cove creek sheep and goat ketchum ranger district sawtooth...

Cove Creek Sheep and Goat AMP, Ketchum Ranger District, Sawtooth N.F. of 27

Allotment Management Plan Cove Creek Sheep and Goat

Ketchum Ranger District Sawtooth National Forest

Prepared by: Date: (Title) Reviewed by: Date: Permittee Date: Permittee Date: Permittee This Allotment Management Plan implements direction established in the July 2003 Revision of the Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the June 22, 2011 Decision Notice for the Cove Creek Allotment Environmental Assessment. This Allotment Management Plan is made part of your Term Grazing Permit in accordance with Section 8(a) Part 2 of that permit. Approved by: Date: District Ranger


Table of Contents I. PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 3

A. AREA MAP ........................................................................................................... 4

II. GOALS & OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 5

FOREST PLAN ............................................................................................................... 5 1. Forest-Wide Goals ........................................................................................... 5 2. Forest-Wide Objectives .................................................................................... 5 3. Management Area Goals (Prescriptions) ......................................................... 6 4. Management Area Direction ............................................................................ 6

TRAIL CREEK AND COVE CREEK DECISION NOTICE ....................................................... 7

III. DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR THE ALLOTMENT ..................................... 7

Forest Wide Level- All Rangelands ..................................................................... 7 Cove Creek Allotment Specific ............................................................................ 7

Riparian ........................................................................................................... 7 Upland Mesic Riparian ............................................................................................ 8 Sagebrush, Non-forested Uplands, & Aspen............................................................ 9

Aspen- Stand Specific Desired Conditions ..................................................... 10 Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................. 10

IV. ANNUAL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 10

V. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 14

Livestock kind, class, numbers permitted, and season of use .................................. 14

VI. COOPERATION ............................................................................................. 17

VII. GENERAL GRAZING PRESCRIPTION ...................................................... 18

VIII. IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 19

IX. MONITORING ................................................................................................ 19

Implementation Monitoring ................................................................................... 21 a. Riparian Implementation Monitoring: ........................................................ 21 b. Upland Mesic Riparian ............................................................................... 22

Effectiveness Monitoring: ...................................................................................... 23 a. Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring: ............................................................ 23 b. Upland Mesic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring- (e.g. seeps and springs) 24 c. Photo Points ............................................................................................... 25 d. Upland Effectiveness Monitoring: .............................................................. 25 e. Aspen Monitoring ...................................................................................... 26

VL. REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 27


I. PURPOSE The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) allows for Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) to be included in grazing permits at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture (43 U.S.C. (1752(d), as amended by 92 Stat. 1803 (1978)). The Secretary has elected to exercise this discretion, and has delegated his authority to issue regulations in this area to the Chief of the Forest Service (36 CFR 222.1 et.seq. An AMP is defined in FLPMA as a document prepared in consultation with permittees applying to livestock operations on the public lands (1) prescribing the manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet multiple use, sustained yield, economic and other needs and objectives,(2) describing range improvements to be installed and maintained, and (3) containing such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary to be consistent with the provisions of the FLPMA (43 USC 1702(k), and 36 CFR 222.1(b)( 2), and FSM 1023). This AMP contains the pertinent livestock management direction specific to implementing the July 2003 revision of the Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and the June 22, 2011 Trail Creek and Cove Creek Sheep and Goat (S&G) Allotments Livestock Grazing Management Plan Decision Notice (DN). This AMP is included as part of any term grazing permit that authorizes livestock grazing on the Cove Creek S&G Allotment per Section 8(a) Part 2 of the term grazing permit. This AMP implements an adaptive management approach to livestock management on the Cove Creek Allotment. Adaptive management provides for: 1) identification of site specific desired conditions; 2) definition of appropriate decision criteria (constraints) to guide management; 3) identification of pre-determined optional courses of action, as part of a proposed action, from which to adjust management decisions over time; and 4) establishment of carefully focused project monitoring to be used to make adaptive adjustments in management over time (R4 FSH 2209.13 chapter 90). This AMP is an essential part of implementing this direction. As such, the management requirements, improvement needs, and monitoring plan may be modified as needed to insure that management direction is consistent with achieving the direction established in the Forest Plan and DN. Additional NEPA analysis and decision processes will not be needed as long as the direction identified in this plan is consistent with the analysis conducted in the June 22, 2011 Trail Creek and Cove Creek Environmental Assessment (EA). Adaptive management protocols will follow the direction established in the Rangeland Resources Forest Plan Implementation Guide of 11/3/2005.


