for streambank stability. In summary, stable trend and desired conditions occur on rangelands on the Ottoson Basin Allotment, which are verified by numerous long-term studies on the allotment (USDA, 2017; Huber 2016). ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met. Oweep Allotment Based upon approximately 129 different study sites located throughout the Oweep Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition and trends are stable (USDA, 2017; Huber 2016). One downward trend in willow cover was documented. Desired condition is currently being met and current grazing management practices are in compliance with ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. The alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. In all communities, plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate vegetation cover. At every study site, ground cover exceeded 85 percent of potential. Headcuts, incisions, and debris flows in the alpine turf were observed on this allotment (refer to studies A10-3B, A10-5E and A11-14F). These were located near or at the base of large talus and boulder slopes. Some scouring and stream bank cutting of streams draining these massive watersheds was documented (studies A23-20F-G). Study photos indicate little to no change in ground cover, soil loss, or species composition has occurred over time and concurrent with sheep grazing (studies A10-3B, A10-5C, A10-7C-E, A10-9A, A11-1, A23-3D, A23-3I, A23-4A-D, A23-17A, A23-19 and A23-20C1). Many photos also show rocks anchored in the alpine turf with lichens extending to soil level. Plane-leaf willow (Salix planifolia) communities are common throughout the allotment. Communities range from willows of low growth (refer to studies A10-3A, A22-3C and A23-19) to tall, robust fields with shrubs up to three feet tall (studies A10-4, A10-8A, A11-14D-E, A23-17A-B and A23-20A). Variations of growth forms in plane-leaf willow are related to inherent factors. Sheep grazing has light impacts on plane-leaf willow communities. At almost all study sites, no to little hedging of willow in Oweep Basin has been documented. One willow community shows considerable loss of canopy cover since 1962 (study A23-20B), which appears related to wild ungulate herbivory. Several sites showed either nominal increases or stable percentages of willow canopy concurrent with sheep grazing over a period of time as long as 44 years (studies A23-3B- C, A23-4A-B, A23-4D and A23-17A). Conifer encroachment into willow fields has been documented (studies A23-3A-A2, A23-17D-D2, A23-17E and A23-20J). Snow bed plant communities are common on the allotment (studies A10-6, A10-5B-C, A23-18, A23-20C1 and A23-20E). These are areas where snow accumulates beyond normal snowfall depths due to wind and topography. Depth and duration of snow in snowbeds is highly variable and is dependent on position, shape, gradient, aspect, and land features. Depth of snow and average release dates highly influence plant composition, ground cover, and rock lichen abundance or absence. Sheep grazing has little to none effect on increased bare soil and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement decreased vegetation in most snowbed communities, likely due to the lack of vegetation in these areas due to the duration of snow and the inability to establish in an extremely short growing season. Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate vegetation cover in wet meadows and greenlines of streams. Numerous studies document satisfactory riparian conditions in moist to wet meadows on the allotment with stable trends. Studies depicting stream segments are numerous on the allotment. Stream conditions were rated high to excellent (refer to Studies A10-3A-B, A10-8, A23-20A and A23-17C). Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover Total ground cover equal or greater than 85% of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock. • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting desired conditions. All twenty-two or more study sites indicate desired condition for ground cover is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • Plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Streambank stability is equal to or greater than 90% of potential. • All three studies (two greenline monitoring studies and one stream segment camera point) indicate that streambank stability rating of 8 or higher is achieved (Winward 2000). Greenlines are dominated by plants of high value for erosion control. All three studies indicate desired condition is being met for streambank stability. In summary, stable trend and desired conditions are indicated for rangelands on the Oweep Allotment, which are verified by numerous long-term studies on the allotment (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met. Painter Basin Allotment Based upon approximately 180 different study sites located throughout the Painter Basin Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition and trends are stable (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Desired condition is currently being met and current grazing management practices are in compliance with ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. The alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. In all communities, plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. At every study site, ground cover exceeded 85% of potential. Historically, there were concerns about the head cuts and incisions that had been observed in some of these upland communities. In the late 1950s, photos were taken of many of these disturbances. Nearly all of these sites were revisited in 2003. Our findings show that these head cuts and incisions were located at or near the base of steep talus slopes and drainage

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 69 Draft Environmental Impact Statement chutes. Photos from 1959 and 2003 indicated that little to no change in head cutting, soil loss, and species composition occurred over a 44 year period concurrent with sheep grazing. The photos also showed rocks anchored in the alpine turf still had lichens extending to soil level. It is apparent that existing head cuts and incisions are a result of the erosional forces from talus slope runoff coupled with other compounding conditions (i.e., snow accumulation and release, torrential storms) that would induce high volume of overland water flow (refer to studies A12-4D, A12-26A and A12-40). In many of the Salix glauca communities, conifer encroachment is apparent and the trend indicates many willow stands will eventually be replaced by Picea engelmannii. Repeat photography has shown an increase of conifer into willow over a 50-year period (refer to studies A12-7A-B, A12-8 and A12-22). Obvious hedging of willow in Painter Basin is rare but has been observed at one salt site (refer to studies A12-26E-F). Also, repeat photography has shown an increase of willow canopy (refer to studies A12-2A and A12-22). Many snow bed plant communities were observed on the allotment. These are areas where wind deposits and accumulates snow beyond normal snowfall depths. Depth and duration of snow in snow beds is highly variable and is dependent on position, shape, gradient, aspect, and land features. Depth of snow and average release dates highly influence plant composition, ground cover, and rock lichen abundance or absence. Sheep grazing has little to none effect on increased bare soil and decreased vegetation in most snow bed communities, likely due to the lack of vegetation in these areas due to the duration of snow and the inability to establish in an extremely short growing season. Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate the wet meadows and stream greenlines in Painter Basin. Numerous photos and one greenline indicate that stream greenline conditions rate “good” to “excellent” (refer to studies A12-2C-F, A12-15E, A12-34, A12- 36 and A12-45A-D). No sheep induced disturbances were observed in riparian areas. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover Total ground cover equal or greater than 85% of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock. • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting desired conditions. All twenty- nine or more study sites indicate desired condition for ground cover is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • Plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Streambank stability is equal to or greater than 90% of potential. • Ten stream segment camera points indicate that streambank stability rating of 8 or higher is achieved (Winward, 2000). Greenlines are dominated by plants of high value for erosion control. One stream segment in Gilbert Creek Basin has been highly impacted by beaver

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

activity (see Study A12-36A-C). These ten studies indicate desired condition is being met for streambank stability. In summary, the Painter Basin Allotment is in satisfactory condition, trends are stable, and desired condition and ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met under the current grazing strategy (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Tungsten Allotment Based upon approximately 239 different study sites located throughout the Tungsten Allotment, the plant communities associated with the allotment are in satisfactory condition and trends are stable (USDA, 2017; Huber 2016). Desired condition is currently being met and current grazing management practices are in compliance with ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Below are summaries of condition and trend based upon study data. The alpine uplands are represented by numerous plant communities – with low graminoid/forb and low willow communities being most common. In all communities, plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate. At every study site, ground cover exceeded 85 percent of potential. Headcuts and incisions in the alpine turf are apparent on this allotment (refer to studies A11-3G1, A24-11A2, A24-11A6-A7, A24-16 and A24-26C), but were not of the same level of concern as in Painter Basin. As in Painter Basin, study photos indicate little to no change in head cutting, soil loss, and species composition has occurred over a 41-year period concurrent with sheep grazing. The study photos also show rocks anchored in the alpine turf with lichens extending to soil level. Sheep grazing is indicated to have little to no effect on these inherent existing conditions and trends. In many of the gray willow (Salix glauca) and planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia) communities, conifer encroachment is apparent. This trend indicates many willow stands will eventually be displaced by Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) (refer to studies A11-2A, A11-2B, A11-2C1, A11-2D, A11-2E3, A11-2G1, A11-2H, A24-4A-C, A24-11F1 and A24-15A-B). The factors that contribute to spruce advancement likely include climate change. The increase of willow concurrent with livestock grazing indicates domestic sheep grazing is a limited factor affecting willows. Obvious hedging of willow in the Upper Yellowstone Basin has not been documented. The increase of willow canopy concurrent with sheep grazing has been documented at studies A11-2A, A11-2B, A11-2C1, A11-2D, A11-2E2, A11-2F1-F3, A11-2G1-G2, A11-2H, A11-3B, A24- 11K and A24-13C). Snow bed plant communities are common on the allotment. These are areas where wind deposits and accumulates snow beyond normal snowfall depths. Depth and duration of snow in snow beds is highly variable and is dependent on position, shape, gradient, aspect, and land features. Depth of snow and average release dates highly influence plant composition, ground cover, and rock lichen abundance or absence. Sheep grazing has little to none effect on increased bare soil and decreased vegetation in most snow bed communities, likely due to the lack of vegetation in these areas due to the duration of snow and the inability to establish in an extremely short growing season Plants of moderate to high values for watershed protection dominate the wet meadows and greenlines of streams. Riparian conditions are expected to be similar to those in Painter Basin.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 71 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Studies in these communities are minimal on this allotment, but those photos that do exist depict satisfactory conditions and stable trends (refer to study A11-2E4-E9, A11-2F4, A11-10C-E, A24- 3A-D and A24-15C-H). Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover Total ground cover equal or greater than 85% of potential for all plant communities grazed by livestock. • Ground cover condition throughout the allotment is meeting desired conditions. All thirteen or more study sites indicate desired condition for ground cover is being met. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • Plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Streambank stability is equal to or greater than 90% of potential. • All eight stream segment camera points indicate that streambank stability rating of 8 or higher is achieved (Winward, 2000). Greenlines are dominated by plants of high value for erosion control. All eight studies indicate desired condition is being met for streambank stability. In summary, stable trend and desired conditions are indicated for rangelands on the Tungsten Allotment, which are verified by numerous long-term studies on the allotment (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). In addition, ANFP standards and guidelines are being met under current grazing management. East Fork Sheep Driveway The East Fork Sheep Driveway is not an allotment, but a sheep driveway to access the allotments on the ANF and UWCNF. The map in Figure 12 illustrates the current trailing routes used by seven bands of sheep (i.e., three from the ANF and four from the UWCNF) from the point they enter the National Forest at the Wyoming-Utah State line to their permitted allotments, and it also illustrates the monitoring sites along the sheep driveway. The length of the trail system is roughly52 miles or approximately 945 acres based on an average width of 50 yards7. For the ANF, sheep trail to Ottoson Basin (through the East Fork-Blacks Fork drainage across Red Knob Pass), Oweep (through the Little East Fork-Blacks Fork drainage across Squaw Pass), Painter Basin (through Gunsight Pass), and Tungsten (through Smiths Fork Pass).

7The calculation for the numbers of acres is derived from the following: (average width X [miles X 5280])/43560 = number of acres. The length of the trail system was calculated from the Forest Boundary to the junction of the West Fork-Blacks Fork and the East Fork-Blacks Forks and then following the trail southerly through the East Fork-Blacks Fork. The West Fork-Blacks Fork portion of the trail from the junction was not used in this analysis as no sheep herds associated with the project area use this portion of the trail system to trail to their respective allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 72 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 12 - East Fork Sheep Driveway and rangeland resource studies.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 73 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

With the management strategy of alternate use of the Painter Basin and Tungsten Allotments, sheep trail two years through the East Fork-Smiths Fork drainage across Smiths Fork Pass to access the Tungsten Allotment and in the subsequent two years, The same band of sheep trail through the Henry’s Fork drainage across Gunsight Pass to access the Painter Basin Allotment. The UWCNF sheep herds trail to the Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment (through the Blacks Fork drainage), the East Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment (through the East Fork-Blacks Fork drainage), the Red Castle Allotment (through East Fork-Smiths Fork drainage), the Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork Allotment (through the Hessie and Henry’s Fork drainages), and the Gilbert Peak Allotment (through the Henry’s Fork and Joulious drainages). With the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, and East Fork-Blacks Fork Allotments, any two out of those three allotments are grazed each year with one allotment being rested. Histories for the above mentioned allotments associated with the East Fork Sheep Driveway indicate a substantial reduction in the numbers of sheep trailing the driveway over a 90 year period. Since 1916, a reduction of the stocking rates for the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, and Middle Fork-Black Fork allotments were 60, 64, 26, 57, and 51 percent; respectively. In 1980, when Painter Basin and Tungsten allotments began alternate use, one band of sheep from the ANF was retired and no longer trailed across the driveway (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ashley National Forest, Allotment Folders). This change was the culmination of management actions that occurred over a number of years to address resource concerns on the Tungsten Allotment. Numerous monitoring studies along the driveway corridor indicate that most of the driveway system has relatively low impacts from sheep trailing and is in satisfactory condition (USDA, 2017- 04-28; Cameron and Huber, 2018-05-16). These areas are vegetated with native, perennial plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection and have sufficient ground cover to minimize erosion. Studies W8-21E, W19-1D, W19-6C and W19-7A show stable trend along or adjacent to the driveway over a 44 to 130 year period. In the East Fork-Smiths Fork and Hessie Lake drainages, upward trend is indicated over a 30 to 44 year period. At these sites, trailing is less evident and plants are colonizing dormant gullies. For example, see studies W19-9, W19-10 and W19-11 11 (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron and Huber, 2018-05-16). Trailing impacts in some moderate to highly impacted areas have been reduced due to the reduction of sheep herds over time and where possible, some re-routing of the driveway around some highly impacted areas. There are a few, short segments of the driveway that have moderate to high impacts from sheep trailing (i.e., Cache Hill, East Fork-Smiths Fork, Hessie Lake, and at one stream crossing) and are in unsatisfactory condition (Cameron 2018-05-16). These areas are vegetated with native, perennial plants; but these plants are typically less frequent and/or have less vigor. Bare ground in these areas is higher due to sheep trailing and erosion has occurred. Photos, data and field notes from Cache Hill, East Fork-Smiths Fork and Hessie Lake show increased soil disturbance, reduced ground cover, and some active gullies. Each of these highly impacted areas is estimated at about 0.5 miles in length and widths range from 30 to 300 feet. Based on an average width of 150 feet, approximately 27 acres of the driveway were calculated to be in unsatisfactory condition, or less than three percent of the driveway.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 74 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Most moderate to high impacts occur along the driveway where herds of sheep are forced to trail through narrow corridors or bottlenecks, which is illustrated by the examples cited above. In areas with little to no tree cover, where topography consists of gentle to moderate gradients, and where sheep are able to easily disperse more during trailing, resource impacts are substantially reduced. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Percent Ground Cover (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • Ground cover condition throughout the driveway is meeting or moving towards RWCFP Standard (S7). Twenty-five of twenty-nine ground cover monitoring studies indicate RWCFP Standard (S7) is being met. Four of twenty-nine ground cover monitoring studies indicates RWCFP Standard (S7) is not being met. o In one of the overnight pastures of the driveway, monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and not livestock grazing (see study W8- 3A). o Monitoring at one site along the lower portion of the driveway indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and some of may be attributed to sheep use along the driveway (see study W8-4). o On the east side of Bald Mountain along the sheep driveway in an area of somewhat confined trailing, sheep trailing is evident by braided pathways along the main trail. However, plant and rock cover provide sufficient protection against erosion and down- slope are not conspicuous. Although ground cover on the narrow trails is low, a few feet off the trail ground cover meets the RWCFP Standard (S7). See studies 19-1E and 19-1F. o On Cache Hill along the sheep driveway in an area of somewhat confined trailing. Ground cover does not meet RWCFP Standard (S7). See study W8-26A. Resource Indicator 2 – Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection • All sixty-one monitoring studies indicate plant communities are dominated by native species of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control. Resource Indicator 3 – Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (USDA 2003, pg. 4-37) • All six greenline monitoring studies indicate that RWCFP Guideline (G7) is being met. In summary, most of the driveway corridor (i.e., 918 of 945 acres or 97 percent) has relatively low impacts from sheep trailing and intensity of trailing appears to have been reduced over the past decades (USDA, 2017; Cameron and Huber, 2018-05-16; Goodrich et al. 2016-12-20).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 75 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover Common to All Allotments: Over 99 percent of the studies show ground cover is in satisfactory condition with livestock grazing (i.e. meeting or moving towards Wasatch-Cache Forest Standard (S7) for percent ground cover and ANF desired condition for percent ground cover). As such, discontinuing livestock grazing is not expected to result in a change to satisfactory conditions as they relate to this indicator. This is because ground cover is consistent with slope, aspect, drainage patterns, persistence of snow cover into spring and summer, abundance of pocket gopher activity, and other inherent features. These inherent features are the driving force controlling factor ground cover. These inherent features would continue to be the primary controlling factor of ground cover with discontinuing livestock grazing. This excludes the bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing, and camp areas discussed below. Bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and camps areas (which encompass less than one percent of the project area) activities would cease. There should be some recovery of ground cover along bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and sheep camps (Holechek, et al., 2004). This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Allotment Specific • Gilbert Peak Allotment o Ground cover at study site W19-30E is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and not livestock grazing. • Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment o Ground cover at study site W17-15C is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of an old burn and inherent conditions and not livestock grazing. East Fork Sheep Driveway: The driveway would no longer be used going up the East Fork-Blacks Drainage and further south. Monitoring indicates that most of the driveway system has relatively low impacts from sheep trailing and is in satisfactory condition. There are a few short segments (approximately 27 acres or less than 3 percent of the driveway) of the driveway that have moderate to high impacts from sheep trailing and are in unsatisfactory condition. Bare ground is also higher due to sheep trailing and erosion has occurred. There should be some recovery of ground cover along the driveway in these short segments where it is in unsatisfactory condition. • Ground cover at study site W8-3A is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and not livestock grazing.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 76 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Ground cover at study site W8-4 may or may not increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and to a lesser degree sheep use. • Ground cover on the east side of Bald Mountain along the sheep driveway is expected to increase. • Ground cover on Cache Hill along the sheep driveway is expected to increase. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection Common to All Allotments All studies indicate plant communities are dominated by plants of a moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control) and are in satisfactory conditions concurrent with livestock grazing. As such discontinuing livestock grazing is not expected to result in a change to satisfactory conditions as they relate to this indicator. Plant communities are consistent with the various geomorphic settings. Plant species present in the various plant communities is consistent with slope, aspect, drainage patterns, persistence of snow cover into spring and summer, abundance of pocket gopher activity, and other inherent features. The patterns of these communities indicate inherent ecosystem features are the primary controlling factor of community distribution and community composition. These inherent features would continue to be the primary controlling factor of plant community distribution and plant community composition should livestock grazing be discontinued. Bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and camps areas (which encompass less than one percent of the project area) would cease. These areas do have native, perennial plants but these plants are typically less frequent and/or show less vigor. With the discontinuation of sheep grazing, vigor would likely improve for these plants and abundance may increase. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. East Fork Sheep Driveway: The driveway would no longer be used going up the East Fork-Blacks Drainage and further south. Monitoring indicates that most of the driveway system has relatively low impacts from sheep trailing and is in satisfactory condition. There are a few short segments (approximately 27 acres or less than three percent of the driveway) of the driveway that have moderate to high impacts from sheep trailing and are in unsatisfactory condition. These segments do have native, perennial plants but typically less frequent and/or have less vigor. With the discontinuation of sheep grazing, vigor would likely improve for these plants and abundance may increase. There should be some recovery of vegetation along the driveway in these short segments where it is in unsatisfactory condition as a result of discontinuing livestock grazing Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Common to All Allotments Over 99 percent of the studies show greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition with livestock grazing (i.e. meeting or moving towards RWCFP Guideline (G7) for percent late seral vegetation along the greenline and ANF desired condition of streambank stability equal to or greater than 90

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 77 Draft Environmental Impact Statement percent of potential). As such, discontinuing livestock grazing is not expected to result in a change to satisfactory conditions as they relate to this indicator. This is because monitoring indicates livestock have had to little to none effect on greenline vegetation (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04- 28; Cameron, 2017-04-28; Huber, 2015=6). This excludes the stream-trail crossings and water spots utilized by only sheep which is discussed below. The few short reaches at stream-trail crossings and watering spots utilized by only sheep (less than one percent of the project area) would cease. As a result, it is expect at these sites the amount of late seral greenline vegetation would likely increase. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Ecological processes associated with beaver and mineral licks utilized by wild ungulates would continue to affect riparian plant communities as an inherent feature. Allotment Specific • Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment o Greenline vegetation at study site W8-46C is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates primarily past tie hacking practices, high water flows, and beaver- driven process along the reach of stream are the agents of disturbance and not livestock grazing (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28). • Painter Basin Allotment o Late seral greenline vegetation at study site A12-36A-C will eventually increase but not as a result of discontinuing livestock grazing. This is because monitoring indicates primarily beaver-driven process along the reach of stream are the agents of disturbance and not livestock grazing (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Furthermore, monitoring shows with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover Common to All Allotments Over 99 percent of the studies show ground cover is in satisfactory condition with livestock grazing (i.e. meeting or moving towards RWCFP Standard (S7) for percent ground cover and ANF desired condition for percent ground cover). As such, continuing current livestock grazing is not expected to result in a change to satisfactory conditions as they relate to this indicator. Furthermore, light to moderate forage use has been measured or estimated through the project area (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28; Huber, 2016). This level of utilization is expected to continue under current livestock grazing. Light to moderate use generally results in a negligible increase of soil erosion over ungrazed areas (Molinar Et al., 2001). Therefore, ground cover is expected to continue to be in satisfactory condition with current livestock grazing. This excludes the bedding, salting, water spots, trailing, and camp areas discussed below. Bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and camps areas (which encompass less than one percent of the project area) would continue with current livestock grazing as described under the Existing Condition section. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 78 Draft Environmental Impact Statement areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Refer to the Existing Condition section for more detail. Allotment Specific • Gilbert Peak Allotment o Ground cover at study site W19-30E) is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and not livestock grazing. • Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment o Ground cover at study site W17-15C is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of an old burn and not livestock grazing. East Fork Sheep Driveway The driveway would continue to be used. Monitoring indicates that most of the driveway system has relatively low impacts from sheep trailing and is in satisfactory condition. There are a few short segments (approximately 27 acres or less than 3% of the driveway) of the driveway that have moderate to high impacts from sheep trailing and are in unsatisfactory condition. Bare ground is higher due to sheep trailing and erosion has occurred. Trailing impacts in some moderate to highly impacted areas has already been reduced due to the overall reduction of sheep herds over time and where possible, some re-routing of the driveway around some highly impacted areas. Therefore, it is expected that approximately 27 acres or less than 3% of the driveway will continue to be unsatisfactory condition while the remaining 959 acres or 97% of the driveway will continue to be in satisfactory condition with the current livestock grazing. • Ground cover at study site W8-3A is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and not livestock grazing. • Ground cover at study site W8-4 may or may not increase. This is because monitoring indicates bare soil is primarily a function of pocket gopher activity and to a lesser degree sheep use. • Ground cover on the east side of Bald Mountain along the sheep driveway is not expected to increase but it is expected to remain stable. • Ground cover on Cache Hill is not expected to increase but is expected to remain stable. Refer to the Existing Condition section for more detail. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection Common to All Allotments All plant communities are dominated by native plant species of moderate to high value for watershed protection (or erosion control) and are in satisfactory conditions concurrent with livestock grazing. As such, continuing current livestock grazing is not expected to result in a change to satisfactory conditions as they relate to this indicator. Plant communities are consistent with the various geomorphic settings. Plant species present in the various plant communities is consistent with

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 79 Draft Environmental Impact Statement slope, aspect, drainage patterns, persistence of snow cover into spring and summer, abundance of pocket gopher activity, and other inherent features. The patterns of these communities indicate inherent ecosystem features are the primary controlling factor of community distribution and community composition. These inherent features would continue to be the primary controlling factor of plant community distribution and plant community composition with continuing current livestock grazing. This excludes the bedding, salting, water spots, trailing, and camp areas discussed below. Bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and camps areas (which encompass less than one percent of the project area) would continue with current livestock grazing as described under the Existing Condition section These areas do have native, perennial plants but typically less frequent and /or less vigor. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Refer to the Existing Condition section for more detail. East Fork Sheep Driveway The driveway would continue to be used. Monitoring indicates that most of the driveway system has relatively low impacts from sheep trailing and is in satisfactory condition. There are a few short segments (approximately 27 acres or less than three percent of the driveway) of the driveway that have moderate to high impacts from sheep trailing and are in unsatisfactory condition. These segments do have native, perennial plants but typically less frequent and/or have less vigor. Trailing impacts in some moderate to highly impacted areas has already been reduced due to the overall reduction of sheep herds over time and where possible, some re- routing of the driveway around some highly impacted areas. Therefore, it is expected that approximately 27 acres or less than three percent of the driveway will continue to be unsatisfactory condition while the remaining 959 acres or 97 percent of the driveway will continue to be in satisfactory condition with the current sheep grazing. Refer to the Existing Condition section for more detail. Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Common to All Allotments Over 99 percent of the studies show greenline vegetation is in satisfactory condition with livestock grazing (i.e. meeting or moving towards Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Guideline (G7) for percent late seral vegetation along the greenline and ANF desired condition of streambank stability equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential). As such, continuing current livestock grazing is not expected to result in a change to satisfactory conditions as they relate to this indicator. This is because monitoring indicates sheep have had to little to none effect on greenline vegetation (USDA, 2017; USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28; Huber, 2016). This excludes the stream-trail crossings and water spots utilized by only sheep which is discussed below. The few short reaches at stream-trail crossings and watering spots utilized by only sheep (less than one percent of the project area) would continue. As a result, it is expect at these sites the amount of late seral greenline vegetation would likely increase. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Ecological processes associated with beaver and mineral licks utilized by wild ungulates would continue to affect riparian plant communities as an inherent feature. Allotment Specific • Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment o Greenline vegetation at study site W8-46C is not expected to increase. This is because monitoring indicates primarily past tie hacking practices, high water flows, and beaver- driven process along the reach of stream are the agents of disturbance and not livestock grazing (USDA, 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017-04-28). • Painter Basin Allotment o Greenline vegetation at study site A12-36A-C will eventually increase but not as a result of continuing current livestock grazing. This is because monitoring indicates primarily beaver-driven process along the reach of stream are the agents of disturbance and not livestock grazing (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Furthermore, monitoring shows with time late seral species usually reoccupy drained pond areas concurrent with livestock grazing (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016). Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects discussion is applicable to both alternatives. The items that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis are described below. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Percent Ground Cover Ground disturbance by pocket gophers and other rodents are expected to continue at or near current levels. There would be no cumulative effects from disturbance from gophers and other rodents on ground cover beyond what is currently existing and considered an inherent feature of the landscape. Wildfire is rare within the project area, with fire intervals estimated between 400 to 600 years. Two historic fires are documented. One is near the mouth of Gilbert Creek Basin within the Painter Basin Allotment (USDA, 2017; Huber, 2016; and see study A12-14A-D). The size of the fire is roughly estimated at about 125 acres. The other one is near the timberline of the Middle Fork- Blacks Fork within the Middle Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment (USDA; 2017-04-28; Cameron, 2017- 04-28; Zobell et al., 2016-12-14; and see study series 18-41 and 18-52). The size of the fire is roughly estimated at about 200 acres. Based on this information the cumulative effects from these wildfires are expected to be either be near zero or minimal. For Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, Middle Fork- Blacks Fork, Fall Creek, Ottoson, Oweep, and Painter Basin Allotments there is no known mineral activity, in the past, present, or foreseeable future. However, on the Tungsten Allotment there is a small prospect (shallow pit in bedrock) near Tungsten Pass study A24-11T. Total disturbance is less than 0.5 acres, and occurred decades ago. Those who dug the prospect probably thought they discovered a vein of tungsten, hence the name of the area, but actually discovered a rather common vein of hematite. There would be no cumulative effects from mineral activity on ground cover.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 81 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In consideration of cumulative effects, ground cover is expected to continue to be in satisfactory condition in the project area (i.e. continue to meet Wastach-Cache Standard (S7) for percent ground cover and ANF desired condition for percent ground cover). Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Plant Species Composition: Dominance of High and Moderate Plants for Watershed Protection Wildlife ungulate use are expected to continue at or near current levels. There would be no cumulative effects from wildlife ungulate use on plant species composition beyond what is currently existing and considered an inherent feature of the landscape. Potential human induced effects that would continue are trail use and associated local areas of vegetation trampling, recreation horse or other pack animals’ use of forage, and localized vegetation trampling from recreation use (i.e., hiking, backpacking, and camping). These effects include localized, intense disturbance where trails cross streams and around highly favored camping spots. With respect to Alternative 1, where permitted livestock also impacted these areas in the recent past, there could be a gradual decrease in the area impacted depending on site- specific features of terrain and vegetation. In consideration of cumulative effects, plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection are expected to continue to dominate the project area. Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Greenline Vegetation: Percent Late Seral Vegetation Ecological processes associated with beaver and mineral licks utilized by wild ungulates are expected to continue at or near current levels. There would be no cumulative effects from processes associated with beaver and mineral licks utilized by wild ungulates beyond what is currently existing and considered to an inherent feature of the landscape. Potential human induced effects that would continue are trail use and associated local areas of vegetation trampling, recreation horse or other pack animals’ use of forage, and localized vegetation trampling from recreation use (i.e., hiking, backpacking, and camping). These effects include localized, intense disturbance where trails cross streams and around highly favored camping spots. Where permitted livestock also impacted these areas in the recent past, there could be a gradual decrease in the area impacted depending on site-specific features of terrain and vegetation. There is no active timber harvest and for the most part no history of timber harvest in the project area. The Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork, Middle Fork-Blacks Forks and East Fork-Blacks Fork allotments all experienced some form of timber harvesting through historic tie-hacking. A sawmill use to exist on the Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork allotment, thus the name of Sawmill Lake on the allotment. There would be no cumulative effects from timber harvest activities beyond what is currently existing (i.e. effect on greenline vegetation through historic tie-hacking practices). In consideration of cumulative effects, greenline vegetation is expected to continue to be in satisfactory condition in the project area (i.e. continue to meet Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Guideline (G7) for percent late seral vegetation along the greenline and ANF desired condition of streambank stability equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 82 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Based upon the information presented above, no cumulative effects are anticipated for either alternative. Summary of Effects The measureable difference between Alternative 1 (discontinue livestock grazing) and Alternative 2 (continue current livestock grazing) is less than one percent of the project area for all three resource indicators (ground cover, plant species composition, and greenline vegetation). If Alternative 1 were selected (discontinuing livestock grazing), the project area is expected to continue to meet Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7) for ground cover and ANF desired condition for percent ground cover (85 percent of potential). There should be some recovery of ground cover along bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and sheep camps. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. The East Fork Sheep Driveway would no longer be used going up the East Fork- Blacks Fork Drainage and further south. There should be some recovery of ground cover along the driveway in those short segments (approximately 27 acres or less than three percent of the driveway) where it is in unsatisfactory condition. Native plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control are expected to continue to dominate the project area. The East Fork Driveway and bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and sheep camp areas do have native, perennial plants but these plants are typically less frequent and/or show less vigor. It is expected that these areas that vigor would likely improve for these plants and abundance may increase. This would affect less than 1% of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Greenline vegetation conditions would be expected to continue to meet the Wasatch-Cache Guideline (G7) for percent late seral vegetation along the greenline and ANF desired condition of streambank stability equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential or high greenline bank stability in the project area. There should be some recovery of late seral greenline vegetation at stream- trail crossings and water spots utilized only sheep. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than percent of the project area. If Alternative 2 were selected (continue current livestock grazing), the project area is expected to continue to meet Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7) and ANF desired condition for percent ground cover (85 percent of potential). Exceptions to this are bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and camps areas (which encompass less than one percent of the project area). These activities would continue. These areas represent less than one percent of the project area. The East Fork Sheep Driveway would continue to be used going up the East Fork-Blacks Fork Drainage and further south. There are a few short segments (approximately 27 acres or less than percent of the driveway) of the driveway that have moderate to high impacts from sheep trailing and are in unsatisfactory condition. Bare ground is higher due to sheep trailing and erosion has occurred. Therefore, it is expected that approximately 27 acres or less than three percent of the driveway will continue to be unsatisfactory condition while the remaining 959 acres or 97 percent of the driveway will continue to be in satisfactory condition. Native plants of moderate to high value for watershed protection or erosion control are expected to continue to dominate the project area. Exceptions to this are the East Fork Driveway and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 83 Draft Environmental Impact Statement bedding, salting, watering spots, trailing and sheep camp areas. While these areas do have native, perennial plants but these plants are typically less frequent and/or show less vigor. This would affect less than one percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Greenline vegetation conditions would be expected to continue to meet the Wasatch-Cache Guideline (G7) for percent late seral vegetation along the greenline and ANF desired condition of streambank stability equal to or greater than 90 percent of potential or high greenline bank stability in the project area. There should be some recovery of late seral greenline vegetation at stream- trail crossings and water spots utilized only sheep. This would affect less than percent of the project area as these areas represent less than one percent of the project area. Table 9 below summarizes the two alternatives by resource indicators and measures. Table 9 – Summary of comparison of environmental effects on rangeland vegetation by alternative. Resource Indicator and Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Measure Ground cover: Percent Expected to meet or exceed Expected to meet or exceed ground cover Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Standard (S7) and ANF desired Standard (S7) and ANF desired condition for percent ground cover condition for percent ground cover (85% of potential). In the alpine, (85% of potential). Exceptions ground cover is expected to recover include areas along the East Fork to potential within 3 to 20 years with Sheep driveway and localized areas discontinuing livestock grazing – associated with bedding, salting, thus restoring this element of natural watering spots, and camps integrity. Plant species Plants of moderate to high value for Plants of moderate to high value for composition: Dominance watershed protection are expected to watershed protection are expected of high and moderate continue to dominate. to continue to dominate. plants for watershed protection Greenline vegetation: Expected to meet or exceed Expected to meet or exceed Percent late seral Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan vegetation Guideline (G7) for percent late seral Guideline (G7) for percent late seral vegetation along the greenline and vegetation along the greenline and ANF desired condition for ANF desired condition for streambank stability (equal to or streambank stability (equal to or greater than 90% of potential). greater than 90% of potential). Exceptions would include some stream crossings. Hydrology Affected Environment The project analysis area includes allotments located in the High Uintas Wilderness on both the north and south facing slopes of the central ridgeline. The allotments include the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake – Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork Blacks Fork, and the Middle Fork Blacks Fork on the north facing slopes and the Fall Creek, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Tungsten, and Painter Basin on the south facing slopes. There are several watersheds in the project area, and Table 10

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement lists those watersheds, as well as major streams and rivers for each allotment. Figure 13 illustrates those watersheds. Table 10 - Major streams, rivers and watersheds for each of the allotments. Forest Allotment Watershed Major Streams and Rivers Middle Fork Blacks Blacks Fork Middle Fork Blacks Fork

Fork East Fork Blacks Blacks Fork East Fork Blacks Fork and Little Fork East Fork Blacks Fork UWCNF Red Castle Smiths Fork East Fork Smiths Fork Hessie Lake/ Henry’s Smiths Fork and Henry’s East Fork Smiths Fork and Fork Fork Henry’s Fork Gilbert Peak Henry’s Fork and Beaver Henry’s Fork and West Fork Creek Beaver Creek Fall Creek Rock Creek Fall Creek Ottoson Lake Fork Ottoson Creek ANF Oweep Lake Fork Oweep Creek Tungsten Yellowstone Creek Yellowstone Creek Painter Basin Uinta River North Fork Uinta River Precipitation Patterns Project area elevation ranges from about 8,900 to 11,000 feet and slope ranges from 0-40 percent. Thunderstorms generally occur as a cloudburst that may drop heavy precipitation along a narrow path (Ashcroft et al. 1992). Winter snow pack is the predominant water source and average annual precipitation is 24-28 inches. Spring (May-June) snowmelt is the main runoff period for the area’s streams with summer storm events providing shorter periods of heightened flows. Drainage Patterns and Water Features Figure 14 illustrates the rivers, reservoirs, and water quality sample sites and Table 10 lists the major streams draining the allotments. Table 11 presents the miles of stream within each allotment by Forest from the Forest Service GIS database. The main bed of the channels draining the allotments are composed of boulders/cobbles/gravels and are up to 60 feet wide where the main channels leave the allotments. Tributaries flow into the main channels and many lakes and ponds occur in the upper part of the allotments. The shorelines of the lakes and the streambanks are stable and well-vegetated. Seeps and springs

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 85 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 13 – Watersheds within the project area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 86 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 14 – Rivers, Reservoirs, and Water Quality Sampling Sites.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 87 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 11 - Miles of stream in the High Uintas domestic sheep project allotments. WCNF Allotments Stream East Fork Gilbert Peak Hessie Middle Fork Red Castle Type Blacks Fork Lake- Blacks Fork Henry’s Fork Total Intermittent 11.0 7.3 7.2 10.7 8.9 45.1 Perennial 64.6 9.9 24.3 28.3 31.5 158.5 Ashley Allotments Stream Fall Creek Ottoson Oweep Painter Tungsten Type Basin Total Intermittent 0.5 0.8 1.0 9.2 2.3 13.8 Perennial 29.2 31.3 43.7 25.2 45.5 174.8 occur along the margins of the meadows and at the base of talus slopes along the edge of the basin. Stream Channel and Riparian Area Conditions From 2006 to 2015, stream channel and riparian conditions were reviewed in the field. In 2011, 2014, and 2015, stream conditions were reviewed in the East Fork Blacks Fork and Henry’s Fork and no change in conditions were observed. Figure 15 and Figure 16 illustrate typical stream side conditions within the allotments but not along the sheep driveway. In all of the range allotments in the project area, most of the stream banks are stable as indicated by the dense, deep-rooted vegetation such as willows and sedges and large cobbles or boulders. Stream bank trampling occurs in two general areas, outside of the Sheep Drive way and within the Sheep Driveway. Away from the Sheep Driveway, stream bank trampling from sheep occurs where there is a break in the willows and is usually about two feet wide where sheep cross streams or when they enter a stream to drink water, and typically these breaks occur about every 500 feet. Almost all of the stream bank erosion and sedimentation of streams from sheep occurs from trampling of the stream banks on the Sheep Driveway. The amount of sheep trampling along the sheep driveway is presented in the next section below. In the Middle Fork Blacks Fork Allotment, old timber roads that cross Brushy Creek are causing some sediment to enter a stream but it is not caused by livestock. Sheep Driveways Table 12 and Figure 17 shows the estimates of the amount of streambank trampled on perennial streams and Figure 18 illustrates the points where sheep driveways cross streams. Along the sheep driveway, there 70 stream crossings for a total estimated length of 1,235 feet of stream with bank trampling. The locations of widest stream crossings along the sheep driveways are one 200-foot wide stream crossing on the Little East Fork Blacks Fork (Figure 19), one 150-foot stream crossing on the East Fork Blacks Fork, one 85-foot wide stream crossing outside of the allotments on the East Fork.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 88 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 15 - Dense willow along edge of meadow where sheep graze. Henry’s Fork allotment.

Figure 16 - Typical break in stream bank vegetation where sheep access water. Henry’s Fork allotment.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 89 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 12 - Summary of information on stream bank trampling where sheep driveways crosses perennial streams within allotments and along sheep driveways that lead to the allotments.

Perennial Stream Length Allotment Number of Crossings Trampled (ft)

Middle Fork Blacks Fork 0 0 East Fork Blacks Fork 34 720 Red Castle 13 70 Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork 9 195

Gilbert Peak 3 40

Outside of allotments 11 210 Total = 70 1,235

Number of Stream Crossings along Sheep Driveways Based on Trampling Width 35 31 30

25

20

15 10 10

Number of occurences 4 5 4 4 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 50 60 70 80 85 150 200 Stream Trampling Width (ft)

Figure 17 – Summary of information on streambank trampling. Blacks Fork, one 80-foot wide stream crossing on the Henrys Fork, one 70-foot wide stream crossing on the East Fork Blacks Fork, one 60-foot stream crossing on the Little East Fork Blacks Fork, four 50-foot stream crossing on the East Fork Blacks Fork, and one 50-foot stream crossing outside of the allotments on the East Fork Blacks Fork. There are 28 stream crossings with bank trampling between 5 and 35 feet wide and 31 stream crossings had no defined stream crossing or indication of stream bank trampling. Figure 19 through Figure 21 illustrate stream crossings along the sheep driveway that have the widest stream bank impact. The sheep driveway outside

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 90 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 18 - Sheep Driveway stream crossings in the project area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 91 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 19 - Little East Fork Blacks Fork River at sheep driveway and hiking trail stream crossing just above confluence of the East Fork Blacks Fork.

Figure 20 - East Fork Blacks Fork River at sheep driveway and hiking trail stream crossing.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 92 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 21 - Upper Henry’s Fork at sheep driveway and hiking trail stream crossing.

of the allotments crosses nine streams. There is little sign of bank trampling at these crossings due to the ability to spread the sheep out when they cross these streams except where the sheep cross the East Fork Blacks Fork at the hiking trail bridge. Hiking Trails Forest Service designated hiking trails are located in the same place as the sheep driveway and also in other areas of the allotments. There are 57 hiking trail crossings in the same location as the sheep driveway. Outside of the area of the sheep driveway, there are 132 hiking trail stream crossings and based on field observations the stream crossings are about five feet wide. Riparian Areas In riparian areas vegetation and ground cover within the allotments have been monitored to assess their conditions as presented in the range section of this document. Low gradient reaches are dominated by water sedge and other herbaceous species with comparatively little willow. Higher gradient reaches are dominated by plane leaf willow at higher elevations and taller willows at lower elevations. These relationships are consistent with differences in site capability. The width to depth ratio of streams generally appear to be consistent with gradient, size of stream, and size of bed materials. Both Figure 22 and Figure 23 show typical stream side conditions within the allotments on the ANF. Streams within project area allotments on the ANF have stable stream banks with minimal adverse effects from sheep grazing. Riparian areas within the allotments are at “late” or “potential natural community” successional status and in “good” to “excellent” condition for greenline bank stability. As defined in Winward (2000), potential natural community is the biotic community that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without human interference, under present environmental conditions and greenline bank stability ratings are based on the percent composition of community type along the greenline and the stability class

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 93 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 22 - Sheep crossing along the creek. Minor chiseling of the streambank is evident. Painter Basin Allotment, Aug 19, 2015.