A. Area Map


II. GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Forest Plan Forest Plan goals and objectives are identified at two scales. The Forest Plan scale describes goals and objectives that are generally applied to all areas within the Forest. The management area scale describes management direction for specific management areas within the National Forest. This allotment falls within the Big Wood River Management Area (MA 4).

1. Forest-Wide Goals RAGO01- Provide for livestock forage within existing open allotments, in a manner that is consistent with other resource management direction and uses. RAGO02- Manage rangelands using controlled livestock grazing, range structural and non-structural improvements, vegetative and ground rehabilitation, fire, and timber management in various combinations to meet desired conditions. RAGO03- Manage upland vegetation on suitable rangelands to maintain or restore hydrologic function and soil productivity of watersheds. RAGO04- Manage herbaceous and shrub vegetation on suitable rangelands to meet resource objectives in an efficient manner. RAGO05- Manage livestock grazing within riparian areas to accommodate the maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions. RAGO06- Coordinate livestock grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses in a manner that is consistent with Forest Plan management direction.

2. Forest-Wide Objectives RAOB01 - Coordinate the design, update and/or revision of AMPs with adjacent landowners to maximize opportunities and minimize potential management conflicts. RAOB02 - Coordinate livestock grazing with timber harvest and forest regeneration activities to capitalize on management opportunities, while minimizing activity conflicts to help meet Forest Plan Vegetation and Rangeland Resource goals. RAOB03 - Identify rangeland facilities that are degrading resource conditions and prioritize opportunities to mitigate their effects or to initiate restoration of resource conditions. VEOB03- Utilize emerging technologies and science, and implement adaptive management process to provide for increasing the effectiveness of vegetation monitoring. VEOB06- Determine high priority areas for vegetation management actions that restore or maintain desired vegetation attributes. REOB07- Inform the public in a timely manner about management actions affecting their recreation opportunities at appropriate locations, including roads, trails, and at developed sites. REOB19-Mitigate degradation to Forest System trails from other resource management activities, including fire suppression, and special use activities.


3. Management Area Goals (Prescriptions) Management prescriptions are defined as, “Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for application on a specific area to attain multiple use and other goals and objectives” (36 CFR 219.3). Management prescription categories (MPC) are broad categories of management prescriptions that indicate the general management emphasis prescribed for a given area. They are based on Forest Service definitions developed at the national level, and represent management emphasis themes, ranging from Wilderness (1.0) to Concentrated Development (8.0). The national MPCs have been customized during Forest Plan revision to better fit the needs and issues of the Forest. The Cove Creek allotment includes one MPC, MPC 3.2. This management prescription places primary emphasis upon preservation or restoration of aquatic, terrestrial, and watershed resource conditions.

This prescription is designed to minimize temporary- and short-term risks and avoid long-term risks from management actions to soil/hydrologic conditions and aquatic, botanical and terrestrial habitats. The objective of this prescription is to actively restore or maintain conditions for TEPCS fish, wildlife, and botanical species, or 303(d) impaired water bodies through a combination of management activities and natural processes. Management activities used to achieve this objective include watershed restoration, noxious weed treatments, and vegetative treatments that include prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and mechanical. Restoration is focused on those components of the ecosystem that are not functioning properly, or are outside the range of desired conditions, while maintenance helps to preserve those components that are functioning properly.

3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial and Hydrologic Resources

4. Management Area Direction • Restore dry meadows by improving specie composition, reducing compaction and

increasing plant vigor in the Cove Creek and Warm Springs Creek drainages, and from Baker Creek north due to the effects of livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and road alteration on natural drainage patterns. (Objective 0447)

• Minimize further surface soil loss due to late season livestock grazing impacts on upland vegetation in the Cove Creek, Hyndman Creek, Trail Creek, Corral Creek, Baker Creek, South Fork Warm springs, and Lake Creek drainages. (Objective 0437)

• Restore structure and native species composition, as described in Appendix A, in the Alpine Meadows, Dry Meadows, and Mountain Big Sagebrush vegetation groups. (Objective 0448).

• Coordinate with the DEQ and EPA to validate the authenticity and cause(s) for listing of the East Fork of Wood River, and Cove Creek 303(d) as impaired water bodies, and to determine which Forest service management activities may be contributing to the listing. (Objective 0444)


• Prevent the spread of noxious weed seeds due to domestic sheep by adjusting or changing management practices, such as trailing route locations and driveway/grazing area seasons of use. (Objective 04111)

• Confine, contain, or reduce the density of noxious weed infestations, particularly spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, and dalmation toadflax, within the Big Wood River drainage.(Objective 0452)

• Continue weed management coordination efforts with local management agencies and private individuals. (Objective 0453)

• Maintain and restore habitat for deer, elk, migratory land birds, and sage grouse in lower elevation sagebrush communities. (Objective 0456)

• Prevent the spread of noxious weed seeds due to domestic sheep by adjusting or changing management practices, such as trailing route locations and driveway/grazing area seasons of use. (Objective 04111)

• Do not bed sheep within designated campgrounds or summer home tracts, or on trails, trailheads, or maintained roads. (Standard 04112)

Trail Creek and Cove Creek Decision Notice On June 22, 2011, Ketchum District Ranger Nelson signed the Trail and Cove Allotments Decision Notice based on the 2011 Trail Creek & Cove Creek Sheep & Goat Allotment Livestock Grazing Analysis project Environmental Assessment (EA). The decision authorizes continued grazing on the Trail and Cove Allotments and is incorporated by reference into this AMP.

III. Desired Conditions for the Allotment

Forest Wide Level- All Rangelands Rangeland Resource Desired Condition. A sustainable level of forage, consistent with other resource management direction, is available for use through the Forest Service grazing permit system. Rangeland forage quality is maintained or improved in areas where vegetation management projects and range management actions occur. Riparian areas continue to be a focal point for providing vegetative diversity, landscape capability, soil productivity, wildlife habitat, proper stream channel function, and water quality important to sustaining beneficial uses. Riparian areas are functioning properly and/or have improving trends in vegetative composition, age class structure and vigor. Upland range vegetation is contributing to proper hydrologic function. The composition and densities of shrubs, grasses and forbs are variable and dynamic across the landscape.

Cove Creek Allotment Specific

Riparian Streambank vegetation in late seral condition per Winword 2000 Classification. Bank Stability at 90 % of potential in areas impacted by grazing. Manage for


maximum 45% use or retain a 4-inch stubble height of hydric greenline species. Only in isolated areas should forage utilization by sheep in riparian areas attain the forage utilization values described above. For example, herding standards and guidelines such as once over grazing, no bedding in riparian areas, and open herding, will be emphasized to minimize bank disturbance and localized heavy use upon riparian vegetation such as willows when sheep graze or water in riparian areas. Representative utilization of willows in riparian areas would be less than 25% of current year’s growth. Bank alteration would be less than 20%. Riparian plant communities common to the allotment include: • Salix exigua/mesic graminoid

- Characterized by overstory of Salix exigua with moderate to dense cover of graminoid species, including Carex nebrascensis, C. lanuginose, Juncus balticus, Eleocharis palustris, Agrostis stolonifera, Scirpus pungens, and Agropyron repens.

• Salix geyeriana/mesic forb

- Characterized by Salix Geyeriana with some S. drummndiana and S. boothii, and understory shrubs of Ribes inerme, Amelanchier alnifolia, and forb component of Veratrum, Senecio, Heracleum, Geum, and graminoids such as Agrostis stolonifera, Carex nebrascensis, and poa pratensis.