Figure 23 - Sheep grazing in distance and little adverse effect on stream channel was noted. Painter Basin Allotment, Aug 19, 2015.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement rating assigned to that type. Grazing impacts were observed at sheep crossings along two of the streams. The damage includes some chiseling on the stream banks, but appears relatively minor. The most damage found along stream banks occurred where the Forest Service hiking trails intersected the streams in comparison to livestock crossings. Water Quality The State of Utah has designated the streams draining the watersheds above the National Forest boundary as Anti-degradation Segments. This indicates that the existing water quality is better than the established standards for the designated beneficial uses. Water quality is required by state regulation to be maintained at this level. The beneficial uses of streams as designated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, are: • Class 1C – Protected for drinking water • Class 2B – protected for recreation • Class 3A – protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic species • Class 4 – protected for agricultural uses. As shown in Table 13, the DWQ 2016 305(b) and 303(d) assessment lists six of nine main streams in the project area as being impaired due to exceedances of Utah water quality standards for dissolved aluminum, dissolved zinc, pH, and/or dissolved oxygen (State of Utah 2016). The next Utah 303(d) listing cycle is expected to remove Moon Lake tributaries (Slate Creek) from the impaired water list because water sampling in 2016 did not exceed Utah dissolved oxygen standards. The Henry’s Fork and the Yellowstone River drainages are assessed to have insufficient data about exceedances. The West Fork Smiths Fork (Assessment Unit UT1 4040107-003) is listed as no evidence of impairment. From 1993 to the 2010, water quality for these drainages was assessed as fully supporting its beneficial uses. Appendix 1 in the Hydrology Resource Report (project record) presents data for the parameters that exceed State standards for those streams draining the project area that are listed on the Utah 2016 305 (b) and 303(d) list. Table 13 - DWQ 2016 305(b) and 303(d) assessment listing for waters in project area. Drainage Parameter Impaired Beneficial Use Blacks Fork River and tributaries from Aluminum, dissolved 3A Utah-Wyoming state line at Meeks Cabin Reservoir to headwaters pH 2B, 4, 3A East Fork Smiths Fork and tributaries Aluminum, dissolved 3A from Utah-Wyoming state line to headwaters Zinc, dissolved 3A West Fork Smiths Fork and tributaries Aluminum, dissolved 3A from Utah-Wyoming state line to headwaters Rock Creek Upper and tributaries from Aluminum, dissolved 3A USFS boundary to headwaters Moon Lake tributaries (Slate Creek) Dissolved oxygen 3A

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 95 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Drainage Parameter Impaired Beneficial Use Aluminum, dissolved 3A Uinta River and tributaries from USFS pH 2B, 4, 3A boundary to headwaters Zinc, dissolved 3A DWQ 2016 305(b) and 303(d) assessment did not list any streams in the High Uintas domestic sheep project area for exceedances of water quality standards for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). In 2009, one round of bacteria samples were collected along the North Slope Road on East Fork Bear River, East Fork Blacks Fork, Middle Beaver Creek, East Fork Beaver Creek, Thompson Creek, and Burnt Fork Creek in allotments on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains but not within the High Uintas domestic sheep allotments (Holt and Bechthold 2009). E. coli concentration ranged from 2.0 to 50.4 MPN (most probable number)/100 mL and indicate bacteria concentrations for warm blooded mammals is below the Utah standard of 206 number/100 mL for beneficial uses for domestic sources (1C) and recreation and aesthetics (2B). Specialists with the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) do not know why dissolved aluminum exceedances have occurred or why they occurred when they did (personal conversation between Charlie Condrat, UWCNF Soil and Water Program Manager and Carl Adams, DWQ TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] Section Manager, at DWQ Annual Nonpoint Source Coordination meeting on 03/02/2016). Although results of water quality samples show exceedances for aluminum, there has not been any indications of a corresponding adverse effect on fisheries. In partnership with DWQ, the Forest Service collected water samples during 2016 on the impaired streams to obtain additional water quality data and DWQ will assess the results. A summary of total suspended solids (TSS) data is shown in Table 14 (Condrat 2018c) that indicate low levels of sedimentation in waters draining the Uinta Mountains. Table 14 - Summary of total suspended solids (mg/L) collected at main drainages below project allotments. Location Count Non-Detected Average Minimum Maximum Middle Fork Blacks Fork above Confluence with West Fork Blacks 63 42 12 3 1114 Fork (STORET 4939550) East Fork Blacks Fork above Confluence with West Fork Blacks 77 54 13 4 88 Fork (STORET 4939530) East Fork Smiths Fork at FS Road 14 11 12 4 29 072 Xing (STORET 4939490) West Fork Beaver Creek at FS Road 55 28 7 2 16 058 crossing (STORET # 4939340) Rock Creek @ FS Boundary 51 14 8 0 31 (STORET #4935450) Slate Creek AB Confluence w/ Brown 10 4 13 5 26 Duck Creek (STORET# 4935960) Uinta River at USFS Boundary 82 42 8 0 32 (STORET #4935160) On the WCNF, Bridger Lake, Marsh Lake, China Lake, and Lyman Lake were listed as impaired because of low levels of dissolved oxygen and/or temperatures that do not meet State water

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement quality standards. These lakes are located in the Blacks Fork and East Fork Smiths Fork drainages. In 2004 and 2005, chemical, nutrient and dissolved oxygen data were collected on these lakes and streams flowing into and out of the lakes. The results of the study indicate that water in these lakes do not support standards for dissolved oxygen during the winter months, but the cause of the impairment appears to be from consumption of oxygen during respiration of plants and not by sources of pollution from land use within the drainage around the lake. Bridger Lake, China Lake, and Lyman Lake are still considered impaired, but Marsh Lake was delisted in 2012 because new data shows attainment of beneficial uses (State of Utah 2014b). Wetlands Information on wetland resources was obtained from several sources. Field reports for the ANF and the WCNF contain wetland condition information for the allotments. Impacts to wetlands from livestock grazing that were observed during field reviews include linear trails that trample sedges, but having limited impacts to ground disturbance. In 2014, the Utah Geological Survey (UGS), in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service, conducted research and wrote a report of their findings to better quantify the location and condition of wetlands on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains in the Upper Blacks Fork and Smiths Fork watersheds. UGS sampled and assessed 28 sites and this assessment is presented in the 2015 UGS report, Assessment of wetland condition and wetland mapping accuracy in Upper Black’s Fork and Smiths Fork, Uinta Mountains, Utah (UGS 2015). The report indicates that most of the wetlands in the allotments are in good condition with limited impacts by sheep grazing that result primarily from trailing through wetlands as they are moved through the allotments. Estimates of the wetland area within the allotments in the project area are compiled from the National Wetland Inventory database. Estimates of the wetland area within the allotments in the project area by wetland type are shown in Table 15 (Condrat 2018b). The total wetland area for all of the allotments in the project area is approximately 13,122 acres. Most of the wetlands in the project area are freshwater emergent or freshwater forest/shrub wetlands. Field Reports Information - Most of the wetlands in the Henry’s Fork, Gilbert Peak, and Hessie Lake allotments are located in the bottom of the drainages. These wetlands are mainly willow and sedge types and there are some large ponds with wetlands surrounding them. Impacts to wetlands from livestock grazing that were observed during field reviews include linear trails that trample sedges, but having limited impacts to ground disturbance. Utah Geological Survey (UGS) Wetlands Report - In 2014, the UGS, in partnership with the UWCNF, conducted studies in 2014 to better quantify the location and condition of wetlands on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains in the Upper Blacks Fork and Smiths Fork watersheds. Utah Geological Survey (UGS) sampled and assessed 28 sites and this assessment is presented in the 2015 UGS report, Assessment of wetland condition and wetland mapping accuracy in Upper Black’s Fork and Smiths Fork, Uinta Mountains, Utah (UGS 2015). This report was used in the EIS wetland analysis for the assessment of wetland conditions on the Wasatch-Cache NF. Observations of wetland conditions were made during several field reviews by range, botany, soils and water resource specialists during allotment reviews. The studies indicate that most of the wetlands in the allotments are in good condition with limited impacts by sheep grazing that result primarily from trailing through wetlands as they are moved through the allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 97 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

National Wetland Inventory - Estimates of the wetland area within the allotments in the project area by wetland type are shown in Table 15 (Condrat 2018b). The total wetland area for all of the allotments in the project area is approximately 13,122 acres. Most of the wetlands in the project area are freshwater emergent or freshwater forest/shrub wetlands. Table 15 - Wetland area within the allotments in the project area by wetland type (acres). Freshwater Freshwater Freshwater Forested/ Allotment Lake Emergent Riverine Totals Pond Shrub Wetland Wetland Middle Fork Blacks Fork 12 9 760 74 107 962 East Fork Blacks Fork 33 40 692 561 247 1,573 Red Castle 314 51 526 630 110 1,631 Hessie Lake/ Henry’s Fork 172 52 585 918 65 1,792 Gilbert Peak 9 25 374 583 56 1,047 Fall Creek 199 147 729 3 130 1,208 Ottoson Basin 84 49 620 5 144 902 Oweep 41 68 795 169 160 1,233 Tungsten 250 49 864 176 143 1,482 Painter 81 53 714 304 140 1,292 Totals 1195 543 6659 3423 1302 13122 Floodplains Floodplains are defined by Executive order 11988 as “lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters”. Small floodplains are common throughout the project area and the largest floodplains are located along the main stream channels in the valley bottoms in the lower parts of the allotments. On the main stream reaches within the project area, floodplains are up to 500 feet wide on the north-slope of the Uinta Mountains and are up to 100 feet wide on the south slope of the Uinta Mountains. The main areas where a floodplain occurs is along the main channels of the Middle Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork Blacks Fork, Little West Fork Blacks Fork, East Fork Smiths Fork, Henry’s Fork, Fall Creek, Ottoson Creek, Oweep Creek, Yellowstone Creek, and North Fork Uinta River. Floodplains in the allotment are functioning properly and the ability of water to flow over the floodplains is not impacted by sheep grazing or other uses in these drainages. The few structures, such as small log bridges that cross stream channels do not restrict floodplain capacity. Municipal Watersheds On the WCNF, three municipalities are downstream of the project allotments. Robertson is located about 19.6 miles downstream, Lonetree is approximately 16.6 miles downstream, and Mountain View is about 27 miles downstream. On the Smiths Fork, the Stateline Reservoir is between the project allotments and Robertson, and on the Blacks Fork, Meeks Cabin Reservoir is between the allotments and Mountain View. The Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board diverts its direct flow rights from the Black's Fork River into the Bridger Valley Robertson Pipeline, which delivers the water to Smith's Fork Creek. The deliveries from the Black's Fork River are diverted from the creek and piped to a water treatment plant. The East Fork Smiths Fork is used by the Mountain View, and Lyman residents for domestic water.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For the ANF, the Town of Duchesne source withdrawal point is more than 35 miles downstream. Several small communities such as Mountain Home and Neola are downstream of the High Uintas domestic sheep project allotments and receive drinking water originating on the National Forest. These communities are about 20 miles downstream from the project allotments. Based on water quality sampling of streams leaving the WCNF and the ANF, the water quality of these streams meets DWQ standards for domestic use (Beneficial Use Class 1C – Protected for drinking water). Measurement Indicators Measurement indicators are those items that compare and contrast the effects of project alternatives. Resource indicators and measures used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects are shown in Table 16. A review of literature indicates that most environmental concerns with grazing animals occur from overgrazing of vegetation, soil trampling and compaction, and soil erosion that may result in sediment entering streams. No direct water quality data has been collected within the allotments from the impacts of sheep, and bank trampling and livestock stream crossings along the Sheep Driveway are used as a proxy for impacts from sheep to water quality. This measure is used because these are the areas where sheep concentrate when crossing streams and it may also reflect public and wildlife use. The USEPA lists bank erosion as a measure of channel structure as an indirect measure of sediment (2017 USEPA). Measurement indicators were chosen to evaluate those concerns and are described below. • Wetland and riparian function o The condition of wetlands was chosen as an indicator because a study of wetland condition was recently conducted on several of the allotments within the project area and grazing impacts were assessed in the reports. • Water quality o Stream bank trampling is used as a proxy for water quality because bank trampling can result in soil erosion and sediments can carry nutrients with them to streams. Heavy loads of suspended solids in water can reflect erosion from pastures and areas of heavy use by grazing animals. o Number of livestock stream crossings was also chosen as a proxy for water quality by providing an indication of the number of places where livestock concentrate when they cross streams where there may be sedimentation, and thus direct input of nutrients and bacteria to a stream. Table 16 - Resource indicators and measures for alternatives’ direct and indirect effects. Resource Resource Element Measure Indicator Condition of 1 - Wetland and Riparian wetland and Wetland condition rating Function riparian areas 2 - Water Quality Water quality Number of stream crossings Length (feet) of perennial stream with bank

trampling

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 99 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Methodology In order to evaluate wetland and riparian function, the amount of wetland and riparian areas identified as impacted by livestock is compared to an estimate of the total amount of wetland and riparian area in the project area on WCNF. The estimate of wetland area was obtained from the National Wetland Inventory database. Results of wetland surveys by the Utah Geological Survey are used as additional information to assess the impacts of grazing in the project area. For water quality, the amount of stream banks trampled by livestock is used as an indicator of the amount of sediment that could enter a stream due to soil erosion in the trampled area. The amount of stream banks trampled by livestock is also used as an indicator of where sheep would concentrate when they are near streams and is assumed to reflect the area where bacteria would enter streams. From field observations of the grazing impacts along streams of the allotments, most of the bank trampling occurs along the sheep driveways that are the main paths that sheep take to get to grazing pastures. To estimate the magnitude of impact to water quality (sediment, nutrients, bacteria) of livestock grazing, comparisons of the amount of trampled stream banks along the sheep driveways are made between alternatives and to the total length of streams in the project area. The amount of trampled stream banks in the allotments is obtained from data and descriptions documented in soils and hydrology field reports, range reports, and measured from imagery on Google Earth (Condrat 2018a). Trampled stream banks are indicated by bare soil and laid back stream banks at stream crossings or trampling that shows hoof prints along the stream banks by livestock. Water quality data from samples collected outside of the allotments but within the same watersheds are presented and the Utah Division of Water Quality assessment of how water from these drainages are meeting their beneficial uses are described to show the overall water quality of water draining from the allotments. Information Sources for Water Resources Several sources of information are used in this analysis. Field trips to the allotments were conducted from 2006 to 2015 (Condrat 2015). Field reports on range allotment soil and water conditions are listed in the references at the end of this document. Water quality information was obtained from the Utah Division of Water Quality and from Forest Service bacterial field samples. Aerial photos, topographic maps, and GIS information were used to identify water features, wetlands, and floodplains. Wetland information was obtained from a Utah Geological Survey report that assessed wetland conditions in the Upper Blacks Fork and Smiths Fork. Municipal watersheds were identified from knowledge of local communities in the area. Incomplete and Unavailable Information The information is adequate for assessing the environmental effects of the proposal. Most of the bank trampling is along the Sheep driveway and although the stream crossings are used by horses, wildlife, hikers, the driveway is also the main travel route of sheep through the allotments. It is difficult to distinguish what individual use may have impacted the individual crossing. Not all stream crossings were reviewed and inspected on the ground.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects The spatial extent of the direct and indirect effects for wetland/ riparian function is encompassed within the hydrologic unit code (HUC) 6 boundaries that fall within the project area boundary. Most of the direct and indirect effects would be observed on specific perennial stream segments within these boundaries. Some indirect effects are expected downstream of the areas of direct impacts along perennial stream segments but all direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing would be encompassed within the streams within the HUC 6 boundaries that fall within the project area boundary. Also included in the direct and indirect analysis area are the sheep driveways that are outside of the project allotments. The temporal scale for direct and indirect water impacts is two years based on the estimated beneficial vegetation growth in riparian area. This time scale is selected based on .Nussl Et Al (2017) on the ability of willow shoots in alpine areas to grow new vegetation. Nussl states that ”Our results suggest that in high-elevation meadows, removing livestock—either with fences or through complete exclusion—is beneficial for riparian vegetation growth, and such benefits are evident after only two years of rest”. As vegetation recovers in riparian areas, soil erosion decreases from bare soil areas. Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area includes the same watersheds ( Figure 13 above) identified for indirect and direct effects but extend to the Forest Service boundary. Cumulative effects were not analyzed below these boundaries because effects from Forest Service lands were determined to be negligible in the scope of all activities (examples included: large scale agriculture, substantial diversions to most project streams, and large year round grazing practices) occurring in the drainages below these boundaries. The temporal scale for this analysis is the life of this document, approximately 10 to 15 years. This timeframe was chosen because authorized grazing use on the allotments occurs every 10 to 15 years. Existing Condition Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Condition of Wetlands and Riparian Areas On the WCNF and ANF, there is little impact to wetlands in the allotments from sheep grazing. Riparian areas have deep rooted vegetation consisting of sedges and willows and stream channels are stable. On the Wasatch-Cache NF, over 90 percent of the wetlands (27 out of 28 wetlands) surveyed in the 2015 UGS report are in reference condition8; a few areas had some trailing and soil trampling by sheep at stream crossings and within wetlands along the sheep

8 The 2015 Utah Geological Survey Wetlands report defines wetland reference sites as pristine sites without any anthropogenic (human) alteration.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 101 Draft Environmental Impact Statement driveways. The main impacts to riparian areas occur along 1,235 feet of perennial stream which has bank trampling located at sheep driveway stream crossings. On the ANF, observations of streams that are considered typical in the upper drainages of the High Uinta Mountains streams are densely vegetated with sedges and willows in meadow areas. These streams consist of boulders and cobbles that are braided with multiple channels in moderately steep terrain. The streams have high bank stability with minimal impacts from livestock. Wetlands appear to have similar conditions as the WCNF but no sheep driveways are present. Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Water Quality Bank trampling was observed at 70 stream crossings along the sheep driveway on the WCNF and two reaches on the ANF. Approximately 1,235 feet of perennial stream banks are trampled by sheep at sheep driveway stream crossings, including the sheep driveway outside of the allotments that is used to access the allotments (Table 17). There are no sheep driveways on the ANF allotments. On the ANF, about 150 feet of perennial stream had stream banks showing signs of concentrated sheep hoof prints. No other impacts to stream banks were noted in field reviews on the ANF allotments. Table 17 - Resource indicators and measures for existing condition. WCNF Resource Resource Ashley NF Measure Existing Element Indicator Existing Condition Condition No data but visual observations indicate wetland Of wetlands conditions are 1 - Wetland and Condition of sampled, over better than WCNF Wetland condition Riparian Wetland and 90% wetlands because most rating Function Riparian Areas are in reference impacts to wetlands condition. are along sheep driveways on the WCNF which the ANF does not have. Number of stream 2 - Water Quality Water Quality 70 2 crossings

Length (feet) of perennial stream with 1,235 150 bank trampling

Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Condition of Wetlands and Riparian Areas For riparian function under the no action alternative, direct effects to wetland areas would be a reduction in livestock trampling mainly in wetland areas adjacent to the sheep driveways.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Currently, over 90 percent (27 of 28) of wetlands surveyed in the allotments are functioning in reference condition and the no action alternative would increase all wetlands to almost 100 percent in reference conditions. By removing grazing as would occur with Alternative 1, there would be no future effects beyond the two year notification period that would result from continued grazing during that time. Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Water Quality The direct effects of the no action alternative would be a reduction of perennial stream bank trampling along the sheep driveways and no sheep livestock crossings would be present within the allotments. Stream bank trampling is expected to continue where hiking trails cross streams of which 57 crossings are also currently part of the sheep driveway. Based on field observations of stream crossings on hiking trails that are not along the sheep driveways, the hiking trail tramples stream banks along about five feet of stream. Assuming that bank trampling along hiking trails would impact five feet of stream, then 57 stream crossings along the sheep driveway still would be used on the hiking trails and would result in about 285 feet of stream impacted by bank trampling after vegetation recovers along the stream banks from sheep impacts. Stream banks within the allotments would continue to be stable with dense, deep-rooted vegetation such as willows and sedges and large cobbles or boulders. Water quality impacts would be minimal, because sheep crossing would not occur after two years. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Condition of Wetlands and Riparian Areas On both the WCNF and ANF, the effects of livestock grazing would be the same as the existing conditions. For riparian function under the proposed action, direct effects to wetland areas would be livestock trampling in some wetland areas primarily along the sheep driveways. On the WCNF, of wetlands sampled, over 90 percent (27 of 28 surveyed wetlands) are in reference condition. On the ANF, most wetlands are functioning properly because no sheep driveways are present. Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Water Quality On the WCNF and the ANF, most of the stream banks will continue to have dense, deep-rooted vegetation such as willows and sedges and large cobbles or boulders. For water quality, the effects of livestock grazing would be similar to the existing conditions. For stream bank trampling, the direct effects of the proposed action are expected to be a continuation of stream bank trampling at perennial stream crossings (Table 20). On the WCNF, it is expected that stream bank trampling and soil erosion would continue along the sheep driveways at 70 stream crossings for a total of about 1,235 feet (0.23 miles) of stream impacted. The 1,235 feet of stream impacted is about 0.15 percent of the total length of 158.1 miles of perennial streams in the allotments on the WCNF. Under current livestock management of the ANF, minimal stream bank trampling by sheep occurs (150 feet of stream showed signs of stream bank trampling by sheep during allotment field reviews). Table 18 below presents a comparison of effects based on alternatives that are being considered.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 103 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 18 - Resource indicators and measures for alternatives’ direct and indirect effects. Resource Resource Indicator (Alternative 1 - No (Alternative 2 – Proposed Element and Measure Action) Action) Condition of wetland Almost 100% of wetland Of wetlands sampled on the areas (condition areas would be in WCNF, over 90% wetlands are 1 - Wetland rating) reference conditions. in reference condition. On the and Riparian ANF, observations indicate Function better conditions than the WCNF with little impact to wetlands from sheep. Number of stream 57 (used for hiking trail 72 (70 on WCNF along crossings crossings on the sheep driveway; 2 on ANF) driveway) 2 - Water Length (feet) of 320 (285 from hiking along 1,235 (WCNF – along sheep Quality perennial stream with the sheep driveway) driveway); 150 (ANF) bank trampling

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those additive effects (using the same resource indicators as for direct and indirect effects) from other projects that overlap in space and time with the effects from the proposed action. By removing grazing as would occur with Alternative 1, there would be no future effects beyond the two year notification period that would result from continued grazing during that time. As such, there would be no cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1. Cumulative effects will be presented for Alternative 2. Past Project Effects - Livestock grazing caused areas of bare soil that resulted in erosion and sedimentation of streams. Peak livestock use occurred in the early 1900s. Ground cover in most areas of the allotments has recovered since that time. Current Project Effects – Other than sheep grazing, the only activity that has the potential to impact wetland and riparian functions and stream bank conditions is from recreation use where hiking trails cross stream channels in the project area. Most of the sheep driveway stream crossings are located in the same place as hiking trail stream crossings. Hiking trails are at the same stream crossing location as the sheep driveway except at three crossings in the Red Castle allotment, two stream crossings in the Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork allotment, and eight stream crossings outside of the project allotment boundaries. The total number of hiking trail stream crossings outside of the sheep driveway is 132 and within each of the allotments range from seven to 24. Based on field observations during field reviews in the project allotments, stream crossings along hiking trails are about five feet wide. Using this value for the length of stream trampled at each hiking trail stream crossing outside of the sheep driveway, the total length of stream impacted by hiking trails is 660 feet in all of the allotments and stream crossings range from 35 feet to 120 feet within each allotment. There is minimal impact to wetland and riparian areas and to water quality occurs from hiking trails since there are few stream crossings in each allotment that result in a limited amount of impact along the streams. Additionally, the hiking trails are distributed throughout the allotments which reduces the amount of sedimentation at any one point.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Project Effects – No new projects have been identified that would affect wetland and riparian functions or stream bank conditions in the project area. Summary of Cumulative Effects Wetland and Riparian Function – Cumulative effects are from the limited trampling of wetland and riparian areas from recreation use as described in the existing condition, combined with livestock use. Water Quality - Cumulative effects are minimal from the combined impact of stream bank trampling by recreation use combined with livestock use. The estimated combined length of stream trampled by these uses is about 1,865 feet, which is distributed throughout the 10 allotments in the project area and sheep driveway outside of the allotments. The length of trampling along most of the stream crossings is approximately five feet or less. Summary of Effects For Alternative 1, almost 100 percent of wetlands areas would be in reference conditions and trampling from sheep would not occur in wetland and riparian areas or along stream crossings of the sheep driveway. For Alternative 2, the effects of livestock grazing on wetlands, riparian areas, and water quality would be the same as the existing condition. About 90 percent of wetlands would be in reference condition and trampling from sheep would occur along 0.15 percent of the stream length within the allotments. Soils Affected Environment Soils have diverse properties and taxonomic classifications within the grazing allotments. Their diversity reflects changing landscape factors that determine soil development- climate, biota, topography, parent material, and time. The following is a generalized review of soils. Appendix A to the soils resource report (project record) provides additional information on soils from mapping inventories on the forests. Soils have formed in a very cold (cryic) and wet climate (udic soil moisture regime). The cold climate has slowed soil development in some areas, due to limited chemical weathering and biological processes, a shorter growing season, lessened influence of vegetation and microorganism activity, and erosion from persistent snowbeds. Conversely, where the slope gradient, aspect, and slope position provide stability, the wet climate has resulted in highly developed soils from available water that promotes key biological, chemical, and physical soil forming processes. The dominant parent material on which the soils have formed is Uinta Mountain quartzite. The high quartz sand and silica content weathers into sandy soils with common soil textures of sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, and silty clay loam. Soils formed from the quartzite have low (extremely to moderately acidic) pH and fertility. Another dominant parent material are the eolian (wind deposits) that have influenced soil surface properties that differ from underlying quartzite- derived layers. The loess is composed of very fine sand and silt “dust” and has increased surface

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 105 Draft Environmental Impact Statement soil pH, added calcium, magnesium and sodium to soil horizons, increased soil fertility, and may act as a buffer to acidic precipitation (Munroe, 2007). Poorly developed soils in the area have thin surface “A” horizons that support the vegetation and contain the bulk of plant roots. Beneath the surface are weakly developed subsurface “B” horizons, and lower “C” horizons that resemble weathered quartzite material. These horizons are typically a sandy matrix with high rock content, and have limited development of structure or accumulation of organic material or clay. Poorly developed soils may correspond to landscape positions that have lower available water due to steep or convex slopes or erosive parent materials. Plant communities associated with less developed soils include varied alpine communities, and some forb-grass and willow communities. These soils generally classify within the Entisol and Inceptisol soil orders. A range of well-developed soils are in the allotments. Organic soils are found within fen wetlands and have extensive accumulation of organic materials that through time have formed organic “peat” horizons of plant materials. Well-developed mineral soils include soils with surface “A” horizons greater than seven inches deep that are darkened by organic matter. Subsurface horizons may include layers where clay and minerals were leached, and lower horizons of accumulated clay and organic materials. In wet meadows and under some willow communities, the soils have periods of saturation that may create grey soil colors, and iron and manganese concentrations. Soils in mesic and wet meadows typically have soil structure development and plant roots that extend through several soil horizons. Well-developed soils are associated with stable areas of the landscape where moisture can accumulate on flat or concave slopes, including ridge “bollie” summits, and glacial valley positions. These soils commonly classify within the Alfisol and Mollisol soil order (mollisols have a deep, dark soil surface while alfisols typically have a lighter soil surface and not as deep), and the organic soils in fens classify within the Histosol order. The capacity for soils to resist or recover from compaction, displacement, and erosion depends on many interrelated and site-specific factors. Key factors that determine soil resilience include: the stability of the landscape position and the parent material at the surface; the vegetation supported and the amount of canopy cover, root support, and litter cover it provides; and soil properties including structure, organic matter content, soil moisture, and soil texture. The ability for soils to resist compaction depends mainly on soil texture and water content. Soils with a mix of particle sizes (sand, silt, clay) are most prone to compaction changes as well as soils that are moist to wet. In addition, soils with stronger structure can resist compression better and rock fragments on the surface and within the soil profile can also reduce compaction effects. Surface vegetation, roots, and plant litter can buffer impacts that compact soils. Freeze-thaw and wet-dry soil cycles, plant roots, and the activities of soil organisms and animals can reverse compaction but the process is generally slow and depends on the depth of the compacted material. The potential for soil erosion to occur is often tied to prior soil compaction or displacement. Soil compaction increases the amount of surface runoff that becomes sheet wash erosion and can also develop into channeled erosion of rills and gullies. Soil displacement leaves the moved soil in an unstable condition that is prone to erosion by wind or water. Soil erosion depends on specific

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement site factors including the slope length and gradient, the amount of bare soil exposed, and soil properties. The main soil property that determine soil erodibility is soil texture, but the organic matter, structure, and permeability of soil are also factors. The dominant quartzite-derived soil materials as well as the loess influenced soil textures of the allotments has generally sufficient permeability and sand content that reduces erosion potential. Soil Condition The current condition of soil resources in the allotments is dependent on natural processes, management activities, and inherent soil properties. Natural processes that impact soils in the allotments include ground disturbing wildlife activities of beaver and pocket gophers, and the browsing by elk, deer and moose that reduce plant cover. Persistent snowbeds are a factor in determining what plant communities are supported and their productivity, and in some areas leave soils semi-barren and erosive. Channeled water and debris runoff from steep mountain slopes leave fresh deposits and cause rill and gully erosion in the valley soils below. Management for livestock utilization has occurred for nearly 100 years in most of the allotments. Sites where livestock use is concentrated influence soil condition, including areas of trailing, bedding grounds, salt rocks, sheepherder camps, and stream crossing sites. Soil impacts include disturbances of compaction, displacement, and soil erosion ranging from sheet wash to severe gullying. Inherent soil properties can be a factor in areas of detrimental soil disturbance and poor soil conditions. Soil formed on parent materials of Red Pine shale, Bishop conglomerate, and sandy glacial deposits can be undeveloped and inherently erosive. Kimsey in his 1963 report of the Ottoson Basin, Oweep and Painter Basin Allotments stated: “Outcrops of shale on the basin floors nearly always results in an area of severely eroded soil”, and the range monitoring record indicates where trailing and the driveway are on steeper slopes of these parent materials there is often severe gullying. Soils in many areas have a thin surface “A” horizon that is often referred to as a loess cap. The surface sod is vulnerable to tearing, headcutting and gullying and has been monitored in many studies. Advancement of erosion generally appears to be in increments of inches over decades, both in their advance and in their recolonization. Management for livestock utilization has left the allotments in stable condition with plant communities evaluated to be at desired conditions. Where vegetation is managed to meet range standards, the soil resources can be estimated to also be maintained. There is a direct interaction between vegetation and soil condition. Soils that have high quality are capable of supporting productive native plant communities. Likewise, productive plant communities support soil quality by providing cover, root support, litter and coarse woody additions, and the organic matter and root exudates that sustain soil structure, porosity and nutrient cycling. Methodology The range monitoring database made use of several methods to collect data on ground cover, utilization, and plant community composition and productivity. Monitoring methods include: repeat photography, nested frequency, Parker 3-Step, frame plots, 1/10 acre ocular macroplots, line- point intercept (belt) measurements, and estimates on ground cover and vegetation crown cover.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 107 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Erosion pin studies were done on some allotments to track the movement of gullies, headcuts, and the changes in alpine scarps. Riparian studies included the use of greenline measurements and streambank stability ratings. These methods are described in the glossary of the Soils Resource Report (see project record). Range monitoring is valuable in part because exact sites can be revisited. All studies are GPS referenced. Before this technology was available wooden stakes and large reference rocks were used to mark study sites in the field. Although the range studies focus on range condition and trend, they include detailed analysis of non-livestock influences on soils and vegetation communities, and note livestock impacts on soils including trailing, damage to stream banks and channels, “salt rocks”, bedding grounds, and damage from headcuts and scarps cut into the alpine sod. Watershed staff collected soil condition data on the Painter Basin and Oweep Allotments in August, 2015. Eight line-point intercept transects and Region 4 Soil Condition Evaluation forms were recorded for a 1/10 acre ocular plot area. These provided information on effective ground cover, and soil condition indicators including compaction, puddling, displacement and erosion. Watershed staff collected field data during 2006 and 2007 on the allotments within the WCNF. Soil and riparian conditions were documented with photos, and estimates and measurements were collected for disturbed sites, vegetation, and ground cover. Ground cover data included three long transects spanning 1,000 to 2,500 feet areas. Records were made for bedding grounds, trails, stream crossings, and the Cache Hill, East Fork-Smith’s Fork, and Lake Hessie areas of disturbance along the East Fork sheep driveway. A glossary of soil terminology and descriptions of the methods described above is located in the Soils Resource Report in the project record. Information Sources The project area is mapped within a Soil Resource Inventory on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache (1992) and within the Land System Inventory on the Ashley National Forest (2009). Inventory information, including map unit descriptions, soil descriptions and interpretation of soil properties is provided in Appendix A of the Soils Resource Report (project record). Information for this report came primarily from a review of the written record contained in the range monitoring database. In addition, field reviews, reports and histories of the allotments written by range and watershed staff; and information from books and articles discussing the project area were used to compile information on soil properties, livestock impacts, and non-livestock factors influencing range and soil conditions. Field data completed by watershed staff in the 2006-2007 and 2015 field seasons, provided a more detailed look at some areas of livestock impacts and were used to help assess existing conditions and potential effects. Range management specialists and hydrologists were consulted for their expertise on field conditions and utilization responses. A list of field reviews and reports written by staff on the Forests is provided in Appendix B and C of the Soil Resource Report (project record). Assumptions Made for Analysis • Areas within the allotments that are most sensitive to livestock grazing are in riparian and meadow areas, and other areas where livestock concentrate such as bedding grounds, trails and driveways.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Sensitive fen wetlands that are common in glacial valley positions (see Hydrology Report) will continue to have low utilization or impacts from livestock. Field observations in both forests indicate the wetland plant species in fens and the surface peat layers are a deterrent to livestock utilization. • Annual Operating Instructions will be implemented and effective at minimizing impacts to soil resources. The Annual Operating Instructions for the allotments set utilization standards that adapt to the existing vegetation conditions. Currently, adaptive management has five allotments require rest rotation and three allotments in a deferred rotation to maintain the vegetation communities. Soil resources would continue to benefit from the AOI salting guidelines and noxious weed free feed requirements. Incomplete and Unavailable Information The Fall Creek Allotment has not been grazed with domestic sheep since 1977 and there is currently no plan to restock this allotment. The existing conditions on the allotment reflect this. The proposed action, however, would authorize grazing on this allotment and no other environmental review would be required to restock the allotment if the agency’s preferred action alternative were selected. It is anticipated that the impacts on the allotments would be increased an additional 15.5 percent based on the animal days spent on the allotment divided by the total animal days across the ten allotments. Sheep would access the Fall Creek Allotment from the south, moving up the Rock Creek trail and drainage. If this driveway was reestablished the impacts would be similar to the main driveway as reflected in this report. The Fall Creek Allotment is noted to have occasional drift of cattle from Rock Creek. Impacts from this drift are not known other than the allotment as a whole is evaluated to have had little change as indicated by monitoring studies (Goodrich and Huber, 2010). This report only evaluates trailing along the East Fork sheep driveway and some areas documented in the range monitoring database. Impacts from trailing vary from trampled vegetation to deeply incised paths, and from single to multiple paths in a given location. A complete or accurate assessment of all trailing impacts on soil resources was not attempted. Fens lack documentation on both Forests. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (Colorado State University) completed an updated GIS map of potential fens for the Ashley National Forest in 2017, and both forests have the National Wetland Inventory database information. information (Smith and Lemly, 2017). Field documentation to confirm fen location and to record wetland conditions will take years of inventory to complete Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination Soil indicators are surrogate measures used to estimate known and potential changes to soil productivity and soil quality that have occurred or may occur due to management activities. The physical condition of the soil surface, including disturbance (compaction, displacement), and erosion indicators reflect the soil quality. Soil quality is defined as the capacity for soil to provide five ecosystem functions: sustaining biological activity and productivity; regulating and partitioning water and solute flow; filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing and detoxifying organic and inorganic materials; storing and cycling nutrients and carbon; and providing physical stability and support (USDA, NRCS 2009).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 109 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Effects to the soil resources were evaluated in terms of conditions that would promote loss of soil and its ability to carry out particular ecological functions. Effects will be disclosed in terms of detrimental disturbance predicted or anticipated from the various types of proposed activities. Detrimental disturbances are those processes which can alter or destroy the ability of soil resource to support communities of native plants and include compaction and displacement of soil. Soil erosion is also a condition that reflects overall soil quality and productivity. Definitions for these terms can be found in the glossary of the Soils Resource Report in the project record. The indicators were used to estimate existing soil conditions and to analyze the potential effects of each alternative in meeting plan direction for soil resources. Indicators and measures used for soil quality are listed in below in Table 19. Table 19 – Soil resource indicators and measures for assessing effects1. Resource Indicator Measure Resource Element Soil Compaction Soil Disturbance Soil Displacement

Soil Quality Sheet, Rill and Gully Erosion Soil Erosion Soil and Litter Deposition Pedestalling 1Indicators are qualitative soil condition assessments. Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects The spatial boundaries for direct and indirect effects correspond to where livestock utilization has an impact on soil resources. The spatial boundary includes the portion of the East Fork (North Slope) driveway that is outside of the allotments, and extends northward from the East Fork Blacks Fork and Red Castle Allotments to the Wyoming state line and the UWC Forest boundary. This portion of the driveway is 13 miles long. Although it is unknown if the Fall Creek Allotment would be utilized in the future, the acres within the Fall Creek Allotment are included in spatial analysis along with the sheep driveway that would be used to bring one sheep band up from the southern border of the ANF, and into the Fall Creek Allotment. The exact route for bringing sheep into the Fall Creek Allotment has not been determined since it is an unlikely event. The temporal boundaries for direct and indirect effects are long-term (fifteen to forty or more years), based on the estimated time that would be required for areas strongly impacted by soil displacement, compaction, and erosion loss to stabilize and revegetate and regain soil surface conditions. Effects along the sheep driveway where impacts have been concentrated are expected to include areas where recovery would be irretrievable (requiring centuries to recover) to irreversible, where soil productivity will not recover. Short-term effects for soils in these allotments can be defined as three to fifteen years. This is based on advice from range specialists that reduced utilization can improve litter cover and may increase plant productivity within that interval (personal communication with Garry Brown, Rangeland Management Specialist, Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District, ANF). Range monitoring studies also indicate under ideal conditions areas of soil disturbance can begin to

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement stabilize and regain some or most or all of prior vegetation cover within a short time. Given three to fifteen years, it is expected that changes in utilization can see a response, and soil condition can improve as a result of increased cover, and increased plant litter and nutrients. Long-term effects for soils in these allotments can be defined as ranging from greater than fifteen to forty years (or more), based on information from studies with repeated monitoring. The long- term time frame may be due to areas of the allotments that are high in elevation with a short growing season, general harsh weather conditions, and where quartzite-derived soils have low fertility. The examples within the range study database, provided in Table 20 below, indicate that it is common for effects to persist, especially where soil loss from erosion has occurred. Areas along the sheep driveway will have irretrievable to irreversible effects in the human time scale, and these are discussed in effects analysis. Table 20– Examples of long-term effects on soils in the range monitoring studies. Study Monitoring Subject Reflected Time Number Interval

19-20 Ground cover recovery in trailing area after management change 27 years

11-1 Time for vegetation to reestablish in a plot study 23 years

23-1 Revegetation within exclosure 40 years

12-40 Revegetation of talus debris flow 15 years

19-4E Revegetation of debris flow 39 years

19-19A Revegetation of headcut 27 years

19-11 Soil filled in and revegetation of gully area 42 years

18-52 Soil filled in and revegetation in gully caused by Middle Fork burn 48 years

Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects The spatial boundaries for cumulative effects on soil resources are the same as for direct and indirect effects because impacts to soils remain in the areas where livestock utilization and movements occur. There are cumulative effects that overlap in this spatial boundary. The temporal boundaries for cumulative effects on soil resources extend for the same long-term (fifteen to forty or more years) into the future. Although early (1905-1930) utilization levels were higher than present stocking rates, it is not evident that grazing impacts from that time persist. Existing Condition Existing condition in the project area can be summarized by noting two conditions. First is that the data record indicates the majority of the project area has remained stable with approximately 100 years of livestock grazing. Secondly, areas of the allotments and driveways that have been impacted by concentrated use will require varying time intervals to recover if utilization is stopped

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 111 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and about three percent (27 acres) of the sheep driveway has impacts that are irretrievable or irreversible. Table 21 below summarizes recent field work that indicates current soil conditions are satisfactory in the areas reviewed that are away from the East Fork sheep driveway. Data include ground cover composition and evaluation made for indications of erosion, compaction, and displacement. Eight 100-foot line-point intercept transects, and the Region 4 Soil Condition Evaluation forms were recorded in the Painter and Oweep Allotments in 2015. Three long transects scattered in the Red Castle Allotment recorded ground cover composition during 2006-2007 field work. Table 21 – Summary of Soil Condition Data. Data ID Allotment Ground Cover Data Soil Condition Data Transect Red Castle 80 percent vegetation and litter 010902t 5 percent rock 2,500 feet 15 percent bare soil mainly from gopher activity or shale barrens Transect Red Castle 75 percent vegetation and litter 030816t 1 percent rock 1,200 feet 24 percent bare soil mainly from gopher activity or shale barrens Transect Red Castle 85 percent vegetation and litter 0010817t 1 percent rock 1,000 feet 15 percent bare soil half due to gopher activity or shale barrens R1 Painter 66 percent vegetation, litter and rock No pedestalling, rills, gullies, Basin 34 percent bare soil or detrimental disturbance R2 Painter 91 percent vegetation, litter and rock No pedestalling, rills, gullies, Basin 9 percent bare soil or detrimental disturbance C1 Oweep 95 percent vegetation, litter and rock No pedestalling, rills, gullies, 5 percent bare soil or detrimental disturbance C2 Oweep 72 percent vegetation, litter and rock No pedestalling, rills, gullies, 28 percent bare soil with 26 percent due to or detrimental disturbance gopher activity C3 Oweep 87 percent vegetation, litter and rock Few pedestals, no rills, 13 percent bare soil, some due to gopher gullies, or detrimental activity disturbance C4 Oweep 86 percent vegetation, litter and rock No pedestalling, rills, gullies, 14 percent bare soil (near salting area) some compaction near salt area C5 Oweep 98 percent vegetation, litter and rock No pedestalling, rills, gullies, 2 percent bare soil or detrimental soil disturbance C6 Oweep 82 percent vegetation, litter and rock Slight pedestalling and soil 18 percent bare soil, some due to gopher deposition with some plants, activity no detrimental soil disturbance Some of the conditions and impacts to soil resources are illustrated below. Figure 24 shows the Painter Basin Allotment; Figure 25 shows the Gilbert Peak Allotment; Figure 26 shows the Red Castle Allotment; Figure 27 illustrates the sheep driveway in the Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork Allotment; and Figure 28 is a picture of erosion on the sheep driveway on Cache Hill.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 24 – Small wet meadow with little sign of impact, even though the area appears to have been recently grazed. Painter Basin Allotment, August 19, 2015.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 113 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 25 - Multiple trails along main hiking trail to Gunsight Pass – Gilbert Peak Allotment.

Figure 26 - Approximate one acre area of compaction and accumulated sheep excrement. Red Castle Allotment.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 27 - Portion of sheep driveway in the Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork Allotment near where the driveway and a hiking trail cross the Henry’s Fork stream. There are combined livestock and recreation impacts here.

Figure 28 - Portion of sheep driveway called Cache Hill. This area is on Red Pine Shale and effective ground cover is measured 62% less where the trailing is concentrated.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 115 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Monitoring studies and the hydrology report have identified where the sheep corridor has left soils in unsatisfactory condition with detrimental disturbance of compaction, displacement and erosion. These areas of disturbance often correspond to where the travel corridor narrows along the sheep driveway and concentrated livestock impacts. The four areas with the greatest area extent are illustrated in Figure 29 and listed below. • A 200-foot wide stream crossing on the Little East Fork Blacks Fork River. • An approximate 0.5 mile length of the driveway in the Cache Hill area. Given an average trail width of 50 yards the total area of disturbance is about nine acres. • An approximate 0.5 mile length of the driveway East of Bald Mountain near East Fork Blacks Fork. Given an average trail width of 50 yards the total area of disturbance is about nine acres. • An approximate 0.5 mile length of the driveway near Lake Hessie. Given an average trail width of 50 yards the total area of disturbance is about nine acres. Table 22 below provides a general review of impacts on soil resources from livestock and recreation hiking use. The indicator of soil disturbance (compaction, displacement) and erosion is noted, but since these impacts are often combined at a given location, estimated measurements represent the area in which one or more of the indicators are noted. The data in this table combines the information provided in the Power Point summaries for the range allotments, the measurements from hydrology reports, and consultation with range specialists. It is not inclusive of all impacts within the project area. All recreation impacts and microsites including areas impacted by salt rocks, bedding grounds, and smaller trailing are not included. Resource Indicator 1 – Soil Erosion The highest levels of soil erosion correspond with trailing and the sheep driveway. Trails are areas of compacted and displaced bare soil that are prone to channeling water and forming ruts. Tears and cuts into the adjacent surface sod are common with braided trails and add to the level of sheet and rill erosion. Headcuts and gully erosion represent the highest levels of soil loss and may correspond with sites where livestock are forced into a narrow corridor, or with unstable parent materials and steeper slopes. Soil erosion occurs to a lesser extent around salt rocks, sheepherder camps, in bedding grounds, and areas where utilization is higher. Surface runoff can increase in these areas from the reduction or loss of the vegetation canopy, and loss of plant root support and the cover provide by litter and woody materials. Soil erosion may also result from compaction of the soil in these locations, by reducing infiltration and increasing surface runoff rates. Sheet wash and rill erosion are found at stream crossing locations where loss of effective ground cover and plant roots, and the compaction and displacement of soil increases surface runoff and adds sediments into the watershed. Desired condition guidance for the project area includes maintaining soil quality and the properties that allow soil to function and support desired vegetation. The area of extent for gully erosion and irreversible soil loss in portions of the sheep driveway represent where desired soil conditions are not met and will not recover. This area of permanent soil loss is estimated to be 27 acres or about three percent of the total driveway.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 29 – Sheep Driveway illustrating four areas of severe soil impacts and rated in unsatisfactory condition.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 117 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 22- Estimates of soil impacts from summarized from Power Point summaries, hydrologist reports, and range specialist data. Allotment Location Range Indicator of Soil Disturbance Estimated or Driveway Name Study or (compaction, displacement) Measurements Use source and Soil Erosion Livestock Utilization Impacts Sheep Sheep Powerpoint compaction, displacement, 918 acres with Driveway Driveway erosion average width of 50 yards Sheep Cache Hill; Powerpoint compaction, displacement, 27 acres from 3 Driveway East Fork erosion with gullies sites: unsatisfactory Blacks Fork conditions and area; Lake irretrievable to Hessie area irreversible effects Sheep 70 perennial Reports damaged stream banks including 1,235 feet stream Driveway stream compaction, displacement, length crossings in erosion UWCNF Outside 2 perennial Reports damaged stream banks including 150 feet stream Driveway stream compaction, displacement, length crossings in erosion ANF Gilbert Peak Reports area of concentrated use: 1 acre compaction Gilbert Peak South of 20-2B headcut: erosion Dead Horse 0.25 acres Pass Ottoson 22-13A trailing, cuts in alpine sod, Basin compaction, displacement, 0.36 acres erosion Oweep 10-7A trailing, cuts in alpine sod, compaction, displacement, .01 acres erosion Painter Basin 12-25A/B cuts in alpine sod: erosion ≤1 acre 12-26A (photo estimate) 12-27A Tungsten 11-3G1 cuts in alpine sod: erosion ≤1 acre 24-11A2 (photo estimate) 24-11A6 24-11A7 Hessie Lake- 19-3A cuts in alpine sod: erosion 0.2 acres Henry’s Fork Hessie Lake- 20-2B headcuts in subalpine sod: Henry’s Fork erosion ≤1 acre Hessie Lake- Trails 115 & 19-19A headcut from trailing: compaction, 0.1 acre Henry’s Fork 117 displacement, erosion Red Castle Reports two areas of concentrated use: 2 acres compaction Red Castle Broadbent campsite: compaction, erosion 0.5 acre meadows 19-41A/C (photo estimate) Red Castle 18-6 cuts in alpine sod: erosion 18-7 0.25 acres East Fork- trailing: compaction, Trails 1-3 ft. wide Blacks Fork 18-29B displacement, erosion 1 acre (photo estimate)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Allotment Location Range Indicator of Soil Disturbance Estimated or Driveway Name Study or (compaction, displacement) Measurements Use source and Soil Erosion Middle Fork- Brush Creek headcuts and trailing: Blacks Fork Park 17-15HC compaction, displacement, 1 acre erosion Sheepherder Project Area Range camp area: compaction, 30 sites x ¼ acre Camps Specialists displacement 7.5 acres Recreation Use Impacts Sheep Hiking trails Reports hiking trail: compaction, 35 miles Driveway shared use displacement, erosion of driveway Sheep 57 trail Reports damaged stream banks including 285 feet stream Driveway stream compaction, displacement, length (estimate crossings erosion each crossing would shared use retain 5 foot impact) with livestock Outside 2 trail Reports damaged stream banks including 35 feet stream length Driveway stream compaction, displacement, total crossings erosion shared use with livestock Outside 132 trail Reports damaged stream banks including 660 feet stream driveway stream compaction, displacement, length (estimate crossings erosion each crossing would (no livestock make 5 foot impact) use) 1Details of perennial stream crossing damage is discussed in the hydrology report and is represented in range studies. Effective ground cover is closely tied to soil erosion and is reduced when the cover provided by vegetation, and litter is impacted by forage utilization or ground disturbing impacts, including bedding grounds, salt rocks, trailing, sheepherder camps, and stream crossings. A reduction in effective ground cover exposes soil particles to detachment and movement and can add to rates of erosion. The most distinct loss of effective ground cover is found with trailing and the sheep driveway. Both the narrow paths of trails and the wider sheep driveway have formed areas of bare soil and have corresponding multiple impacts of compaction, displacement and erosion. The areas of bare soil and loss of all ground cover are not compliant with desired conditions for soils Resource Indicator 2 – Soil Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement) Soil disturbance as measured by compaction and displacement has occurred in areas of repeated or concentrated livestock use. Most soil displacement and compaction exists in areas of trailing, ranging from single, narrow trails, to the sheep driveway with an estimated average width of 50 yards. These corridors have been impacted by both repeated use and concentrated use (one or more sheep bands). Generally forage utilization is diffuse and does not generate compaction or displacement, but three areas in the Red Castle allotment had concentrated grazing that compacted the areas (approximately three acres). Sheep bedding grounds leave compacted soil sites and may generate displacement of soil depending on slope stability and effective ground