• Salix geyeriana/mesic gramioid

- Characterized by Salix geyeriana and a diverse mix of graminoids such as Carex lanuginose, Deschampsia cespitosa, C. microptera, C. aquatilis, C. ultriculata , and forbs including Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Trifolium, and Potentella gracilis.

Upland Mesic Riparian The desired condition for upland mesic riparian (e.g. seeps & springs) is:

“Whether developed or undeveloped, isolated wetlands, including springs and seeps, should be managed to retain enough of their soil, vegetation and hydrologic characteristics to conserve feature-appropriate ecological function (Ririe 2010).”

Vegetation Characteristics- vegetation at these sites would be dominated by an appropriate variety of hydric vegetation (species, age classes, and structures) depending on the capability of the site to sustain these species. Of the vegetative cover 50% or more of the species present are in combination facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), and/or obligate (OBL) to wetlands species

Soil and Hydrologic Characteristics- water quality conditions associated with these features should support TES species and allocated water rights appropriate to the site. Soil cover, compaction, puddling, hummocks, and unnatural erosion features may be evaluated to describe conditions relative to the effects of livestock grazing and other uses. Active erosional features are absent.


In addition to the desired condition stated above and associated indicators guidance contained in “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas” (Technical Reference 1737-16 1999, Revised 2003) will be used in order to assess the condition of the various springs and seeps found on the allotments in relation to the inherent capability. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is a qualitative method for assessing the condition of riparian wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process and a defined, on the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area. Through use of this process condition ratings of (1) Proper Functioning Condition, (2) Functional- At Risk, (3) Nonfunctional (4) Unknown are obtained. A condition of Proper Functioning Condition would approximate the desired condition stated above.

Proper Functioning Condition (Technical Reference 1737-16 1999, revised 2003) Lentic riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to: dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment and aid floodplain development; improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting action; restrict water percolation; develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterbird breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity.

Sagebrush, Non-forested Uplands, & Aspen Sagebrush meets Forest Plan standards of:

30-40% of area in 0-10% canopy cover class 30-40% of area in 11-20% canopy cover class 20-30% of area in 21-30% canopy cover class <= 5% of area in > 30% canopy cover class

Note

: Recovery to meet this condition will require disturbance treatment by fire or other means irrespective of sheep management practices. This will require planning treatment projects with additional NEPA analysis as funds and priorities warrant.

Soil Cover on grazed areas will be within the desired range based on information available for existing land type classifications. Plant composition on grazed areas will include species diversity and presence as described in Forest Plan - Appendix B. Perennial Grass Slopes (10-18 in. precipitation zone). Bluebunch wheatgrass is the dominant bunch grass. Perennial grasses compose 80-90% of production. Sandberg bluegrass is a minor component of the vegetation. Common forbs include


Indian wheat, shining chickweed, salsify, yarrow, lupine, balsamroot, biscuit root, hawksbeard, fleabane, milkvetch and phlox. Noxious weeds are absent. Perennial Grass Montane (14 – 30 inch precipitation zone).

This type is interspersed with sagebrush, forested and mountain brush types. Idaho fescue is the dominant grass. Other species may include intermediate oatgrass, western needlegrass and Richardson needlegrass. Forbs compose 40-65% of production. Common forbs are yarrow, besssaya, geum, Indian paintbrush, lupines, phlox, and balsamroot.

Aspen- Stand Specific Desired Conditions • Aspen dominates the overstory canopy (aspen >8” DBH. Over 2/3rds of the

overstory is aspen.

• Aspen dominates the mid-level canopy (aspen 1-8” DBH). Over 2/3rds of this level of canopy is composed of aspen.

• There is significant aspen regeneration occurring to support a healthy stand.

• The stand has over 500 stems per acre <1in. DBH with less than 20% having multiple leaders or are hedged from browsing.

• Less than 20% of the stand contains sagebrush.

Note

: Recovery to meet this condition in some stands will require disturbance treatment by fire or other means irrespective of sheep management practices. This may require planning treatment projects with additional NEPA analysis as funds and priorities warrant.

Noxious Weeds Areas on the Allotment which do not currently have noxious weed infestations will be maintained noxious weed free. Current noxious weed infestations will be contained and weed density reduced.

IV. Annual Management Annual modifications to the management of the allotment may be made without additional analysis so long as they are within the scope of the Decision and do not exceed any maximum limitations identified (e.g. HMs). 1. Modification of Terms and Conditions of the Grazing Permit. Term grazing permits may be modified at the request of the permit holder to adjust the permit to his/her


ranch operation. It may also be modified to achieve consistency with changes in law and regulation, Forest Plan direction, NEPA decisions, AMP direction, monitoring results, etc. Permit modifications are administrative actions and do not require additional NEPA unless they are inconsistent with existing NEPA analyses and decisions. Permit modifications may include the actions described below. 2. Modify the seasons of use, numbers, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. This action may include changing the timing, duration and intensity of grazing use, class of livestock grazed (ewes with lambs, dry ewes, and rams), changes in allotment boundaries, etc. without additional NEPA as long as these actions are consistent with current NEPA decisions. Changes in kind of livestock such as changing from sheep to cattle use will require additional NEPA analysis. These changes may be implemented at the request of the permittee to adapt grazing to his/her ranch operation or they may be the result monitoring and the need to adapt management to changing conditions using actions such as those described below to achieve resource desired conditions and or resolve conflicts in resource uses. 3a. Modify Season of Use.

As appropriate, adjust the season of use for the allotment or areas within an allotment to reduce grazing impacts. These actions include shortening the period of use to reduce or eliminate grazing impacts during periods where plants or other resources are most susceptible to damage, or avoid conflicts with other uses such as during periods of high recreation use. They may include: changing the season of use to avoid grazing impacts or conflicts with critical resource needs of TES species and other wildlife, adjusting the season of use at the request of the permittee to provide a better fit to his/her ranch operation, adjusting the season of use to take advantage of the availability of additional forage through extending the grazing season, and adapting the grazing season in response to seasonal variations in climate and productivity such as during periods of drought. Adjustments to stocking and season of use may be considered jointly or separately as appropriate.

3.b Modify Stocking

. As appropriate, adjust authorized or permitted livestock numbers during all or a portion of the grazing season to match grazing use to resource conditions and productivity. Adjustments to stocking and season of use may be considered jointly or separately as appropriate.

4. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year)

. Rest the allotment or areas within the allotment for a specific period of years or on a periodic rotation where monitoring shows that trend towards achieving desired conditions are not stable, improving, or improving at an adequate rate. May also be implemented where fire, flood, etc; detrimentally impact resource conditions or where treatment activities require a period of rest to provide for recovery of the site. Where this occurs, specific recovery criteria for when grazing will be allowed should be specified.

5. Closure of Areas. Close areas within allotments where monitoring shows that desired conditions cannot be met while sustaining grazing use. This may include alteration of


allotment boundaries or identification of specific areas within an allotment where livestock grazing will not be allowed. Modify the AMP and term grazing permit to identify the change in the allotment boundary or the area closure. 6. Grazing Restrictions – Modification of Indicators of Annual Grazing Use.

Annual grazing use indicators generally consist of measures of allowable grazing use including: forage utilization limits, woody species utilization limits, streambank disturbance limits, soil disturbance limits, once-over grazing, open herding, one-time use of bedding areas, one-time use of watering areas, location of nooning areas, location of watering areas, location of bedding areas, camp locations, length of stay at camp locations, corral locations, use limits around corrals, season and duration of use, etc. These indicators of livestock use may be modified or other indicators identified as needed to facilitate achievement of objectives and desired conditions. Levels of acceptable use such as forage utilization are set for some of these practices in the Forest Plan and/or the Trail and Cove Creek Allotment Environmental Assessment. Where specific allowable use limits are set in the Forest Plan or in the Trail/Cove EA, DN and FONSI , they may be modified, if needed, to be more restrictive without additional NEPA analysis.