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 119 Draft Environmental Impact Statement cover. Areas of both displacement and compaction include sheepherder campsites, salt rock areas, and stream crossing sites. Stream crossings are in areas where soils may be moist or wet and particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Where livestock trails cross streams, the banks are compacted and may have displacement of soil with chunks of the stream bank dislodged and fallen into the channel. The distance of bank damage usually corresponds to an area where the stream channel is widened by the crossing. The areas of compacted and displaced soils are not desired conditions for maintaining soil quality, productivity and hydrologic function. Additional Factors Affecting the Existing Condition • There are several factors that affect the existing condition in the project area that are related to sheep grazing, but also happen naturally as well. These factors include salt rocks; sheep herder camps; sheep bedding grounds; trailing away from the sheep driveway; forage utilization; stream crossings; persistent snowbeds; pocket gopher activity; areas of glacial scour; runoff from steep slopes; and beavers. These items are discussed below. • Salt rocks: Salt is provided for livestock in all allotments by placing it on rocks. Sheep are attracted to the rock, and to the salty soil that forms around the rock. An estimated < ¼ acre area is impacted where the vegetation is reduced or lost to higher utilization. Effective ground cover is reduced and areas of soil, especially immediately around the salt rock become compacted and displaced from the concentrated use. Soil compaction reduces infiltration and increases surface runoff. The compacted soil and reduced ground cover can increase soil erosion rates. Salting sites are rotated to help reduce impacts and the total number of salting sites within the allotments is not quantified. Salting sites that are used for the short term can recover vegetation and ground conditions. Additional salting sites can be expected to develop with continued management. • Sheep herder camps: Camp sites utilized by herders result in areas where the vegetation and effective ground cover is lost and the soil is compacted and may be displaced. A given campsite is estimated to impact approximately ¼ acre area. A total count of existing campsites is not quantified, but can be approximated to represent one site per pasture or approximately three sites per allotment. Current studies have not found erosion concerns at these campsites. Sheep herders tend to reuse camp sites that have proven useful, but new sites might be used. • Sheep bedding grounds: Sheep bedding grounds are generally in drier meadow areas and result in moderate to heavy utilization, loss of effective ground cover, and compacted soil. The loss of cover and compacted soil can increase soil surface erosion at these sites. Sheep bedding grounds can also accumulate sheep excrement and soil may be displaced. An estimated ½ acre area is impacted and the total number of bedding grounds is not quantified. Some sites have repeated use and new sites can be expected with continued management because sheep herders are encouraged to utilize new locations. • Trailing outside of the sheep driveway: The main sheep driveway is within the UWCNF but there is additional trailing in all allotments. Areas with trailing impacts of soil compaction and displacement, and increased erosion have been recorded within the monitoring studies but the total area of trailing is not quantifiable. Trailing impacts depend on the slope gradient, vegetation and the amount of ground cover lost, soil properties, and amount of use. • Forage utilization: Grazing impacts the soil resource by reducing effective ground cover provided by the plant canopy and surface litter additions. The soil surface is left more prone

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

to detachment and runoff of soil particles and the roles of ground cover in moderating soil temperatures, holding soil moisture, and adding organic matter to the soil surface are diminished. It is not possible to quantify the net effect of livestock forage utilization given it is spread within ten allotments. The range study database and field data by watershed specialists indicate riparian corridors and wetland areas are not highly utilized or impacted and vegetation is in overall satisfactory condition with the exception of localized disturbance and areas along the main sheep driveway. • Stream Crossings: Stream crossings by trails impact soil quality along the streambanks. Livestock, wildlife, and hiking trails can compact soil bordering the stream channel and displace pieces of bank material into the water. Depending on the amount of use, the riparian vegetation may be flattened, trampled or destroyed, reducing effective cover and adding to soil erosion and sediment loads. Stream channel crossings on the ANF have not recorded frequent damage and stream crossings or entry points for sheep to access drinking water can be microsites of reduced willow cover. There are 70 perennial stream crossing sites used by livestock along the sheep driveway. The width of stream crossings varies from five to 200 feet and is estimated to impact banks along 1,235 feet of stream length. Two livestock crossings outside the driveway in the ASF impact approximately 150 feet of stream length. Hiking trails in the allotments share 57 crossing sites along the driveway and two outside the driveway with livestock use, and are estimated to retain 320 feet of stream length with damaged banks if livestock utilization ceased. An additional 132 stream crossing locations in the allotments are used only by recreation and these are estimated to impact stream banks along 660 feet of stream length. • Persistent snowbeds: Long-lasting snowbeds result in areas that are barren to sparsely vegetated due to the shortened growing season and impacts from snow. Deep snowbeds can compact the ground beneath them and disturb the ground under them by freeze-thaw cycles, creating nivation hollows. Nivation hollows are small concave areas that are often sandy or rocky without vegetation. The common impact from snowbeds is an increase in erosion as they melt, with sediment flowing into watersheds, and lakes. • Pocket gopher activity: Pocket gopher activity often occurs under snowbeds but is not limited to those areas. Gopher activity leaves displaced soil usually in mounds or tunnels above the surface which later deflate. The soil disturbance from gophers adds to the amount of bare soil susceptible to erosion. • Areas of glacial scour: The topography in some areas includes scoured areas with a high cover of exposed bedrock and shallow soils. These areas can be barren or sparsely vegetated and may have accelerated erosion from the increased surface runoff and lack of vegetation. • Runoff from steep talus slopes: Water and debris flows from steep talus slopes leaves deposits ranging from boulders to fines in fans at the base of slopes, and can deposit sediments that alter channel morphology and cause sedimentation into streams. Channeled water runoff creates rill and gully erosion in soils of fans and in the valley floors, and can also leave headcuts or smaller cuts in the alpine turf. • Beaver activity: Beaver activity in the wilderness generally has a short cycle of dam construction and dam failure. The beaver dams divert water and create dry channels, and after dam failures the area that was denuded is temporarily semi-barren.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 121 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Effects Analysis The following effects analysis compares and contrasts the two alternatives using the established resource indicators discussed previously in this report. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Resource Indicator 1– Soil Erosion Forests generally do not have accelerated erosion rates unless they are disturbed in a manner that exposes bare soil to the erosive energy of water and wind. Under the no action alternative, soil erosion would decrease in current areas of accelerated erosion and erosion would not result from new areas of disturbance from livestock. Existing areas with bare, displaced, and compacted soil also have the potential to gradually revegetate, develop soil surface horizons, and break compacted horizons through plant root, insect and animal activities. As existing areas of soil disturbance improve in effective ground cover and soil quality, the soil surface erosion rates would decrease. Existing salt rock, bedding ground, and sheep herder camps have the potential to lessen existing erosion depending on the ability of these areas to revegetate and gain effective cover. Soil erosion would decrease along stream banks with excessive trampling as vegetation recovered and provided increased root systems to support the banks. Erosion rates would decrease at crossing sites that are used by livestock, but erosion would continue, in narrower crossing sites, at 59 crossings with shared hiking/recreation stock use and continue to impact an estimated 320 feet of stream length. Erosion would continue at 132 stream crossing sites made by hiking trails that are estimated to impact 660 feet of stream length. Hiking trails coincide with 35 miles of the driveway and continued compaction and displacement from hiking trails can result in accelerated erosion. Erosion along the East Fork sheep driveway would lessen but not cease with an end to livestock grazing. Given the average 50 yard width of disturbed area and areas of active gullying, erosion would continue along the driveway due to the amount of bare ground, the amount of compacted soil with increased surface runoff, and the current gullies. Although the sheep driveway would no longer be used it would remain on the landscape for an undetermined length of time. Effects on soil resources along the driveway are expected to range from long-term (fifteen to greater than forty years), to irretrievable (require centuries to recover), to irreversible (permanent). These recovery estimates are based on the connection between soil stability and productivity and the ability for driveway areas to revegetate. An end to livestock grazing would allow portions of the sheep driveway where impacts are currently limited to improve, and erosion rates would be expected to decrease where vegetation and ground cover could increase. Approximately 27 acres (three percent) of the driveway would not improve due to the amount of soil already lost and the active gully erosion. Much of the vegetation necessary to prevent erosion has been removed from the sections identified which has allowed the surface A-horizon and much of the B-horizon (sub-surface) to be eroded. These horizons are where the processes occur that allow for soils to function properly and support vegetation. Because of this, the erosional gully complexes that have formed will continue to be active and unstable in areas whether sheep grazing is authorized or not. The effects in this portion of the driveway are irretrievable to irreversible. The soil lost is not renewable and soil productivity and functions will not recover in any viewed time frame.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

An end to livestock grazing would increase effective ground cover but is not readily quantified. Effective ground cover as defined to include the vegetation canopy less than three feet from the ground, litter, coarse woody debris, and surface rock greater than ¾ inch in diameter. An end to sheep utilization of the vegetation would increase plant canopy and surface litter additions within the project area. Resource Indicator 2 – Soil Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement) There would be no new soil compaction or soil displacement effects to the soil resources from sheep grazing with the no action alternative. Smaller areas of current compaction, including bedding grounds, areas of concentrated use with excrement build up, salt sites, sheep herder camps, and small trails would recover from compaction in the long-term (fifteen to 40 or more years), due to freeze/thaw processes, vegetation roots, and biological activity within the soil profile. No new displacement (movement) of soil would occur from livestock hoof action in small trails or areas of high use. Areas that would remain compacted and displaced are stream crossings and areas of the sheep driveway. Hiking trails share corridors along 35 miles of the sheep driveway and 59 stream crossing sites impacted by livestock are also utilized by hiking trails. Human foot traffic has less impact on trails and streambanks than livestock but the hydrologist data indicates hiking impacts alone would maintain 5-foot wide stream crossing sites. An additional 132 stream crossing sites are used by only hiking trails and would continue to have impacts of compaction and displacement from foot traffic. Along the sheep driveway, the 27 acres of concentrated soil disturbance would have little to no recovery if livestock use ended. Displaced soil from the driveway will not be recovered and compaction along the driveway can be assumed to include subsurface compaction (greater than 12 inches deep) that would only reverse in portions of the driveway where vegetation can reestablish Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Continued Management Resource Indicator 1 – Soil Erosion Continued livestock grazing is estimated to maintain existing levels of erosion. Accelerated erosion accompanies areas of soils disturbance and at stream crossing sites. Most erosion occurs along the sheep driveway and is concentrated within the 27 acres of highest soil disturbance. Soil erosion results from the direct impacts of reduced effective cover, soil compaction, and displacement. Reduced effective cover leaves soil exposed to raindrop splash detachment and soil surface movement from wind and water. A loss in vegetation and litter cover increases the amount of water and soil transport on the surface and allows runoff to form channels. Compaction reduces infiltration with a corresponding increase in surface runoff and erosion, and displacement of soils leaves the soil surface exposed, loose, and quick to erode. Erosion removes the nutrient and organic-rich topsoil, which in turn lowers soil productivity and soil quality. Degraded or unstable soils are less able to maintain or reestablish desired plant communities and have reduced water holding capacity and nutrients to support vegetation.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 123 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Erosion also often causes sedimentation into streams, and lakes, and deteriorates water quality and aquatic habitat. Resource Indicator 2 – Soil Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement) Under the proposed action the net project area with soil disturbance of compaction and displacement would remain at existing levels. Areas with soil disturbance would remain disturbed as long as their use was continued, and some shifts in areas of concentrated use would occur, such as salt rock sites, bedding grounds, and sheepherder camp sites. Where impacts were reduced or stopped as old salting sites and bedding grounds were rotated, those areas would begin to regain soil condition and quality. The range study monitoring indicates soil conditions are stable under current management. Impacts from soil disturbance include the compaction of the soil resources where sheep concentrate, such as bedding areas, trails, stream water sources and crossings, sheepherder camps, and salt rock sites. Compacted soils have lower water infiltration rates, reduced air and water content, and reduced ability to hold and transmit water. Soil compaction can alter the microbial community and the soil nutrient cycling, and often restricts plant roots or plant survival. Because soils have less bearing strength when wet, the soils in wet meadows, wetlands, and riparian corridors are more at risk for compaction. The 918 acres of the East Fork sheep driveway would remain the area of highest use and soil disturbance, and the identified 27 acres would remain as areas of compacted and displaced soils that have irretrievable to irreversible impacts. Cumulative Effects The spatial boundaries for cumulative effects are the capable acres within the allotments and the corridors used for moving sheep bands. Where forage is accessible and topography dictates corridors, the same areas have been utilized since grazing began. For past, present, or future activity to overlap in time, the effects on soil resources from the activities must overlap. For activities to be considered cumulative their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of the proposed action. The temporal boundaries for cumulative effects on soil resources extend for the long-term (fifteen to forty or more) years into the future. Although early (1905-1930) utilization levels were higher than present stocking rates, it is not evident that grazing impacts from that time still persist. Physical soil changes (detrimental compaction, detrimental displacement, detrimental erosion,) can remain on the landscape greater for forty or more years. For Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects because sheep grazing would no longer be authorized after a period of two years. The remainder of the discussion focuses on Alternative 2. Dispersed Recreation Dispersed recreation uses, including camping, hunting, and hiking occur throughout the project area. Direct impacts associated with these activities include soil compaction and displacement, and loss of effective ground cover by damage or removal of vegetation at camp sites and impacts associated with trails. Soil disturbance and reduced ground cover can have the indirect effects of

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement increased soil erosion. Generally, the percentage of the analysis area affected by dispersed uses is minimal, resulting in localized impacts to soil resources. Wilderness areas are managed with “Leave No Trace” principles so recreation impacts to soil resources are negligible, however in the future recreation use may be expected to have increased impacts on the allotments as the recreation population in the Salt Lake valley continues to grow. Shared trail use including stream crossing sites potentially have the strongest cumulative effects between livestock utilization and recreational use. Hiking trails share corridors along 35 miles of the sheep driveway and 59 stream crossing sites impacted by livestock are also utilized by hiking trails. Human foot traffic has less impact on trails and streambanks than livestock, but the hydrologist data indicates foot traffic would maintain five-foot wide stream crossing sites. Shared Use of Sheep Corridor Areas Approximately 9.5 miles of the East Fork sheep driveway is co-located with County roads and Forest Service Road #065. Motorized use is on the same surface as where sheep trail for this driveway section. Continued compaction, displacement, and additional erosion off the road may be equally or more due to motor vehicle traffic. Two timber harvests have been completed recently: one sale in the East Fork-Blacks Fork drainage was completed in 2005 and the Black Fork Salvage Sale was closed in June, 2017. The areas with logging impacts are estimated to be outside of capable acres because they were forested, but timber equipment would have made use of Forest Road #065 and added to impacts where sheep trail on that road. Based on existing conditions, implementation of the proposed action, and foreseeable future actions there would be some dispersed campsites, a road corridor, and hiking trail and stream crossing areas of cumulative effects to soil resources. These are areas where there is shared livestock and recreational use that result in soil disturbance of compaction and displacement, with corresponding increase in soil erosion. Summary of Effects A review of the effects on soil resources indicates both alternatives meet Forest Plan and regional direction for soil resources. Current soil condition and quality are maintained throughout most of the range allotments. There are monitored sites of concentrated use where soil condition is not satisfactory and soil compaction, displacement, and accelerated erosion have developed. Most areas of detrimental soil disturbance and erosion are along the sheep driveway and at stream crossing sites. The sheep driveway covers about 945 acres and approximately three percent (27 acres) have detrimental soil disturbance where the effects would remain irretrievable to irreversible under both alternatives. Other impacts that remain under both alternatives are 59 stream crossing sites shared by recreation and livestock use that would maintain an estimated 320 feet of stream length with damaged streambanks, and 132 hiking trail stream crossing sites that impact approximately 660 feet of stream length. Under Alternative 1 there would be improvement in soil condition and quality in some current areas of soil compaction, displacement and erosion where livestock impacts were ended. These

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 125 Draft Environmental Impact Statement areas include bedding grounds, salt-rock sites, camp sites, areas of smaller trailing, and stream crossing sites. Where recreation impacts remain at stream crossings, the footprint of the crossing sites is estimated to reduce to a five foot width. Changes in soil condition would range from short- term (three to fifteen years) to long-term (fifteen to forty or more years), depending on site factors, the size of disturbed area, and the extent of soil impacts. Improvement in soil condition and quality would potentially include increased stability of surface soils, a breakdown of compacted soil horizons, additional litter and organic matter, improved stream bank stability, and reduced soil erosion. Under Alternative 2 the current state of soil condition and quality is expected to continue, based on the data from the range study record and field data. Some shifts in areas of concentrated use and impacts on soils are expected as salt-rock, bedding ground, and campsites are rotated, leaving prior sites to improve in soil condition. Based on existing conditions, and foreseeable future actions, there would be limited, localized areas of cumulative effects to soil resources with the proposed action. Terrestrial Wildlife Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed and Candidate Species Affected Environment Introduction In order to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service is required to analyze the effects to federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) species. This process is documented through a Biological Assessment, which is then submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for concurrence with the effects determination and findings. An official species list was requested for the project area on November 30, 2017, which included one mammal, two birds, four fish, and one plant. Fish and plants are addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatics Section and Botanical Resources Section of this report. The Canada lynx is the only mammal that was on the official species list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The wolverine is also listed as a proposed species by the FWS; however, the wolverine was not on the official list for the project area. That being said, because the wolverine was documented on the north slope of the Uintas on a Forest Service trail camera in February 2014, it will also be evaluated (Christensen 2015). The two birds on the official list included the Western yellow-billed cuckoo and the Mexican spotted owl. The Wasatch-Cache (W- C) Forest Plan manages lynx and lynx habitat consistent with the 2000 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) and Science Report, and the ANF management is consistent with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (Ruediger et al. 2000 and USDA Forest Service 2007). Those documents provide direction for managing and maintaining lynx habitat. Table 23 provides additional information and presents the findings for these wildlife species. The Wasatch-Cache (W-C) Forest Plan manages lynx and lynx habitat consistent with the 2000 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) and Science Report, and the ANF management is consistent with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(Ruediger et al. 2000 and USDA Forest Service 2007). Those documents provide direction for managing and maintaining lynx habitat. Table 23 - Listed TEPC species of Duchesne and Summit counties, UT Habitat in Species Status Comments Project Area

MAMMALS Canada lynx T Y Considered dispersers and no evidence of lynx reproducing (Lynx in Utah. Track surveys 1999-2017 did not find hard evidence canadensis) of lynx in the Uinta Mountains. Project would not change vegetation layers or remove snowshoe hare habitat. May affect, not likely to adversely affect. Further discussion to follow. Wolverine P Y Tundra, boreal forests, coniferous forests of western (Gulo gulo) mountains. Needs a diversity of habitats to support its prey base, especially large mammals. An individual was documented north of the project area on a Forest Service trail camera at East Fork Blacks Fork (EFBF) Guard Station in February 2014. This was the first documented individual in Utah since 1979. The UWCNF has placed winter cameras at EFBF since 2014 and winter and summer cameras at approximately 35 other locations scattered across the North Slope since 2014. The camera trap locations varied by number each year, watershed, habitat type, and season. No positive wolverine detection has been documented since 2014. Despite extensive camera data collection, the Forest Service has been unable to identify evidence of resident individual(s) or a reproducing population. The 2014 individual was likely a transient. The project would not change vegetation types or remove habitat for wolverine prey. Not likely to jeopardize continued existence of the wolverine or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; therefore, no further discussion will follow. BIRDS Western yellow- T N Yellow-billed cuckoo nests in lowland riparian hardwoods billed cuckoo (nest 2,500-6,000 feet elevation) this habitat is not present (Coccyzus within the proposed project area. No Effect; therefore, no americanus further discussion will follow. occidentalis) Mexican spotted T N Colorado Plateau (Utah) habitat includes steep-sided canyons owl containing pockets of usually coniferous overstory trees mixed (Strix with smaller Gambel oak and box elder trees. The 2000 occidentalis) habitat model shows that there is no habitat within the project area. (USDA Forest Service 2006a). No Effect; therefore, no further discussion will follow. 2000 LCAS: • Grazing should be managed so that it does not inhibit regeneration of aspen clones especially stands that occur in proximity to conifer forest. • Livestock grazing should be managed to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher conditions. Those areas that are currently in late seral condition should not be degraded.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 127 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

W-C Forest Plan: • Standard 8: In Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) with current habitat at 30% or more in unsuitable condition, allow no vegetation management activities that would result in a further increase of unsuitable conditions. • Guideline 71: As a tool to achieve rehabilitation of upland, aspen, and riparian communities away from the greenline that are not meeting or moving toward objectives (i.e., in unsatisfactory condition), maximum allowed forage utilization will be 30 to 40 percent. NRLMD Livestock Grazing Management: • Objective GRAZ O1: Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with the improvement and maintenance of lynx habitat. • Guidelines GRAZ G2, G3 and G4: Manage livestock grazing in aspen stands to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen stands, and to manage livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats, riparian areas, and willow carrs, so as to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or later-seral stages, similar to the conditions that would have occurred under historical disturbance regimes. Setting Lynx typically inhabit gentle, rolling topography (Maletzke et al. 2008, Squires et al. 2013). Across its range, dense horizontal cover, persistent snow, and moderate to high snowshoe hare densities (>0.5 hares/ha [0.2 hares/ac]) are common attributes of lynx habitat. Spruce-fir forests are the primary vegetation type that characterizes lynx habitat in the contiguous United States (Koehler 1990, Apps 2000, McKelvey et al. 2000, Koehler et al. 2008, Squires et al. 2010). In the western United States, most lynx occurrences (83 percent) are associated with Rocky Mountain conifer forest, and most (77%) fall within the 1,500–2,000 m (4,920–6,560 ft) elevation zone (McKelvey et al. 2000), except in Colorado where elevations are higher. Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and lodgepole pine forest cover types occurring on cold, moist potential vegetation types provide habitat for lynx (Aubry et al. 2000). Dry forest cover types (e.g., ponderosa pine, dry Douglas-fir) do not provide lynx habitat (Koehler et al. 2008, Maletzke et al. 2008, Squires et al. 2010). Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx throughout their range (Mowat et al. 2000). During the low of the snowshoe hare cycle in the northern boreal forest, the proportion and importance of other prey species such as red squirrels increase in the diet of lynx (O'Donoghue and Krebs 1992, Apps 2000, Mowat et al. 2000). The amount and density of horizontal cover strongly influences snowshoe hare abundance. Stem densities ranging from 4,600–33,210 stems/ha (1,862–13,445 stems/ac) provide optimal forage and horizontal cover for snowshoe hares (Wolff 1980, Litvaitis et al. 1985, Koehler 1990a, Griffin 2004). Herbaceous foods (deciduous shrubs and other leafy greens) are selected when available during spring through fall. (Hodges 2000 and Murray 2000). There is little scientific information available about dietary overlap with, or competition between, livestock and snowshoe hares, or the response of snowshoe hares to livestock grazing. If there were significant forage competition, this could have an indirect impact on lynx by reducing its prey base. The habitats used by snowshoe hare that are most likely to be affected by livestock grazing are riparian willow and aspen communities. High-elevation riparian areas dominated by willows have been shown to provide important summer and fall habitat for lynx in Colorado (Shenk 2008). In Wyoming, Berg and Gese

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(2012) found hare using small patches of forest surrounded by non-forest vegetation such as willow during the summer. Overbrowsing by domestic livestock or wild ungulates that altered the structure or composition of the native plant community, particularly by impacting willows, could negatively affect snowshoe hare habitat. Overall, grazing or browsing by domestic livestock on federal lands is unlikely to reduce the snowshoe hare prey base or have a substantial effect on lynx. Grazing/browsing could have some localized effects on high-elevation willow communities or aspen stands if not managed appropriately (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). The UWCNF and ANF are considered peripheral habitat meaning there are few verified historical or recent records and quality snowshoe hare habitat is questionable (Nordstrom 2005); furthermore, the ANF is considered unoccupied habitat (USDA Forest Service 2007). Lynx historically occurred in the Uinta Mountains on the UWCNF; however, there were only 10 confirmed sightings between 1916 and 1972 in Utah (McKay 1991; McKelvey et al. 2000). Four of the records correlated to the cyclic highs of the 1960s and 1970. Between February 1999 and March 2007, 22 of the 218 reintroduced radio-collared Colorado Rockies lynx (7 females and 15 males) were documented dispersing through Utah and the Uinta Mountains. Use-density of these locations indicates the primary area of use on the western portion of the Uintas and a somewhat lesser degree of use on the ANF. Although potential for future residency of lynx in the Uinta Mountains is possible, these individual lynx were transient (CDOW 2006-2007). The project area occurs in the UWC Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 and the ANF LAUs 8, 12, 14, and 15 (Figure 30). The Fall Creek allotment, LAU 15, is not grazed, was last grazed by sheep in 1977 (Goodrich 2006), and future grazing is unlikely due to the challenge of accessing the allotment. Methodology Since 2007, there have been no confirmed reports and lynx survey efforts have been unsuccessful in documenting lynx occurrence. The ANF and UWCNF have conducted several surveys since 1999, which includes: (1) National Lynx Detection Protocol hare snare surveys onthe UWCNF between 1999-2001 (USDA Forest Service 2006a); (2) UWCNF hair surveys conducted during 2000-2001 field seasons (USDA Forest Service 2006b); (3) ANF photographic bait stations implemented 2005-2007 and 2009; (4) aerial surveys in Colorado River drainage of the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains 2009-2010 (McKay 1991; McKelvey et al. 2000); (5) ANF, UWCNF, and FWS forest-wide winter track surveys from 2010-2015 (Berg and Inman 2010, Christensen 2013, Christensen 2015); (6) FS and Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation forest carnivore summer trail camera study on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains in 2015; and (7) Evanston-Mountain View RD winter trail camera surveys from 2014-2017, (8) ANF 10 miles of winter track surveys 1999 and 2017. ArcGIS was also used to determine where vegetation cover types coincide with primary and secondary lynx habitat in order to determine the acres of lynx habitat that overlap the 10 allotments. Primary habitat consists of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine on spruce-fir habitat types that supports foraging, denning, and rearing of young. Secondary habitat includes other vegetation types (cool/moist Douglas-fir) when interspersed within subalpine forests and immediately adjacent to primary habitat. Non-habitat are dry forest types such as ponderosa pine and climax lodgepole pine (Ruediger et al. 2000).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 129 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 30 – Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) and vegetation cover types that intersect lynx habitat.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination In order to compare and contrast effects to Canada lynx, an indicator was chosen to evaluate. This indicator is the number of acres of aspen, mixed aspen, sagebrush, and willow vegetation cover types within the project area. The domestic sheep diet consists of forbs, grasses, and some woody vegetation such as young aspen sprouts (DeByle 1985 and Jensen et al. 1972). Sheep primarily consume forbs, grasses to a lesser extent, and incidentally use willows and aspens as forage (Cameron and Huber 2017). Snowshoe hare, lynx’s main prey item, may compete with sheep for these food items in certain habitats such as aspen, mixed aspen, sagebrush, and willow vegetation types within the project area. Lynx require early and mid-successional forests for hunting snowshoe hare (Ulev 2007), which may include but are not limited to these vegetation types. Bounds of Analysis The spatial bounds for the effects analysis includes Lynx Analysis Units 8, 12, 14, 15, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. This is the area where potential effects could be measured and overlaps all of the ten allotments. Primary lynx habitat occurs in all LAUs, but secondary habitat only occurs within UWCNF LAUs. The length of time effects are anticipated to last is 10 years. The 2013 and 2000 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction specify a disturbance period of 10 years for projects that may disturb lynx habitat within a LAU. Thus, a 10 year period will be used. Existing Condition The UWCNF and ANF have been monitoring the allotments for over 60 years. Based upon approximately 365 different rangeland study sites located throughout the project area, the plant communities grazed by livestock are overall in satisfactory condition and are meeting both forest plan directions. Satisfactory condition is defined as meeting desired conditions or trending towards desired condition. Desired condition is defined as the W-C 2003 and ANF 1986 Forest Plans Standards and Guidelines as amended and having the desired plant communities (Cameron 2017 and Huber 2016). These studies show that the forests are meeting the 2000 LCAS conservation measures, NRLMD, and W-C and ANF objectives, standards, and guidelines discussed just above. Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing The removal of all domestic sheep grazing from the allotments may provide a beneficial effect to snowshoe hare by removing competition for forage. Beneficial effects are positive responses without any negative responses and the analysis is done on an individual level. The effect would likely be minimal and difficult to quantify, but may result in increased snowshoe hare forage in aspen, mixed aspen, riparian willow, and sagebrush communities within the project area. Increased forage may increase the population of snowshoe hare thereby indirectly benefiting the

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 131 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Canada lynx providing a larger prey base. Because the amount of forage overlap between hare and domestic sheep is minimal, sheep grazing does not cause vegetation cover types to change, and the allotments are in satisfactory condition (Cameron 2017 and Huber 2016), removing sheep may not show any measurable benefits to hare or lynx. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management The domestic sheep diet consists of forbs, grasses, and some woody vegetation such as young aspen sprouts (DeByle 1985 and Jensen et al. 1972). These food items may overlap with snowshoe hare habitat in aspen, mixed aspen, sagebrush, and willow vegetation types within the project area. Canada lynx require early and mid-successional forests for hunting snowshoe hare (Ulev 2007), which may include but are not limited to these vegetation types. Aspen, mixed aspen, sagebrush, and willow vegetation cover types within the project area were intersected with primary and secondary lynx habitats in ArcGIS to determine the amount of lynx habitat that may overlap domestic sheep allotments within the proposed project area for both the Ashley and UWC National Forests (Table 24 and Table 25). Table 24 - Primary Lynx Habitat Allotment Overlap on the Ashley National Forest by Vegetation Type Acres. LAU Acres Alpine-Low Willow Riparian-Low Vegetation Type by LAU LAU (Acres) Willow (Acres) – Percent Within Project Area 8 71,921 120 14 0.19 12 62,929 23 13 0.06 14 46,615 30 0 0.06 15 51,675 0 0 0.00 Totals 233,140 172 27 0.09

Table 25 – Primary and Secondary Lynx Habitat Allotment Overlap on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest by Vegetation Type Acres. LAU Aspen Mixed Aspen Sagebrush Willow Vegetation Type by LAU Acres (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) LAU – Percent Within Project Area 34 63,087 12 423 122 17 0.91 33 73,333 36 115 8 164 0.44 32 49,828 0 26 5 7 0.08 31 55,152 7 29 10 815 1.56 30 50,143 0 0 0 0 0.00 Totals 291,543 55 593 145 1,003 0.60 The total acres of intersection between vegetation cover types (likely used by sheep) and delineated lynx habitat are insignificant (size of impact is minute and would never reach the scale that take would occur) and discountable (based on a person’s best judgement effects would not be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) when compared to the acres of the entire LAU (Table 24 and Table 25 above). The acres of lynx habitat that could possibly be affected by sheep grazing in this project area is 0.60 percent on the UWCNF and 0.09 percent on the ANF. This percentage of overlap would unlikely result in lynx/hare habitat loss. It is also unlikely that sheep grazing would significantly impact the overall hare food resources to the point

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 132 Draft Environmental Impact Statement of decreasing the hare population because grazing would not cause the vegetation cover types to change and the allotments are currently in satisfactory condition (Cameron 2017 and Huber 2016). A significant impact would be where a person could show that sheep grazing results in an adverse effect and take of an individual lynx. The take for this project would result from an indirect effect to lynx where snowshoe hare populations were decreased resulting in prey reduction. The UWCNF and ANF are considered a peripheral area for Canada lynx meaning there are few verified historical or recent records, and quality snowshoe hare habitat is questionable (Nordstrom 2005). Additionally, the ANF is also considered unoccupied lynx habitat under the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007); therefore, lynx are unlikely to occur in the project area. Furthermore, delineation of LAUs in peripheral areas are not required and greater management flexibility is permitted in these areas (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). Even though best available science does not require LAU analysis, the UWCNF and ANF still conduct LAU analysis because of earlier forest plan requirements. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Alternative 1 would not change the vegetation types to unsatisfactory condition and would likely increase forage production on the allotments. As such, there are no cumulative effects from Alternative 1. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Alternative 2 does not cause any direct or indirect effects. Vegetation types would not change. Forage utilization on the allotments have been monitored for more than 60 years and have been found to be in satisfactory condition. The total acres of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat, and the areas that domestic sheep graze overlap is minor (0.62 percent UWCNF and 0.09 percent ANF) in relation to the entire project area. Hare populations are not certain to occur in the areas of overlap and if they do occur, impacts are unlikely to occur since the allotments are in satisfactory condition. The project is unlikely to measurably and meaningfully reduce snowshoe hare forage where a population decline would occur; therefore, cumulative effects on lynx also would not be measurable or meaningful. Thus grazing the allotments would not be an additive effect to lynx or lynx prey species. Because there are no direct or indirect effects from the project to lynx of snowshoe hare habitat, there can be no cumulative effects. Summary of Effects Alternative 1 would not directly or indirectly affect, or result in cumulative effects to lynx or its prey. It may provide negligible beneficial effects to snowshoe hare by increasing its forage, but these negligible effects may not result in beneficial effects to lynx. If Alternative 2 was chosen, because domestic sheep, hare, and lynx habitat overlap is insignificant (less than one percent of all the LAUs combined); the project meets conservation measures, objectives, standards, and guidelines; sheep would not change lynx habitat to unsuitable condition; and lynx are unlikely to occur in the project area, the High Uinta Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 133 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species Introduction Forest Service policy requires all Forests to evaluate the impacts of a project on identified Regional Forester’s Sensitive species. This process is documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE), the purpose of which is to analyze the potential effects of a project on sensitive species within the project area. A summary of that BE is contained in this section. The BE in its entirety is located in the project record. A BE was prepared for this project which identified the likely effects that domestic sheep grazing on the High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Allotments (Painter, Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Fall Creek, Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, Middle Fork-Blacks Fork) and associated sheep driveway system, would have on USDA Forest Service Region 4 Sensitive species. The BE addressed those species that: 1) are known to occur on the ANF or UWCNF based on confirmed sightings, 2) may occur on the ANF or UWCNF based on geographic range, or 3) there exists suitable habitat for the species to be found on the ANF or UWCNF. The ANF and UWCNF list of sensitive species was adopted from the Forest Service intermountain Region Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Forest Service Sensitive Species Policy: The USDA Forest Service has developed policy requirements in the designation of sensitive plant and animal species (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670; Supplement 2600-94-2). The Regional Forester's sensitive species list contains taxa only when they meet one or more of the following three criteria: 1) the species is declining in numbers or occurrences and evidence indicates it could in the near future be proposed for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species if action is not taken to reverse or stop the downward trend, 2) the species’ habitat is declining and continued loss could result in population declines that lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop the decline, and 3), the species' population or habitat is stable but limited. Forest Service management policy for sensitive species allows management actions to have potential adverse effects on the population or habitat, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward species listing (FSM 2670.32). This Biological Evaluation (BE) defines a “viable population” as a population of a species that continues to persist over the long term with sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments as per the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.19). A “population” is considered as the individuals of a species that exist in a forest plan planning area (FSH 1909.12.13.c). Determination of Sensitive Species Potentially Affected Fourteen species of mammals and birds are listed as a Regional Forester's sensitive species and are known or suspected to occur on the UWCNF or the ANF. Not all of these sensitive species known or suspected to occur on the Forests are likely to be impacted by the proposed action. In fact, most proposals typically affect only one or a few of all sensitive species. The purpose of this section is to identify those species likely to be found in or near the proposed project area and that may be impacted by the proposed project.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

As the initial step, current information was reviewed to determine whether one or more of the listed species, or their habitats, occur inside or near the proposed project. Several sources of information were used to identify where sensitive species have been previously seen, including: Ranger District records, US Fish and Wildlife Service lists or documents, and assorted wildlife references. Together, habitat information and previous known occurrences are used to ascertain whether each sensitive species is likely to occur in the action area. Two questions are used to focus the inquiry during this first step of the presence review: • What is the primary habitat for each listed species? • What is the likelihood the species occupies or depends on the area in or near to where the activity is proposed, given what is known about habitat needs? The second step is to determine the species that would be potentially affected by the proposed action. To make this determination, it is necessary to answer the following two questions: • What use is potentially made of the available habitat (reproduction or feeding/shelter) in the action area? • Given the habitat use, would the animal be susceptible to, or habitat be affected by, environmental changes caused by the proposed action? After gathering answers to the above four questions for each of the 14 species, it is determined that three of the 14 sensitive species are likely to be present during the life of the project and may be affected by the proposed action. The three sensitive species that are associated with the project environment, and that could be affected by the proposed action, are further evaluated in this report as to the type and degree of impact that may occur. No further discussion is warranted for any sensitive species absent from the action area or potentially present occasionally but having little or no likelihood of being negatively affected by the proposal. One or more of the following factors provide the rationale for eliminating the other species from review in the effects evaluation portion of this section. 1. Suitable habitat is absent or lacking vital components in the action area. 2. The action area is located outside a species' known geographic or elevation range. 3. Proposed activity or disturbance effects would occur outside of an animal's seasonal occupancy of otherwise suitable habitat. 4. No elements of a species' primary habitat or life requisites would be changed by the proposed action. 5. No environmental changes (noise, modification of food web, reduction in cover or shelter structures, etc.) created by the proposed action could be identified which would negatively or detrimentally affect a species, its individual members or its habitat. 6. Individual animals may be dispersing, happenstance, opportunistic or accidental visitors to the habitat(s) impacted by the proposal, but no affiliation or dependence upon that habitat has been shown. 7. A reproductive population of this species is not present in the vicinity and there remains scientific uncertainty as to whether a population of this species ever was resident in Utah in the recent past.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 135 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8. A lack (or absence) of trap, sighting or other records indicates local extirpation of the species is likely. 9. Considering the home range size for this animal in comparison to the area extent of the habitat affected by the proposed action, no measurable change in primary prey populations can be ascertained at the landscape level. All of the 14 species were reviewed as to whether they or their habitat exists within the allotments. Table 26 contains the species and their expected occurrence within the allotments. Table 26 - USDA Forest Service sensitive (S) species occurrence within the allotments. Status Occurrence on the Basis for occurrence determination Species Allotments Peregrine falcon Not documented in the Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. S project area Spotted bat Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. The Not documented in the S allotments are above the elevational project area range of this species. Townsend's big-eared Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. The Not documented in the bat S allotments are above the elevational project area range of this species. Bald eagle Not documented in the Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. S project area Boreal owl Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. Habitat is present within the allotments, Not documented in the S but grazing does not occur within this project area species habitat (coniferous forests) or its prey species habitat. Great gray owl S Present Habitat is present within the allotments. Flammulated owl Not documented in the Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. S project area Three-toed woodpecker Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. Habitat is present within the allotments, Not documented in the S but grazing does not occur within this project area species habitat (coniferous forests) or its prey species habitat. Northern goshawk S Present Habitat is present within the allotments. Columbia sharp-tailed Not documented in the Refer to factor #’s 1, 2, 4, & 5 above. S grouse project area Gray wolf Refer to factor #’s 2, 4, & 5 above. Not documented in the There are no wolf packs established S project area within Utah, and the allotments do not occur within the gray wolf DPS. Pygmy rabbit Not documented in the Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. S project area Bighorn sheep S Present Habitat is present within the allotments. Sage-grouse Not documented in the Refer to factor #’s 1, 4, & 5 above. S project area

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Three of the above species (great gray owl, northern goshawk, and bighorn sheep) have habitat within or near the allotments and may be affected by grazing. Affected Environment Great Gray Owl This species is described as “casual or possibly a rare resident” of northeastern Utah. A statewide bird distribution study was less optimistic, listing the great gray owl as an “accidental” species (meaning it was considered outside its normal range) in extreme northern and northeastern Utah. In the southern portion of their range, great gray owls nest in relatively dry coniferous or mixed deciduous/coniferous forests, especially Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and aspen. They nest in the top of a large broken-off tree trunk, in old nests of other large birds (e.g., hawk nest), or in debris platforms from dwarf mistletoe. These nests are frequently near bogs or clearings, and are reused in successive years. Foraging habitat consists of relatively open grassy areas, or timber stands with low canopy closure and grassy understory. Availability of prey and nest sites (typically old hawk or raven stick nests or natural depressions in broken-topped snags) are believed to be the primary factors limiting distribution of this species. Their diet is dominated by pocket gophers and voles. (USDA Forest Service 2006a) Predation by great horned owls was the greatest known mortality factor of great gray owls in northern Minnesota and southeastern Manitoba. In California, habitat loss through logging of mature forest and overgrazing may have contributed to their decline. (USDA Forest Service 2006a) Though occurrence of this species in the Uinta Mountains is considered “rare” or “outside its normal range”, there have been three great gray owls detected during calling surveys on the ANF in 1996 (USDA Forest Service 2006a). However, none of these detections occurred on the allotments analyzed in this document, and there have been no subsequent detections of this species on the ANF (USDA Forest Service 2006a, Christensen 2015). There have been no detections of the great gray owl on the WCNF portion of the Uinta Mountains. Though this owl has not been detected on the allotments, great gray owl habitat occurs within their boundaries. (USDA Forest Service 2006b) Northern Goshawk This species inhabits coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests in North America and prefers to forage in closed canopy forests with moderate tree densities as compared to young forests (Graham et al 1999). A goshawk's home range may be up to 6,000 acres and has three main habitat component needs (nesting, post-fledging area, and foraging area) within this home range (Reynolds 1992). Nesting areas are typically 30 acres in size and may include more than one nest (Reynolds 1992). The post-fledging area is 420 acres in size and surrounds the nest area (Reynolds 1992). The post-fledging area typically includes a variety of forest types and conditions, but it should contain patches of dense trees as well as developed herbaceous areas and shrubby understory, snags, downed logs and small openings (Reynolds 1992). These attributes are needed to provide the necessary habitats for hunting, security and prey species (Reynolds 1992). The foraging area is approximately 5,400 acres and surrounds the post-fledging area (Reynolds 1992).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 137 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In Utah, most of the known nests located during project level surveys occur in mid-elevation (6,000 ft.) to high-elevation (10,000 ft.) sites, which are currently occupied by mature quaking aspen or coniferous forests (Graham et al 1999). Many of the documented goshawk territories on the ANF and the UWCNF are associated with lodgepole and aspen cover types. However, some nests in Utah have been documented in the spruce/fir type (Graham et al 1999). Nest areas and the post- fledging areas (PFA) are occupied from early March until late September (Reynolds et al. 1992). After September the fledglings are no longer dependent upon the PFA (Reynolds et al. 1992). The Goshawk Amendment to the ANF Plan and the Revised WCNF Plan also considers the nesting period to be this same period. According to ANF monitoring data, young usually fledge from early July to early August (approximately 43 days of age) and are dependent upon the PFA until approximately 65 days of age (August – mid September), at which time the fledglings venture further away from the PFA (Dewey 1998, Dewey 1999a, Dewey 1999b). Between 1996 and 1999, 33 adult goshawks on the ANF had radio-tags and were followed (Paulin 1998; Dewey 1999b; Stephens 2001). Some of the goshawks that breed on the ANF are yearlong residents and some migrate short distances (Paulin 1998). Reynolds et al. (1992) compiled the northern goshawk management recommendations. In 1998, a Conservation Strategy and Agreement for the Management of Northern Goshawk Habitat in Utah was developed and agreed to by the Utah National Forests, Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. This Conservation Strategy was based on the best available science for forest habitats in Utah to support viable populations of goshawks (Rodriguez et al. 1998). The ANF Plan was amended in 2000 and incorporates several of the guidelines from Reynolds 1992. The Revised WCNF Plan has also incorporated guidelines from Reynolds. Since these guidelines were developed, there have been studies that dispute their effectiveness (Beier et al. 2008, Greenwald et al. 2005). However, other studies support the use of these guidelines and maintain that the guidelines are effective in goshawk conservation (Reynolds et al. 2001, Reynolds 2004, and Salafsky et al. 2007). There is one goshawk conservation guideline that applies to grazing and is applicable to the evaluation of the 10 allotments. This is referred to as Guideline “X” of the Goshawk Amendment to the ANF Plan and is also in the Implementation Guidance Appendix to the Revised WCNF Plan. This guideline in both documents states, “Where it is determined through the landscape assessment process that ungulate grazing is contributing to an identified functioning-at-risk condition relative to habitat needed to support goshawk and its prey, modify grazing practices to maintain or restore the desired seed, mast, and foliage production defined in the landscape assessment process”. Both Forest Plans also state that this guidance (or guideline) does not apply to “non-forest patches”. There are no known goshawk nests or territories that occur within or near the allotments (Painter, Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, and Fall Creek) that occur on the ANF, and only marginal goshawk habitat occurs within those five allotments. Goshawk calling surveys were conducted within and near the Tungsten allotment in 2010 and 2015 respectively, but no goshawks responded (Christensen 2015). Goshawk calling surveys were also conducted within the Ottoson Basin allotment and near the Oweep allotment in 2012 and 2013, with no goshawks responding (Christensen 2015).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 138 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

There are no goshawk nests that occur within the five UWCNF allotments (Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, Middle Fork Blacks Fork). However, all five allotments intersect with a portion of a 5,400 acre goshawk territory (Figure 31). The Middle Fork allotment intersects with the Little Lyman Lake, Horse Creek South, and East Fork Blacks Fork goshawk territories and clips the outer edge of the Little Lyman Lake PFA. The East Fork Blacks Fork and Red Castle allotments intersect the East Fork Blacks Fork goshawk territory. The Hessie Lake/Henry’s Fork and Gilbert Peak allotments intersect the Dahlgreen Creek and Bullocks Park goshawk territories respectively. Both the ANF and UWCNF have annually monitored northern goshawks on the Forests since 1999 (USDA Forest Service 2017a, USDA Forest Service 2017b, USDA Forest Service 2017c). On both Forests, goshawk occupancy has fluctuated since the date that data collection began (USDA Forest Service 2017b, USDA Forest Service 2017c, Christensen 2015), but fluctuations in occupancy and productivity are typical as is indicated in the Ashley 2006 MIS Report. On the Wasatch-Cache portion of the UWCNF it appears that there is a general decrease in occupancy, which may have been influenced by late cold snows and a beetle epidemic, and is unlikely to have been influenced by management actions (USDA Forest Service 2017c). Based on the 2006 Forest-wide MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2006c), Christensen 2015 Monitoring Report (Christensen 2015), and the 2017 Goshawk Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2017b), the goshawk population trend across the ANF appears to be stable to slightly decreasing. Based on these same monitoring reports, it appears that the ANF continues to provide well-distributed habitat across the Forest for this species (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, and USDA Forest Service 2017b). Bighorn Sheep The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources define a bighorn sheep population in their 2018 State- wide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan at a state-wide scale, and present strategies to maintain a sustainable state-wide bighorn sheep population (UDWR 2018d). The Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule defines a population as persistence of a species at the Plan Area scale (the boundary of a National Forest), which would include all bighorn sheep herds within that particular National Forest. A smaller scale definition of a population is a biological or scientific definition which is a group, or groups, of individuals that are interconnected, that interbreed, and that occupy the same general area. For the purpose of this analysis a bighorn sheep population is defined at the Plan Area scale and would therefore consist of all bighorn sheep herds that occur, or are connected with herds on the Plan Area (Ashley NF Plan Area or the WCNF Plan Area).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 139 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 31 - Goshawk Territories that overlap the High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 140 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