6a. Grazing Restrictions – Changes in Grazing Use Indicators. Changes in end-of-year and in-season grazing use indicators may be made based on results of short-term and/or long-term monitoring. Indicators evaluated during monitoring are described in the AMP Monitoring Plan. Modification and/or implementation of these annual use indicators will be consistent with the direction established in the December 19, 2005, Forest Plan Grazing Implementation Guide (1920/2200 Memo, dated 12/19/2005, signed by Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth Forest Supervisors). 6b. Grazing Restrictions – Modification of Management Practices.

This includes a range of management and herding practices that vary according to conditions and use that are found on individual grazing allotments. These practices may include specification of areas where trailing or open herding techniques are used, location of bedding and nooning areas, use of salt and mineral supplement, location and duration of use of herder camps, etc.

7. Alteration of grazing routes

. Alteration of designated trailing routes and route rotations to avoid resource damage, avoid use conflicts, reduce grazing pressure in specific areas, improve distribution, access unused grazing areas, facilitate shipping, or facilitate rest or deferred rotation grazing.

8. Adjust grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses. Modification of grazing use may be appropriate to prevent or manage conflicts with other uses such as dispersed recreation, coordinate with other management activities such as timber harvest and forest regeneration, or mitigate conflicts or impacts to other resources. Examples include management of impacts to roads and trails, herding and trailing practices around developed recreation sites, use of sheep grazing as a tool for noxious weed management and site preparation for reforestation, management of sheep camps, fire and noxious weed prevention, etc.


9. Adjust grazing to provide for maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions and beneficial uses

. This practice may involve use of the adaptive actions described in this section with the specific purpose of reducing grazing impacts or managing grazing use to achieve functioning riparian systems. The focus of these actions will be on ecological conditions or processes that may be impacted by grazing. They include managing for properly functioning riparian vegetation, bank stability, sedimentation, etc.

10. Coordinate grazing with timber harvest and forest regeneration activities.

This covers three areas of coordination actions. First, the potential for physical conflict between grazing and timber activities (harvest, thinning, site preparation, etc.) as the timber activities are implemented; second, the potential for physical damage to tree seedlings on new plantations or regeneration sites; and third, the potential for using grazing for vegetation management and site preparation to facilitate timber stand regeneration and reduce competition from other vegetation, (noxious weeds, brush, etc.). Coordination may include changing use routes, closing or resting areas for periods needed for regeneration, adjusting grazing intensity to remove competing vegetation prior to planting, etc.

11. Temporary Corrals.

At this time no need for temporary corrals is identified on the Cove Creek allotment. Use of fully portable corrals with no associated permanent structures may be considered to improve resource conditions as long as they are consistent with direction for management of heritage and archeological resources, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species requirements, noxious weed management direction, recreation management direction, etc. identified in the Forest Plan and other appropriate NEPA decisions.

12. Range Improvements – Structural.

Structural range improvements include construction of water developments, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional NEPA analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing NEPA analyses.

13. Vegetative Treatments – Nonstructural range improvements

. Actions include implementing vegetation treatments to achieve desired rangeland conditions including prescribed fire, noxious weed treatment, seedings, aspen stand treatments, sagebrush manipulation, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional NEPA analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing NEPA analyses such as is the case with noxious weed management activities.

14. Temporary Watering Facilities- The use of trucks to haul water to portable troughs with no associated permanent structures may be considered to improve resource conditions as long as this activity is consistent with direction for management of heritage and archeological resources, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species


requirements, noxious weed management direction, recreation management direction, etc. identified in the Forest Plan and other appropriate NEPA decisions.

V. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS Livestock kind, class, numbers permitted, and season of use Grazing use will be authorized through a term grazing permit which specifies variable numbers of sheep and a variable season of use which allows for up to 2109 head months of use within the grazing season of June 1 through September 30. Band size is limited to a maximum size of 1250 head of ewes with lambs (not to exceed 2500 total animals) or 1500 head of dry ewes. Total band days on the allotment will not exceed total permitted HM.