As such, the Ashley NF has six bighorn sheep herds that comprise one bighorn sheep population on the Plan Area. One herd (consisting of approximately 30 animals) is located on the Avintaquin side of the South Unit of the Forest and are separated by space from the other five herds (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d, UDWR 2019, USDA Forest Service 2019). The other five herds (consisting of approximately 162 animals) interact, and are located in the northeast end of the Uinta Mountains (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018d, UDWR 2019, USDA Forest Service 2019). These five herds are shared with the WCNF and will be referred to in the remainder of this document as the North Slope Uintas Bighorn Sheep Herds (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015 USDA, Forest Service 2018). The Wasatch-Cache portion of the UWCNF has one BHS population (five herds consisting of 162 animals), which is located in the northeast end of the Uinta Mountains and are the same five herds that occur on the ANF (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018d, USDA Forest Service 2019). Although, three of these herds may not occupy space on the WCNF, they do interact with the two herds that do occupy space on the WCNF (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). Thus, the interaction suggests connectivity and interbreeding/genetic exchange between the five herds (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019), and as such the WCNF bighorn sheep population consists of these five Uintas herds (North Slope Uintas Bighorn Sheep Herds). An assessment (Assessment of the North Slope Uintas Bighorn Sheep Herds) was prepared for the five bighorn sheep herds that occur in the Uintas and on the Ashley NF and WCNF (USDA Forest Service 2019). This Assessment reviews the history of these herds and associated threats, the 2018 Utah State-wide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (UDWR 2018d), and an abundance of bighorn sheep literature regarding bighorn sheep biology, habitat, threats, and risks (including disease). This Assessment and the literature it reviews is incorporated into this document by reference as USDA Forest Service 2019. As the Assessment contains the literature and review on disease issues for bighorn sheep, this DEIS will refer to that Assessment for the bulk of that discussion. Likewise, further details of these five bighorn sheep herds and the other associated threat and risk factors can also be found in the Assessment. There are three subspecies of bighorn sheep (Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, California bighorn sheep, and desert bighorn sheep) that occur in Utah. Recent studies indicate that there is no genetic or taxonomic distinction between Rocky Mountain and California bighorn sheep (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d). Only one subspecies (Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep - Ovis canadensis canadensis) occur on the ANF and UWCNF, and analysis in this document will focus on this subspecies (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d). Any further reference in this document to bighorn sheep will be referring to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, unless otherwise stated. Bighorn sheep (BHS) prefer open habitat types (high alpine to lower grasslands) with adjacent steep rocky areas for escape and safety (Shackleton 1985, UDWR 2013). Habitat is characterized by rugged terrain including canyons, gulches, talus cliffs, steep slopes, mountaintops, and river benches (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d). Sheep habitat in North America is highly varied but is characterized by an open landscape and stable plant communities in which grasses predominate (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d). The diet of BHS is primarily grasses and forbs, although they may utilize shrubs depending on season and availability (Shackleton 1985, UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d). Bighorn sheep generally migrate between summer and winter ranges, and their diet may vary within those ranges (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d). The breeding season for BHS occurs from

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 141 Draft Environmental Impact Statement mid-October to early December. During that time, rams engage in head butting clashes to establish dominance (UDWR 2013, Shackleton 1985). The peak of the rut usually occurs in November (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2018d, Shackleton 1985). Gestation is about 180 days and lambs, which are usually singles, are born in mid-April to early June (UDWR 2013, Shackleton 1985). Disease has been identified as the primary threat to BHS populations (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019 and other citations throughout this paragraph). Respiratory disease (bacterial pneumonia) outbreaks in BHS populations can result in a substantial immediate die-off (Besser et al. 2012a, Besser et al. 2012b, Cassirer et al. 2018, USDA Forest Service 2019). Respiratory disease can also affect lamb recruitment following substantial population declines resulting from diseases (Besser et al. 2012b, UDWR 2018d, USDA Forest Service 2019). Numerous studies have concluded that respiratory pathogens (associated with bacterial pneumonia) can be transferred from domestic sheep to BHS, and that exposure of native BHS sheep to domestic sheep and goats carrying strains of respiratory pathogens can have devastating results to BHS (Besser et al. 2014, Cassirer et al. 2018, UDWR 2018d, USDA Forest Service 2019). There are counter-arguments from some scientists, who question the transfer of respiratory pathogens from domestic sheep to BHS and/or question the study design/methods of studies that conclude disease transmission or deleterious effects to BHS after contact with domestic sheep (Thurmond 2016, USDA Forest Service 2019). However, there is increasing evidence that show pathogens (known to cause or that are associated with bacterial pneumonia in BHS) such as Mycoplasma ovipneumonia can be transmitted between individual BHS, and between BHS and domestic sheep (Besser et al. 2014, Cassirer et al. 2018, USDA Forest Service 2019). Mountain goats can also be a carrier of respiratory pathogens which could be transferred to BHS, but the certainty of this pathogen transfer is unknown since there is limited research or literature on the subject (Wolff et al. 2016, USDA Forest Service 2019). Likewise. Mycoplasma ovipneumonia has also been found in other species such as moose, caribou, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and cattle (Highland et.al. 2018). Although moose, mule deer, and cattle may occur in proximity to the Uintas BHS, the likelihood of contact with BHS and the potential for pathogen transmission is uncertain. The Assessment of the NS Uintas BHS herds (USDA Forest Service 2019) found that the primary threat to these herds is disease (bacterial pneumonia), and that disease is currently affecting these herds (USDA Forest Service 2019). Mycoplasma ovipneumonia (bacteria associated with pneumonia in BHS) has been detected in all five herds and thus they are considered exposed to respiratory pathogens (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). It has been increasingly evident that pathogens known to cause or that are associated with bacterial pneumonia in BHS, such as Mycoplasma ovipneumonia, may be transmitted between individual BHS, and from domestic sheep to BHS (Besser et al. 2014, Cassirer et al. 2018, USDA Forest Service 2019). Thus, domestic sheep allotments, such as those in this analysis, near or overlapping the range of the NS Uintas BHS herds may pose some level of threat to these herds, and may affect the success or length of time for the herds to recover from disease (Besser et al. 2014, Cassirer et al. 2018, USDA Forest Service 2019). Other factors affecting BHS populations include habitat loss and disturbance, habitat condition, predation, forage competition, and climate/weather (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018d, and USDA Forest Service 2019). Although BHS are a hunted species in Utah, hunting is not

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 142 Draft Environmental Impact Statement considered a threat to the populations since the State closely monitors the populations and issues a limited number of permits9 based on monitoring results (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018d, and USDA Forest Service 2019). The Ashley NF has six bighorn sheep herds that comprise one bighorn sheep population on the Plan Area. One herd (consisting of approximately 30 animals) is located on the Avintaquin side of the South Unit of the Forest; the other five herds (North Slope Uintas herds) consist of approximately 162 animals (Figure 32), are interconnected, and are shared with the WCNF (UDWR 2013, USDA Forest Service 2019). The Wasatch-Cache portion of the UWCNF has one BHS population (approximately 162 animals) consisting of five herds (North Slope Uintas herds), which is located in the northeast end of the Uinta Mountains and is the same five herds that occur on the ANF (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). The North Slope Uintas bighorn sheep herds are estimated at approximately 162 animals (Figure 32) and have fluctuated over time, but recently have been on a general decreasing trend. Although, the herd estimates did increase by 27 individuals from 2017 to 2018 (a 20 percent increase), which again illustrates fluctuations in these herds. These herd fluctuations have been the result of disease, mountain lion predation, recruitment, introductions, augmentations, removal, and culling (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019).

Figure 32 - Uintas Bighorn Sheep combined herd estimates (estimates from all five herds lumped together) from 1996-2018. Based on yearly herd estimates from the UDWR. (USDA Forest Service 2019) The BHS herds in the Uintas occur in the proximity of the allotments and BHS habitat occurs within all 10 allotments (UDWR 2018b, USDA Forest Service 2019). Bighorn sheep were recorded

9The UDWR sets the hunting permit numbers for each bighorn sheep management unit in the State that is hunted. These permit numbers vary among populations and among herds based on annual herd and habitat monitoring.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 143 Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Uintas as early as 1849, but by 1930 it was evident that reproducing BHS in the Uintas did not exist (USDA Forest Service 2019). However, there were occasional sightings of BHS in the Uintas recorded in the 1960s and early 1970s, but by 1975 BHS were considered non-existent in the Uinta Mountains, except for the occasional individual likely wandering from an introduced population in nearby Colorado (USDA Forest Service 2019). The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) began transplanting BHS to the Uinta Mountains as early as 1983 and these periodic releases resulted in the establishment of five herds (Hoop Lake, Sheep Creek, Carter Creek/Red Canyon, Bare Top, and Goslin herds) that now comprise the North Slope Uintas BHS connected herds (NS Uintas BHS herds) (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018d, and USDA Forest Service 2019). Thus, these five herds are introduced to the Uinta Mountains and have been manipulated over time by the UDWR management (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, and UDWR 2018d). These five herds are interconnected with each other, and movements are generally weather and seasonally dependent, which results in varied movement year to year (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). Because these five NS Uintas BHS herds interact with each other, they are managed by the UDWR as a Management Unit (UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018d). As such, this analysis lumps the five herd estimates together for a combined herd total as illustrated in the graph above (Figure 3). Figure 3 does not include the first 13 years (1983-1995) of herd estimates, but it does show the estimates since 1996. As illustrated in Figure 32 above, herd estimates have fluctuated over time and have been recently decreasing. These fluctuations have been the result of disease, mountain lion predation, introductions, augmentations, removal, and culling (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). Although the five NS Uintas BHS herds have been cyclic in nature (due to disease events, introductions, augmentations, and culling), they reached a combined herd total high of 345 BHS in 2007 (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). The increase from 2004 was primarily the initiation of the Goslin herd (76 BHS released) and associated recruitment (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). A disease event occurred in 2008 (bronchopneumonia), which resulted in the UDWR culling the largest herd (Goslin Herd – 2007 estimate of 125) to prevent the spread of the disease to the other herds (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). The elimination of the Goslin herd reduced the combined total by more than a third, but still left the total combined herd estimate over 200 BHS (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). The combined herd total was still over 200 individuals when it started to decline again in 2013 due to disease (bronchopneumonia) (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). Though disease was known to be present in the other four herds, the UDWR released 23 BHS in 2014 back to the Goslin area to reinitiate the Goslin herd (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). However, the combined herd total declined to 135 animals in 2017, but increased to 162 in 2018. The pathogen (Mycoplasma ovipneumonia) has been detected in all five herds and is thought to be contributing to disease (bronchopneumonia) in the herds (USDA Forest Service 2019). Estimates of minimum viable population (MVPE) specific to BHS range from 50 to 400 individuals, with most estimates ranging from 100-250 individuals (USDA Forest Service 2019). Based on literature regarding MVPE specific to BHS, the State considers (2013 State-wide Bighorn Sheep management Plan) 125 individuals to be representative of a current 'best estimate" of MVPE for BHS populations in Utah (UDWR 2013, USDA Forest Service 2019). As such, the 2018 NS Uintas combined herd

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement estimate of 162 meets the UDWR definition of viable (above 125 animals) in their 2013 State- wide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (UDWR 2013, USDA Forest Service 2019). Methodology General Methodology for All Species Wildlife surveys have been conducted on a periodic or annual basis (depending on species) on the allotments, with the most recent surveys occurring from 2014-2017. Surveys included breeding bird surveys, woodpecker surveys, goshawk surveys, ptarmigan surveys, and big game surveys. Locations and information of bighorn sheep were obtained through the use of VHF collars, GPS collars, and other observations. The results of these methods provided information for the analysis below. The analysis also reviewed literature pertinent to each species that is discussed below, which aided in the determination of potential effects of the project to those species. Risk of Contact Model – Specific to Bighorn Sheep A framework, developed in 2015 to provide a quantitative approach to assist in assessing BHS risk of contact to domestic sheep allotments (O’Brien et al. 2014, Carpenter et al. 2014, USDA FS 2015b, USDA Forest Service 2018), was released by the Forest Service Intermountain Regional Office. The framework employs a Risk of Contact (ROC) model that estimates the potential of BHS to foray from a Core Herd Home Range (CHHR) onto nearby domestic sheep allotments (USDA FS 2015, O’brien et al. 2014, Carpenter et al. 2014, USDA Forest Service 2019). The ROC model was used to estimate the ROC of the NS Uintas BHS with domestic sheep allotments on the ANF and UWCNF (including the 10 allotments in this analysis), as well as to estimate the ROC with BLM domestic sheep allotments and private lands with known domestic sheep use (USDA FOREST SERVICE 2019). The ROC model was run separately for summer and winter allotments since the time period which domestic sheep are on summer and winter allotments are different, and since BHS use the landscape differently during winter and summer periods (USDA FS 2015, O’Brien et al. 2014, Carpenter et al. 2014, USDA Forest Service 2019). Boundaries and timeframes for domestic sheep use on private lands were difficult to obtain, therefore it was assumed that each one mile section of private land with known domestic sheep use was equivalent to a domestic sheep allotment and was occupied by domestic sheep year round (USDA FS 2019). Thus, a year round timeframe and year round CHHR was used in modelling ROC to private lands with domestic sheep use (USDA FS 2019). The results of the ROC model for Forest Service domestic sheep allotments are presented below in Table 27 and spatially displayed in Figure 33 and Figure 34. Figure 34 - ROC Model - Forest Service Winter Domestic Sheep Allotments. Table 27 - Uintas BHS ROC with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2018)1 . Allotment2 Number of Days Domestic Risk of Contact/Year Sheep On Allotment (Based on actual # days domestic sheep are on allotment)3 Overlap (2 years), Gilbert Peak4 62 0.0 (1 year)5

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 145 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Allotment2 Number of Days Domestic Risk of Contact/Year Sheep On Allotment (Based on actual # days domestic sheep are on allotment)3 Hessie Lake/Henrys Overlap (2 years), 62 Fork4 0.0 (1 year)5 Overlap (2 years), Painter Basin4 57 0.0 (2 years)6 Overlap (2 years), Tungsten4 57 0.0 (2 years)6 Red Castle4 67 0.211 0.128 (2 years), East Fork Blacks Fork4 67 0.0 (1 year)5 Middle Fork4 62 0.201 Oweep4 58 0.142 (2 years), Ottoson Basin4 58 0.0 (1 year)5 Fall Creek4, 7 92 0.067 West Fork Blacks Fork 72 0.053 Larson 62 0.051 Luke Lym 17 0.022 Mill Creek 45 0.062 Little West Fork 51 0.028 Stillwater 62 0.002 Lyman Lake 47 0.003 Gold Hill 72 West Fork Bear River 72 Meadow Creek 72 <0.0001 (Combined ROC for these 5 allotments) Moffit 81 Humpy Creek 62 Cedar Mountain 0.03 151 (Winter Allotment) Rock Springs 0.004 151 (Winter Allotment) Total Contacts/Year 0.673 Summer &Winter -- Allotments 1The portion of the sheep driveway system that does not occur on these allotments is at a distance from the CHHR that would have a low ROC, and therefore is not included in the model. 2Studies have shown that BHS typically do not foray greater than 35 km from the CHHR (O’Brien et al. 2014). The ROC model estimates foray probabilities out to 46 km from the CHHR, but probabilities beyond 35 km are very low. Therefore any Forest Service domestic sheep allotment on the Ashley NF or the Wasatch-Cache NF that is further than 46 km from the Uintas BHS CHHR is not included in this table, and is at no risk or very low probability of risk to the Uintas BHS. 3Risk of Contact is calculated by dividing the number of days domestic sheep are actually on the allotments by 184 days (number of days From May 1 to October31) for summer allotments and by 181 days (number of days from November 1 to April 30) for winter allotments, and then multiplying that number by the rate of contact calculated by the model for each allotment. 4Denotes the allotment is one of the 10 High Uintas Domestic Sheep Allotments in the analysis. 5Allotment is under rest rotation management system of two years on the allotment and one year off the allotment. 6Allotment is under a rest rotation management system of two years on the allotment and two years off the allotment.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 146 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7This number represents a model output reflecting intersection with an allotment boundary, and does not take into account that the allotment is not currently stocked. The results of the ROC model for BLM winter and summer domestic sheep allotments are presented below in Table 28 and spatially displayed in Figure 35 and Figure 36. Table 28 - Uintas BHS ROC with BLM domestic sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2018). Allotment1 Number of Days Domestic Risk of Contact/Year Sheep On Allotment (Based on actual # days domestic sheep are on allotment)2 Rock Springs 184 0.079 Lambson 184 0.051 Mellor Mountain 153 0.037 Sage Creek Mountain 31 0.015 Van Tassel 184 Paddys Gap 31 Crooked Canyon 184 Moss Creek 184 Thunderbolt 122 Granger Lease 31 Buffalo Corral 184 Spring Creek 184 Davis Draw 184 La Chapelle 184 0.003 Combined ROC of contact for these 21 allotments. Quarry Creek 113 Highway 184 France 184 Sulphur Creek 92 Bridger Airport 116 Circle Springs 169 South Monument 184 Indian Flat 153 Bridger Butte 184 Wall Reservoir 184 Bigelow Bench 173 Rock Springs 181 0.44 (Winter) Sage Creek Mountain 32 0.015 (Winter) Van Tassel (Winter) 181 Paddys Gap (Winter 86 Crooked Canyon 30

(Winter) Moss Creek (Winter) 181 Diamond Peak 29 0.004 (Winter) (Combined ROC for these 20 allotments) Granger Lease 167

(Winter) Spring Creek (Winter) 181 Poverty Flat (Winter) 106 Buffalo Corral 30

(Winter)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 147 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Allotment1 Number of Days Domestic Risk of Contact/Year Sheep On Allotment (Based on actual # days domestic sheep are on allotment)2 Indian Flat (Winter) 30 Hiawatha Tridistrict 181

(Winter) Bridger Butte (Winter) 30 Quarry Creek 30

(Winter) La Chapelle 181 0.004 (Winter) (Combined ROC for these 20 allotments) Highway (Winter) 30 Bridger Airport 30

(Winter) Wall Reservoir 181

(Winter) Bigelow Bench 5

(Winter) South Monument 30

(Winter) Canyon-Horseshoe 136

(Winter) Total Contacts/Year -- 0.248 1Studies have shown that BHS typically do not foray greater than 35 km from the CHHR (O’Brien et al. 2014). The ROC model estimates foray probabilities out to 46 km from the CHHR, but probabilities beyond 35 km are very low. Therefore any BLM domestic sheep allotment that is further than 46 km from the Uintas BHS CHHR is not included in this table, and is at no risk or very low probability of risk to the Uintas BHS. 2 Risk of Contact is calculated by dividing the number of days domestic sheep are actually on the allotments by 184 days (number of days From May 1 to October31) for summer allotments and by 181 days (number of days from November 1 to April 30) for winter allotments, and then multiplying that number by the rate of contact calculated by the model for each allotment. The results of the ROC model for Private land with known domestic sheep use are presented below in Table 29 and spatially displayed in Figure 37. Table 30 presents the combined overlap and ROC for Non-Forest Service lands (BLM and private) Table 29 -Uintas BHS ROC for Private Land with known domestic sheep use (USDA Forest Service 2018). Land Ownership Overlap with CHHR Risk of Contact/Year (Outside of Overlap) Private Lands – by mile section 8 Private Lands 0.228 (3,371 acres) One to Multiple Contacts/Year (Domestic Sheep Use Unknown) 94 Private Lands -- Private Lands - by mile section (33,911 acres)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 30 - Uintas BHS ROC with BLM allotments and Private Lands with known domestic sheep use (USDA Forest Service 2018). Cumulative Non-Forest Land Ownership Overlap with CHHR Service Lands Risk of Contact/Year Non-Forest Service Lands (Private Lands – by one mile 8 Private Lands (3,371 acres) 0.476 section) 1 BLM Allotment (2,747 acres) (BLM Domestic Sheep Allotments)

(Domestic Sheep Use Unknown) 94 Private Lands (33,911 acres) -- Private Lands - by mile section

In assessing ROC, the closer a domestic sheep allotment (or lands with domestic sheep use) is to the CHHR, the more risk BHS have in contacting that allotment (WAFWA 2012, Besser et al. 2014, Cassirer et al. 2018, USDA Forest Service 2019). Thus, lands with domestic sheep use that overlap the CHHR present a greater risk of BHS contact than those domestic sheep lands that are some distance away, because the overlap likely results in multiple BHS contacts a year with these lands. The results of the model indicate four Forest Service allotments that overlap the CHHR, meaning that the Uintas BHS may have one or multiple contacts a year with these four FS allotments. The results of the model also indicate a cumulative ROC of 0.673 for the remaining Forest Service domestic sheep allotments that do not overlap the CHHR. This cumulative ROC equates to an approximate expected contact rate of one BHS contact with a Forest Service domestic sheep allotment (that does not overlap the CHHR) approximately every 1.5 years (USDA Forest Service 2019). The results of the model also indicate one BLM allotment and eight private land mile sections (with known domestic sheep use) that overlap the CHHR. Thus, BHS may have one or multiple contacts a year with the BLM allotment and the eight private land mile sections that overlap the CHHR. The results of the model also indicate a cumulative ROC of 0.476 for the remaining (outside of the overlap) BLM and private lands (with known domestic sheep use), which equates to an approximate expected contact rate of one BHS contact every two years with these remaining BLM allotments/private lands (USDA Forest Service 2019). Domestic sheep use is unknown on 94 private land mile sections (33,911 acres) that overlap the CHHR and many other private lands that are in close proximity to the CHHR (USDA FOREST SERVICE 2019). Acquiring information of domestic sheep use on private lands proved difficult, therefore domestic sheep use on many private land one mile sections within and without of the CHHR remain unknown (USDA FOREST SERVICE 2019). Because of the lack of information on the private land that overlaps the CHHR, predicting the ROC on those lands is difficult.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 149 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 33 - ROC Model - Forest Service Summer Domestic Sheep Allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 150 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 34 - ROC Model - Forest Service Winter Domestic Sheep Allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 151 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 35 - ROC Model - BLM Winter Domestic Sheep Allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 152 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 36 - ROC Model – BLM Summer Domestic Sheep Allotments

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 153 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 37 - ROC Model - Private land with known domestic sheep use.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 154 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The ROC may not change on those 94 sections if there are no domestic sheep kept on those privately owned lands. However, there is also a possibility that there is domestic sheep use on all or a portion of those 98 private land mile sections. If that were the case, there would be an increase in the ROC for private lands, and the actual overlap and ROC would be much more than the model currently indicates. (USDA FOREST SERVICE 2019). In assessing tolerable risk to BHS, the 2010 Record of Decision for the Revised Payette National Forest Plan selected the alternative in their 2010 FEIS that identified a Forest cumulative ROC of 0.08 as sufficient to support persisting populations of BHS on the Payette National Forest. However, since the Payette’s Decision, the 2015 Intermountain Region BHS/Domestic Sheep Framework was released and concluded that a “high” ROC would be those domestic sheep allotments that overlap the CHHR (multiple contacts per year with the allotment), a “moderate” ROC would be those allotments that do not overlap the CHHR and have a ROC over 0.1 (≥1 contact with a domestic sheep allotment every 10 years), and a “low” ROC would be those allotments below 0.1 (<1 contact with a domestic sheep allotment every 10 years) (USDA FS 2015). Thus, the results of the model indicate a “high” ROC (because of overlap with the CHHR) with four Forest Service allotments (Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake/Henry’s Fork, Painter, and Tungsten), one BLM domestic sheep allotment, and eight private land mile sections; a “moderate” ROC with two Forest Service allotments (Red Castle and East Fork Blacks Fork); and a “low” ROC with the remaining Forest Service allotments and BLM land/private lands with domestic sheep use (USDA Forest Service 2019). All the overlap and nearly all the ROC that is on Forest Service lands occurs on the western edge of the CHHR (USDA Forest Service 2019). Although the overlap poses a “high” ROC of BHS with four Forest Service domestic sheep allotments, it is unknown how many times a BHS would need to contact a domestic sheep allotment (or lands with domestic sheep use) for interspecies contact to occur. But when interspecies contact does occur, it is likely to result in pathogen transfer to BHS (USDA Forest Service 2019). If pathogen transfer does occur, the severity of disease outbreak is relatively uncertain, and the level of risk to viability under this alternative is difficult to predict. However, based on past history of these five herds, disease events may happen at five to ten year intervals and die-offs may result in 30 to50 percent mortality before rebounding through recruitment or augmentation (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). The ROC model only predicts estimated rates of BHS contact with an allotment, and does not predict the viability of a BHS population (USDA Forest Service 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). The ROC model is only one factor among several (habitat condition/availability, threats/risks, herd resilience to threats/risks, persistence of the herds in the presence of disease, and size of the combined herds in relation to the range of MVPE, and UDWR management of these herds) that should be considered in assessing the viability of the NS Uintas BHS (USDA Forest Service 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). Incomplete and Unavailable Information As stated above in the methodology section for the ROC, one of the unknowns for assessing overall impacts to these bighorn sheep herds is a lack of information on private lands. There are approximately 33,911 acres of private land that overlap the CHHR for which no data is available

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 155 Draft Environmental Impact Statement with regards to domestic sheep presence. Efforts made to collect this information through cooperative agencies were unsuccessful. Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination The measures and indicators listed below are chosen because they will help determine if domestic sheep grazing on the allotments would adversely affect sensitive species or their habitat (foraging, breeding, or nesting). • Effects to sensitive species will be considered substantial if grazing the vegetative communities (habitats) on the allotments are inhibiting these communities from meeting satisfactory/desired condition. • To help assess bighorn sheep disease issues (possibility of respiratory pathogen transfer from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep), the risk of contact (ROC) model will be used to estimate the ROC of bighorn sheep with the 10 domestic sheep allotments. A “high” ROC are those allotments that overlap the core herd home range of BHS, a “moderate” ROC are those allotments with a ROC ≥0.1, and a “low” ROC are those allotments with a ROC <0.110. Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bounds of the analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be the allotment boundaries. This area was selected as the cumulative effects area, because it is large enough to capture effects that may cumulatively affect wildlife. The boundaries of the ROC model will be used for the analysis of bighorn sheep ROC to lands with domestic sheep use. The temporal bounds for direct and indirect effects will be 10 years because that is the length of the term grazing permit and the 2018 UDWR Statewide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. For cumulative effects, past projects that may have an impact on the project area go back three years and future projects go out 10 years in the future, which is consistent with the length of the permit. Existing Condition The existing condition sets the baseline to be able to compare and contrast effects based upon the measurement indicators that were discussed above with respect to vegetation communities and the Risk of Contact to bighorn sheep. These 10 Forest Service allotments primarily encompass high elevation habitats. Coniferous forests in the high elevational ranges include spruce/fir type, lodgepole pine, and some mixed stands of these conifers. There are wet and dry meadows primarily composed of sedges, grasses, forbs, and low growing willows, along with lakes, ponds, and streams. There are also a few scattered aspen stands and some aspen amongst conifers on the UWCNF allotments. There is some high elevation sagebrush on the most northern allotments (UWCNF allotments) included in this analysis, and grouse whortleberry makes up the majority of ground cover within the conifer stands on all the allotments. With respect to the Risk of Contact with the 10 Forest Service allotments under analysis, please refer to column 3 of Table 27 above. At present, four allotments overlap the Core Herd Home

10 ROC is defined and explained in the methodology section above.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 156 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Range and as such are considered to have a high ROC; two allotments have a moderate ROC, and four allotments have a low ROC. Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects Effects Common to All Species Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing The effects from both Alternatives (1 and 2) described in this section are common among species. Since these effects are discussed in this section, there is no need to discuss them further in the document. Except for bighorn sheep, the effects from Alternative 1 would be similar among species. Those effects are discussed in this section, and further discussion is not necessary. Potential effects to bighorn sheep from Alternative 1 are further discussed in the bighorn sheep effects analysis. Sheep Driveway System Under this alternative, grazing would be discontinued after two years. Thus the sheep driveway system would be used for two more years. There are a total of 27 acres of the sheep driveway system that have high impacts to vegetation and ground cover, but this is not expected to have measureable negative effects to wildlife (explanation in Alternative 2 below). Therefore, two more years of using the sheep driveway system is unlikely to adversely affect habitat conditions for wildlife species discussed in this document. Alternative 2 discusses the effects of using the sheep driveway system in more detail. Allotments Based on vegetative monitoring studies on the allotments; plant composition, structure, and ground cover in all habitat types affected by grazing are in satisfactory condition and thus are meeting desired conditions (see Forest Plan Consistency section in Chapter 1 above) concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). Desired conditions were developed with the consideration of maintaining habitat for wildlife. Thus, meeting desired conditions is likely to maintain or improve the vegetative conditions that would be favorable to sensitive species habitat requirements. Thus, two more years of grazing the allotments is unlikely to adversely affect habitat conditions for wildlife species discussed in this document. The effects to sensitive species from grazing the allotments are discussed in more detail under Alternative 2 in the individual species effects analysis. After two years, this alternative would discontinue grazing on the allotments. Once grazing is discontinued, it is anticipated that vegetation and wildlife habitat on the allotments would continue to meet desired conditions if livestock (domestic sheep) grazing is discontinued. Since vegetation would not be grazed by livestock under this alternative, there would be no disturbance to wildlife habitat (direct or indirect) from livestock grazing. Although desired conditions would be achieved under the proposed action, withdrawing livestock grazing from the allotments would allow wildlife to utilize vegetation that would have otherwise been removed by livestock. Thus, wildlife may benefit by withdrawing livestock grazing from the allotments. Indirect benefits to the sensitive species discussed below would primarily be through benefits (vegetation available that would

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 157 Draft Environmental Impact Statement have otherwise been removed by livestock) to prey species. Further discussion of bighorn sheep under this alternative will be analyzed in the bighorn sheep section below. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Sheep Driveway System Vegetative studies conducted along the sheep driveway system that is used to access the allotments show that the use has relatively low impacts (vegetation is meeting desired/satisfactory condition) from sheep trailing (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). There are a few short segments (0.5 miles in length) of the driveway system that have moderate to high impacts (perennial plants less frequent and higher percent of bare ground) (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). These areas are few and isolated and total about 27 acres (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018), which is only a small portion of the driveway. Grazing along the sheep driveway system is unlikely to have measurable adverse impacts to sensitive wildlife species because of the following reasons: • Eight miles of the driveway system occur along a FS road, which is likely avoided by most wildlife species, because of the close proximity to a road (human disturbance and vehicular traffic) (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). • The sheep driveway system is linear and narrow (50 yards wide on average), which reduces the likelihood of impacts to wildlife (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). • The impacts that are present are isolated and occur in short segments (0.5 mile lengths) with total impacted acreage of approximately 27 acres (less than three percent of the total driveway system) (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). • The overall condition of the driveway system is vegetated with native perennial plants that have high value for watershed protection and are in satisfactory condition (Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). Therefore, the remaining discussion of impacts to wildlife from sheep grazing will be focused on the allotments. Fall Creek Allotment The Fall Creek allotment has not been grazed by domestic sheep since 1977 (Huber 2016, Cameron & Huber 2018). Vegetative monitoring studies on the allotments (including the Fall Creek allotment) have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover are in satisfactory condition, and are meeting desired conditions. The Vegetation Report recommended to continue current grazing management on the allotments which includes allowing 1,100 ewe/lamb to graze the Fall Creek allotment July 1 – September 30 (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). In the event that grazing does occur on this allotment, grazing would be managed to achieve desired vegetative conditions (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). Thus, impacts to vegetation from grazing and using the sheep driveway would be similar to the conditions described for the other nine allotments. Vegetative monitoring studies on the nine allotments have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover in all habitat types affected by grazing are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). As such, grazing

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 158 Draft Environmental Impact Statement this allotment is likely to result in the same conditions as the other allotments and is therefore unlikely to have adverse impacts to wildlife habitat. Great Gray Owl Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management The ANF and UWCNF are on the southern extent of this species range, and occurrence of this species on any of the allotments is likely to be rare. Thus, grazing of these allotments is unlikely to affect this species. However, potential effects to this species from grazing is discussed below in the event that a great gray owl does happen to use habitats within these allotments. Since great gray owls forage in open grassy areas and meadow areas, livestock grazing would overlap foraging habitat and would have the potential to affect prey that are associated with these areas. Grazing may reduce cover and forage resources available to great gray owl prey species if it alters the structure and composition of native plant communities. However, vegetative monitoring studies on these allotments have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover meet desired conditions (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). Grazing management of these allotments implements standards and guidelines for habitat maintenance and restoration from both the ANF and WCNF Forest Plans, as well as vegetative benchmarks defined for the allotments on the ANF (Cameron & Huber 2018). Implementing these standards and guidelines and using the benchmarks are likely to maintain desired conditions in the future concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). Since the desired conditions were developed with consideration of wildlife habitat needs, maintaining desired conditions would likely maintain or improve vegetative conditions that would be favorable to the great gray owl’s foraging and nesting requirements. Thus, meeting the desired conditions would also ensure that current and future grazing practices within the allotments would retain habitat requirements for this species concurrent with grazing. Furthermore, this species occurrence on the ANF and the UWCNF would be rare, thus effects to this species from grazing these allotments are unlikely to occur. Northern Goshawk Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Grazing is unlikely to occur in conifer stands, thus the only goshawk habitat that could be affected by grazing would be in the aspen stands on the allotments. Aspen does not occur on the five allotments on the Ashley (Painter, Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, and Fall Creek) and thus grazing on these five allotments would not affect goshawk habitat. However, some aspen do occur on the allotments on the UWCNF and may potentially be affected by grazing. Grazing can reduce species composition of grass, forb, and shrub layers of aspen forests, which modifies goshawk foraging habitat (Graham et al. 1999). Grazing can also suppress aspen regeneration, which can alter the ability of an aspen forest to provide suitable goshawk nesting habitat (Graham et al. 1999). However, domestic sheep do not typically browse aspen and thus aspen are unlikely to be affected by continued grazing of the allotments (DeByle 1985). Additionally, aspen stands and associated understory on the UWCNF allotments are in satisfactory condition and are at desired condition concurrent with grazing (Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). Thus, vegetative conditions on the allotments within goshawk habitat have not been identified as functioning-at- risk relative to habitat needed to support goshawk and its prey. Therefore, it is determined that

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 159 Draft Environmental Impact Statement grazing on the allotments would be consistent with the Goshawk Guidance on the WCNF and the Goshawk Amendment to the ANF Plan. Bighorn Sheep Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Under this alternative, grazing would be discontinued after two years. During the two years of grazing, the effects to BHS from domestic sheep on Forest Service lands would be the same as described under Alternative 2 below. As discussed in the Effects Common Among Species section above, vegetative conditions on the allotments after grazing is discontinued would likely continue to meet desired conditions, but may also allow bighorn sheep to utilize vegetation that would otherwise be removed from livestock grazing. After grazing is discontinued, domestic sheep would no longer be authorized on the four Forest Service domestic sheep allotments that overlap the CHHR, which would remove the “high” ROC (one to multiple contacts every year) with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments, and would remove all ROC with the four Forest Service allotments that overlap the CHHR. Domestic sheep would no longer be authorized on the other six Forest Service allotments, which would remove all ROC with those six allotments. Thus, this alternative would remove all ROC (ROC would be 0 for these 10 allotments) with the 10 Forest Service domestic sheep allotments being analyzed. However, since there are other Forest Service domestic sheep allotments to the west of the 10 allotments under analysis, the overall calculated ROC under this alternative for all Forest Service domestic sheep allotments, that do not overlap the CHHR, would be lowered from 0.673 (approximately one contact every 1.5 years) to 0.137 (approximately one contact every 7.5 years), which equates to a “moderate” ROC (Table 27). Even if all domestic sheep use were removed from Forest Service lands in the Uintas there would still be overlap of the CHHR with a BLM domestic sheep allotment and private lands with domestic sheep use11. Thus, these BHS herds would still experience a “high” ROC (multiple BHS contacts with BLM/private lands with domestic sheep), because of the overlap of the CHHR with these Non-Forest Service lands with domestic sheep (USDA Forest Service 2018). As such, it is likely pathogen transfer and disease would still be a threat to the NS Uintas BHS herds. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Intensive grazing of grasses and forbs by livestock can cause forage competition between livestock and big game, including bighorn sheep (Lindzey et al. 1997). These conflicts can displace big game and/or deplete forage resources, causing big game to move to other areas in order to meet their forage needs (Lindzey et al. 1997). However, vegetative studies have found that plant composition and structure on all 10 allotments (and the associated sheep driveway system) are in satisfactory condition and are at desired condition concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018, USDA Forest Service 2018). Additionally, an assessment of BHS habitat in the Uintas (including habitat on the

11 Overlap of the CHHR with the BLM domestic sheep allotment and the private lands with domestic sheep use is further explained in the cumulative effects section specific to BHS, and spatially displayed in Figure 34 - ROC Model - BLM Winter Domestic Sheep Allotments. through Figure 36.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 160 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10 allotments) found that BHS habitat is in good condition and is meeting desired conditions (UDWR 2015a, Cameron and Huber 2018, USDA Forest Service 2018). Thus BHS habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor to the NS Uintas BHS herds (UDWR 2015a, USDA Forest Service 2018). Grazing management of these allotments implements standards and guidelines for habitat maintenance and restoration from the ANF and WCNF Forest Plans, as well as vegetative benchmarks defined for the allotments on the ANF (Cameron & Huber 2018). Since the desired conditions were developed with consideration of wildlife habitat needs, maintaining desired conditions would likely maintain or improve vegetative conditions that would be favorable to BHS (USDA Forest Service 1986, USDA Forest Service 2003, Cameron and Huber 2018, USDA Forest Service 2018). Thus, meeting the desired conditions would also ensure that current and future grazing practices within the allotments would retain habitat requirements for this species concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018, USDA Forest Service 2018). The standards, guidelines, and benchmarks from both Forest Plans that are being implemented with grazing management on these allotments are designed to help maintain the desired conditions on the allotments (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018, USDA Forest Service 2018). As such, the desired conditions and the maintenance of BHS habitat are likely to be maintained in the future concurrent with grazing (Cameron and Huber 2018, USDA Forest Service 2018). Under this alternative there is a “high” ROC (because of overlap with the CHHR) with four Forest Service allotments (Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake/Henry’s Fork, Painter, and Tungsten), a “moderate” ROC with two Forest Service allotments (Red Castle and East Fork Blacks Fork), and a “low” ROC with the other four allotments (Ottoson, Oweep, Fall Creek, Middle Fork-Blacks Fork) (USDA Forest Service 2018) (Table 27). As stated previously a “high” ROC equates to one or multiple contacts with a Forest Service allotment every year, because of the overlap with the CHHR. However as stated earlier, it is unknown how many times a BHS would need to contact a domestic sheep allotment for interspecies contact to occur. But when interspecies contact does occur, it is likely to result in pathogen transfer to BHS (USDA Forest Service 2018). If pathogen transfer does occur, the severity of disease outbreak is relatively uncertain, and the level of risk to viability under this alternative is difficult to predict. However, based on past history of these five herds, disease events may happen at five to 10 year intervals and die-offs may result in 30 to 50 percent mortality before rebounding through recruitment or augmentation (USDA Forest Service 2015, USDA Forest Service 2018). The ROC model is only one factor among several (habitat condition/availability, herd resilience to threats/risks, persistence of the herds in the presence of disease, and size of the combined herds in relation to the range of MVPE, and UDWR management of the herds)12 that should be considered in assessing the viability of NS Uintas BHS (USDA Forest Service 2015, USDA Forest Service 2018). Habitat is in good condition and does not appear to be a limiting factor for these herds (USDA Forest Service 2018). These herds have persisted for more than 30 years, and persisted in the presence of disease for the last 25 years, which may indicate these herds have

12 Further discussion of these other factors are discussed in the BHS section under Affected Environment, in the cumulative effects section, and in the NS Uintas BHS Herds Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2018).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 161 Draft Environmental Impact Statement been somewhat resilient to disease (USDA Forest Service 2018). Additionally, these BHS herds have persisted concurrent with domestic sheep grazing of the 10 allotments. However, the apparent persistence of these herds may be due, in part, to the UDWR periodically augmenting herds and introducing new herds into the Uintas (USDA Forest Service 2018). The NS Uintas BHS herds are the result of the UDWR conducting as many as 13 periodic releases of BHS in the Uintas from 1983 to 2014. The Uintas BHS connective herds currently meet the State’s definition of viable (above 125 individuals, as defined in the 2013 UDWR State-wide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan) and sustain annual harvest through hunting (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 1996 – 2015, USDA Forest Service 2018). Five of the releases were the initiation of the five herds, five to seven releases were augmentations to these herds, and one release was the second initiation of the Goslin herd after it was culled in 2009 (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 1996 – 2015, USDA Forest Service 2018). Several of these releases have been conducted while disease was suspected or detected within the herds (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 1996 – 2015, USDA Forest Service 2018). The UDWR has targeted these herds, among others, in both the 2013 and the 2018 Statewide BHS Management Plans for future augmentation, and has listed augmentation as a strategy in the Draft Unit Management Plan for the NS Uintas BHS herds to improve BHS distribution and viability (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, and UDWR 2018d). As such, past UDWR management of these herds (35 years of periodic introductions and augmentations, the latest of which occurred in 2014) and planned future management indicate that the UDWR will continue to maintain these herds in the future. Additionally, hunting BHS is in high demand in Utah and the UDWR maintains the NS Uintas BHS herds, in part, to provide hunting opportunities to meet this high demand (UDWR 1996 – 2015, UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015). As such the UDWR offered another three ram permits for the NS Uintas BHS herds for the 2018 hunting season (UDWR 2018a). Therefore, although domestic sheep grazing on these 10 allotments (and the associated sheep driveway system) may pose some level of risk to the viability13 of the Uintas BHS herds, the UDWR Management Plans indicate that the UDWR intends to continue to maintain these herds into the future (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015). Furthermore, a letter from the UDWR in April of 2018 informed the Forest Service that the UDWR supports authorization of domestic sheep allotments under analysis, that the Uintas BHS have co-existed with domestic sheep in proximity to their occupied habitat for nearly 30 years, that the UDWR has successfully managed sustainable herds of bighorn sheep in the Uintas during that time, and that should concerns arise in the future the UDWR will actively manage these bighorn sheep (consistent with UDWR’s approved bighorn sheep management plans) to mitigate potential risks (UDWR 2018b). Consideration of a Third Alternative An alternative was suggested internally to consider reducing the number of available Forest Service domestic sheep allotments to address bighorn sheep disease concerns and the risk of bighorn sheep contact with lands that support domestic sheep use (see Chapter 2, Alternatives