Livestock Management

The Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) approved in 2003 establishes the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for managing the rangeland resource. S&Gs related to sheep grazing on the Cove Creek Allotment are incorporated into this AMP and will also be incorporated into the Annual Operating Instructions. The following S&Gs relate to proper grazing management of the Cove Creek Allotment. Also included are pertinent Terms and Conditions found in part 3 of the current Term Grazing permit which support implementation of the Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guides. The following management practices will be followed to reduce adverse grazing impacts on soil, vegetation, water, wildlife resources, and conflicts with other Forest users. These S&G’s, and other management practices, and Terms and Conditions related to grazing can be found in the Forest Plan, the current Term Grazing Permit, or the Environmental Assessment for the Trail and Cove Creek Sheep and Goat Allotments Livestock Grazing Analysis. Range Standards and Guidelines: • Only annual once-over sheep grazing will be allowed, with the exception of

designated sheep driveways, travel routes, or where specifically authorized. (RAST07; FLRMP III-45) Criteria specific to the exceptions as to duration of travel, locations, nooning/bedding, and watering instructions will be displayed in the AOI.

• Only open or loose sheep herding will be practiced, except where site-specific vegetation management (e.g., noxious weed control or reforestation) is needed and has been prescribed. (RAST06; FLRMP III-45)

• Only one night/one time use of bed grounds is allowed. (RAST05; FLRMP III-45) • Livestock salting will be prohibited in RCAs. Sheep will be salted only at bed

grounds. Salt will be placed in containers and moved with the sheep. (RAST06; FLRMP III-45)


• Sheep should be routed to avoid steep slopes, loose soil, rehabilitation sites and areas of active gullies. (RAGU08; FLRMP III-47) These areas will be identified by resource specialists and identified in the AOI.

• Livestock trailing, bedding, watering, and other handling efforts shall be limited to those areas and times that maintain or allow for restoration of beneficial uses including native and desired non-native fish habitat. (RAST02; FLRMP III-45) Specific instructions will be contained in the AOI.

• Where rangeland facilities or practices have been identified as potentially contributing to the degradation of water quality, aquatic species or occupied sensitive or watch plant habitat, facilities and practices causing degradation should be considered for relocation, closure, or changes in management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance. (RAGU06; FLRMP III-46)

• New, reconstructed, or replaced livestock water developments must provide access and escape to and from water for all types of wildlife. (RAST09; FLRMP III-45)

• Maximum forage utilization of representative areas within each pasture shall not exceed the values shown at the end of the growing season. Variation in utilization standards in order achieve specific vegetation management objectives shall occur with a site- specific or project-level decision according to FSM 1922.5.

A) Riparian Areas: Maximum 45 percent use or retain a minimum 4-inch stubble height of hydric greenline species, whichever occurs first.

B) Upland vegetative cover types: Early season or season long pastures- 40 percent use. Vegetative slow growth, after seed ripe conditions, or late season (RAST01: FLRMP lll-45)

Only in isolated areas should forage utilization by sheep in riparian areas attain the forage utilization values described above. Herding standards and guidelines such as once over grazing, no bedding in riparian areas, and open herding for example will be emphasized to minimize bank disturbance and localized heavy use upon riparian vegetation such as willows when sheep graze and water in riparian areas. Representative utilization of willows in riparian areas would be less than 25% of current year’s growth. Bank alteration would be less than 20%. Representative forage use in upland sites would be less than 25 percent.

Recreation Standards and Guidelines: • Protection measures for National forest System trails should be included in all timber

sale contracts, annual operating plans for grazing, mining, and special use authorizations, and prescribed fire implementation documents. (REGU24; FLRMP III-66)

• On all lands outside of designated travel ways, motorized use shall be prohibited unless otherwise authorized. (RAST04; FLRMP III-64) When motorized access is needed outside of designated routes such as for the maintenance of structural improvements authorizations will be obtained from the appropriate Forest officer.

• Damage to or loss of Forest System trails from timber harvest, livestock grazing, road construction, mining, special uses, and prescribed fire activities, should be repaired or


mitigated by the appropriate party. (RAGU22; FLRMP III-66) Trails damaged by sheep will be repaired immediately by the permittee..

• Do not bed sheep within campgrounds or summer home tracts, or on trails, trailheads or maintained roads. (MA4 Standard 04112; III-160). Where campsites become unavailable due to conflicts or loss of access, new locations will be approved by the District Ranger.