13 There is uncertainty concerning the level of risk that the domestic sheep allotments pose to the viability of the NS Uintas BHS herds. Although the ROC model is a tool used in estimating the risk of contact of BHS to a domestic sheep allotment, the model does not predict the level of risk to viability and is only one factor among several to consider in assessing viability. This is discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the Assessment of the NS Uintas BHS Herds (USDA Forest Service 2019).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 162 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Considered, but not Carried Forward in a Detailed Analysis). Lands that have domestic sheep use which overlap the Uintas bighorn sheep core herd home range (CHHR) likely experience one to multiple bighorn sheep contacts a year, which may result in a higher probability of interspecies contact and a higher possibility of pathogen transfer to bighorn sheep, than lands with domestic sheep that do not overlap the CHHR (USDA Forest Service 2019). The allotments under consideration for closure were Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Painter Basin, and Tungsten. These four allotments overlap the Uintas bighorn sheep CHHR, which presents a high risk of bighorn sheep contact (likely multiple contacts a year) with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments. This potential alternative was also an attempt to still meet the purpose and need of authorizing domestic sheep grazing on the Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests, which has been on-going for decades. This potential alternative was compared with the existing conditions regarding risk of bighorn sheep contact with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments and other lands (BLM and private) with domestic sheep use. The table below presents the existing overlap of these lands that have domestic sheep with the Uintas bighorn sheep CHHR. Information was unattainable for 94 private land square mile sections that overlap the CHHR, and domestic sheep use on those lands are unknown. Thus, the overlap of the CHHR with non-Forest Service lands that have domestic sheep use may be more than what is shown in Table 31 below. Table 31 – Existing Overlap with CHHR, ROC, and Potential 3rd Alternative Overlap and ROC. Potential 3rd Existing Risk of Alternative Land Ownership Overlap with CHHR Contact Overlap/High Risk of Contact Forest Service Domestic Sheep 4 FS Allotments High Removed Allotments (ANF & UWCNF) Non-Forest Service Lands 8 Private Land Mile High No Change (Private Lands) Sections Overlap (BLM Domestic Sheep Allotments) 1 BLM Allotment High High Risk of Contact Remains Private Lands – 94 Unknown No Change Unknown Domestic Sheep Use Private Land Mile Unknown Status Sections Remains Although this potential alternative would reduce ROC by removing the CHHR overlap on Forest Service domestic sheep allotments, it would not remove the overlap of the CHHR with non-Forest Service lands that have domestic sheep use (BLM and private). As such, the high risk of contact (overlap) with lands supporting domestic sheep (BLM and private) would still remain with this alternative. Likewise, if domestic sheep were removed from all Forest Service domestic sheep allotments (Alternative 1), there would still be a high risk of contact, because of the overlap of the CHHR with these non-Forest Service lands that have domestic sheep use. Thus, it is likely that there would still be multiple bighorn sheep contacts a year with lands supporting domestic sheep, and the Uintas bighorn sheep herds would still be at risk to periodic disease outbreaks from the possible transfer of respiratory pathogens from domestic sheep that occur on those lands. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 163 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects Cumulative Effects for Great Gray Owl and Northern Goshawk The term “wildlife” below refers to sensitive species discussed above. Cumulative impacts to wildlife include wildfire, firewood gathering, prospecting, camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing. Prescribed burning is an activity that does not occur within these allotments and therefore will not be discussed. Timber harvest occurred in some of the UWCF allotments prior to wilderness designation in 1985. However, because of wilderness designation there has been no timber harvest within these allotments (five UWCNF allotments and five ANF allotments) since then and no harvests will occur in the future. There is an active timber harvest outside the wilderness, but along the sheep driveway system in the East Fork-Blacks Fork, and a timber harvest that occurred in the Blacks Fork drainage in 2005. However since overall vegetative conditions along the sheep driveway are in satisfactory condition, grazing is unlikely to be an additive impact to wildlife when combined with this current and past timber harvest. Wildfire is rare within the project area, with fire intervals estimated between 400 to 600 years (Huber 2016). One historic fire is documented near the timberline of Brush Creek and Middle Fork-Blacks Fork and another at the mouth of Gilbert Creek in the Painter Basin allotment (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). Fire initially can reduce habitat and prey availability for wildlife. As the burns revegetate, habitat for wildlife increases in quality for a variety of wildlife species. Initially, species would be negatively affected by wildfire due to loss of these species’ habitat and/or prey species’ habitat. Grazing in burned areas can inhibit the regeneration of the tree and shrub component as well as the regeneration of favorable grass and forb species. However, plant communities within these allotments are meeting desired conditions and grazing does not appear to be negatively affecting vegetation in the burn areas. Therefore the effects to wildlife from wildfire coupled with continued grazing of the allotments would be negligible. Additionally, bighorn sheep benefit from wildfire setting back seral stages and expanding foraging areas. Firewood gathering occurs near campsites concentrated around lakes within the allotments and removes some snags and down woody debris that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. However, firewood gathering occurs in areas of the allotments not grazed by livestock. Therefore the effects to these species from firewood gathering coupled with grazing the allotments would be negligible. Cumulative impacts to wildlife such as prospecting, camping, hiking/backpacking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding/horse packing, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing may contribute to disturbance (noise and/or human presence) to wildlife and their prey species within the allotments. Human activities (sheep herder camp) associated with domestic sheep grazing would be negligible when compared to the other human activities (camping, fishing, hiking/backpacking, etc.) that normally occur (4,300+ visitors that registered) during the summer months on the allotments (Asay 2018). The primary effect domestic sheep would have to wildlife is grazing vegetation that wildlife may use. However, conditions on the allotments are meeting desired conditions (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron and Huber 2018). Therefore combining these cumulative activities with grazing on the allotments would have little measurable effects to wildlife species.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 164 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Based on the discussion above, it is determined that these cumulative effects combined with grazing on the allotments, would not cause a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of sensitive species on the UWCNF and ANF. There are no cumulative effects to the spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, gray wolf, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, peregrine falcon, three-toed woodpecker, bald eagle, flammulated owl, and boreal owl from grazing the allotments, since there are no direct or indirect effects to these species. Cumulative Effects for Bighorn Sheep Threats and risks to the Uintas BHS herds (disturbance to habitat, human disturbance, natural succession, forage competition, hunting, predation, and climate and weather) may stress BHS and cause them to be more susceptible to the pathogens that cause bacterial pneumonia (USDA Forest Service 2019). However, the UDWR only identified predation and disease as substantial threats and risks to Uintas BHS (UDWR 2015). Likewise, an assessment of the NS Uintas BHS herds found that, except for disease and predation, these two factors have a low risk to the Uintas BHS (USDA Forest Service 2019). This same assessment also determined that the level of human disturbance that occurs near the NS Uintas BHS herds has little effect on the Uintas BHS (USDA Forest Service 2019). Climate and weather trigger seasonal movements and would only stress the Uintas BHS if winter habitat is limited (USDA Forest Service 2019). However, habitat is generally in satisfactory condition in all BHS seasonal ranges and winter habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor (USDA Forest Service 2019). Likewise, forage competition with domestic sheep is minimal since habitat is in satisfactory condition concurrent with grazing (USDA Forest Service 2019, Cameron and Huber 2018). The UDWR has identified mountain lion predation as a threat to the Uintas BHS herds and actively manages predation within this BHS unit through a harvest objective strategy (unit open to mountain lion hunting until the liberal quota of harvest is attained each year) (UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019). Therefore, combining these factors with grazing the allotments, would add little additional effects to BHS and are unlikely to be stress inducers to trigger a disease outbreak in these BHS herds (USDA Forest Service 2019). The cumulative ROC of BHS to lands with domestic sheep (Forest Service, BLM, and private), and the overlap of the CHHR with lands with domestic sheep are illustrated in Table 32 below. Table 32 - Uintas BHS Cumulative ROC with Forest Service domestic sheep allotments and non- Forest Service lands with domestic sheep (USDA Forest Service 2019). Land Ownership Overlap with CHHR Risk of Contact/Year – Non-Overlap with CHHR Forest Service Domestic Sheep Allotments 4 FS Allotments 0.673 (Ashley & UWC NF) (24,599 acres)

Non-Forest Service Lands 8 Private Lands (2,747 acres) (Private Lands – by mile section1) (3,371 acres)

(BLM Domestic Sheep Allotments) 1 BLM Allotment 0.476 Private Lands - Domestic Sheep Use 94 Private Lands Unknown Unknown (33,911 acres) (by mile section)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 165 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Land Ownership Overlap with CHHR Risk of Contact/Year – Non-Overlap with CHHR

Total Risk of Contact Overlap with Forest Service, 1.14914 BLM, and Private Lands 1A section of land is one square mile. The highest ROC of BHS to lands with domestic sheep occur on those lands that overlap the CHHR, because it is likely that BHS would make contact with those lands multiple times a year. This overlap occurs on four Forest Service domestic sheep allotments (25,599 acres), one BLM domestic sheep allotment (2,747 acres), and eight private land sections with known domestic sheep use (3,371 acres). As indicated in Table 10 above, domestic sheep grazing is unknown on 94 private sections (33,911 acres) that overlap the CHHR. This acreage (33,911 acres) is more than the overlap that occurs on Forest Service domestic sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2019). Thus, it is possible that the amount of private lands with domestic sheep use that overlap the CHHR may be higher than the model results. Since domestic sheep use is unknown for a large portion of private lands within and adjacent to the CHHR, it is difficult to compare the ROC on Forest Service lands with the ROC on non-Forest Service lands (USDA FOREST SERVICE 2019). However, one study concluded that the risk of pneumonia epizootics in BHS increased in relation to private land (Sells et al. 2015). Because there is overlap of the CHHR with lands that have domestic sheep, there is a “high” ROC (one to multiple BHS contacts to lands with domestic sheep) that occurs with all three land ownerships (Forest Service, BLM, and private). If domestic sheep were removed from all Forest Service domestic sheep allotments that overlap the CHHR, BHS would still experience a “high” ROC because of the BLM and private lands with domestic sheep that would still overlap the CHHR. To effectively remove the overlap and the “high” ROC (multiple contacts every year), domestic sheep would need to be removed from all lands (Forest Service, BLM, and Private) that overlap the CHHR. In addition to the lands overlapping the CHHR, there is ROC of BHS to lands with domestic sheep (Forest Service, BLM, and private) that do not overlap the CHHR. The cumulative ROC with these lands that do not overlap the CHHR is 1.149. This is a “moderate” ROC (> 0.1 and does not overlap the CHHR)) and equates to a cumulative expected contact rate of approximately one BHS contact every year with these lands (Forest Service, BLM, and private) (USDA Forest Service 2019). Although removing domestic sheep from Forest Service lands would reduce ROC, there would still be a ROC of 0.476 (moderate ROC, > 0.1) on BLM and private lands, as well as the overlap (high ROC) that would also still occur. To eliminate or reduce the cumulative ROC to a low risk (< 0.1), domestic sheep would need to be removed from all lands (Forest Service, BLM, and private). Inclosing, except for the issue of disease, there is little effect to BHS from combining these cumulative effects with grazing the 10 domestic sheep allotments. Because lands that have domestic sheep (Forest Service, BLM, and private) overlap the CHHR, there is a “high” ROC (multiple BHS contacts to lands with domestic sheep) that occurs with all three land ownerships.

14 This value does not include lands (with domestic sheep) overlapping the CHHR. It is the ROC value for lands (with domestic sheep) that do not overlap the CHHR.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 166 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

If all domestic sheep were removed from Forest Service domestic sheep allotments in the Uintas, BHS would still experience a “high” ROC because of the BLM and private lands with domestic sheep that would still overlap the CHHR. Although BHS are native to Utah and occurred in the Uintas in the past, these herds are introduced herds and have been manipulated by the UDWR over the 35+ years of their existence (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018b, and UDWR 2018d). Past UDWR management (introduction and augmentations) and the UDWR Management Plans indicate that the UDWR intends to continue to maintain these herds into the future (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018b, and UDWR 2018d). Furthermore, a letter from the UDWR informed the Forest Service that the UDWR is in support of authorization of domestic sheep grazing on the 10 allotments, has successfully managed the Uintas BHS herds in proximity to domestic sheep, and will continue that management into the future (UDWR 2018b). Domestic sheep grazing the 10 allotments and the associated sheep driveway system described in the proposed action may affect BHS numbers within the herds and may impact individual BHS, but would not cause a trend toward their federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the BHS population on the Ashley National Forest and Wasatch-Cache National Forest15. The rationale for this determination is as follows: • Although the Uinta herds have generally decreased and are subject to periodic disease episodes, the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache BHS population meet the previous Utah Bighorn Sheep Management Plan’s definition of viable (above 125 individuals) (UDWR 2013). The current Bighorn Sheep Management Plan does not identify a minimal viable population number but focuses on the statewide population’s sustainability. (USDA Forest Service 2019). • The Ashley and Wasatch-Cache BHS population will continue to persist over the long-term in part because of UDWR’s continued strategy to augment the Uinta herds to meet population distribution and sustainability objectives (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018b, and UDWR 2018d). This strategy of augmenting infected herds (when deemed appropriate) is re- emphasized in the population strategies of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2018 State- wide bighorn sheep Management Plan, and also includes the Uintas BHS in their list of herds to augment (UDWR 2018d). • Thirty-five years of empirical evidence suggests that while disease has affected the five Uinta herds, current herd management by the UDWR and habitat management by the Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache have resulted in a persistent Ashley and Wasatch-Cache BHS population (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, UDWR 2018b, and UDWR 2018d). An April 27, 2018 a letter from the UDWR informed the Forest Service that the UDWR supports authorization of domestic sheep allotments under analysis, that the Uintas BHS have co-existed with domestic sheep in proximity to their occupied habitat for nearly 30 years, that the UDWR has

15 The Ashley BHS population consists of one herd located on the Avintaquin side of the South Unit of the Forest, and the five connected Uinta herds located in the northeast end of the Uinta Mountains (UDWR 2013, USDA Forest Service 2019). The Wasatch-Cache BHS population are the same five connected Uinta herds that occur on the Ashley (UDWR 2013, UDWR 2015, USDA Forest Service 2019).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 167 Draft Environmental Impact Statement successfully managed sustainable herds of bighorn sheep in the Uintas during that time, and that should concerns arise in the future the UDWR will actively manage these bighorn sheep (consistent with UDWR’s approved bighorn sheep management plans) to mitigate potential risks (UDWR 2018b). In addition to the April 27 2018 letter, the UDWR also states the following in their 2018 State-wide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (UDWR 2018d): “The only mechanism acceptable to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) for altering domestic sheep grazing practices to avoid risk of comingling is through voluntary actions undertaken by the individual grazers. Because of the unique mosaic of bighorn sheep habitat in Utah and its pervasive proximity to domestic sheep and goats on private and public lands, and the susceptibility of bighorn sheep to diseases harbored by domestic sheep and goats, it is impossible to completely remove all risk of pathogen transmission. The UDWR fully understands and accepts the risks of disease in bighorn sheep populations, and will employ a variety of strategies to manage around this risk to ensure sustainable populations of bighorns can exist in balance with domestic sheep grazing.” Thus, considering this and the rationale provided above, viability of these herds is likely to be maintained through UDWR’s management, including periodic transplants. Summary of Determinations Based on the discussion and rationale above, it is determined that both Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no impact to the spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, gray wolf, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, peregrine falcon, three-toed woodpecker, bald eagle, flammulated owl, and boreal owl. The following is a summary of determinations specific to each alternative for potentially affected species. Rationale for the determinations under the alternatives is found in the body of this document. Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Under this alternative, grazing the 10 allotments (Painter, Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Fall Creek, Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, Middle Fork- Blacks Fork) and use of the associated sheep driveway system would be discontinued after 2 years. Effects determinations for the great gray owl, northern goshawk, and bighorn sheep would be the same as determined for Alternative 2 during the 2 years of continued grazing. After grazing is discontinued, it is determined that there would be a beneficial impact to the great gray owl, northern goshawk, and bighorn sheep. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Continued Management It is determined that continued domestic sheep grazing on the 10 High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep allotments (Painter, Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Fall Creek, Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, Middle Fork-Blacks Fork) and the associated sheep driveway system may impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward the federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the great gray owl, northern goshawk, and bighorn sheep. Management Indicator Species and Focal Species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (Migratory Birds), and Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 168 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction Ashley National Forest Management Indicator Species The ANF Forest Plan contains direction to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives. Part of this direction is using management indicator species (MIS) to generally serve as proxies for wildlife populations within the ANF. In other words, MIS are representative species whose habitat conditions and population changes are used to assess the impacts of management activities on similar species in a particular area. Table 33 below lists the ANF terrestrial MIS that are identified in the ANF Forest Plan, the vegetation community those species are found in, and whether that habitat is present in the allotments. (1986 Ashley NF Plan) Table 33 - Terrestrial MIS designated in the 1986 Ashley Forest Plan. MIS Vegetation Community Habitat Present in Allotments? Red-naped sapsucker Deciduous woodlands No. Deciduous woodlands do not occur on the five ANF allotments included in this analysis. Warbling vireo Deciduous woodlands No. Deciduous woodlands do not occur on the five ANF allotments included in this analysis. Northern goshawk Old growth timber No. The only goshawk habitat type (aspen stands) that has potential to be affected by grazing does not occur on the five ANF allotments. Additionally, there are no known goshawk territories that occur within these five allotments. Refer to the Biological Evaluation prepared for this analysis. Golden eagle Cliffs/rock Yes Lincoln’s sparrow Riparian shrub Yes Song sparrow Riparian shrub Yes Sage-grouse Sagebrush No. Sage-grouse habitat does not occur on the five ANF allotments. Also refer to the Biological Evaluation prepared for this analysis. White-tailed ptarmigan Alpine meadow Yes Species of Economic Value Rocky Mountain elk Various Yes Mule deer Various Yes A comprehensive review of these species’ life requirements, population trends, and habitats occupied by these species on the Forest can be found in the March 2006 Ashley National Forest Report titled Life Histories and Population Analysis for Management Indicator Species of the Ashley National Forest; hereafter mentioned in this document as the “MIS Report”. Analysis contained in that report is incorporated by reference in this document as “USDA Forest Service 2006c”. Additionally, a review of monitoring, inventories, and population trends for these species from March 2006 to April 2015 can be found in the Roosevelt-Duchesne RD Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring Report March 2006-April 2015, hereafter mentioned in this document as the

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 169 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

“Christensen 2015 Monitoring Report”. Information contained in that report is incorporated by reference in this document as “Christensen 2015”. As indicated in Table 33, six ANF terrestrial MIS may be present or have habitat within the allotments. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Focal Species Focal species are those selected species whose status permits inference to the integrity of the larger ecological system to which it belongs and provides meaningful information regarding the effectiveness of the Forest Plan in maintaining or restoring the ecological conditions to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities in the plan area. The Revised WCNF Forest Plan has only one terrestrial focal species, which is the northern goshawk. This species is also a sensitive species and was analyzed in the Biological Evaluation (BE). Refer to the BE for the detailed analysis and see the discussion just above about Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. As such, the remaining discussion in this document will primarily focus on the ANF MIS that are listed in Table 33 and on migratory birds. If a species is a sensitive species, it will not be discussed below. The following discussion is for MIS that are not also sensitive species. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (Migratory Birds), and Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species The Memorandum of Understanding of December 8, 2008 between the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds, provides direction for managing migratory birds. This direction includes evaluating the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. The MOU further directs to the extent practicable: evaluate and balance long- term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions; pursue opportunities to restore or enhance migratory bird habitat in the project area; and consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. (USDA Forest Service 2008b) The Utah Partners in Flight (PIF) working group recently completed a statewide avian conservation strategy (Parrish, Howe and Norvell 2002). The strategy identifies “priority species” for conservation due to declining abundance or distribution, or vulnerability to various local and/or range-wide risk factors. This list of priority bird species is intended to be used as a tool by federal and state agencies in prioritizing bird species that should be considered for conservation action” (Parrish, Howe and Norvell 2002). One application of the strategy and priority list is to give these birds specific consideration when analyzing effects of proposed management actions, and to implement the recommended conservation measures where appropriate. All ten allotments occur within USFWS BCC Region 16. A complete list of birds from both these lists that are known to occur or are suspected to occur in USFWS BCC Region 16 can be found in the project record (available upon request). Several species on the BCC and PIF Priority Species lists occur or have habitats within the allotments. These species are the broad-tailed

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 170 Draft Environmental Impact Statement hummingbird, black-rosy finch, Cassin’s finch, prairie falcon, golden eagle, willow flycatcher, and three-toed woodpecker (Parrish et al. 2002). The Cassin’s finch, three-toed woodpecker, and broad-tailed hummingbird are associated with conifer and/or aspen within the allotments; the broad-tailed hummingbird and willow flycatcher are associated with the riparian vegetation type; the black-rosy finch is associated with the high/rocky alpine habitat; and the prairie falcon and golden eagle may use all these habitats, but are more closely associated with the cliffs and open habitats within the allotments (Parrish et al. 2002, Sedgwick 2000, Camfield et al. 2013, Hahn 1996, Kochert et al. 2002, Steenhof 2013). Bird surveys have been conducted between 2009 and 2017 within the Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Fall Creek, and Gilbert Peak allotments and near the Painter Basin allotment (Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). During those surveys, the black-rosy finch, broad-tailed hummingbird, and prairie falcon were detected (Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). The golden eagle is an MIS species for the ANF and is evaluated in the MIS section of this document. The three-toed woodpecker is a sensitive species, and was determined absent from the project area, and as such was not evaluated. Affected Environment These allotments primarily encompass high elevation habitats. Coniferous forests in the high elevational ranges include spruce/fir type, lodgepole pine, and some mixed stands of these conifers. There are wet and dry meadows primarily composed of sedges, grasses, forbs, and low growing willows, along with lakes, ponds, and streams. There are also a few scattered aspen stands and some aspen amongst conifers on the UWCNF allotments. There is some high elevation sagebrush on the most northern allotments (UWCNF allotments) included in this analysis, and grouse whortleberry makes up the majority of ground cover within the conifer stands on all the allotments. Golden Eagle – Ashley NF MIS The golden eagle is a management indicator for cliffs and rocks on the Forest. According to analysis done for the Forest Plan, the Forest provides 23,655 acres of golden eagle habitat that is in good condition. The golden eagle is a large raptor and is found in a variety of habitats including open country, prairies, open coniferous country, barren, and mountainous areas. In the western mountains golden eagles nest and roost in cliffs or large trees with large horizontal branches at 4,000 to 10,000 feet in elevation. In Utah they begin nesting in late February to early March and the incubation time is approximately 43-45 days. Young can fly at 60-77 days and the fledging period is therefore approximately mid-July. They feed mainly in open country on small mammals (rabbits, marmots, and ground squirrels), insects, snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Grazing does not affect cliffs/rocks, but suitable golden eagle habitat (open country, open coniferous country, mountainous areas, as well as cliffs and rocks) does occur within all five ANF allotments (USDA Forest Service 2006c). There are three known golden eagle nest locations on the ANF, one of which was last active in 2002 and the other two were active in 2005 (USDA Forest Service 2006c). None of these nests occur within the allotments (USDA Forest Service 2006c).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 171 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Bird surveys have been periodically conducted within and near all five ANF allotments and the golden eagle has been documented in the Tungsten allotment and near the Painter Basin allotment (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). Data for the golden eagle at the State level and the Forest level were reviewed in the 2006 ANF MIS Report and in the Christensen 2015 Monitoring Report. Based on the data described in these reports, it is believed that the golden eagle population trend on the Forest is stable. Based on these same reports it is also believed that the ANF provides golden eagle habitat that is well distributed across the Forest. (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015) Lincoln’s Sparrow and Song Sparrow – Ashley NF MIS Lincoln’s sparrows and song sparrows are management indicator species for riparian shrubs on the Forest. Breeding habitat for the Lincoln’s sparrow ranges from subalpine and montane zones found mainly in boggy, willow, sedge and moss-dominated habitats, particularly where shrub cover is dense to lower elevations where they prefer mesic willow shrubs, but can be found in mixed deciduous wood groves such as aspen and cottonwoods, mixed shrub willows, as well as a variety of other riparian habitat types. Lincoln’s sparrows nest on the ground in areas of concealing vegetation and sometimes in low bush. Lincoln’s sparrows are considered granivores and insectivores. They have a clutch size of three to six (usually four to five) young; they can have up to two broods per year and young is tended by both parents. Young leave the nest at 10-12 days old. Breeding habitat for the song sparrow consists of a wide range of forest, shrub, and riparian habitats. Other types of habitat used include, grassland/herbaceous, fields, shrubland, and woodlands (such as conifers and hardwoods). Song sparrows nest on the ground, especially early in the season among clumps of dead grasses, weeds, and later in the season they nest 0.5-10m up in young conifer, thorny bushes, willows, cattails and cordgrass. Song sparrows are considered granivores and invertivores. Song sparrows have 3-6 young; 2-3 broods per year. Incubation usually lasts 12-13 days by the female. The young are taken care of by both parents and they leave the nest at about 10 days old. Young are usually on their own at about 18-20 days, and are sexually mature in one year. Between 2009 and 2017, bird surveys were conducted in all five ANF allotments, but Lincoln’s sparrows were only detected in the Tungsten allotment (Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). There were no song sparrows detected (Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). Suitable habitat (riparian shrub) for the Lincoln’s sparrow and song sparrow occurs within all the allotments. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Data for the Lincoln’s sparrow and the song sparrow at the State level and Forest level were reviewed in the 2006 ANF MIS Report and the Christensen 2015 Monitoring Report. Based on the data described in these reports, it is believed that both the Lincoln’s sparrow and song sparrow population trends on the Forest are stable. Based on these same reports it is also believed that the ANF provides habitat that is well distributed across the Forest. (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 172 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

White-tailed Ptarmigan – Ashley NF MIS The white-tailed ptarmigan is an indicator species for alpine meadows on the Forest. They inhabit alpine tundra with sparse vegetation in high mountains. They breed at timberline adjacent to spruce-willow alpine areas, otherwise known as krummholz16. During the winter, ptarmigan inhabit areas associated with tall willows exposed above the snow along stream courses or areas associated with low-growing willow that are exposed above the snow in high windswept basins near timberline. Breeding occurs in early May in areas that consist of bare southerly exposures or windswept areas that are associated with willow. Nests are found on the ground in snow free areas, usually under a small shrub or next to rocks larger than six inches. In the Uinta Mountains, eggs are incubated for 23 days and usually hatch by mid to late July. Broods are usually found near succulent vegetation at the periphery of the highest alpine basins ranging in elevations from 11,200 to 13,000 feet. They feed on willow, forbs, leaves, flowers and some insects. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Between 2009 and 2017 surveys were conducted for ptarmigan on the Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, and Fall Creek allotments, and near the Painter Basin allotment (Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). Ptarmigan or evidence of their presence was observed on all allotments surveyed (Christensen 2015, USDA Forest Service 2017a). Suitable habitat (alpine meadow) for the white-tailed ptarmigan occurs within all the allotments. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Data for the white-tailed ptarmigan in the Uintas was reviewed in the 2006 ANF MIS Report and the Christensen 2015 Report. Based on the data described in these reports, it is believed that the white-tailed ptarmigan population on the Forest is stable, is well distributed throughout its limited range on the Forest, and sustains an annual harvest. (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015) Rocky Mountain Elk – Ashley NF MIS Elk in Utah and Wyoming are hunted, provide an important recreational activity on the ANF, and bring in considerable economic activity to local communities. Elk are listed as a MIS for the Forest because of their economic importance as a hunted species. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Elk on the ANF occupy most habitats from the highest elevations to the lowest. Typically they migrate to the lower elevations (winter habitat) on the periphery of the Forest or to adjacent low elevational non-Forest Service lands in the winter months. The largest portions of winter habitat that occur on the Forest, occur on the south unit of the Duchesne Ranger District and in the National Recreation Area of the Flaming Gorge Ranger District. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Elk consume a combination of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Winter foraging habitat, which has been documented as the limiting habitat factor for elk, consists primarily of browse and grass species such as aspen, sagebrush, mahogany, oak brush, serviceberry, snowberry, and bitterbrush. With the exception of Wyoming big sagebrush, the mountain brush (mahogany, bitterbrush, serviceberry) and sagebrush communities (black sagebrush and Mountain big sagebrush) on the Forest appear to be in good condition. (USDA Forest Service 2006c)

16 Stunted windblown trees growing at high elevations near timberline.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 173 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Elk require some element of escape and protection. Therefore, cover is an important component of elk habitat. Elk use dense cover for seclusion away from disturbance, and as thermal protection. Except for some areas of the Forest with conifer encroachment, aspen stands appear to be in good condition and regeneration is occurring. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) The rutting season occurs in September and October, with the peak of the rut occurring in mid to late September. Calves are usually born from mid-May to early June (USDA Forest Service 2006c). The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has set elk population objectives for each of the elk subunits in the state. The elk population objectives and current population estimates for the six wildlife management subunits in which the ANF occurs are outlined in Table 34. Table 34 - Rocky Mountain elk population estimates(post hunting season) and objectives for each subunit on the Ashley NF.1 Wildlife Population Management Population Objective Subunits Estimates

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 North Slope, West 1,300 1,200 1,300 1,600 1,700 1,600 1,650 Daggett South Slope, Vernal 3,000 2,700 3,100 2,500 2,700 1,900 2,300 South Slope, 5,000 5,900 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,200 7,200 Yellowstone Nine Mile, Anthro 700 1,450 850 900 1,000 950 1,000 Wasatch Mountains, 1,800 1,900 1,750 1,900 1,900 1,400 1,900 Avintaquin North Slope, Three 700 550 400 600 350 400 400 Corners 1 Source: UDWR 2016, 2017, 2018. Except for the North Slope Three Corners Unit, the elk populations for these subunits have nearly met or exceeded the population objectives. The five ANF allotments contain elk summer habitat and reside within the South Slope, Yellowstone unit, which is above the population objective. The UDWR continues to issue cow elk permits in an attempt to reduce the population on the unit. Based on the data described in the 2006 MIS Report, the Christensen 2015 Report, and the population estimates over the last five years (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, UDWR 2016, UDWR 2017), it appears that the elk population on the Forest is stable and sustains an annual harvest. Based on these same data and reports, it appears that the ANF provides elk habitat that is well distributed across the Forest. (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, UDWR 2016, UDWR 2017, UDWR 2018c). Mule Deer – Ashley NF MIS Mule deer in Utah and Wyoming are hunted, provide an important recreational activity on the ANF, and bring in considerable economic activity to local communities. Mule deer are listed as a MIS for the Forest because of their economic importance as a hunted species (USDA Forest Service 2006c).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 174 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Mule Deer occur in coniferous forests, desert shrubs, chaparral, grasslands with shrubs, and are often associated with early successional vegetation. In Utah they occupy most ecosystems and are found in nearly all habitats in the state, although they are less abundant in desert areas. Mule deer habitat is nearly always characterized by areas of thick brush or trees (escape cover), interspersed with openings (foraging areas). Mule deer on the ANF occupy most habitats from the highest elevations to the lowest. Typically they migrate to the lower elevations (winter habitat) on the periphery of the Forest or to adjacent low elevational non-Forest Service lands in the winter months. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) Mule deer eat a wide variety of plants including herbaceous plants (grasses and forbs) during the spring and summer, and the current year’s growth of leaves and stems of browse species during the fall and winter. Winter foraging habitat, which has been documented as the limiting habitat factor for mule deer, consists primarily of browse species such as sagebrush, mahogany, oak brush, serviceberry, and bitterbrush. The Forest provides a limited amount of this critical winter habitat, which is located at the lower elevations on the periphery of the Forest and on the South Unit. With the exception of Wyoming big sagebrush, the mountain brush (mahogany, bitterbrush, serviceberry) and sagebrush communities (black sagebrush and Mountain big sagebrush) on the Forest appear to be in good condition. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) The breeding (rutting) season occurs in the fall with the peak of the rut occurring in mid- November. In late spring the does seek solitude for fawning, and fawns are normally born during the month of June with an average fawning date in Utah of June 20. (USDA Forest Service 2006c) The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has set mule deer population objectives for each of the mule deer subunits in the state. The mule deer population objectives and current population estimates for the five wildlife management subunits in which the ANF occurs are outlined in Table 35. All five subunits are below the population objectives. However, this table also indicates a substantial increasing population trend for four of the five units over last five years. The one exception is the South Slope, Vernal/Diamond unit which is slightly down. The Ashley allotments occur within mule deer summer habitat and within the South Slope Yellowstone Unit, which is below the population objective. Although the population has decreased in this unit the last two years, there has been an overall increase of 1,800 individuals since 2012. Table 35 - Mule deer population objectives and estimates in selected subunits on the Ashley NF.1 Wildlife Management Population Population

Subunits Objective Estimates

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 North Slope Unit 10,000 5,700 6,200 7,400 9,700 9,100 8,200 South Slope, 15,000 11,600 12,300 11,100 13,000 11,100 10,900 Vernal/Diamond South Slope, 13,000 7,000 7,200 8,700 9,700 9,900 8,800 Yellowstone Nine Mile Unit 8,500 4,600 4,700 5,400 6,800 6,900 7,300 Wasatch Mountains, 5,000 1,500 2,300 2,500 3,500 4,000 3,700 Avintaquin 1 Source: UDWR 2016, 2017, 2018.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 175 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Based on the data described in the 2006 MIS Report, the Christensen 2015 Report, and the population estimates over the last five years (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, UDWR 2016, UDWR 2017), it appears that the mule deer population on the Forest has increased over the last 5 years and sustains an annual harvest. Based on these same reports (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, UDWR 2016, UDWR 2017), it appears that the ANF provides mule deer habitat that is well distributed across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2006c, Christensen 2015, UDWR 2016, UDWR 2017, UDWR 2018c). Methodology Wildlife surveys have been conducted on a periodic or annual basis (depending on species) on the allotments, with the most recent surveys occurring form 2014-2017. Surveys included breeding bird surveys, woodpecker surveys, goshawk surveys, ptarmigan surveys, and big game surveys. The results of these methods provided information for the analysis below. The analysis also reviewed literature pertinent to each species that is discussed below, which aided in the determination of potential effects of the project to those species. Measurement Indicators The measures and indicators listed below were chosen because they would help determine if grazing the allotments would trigger changes in wildlife habitat (foraging, breeding, or nesting). These indicators will be used to compare and contrast effects between alternatives. • Habitat disturbance from grazing would be considered substantial if it is determined that grazing would permanently displace wildlife, and/or adversely affect foraging, breeding, or nesting habitat. o This determination would be measured by the following measures: if the vegetative communities on the allotments that are affected by grazing are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions, and if grazing is negatively impacting vegetative communities associated with wildlife habitat (foraging, breeding, or nesting). Bounds of Analysis The spatial bounds of the analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be the allotment boundaries. This area was selected as the cumulative effects area, because it is large enough to capture effects that may directly and cumulatively affect wildlife. The temporal bounds for direct and indirect effects are three years from implementation, while for cumulative effects the bounds will include projects that occurred three years prior to implementation and any future projects whose effects would last up to three years after implementation. The temporal bounds were selected because they are long enough to capture effects to wildlife from actions that occurred prior to implementation of the proposed action and long enough to estimate wildlife responses to the proposed action after implementation. Existing Condition Vegetative monitoring studies on the nine allotments have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover in all habitat types affected by grazing are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017,

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 176 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cameron & Huber 2018). The vegetation in these studies was inclusive of riparian areas, alpine areas, and open meadows. Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects Effects Common to All Species The effects from both Alternatives (1 and 2) described in this section are common among species. Since these effects are discussed in this section, there is no need to discuss them further in the document. The effects from Alternative 1 would be similar among species, are discussed in this section, and further discussion is not necessary. Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Under this alternative, grazing would be discontinued after two years. Based on vegetative monitoring studies on the allotments and the associated sheep driveway system; plant composition, structure, and ground cover in all habitat types affected by grazing are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017). There are a total of 27 acres of the sheep driveway system that have medium to high impacts, but this is not expected to have measureable negative effects to wildlife (refer to Alternative 2 below for explanation). Thus, two more years of grazing the allotments is unlikely to adversely affect habitat conditions for wildlife species discussed in this document. After two years, this alternative will discontinue grazing on the allotments. Once grazing is discontinued, it is anticipated that vegetation and wildlife habitat on the allotments would continue to meet desired conditions. Since vegetation would not be grazed by domestic sheep under this alternative, there would be no disturbance to wildlife habitat (direct or indirect) from domestic sheep grazing. Although desired conditions would be achieved under the grazing alternative, withdrawing domestic sheep grazing from the allotments would allow wildlife to utilize vegetation that would have otherwise been removed by domestic sheep. Thus, wildlife may benefit by withdrawing livestock grazing from the allotments. Indirect benefits to MIS and migratory birds discussed below would primarily be through benefits (vegetation available that would have otherwise been removed by livestock) to prey species. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management The effects that would result from the selection of Alternative 2 are identical to those that were discussed for sensitive species above (sheep driveway system and Fall Creek allotment). For the sake of brevity, that discussion will not be repeated here.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 177 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Management Indicator Species/Focal Species Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Northern Goshawk17 – WCNF Focal Species The goshawk is also a sensitive species and effects to this species from domestic sheep grazing on the allotments and associated driveway system were analyzed in the Biological Evaluation (BE). The BE determined that the continued grazing alternative may impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of this species on the WCNF. Lincoln’s Sparrow, Song Sparrow, White-tailed ptarmigan, and Golden Eagle – Ashley NF MIS Grazing does not occur within cliffs and rocks, therefore this type of golden eagle nesting habitat would not be affected by grazing. Grazing may have a direct effect on golden eagle prey species if it alters the vegetative structure on the allotments and/or reduce forage and cover availability for their prey species. Likewise grazing can also affect Lincoln’s sparrows, song sparrows, and white-tailed ptarmigan if it reduces hiding cover for nests or it reduces availability of food resources (Stephens and Anderson 2003). However, vegetative monitoring studies on the allotments have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover in all habitat types affected by grazing are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016). These conditions and trends are also expected to continue in the future concurrent with grazing, with the use of the key characteristics discussed in the Vegetation Report (Huber 2016, Cameron & Huber 2018). Thus vegetative conditions that would be favorable to the above species’ foraging and/or nesting requirements are likely to be maintained concurrent with grazing. Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer – Ashley NF MIS Winter habitat for elk and deer is not located on the allotments and would not be affected by grazing these allotments. Intensive grazing of grasses and forbs can cause forage competition between domestic livestock and elk and deer (Lindzey et al. 1997). Conflicts between livestock and big game species typically occur in meadows (Lindzey et al. 1997), due to the preference shown by all ungulates for these areas. These conflicts can displace elk and deer and/or deplete forage resources, causing big game to move to other areas in order to meet their forage needs (Lindzey et al. 1997). However, elk and deer on the South Slope, Yellowstone unit do not appear to be competing with domestic sheep for forage and it also appears that grazing on these allotments by domestic sheep has had no negative effects to elk or deer (fawning, calving, foraging, summering, etc.). The elk population has stayed above the population objective and the deer population has increased by 25 percent over the last 5 years concurrent with domestic sheep grazing the allotments. Furthermore, vegetative monitoring studies on the allotments have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron & Huber 2018). As stated above in the Forest

17 Goshawk territories and goshawk habitat (aspen stands) potentially affected by grazing do not occur on the five ANF allotments.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 178 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Plan Direction section, maintaining these desired conditions would provide wildlife habitat on the Forest for a variety of wildlife, including elk and deer. Birds of Conservation Concern (Migratory Birds) and Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Grazing rarely occurs, if at all, in coniferous forests and aspen does not occur on these allotments. Therefore, grazing would not affect the Cassin’s finch, nor this part of the broad-tailed hummingbird habitat. Vegetative monitoring studies in plant communities affected by grazing on the allotments (including riparian, alpine, and open meadows) have shown that plant composition, structure, and ground cover are in satisfactory condition and are meeting desired conditions concurrent with grazing (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). Thus, although grazing may remove and disturb some vegetation in these habitat types (riparian, alpine, and open meadows) associated with the broad-tailed hummingbird, willow flycatcher, prairie falcon, and black-rosy finch, the vegetation continues to be in satisfactory condition and provides habitat for these bird species (including their prey). Thus, grazing on the allotments may have some effects to these bird species, but it is unlikely to adversely affect these species’ populations as a whole. Cumulative Effects The term “wildlife” below refers to MIS and migratory birds discussed above. Cumulative impacts to wildlife habitat would include wildfire, timber harvest, and firewood gathering. Prescribed burning is an activity that does not occur within these allotments, and therefore will not be discussed. In addition to the actions that are cumulative with the project (based on the measurement indicators chosen above) , there are other actions taking place within the allotments that while not cumulative to the project, are cumulative in terms of their effects on the overall condition of the wildlife. These actions include prospecting, camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, backcountry skiing. Timber harvest occurred in some of the UWCNF allotments prior to wilderness designation in 1985. However, because of wilderness designation there has been no timber harvest within these ten allotments since then and no harvests will occur in the future. There is an active timber harvest outside the wilderness, but along the sheep driveway system in the East Fork-Blacks Fork and a timber harvest that occurred in the Blacks Fork drainage in 2005. However since overall vegetative conditions along the sheep driveway are in satisfactory condition concurrent with grazing, this current and past timber harvest is unlikely to be an additive impact to wildlife. Wildfire is rare within the project area, with fire intervals estimated between 400 to 600 years (Huber 2016). One historic fire is documented near the timberline of Brush Creek and Middle Fork-Blacks Fork and another at the mouth of Gilbert Creek in the Painter Basin allotment (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). Fire initially can reduce habitat and prey availability for wildlife. As the burns revegetate, habitat for wildlife increases in quality for a variety of wildlife species. In the short term (within the first year after the burn), species would be negatively affected by wildfire due to loss of these species habitat and/or prey species habitat. Grazing in burned areas can inhibit the regeneration of the tree and shrub component as well as the regeneration of favorable grass and forb species. However, plant communities within these

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 179 Draft Environmental Impact Statement allotments are meeting desired conditions and grazing does not appear to be negatively affecting vegetation in the burn areas. Therefore the effects to wildlife from wildfire coupled with continued grazing of the allotments would be negligible. Firewood gathering occurs near campsites concentrated around lakes within the allotments and removes some snags and down woody debris that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. However, firewood gathering occurs in areas not grazed by livestock. Therefore the effects to these species from firewood gathering coupled with grazing the allotments would be negligible. Cumulative impacts to wildlife such as prospecting, camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, backcountry skiing, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing may contribute to disturbance to wildlife and their prey species within the allotments. Human activities (sheep herder camp) associated with domestic sheep grazing would be negligible when compared to the other human activities (camping, fishing, hiking/backpacking, etc.) that normally occur (4,300+ visitors that registered) during the summer months on the allotments (Asay 2018). The primary effect domestic sheep would have on wildlife is grazing vegetation that wildlife may use. However, conditions on the allotments are meeting desired conditions (Huber 2016, Cameron 2017, Cameron & Huber 2018). Therefore combining these activities with grazing on the allotments would have little measurable effects to wildlife species. Based on the discussion above, it is determined that these cumulative effects combined with grazing on the allotments, would not adversely affect wildlife. It is also determined that these cumulative impacts combined with grazing of the allotments would not affect the trend of MIS populations on the ANF or the WCNF focal species (goshawk), nor impair the ability of the ANF to provide well-distributed habitat for these species, or impair the ability of the WCNF to contribute to the ecological conditions necessary to support the northern goshawk. Summary of Effects and Findings Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Habitat for three Ashley NF MIS (red-naped sapsucker, warbling vireo, and greater sage-grouse) do not occur on the five ANF allotments, therefore these ANF MIS would not be affected by either alternative. Additionally, there are no goshawk territories nor goshawk habitat potentially affected by grazing (aspen stands) within the five ANF allotments, therefore this ANF MIS (goshawk) would not be affected by either alternative. Habitat for two migratory birds (three-toed woodpecker and Cassin’s finch) occur on the allotments, but would not be affected by grazing these allotments. Based on the above rationale, it is determined that this alternative may benefit wildlife, and there would be no negative effect to the trend of Lincoln’s sparrow, song sparrow, white- tailed ptarmigan, golden eagle, elk, or mule deer on the ANF nor impair the ability of the Forest to provide well-distributed habitat for these species. Based on the effects analysis in the BE for the northern goshawk, it is determined that this alternative would not affect the trend of the goshawk population on the WCNF (only terrestrial focal species on WCNF) or impair the ability of the Forest to contribute to the ecological conditions necessary to support this species (refer to the BE). It is also determined that this alternative may benefit migratory birds, and would not adversely affect the habitat or populations of those bird species on the list of Birds of Conservation Concern or the PIF Priority Species list, specifically the

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 180 Draft Environmental Impact Statement broad-tailed hummingbird, prairie falcon, golden eagle, willow flycatcher, and black-rosy finch. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Current Management Based on the above rationale, it is determined that domestic sheep grazing on the Painter, Tungsten, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, and Fall Creek allotments and the associated sheep driveway system would not affect the trend of MIS populations (golden eagle, Lincoln’s sparrow, song sparrow, white-tailed ptarmigan, elk, and mule deer) on the ANF or impair the ability of the Forest to provide well-distributed habitat for these species. It is also determined that domestic sheep grazing on the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork- Blacks Fork, and Middle Fork-Blacks Fork allotments and the associated sheep driveway system would not affect the trend of the goshawk population on the WCNF (only terrestrial focal species on WCNF) or impair the ability of the Forest to contribute to the ecological conditions necessary to support this species (refer to the BE). It is also determined that grazing on all ten High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep allotments and the associated sheep driveway system would not adversely affect the habitat or populations of those bird species on the list of Birds of Conservation Concern or the PIF Priority Species list, specifically the broad-tailed hummingbird, prairie falcon, golden eagle, willow flycatcher, and black- rosy finch. Fisheries and Aquatics Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and Focal Species There are no threatened or endangered aquatic species that occur on either the UWCNF or ANF. The Intermountain Region Sensitive Species list was last updated in May 2014http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/tes/regional_forester_sensitive_species_list/. Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah), boreal toad (Bufo boreas), Northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei), Southern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae), and Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiuentris) are the only aquatic sensitive species identified for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. For the Ashley National Forest, the only aquatic sensitive species identified are Colorado River cutthroat trout, Columbia spotted frog, and boreal toad. Of these species, only Colorado River cutthroat trout and possibly boreal toad occur within the project area. Currently, CRCT are found in seven of the ten proposed allotments although non-native trout (brook trout especially) continue to replace CRCT throughout the project area through competition and predation. Management Indicator Species (MIS)/Focal Species are surrogate measures used in the evaluation of ecological sustainability, including species and ecosystem diversity. The key characteristic of MIS/focal species is that the species status and trends provide insights to the integrity of the larger ecological system those species belong to. Management indicator species include CRCT and macroinvertebrates for the Ashley NF and CRCT is a focal species for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 181 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Affected Environment Colorado River cutthroat trout, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians Colorado River cutthroat trout Colorado River cutthroat trout have been surveyed for population data over the years and detailed information is available for the allotments in the project area. For brevity that data is not repeated here in this document. However, a detailed description of the population data for CRCT by streams and allotments is located in the Aquatics Resource Report (project record). Colorado River cutthroat trout are a subspecies of cutthroat trout. Any description or finding for CRCT also applies to cutthroat trout in general. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrate species monitored as ANF MIS include three mayfly, one stonefly, and one dipteran species (Table 36). These species are but a sample of the species considered when aquatic macroinvertebrate samples are collected for evaluation of the aquatic system. The ANF has been collecting macroinvertebrate data on most major streams since 1975. Macroinvertabrates are not used as a monitoring tool on the UWCNF, however, the State of Utah Division of Environmental Quality (UDWQ) monitors macroinvertabrates throughout the state including areas downstream of the project area. The 2016 UDWQ integrate report for water quality lists the East Fork Smiths Fork, Blacks Fork, Henrys Fork, Rock Creek, Lake Fork, and Yellowstone drainages as fully supporting beneficial uses for coldwater fisheries. Table 36 – Ashley National Forest macroinvertebrate MIS and associated habitat requirement and tolerance description. Species Description

Mayfly Requires good water quality and good instream habitat. Must have Epeorus sp. resident population.

Depends upon leaf litter for nutrients. Relative numbers generally Stonefly indicate level of riparian habitat quality or quantity (lower Zapada sp. numbers/diversity associated with poorer habitat, higher numbers/diversity associated with better habitat). Mayfly Requires good water quality and good instream habitat. Relative Ephemerella doddsi numbers can indicate habitat quality. Mayfly Moderately tolerant to sediment. Indicator of possible erosion issues Ephemerella inermis when their numbers increase. Highly tolerant to multiple forms of pollution. Particularly tolerant to Dipteran Chironomidae sedimentation. Often dominate the community when pollution is severe.

All perennial water within the proposed project areas is considered suitable habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. As a food source, aquatic macroinvertebrates are essential to the growth and production of fish. Biotic Condition Indices (BCIs), is an index of percent of predicted macroinvertebrate assemblage. Generally, BCI values greater than 90 indicate excellent health of the stream ecosystem and higher BCIs (> 75), typically correlate with higher macroinvertebrate community diversity, which in turn, corresponds to greater habitat diversity and higher water quality.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 182 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic macroinvertebrate samples were collected in Rock Creek, Lake Fork River, Yellowstone River and Uinta River in 2014. The results of these samples provided an estimated BCI of 87, 92, 78, and 83 respectively. This indicates good water quality and aquatic ecosystem conditions within the drainage upstream. Amphibians There are no known populations of sensitive amphibians (boreal toad or Columbia spotted frog) within or near the allotments of the project area. Habitat for boreal toad is found throughout the project area and is in good condition. Aside from sensitive amphibian species, there are strong populations of tiger salamanders and boreal chorus frogs that were identified at a number of water features within the project area. Both are native species and are common throughout both Forests. General Drainage Patterns and Water Features Stream flows in the project area are primarily influenced by snowmelt. Peak flows generally occur from mid-May to early June and gradually recede to base flows in mid to late August. Base flows continue from this time until April, when temperatures begin to warm. Rainfall from summer storms are generally localized and can result in peaks that exceed snowmelt peaks. The analysis area is located in the 10 grazing allotments and includes portions of the Smiths Fork, Blacks Fork and Henrys Fork drainages on the UWCNF in addition to portions of the Rock Creek, Lake Fork, Yellowstone and Uinta Drainages on the ANF. Drainage patterns, water features, channel stability, wetlands, and floodplains are described in the Water Resources chapter. For additional information on these allotments and conditions, please see Cowley 2006 (Henry’s Fork, Gilbert Peak Allotment Report, Aquatics), Cowley 2007 (Red Castle, East Fork Allotment Report, Aquatics), Thompson 2006 (Poison Mountain, Red Mountain Allotment Report, Aquatics). Maps of the individual allotments illustrating the drainage features and water resources are contained in the Fisheries and Aquatics Resource Report (project record). Methodology Electrofishing surveys are used to monitor fish populations and determine trends. As trout are a Management Indicator Species/Focal Species, trout populations are monitored frequently and population trends have been established. Amphibian surveys have occurred throughout the project area. Aquatic invertebrates are a management indicator species for the ANF. Invertebrates are monitored across the Forest. No invertebrate monitoring has occurred on the UWCNF. The methodology for assessing effects on fisheries and aquatic resources is to use information on channel stability, wetlands and riparian conditions, and fish, amphibians and invertebrates. Electrofishing surveys are used to monitor fish populations and determine trends. As trout are a Management Indicator Species/Focal Species, trout populations are monitored frequently and population trends have been established. Amphibian surveys have occurred throughout the project area. Aquatic invertebrates are a management indicator species for the ANF and are monitored across the Forest.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 183 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Conclusions from the water resources section were used for channel stability, wetlands and riparian condition assessments. Information Sources Several sources of information are used in this analysis. Field trips to the allotments were conducted from 2006 to 2015, and fish population monitoring has been conducted on fish bearing streams. Aerial photos, topographic and orthophoto maps, and GIS information were used to identify water features, wetlands, and floodplains. Specialist reports that were generated to support prior range decisions were also incorporated. Incomplete and Unavailable Information The information is adequate for assessing the environmental effects of the proposal. The information that is collected is expected to represent most of the conditions found in the area at the present time. Measurement Indicators for Effects Determination Resource indicators and measures used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects are shown in Table 37. A review of literature indicates that most environmental concerns with grazing animals occur at high animal densities that may cause overgrazing of vegetation, soil trampling and compaction, or substantial soil erosion that may result in sediment entering streams. Trout, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates are directly monitored. Changes in populations may indicate concerns with existing management. For channel stability, stream bank trampling is used as an indicator of water quality because it can cause sedimentation of streams that can carry nutrients with it. Heavy loads of suspended solids in water can reflect erosion from pastures and areas of heavy use by grazing animals. Number of livestock stream crossings and length of unstable streambank are measures that were chosen because they give an indication of the amount of impact from areas where livestock concentrate that would likely have high sedimentation, direct input of nutrients and bacteria to a stream. For wetland and riparian function, the condition of wetlands was chosen as an indicator because a study of the condition of wetlands was recently conducted on several of the allotments within the project area and grazing impacts were assessed in the reports. The condition of wetland and riparian areas are an indicator of habitat quality for amphibians. Table 37 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to aquatic resources. Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure 1 - Trout, Amphibians and Populations Changes in population Aquatic Invertebrates 2 - Channel Stability Sediment delivery and Length of stream bank with increased streamside cover trampling by livestock (feet and % of stream length)

3 - Wetland/Riparian Condition of Wetland condition rating Function wetlands/riparian areas

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 184 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects The spatial extent of the direct and indirect effects for wetland/riparian function is encompassed within the watershed boundaries (Figure 13) that fall within the project area boundary. Most of the direct and indirect effects would be observed on specific perennial stream segments within these boundaries. Some indirect effects are expected downstream of the areas of direct impacts along perennial stream segments but all direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing would be encompassed within the streams within the watershed boundaries that fall within the project area boundary. Also included in the direct and indirect analysis area are the sheep driveways that are outside of the project allotments but are connected to the proposed action. The temporal scale for direct and indirect water impacts can be as short as one season and to up to three years based on the estimated recovery of streambank and riparian vegetation. Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects The spatial extent of the direct and indirect effects for wetland/riparian function is encompassed within the watershed boundaries (Table 5) that fall within the project area boundary. Most of the direct and indirect effects would be observed on specific perennial stream segments within these boundaries. Some indirect effects are expected downstream of the areas of direct impacts along perennial stream segments but all direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing would be encompassed within the streams within the watershed boundaries that fall within the project area boundary. Also included in the direct and indirect analysis area are the sheep driveways that are outside of the project allotments but are connected to the proposed action. The temporal scale for direct and indirect water impacts can be as short as one season and to up to three years based on the estimated recovery of streambank and riparian vegetation. Existing Condition Table 38 presents the resource indicators and measures for the current condition in the project area. A discussion of each indicator and measure is presented below the table. Table 38 - Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition.

Resource Resource Element Measure Existing Condition Indicator

1 - Trout, Aquatic Populations Changes in population CRCT currently occur on 7 of Macro numbers the 10 allotments. Trout Invertebrates, and populations occur in all Amphibians allotments. BCI are all above Forest Plan requirements. No known boreal toad populations, but over 13,000 acres of habitat in good condition. 2 - Channel Stability Sediment delivery Length of stream bank 1,235’ on UWCNF and streamside with excessive 150’ on ANF cover trampling by livestock (feet and % of stream 0.15% on UWCNF length) 0.02% on ANF

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 185 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Resource Element Measure Existing Condition Indicator

3 - Wetland and Condition of Wetland condition On the UWCNF, over 90% of Riparian Function wetlands/riparian rating wetlands are in reference areas condition. On the ANF visual observations indicate wetland conditions are better than UWCNF because most impacts to wetlands are along sheep driveways which do not occur on the ANF. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Trout Populations, Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians Colorado River cutthroat trout occur in seven of the ten allotments while trout (including non- native) occur in all ten allotments. Electrofishing surveys have occurred on fish bearing streams across the allotments. While healthy populations of CRCT currently occur on seven of the ten allotments, non-native fish continue to expand and replace CRCT. No known populations of boreal toad occur in the project area, although there is good habitat found throughout the project area and individuals could occur within the project area. Abundant wetland habitat occurs throughout the project area. With over 13,000 acres of wetlands, other amphibian species (chorus frog and tiger salamander) are common. Wetland habitats are in good condition with little disturbance from livestock. All biotic condition indices were above ANF plan requirements. Biotic condition indices results indicate streams in the project area are in good condition with low sediment, with clean, cold, well oxygenated water. Sampling also indicates project area streams contain high macroinvertebrate community diversity. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Channel Stability On the WCNF, there are 70 stream crossings along the sheep driveway; most of them occur in the East Fork Blacks Fork drainage. The main impacts to aquatic species is from sedimentation that occurs from bank trampling along 1,235 feet of perennial stream banks located at sheep driveway stream crossings including the sheep driveway outside of the allotments that is used to access the allotments (0.15 percent of perennial streams impacted). There are no sheep driveways on the ANF allotments. On the ANF, stream banks are mostly stable due to the high amounts of vegetation and rock dominated channels. Grazing impacts were observed at sheep crossings along two of the streams. From stream surveys in the Painter, Ottoson Basin, and Tungsten allotments, about 150 feet of perennial stream had stream banks showing signs of concentrated sheep hoof prints (0.02 percent of perennial streams impacted). No other impacts to stream banks were noted in field reviews on the ANF allotments. Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Wetland and Riparian Condition On the WCNF and ANF, there is little impact to wetlands in the allotments from sheep grazing. Riparian areas continue to function well and stream channels are stable (see in Figure 18 and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 186 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 19 in the hydrology section). The main impacts to riparian areas occur along 1,235 feet of perennial stream which has bank trampling located at sheep driveway stream crossings. On the ANF, observations of streams that are considered typical in the upper drainages of the High Uinta Mountains streams are densely vegetated with sedges and willows in meadow areas. The streams consist of boulders and cobbles that are braided with multiple channels in moderately steep terrain. These streams have high bank stability with minimal impacts from livestock. In summary, the current conditions as they relate to aquatic resources, aside from the 1,235 feet of bank trampling associated with the sheep driveways, are all in good condition. All resource indicators are above Forest Plan requirements and indicate nearly 100 percent of project area streams and wetlands are in reference condition. Strong populations of trout occur throughout the project area. Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Trout, Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians Grazing would be phase out over two years under this alternative. After domestic grazing was removed, it is expected that improvements would occur over four to five years in wetlands and streams for areas showing impacts from grazing. Sheep driveways would slowly (10 to 50 years) heal and shrink in size to hiking trails. These trails would remain indefinitely on the landscape. Fish populations in all drainages would continue to persist in the long-term (next 50 to 100 years) with natural population fluctuations occurring. Colorado River cutthroat trout are likely to continue to persist in the project area, however, populations are likely to continue to decrease due to expanding non-native trout populations. Amphibians (chorus frog and tiger salamander) in the project area would remain common with little change to their habitat. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Channel Stability The direct effects of the no action alternative would be a reduction of perennial stream bank trampling primarily along the sheep driveways. Stream bank trampling is expected to continue where hiking trails cross streams of which 57 crossings are also currently part of the sheep driveway. Based on field observations of stream crossings on hiking trails that are not along the sheep driveways, the typical hiking trail tramples the banks along five feet of stream. Assuming that bank trampling along hiking trails would impact five feet of stream, then 57 stream crossings along the sheep driveway would still be used on the hiking trails and would result in about 285 feet of stream impacted by bank trampling after vegetation recovers along the stream banks from sheep impacts. Outside of the area of the sheep driveway, there are 132 hiking trail stream crossings and based on field observations the stream crossings are about five feet wide. Over 99 percent of the stream banks in the allotments would continue to be stable with dense, deep-rooted vegetation such as willows and sedges and large cobbles or boulders.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 187 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Wetland and Riparian Function For riparian function under the no action alternative, direct effects to wetland areas would be a reduction in livestock trampling mainly in wetland areas adjacent to the sheep driveway. Over 90 percent of the wetlands surveyed (27 out of 28) in the allotments are functioning in a reference condition and the no action alternative would increase all wetlands to almost 100 percent reference condition providing amphibians with ample habitat condition. The total wetland area for all of the allotments in the project area is approximately 13,122 acres. Most of the wetlands in the project area are freshwater emergent or freshwater forest/shrub wetlands. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Trout, Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians It is expected that improvements would continue to occur slowly over the next 10 to 15 years to wetlands and streams in areas showing impacts from grazing. Fish populations in all drainages would continue to persist in the long-term (50 to 100 years) with natural population fluctuations occurring. Colorado River cutthroat trout would continue to persist in the proposed project area, however, populations can be expected to decrease due to expanding non-native trout populations. Strong populations of tiger salamanders and boreal chorus frog were identified at a number of water features within the project area. For these species it appears livestock grazing have had little effect. Boreal toads have not been found within the proposed project area, however, good habitat is abundant and they may be present. Recent studies have documented different responses by amphibians due to livestock grazing (Burton et al. 2009). Domestic sheep may negatively impact amphibians by affecting aquatic and terrestrial environments through trampling. However, it appears toads (Bufo sp.) may be impacted less by environmental changes associated with livestock grazing by keeping aquatic plants from becoming too thick in breeding ponds. Allowing controlled livestock access in wetlands may even have a positive effect on Bufo sp. (Burton et al. 2009). The biggest effects of sheep grazing on amphibians likely occur from trampling of eggs and juveniles when they have limited mobility. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Channel Stability Under Alternative 2, stream crossings would continue to be impacted by livestock. The length of impacted perennial stream bank is estimated to be 1,285 feet and this length would likely remain the same due to continued use by sheep along sheep driveways. With only 0.15 percent of UWCNF and 0.02 percent of ANF perennial streams impacted by sheep, sediment delivery to streams due to sheep grazing is not measurable from background conditions, because sheep are only trailed a couple of times a year. Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Wetland and Riparian Function For riparian function under Alternative 2, direct effects to wetland areas from livestock trampling would continue to occur mainly in wetland areas adjacent to sheep driveways. Over 90 percent of wetlands in the project area are in reference condition and Alternative 2 would maintain these conditions due to continued use by sheep. Wetland conditions are being used since past amphibian surveys were unable to locate any boreal toad in the project area. With wetland

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 188 Draft Environmental Impact Statement conditions being so abundant and in reference condition, minimal impacts to amphibian habitat through sheep grazing is expected. Table 39 below presents the expected effects to the measurement indicators from both alternatives.

Table 39 - Resource indicators and measures for both alternatives (direct and indirect effects). Resource Resource Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Element Indicator Proposed Action

CRCT currently occur on 7 of the 10 allotments. CRCT populations will 1 - Trout, continue to decrease as Aquatic Changes in they are replaced by non- Macro Similar to Populations population native fish. Healthy/stable Invertebrate, Alternative 1 numbers populations of trout, and amphibians and aquatic Amphibians invertebrates will continue to occur throughout the Project Area. Length of 1,235’ on UWCNF Sediment stream bank 320’ (used for hiking trail 150’ on ANF 2 - Channel delivery and with excessive crossings) on UWCNF. 0’ Stability streamside trampling by on ANF. cover livestock (feet) % of perennial 0.04% on UWCNF, 0.15% on UWCNF, stream length 0% on ANF 0.02% on ANF Of wetlands sampled on WCNF, over 90% wetlands are in reference condition. On 3 – Wetland and Condition of Almost 100% of wetland Wetland Ashley NF, Riparian wetlands and areas would be reference condition rating observations Function riparian areas conditions. indicate better conditions than WCNF with few impacts to wetlands from sheep. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those additive effects from other projects that overlap in space and time with the effects from the proposed action. By removing grazing as would occur with Alternative 1, there would be no future effects beyond the two year notification period that would result from grazing. As such, there would be no cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1. Cumulative effects will be presented for Alternative 2. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that is the focus of this cumulative impact analysis.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 189 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Increasing Recreational Use on the Allotments Recreational activities of various kinds span the allotments, and recreational use is increasing as the visitor populations grow. The assessment of cumulative effects on recreational resources notes that this high level of recreational use is generating impacts on natural resources as well as on recreation itself. These include impacts on riparian areas due to establishment of dispersed camp sites and general foot, horse, and vehicle traffic (in areas outside the Wilderness on the UWCNF). This use intersects and contributes cumulatively to similar impacts due to grazing along sheep driveways as the same trails are used. The number of hiking trail stream crossings in each allotment ranges from four to 24. From field observations during field reviews in the project allotments, stream crossings along hiking trails are about five feet wide. Using this value for the length of stream trampled at each hiking trail stream crossing outside of the sheep driveway, the total length of stream impacted by hiking trails is 630 feet in all of the allotments and ranges from 20 feet to 120 feet within each allotment. Undetectable (negligible compared to natural variation) impact to wetland/riparian areas and to water quality occurs from hiking trails since there are few stream crossings in each allotment that result in a small amount of impact (less than one percent) along the streams and the hiking trails are distributed throughout the allotments, which reduces the amount of sedimentation at any one point. Aquatic Management Past introductions of brook trout and other non-native fish are continuing to have impacts to CRCT in several drainages in the project area. Brook trout are well established in several drainages and likely influence CRCT populations through predation and competition. These populations of non- native trout have continued to expand and likely represent the greatest threat to CRCT in the project area. The Ashley National Forest and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources are be proposing a project to implement a long-term strategy to treat selected lakes and streams within the High Uintas Wilderness and one stream (Fish Creek) outside of the Wilderness with the root-based chemical rotenone to remove competing and hybridizing nonnative trout species. The proposed project area encompasses three drainages within the High Uintas Wilderness, including the Yellowstone River, Lake Fork River and Rock Creek drainages. Within these drainages selected lakes and streams would be treated to remove all fish. Treated waters would be restocked with CRCT from the well-developed brood stock held in Sheep Creek Lake the year following the last treatment of the selected water. This project would have a one to two year effect on macro-invertebrates in the treatment area and a three-to four year effect on CRCT. Colorado River cutthroat trout will benefit from this project in the long-term (after three to four years) and will ensure their continued existence in these drainages. Summary of Effects and Findings for Sensitive, MIS and Focal Species Several Forest Service Sensitive species are not found in the project area and there is not habitat present. For these species, this project would have no impact regardless of which alternative is chosen. These species include Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris), Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), Northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei), and Southern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 190 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing For the no action alternative, grazing would be discontinued, so there would be a reduction in the amount of trampling in wetland/riparian areas and along stream crossings of the sheep driveway. If Alternative 1 were chosen, there would be No Impact to CRCT or the boreal toad after grazing ceases, which are both Regional Forest Service Sensitive Species. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management If Alternative 2 were implemented, the effects of livestock grazing on trout, amphibians and aquatic invertebrates would be the same as the existing condition. Effects to channel stability and wetland/riparian function would also be the same as the existing condition. Colorado River cutthroat trout are likely to continue to persist in the proposed project area, however, populations are expected to continue to decrease due to expanding non-native trout populations. Continued grazing would likely cause some trampling of eggs/young at stream crossings associated with the sheep driveway. Due to this, it is determined that Alternative 2 may impact individual Colorado River cutthroat trout, but would not cause a trend toward their federal listing or cause a loss of viability to their population. Boreal toad have not been documented in the proposed project area, however, suitable habitat is found throughout the allotments. Impacts related to grazing include habitat alteration and trampling; therefore, it is determined that the proposed action may impact individual boreal toad, but would not cause a trend toward their federal listing or cause a loss of viability to their population. Aquatic macro invertebrates and cutthroat trout species are an MIS for the Ashley National Forest. It is determined that healthy/stable populations of aquatic macro invertebrates and cutthroat trout would continue to occur throughout the project area regardless of alternative chosen. Wilderness and Recreation Affected Environment Background and History The project area consists of 143,971 acres of the High Uintas Wilderness (HUW), of which 66,556 acres occur on the UWC and 77,415 acres are located on the Ashley. There are approximately 453,890 acres in the HUW, and this project represents about 32 percent of the total wilderness. The HUW comprises about 90 percent of the 160,410 acre project area. The 1964 Wilderness Act established designated wilderness areas across the country, and provided a definition for wilderness. “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 191 Draft Environmental Impact Statement recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” The HUW was established in 1984 with the passing of the Utah Wilderness Act, Public Law 98- 428. That law expressly stated that grazing where previously established would be allowed to continue in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act (Section 301[a]). The lands within the HUW had authorized grazing long before the HUW was designated in 1984; and wilderness, as defined by congress, allows the continuation of grazing where previously established. The proposed action in this analysis does not change this and does not create new, additional, or amplified impacts to the wilderness resource. The presence of livestock grazing within wilderness areas is addressed in Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the 1964 Wilderness Act, which states that the grazing of livestock, where established prior to an area’s wilderness designation, be permitted to continue “subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.” Forest Service regulation (36 CFR 393.7) also states that grazing in Wilderness areas will be controlled under the general regulations governing the grazing of livestock on National Forests. In 1997, the High Uintas Wilderness Management Plan was published which provided direction for the management of the wilderness; both the Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests amended their Forest Plans to recognize the direction contained within the wilderness management plan. Both Forest Plans fully adopted the HUW Management Plan that prescribed desired conditions within the Wilderness, divided the Wilderness into three different desired condition classes (Figure 38), and included standards and guidelines addressing a comprehensive set of physical and social components of wilderness to ensure existing conditions are meeting or trending towards those desired conditions. The desired condition for the three wilderness classes are summarized below and a full description is located in the Ashley Forest Plan as amended (Amendment 12, pp. 3-5) and the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan (p.4-64). Class I Areas These areas are characterized by an unmodified natural environment. Human induced changes are temporary and minor. Human induced changes to soils, water and air quality, wildlife habitats, natural fire regimes, and vegetation do not disrupt natural processes within the watershed. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation are available. There are few, if any, system trails and encounters with other groups and rangers are rare. Generally, Class I areas are defined outside permitted livestock allotments. Lakes are generally not stocked with fish. Class II Areas These areas are characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment. Some human induced change is evident but generally not persistent Human induced changes to soils, water and air quality, wildlife habitats, natural fire regimes, and vegetation do not disrupt natural processes within the watershed. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation exist. Developed, maintained, and signed system trails exist. Livestock grazing and fish stocking may occur.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 192 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 38 – Condition Classes Within the High Uintas Wilderness.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 193 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Class III Areas These areas are characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment. Human induced change is greater than in Class I and II and could persist from year to year. Human induced changes to soils, water and air quality, wildlife habitats, natural fire regimes, and vegetation do not disrupt natural processes within the watershed. Concentrated use is more common than in Class II, but it is managed to augment opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. During peak season and at popular sites, outstanding opportunities for solitude are more limited than in Class I and II. Well- maintained and signed system trails aid visitors. Encounters with other groups, rangers, and wilderness ranger camps are more common than in Class I and II. Livestock grazing and fish stocking may occur. Setting The analysis area includes the upper reaches of the Blacks Fork, Smiths Fork, and Henry’s Fork drainages on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains (Wasatch National Forest) and the Lake Fork, Yellowstone and Uinta River drainages on the south slope of the Uinta Mountains (Ashley National Forest). The project analysis area for wilderness and recreation includes allotments located in the High Uintas Wilderness on both the north and south facing slopes of the central Uinta Mountain ridgeline. The allotments include the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake – Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork Blacks Fork, and the Middle Fork Blacks Fork on the north facing slopes and the Fall Creek, Ottoson Basin, Oweep, Tungsten, and Painter Basin on the south facing slopes. These allotments include about 32 percent of the HUW (453,890 total acres). The HUW was designated in 1984 and the management of the wilderness is described in the High Uintas Wilderness Management Plan of 1997, the Ashley Forest Plan of 1986, and the Revised Wasatch- Cache Forest Plan of 2003. Management of the non-wilderness areas in the project area is also presented in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Revised Forest Plan, and has direction to maintain roadless values for a semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunity. The project area is approximately 160,410 acres in size, of which 143,971 acres are in designated wilderness, and is grazed by 10,300 ewe-lamb pairs annually (Appendix D-Table C of the Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record[). Each allotment is divided into a number of units which are grazed in a controlled sequence and duration based on the stages of forage development, amount of forage for feed, and accessibility. Typical grazing seasons start in early July and end in early September and last about 54-67 days, depending on allotment.Optimum weather conditions for the majority of wilderness visitors coincide with those for plant growth (July- August) and thus when the domestic sheep are on the allotments. There are approximately 4,320 registered visitors to the area (averaged over five years). The majority of wilderness visitors stay on Forest system trails and visit and camp at popular destination sites such as lakes (containing fish), and scenic meadows with meandering streams. Wilderness visitors typically utilize approximately 35,251 acres (Appendix E-Table D of the Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]) within the analysis area or about 24 percent of the analysis area.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 194 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Methodology Wilderness Desired Condition Classes are based on the amount of human visitation, existence of structures, and permitted livestock grazing (see Figure 38 above). The wilderness system considers several factors when classifying an area of wilderness including the degree of being untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, opportunities for visitors to find solitude or primitive unconfined recreation; and other features of scientific or historic values. Grazing within the Wilderness is evaluated on how it impacts those factors (resource indicators). To address impacts on primitive recreation opportunities due to domestic sheep grazing, the forests estimated the amount of user visitation in the drainage, identified the high recreational use areas, determined when the domestic sheep would be using these same areas and evaluated the time of the recreational and grazing overlap (Appendix A – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]). Both Forests collect recreation use information in the drainages within the project area with the use of trailhead registries. These registries allow for users to provide information about their party which include who they are, where they are from, the dates of their visit, the number of people in their party, the number of days they will be on the Forest, and their destination within the drainages. For this analysis, the number of individuals in the party, the date of their visit, and their destination were used. These registrations are voluntary and may vary from trailhead to trailhead based on whether a person is walking or riding a horse. It is acknowledged that many visitors do not register. The exact figure has not been determined (Appendix B – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]). The allotment management plans contain allotment and unit size, rotation schedule and duration of how long the sheep are in each unit (see project record). The areas of concentrated recreational use, such as trails and fishable lakes (Figure 39), were identified, and the size of area they encompassed was determined within each allotment. It is recognized not all trails used by the visiting recreationalist are also used to trail sheep along; this was taken into account. It was assumed while some visitors will get off the trails and do some ‘exploring’, typically the majority will limit their use to the areas of concentration (Appendix C – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]). The overlapping of use by the sheep and by the recreational visitors within the same area was determined as well as the duration of the overlap. The overlap would occur on trails used both by visitors and sheep at the same time, but it also was assumed that a visitor on a trail reasonably would be aware of a herd of sheep traveling or grazing within one-quarter mile of the trail. Another overlap occurs in those open areas where suitable grazing and concentrated recreational use occur such as typically found in areas surrounding lakes and meandering streams (Appendix D – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 195 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 39 – Major Trails and Points of Interest in the Project Area and Adjacent Areas.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 196 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

It was assumed the recreational visitor would take note of the herd and may or may not adjust their plans. With the data contained in the registration forms and in the allotment management plans the number of recreational days impacted were determined (Appendix E – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]). There is a comment section on the registration forms. This gives the visitor the opportunity to provide comments as they see fit. If a visitor had a negative or a positive experience, this is where they would describe the experience. Any comments concerning their encounters with domestic sheep were noted and used in this analysis to try and determine how many of the impacted recreational days resulted in a negative or positive experience (Appendix F and G – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]). Information Sources A variety of information sources were utilized for this analysis. These included the following: Voluntary trailhead registration forms; personal observations gained during Wilderness Ranger patrols, Wilderness Manager inspections, and annual grazing allotment schedules. Incomplete and Unavailable Information There are voluntary visitor registers at the trailheads located at the beginning of most of the trails accessing the various drainages containing the allotments in the project area. The estimated user registration at the High Uintas Wilderness Trailheads is about 60 percent for visitors on foot and about 30 percent for stock users. Therefore specific use numbers for the High Uintas Wilderness are unavailable. Besides asking visitors for the dates of their visit, the register sheets ask for the number of people in their party and where they are going. There is a section that asks for comments also. Since registration is voluntary, some visitors do not fill in all the questions. The comment column does not ask specifically their thoughts on domestic sheep grazing in Wilderness but leaves it up to the visitor what they feel like commenting on. Personal experience of the Wilderness Manager and information from Wilderness Rangers help fill in information gaps to a degree. Several allotments cover areas not serviced or only partially serviced by trailheads. The Middle Fork Allotment has no registration facilities in place. The Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork and the Gilbert Peak allotments are only partially covered by registration facilities. It is recognized that the Fall Creek Allotment has not been grazed with domestic sheep for over 40 years and there are currently no plans to restock this allotment. The existing conditions on the allotment reflect this. The proposed action however does authorize grazing on this allotment and no other environmental review would be required to restock the allotment if the agency’s preferred action alternative were selected. It is anticipated that the impacts on the allotments would increase an additional 15.5 percent based on the animal days spent on the allotment divided by the total animal days across the ten allotments. A driveway would have to be established to move sheep to the Fall Creek Allotment and the route is unknown at this time.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 197 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Measurement Indicators In order to compare and contrast the effects of the alternatives on the wilderness and recreation, resource indicators and measures were established. Resource indicators are those items that describe what will be evaluated to determine the level of effects, while the measures are those items that are tied to the resource indicator and are the actual measure or method of determining the effect. The indicators and measures that were chosen to compare and contrast effects are related to the five qualities of wilderness character: untrammeled; naturalness; undeveloped; solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation; and special features of scenic or historical value. These indicators are derived directly from the definition of wilderness itself. A description of these qualities can be found in Table 40. Table 40 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects on wilderness character related to issues concerning this analysis. Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure

1. Untrammeled: Wilderness Actions intentionally Number of actions authorized ecological systems are essentially authorized by the Federal land since Wilderness designation to unhindered and free from the manager that manipulate the manage environment as related actions of modern human control biophysical environment to domestic sheep grazing or manipulation. 2. Natural: Wilderness ecological Competition between Acres occupied by domestic systems are substantially free from domestic sheep and sheep the effects of modern civilization. indigenous wildlife species for This quality is degraded by space intended or unintended effects of modern people on the ecological systems inside the wilderness since the area was designated. 3. Undeveloped: Wilderness Non-recreational structures, Authorized physical retains its primeval character and installations, developments development influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation. 4. Solitude or primitive and Remoteness from sights, Number of visitors encountering unconfined recreation: Wilderness sounds, and smells of human domestic sheep provides outstanding opportunities induced activities inside the for solitude or primitive and wilderness unconfined recreation. 5. Other Features of Value (Scenic Outstanding feature of Kings Peak is the highest peak or Historical Values): importance to human visitors in Utah and is located within the Wilderness may contain values of and symbolic to the HUW. area being analyzed in this scenic or historical significance. report. Climbing the peak is an Outstanding landscape features important experience to visitors should be considered. to the Henry’s Fork, Yellowstone, and upper Uinta Creek drainages (Hessie Lake- Henry’s Fork, Gilbert Peak, Tungsten, and Painter Basin Allotments)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 198 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The indicators and measures for those qualities of wilderness character are provided below. • Untrammeled o Authorized actions by Federal land managers . Number of grazing permits issued • Naturalness

18 o Competition for forage between livestock and indigenous wildlife . Acres • Undeveloped o Grazing related structures and developments . Number of temporary structures • Solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation o Visitors impacted by domestic sheep grazing . Number of visitors • Other features of scenic or historical value Rationale for Choosing Resource Indicators and Measures The number of federally authorized activities that manipulate the biophysical environment was used to indicate the amount of impact to the untrammeled character of wilderness. For example if the Forest were to issue a permit allowing a user to conduct an activity in wilderness areas that may modify the biophysical environment this would be used as a measure for this resource element. Vegetation utilization standards developed for domestic sheep grazing management includes protecting a sufficient amount of forage for wildlife feed. The displacement of wildlife typically occurs in the direct vicinity of the herd of sheep. The wildlife will move out of the area and will return once the herd passes. The area of space typically used by a herd of domestic sheep at a point in time was used to indicate the level of impact to the natural element of the wilderness area. Wilderness is a place where humans are visitors and evidence of their occupation on Earth is minimal. Human-made developments can be a detraction to wilderness character. The number of structures associated with domestic sheep grazing was looked at as an indicator of impact to the undeveloped element expected in wilderness. Herder camps are temporary and used only during that period of time the sheep are in a particular unit, a couple of weeks at most. Structures are temporary and not of permanent construction. The sight and sounds of a band of sheep grazing or moving through an area could detract from feelings of solitude and could limit one’s ability to find opportunities to camp and move where one wishes. An estimate of the number of recreationists encountering domestic sheep use was used to indicate the level of impact of solitude in the wilderness area. Kings Peak is the highest point in Utah and as such is an “other feature of value” located within the analysis area and is a destination for recreational visitors within the analysis area. The peak

18 Other measurable effects to naturalness such as effects on riparian areas and vegetation are covered in different sections in this document.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 199 Draft Environmental Impact Statement itself is not grazed by domestic sheep so this feature is not impacted, therefore, no effects discussion occurs for that wilderness attribute. The impacts to recreation occur as the visitors approach the peak and camp in the lower elevations and are covered under discussion of the other resource elements. Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects The spatial bounds of analysis include the ten allotments within the project area. This area was chosen because those geological features used to define the grazing allotments also act as “barriers” defining movement and use of the area by the typical human visitor. The temporal boundary is July through mid-September since this is the time frame when the typical visitor is in the area and also when the area is being grazed by domestic sheep. This timeframe was chosen because grazing within the various allotments closely reflects the period of use, typically, by the recreating public. The warmer weather in the summer that promotes vegetation growth also ‘invites’ recreational visitors into the higher country. The typical recreational user visits the Wilderness between the first of July and the end of August. This follows closely the same period of time the sheep are brought onto the allotments and when they leave. Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects The spatial boundary for cumulative effects coincides with the direct and indirect effects boundary because that is where the effects from other actions would overlap spatially with direct and indirect effects. The temporal boundary is July through mid-September since this is the time frame when the typical visitor is in the area and also when the area is being grazed by domestic sheep. This timeframe was chosen because grazing within the various allotments closely reflects the period of use, typically, by the recreating public. The warmer weather in the summer that promotes vegetation growth also ‘invites’ recreational visitors into the higher country. The typical recreational user visits the Wilderness between the first of July and the end of August. This follows closely the same period of time the sheep are brought onto the allotments and when they leave. Existing Condition The existing condition will be described according to the qualities of wilderness character presented in Table 40 above. “Untrammeled” wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. Wilderness is considered “natural” when ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. Wilderness is considered “undeveloped” when it retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation. “Solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation” is defined when an area provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. This characteristic is a measure of the experiences available to have a vastness of scale, and a high degree of challenge and risk while using outdoor skills, and is characterized by meeting nature on its own terms. (Landres et al. 2008). Untrammeled

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 200 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The area would be considered relatively ‘untrammeled’. Existing human controlled actions are limited to domestic sheep grazing management actions, recreational visitor management through fire restrictions, foot trail construction/maintenance, and issuance of outfitting and guiding permits. Naturalness Wilderness ecological systems are fairly free from the effects of modern civilization. A herd of domestic sheep displaces some of the native wildlife from that site the herd occupies at that moment in time. Once the sheep herd passes, the wildlife will typically move back in within a few days. Undeveloped Permanent structures are limited to trail features (boardwalks, bridges, water bars, and signs) necessary for resource protection and are confined to the prism of the trails. There is one small (5’ x 6’) log structure in the Henry’s Fork Lake vicinity that is used for salt storage, which was there prior to the area being designated Wilderness. There are also 43 temporary structures associated with sheep herder camps. A typical herder camp consists of a skeletal tent frame, fire ring, and one to two horse tie rails; camps are simple and temporary in design. Other than these features, the area is free of human-made structures. Solitude/Primitive/Unconfined Recreation Typical recreational visitors limit themselves to using 30,725 acres out of the 143,971 acres in the wilderness (21 percent). With little effort, visitors can get away from others and find a secluded spot even in the heaviest used areas. The drainages are large, and typical use is confined due to personal decisions and not from physical barriers. Visitors have the opportunity to write down comments on the registration sheets located at the various trailheads. Registration is totally voluntary and not all visitors take the time to register or provide comments. The space provided for comments is only titled “Comments” and does not lead with any specific questions. Usually what is written down is what the visitors mostly remember about their experience. Record keeping of this information has not followed any sort of standard and was done sporadically on an as-needed basis depending on the funding and staffing for individual years. Having the HUW managed by two Forests complicates standard data collection. Comments from the 2012-2013 seasons off the Ashley National Forest were found. Of the 1985 registered visitors who appeared to have visited areas within the analysis area, two had negative comments concerning heavy grazing. Of the 6,080 registered visitors on the Wasatch side during the same seasons, and to be consistent with the Ashley, and who also appeared to have visited areas within the analysis area, 396 visitors registered negative comments directed specifically to sheep grazing. This equates to approximately six percent of the total visitors overall (refer to Appendices F and G – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]). Visiting with the recreating public,

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 201 Draft Environmental Impact Statement some individuals suggest that there is a “flavor of the old west” to see grazing livestock and the riders. It is reasonable to conclude that the majority of the negative comments came from the 412 impacted recreationists (Table 5 Appendix E of the Wilderness Resource Report [project record]). This by no means is scientifically accurate. Registration is voluntary and comments are voluntary. Not every visitor registers, and of those that do, not all provide comments. Effects Analysis The following effects analysis compares and contrasts the two alternatives using the established resource indicators discussed previously in this section. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing The No Action alternative is included to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act [40 CFR 1502.14(d)] and the Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 90, Section 92.31 which stipulates that “in addition to the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative shall always be fully developed and analyzed in detail.” The No Action alternative is synonymous with “no grazing” and means that livestock grazing would not be authorized within the project area. Grazing would not be authorized after a two-year notification to the permittee from the date the decision is made and existing range improvements would be removed. In the interim, the allotment would be managed according to current grazing management. This alternative would be a change from the existing condition. Changes from the existing condition will be discussed as to how this alternative affects wilderness character. Untrammeled Seven bands of sheep would be eliminated from grazing each year within the HUW resulting in less evidence of human manipulation of the ecological systems across the analysis area. Fall Creek Allotment has not been grazed for over 40 years and there is no indication of interest to do so in the foreseeable future. Painter Basin and Tungsten Allotments are not grazed during the same year but alternate every two years. Also one of the East Fork Blacks Fork, or the Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork, or the Gilbert Peak Allotments is rested each year. Only two bands of sheep graze these three allotments. It is important to note that domestic sheep grazing within the analysis area has been authorized through permits prior to the area being designated Wilderness. Naturalness The removal of seven bands of sheep would eliminate competition between domestic sheep and indigenous wildlife for space. A typical band of sheep that are being trailed will usually not occupy more than around seven to eight acres of land (64 acres on any given day by eight bands). They are bunched up by the herder and kept moving. This same band of sheep spread out while grazing may occupy between 10 to 20 acres depending on the size of open meadow and may be there for three or four days (80 to 160 acres by eight bands of sheep on any given day). The herders

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 202 Draft Environmental Impact Statement are instructed to spread a band of sheep while grazing to reduce potential impacts caused through concentrated grazing and to keep moving the herd. This amounts to 0.09 percent of the total project area, or 0.11 percent of the area that is designated wilderness. Utilization standards are followed which ensures forage for wildlife use. Undeveloped Approximately 43 temporary structures within the analysis area associated with grazing permits would not be necessary and any remaining structures would be removed, typically one per allotment unit. A typical herder camp consists of a skeletal tent frame, fire ring, and one to two horse tie rails; camps are simple and temporary in design. The action to rehabilitate these sites would be simple and limited in duration (half a day per site). Although limited in scale, this would result in less evidence of human activities throughout the analysis area. The one small log structure in the vicinity of Henry’s Fork Lake in the Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork Allotment may remain for salt storage. This structure is over 50 years old and its historical significance would have to be determined. Solitude/Primitive/Unconfined Recreation Alternative 1 would result in increased opportunities because of the removal of domestic sheep grazing. Approximately 412 or nine percent of the 4,320 registered visitors to the analysis area (Refer to Appendix E – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report [project record]) would not encounter domestic sheep within the 30,725 acres (21 percent of wilderness area) where typical encounters occur. It would eliminate one variable in determining where to go, when, and where to camp. The sights, sounds, and smells of domestic sheep would no longer be a consideration. Alternative 1 would result in increased opportunities related to solitude because of the removal of domestic sheep grazing. The qualities of wilderness character are untrammeled, naturalness, undeveloped, and solitude/primitive/unconfined recreation and are summarized below for Alternative 1 in relation to the existing condition (Table 41). Table 41 - Wilderness resource indicators and measures for the existing condition and Alternative 1. Resource Resource Measure Existing Condition1 Alternative 1 Element Indicator 1. Untrammeled Actions Number of Seven permits2 0 permits intentionally permitted authorized by the domestic sheep Federal land bands per year manager that manipulate the biophysical environment 2. Natural Displacement of Acres 64 to 160 acres or 0 acres native wildlife by 0.11% of analysis domestic sheep area in the wilderness

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 203 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Resource Measure Existing Condition1 Alternative 1 Element Indicator 3. Undeveloped Non-recreational Number of One permanent 1 permanent structures, structures due structure; structure; 0 installations, to domestic Approximately 43 temporary developments sheep temporary structures structures permitting The action to rehabilitate these sites would be simple and limited in duration (half a day per site). 4. Solitude or Remoteness from Numbers of Approximately 412 Removal of primitive and sights, sounds, visitors or 9% of the 4,320 domestic sheep unconfined and smells of encountering registered visitors to grazing would recreation human induced domestic sheep the analysis area increase the activities inside the reported encounters opportunity for 9% wilderness with domestic sheep of the visitors (412) (Appendix E)3. Not to the area to find all encounters are more solitude and negative. opportunities for a Encounters with primitive and domestic sheep by unconfined the typical visitor recreation occur within experience. approximately 17% (24,300 acres) of the area analyzed, which is approximately 143,971 acres. 1 The existing condition serves as a proxy for Alternative 2. 2 Currently seven bands of sheep graze the project area; however, eight bands of sheep could be grazed should the Ute Tribe decide to utilize the Fall Creek allotment in the future. 3Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Alternative 2 would continue existing management. The grazing permits would be reissued allowing the continuation of domestic sheep grazing within the analysis area. The effects to wilderness character from Alternative 2 will be discussed considering the qualities of wilderness character: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and providing for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Untrammeled Permits would be issued authorizing domestic sheep to graze on ten allotments. Seven bands of sheep would continue to be herded onto and graze within the nine allotments being grazed currently. There is the potential that an eighth band could be authorized which would utilize the Fall Creek Allotment that has not been used for over 40 years. This would mean that all ten allotments would experience human manipulation of the biophysical environment specifically within the area grazing would occur.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 204 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This is not a change from existing conditions and was occurring prior to the majority of the project area being designated Wilderness. Natural Seven and up to eight bands of sheep (if Fall Creek were grazed again) would continue to move into and to graze within eight allotments annually, hitting all ten allotments within three years. Wildlife would continue to leave the immediate vicinity of the sheep. A herd of sheep typically occupies seven to eight acres while they are being pushed, and between 10 to 20 acres when they spread out to graze. Within the entire analysis area, eight bands of sheep would occupy 56 to 64 acres as they are being pushed, and between 80 to 160 acres as they spread out to graze. In a conversation with the project wildlife biologist, wildlife tend to vary in response to domestic sheep with some species avoiding grazed areas while others are less affected. Those that avoid the area during grazing typically would return once the sheep have moved on, sometimes that same day but at least sometime during the next few days. Undeveloped Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a continuation of the 43 temporary camps and associated structures in each of the allotment units and possibly an addition of three more if the Fall Creek Allotment were to be used. The materials used in the temporary camps are left behind each season. Some of these camps are quite remote and in less visited sites, however some are easily found by recreational visitors. Again it is important to stress these structures are primitive in nature consisting largely of lashed together natural poles collected on site. Removal and rehabilitation of these sites is meant to be simple and fast. Their impact to the undeveloped nature of wilderness would be negligible to the wilderness character itself and to the visiting public; no negative comments were directed at any of these camps. Solitude/Primitive/Unconfined Recreation Implementation of Alternative 2 would mean a continuance of herding and grazing of seven bands of sheep and possibly eight bands if Fall Creek Allotment were to be grazed. Approximately nine percent of the total visitors to the project area would continue to encounter sheep and may alter the direction or timing of their hiking or other activities; those visitors may take the sheep in consideration when locating a camping site (Table 42). They would continue to feel the solitude of the area diminished, and would feel they could not pursue and find “Unconfined Recreation” opportunities within the project area. Wilderness visitors would continue to encounter domestic sheep by which their wilderness experience may be impacted (some positive, some negative based on trailhead surveys). However, the opportunities for visitors to find solitude and primitive camping experiences would remain high with a minimal effort. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the result of a combination of similar effects added to the effects of the proposed action. They result when past, current, and future action effects overlap in space and time with the effects from proposed alternatives. Table 43 summarizes the cumulative effects from the two alternatives.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 205 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 42 - Wilderness visitors and sheep encounters. Approximate Number of Visitor/Sheep Encounters by Allotment per Year (Appendix D and E)1 Gilbert Hessie Midd. Ottoson Oweep Painter Red Fall East Frk. Blacks Peak Lk.- Frk. Basin Basin- Castle Creek Frk. Henry’s Blacks Tungste Frk. Frk. n 7 63 190 2 4 0.5 8 138 0 Percentage of Total Visitors 6 6 10 3 40 25 16 13 0 Percentage of Allotment Visitor Sheep Encounters That Typically Occur 19 15 29 14 25 14 31 27 0 1 Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Livestock Based Outfitter/Guide Operations Presently there is only one outfitter/guide holding a permit to operate in the same areas as those within the Gilbert Peak, East Fork Blacks Fork and Middle Fork Blacks Fork Allotments. There are two outfitter/guides operating in the Fall Creek Allotment, one in the Tungsten Allotment, one in both the Ottoson Basin and Oweep Allotments, and one in the Painter Basin Allotment. Trips per permit have been limited each year to three to four trips. Impacts to the wilderness and recreation resources were negligible. Backpacking Based Outfitter/Guide Operations Within the past few years, two permits have been issued for the same area as the East Fork Blacks Fork, Red Castle, and Hessie Lake/Henry’s Fork Allotments. These two permits only allowed one seven day trip per permit during the entire summer season. Impacts were negligible. Cumulative Effects by Alternative Untrammeled Under Alternative 1, sheep grazing would not be authorized but the four to six backpacking outfitter/guide permits typically being issued each year would continue as well as the use by the general public. Conditions of the outfitter/guiding permits would continue to stress avoidance of heavily visited areas and adherence to the Leave No Trace principles. There would be no cumulative effects after two years on the untrammeled quality of the area being analyzed because domestic sheep grazing would no longer take place. Under Alternative 2, the Forest Service would issue up to eight permits authorizing domestic sheep grazing on 10 allotments. The general public would continue to be allowed into the analysis area for recreation purposes and backpacking outfitter/guiding permits would also continue to be issued. The act of issuing grazing permits is an impact to the untrammeled quality of the area

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 206 Draft Environmental Impact Statement being analyzed. The action of permit issuance has been a continual occurrence since the establishment of this National Forest and prior to this area being designated Wilderness. Issuing domestic livestock grazing permits inside Wilderness is consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964. The cumulative impacts are negligible and there would be no change anticipated from that of the existing condition. Naturalness Under Alternative 1, the displacement of wildlife caused by activities related to domestic sheep grazing would decrease compared to those activities related to hiking/backpacking by individuals acting on their own or through the assistance of an outfitter/guide service. There would be no cumulative effects to the naturalness after two years because domestic sheep grazing would no longer be authorized. Table 43 – Summary of Cumulative Effects by Alternative. Quality Resource Measure Cumulative Cumulative Indicator Effects Effects Alternative Alternative 1 2 1. Untrammeled Actions Number of allotments 0 10 allotments intentionally authorized to be grazed authorized Number of 4-6 4-61 outfitter/guide permits issued within the same allotments Number of general 4,320 4,3201 public visiting 2. Natural Displacement Acres occupied by 8 0 1602 of native bands of sheep/day wildlife Acres occupied by 35,251 (24% of 35,251 hikers/campers/day analysis area) 3. Undeveloped Human-made Number of structures 0 43 temporary, 1 structures, for grazing permanent installations, management developments Miles of System Trails 1553 1553 4. Solitude or Opportunities Number of visitors 0 412 primitive and for solitude affected unconfined recreation

1 The people involved in the outfitting/guiding operations are required to register at the trailheads. Their numbers are reflected in the total visitor count figures. 2 A herd of sheep typically spreads out as they graze. Herders will keep the herd from spreading too far out of their protection (roughly around 20 acres). Eight herds scattered out will cover 160 acres. 3 Trail miles were estimated from the Forest visitor maps. With Alternative 2, temporary displacement of wildlife would be caused by a combination of domestic sheep and public use however this use does not have a long-lasting effect to the Naturalness of the Wilderness during the periods when livestock are not in the area or in the ‘off- season’ for forest visitors (winter, spring, late fall). Therefore, the cumulative effects are negligible.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 207 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Undeveloped With both alternatives there is only one permanent structure, a small log salt storage ‘cabin’ near Henrys Fork Lake. There are 43 very rough temporary structure (tent frame, hitch rails) herders use. There are no other structures associated with recreation. There are also 155 miles of system trails in the project area that have been part of the recreation system in the wilderness. With either alternative, there are no additive cumulative effects from recreational activities. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation With both of these alternatives, the cumulative effects on this resource due to outfitting/guiding activities are negligible due to the limited use by these groups and the size of the project area. Cumulative effects from outfitter/guides combined with the effects from either alternative, would not be able to be distinguished from background and existing conditions. Summary of Effects Environmental Effects If Alternative 1 were selected and sheep grazing were discontinued there would be a slight gain in the quality of wilderness characteristics as perceived by humans. The majority of visitors would never know the difference and only about nine percent would notice the absence of noise, sights, and smells associated with sheep and possibly may see more wildlife close-up (Refer to Table 44). A portion of these visitors may miss the traditional and historical aspects of grazing, while the others would welcome the absence. Wildlife would not be impacted by sheep, but would still have human encounters as hikers move up and down the trails. Wildlife would have no competition for forage and space throughout the wilderness in the project area. Temporary herder camping structures would be removed from the area and from discovery by visitors. If Alternative 2 were selected and sheep grazing continued, the opportunities for visitors to find solitude and primitive camping experiences would remain high with a minimal effort. Opportunities to observe natural processes in action predominate, and encounters from domestic sheep grazing can be avoided with research and preparation beforehand. The imprint of human activity is temporary and relatively unnoticed. There are no permanent structures except for the Forest system trails and related boardwalks and bridges on the more popular trails which are constructed for protection of wilderness resources. Grazing permits were issued and domestic sheep have been grazing within the analysis area before it was designated wilderness. The reissuance of grazing permits is a continuance of practices already in place prior to and since wilderness designation and would not change the quality of the wilderness character found at that time since no changes in general operations are being proposed. The implementation of this alternative, therefore, would not change the existing wilderness character.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 208 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 44 - Summary comparison of environmental effects on wilderness resources. Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2/Existing Condition Untrammeled Authorized actions None. This would Reissue permits authorizing 7 by Federal land be a reduction in 7 sheep bands to graze on 9 managers permitted bands. allotments. Potentially 8 bands could graze on 10 allotments if the Ute tribe chooses to graze Fall Creek at a later date. Naturalness Competition between All competition 143,971 acres still being domestic sheep and eliminated from grazed by domestic sheep, indigenous wildlife 143,971 acres physically occupying up to 160 for space acres if Fall Creek were to be grazed. Existing prior to Wilderness designation Undeveloped Grazing related 43 temporary 43 existing temporary structures, structures structures would be installations, or eliminated maintained. There is a developments possibility of adding around 3 more with the return of grazing to the Fall Creek Allotment. Existing prior to Wilderness designation Solitude or primitive Visitors impacted by None 9% of those visiting the area and unconfined domestic sheep recreation Degree to Which Alternatives Address Wilderness and Recreation Concerns The majority of concerns identified during scoping for this project were directed towards impacts on wilderness character primarily towards impacts on primitive recreation opportunities. Some visitors found the sights, sounds, and smell of a band of sheep in their vicinity objectionable and out of character with true wilderness. Other concerns were directed towards the actual legality of domestic sheep being allowed to graze within designated wilderness. Table 45 provides a summary of how the alternatives address the wilderness concerns. Table 45 - Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key concerns. Concern Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Number of recreational 0 412 or 9% of the Negative visitor experiences visitors encountering visitors1 due to encounters with domestic sheep domestic sheep Area recreational visitors 0 30,725 acres or encounter domestic sheep 21% of analysis area2 Domestic sheep grazing NA NA NA should not be allowed within the HUW3 1Appendix E, Table D – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report. It was determined approximately 412 visitors encountered domestic sheep; approximately 194 were negative (refer to Appendices F and G –

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 209 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report). However, during personal conversations not all encounters were negative; some visitors felt the encounters were “a taste of the old west”. 2Appendix D, Table C – Wilderness/Recreation Resource Report. 3Domestic sheep grazing within the area being analyzed was being permitted prior to the area being legally designated Wilderness. Socio-Economics Background Information There are three counties that are most connected to this project in terms of social and economic aspects. The counties include Uinta County, Wyoming, and Duchesne and Summit counties in Utah. Within Uinta County, the towns most impacted by this project are Mountain View and Lyman, Wyoming. This analysis addresses those social and economic impacts that would result from this project for both alternatives. All three counties have county land management plans that contain direction about land planning and county policy. In addition, the State of Utah also has a state plan with comparable direction. For a detailed description of those plans, please refer to the Social-Economics Resource Report, the individual County land management plans, and the state plan in the project record. The current grazing permittees for nine of the ten allotments currently reside in Uinta County; Wyoming. The communities most likely to be affected from the project activities contained within this report are those in which the permittees live, purchase supplies, pay taxes, and do business. The Fall Creek Allotment is designated to be grazed by the Ute Tribe under an agreement. The Tribe has chosen not to graze this allotment for over 40 years. In addition to grazing activities, the High Uintas are also used by residents and visitors for recreational purposes such as hunting, fishing, horseback riding, hiking, backpacking and wildlife viewing. Specific recreation activities and the potential impacts on the recreational tourism sectors by sheep grazing are highlighted in the Wilderness and Recreation section just above and the Wilderness and Recreation Resource Report (project record) for this project (Asay 2018). The economic effects are summarized here. Each of the three counties have National Forest System Lands within them (Table 46). Within Duchesne County there are about 716,702 acres of National Forest Lands, or about 34.6 percent (Duchesne County, 2017, p. 27). Summit County has approximately 528,765 acres of National Forest Lands, or approximately 43.9 percent (Summit County, Utah, 2018). Lastly, Uinta County has approximately 37,750 acres of National Forest Lands, or about 2.8 percent of the lands within the County (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018, p. 5). Table 46 – Federal lands managed by the Forest Service in Duchesne and Summit Counties in Utah and Uinta County in Wyoming. County (mi2) Federal (acres) National Forest (aces) County, State Duchesne, Utah1 3,256 926,679 716,702 (34.6%) Summit, Utah2 1,872 529,438 516,793 (43.1%) Uinta, Wyoming3 2,088 517,174 37,750 (2.8%) 1 Duchesne County 2017, p. 27. 2 Summit County, Utah 2017, p. 5. 3 Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 210 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Historical Information of the Counties The cultural heritage of all three counties is based on agriculture, livestock and to a lesser extent timber. The railroad played an important part in the history of Summit and Uinta counties. Additionally, mining also played an important part in the western part of Summit County. These industries formed the historic basis of the local economy from the beginning days of settlement until more recent days. In recent years, oil and gas development and recreation have played greater roles. Livestock grazing continues to influence the lifestyles of many within the counties, and continues to play a part of the historic and current local economies. Many of the local ranches in these counties were established on a private land base. During parts of the year, livestock are pastured on public rangeland. The combination of public rangeland and private farmland constitutes the economic base for many of these counties’ livestock operations. Because these counties have large portions of public lands, Federal land management becomes a critical issue to watershed health, recreation, and agriculture sustainability. Invasive species, threatened and endangered species and big game are also important issues. Duchesne County The 2017 Duchesne County Plan provides some valuable insight as to the history, culture, and social importance of ranching and agriculture, mining, and its natural resources. “Duchesne County recognizes that County culture is among its most valued and important assets. It is the intent of the County to protect and enhance its natural environment, identify, preserve, protect and enhance its historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts, and to guard and foster traditional ways of life rising out of the history attached thereto and forming the basis upon which its heritage rests. Natural landforms and wildlife species often serve as touchstones to community life and values. Livestock grazing, farming, mining and other mineral extraction, along with other endeavors have left an imprint on the landscapes of the west and form the core of an old and enduring economic and cultural heritage for residents of Duchesne County.” (p. 272) “Wildlife has always been an important part of America’s cultural lifestyle and is an important part of Duchesne County’s tourism and recreation economy. Duchesne County and its partners recognize the need for improved management of wildlife and habitat to minimize negative impacts and maximize positive impacts to both private and public lands. Collaboration of private, federal, state, local, and other groups is needed in order to maintain healthy wildlife populations as well as to protect the local agriculture economy and watershed health.” (p. 101) “The energy and mining industries are an important part of the culture, heritage and economy of Duchesne County and will be for a number of years to come.”(p. 52) “Today, extractive-use industries: livestock, timber, mining, and oil; remain the backbone of the region's economy. The County continues to encourage and support these industries, acknowledging that industry patterns, fluctuating markets, and changing political winds predict periodic good times followed by lean.” (p. 9)

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 211 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Summit County Summit County in a report submitted to the Forest (Summit County, Utah, 2018) provides history and background on the role of natural resources in the County’s culture. “People living adjacent to the Uinta Mountains have relied heavily on the natural resources of the area to make a living. Ranching and farming have always provided the economic and social backbone of the area. During the 1880s through the 1930s, railroad tie cutting was brought to the area to further the development of the railroad system. Timber harvest and oil and gas exploration and development have followed local and regional demands. In recent years recreation has brought in many overnight or weeklong visitors.” (p. 7) The individual and community characteristics and values that developed over time have been a source of pride for long-term residents for many years: independence, adaptability, maintenance of local traditions, devotion to religious faith, and appreciation for the natural resources and scenic beauty of their surroundings. The cowboy culture that once was widespread within the American West is still a central part of life on the north-slope of the Uinta Mountains, and to a lesser extent on the south slope of the Uinta Mountains. It is important to many long-time residents of the region to preserve and celebrate the traditional cowboy lifestyle and the skills, knowledge, and cultural arts that are connected with it.” (p. 7-8) “Agriculture has been a prominent industry throughout Summit County's history, with fields and pastures in the many valleys. Sheep and cattle are raised in the valleys and utilize the rangeland in the mountains in the summer. In recent years, a new trend in land ownership has changed the nature of agriculture in some areas from large scale full-time livestock operations to small 10-to- 20 acre properties owned by retirees and businessmen who value a pastoral lifestyle (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Office, Utah Field Office, 2016).” (p. 8) “ Today, the culture in Summit County reflects this varied history. The cowboy culture mentioned above is still prevalent in eastern Summit County. Skiing and tourism are a major economic activity and influence on culture in western Summit County.” (p. 8) Historically, sheep grazing has been an important social and economic activity in both Summit County and the rest of the state. Summit County has transitioned from an agricultural and natural resource-based economy to a more recreation-focused economy. . .” (Summit County, Utah, 2018, p. 11). Since 1998, the travel and tourism sector has steadily held approximately half of the county's total private employment.” (p. 11) Uinta County The sheep that graze nine of the ten allotments come from Uinta County. The County has a long history in many industries tied to natural resources. The following discussion is taken from the 2011, as amended, Uinta County Management Plan, and the Social-Economic Report the County provided to the Forest Service for use in this analysis (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). Uinta County has a rich cultural history closely associated with historic trails, ranching, the railroad, and natural resources from within its boundaries and in adjacent counties. Historic trails played an important role in the County’s early development. These trails included the Oregon, California, Mormon, and Cherokee trails. John Myers established the first ranch in 1858. The

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 212 Draft Environmental Impact Statement railroad was vital to the economic development of the County, and in 1868, the Union Pacific Railroad first entered Uinta County. After the railroad was completed in 1869, cattle and sheep ranching developed quickly throughout the county. Often, stock were driven into the high meadows of the Uinta Mountains in the summer to graze. By the late 1860s coal was being extracted from a series of mines in the County. Oil and Natural Gas resources have been located in many locations in Uinta and Summit counties. Other natural resources are present throughout the county, including sand and gravel. The first sawmill was constructed by the Mormon settlers in 1854. There are currently three sawmills located in Uinta County. Much of the private land in Uinta County was homesteaded during the late 1800s. Ranches sprang up and are still used for ranching today, many of which have been passed from generation to generation. For the ranching community, one of the largest and one of the most important resources in and adjacent to Uinta County is the wide expanses of native forage that provides grazing throughout the year for domestic livestock. The North Slope of the Uinta Mountains, lying directly south and adjacent to Uinta County, provides water for Uinta County and forage for the livestock grazed by Uinta County ranchers. The economic viability of Uinta County rests upon the continued multiple-use of federal and state managed lands in both Uinta and adjacent counties. Tax revenue is available to the County mainly through the ad valorem tax, or property tax. Secondary is the County’s share of sales tax revenues. The ability of the private property owners to pay their property tax is, in large measure, contingent upon their use of adjacent federal or state lands both in and outside the county. Federal and State managed lands and the natural resources found therein, provide part of the base structure and continuance of the social stability of Uinta County. Agriculture has historically been perhaps the most socially stable industry. Although agriculture production income rises and falls, the social influence of agriculture remains constant. Some of Uinta County’s social events tied to agriculture are the fairs, parades and rodeos. The Agriculture census in 2012 counted 38,034 head of sheep and lambs and 36,742 head of cattle and calves in Uinta County. Livestock ranching continues to be an important part of the county’s economy. Affected Environment State of Utah In 1984, it was estimated that there were about 540,000 sheep in Utah (Utah State Department of Agriculture, 1985). By 2015 this had dropped 46 percent to 290,000 sheep (Table 47) (Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2015). The state of Utah has experienced a steady decline in sheep production since the early 1900s, with a heavier decline beginning in the 1980s, with present population numbers at about half of their 1984 value (Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2015). No sheep originating from Utah currently graze on the allotments being analyzed. If the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked, it is assumed in this analysis that the ranching operation to restock this allotment would be in Duchesne County where the current authorized user is located.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 213 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 47- Historic sheep population data for the states of Utah and Wyoming, and Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah and Uinta County, Wyoming. County or State 19841 2004 2015 % Change Duchesne County, UT 17,000 3,1002 1,8005 1984 to 2015 -89.41% Summit County, UT 36,000 28,0002 28,5005 1984 to 2015 -20.83% Utah (state wide) 540,000 265,0002 290,0005 1984 to 2015 -46.30% 2004 to 2015 +9.43% Uinta County, WY 43,0003,4 35,0006 2004 to 2015 -18.60% Wyoming (state wide) 1,090,000d 430,0003 345,0006 1984 to 2015 -68.35% 2004 to 2015 -19.77% 1Utah State Department of Agriculture 1985, p. 82. 2Utah Agricultural Statistics 2005. 3United States Department of Agriculture 2004. 4Breeding sheep. 5Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2015. 6United States Department of Agriculture 2016. The hunting of bighorn sheep is also a social economic factor in the state. In 2017, 678 permits were sold for a chance to be selected to harvest four bighorn sheep from the Flaming Gorge population. Each of the four selected individuals then paid $513 for the opportunity to hunt bighorn sheep, which is a once in a lifetime hunt. The total direct economic impact was $8,832 for the permit. This doesn’t include the direct, indirect or induced impacts for the associated gas, food, binoculars, cameras, hotel room and fuel associated with the hunt (personal communication with Justin Shannon, Big Game Program Coordinator, April 28, 2017). In 2017, the projected permits were increased to five with a total direct benefit of $11,185 in direct benefits (personal communication from Kathleen Clark, Director of the State of Utah Office of the Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office to Paul Cowley, March 3, 2018). Through a second process, one permit is auctioned off each year to harvest a ram bighorn sheep. On average this brings in an additional $90,000. In 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that nation-wide, about 48 percent of every dollar the public spends on wildlife recreation is due to wildlife watching (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2016, p. 39). Duchesne County, Utah The Duchesne County General Plan provides some important background into the existing condition (Duchesne County 2017). Duchesne County has a population of about “20,000 people and is multi-varied in culture and economics”. The county has “five incorporated communities and seven unincorporated regions of habitation.” (p. 37) “In 2007, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget presented data to the Governor’s Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture showing that the average age of the principal operator of Utah’s farms and ranches has increased from 47 years of age in 1940 to 57.4 years of age.” (p. 94) “The number of farms with an operator whose primary occupation is farming decreased from 472 of the 932 farms (50.6 percent) in 2002, to 375 of the 1,058 farms (35.4 percent) in 2012. The data show that more farmers are making their living from other occupations than in the past. According to the Profile of Agriculture, found in the Headwaters Economics Economic Profile

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 214 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

System (EPS), Duchesne County had 1,037 persons employed on farms in 2014, which is 7.4 percent of the total employment in the County.” (p. 81) The population of sheep and lambs in Duchesne County has decreased substantially over the past three decades, from 17,000 head in 1984 (Utah State Department of Agriculture 1985) to 3,100 in 2004 (Utah Agricultural Statistics 2005) and 1,800 in 2015 (Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2015 - Table 5). This drop in sheep number is greater than what has occurred throughout the rest of the state of Utah during this same period (Table 47). No sheep originating from Duchesne County currently graze on the allotments being analyzed. For this analysis, it is assumed that if the Fall Creek Allotment were restocked the sheep that would use this allotment would come from Duchesne County because of the existing agreement with the Ute Tribe. Summit County, Utah Sheep grazing has been an important social and economic activity in both Summit County and the rest of the State of Utah (Table 47). Operations raising sheep have varied over the past 20 years ranging from a low of 61 operations in 2007 to 86 operations in 2002. In 2012, there were 64 sheep operations estimated in the county with only six of these having over 1,000 head of sheep (United States Department of Agriculture 2018). In 2015, sheep production in Summit County had declined by almost 21 percent of what it was in 1984 (Table 47). State of Wyoming In 1984, it was estimated that there were about 1,090,000 sheep in Wyoming (United States Department of Agriculture 2004). By 2015 this had declined by 68 percent to 345,000 sheep (Table 47) (United States Department of Agriculture 2016). In 2015, Wyoming ranked 4th in the Nation for sheep production and 2nd in the Nation for lamb and wool production (United States Department of Agriculture 2016). The state of Wyoming has experienced a steady decline in sheep production since the high of 3,972,000 sheep in 1932 (United States Department of Agriculture 2004) (see Figure 40). All of the sheep that graze nine of the ten allotments originate from Wyoming. Uinta County, Wyoming Livestock that graze the allotments, with the exception of Fall Creek Allotment, come from Uinta County, Wyoming. Historically and currently, sheep grazing has been an important social and economic activity in Uinta County. In 2015, sheep production in Uinta County was approximately 81.4 percent of what it was in 2004 (Table 47). This analysis relies on the 2004 historic information because this data was readily available on the Historical Annual Statistical database of USDA (see: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wyoming/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulleti n/index_hist.php). Uinta County produced the second greatest number of sheep by county in the State of Wyoming in 2016, with production going up to 38,000 animals (United States Department of Agriculture 2016). The 2012 Census (the most current census) of Agriculture for Wyoming (United States Department of Agriculture 2012) found 315 farms in the county, of which, 35 raise sheep with a total sheep and lamb inventory of approximately 38,034 head (Table 1 – page 12 of the Census).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 215 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 40 - Trend of all sheep and lambs in Wyoming from the 1920s to 2004 (United States Department of Agriculture 2004). Of this total, about 28,523 head were ewes. These ranching operations produced about 349,825 pounds of wool and sold 17,942 head of sheep and lambs in 2012. Ninety-four percent of the sheep and lamb inventory in the county were on four ranching operations with 1,000 or more head of sheep (United States Department of Agriculture 2012). This indicates that the majority of sheep production in the county is associated with relatively large flocks that depend on federal grazing (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). It is projected that Uinta County, Wyoming would be affected the most by changes to grazing on the allotments. All of the sheep that graze these allotments are coming from Uinta County. The homes and ranches of the owners and operators are found in this county and their employees and families utilize services within this county. With respect to recreation, the local businesses in Uinta County provide the last stop access for resources that individuals may need prior to recreating in the areas where these allotments are found. Methodology The number of ewes with lambs is derived from the permitted animals on each allotment (Table 47 above). For those allotments (Painter Basin, Tungsten, and Ottoson Basin) where dry ewes or ewes with lambs can be grazed, the number of ewes with lambs was used to be consistent with

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 216 Draft Environmental Impact Statement the other allotments. Grazing on the Fall Creek Allotment is permitted; but, the allotment has not been stocked with domestic sheep for over 40 years. There has been no identified economic effect associated with this allotment. In this report, the economic benefit associated with permitting livestock on Fall Creek Allotment is derived from information from the other allotments. Direct impacts include direct employment related changes in sheep production. The indirect effects include changes in support sectors such as feed stores, veterinarians, and bulk fuel dealers. Induced effects include changes in household consumption expenditures of employees such as groceries, gasoline, and clothing (personal communication with D. Taylor, University of Wyoming, April 2, 2018). Direct impacts come from discussions with local operators. Indirect and Induced effects are generated as a ratio of direct impacts. These ratios are generated in the IMPLAN model which adjusts national coefficients to provide an estimate of local coefficients based on a statistical model (personal communication with D. Taylor, University of Wyoming, April 28, 2018). The change of economic value of production is the change projected to be experienced by a community as the number of livestock associated with the allotment changes. Information provided in this report comes from recognizing where the livestock originates from and returns to after the grazing season. No livestock currently come from or return to Duchesne County after the grazing season on these allotments. Employment numbers and economic benefit for Duchesne County were generated using information from Uinta County, Wyoming per 1,000 head of sheep. These economic impacts were estimated using a 2013 IMPLAN model for Uinta County (IMPLAN, 2018). The sheep sector in the model was modified to better reflect sheep ranching in Uinta County based on a Wyoming Range Sheep Budget for a 1,000 ewe ranch in southwest Wyoming, selling lambs in the fall. The 1,000 ewe budget is only a convenient example. In reality, sheep ranches come in all sizes. The 1,000 ewe budget was used to estimate per ewe expenditures which were then used to estimate impacts for the total number of ewes. This budget is based on the average income and expenses for 1,000 ewes Table 48). This budget was developed by Bridger Feuz, Wyoming Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, through interviews with sheep producers in the region (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). The 1,000 ewe budget reflects the income from the sale of lambs, cull ewes and rams, and wool for 1,000 head of sheep. It also reflects the costs of proving oversight and care for 1,000 animals. The gross income per year of raising 1,000 head of sheep is estimated to be $148,760.50 or $148.76 per animal (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). The operating expenses for the 1,000 ewe budget reflects the costs of feed (grain, hay, pasture, salt/minerals, equipment fuel and maintenance, etc.), care (predator control, shearing, veterinary medicine, hired help, sheep dogs, etc.), marking, and other business expenses (housing, interest on operating capital, etc.). The expenses for the 1,000 head of sheep are estimated to be $97,847.50 or 97.85 per animal (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). Ownership costs associated with a ranch operation includes the capital recovery (or replacement costs) for the livestock, housing and improvements, interest on retained livestock, taxes and

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 217 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 48 - Wyoming range sheep budget for 1,000 ewes for an operation where the lambs are sold in the fall of each year. Weight Unit Number of Price Cost Total Value Per Ewe Income and Expenses per Head Units Unit - $ - $ Value or Head Cost - $ Gross Receipts Lambs 90 lb. 840 1.65 124,740.00 124.74 Cull Ewes 150 lb. 150 0.32 7,200.00 7.20 Cull Rams 225 lb. 5 0.30 337.50 0.34 Wool-Ram, fine wool 12 lb. 15 2.25 405.00 0.41 Wool – Ram, meat 8 lb. 15 0.65 78.00 0.08 breed Wool - Ewe 10 lb. 1000 1.60 16,000.00 16.00 Total Receipts 148,760.50 148.76 Operating Costs

Alfalfa Hay ton 38 190.00 7,220.00 7.22 Feed Grain cwt 215 7.00 1,505.00 1.51 Salt/Mineral lb. 4000 0.15 600.00 0.60 Federal Range AUM 1500 1.35 2,025.00 2.03 Pasture AUM 900 15.00 13,500.00 13.50 Hauling head 1000 2.70 2,700.00 2.70 Marketing head 1000 1.50 1,500.00 1.50 Predator Assessment head 1000 1.00 1,000.00 1.00 Shearing – Ewe head 1000 3.80 3,800.00 3.80 Shearing – Ram head 30 7.75 232.50 0.23 Camp Supplies head 1000 5.00 5,000.00 5.00 Dog Food head 1000 2.00 2,000.00 2.00 ASI Lamb Checkoff head 1100 0.50 550.00 0.55 Veterinary Medicine $ 625 1.00 625.00 0.63 Machinery (fuel, $ 1200 1.00 1,200.00 1.20 lubrication, repair_ Vehicle (fuel, repair) $ 8600 1.00 8,600.00 8.60 Equipment (repair) $ 520 1.00 520.00 0.52 Housing and $ 720 1.00 720.00 0.72 Improvements (repair) Hired Labor herder 15000 2.00 30,000.00 30.00 Owner Labor hour 675 20.00 13,500.00 13.50 Interest on Operating $ 21000 0.05 1,050.00 1.05 Capital Total Operating Costs 97,847.50 97.85

Income Above Operating 50,913.00 50.91 Costs Ownership Costs

Capital Recovery

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 218 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Weight Unit Number of Price Cost Total Value Per Ewe Income and Expenses per Head Units Unit - $ - $ Value or Head Cost - $ Purchased Livestock $ 5500 1.00 5,500.00 5.50 Housing and $ 1000 1.00 1,000.00 1.00 Improvement Machinery $ 500 1.00 500.00 0.50 Equipment $ 2500 1.00 2,500.00 2.50 Vehicles $ 2800 1.00 2,800.00 2.80 Interest on Retained $ 12500 0.05 6,250.00 6.25 Livestock Taxes and Insurance $ 800 1.00 800.00 0.80 Overhead $ 8200 1.00 8,200.00 8.20 Total Ownership Costs 27,550.00 27.55

Total Costs 125,397.50 125.40 Net Returns (Profit) 23,363.00 23.36 insurance and overhead associated with the operation. The ownership costs for the 1,000 head of sheep is estimated to be $27,550 or $27.55 per animal (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). The net income for the 1,000 head of sheep is estimated at $23,363 or $23.36 per head (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). It is recognized that the income and expenses vary over time and from year-to-year based on market fluctuations. The budget presented here represents the average income, costs and investments in Wyoming derived from operation of a ranch for 1,000 head of ewes. The Wyoming 2012 Census of Agriculture information was used for this analysis in that it is the most current data available. Based on this Census of Agriculture estimate of 28,523 ewes in Uinta County down from 32,401 in 2007 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2012, p. 270). Larson et. al. (2018) state that “. . . the estimated total receipts in 2014 were $148.76 per ewe from the Wyoming Range Sheep Budget, it is estimated that the total value of sheep production in the county was $4.2 million. If secondary economic impacts associated with other businesses that provide services and products to the sheep industry and workers’ household expenditures are considered, the IMPLAN model for Uinta County estimates that total economic impact of sheep production in Uinta County is $7.1 million” or $249.45 per individual ewe. They go on to state, “This represents about $1.70 of total economic impact for each dollar of sheep production. The $7.1 million of total economic impact associated with sheep production supports direct and secondary employment of 105 jobs in the county . . .”: this equates to 0.003684 jobs per ewe. The “. . . direct and secondary labor earnings of $3.1 million in the county representing average earnings per job of $29,544.” (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). Because the sheep industry cannot stop and start production from one year to the next, the industry represents a stabilizing force in the Uinta County economy. Livestock grazing therefore strengthens the overall resiliency of the county by adding to the county’s economic diversity. Information Sources

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 219 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The annual operation instructions for the allotments were used to identify where the livestock do or would originate from, if stocked, and went or would go to after the grazing season on these allotments. Individual county economic reports, as well as information provided from both states were relied upon to conduct this analysis. Other important sources of information that were utilized included the Utah and Wyoming Agricultural Census reports. Incomplete and Unavailable Information In any environmental analysis, there are uncertainties, and it is impossible to know everything before making a decision. Nevertheless, adequate information does exist to evaluate the consequences of the proposed alternatives. The scope of this report is focused on Uinta County, Summit County and Duchesne County, thus only relevant data from this geographic region is included. Information provided for the rest of the counties of Wyoming and Utah provide an understanding of the resource at a broader level. County specific information can be found in county specific reports in the project record. The Fall Creek Allotment has not been grazed with domestic sheep for over 40 years, and currently, the Forest Service is unaware of any plans to stock this allotment in the near future. The existing conditions on the allotment reflect this. The proposed action, however, does authorize grazing on this allotment and no other environmental review would be required to restock the allotment if the proposed action were selected. The above information was used to estimate the economic benefit from the permitted number of livestock projected to come from Duchesne County, if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked by the permit holder. To estimate the net economic benefit from grazing on these allotments the costs and benefits were derived from multiplying the number of permitted livestock by “the per” animal information provided above. It is believed that the costs and income would be similar between Uinta County, Wyoming, and Duchesne County, Utah, both of which are rural counties located in the same general area. The closest large metropolitan area for both counties is Salt Lake City, Utah. Bounds of Analysis Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Direct and Indirect Effects The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to social economic conditions are Duchesne and Summit counties in Utah and Uinta County in Wyoming. Ranchers that utilize the five grazing allotments located within Summit County and the trailing to four allotments in Duchesne County reside in Uinta County, Wyoming. This report focuses on the sheep that do or would graze all ten allotments. For the purposes of this analysis, short-term social-economic impacts are those that occur within two years or less. It is during this time that additional forage would be sought for the livestock while they continue to utilize the affected drainages. If additional rangelands can be found, the long-term impacts would not occur although the profit margins may be reduced. Long-term impacts have a longer horizon and are defined as those that continue after a period of two years. A two-year period is used because 36 CFR 222.4 – Changes in Grazing Permits states: “The Chief, Forest Service, is authorized to cancel, modify, or suspend grazing and livestock use permits in whole or in part as follows: (1) Cancel permits where lands grazed under the permit are to be devoted to another public purpose including disposal. In these cases, except in an

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 220 Draft Environmental Impact Statement emergency, no permit shall be cancelled without 2 years' prior notification.” (U.S. Government Publishing Office 2012). If Alternative 1 were selected, notification would be provided to the permittee and two years later the permit would be canceled and grazing for the following grazing season would not be permitted. The change on the ground would therefore not occur until the third year. Once a decision is made, a rancher would have two years to determine how to deal with their livestock for the following grazing season. This would directly affect their operations and staffing. The social economic effects would be long-term. Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Cumulative Effects The spatial bounds for cumulative effects are the same as for direct and indirect effects. The temporal bounds for cumulative effects would include past activities from 15 years ago, while reasonably foreseeable future actions would include up to 15 years in the future. These bounds were selected recognizing that ranchers may carry 10 to 30 year loans with an annual operating line of credit (personal communication B. Feuz, Livestock Marketing Specialist/Area Educator with P. Cowley, April 30, 2018). As with any agricultural business, weather, retirements, equipment replacement, market values and policy changes all factor into long-term resiliency of a producer. It is the ranchers’ challenge to meet these unknowns and still be able to turn a profit at the end of each year. Measurement Indicators In order to compare and contrast the effects of the alternatives on social-economics, resource indicators and measures were established. Resource indicators are those items that describe what will be evaluated to determine the level of effects, while the measures are those items that are tied to the resource indicator and are the actual measure or method of determining the effect. Resource indicators for this analysis include ewes with lambs that use the allotment during any part of the year, the direct, indirect and induced employment associated with the allotment, and the economic value of sheep production (Table 49). This information was taken from or deduced from the Uinta County report (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018) where most of these effects are projected to be realized. Direct impacts are those effects of initial expenditures, or production, made by the sheep producers associated with the allotments. Indirect impacts are those effects on local economies from sheep industry spending associated with the allotments. Induced impacts are those effects on local spending of employees’ wages and salaries for employees directly or indirectly tied to sheep industry associated with the allotments. Table 49 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing economic effects of domestic sheep grazing in Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah and Uintah County, Wyoming. Measure Resource Element Resource Indicator

1 - Ewes/lambs Ewes/lambs grazed on the allotments Number of Ewes/lambs 2 - Employment from sheep Direct, indirect, or induced employment Number of employees production 3 - Economic Value of Dollars brought to the community from Millions of dollars Production sheep grazed on allotment

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 221 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Rationale for Choosing Resource Indicators and Measures Ewes with lambs that use the allotment at some point during the year is a resource indicator because as the number of ewes with lambs increase, the benefit/cost ratio increases because the fixed costs remain relatively constant. For example, 100 ewe/lamb pairs require base property, lambing sheds, equipment etc. that will remain relatively constant. As the herd size increases, staff increases to watch over and care for the additional sheep, and the profit margin increases, because you fixed costs remain constant, until the herd size reaches capacity of the facilities and then additional fixed costs have to be incurred reducing profit margins. Employment from sheep production is an indicator that reflects the community growth directly related to activities on the allotment. Permittees hire additional help in relationship to a set band size. These employees then contribute to the social environment of the community. Economic Value of Production reflects the economic impact to a community from the rearing and grazing of livestock both on and off public lands. Generally livestock grazing on public lands is a critical part of a sustainable livestock operation. Existing Condition Currently, 1,100 ewe/lambs could be expected to come from Duchesne County, Utah if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked as permitted. No sheep originate from Summit County, Utah. There are 9,200 ewe/lambs that utilize the allotments from Uinta County, Wyoming, which represent thirty-two percent of the total ewes in the county based on the 2012 numbers (Table 50). These sheep originate from two of the four ranches with over 1,000 head of sheep. If all of the allotments were fully stocked, this number would increase to 10,300 head with the additional livestock projected to come from Duchesne County (Table 50). Table 50 – Exisitng Condition (if stocked as authorized) for sheep production, primary employment and the economic benefit to the communities of Duchesne and Summit Counties, Utah and Uinta County, Wyoming from domestic sheep grazing on the ten domestic sheep allotments in the High Uintas Wilderness, 2017. Duchesne Summit Uinta Total Resource Resource Measure County, County, County, Indicator Element UT UT WY1 1 - Sheep Sheep Change in sheep 1,100 0 9,2002 10,300 production production production (ewes/lambs) numbers grazing allotments from Duchesne County 2 - Direct, Additional Jobs/year 43 0 34 38 indirect and employment induced direct, employment indirect and from sheep induced associated with allotment

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 222 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Duchesne Summit Uinta Total Resource Resource Measure County, County, County, Indicator Element UT UT WY1 3 - Direct, Money Dollars/year 274,3953 0 2,294,920 2,569,335 indirect and brought into induced the county economic from grazing benefit on the allotments 1(Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). 2Livestock numbers reflect the rotational use of the Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork and East Fork- Blacks Fork (two of the three allotments are grazed each year) and Painter Basin and Tungsten (one allotment is grazed 2 years while the other allotment is rested for those 2 years). These numbers reflect the higher use of 1,400 ewe/lambs on Gilbert Peak and Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork versus the 1,350 ewes/lambs grazed on the East Fork-Blacks Fork. 3These numbers reflect projected employment and economic benefit in Duchesne County if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked based on information provided by Uinta County, Wyoming (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). Resource Indicator and Measure 1 - Sheep Production (Ewes/Lambs) Sheep authorized to graze on these allotments were projected to originate from Duchesne County for the Fall Creek Allotment. No sheep from Summit County graze these allotments. Sheep authorized on the remaining allotments come from ranches in Uinta County, Wyoming. The primary method of analyzing the financial effects of the proposed alternatives on Uinta County residents is the number of ewes/lambs that are associated with these allotments. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment Direct, indirect and induced employment numbers associated with the sheep that graze the allotments are projected to or do come from farms/ranches in Duchesne County, Utah, or Uinta County, Wyoming. Currently, the sheep that graze the project area come from Uinta County, Wyoming. For every 1,000 ewes, approximately 2.3 individuals are employed by the sheep industry to feed and care for the animals (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). It is estimated that cumulatively, an additional 0.9 individuals are employed to provide resources supporting these operations which lead to an additional 0.4 employees being employed providing resources or services them (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). It is estimated that about 4.1 individuals would be employed to support the grazing of the Fall Creek Allotment in Duchesne County, if fully stocked. No individuals are or would be employed in Summit County in association with these allotments (Table 51). There are an estimated thirty-four individuals that are employed in Uinta County because of grazing sheep on these allotments. Table 51 - Estimated direct, indirect and induced employment benefiting Duchesne, Summit and Uinta counties associated with domestic sheep grazing on ten sheep allotments in the Uinta Mountains. Per Per Ewe Duchesne Summit Co. Uinta Co. Total Employment Ranch Co. (0 ewes) (9,200 ewes) (10,300 ewes) Per year (1,000 (1,100 ewes)1 ewes) Direct 2.3 0.002300 2.5 0 21.2 23.7

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 223 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Per Per Ewe Duchesne Summit Co. Uinta Co. Total Employment Ranch Co. (0 ewes) (9,200 ewes) (10,300 ewes) Per year (1,000 (1,100 ewes)1 ewes) Indirect 0.9 0.000937 1.0 0 8.6 9.7 Induced 0.4 0.000446 0.5 0 4.1 4.6 Total 3.7 0.003684 4.1 0 33.9 37.9 1These numbers reflect projected employment and economic benefit in Duchesne County if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked based on information provided by Uinta County, Wyoming (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Direct, Indirect and, Induced Economic Benefit A similar method is used to estimate the economic impacts resulting from sheep ranching and the potential impacts to the county. The estimated total economic impact was generated by adding the per ewe value of total gross receipts (Table 48 above) to the IMPLAN direct, indirect and induced economic impact and multiplying this sum with the number of ewes from each county (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). If the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked, it is estimated Duchesne County would have a direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of $274,395 from the 1,100 ewes. Uinta County is estimated to have a direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of $2,294,940 per year for the 9,200 ewes. The total economic impact, if the allotments were stocked, is estimated at $2,569,335 per year (Table 52). Table 52 - Estimated direct, indirect and induced economic benefit to Duchesne, Summit and Uinta counties associated with domestic sheep grazing on ten sheep allotments in the Uinta Mountains. Per Ewe1 Duchesne Co. Summit Co. Uinta Co. Total Dollars per (1,100 ewes) (0 ewes) (9,200 ewes) (10,300 ewes) year Direct 148.76 163,636 - 1,368,592 1,532,228 Indirect2 58.55 64,405 - 538,660 603,065 Induced2 42.14 46,354 - 387,688 434,042 Total 249.45 274,395 - 2,294,940 2,569,335 1These figures were provided by Uinta County and come from IMPLAN as provided by Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018). 2Indirect and induced numbers are generated by multiplying the indirect and induced employment numbers per ewe for Uinta County by the number of ewes being run on each allotment by county.

Effects Analysis Direct and Indirect Effects

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 224 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8) and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from changes to the existing condition as a result of a proposed action or alternative. The No Action Alternative is synonymous with the no grazing alternative. If no permits were reissued, there would be no grazing permitted on the ten allotments starting the third year after two years of notification (36CFR 222.4). There would be no trailing of sheep to or from the allotments. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Sheep Production (Ewes/Lambs) Alternative 1 would reduce sheep that are projected to come from Duchesne County, Utah. It would also eliminate the potential 1,100 ewe/lambs on the Fall Creek Allotment. This alternative would also significantly reduce sheep production in Uinta County. Alternative 1 would terminate grazing for the equivalent of 9,200 ewes/lambs during the summer months between the UWCNF and the ANF. Without alternative sources of grazing, the current economic contribution of the production from these ewes would be lost to these county’s economies. To date, no alternative source of grazing has been identified on or off forest (Larson, Taylor, & Feuz 2018) that would make it economical. Ranchers would be faced with the possibility of reducing their sheep herds with the loss of access to grazing these allotments. Although the loss of these allotments is only for two to three months each year, sheep operations are designed under a continuous year-long grazing system. If a rancher does not have forage for two months of the year, then they cannot run those sheep without incurring additional expenses. The permittee would no longer have a solvent year-long operation. If a rancher loses a permit, the grazing must be replaced by other forage in order to maintain herd size. Since there are no other available allotments that could be used as replacement allotments, permittees would be forced to reduce the size of their herds or purchase additional feed. Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment Direct, indirect and induced employment numbers associated with the sheep that graze the allotments from farms/ranches in Duchesne County, Utah, or Uinta County, Wyoming, would drop. It is estimated that 4.1 individuals would not be employed to support the grazing of the Fall Creek Allotment in Duchesne County, if fully stocked. No individuals are or would be employed in Summit County in association with these allotments (Table 50 above). There are an estimated thirty-four individuals that would no longer be employed in Uinta County because of the reduced sheep numbers being grazed on the allotments being analyzed. Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Economic Benefit If the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked, it is estimated Duchesne County would have a direct, indirect, and induced economic potential loss of $274,395 from the 1,100 ewes. Uinta County’s estimated direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of $2,294,940 per year for the 9,200 ewes would be lost. The total economic impact, if the allotments were stocked, is estimated at $2,569,335 per year (Table 53).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 225 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 53 - Sheep production, primary employment and the economic change to the communities of Duchesne County, Utah, and Uinta County, Wyoming, from continuing grazing of domestic sheep on the ten domestic sheep allotments in the High Uintas Wilderness, 2017. Resource Indicator Measure (Alternative 2) Resource Element Change in sheep production Sheep production Sheep production numbers from Duchesne 10,300 and Uinta counties Direct, indirect and Additional induced employment employment (direct, Number of employees 37.9 from sheep associated indirect and induced) with allotment Economic benefit potential to Economic benefit to Duchesne and Uinta county Dollars 2,569,335 community communities from grazing on the allotments The profitability of a ranch is based on a mix of revenue from the sale of wool, livestock and other products and the fixed and variable expenses based on the number of sheep in the total operation. Fixed costs are associated with items such as buildings, land, taxes, equipment, etc. Variable costs are directly tied to the number of sheep with economic advantages for greater numbers of sheep. In general, as a rancher reduces sheep numbers, fixed costs remain relatively constant and variable costs will be reduced. When a ranch reduces sheep numbers, the result is a decreased revenue from the products (lamb sales, wool sales etc.) over time. When significant reductions occur, a ranch may have to change its products and/or operations or it can no longer make a profit and goes out of business. A ranch is forced to develop a certain critical base number of sheep to remain solvent. Ranchers therefore structure their operation around the carrying capacity of the ranch. Therefore fixed costs directly influence profitability. According to the U.S. Baseline Lamb Cost of Production Model, developed for the American Sheep Industry by the Livestock Marketing Improvement Center, sheep producers in the Wyoming region incurred an average of $22.05 in fixed costs per ewe for 2015 based on the number of ewes being raised in Wyoming in 2015. Fixed costs are those expenses associated with operating a ranch (i.e. mortgage, property taxes, etc.) and are not proportional to the number of sheep being run on a ranch. These fixed costs would have to be incurred by the income from the remaining livestock being raised on the ranch if the numbers of livestock were reduced. Uinta County Conservation District (2018), projected a reduction between 40 to 60 percent would in most cases force a ranch out of sheep production. A reduction between 20 to 40 percent would significantly reduce the long-term viability of a ranch. It is assumed that if grazing were terminated on these allotments there would be no replacement allotments or feed and the herds would be reduced by the number of sheep being permitted. This reduction would then affect two of the four primary sheep producers in the county. There would be fewer people employed and fewer dollars that would move through the county affecting all businesses in the county. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Continued Management Alternative 2 would reissue the permits as they currently exist. Livestock would continue to use the allotments, workers would continue to be paid to care for the sheep, and funds generated

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 226 Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the sheep operations would continue to be spent in the local communities. There would be a potential of 1,100 sheep that would be expected to come from Duchesne County, Utah and 9,200 sheep would come from Uinta County, Wyoming. Resources to sustain the workers are believed to be coming from Duchesne and Uinta counties respectively. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Sheep Production (Ewes/Lambs) Eleven hundred ewe/lambs could be expected to come from Duchesne County, Utah if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked as permitted. There are 9,200 ewe/lambs that utilize the allotments from Uinta County, Wyoming (Table 53). Resource Indicator and Measure 2 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment The direct and indirect employment numbers associated with the sheep that graze the allotments could benefit Duchesne County and would benefit Uinta County. A total of 37.9 employment opportunities would be generated from grazing the potential 10,300 ewe/lambs. Most of this employment would occur in Uinta County, Wyoming (Table 53). Resource Indicator and Measure 3 - Direct, Indirect and Induced Economic Benefit The majority of the economic benefit from grazing these allotments would be experienced in Uinta County, Wyoming. Duchesne County communities have the potential to see some economic benefit if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked. In total, the projected annual economic benefit would be $2,569,335 (Table 53). Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 – No Action, No Grazing Cumulative effects are those effects that overlap in space and time with those effects from the project using the same measurement indicators. There are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects whose effects overlap with the effects from Alternative 1. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects if Alternative 1 were implemented. Aside from cumulative effects as defined by NEPA, there are other outside influences that have an impact on the economics of the counties and local communities. Sheep ranching and grazing that occur on National Forest Lands is one of many economic inputs to the community economy in Uinta and Duchesne counties and is a subset of the overall agricultural inputs. Other inputs into the economy include recreation, mining, timber, oil and gas, etc. Defining the exact amount of these impacts is beyond the scope of this analysis. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, Current Management There would be no cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2. In order to have cumulative effects, there must be a direct and indirect effect that is clearly different from the existing condition. Without effects to the existing condition, there can be no cumulative effects. Since Alternative 2 would be the continuation of current management and not generate any effects, there would be no cumulative effects that would result from Alternative 2.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 227 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Effects The potential social economics impacts would be greatest to Uinta County if the grazing is not reauthorized. For the two large producers and the county this impact could be substantial and would impact the tax base and indirect and induced benefits the County is currently experiencing from sheep grazing. Selection of the no action (no grazing alternative) may preclude future management options that could affect the future economic benefits to Duchesne County if the Fall Creek allotment were restocked. It is believed that there would be no economic impact to Summit County based on changes to the allotments because there are no sheep originating from Summit County that currently graze the allotments. Neither alternative would affect the social economic conditions of Duchesne County in that there are no Duchesne County permittees that currently graze sheep on the allotment. The potential exists that at some time in the future the Fall Creek allotment may be restocked and the current permit holder may benefit residents of Duchesne County (Table 54). Table 54 - Summary comparison of effects to the social economic resources in Duchesne, Summit and Uinta counties in response to reauthorizing grazing in the High Uintas Wilderness domestic sheep allotments. Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 21

Sheep production 0 (No permits would be renewed 10,300 (Permits would be reauthorized and the and no sheep would be potential exists that the Fall Creek Allotment permitted on the allotment.) could be restocked.)

Employee 0 (No employees would be 38 (34 from Uinta County, WY, and 4 from directly or indirectly hired.) Duchesne County, UT if the Fall Creek Allotment were stocked.) Economic benefit 0 (No economic benefit would be $2,569,335 (Uinta County would continue to to community realized in the communities in benefit from the economic impact of domestic Duchesne, Summit or Uinta sheep grazing on the allotment. Duchesne counties.) County may see an economic benefit if the Fall Creek Allotment were restocked.) 1 If the Fall Creek Allotment were restocked there would be a social and economic impact to Duchesne County. Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues The continuance of grazing as permitted has the greatest potential to address the issue of social economic benefits to counties and local communities. Approximately 34 jobs per year would be retained in Uinta County (Table 51). Even though there would be no short-term benefit, the potential is there that sheep may be returned to the Fall Creek Allotment from Duchesne County, which has the potential to provide economic stimulus. It is estimated that four jobs would be provided annually if Fall Creek Allotment were restocked. The overall annual impact to the economies is projected to be $274,395 in Duchesne County and estimated at $2,569,335 for Uinta County (Table 54).

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 228 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4 – List of Contributors, Agencies, and Individuals Informed or Consulted Contributors Forest Service David C. Whittikiend – UWC Forest Supervisor Jeff E. Schramm – Ashley Forest Supervisor Kristy Groves – Ashley - Roosevelt/Duchesne District Ranger Rick Schuler – UWC – Evanston/Mountain View District Ranger Paul Cowley – ID Team Leader and UWC Staff Officer LeAnn S. Colburn – Ashley Forest Environmental Coordinator Dustin Bambrough – Ashley Ecosystems Staff Officer Leah Smith – UWC Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Specialist Paul Chase – UWC Fisheries Biologist Robert Christensen - Ashley Wildlife Biologist Christina Hacker – UWC Wildlife Biologist Sandy-Remund Kaminski – Ashley Range Conservationist Aimee Cameron – UWC Range Conservationist Charles Condrat – UWC Forest Hydrologist Chris Plunkett – Ashley Forest Hydrologist Allen Huber – Ashley Forest Ecologist and Botanist Bernard Asay – UWC Wilderness and Recreation Specialist Tom Flanigan – UWC Forest Archeologist Michael Duncan– UWC Ecologist and Botanist Sarah Leahy – Ashley Soil Scientist Stacey Weems – UWC Soil Scientist Cooperating Agencies State of Utah – Public Lands Policy Coordination Office State of Wyoming Duchesne County Commission – Utah Summit County Commission – Utah Sweetwater County - Wyoming

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 229 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Uinta County Commission – Wyoming Uinta County Conservation District – Wyoming Other Agencies, Governments, and Individuals Informed or Consulted US Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management US Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service US Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs USDA – Farm Service Agency USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service US Environmental Protection Agency Utah Department of Wildlife Resources Utah Department of Environmental Quality Utah State Historic Preservation Office Wyoming Fish and Game Department Wyoming Department of Agriculture Utah Department of Agriculture Uintah County Commission, Utah Tribal Units of Government and Tribal Organizations Informed Ute Indian Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation Eastern Shoshone Tribe Skull Valley Band of Goshute

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 230 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

References Alevy, J. F. 2007. Analysis of Impacts on Public Land Grazing on the Elko County Economy, Jarbridge and Mountain City Management Area: Economic Impacts of Federal Grazing in Elko County. Reno: University of Nevada. Apps, C. D. 2000. Space-use, diet, demographics, and topographic associations of lynx in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: a study. Pages 351–371 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, USA. Asay, Bernard. 2018. High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis Wilderness/Recreation Report. Uinta-Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests. March 2018. Ash, A.J. and Smith, D.M. 1996. Evaluating stocking rate impacts in rangelands: Animals don’t practice what we preach. Austr. Rangel J. 18(2): 216-243. Ashcroft, Gaylen L., Jensen, Donald T. and Jeffrey L. Brown. 1992. Utah Climate. Utah Climate Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Aubry, K. B., G. M. Koehler, and J. R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. Pages 373–396 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, edi-tors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, USA. Baker, W. L., 1983. Alpine vegetation of Wheeler Peak, New Mexico, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research, 15: 223-240. Berg, N. D. and E. M. Gese. 2012. Relationship between fecal pellet counts and snowshoe hare density in western Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1745–1751. Berg, N. D. and R. M. Inman 2010. Uinta Mountains Lynx and Wolverine Survey Report. Uinta- Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests. Beier P., E. C. Rogan, M. F. Ingraldi, S. S. Rosenstock. 2008. Does forest structure affect reproduction of goshawks in ponderosa pine forests? Journal of Applied Ecology 2008, 45, 342-350. Besser, Thomas E., E. F. Cassirer, C. Yamada, K. A. Potter, C. Herndon, W. J. Foreyt, D. P. Knowles, and S. Srikumaran. 2012a. Survival of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensisis) comingled with domestic sheep (Ovis aries) in the absence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. J. Wildl. Dis. 48(1) 2012, pp. 168-172. Besser, Thomas E., M. A. Highland, K. Baker, E. F. Cassirer, N. J. Anderson, J. M. Ramsey, K. Mansfield, D. L. Bruning, P. Wolff, J. B. Smith, and J. A. Jenks. 2012b. Causes of pneumonia epizootics among bighorns sheep western United States 2008-2010. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18 (3) March 2012, pp. 406-414. Besser, T. E., E. F. Cassirer, K. A. Potter, K. Lahmers, J. L. Oaks, S. Shanthalingam, S. Srikumaran, W. J. Foreyt. 2014. Epizootic Pneumonia of bighorn sheep following

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 231 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

experimental exposure to Mycoplasma ovipneumonia. PLoS One 9(10):e110039. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110039. Billings, W. D. and Bliss, L. C., 1959. An alpine snowbank environment and its effects on vegetation, plant development, and productivity. Ecology, 40:388-397. Billings, W. D., 1973. Arctic and alpine vegetation: similarities, differences, and susceptibility to disturbances. Bio Science, 23: 697-704. Bockheim, J. G. and D. Koerner. 1997. Pedogenesis in alpine ecosystems of the eastern Uinta Mountains, Utah, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research Vol. 29 No. 2:164-172. Boyd, Claude E. 2000. WATER QUALITY. An Introduction. Alabama Agricultural Experimental Station, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures. Auburn University, U.S.A. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston / Dordrecht / London. Briske, D.D. and Heitschmidt, R.K. 1991. An ecological perspective. In: Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Timber Press Inc., Portland, OR. Brown, G. D. 2006. An alpine plant community classification for the Uinta Mountains, Utah. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 140 p. Brown, G. 2018. Personal communication on utilization response. Garry Brown is the Rangeland Management Specialist on the Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger District. Bryant, J. P. and Scheinberg, E., 1970. Vegetation and frost activity in an alpine fellfield on the summit of Plateau Mountain, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany, 48: 751-771. Burns, S. F., 1979. The northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides): a major geomorphic agent of the alpine tundra. J. of the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Sciences, X1: 86 Abstract. Burton, E.C., M.J.Gray, A.C. Schmutzer, D.L. Miller. 2009. Differential responses of postmetamorphic amphibians to cattle grazing in wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(2):269–277 Cameron A. 2017. Specialist Report for Vegetation resources for Gilbert Peak, Hessie Lake- Henry’s Fork, Red Castle, East Fork-Blacks Fork, Middle Fork-Blacks Fork allotments. Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. April 28, 2017. Cameron A. and Huber A. 2017. Updated East Fork Sheep Driveway Trailing Impacts Report. Cameron A. and A. Huber 2017. Updated East Fork Sheep Driveway Trailing Impacts Report. Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. April 28, 2017. Cameron A. and A. Huber 2018. High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis Rangeland Vegetation Report. Uinta-Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests. February 2018. Camfield, Alaine F., William A. Calder and Lorene L. Calder. 2013. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca:

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 232 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/016doi:10.2173/bna.16 Carpenter, T. E., V. L. Coggins, C. McCarthy, C. S. O’Brien, J. M. O’Brien, T. J. Schommer. 2014. A spatial risk assessment of bighorn sheep extirpation by grazing domestic sheep on public lands. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 114 (2014) 3–10. Cassirier E. F., K. R. Manlove, E. S. Almberg, P. L. Kamath, M. Cox, P. Wolff, A. Roug, J. Shannon, R. Robinson, R. B. Harris, B. J. Gonzales, R. K. Plowright, P. J. Hudson, P. C. Cross, A. Dobson, T. E. Besser. 2018. Pneumonia in bighorn sheep: risk and resilience. The Journal of Wildlife management 62 (1):32-45; 2018; DOI: 10.1002. Chadde, S.W., J.S. Shelly, R.J. Bursik, R.K. Moseley, A.G. Evenden, M. Mantas, F. Rabe, and B. Heidel. 1998. Peatlands on National Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains: ecology and conservation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Choate, C. M. and Habeck, J. R., 1967. Alpine plant communities at Logan Pass, Glacier National Park, Montana. Proceedings of Montana Academy of Sciences, 27: 36-54. Christensen, B. 2013. Roosevelt/Duchesne Ranger District 2012 Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring Report March 2006-December 2012. Christensen, B. 2015. Roosevelt/Duchesne Ranger District Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring Report March 2006-April 2015. CDOW 2006-2007. Lynx Research Report. Division of Wildlife, Mammals Research, Lynx Conservation, Post-Release Monitoring of Lynx Reintroduced to Colorado. Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. J. Range Mange. 52: 218-227. Clary, W.P. and Webster, B.F. 1989. Managing grazing riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 7 p. Comis, D. 1999. Moderate grazing promotes plant diversity. Agricultural Research Magazine: Vol. 47., No. 5 p.7. Condrat, Charlie. 2015. All Field Notes by Charlie Condrat, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF hydrologist, for Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF High Uinta Domestic Sheep allotments. Condrat, Charlie. 2018. Hydrologist Specialist Report. High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Project. Condrat, Charlie. 2018a. File named “20180306HikingTrail_ShpDrvwayStmXingCalcs” containing calculations of Sheep driveway Crossings in HUDS project area. Condrat, Charlie. 2018b. File named “20180306HUDS_NWI_AllAllotmts” containing calculations for estimating wetland area in HUDS project area allotments from National Wetland Inventory data.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 233 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Condrat, Charlie. 2018c. File named “20180306HUDS_WQ_SuspSedData” containing calculations for determining total suspended solids from Utah Division of Water Quality sample sites. Courtois, D.R.; Perryman, B.L.; Hussein, H.S. 2004. Vegetation changes after 65 years of grazing and grazing exclusion. J. Range Mange. 57: 574-582. Cox, C. F., 1933. Alpine succession on James Peak, Colorado. Ecological Monographs, 3: 299- 372. Cowley, Paul. 2006. Henrys Fork, Gilbert Peak Allotment Report, Aquatics. USDA, Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston District. Cowley, Paul. 2007. Red Castle, East Fork Allotment Report, Aquatics. USDA, Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston District. Curran, M. 1999. Harvest systems and strategies to reduce soil and regeneration impacts (and costs). In: Impacts of Machine Traffic on Soil and Regeneration- Proceedings of FERICS Machine Traffic/Soil Interaction Workshop, Edmonton, Alberta. Special Report No. SR-133. Vancouver, BC. DeByle, N. V. 1985. Animal impacts. In: DeByle, Norbert V.; Winokur, Robert P., editors. Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo. p. 115-123. Dewey S. 1998. Ashley National Forest northern goshawk monitoring plan. USDA Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Dewey, S. R. 1999a. Effects of supplemental food on parental care strategies and juvenile survival in northern goshawks. M.S. Thesis Colorado State University. 75pp. Dewey, S. R. 1999b. Memorandum: Analysis of radio-tracking data for validation of PFA concept. Ashley National Forest. Dewey, S. R. 1999c. Memorandum: Proposed standardized protocol for determining occupancy and reproductive status in northern goshawk territories. Ashley National Forest. Douglas, G. W. and Bliss, L. C. 1977: Alpine and high subalpine plant communities of the north Cascades Range, Washington and British Columbia. Ecological Monographs, 47: 113-150. Duchesne County. 2017. Duchesne County General Plan. Retrieved 11 29, 2017, from Planning and Zoning Commission: http://www.duchesne.utah.gov/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/General-Plan-CRMP-2017-Final.pdf. July 17, 2017. Eckert, R.E.; Peterson, F.F.; Meurisse, M.M.; Stephens, J.L. 1986. Effects of solid surface morphology on emergence and survival of seedlings in big sagebrush communities. J. Range Mange. 39: 414-420. EPA. 2003. National management measures for the control of nonpoint pollution from agriculture. EPA-841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 234 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FField, D. 1928. Unit write up for Painters Basin, & Report of Gilbert Basin and 1st drainage east, & Atwood Basin and Painters Draw. Studies 12-3, 12-12, and 25-6B-L. On file at Forest Supervisors Office, Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT. Ganskopp, D.C. and Bedell, T. 1981. An assessment of vigor and production of range grasses following drought. J. Range Manage. 34: 137-141. Goodrich, S.; Huber, A.; Zobell, R. 2002-08-14. Rocky Mountain National Park. Photos and Notes from 5 study sites. On file at Supervisors Office Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT. Goodrich, S.; Huber, A.; Zobell, R. 2002-08-15. Niwot Ridge, Roosevelt National Forest. Photos and Notes from 7 study sites. On file at Supervisors Office Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT. Goodrich, S. K. 2004. Alpine plant communities: factors to consider. Powerpoint. On file at:Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Vernal, UT. Goodrich, S. K. 2006. Alpine plant communities: Uinta Mountains. Powerpoint. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Vernal, UT. Goodrich S. 2006. Fall Creek History of Use Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Goodrich, S.; Huber, A. 2006-02-13. Kidney Lake Exclosure. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Power Point Presentation. 14 slides. Goodrich, S. 2006-03-15. Alpine distribution and abundance of pocket gophers in the Uinta Mountains in context of livestock grazing and other factors. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. 9 p. Goodrich, S.; Huber, A. 2009-03-02. Tungsten allotment condition and trend. Roosevelt, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Roosevelt District, Power Point Presentation. 95 slides. Goodrich, S. 2009. Alpine plants and plant communities of the Uinta Mountains. Vernal, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. P.13. Goodrich, S. 2010-01-16. Leidy Peak condition and trend. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Ashley National Forest. Power Point Presentation. 35 slides. Goodrich, S. and A. Huber. 2010. Rangeland Condition and Trend, Fall Creek Allotment, Duchesne District, Ashley National Forest. USDA, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. PowerPoint Presentation. Goodrich, S.; Cameron, A. 2011-01-20. Pocket gophers and plant community dynamics. Vernal, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. 27 P. Goodrich, S.; Huber, A. 2014-02-20. Painter allotment condition and trend. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Roosevelt District, Power Point Presentation. 60 slides.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 235 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Goodrich, S.; Zobell, R.; Huber, A.; Cameron, A. 2015-03-01. Pocket gophers in alpine and subalpine plant communities, Uinta Mountains. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest Supervisors Office. Power Point Presentation. Goodrich, S. 2015-03-12. Plant resource value ratings. Vernal, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. 2 p. and a 25 p. table. Goodrich, S. 2015-06-08. Alpine plant community classification Uinta Mountains compared to other areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. 7 p. Goodrich, S.; Huber, A. 2016-01-11. Desired conditions & monitoring plan, Ashley National Forest. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, unpublished. 9 p. Goodrich 2016-09-01. Trend of willows in the subalpine belt of the North Slope, Uinta Mountains. Vernal, UT: USDA Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Power Point Presentation. 10 slides. Goodrich, S.; Zobell, R.; Cameron, A. 2016-12-20. Hessie Lake-Henrys Fork Allotment and Gilbert Peak Allotment Condition and Trend Subalpine Communities. Mountain View, Wyoming: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Power Point Presentation. 52 slides. Graham, R. T; Rodriguez, R. L.; Paulin, K. M. and others. 1999. The northern goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 48 p. Greenwald, D. N., D. C. Croker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K. F. Suckling, and T. Tibbitts. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(1):120-129. Griffin, P. C. 2004. Landscape ecology of snowshoe hares in Montana. Dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. Hahn, Thomas Peter. 1996. Cassin's Finch (Haemorhous cassinii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/240doi:10.2173/bna.240 Hart, R.H. and Ashby, M.M. 1998. Grazing intensities, vegetation, and heifer gains: 55 years on shortgrass. J. Range Manage. 51: 392-398. Haynes, R.J. and Williams, P.H. 1995. Nutrient cycling and soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Adv. in Agron. 49: 119-199. Hayward, C. L. 1952. Alpine biotic communities of the Uinta Mountains, Utah. Ecological Monographs 22: 93-120. Heady, H.F. and Child, R.D. 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Westview Press, San Francisco, CA.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 236 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Helm, D., 1982. Multivariate analysis of alpine snow-patch vegetation cover near Milner Pass, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, U. S. A. Arctic and Alpine Research, 14: 87-95. Hodges, K. E. 2000. The ecology of snowshoe hares in northern boreal forests. Pages 117–161 In L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, USA. Holechek, J.L. 1981. Livestock grazing impacts on public lands: A viewpoint. J. Range Mange. 34: 251-254. Holechek, J.L.; Pieper, R.D.; Herbel, C.H. 2001. Range Management Principles and Practices, 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Chap 9. Holechek, J.L.; Baker, T.T.; Boren, J.C. 2004. Impacts of controlled grazing versus grazing exclusion on rangeland ecosystems: What we have learned. Range Improvement Task Force Report No. 57. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. Holechek, J.L.; Baker, T.T.; Boren, J.C.; Galt, D. 2006. Grazing impacts on rangeland vegetation: what we have learned. Rangelands: Vol. 28, No. 1 p. 7-13. Holt and Bechthold. 2009. Unpublished Field Notes for 7/15/2009 and 7/16/2009 for Bacteria Sampling on Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek allotments, and East Fork Bear River and Blacks Fork allotments. US Forest Service. Huber A. 2016. Specialist Report for Vegetation Resources for Fall Creek, Ottoson, Oweep, Painter Basin, and Tungsten Allotments. Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Humber, S.A.; Judkins, M.B.; Krysl, L.J; Svejcar, T.J.; Hess, B.W.; Holcombe, D.W. 1995. Cattle grazing a riparian mountain meadow: effects of low and moderate stocking density on nutrition, behavior, diet selection, and plant response. Journal of Animal Science: Vol. 73, pp. 3752-3765. Hyder, D.N. and Sneva, F.A. 1956. Seed – and plant – soil reactions as affected by seedbed firmness on a sandy loam rangeland soil. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 20:416-419. Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128pp. Jameson, D.A. 1963. Evaluation of responses of individual plants to grazing. U.S. Dept. Agri. Misc. Pub 940: 109-116. Jensen, C. H., A. Smith, and G. Scotter. 1972. Guidelines for Grazing Sheep on Rangelands Used by Big Game in Winter. Journal of Range Management, 25(5), 346-352. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3896543. Johnson, M.K. 1956. The effect of grazing intensity on plant composition, vigor, and growth of pine-bunchgrass range in central Colorado. Ecology 37: 790-798.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 237 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Johnson, P. L. and Billings, W. D., 1962. The alpine vegetation of the Beartooth Plateau in relation to cryopedogenic processes and patterns. Ecological Monographs, 32: 105-135. Kimsey, D.W. 1963. Management of the High Uinta’s with Tentative Suitability Criteria. USDA, Forest Service. U.S. Government Printing Office. Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684doi:10.2173/bna.684 Koehler, G. M., B. T. Maletzke, J. A. von Kienast, K. B. Aubry, R. B. Wielgus, and R. H. Naney. 2008. Habitat fragmentation and the persistence of lynx populations in Washington State. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1518–1524. Koehler, G. M.1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:845–851. Komarkova, V. 1979. Alpine vegetation of the Indian Peaks area, Front Range, Colorado Rocky Mountains. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Liechtenstein. 591 p. Larrison, E. J. 1942. Pocket gophers and ecological succession in the Wenas region of Washington. The Murrelet. 23: 34-41. Larson, C., Taylor, D., & Feuz, a. B. 2018. Social and Economic Assessment High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis. Evanston: Uinta County. Lewis, M. E. 1970. Alpine rangelands of the Uinta Mountains. Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ashley and Wasatch National Forests, Region 4. unpublished. 75 p. Lindzey F. G., W. G. Hepworth, T. A. Madison, A. F. Reese. 1997. Potential for competitive interactions between mule deer and elk in the Western United States and Canada: A review. Wyoming Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, Wyoming. Litvaitis, J. A., J. A. Sherbourne, and J. A. Bissonette. 1985. Influence of understory characteristics on snowshoe hare habitat use and density. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:866–873. Lusby, G.C. 1970. Hydrologic and biotic effects of grazing vs non-grazing near Grand Junction, Colorado. J. Range Mange. 23: 256-260. Maletzke, B. T., G. M. Koehler, R .B. Wielgus, and K .B. Aubry. 2008. Habitat conditions associated with lynx hunting behavior during winter in Northern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1473–1478. Marr, J. W., 1967. Ecosystems of the east slope of the Front Range in Colorado. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Biology, 8: 1-134.

McKay, R. 1991. Biological assessment and inventory plan for the North American lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) in the Uinta Mountains. Unpublished, Ashley National Forest and Utah Natural Heritage Program, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 238 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Pages 207–264 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, McNaughton, S.J. 1983. Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos 40: 329-336. Milchunas, D.G. and Lauenroth, W.K. 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecological Mono. 63: 327-366. Molinar, F.; Galt, D.; Holchek, J. 2001. Managing for mulch. Rangelands Vol. 23 No. 4: 2- 7.USA. Mowat, G., K. G. Poole, and M. O'Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Canada and Alaska. Pages 265–306 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, USA. Muir, M and Chris Plunkett. 2009. Field Visit Summary, Upper Fall Creek, July 29, 2009. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Munroe, J.S. 2006. Investigating the spatial distribution of summit flats in the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah, USA. Geomorphology Vol. 75 Issues 3-4:437-449. Munroe, J. 2007. Properties of alpine soils associated with well-developed sorted polygons in the Uinta Mountains, Utah, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research Vol. 39 No. 4:578-591. Murray, D. L. 2000. A geographic analysis of snowshoe hare population demography. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1207–1217.

Nordstrom, L. 2005. Recovery Outline: Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, USA. Nussl, S., K. R. Matthews, and S. M. Carlson. 2017. Patterns and dynamics of vegetation recovery following grazing cessation in the California golden trout habitat. Ecosphere 8(7):e01880. 10.1002/ecs2.1880 O’Brien, J. M., C. S. O’Brien, C. McCarthy, T. E. Carpenter. 2014. Incorporating foray behavior into models estimating contact risk between bighorn sheep and areas occupied by domestic sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38(2):321-331; 2014; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.387 O’Donoghue, M. and C. J. Krebs. 1992. Effects of supplemental food on snowshoe hare reproduction and juvenile growth at a cyclic population peak. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:631–641. O’Reagan, P.J. and Turner, J.R. 1992. An evaluation of the empirical basis for grazing management recommendations for rangeland in southern Africa. J. Grassl. Soc. of S. Africa. 9: 1-52. Oliver, G. V. 2000. The bats of Utah: a literature review. Publication #00-14, Utah Division of Wildlife Resource, Salt Lake City, Utah. 141pp.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 239 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Osburn, W. S. Jr., 1958. Ecology of winter snow-free areas of the alpine tundra of Niwot Ridge, Boulder County, Colorado. MS. Thesis, University of Colorado, 77 p. Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F. Sanchez, R. Fleming, M. Kranabetter, R. Powers, D. Stone, J. Elioff, and D. Scott. 2006. Soil physical property changes at the North American long-term soil productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. Can. J. For. Res. 36:551-564. Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT. 84116, UDWR Publication Number 02-27. i-xiv + 302 pp. Paulin, K. 1998. Memorandum: Winter locations of northern goshawks, Nov. 1996 through April 1998. Ashley National Forest. Paulsen, H.A. and Ares, F.N. 1962. Grazing values and management of black gama and tobosa grasslands and associated shrub ranges of the southwest. USDA, Technical Bulletin 1270. Perkins, J. M. 2001. Bat surveys in Dry Fork and Ashley Creek watershed, Ashley National Forest, Vernal, Utah. Survey report prepared in September 2001, on file at the Roosevelt Range District Office, UT. 26pp. Perkins, J. M. 2002. Summer 2002 bat survey, Duchesne Ranger District. Survey report prepared from 2002, on file at the Roosevelt Range District Office, UT. 29pp. Platts, W. 1981. Effects of Sheep Grazing on a Riparian-Stream Environment. Research Note INT-307. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Platts, W. 1987. Riparian Stream Management. Transactions Western Section. The Wildlife Society 22:90-93. Powers, R. F., F.G. Sanchez, A. D. Scott, and D. Page-Dumroese. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: coast-to-coast findings from the first decade. In: Shepperd, W.D. and L. G. Eskew, compilers. 2004. Silviculture in special places: Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop, 2003 September 8-11, Granby, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-34. Ft. Collins, CO. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp. 191-206. Reynolds, H.G. and Packer, P.E. 1963. Effects of trampling on soil and vegetation. USDA Misc. Publication 940: 116-122. Reynolds, R. T.; Graham, R. T.; Reiser, M. H. and others. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p. Reynolds R.T., D. A. Boyce, R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser. 2001. Review of supplemental information relevant to habitat management for the northern goshawk in Southwestern United States.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 240 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Reynolds R. T. 2004. Is the northern goshawk an old growth forest specialist or a habitat generalist? Robichaud, P., J. Beyers, and D. Neary. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of post-fire rehabilitation treatments. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-63. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp. 17-19. Rodriguez, R. L.; Player, R. L.; Paulin, K. M. and R. L. Williams. 1998. Conservation strategy and agreement for the management of northern goshawk habitat in Utah. Agreement signed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. Copy on file at the Ashley National Forest in Vernal, UT. 20 p. Romme, W. H., Floyd, M. L., Hanna, D. Alpine ecosystems. In: Historical Range of Variability and Current Landscape Condition Analysis: South Central Highlands Section, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University, U.S. Forest Service, Region 2. pp. 202-204. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-0053, Missoula, MT. 142pp. Ruyle, G., and J. Dyess. 2010. Rangeland monitoring and the parker 3-step method: Overview, perspectives and current applications. The University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Tucson, Arizona. Salafsky S. R., R. T. Reynolds, B. R. Noon, and J. A. Wiens. 2007. Reproductive responses of northern goshawks to variable prey populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2274- 2283; 2007. Sedgwick, James A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/533doi:10.2173/bna.533 Sells, S. N., M. S. Mitchel, J. J. Nowak, P. M. Lukacs, N. J. Anderson, J. M. Ramsey, J. A. Gude, P. R. Krausman. 2015. Modeling risk of pneumonia epizootics in bighorn sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79(2):195-210; 2015; DOI. Shackleton, D. M. 1985. Mammalian Species, No. 230, Ovis Canadensis (May 24 1985), pp. 1-9, American Society of Mammalogists Shenk, T. M. 2008. Wildlife research report: post release monitoring of lynx (Lynx canadensis) reintroduced to Colorado. July 1, 2007–June 30, 2008. Colorado Division of Wildlife. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Lynx/Reports/LynxAn nualReport2007-08.pdf Sherrod, S. K. 1999. A multiscale analysis of the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) in the alpine, Niwot ridge. CO. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 142 p. Dissertation.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 241 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Sherrod, S. K.; Seastedt, T. R. 2001. Effects of the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) on alpine soil characteristics, Niwot Ridge, CO. Biogeochemistry 55: 195-218. Sherrod, S.K.; Seastedt, T. R.; Walker, M. D. 2005. Northern Pocket Gopher (Thomomys talpoides) control of alpine plant community structure. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research. 37: 585-590. Smith, G. and J. Lemly. 2017. Fen mapping for the Ashley National Forest. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Smith, G.; Holechek, J.L.; Cardenas, M. 1996. Wildlife numbers on excellent and good condition Chihuahuan Desert rangelands: An observation. J. Range Mange. 49: 489-493. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Squires, J. R., N. J. DeCesare, L. E. Olson, J. A. Kolbe, M. Hebblewhite, and S. A. Parks. 2013. Combining resource selection and movement behavior to predict corridors for Canada lynx at their southern range periphery. Biological Conservation 157:187–195. Squires, J. R., N. J. DeCesare, J. A. Kolbe, and L. F. Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal resource selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1648–1660. Stanton, M. L., Rejmdnek, M., and Galen, C., 1994. Changes in vegetation and soil fertility along a predictable snowmelt gradient in the Mosquito Range, Colorado, U. S. A. Arctic and Alpine Research, 26: 364-374. State of Utah. 2014a. R317-2, Utah Administrative Code, Standards of Quality of Waters of the State. July 2, 2014. State of Utah. 2014b. Integrated Report Chapter 6 303d List of Lakes and Reservoirs. Utah Division of Water Quality. State of Utah. 2016. Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report, Chapter 3: Rivers and Stream Assessments. Utah Division of Water Quality. State of Utah. 2018a. Comment from the Public Lands Coordination Office. Salt Lake City, Utah. State of Utah. 2018b. State of Utah Management Plan. Steenhof, Karen. 2013. Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.346 Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson (2003, May 8). Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lincolnssparrow.pdf. Stephens, R. M. 2001. Migration, habitat use, and diet of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentiles) that winter in the Uinta mountains, Utah. University of Wyoming, Laramie Wyoming. Stephenson, G.R. and Viegel, A. 1987. Recovery of compacted soil on pastures used for winter feeding cattle. J. Range Mange. 40: 46-48.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 242 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Stoecker, R. 1976. Pocket gopher distribution in relation to snow in the alpine tundra. In: Steinhoff, H. W.; Ives, J. D. eds. 1976. Ecological impacts of snowpack augmentation in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado. Final Report, San Juan Ecology Project. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University: 281-287. Summit County, Utah. 2017. 2017 Summit County Resource Management Plan. Retrieved from Summit County: http://summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/5783 Summit County, Utah. 2018. The High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Grazing Analysis, Socioeconomic Specialist Report: Summit County. Coalville: Summit County. Thompson, Brett. 2006. Poison Mountain, Red Mountain Allotment Report, Aquatics. USDA, Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston District. Thorn, C. E., 1978: A preliminary assessment of the geomorphic role of pocket gophers in the alpine zone of the Colorado Front Range. Geografiska Annaler, 60: 181-187. Thorn, C. E., 1978: A preliminary assessment of the geomorphic role of pocket gophers in the alpine zone of the Colorado Front Range. Geografiska Annaler, 60: 181-187. Thurmond, M. 2016. Integrity of risk assessment science underlying USDA policy: flawed ‘science’ and models used to restrict domestic sheep form National Forests. Infectious Disease Epidemiology, University of California, Davis. National Institute for Animal Agriculture Annual Conference. Small Ruminant Committee. April 2016. Ulev, E. 2007. Lynx canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/lyca/all.html [2017, November 30]. UDWQ. 2016. Final Integrated Report Water Quality Assessment Program. https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/programs/water-quality/monitoring-reporting/assessment/2016- integrated-report.htm, UDWR. 2002. Strategic management plan for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 2002. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Publication 02-19. UDWR 2005. Utah wolf management plan. UDWR Plublication #05-17 UDWR. 2013. Utah bighorn sheep statewide management plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Natural Resources. UDWR 2015a. Draft 2015 bighorn sheep unit management plan, Uinta Mountains north slope/south slope. April 2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. UDWR 1996 -2015. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources annual big game reports 1996 through 2015. UDWR. 2016. Elk and deer herd status and antlerless permit recommendations. April 2016. UDWR. 2017. Elk and deer herd status and antlerless permit recommendations. March 2017. UDWR. 2018a. Proposed 2018 big game hunting permits. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, March 2018.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 243 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

UDWR. 2018b. Letter from Director Michal Fowlks of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to Forest Supervisor Jeff Schramm Ashley National Forest and Forest Supervisor Dave Whittekiend Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, April 27 2018. UDWR. 2018c. Elk and deer herd status and antlerless permit recommendations. March 2018. UDWR. 2018d. Utah bighorn sheep state-wide management plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. November 29, 2018. UDWR. 2019. Uintas bighorn sheep 2018 population estimates. February 2019. Uinta County. 2011. Uinta County Comprehensive Plan. Evanston: Uinta County. Uinta County. 2016. Appendix A to the Uinta County Comprehensive Plan Public Lands Policy. Evanston: Uinta County. USDA. 2004. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2004. Cheyenne: USDA NASS, Wyoming Statistical Office. Retrieved 03 20, 2018, from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wyoming/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bu lletin/bulletin2004.pdf USDA. 2012. 2012 Census of Agriculture: Wyoming State and County Data. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 50, AC-12-A-50. May 2014. Retrieved March 27, 2018, from https:https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2 _County_Level/Wyoming/ USDA. 2016. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. Cheyenne: United state Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service. 1986. Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Conservation strategy and agreement for the management of northern goshawk habitat in Utah. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Soil survey of north slope, Utah. Salt Lake City, UT. USDA Forest Service. 1997a. High Uintas Wilderness Management Plan. Ashley and Wasatch- Cache National Forests. October 1997. USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Record of Decision, High Uintas Wilderness Management Plan. Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forests. October 1997. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Ashley Forest Plan Amendment, Utah Northern Goshawk Project. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Utah Northern Goshawk Project Decision Notice Appendix CC, Ashley Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Soil quality standards and guidelines: Intermountain Region. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ogden, UT, unpublished. 15 p. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Revised Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 244 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forest land and resource management plan for the Uinta National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Rangeland ecosystem analysis and management handbook. Chapter 20. Resource Value Ratings Guide. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Life history and analysis of endangered, threatened, candidate, and sensitive species, of the Ashley National Forest. November 2006. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Life history and analysis of endangered, threatened, candidate, and sensitive species, of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. November 2006. USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Life histories and population analysis for management indicator species of the Ashley National Forest. March 2006. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision, Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. March 2007. USDA Forest Service. 2008b. USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. December 8, 2008. Memorandum of Understanding to promote the conservation of migratory birds. USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Summary notes of the review of Ashley National Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife habitat (particularly MIS) and domestic grazing. USDA FS 2015. Intermountain Region BHS/Domestic Sheep-Risk Assessment for Region 4 National Forests, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache-and Ashley Forests, Results and Responses. USDA Forest Service 2015. Utah greater sage-grouse Record of Decision for the proposed land use plan amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement. October 2, 2015. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Monitoring Studies Inventory. 2060 Files. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Vernal, Utah. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Monitoring Studies Inventory. 2210 Files. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston- Mountain View Ranger District, Mountain View, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Wildlife surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 on the High Uintas wilderness domestic sheep allotments. USDA Forest Service. 2017a. Wildlife surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 on the High Uintas wilderness domestic sheep allotments. USDA Forest Service. 2017b. 2017 Ashley National Forest northern goshawk inventory and monitoring report and territory histories. USDA Forest Service. 2017c. 2017 Focal species monitoring on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area. USDA Forest Service. 2017d. Soil condition evaluation form. Intermountain Region. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal District Office, Vernal, Utah.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 245 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service. 2019. Assessment of the North Slope Uintas bighorn sheep herds. Ashley and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests. USDA Forest Service Ashley National Forest. 2009. Ashley national forest ecosystem diversity evaluation report (draft). Available online at: www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5276908.pdf USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region. 2003. Final environmental impact statement for the 2003 land and resource management plan Uinta National Forest. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region. 2011. FSM 2500-Watershed and air management. Chapter 2550-Soil Management Supplement No: 2500-2011-1. USDA, Forest Service Ogden, Utah. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. SNOTEL data for Hewinta and Hole in the Rock stations. Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Soil Quality Indicators: Physical, Chemical and Biological Indicators for Soil Quality Assessment and Management. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/health/assessment/?cid=stelprdb1237 387 USDA Science and Education Administration. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses a guide to conservation planning. Agriculture Handbook Number 537. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2010. 12 month finding on a petition to list the pygmy rabbit as endangered or threatened. September 30, 2010. Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 189, 60516- 60561. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009. Final rule to identify the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment and to revise the list of endangered or threatened wildlife. October 2nd, 2015. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 62, April 2, 2009. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2015. 12 month finding on a petition to list the Greater sage- grouse as endangered or threatened. October 2nd, 2015. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS): Sediments. Retrieved 3/7/2019. Available from: https://epa.gov/caddis- vol2/caddis-volume-2-sources-stressors-responses-sediments. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, 2017. US Government Publishing Office. 2012. 36 CFR 222.4 - Changes in grazing permits. Retrieved from GPO's Federal digital System: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title36- vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title36-vol2-sec222-4.pdf. July 7, 2012.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 246 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

US Tenth Circuit Decision. 2008. United States Court of Appeal Tenth Circuit, Utah Environmental Congress – Plaintiff VS. Dixie National Forest – Defendant. March 11 2008. No. 05-4286 Utah Agricultural Statistics. 2005. Utah agricultural statistics and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 2005 annual report. Salt Lake: Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. Retrieved 03 20, 2018, from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Utah/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin /historical%20bulletins/2005%20Ag%20Statistics%20Book.pdf Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. 2015. Utah Agriculture Statistics. Salt Lake: Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. Utah State Department of Agriculture. 1985. Utah Agricultural Statistics. Salt Lake City: Utah State Department of Agriculture. Utah Geological Survey.(UGS). 2015. Utah Geological Survey. Assessment of wetland condition and wetland mapping accuracy in Upper Black’s Fork and Smiths Fork, Uinta Mountains, Utah. WAFWA 2012. Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep habitat. Walker, D. A., Halfpenny, J.C., Walker, M. D., and Wessman, C. A., 1993. Long-term studies of snow-vegetation interactions, Bioscience. 43: 287-301. Willard, B. E., 1979. Plant sociology of alpine tundra, Trail Ridge, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, 74: 119 p. 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. Wolff, J. O. 1980. The role of habitat patchiness in the population dynamics of snowshoe hares. Ecological Monographs 50:111–130. Wolff, P., M. Cox, C. McAdoo. 2016. Disease transmission between sympatric mountain goats and bighorn sheep. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 20:79. Yoo, K.; Amundson, R.; Heimsath, A. M.; Dietrich, W. E. 2005. Process-based model linking pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) activity to sediment transport and soil thickness. Geology. 33: 917-920. Zobell, R.; Goodrich, S.; Huber, A. 2015-03-03. Alpine & subalpine headcuts & ephemeral drainages, Uinta Mountains. Vernal, Utah: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Power Point Presentation.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 247 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A Table A- 1: Allotments, Livestock Numbers and Class, Grazing Season and Days, Animal Days and Percent of Allotment. Percent Ewes/ Livestock Number- Grazing Animal Based National Allotment Acres Grazing Season Notes Forest Lamb Class Days Days on Rotation Uinta-Wasatch- Gilbert Peak 11,896 1,400 1400 ewe/lamb July 11 Sept. 10 61 85,400 13.1% Cache Two of these Hessie Uinta-Wasatch- three allotments Lake-Henrys 14,539 1,400 1400 ewe/lamb July 11 Sept. 10 61 85,400 13.1% Cache are grazed every Fork year. Uinta-Wasatch- East Fork- 25,440 1,350 1350 - ewe/lamb July 6 Sept. 10 66 89,100 Cache Blacks Fork Uinta-Wasatch- Red Castle 14,857 1,300 1300 - ewe/lamb July 6 Sept. 10 66 85,800 13.2% Cache Uinta-Wasatch- Middle Fork- 16,855 1,200 1200 - ewe/lamb July 11 Sept. 10 61 73,200 11.2% Cache Blacks Fork

These two allotments are grazed in rotation. Painter Basin was grazed in 2016 & Painter 1,200 ewe/lamb or 1500 Ashley 14,756 1,200 July 12 Sept 6 56 67,200 10.3% 2017 and will be Basin ewes without lambs rested in 2018 & 2019. Tungsten was rested in 2016 & 2017 and will be grazed in 2018 & 2019.

1,200 ewe/lamb or 1500 Ashley Tungsten 16,149 1,200 July 12 Sept 6 56 67,200 ewes without lambs Ashley Oweep 16,686 1,400 1,400 ewe/lamb July 15 Sept 10 57 79,800 12.2% 1,300 ewe/lamb or 1500 Ashley Ottoson 12,620 1,300 July 15 Sept 10 57 74,100 11.4% ewes without lambs

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 248 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Percent Ewes/ Livestock Number- Grazing Animal Based National Allotment Acres Grazing Season Notes Forest Lamb Class Days Days on Rotation Ashley Fall Creek 16,612 1,100 1,100 ewe/lamb July 1 Sept 30 92 101,200 15.5% Totals 160,410 808,400 100.0% 652,1001 Totals in any Uinta County 9,200 one year Duchesne 1,100 County 1This number represents the total animal days taking into account that two allotments in any given year are not grazed.

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 249 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Index Annual Operating Instructions, iii, 15, 27, 54, 109 Bank trampling, xv, 11, 32, 88, 89, 90, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 184, 186, 187 Bighorn sheep (BHS), iii, xix, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 33, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 214, 231, 233, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247 Blacks Fork Drainage, xvii, xviii, 22, 27, 46, 72, 74, 81, 83, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 116, 125, 164, 179, 182, 183, 186, 194 Camping, 28, 82, 124, 164, 179, 205, 208 Capability, 62, 93 Compaction, xxii, 9, 14, 19, 33, 35, 99, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 184, 240 Duchesne, i, ii, xix, 3, 14, 15, 17, 99, 127, 169, 173, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 217, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234, 235, 237, 240, 249 East Fork Blacks Fork, xix, xx, 2, 3, 11, 23, 26, 30, 33, 41, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 92, 96, 98, 110, 116, 118, 127, 139, 155, 161, 186, 194, 202, 206 Fall Creek, ix, xx, xxi, 3, 22, 23, 34, 35, 49, 65, 66, 81, 84, 85, 88, 98, 109, 110, 129, 134, 138, 158, 159, 161, 168, 171, 173, 177, 180, 194, 197, 202, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 213, 215, 217, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 235, 237, 239, 249 Gilbert Peak, i, xix, xx, 2, 3, 11, 22, 23, 26, 29, 33, 49, 55, 56, 74, 76, 79, 81, 84, 85, 88, 90, 97, 98, 112, 114, 118, 134, 139, 155, 161, 163, 168, 171, 180, 183, 194, 197, 198, 202, 206, 223, 232, 234, 236, 248 Hessie Lake-Henry’s Fork, i, vi, xviii, xix, xx, 2, 3, 11, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 33, 41, 56, 57, 74, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 104, 115, 118, 134, 139, 155, 161, 163, 168, 180, 183, 194, 197, 198, 201, 203, 206, 223, 232, 250 Lynx, iii, iv, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 231, 233, 237, 239, 241, 243, 24 Middle Fork Blacks Fork, xix, xx, 2, 3, 22, 26, 30, 33, 41, 49, 62, 64, 65, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 84, 85, 88, 90, 96, 98, 119, 134, 139, 161, 164, 168, 179, 181, 194, 206, 232, 248 Mycoplasma ovipneumonia, 142, 144, 232 National Environmental Policy Act, iv, 1, 6, 22, 202 NEPA, iv, 1, 6, 20, 22, 227 Ottoson Basin, xix, xx, 3, 22, 26, 27, 44, 49, 66, 68, 72, 84, 88, 98, 107, 118, 134, 138, 159, 168, 171, 173, 180, 186, 194, 206, 216 Outfitter/Guides, 3, 22, 206, 208 Oweep, xix, xx, 3, 22, 26, 27, 33, 47, 49, 68, 69, 72, 81, 84, 85, 88, 98, 107, 108, 112, 118, 134, 138, 159, 161, 168, 171, 173, 180, 194, 206, 237, 248

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 250 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Painter Basin, xix, xx, 3, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 33, 46, 49, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 78, 81, 84, 85, 94, 107, 108, 112, 113, 118, 163, 164, 171, 172, 173, 179, 194, 198, 202, 206, 216, 223, 237, 248 Pneumonia, 18, 142, 165, 166, 231, 241 Recreation, xxiii, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 19, 22, 27, 34, 35, 54, 82, 95, 96, 104, 105, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 173, 190, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 227, 229, 231 Red Castle, xix, xx, 2, 3, 11, 22, 23, 26, 33, 49, 58, 59, 60, 74, 81, 84, 85, 88, 90, 98, 104, 110, 112, 114, 118, 119, 134, 139, 155, 161, 168, 180, 183, 194, 206, 232, 234, 248 Risk of Contact (see also ROC), iii, iv, xvi, xxiii, 1, 21, 29, 33, 36, 39,145, 147, 148, 149, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180 Sheep driveway, xv, xvii, xviii, xx, 22, 23, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 49, 50, 51, 54, 59, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 134, 146, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 177, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 232 Smiths Fork, 27, 43, 59, 72, 74, 85, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 182, 183, 194, 247 Soil erosion, xxii, 19, 33, 50, 54, 78, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 109, 110, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 184 Suitability, 238 Summit, i, ii, xix, 3, 14, 15, 17, 127, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 229, 243

Sweetwater, 15, 17, 229 Trailing, xx, xxii, 10, 19, 23, 27, 30, 48, 53, 54, 59, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 97, 101, 107, 109, 111, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 126, 158, 220, 225, 232, 238 Tungsten, xix, xx, 3, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 33, 49, 66, 71, 72, 74, 81, 84, 85, 88, 98, 118, 134, 138, 155, 159, 161, 163, 168, 171, 172, 173, 180, 186, 194, 198, 202, 206, 216, 223, 235, 237, 248

Uinta County, xix, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 238, 244, 249

Ute Tribe, xx, xxi, 26, 204, 210, 215 Water Quality, iii, 7, 12, 13, 27, 32, 49, 50, 85, 87, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 124, 182, 183, 184, 190, 234, 242, 243 Wilderness, i, ii, iii, xix, xxi, xxiii, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 28, 34, 35, 59, 84, 125, 133, 134, 140, 164, 168, 179, 181, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 222, 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 238, 243, 244, 245

High Uintas Wilderness Domestic Sheep Analysis 251