• Where recreation prescriptions are applied, adjustments to grazing management practices should be evaluated to resolve conflicts in areas of concentrated recreation use. (RAGU10; FLRMP lll-47) Specific instructions will be contained in the AOI.

Noxious Weed Standards and Guidelines: • Coordinate with the permittees to identify and manage noxious weed infestations

within the allotment to prevent further expansion or reduce existing weed densities. • Only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, or feed is allowed on National Forest

System lands. (NPST01; FLRMP III-36)

Other Sheep Management Practices, and Terms and Conditions: • Sheep shall not be shaded or bedded within 200 yards of any stream or standing water

unless topography is restrictive. Only one watering at each site is allowed, excluding troughs. Sheep should be grazed rather than trailed to water.

• Reduce sheep activity around corrals at shipping time by bringing bands directly into the corral the night before shipping, confining all sheep within the facility and only allowing them out when handling is completed and they are being removed from the area.

• Avoid sheep nooning, trailing, and bedding in areas of noxious weed infestation to the extent possible. Areas to avoid will be identified by the district Rangeland Management Specialist and identified in the AOI.

• The permittee is required to provide a copy of the AOI to each herder, and to ensure the herder understands the written contents.

• Promptly remove or bury any sheep that have died within 100 yards or in sight of administrative sites, system roads, or trails, corrals or sources of water. If warranted, other methods of removal may be allowed with special permission from the District Ranger.

• Camps will be kept clean, which means litter will be picked up and either hauled away or burned.

• Herder camp use will not exceed five days time in one location unless prior permission is obtained from the appropriate Forest Service official. Camps will be located outside of riparian areas unless approved by a Forest officer. Camps should be located to avoid conflict with other forest users. If conflicts arise the appropriate Forest official will determine suitable camp alternatives or mitigation.


• Pack and saddle stock associated with sheep management will be either hobbled, picketed, or ground picked to avoid tree damage and excessive soil disturbance. When picketing or ground picked, stock will be located outside of riparian areas and the locations moved periodically to avoid ground disturbance and overuse of vegetation.

• Holding pens, corrals or mangers used for riding stock, will be disassembled when moving camp.

VI. Cooperation In order to reduce conflicts between sheep grazing activities and the general public the Ketchum Ranger District posts the approximate location and anticipated movements of sheep bands on the Sawtooth National Forest Web page. This information is updated weekly. The permittee or representative will be contacted weekly by range staff in order to gather accurate information such as current location of the bands, anticipated duration in any given area, and movements to new areas. Educational information on guard dog safety is included in the report. Trailhead bulletin boards and road/trail intersections will be posted by the Forest Service advising recreationists of sheep entering and grazing the area. These posters will remain in place throughout the time sheep are grazing the area and also recommend practices recreationists can employ to safely manage encounters with guard dogs. When appropriate the permittee (or herder) will be asked to move these signs with the sheep or be given additional signs and more closely post these signs with the sheep at appropriate locations. In response to concerns over potential contact and disease transmission between domestic and Bighorn sheep Lava Lake proactively spearheaded the development of an avoidance strategy between domestic and Bighorn sheep in the Pioneer Mountains. Cooperators in the strategy include Lava Lake Land and Livestock LLC/ Muldoon Grazing Association, US Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, BLM, and Idaho Department of Lands. The strategy includes Best Management Practices (BMP’s), and communication strategies to be followed by Lava Lake and cooperators in order to reduce the possibility of contact of domestic and Bighorn sheep. (reference: ‘Best Management Practices For Separation between Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep’, developed by Mike Stevens/Lava Lake Land and Livestock LLC/Muldoon Grazing Association, Inc. and Idaho Department of Fish and Game April 2010, updated June 2011). The Forest Service will cooperate with Lava Lake and support their non-lethal approach to predator control. In order to reduce conflicts/depredation by wolves and possible lethal control actions the Forest Service will cooperate with Lava Lake and encourage the use of adaptive management actions intended to avoid possible depredation as appropriate. Communication strategies, techniques, and practices developed in the ‘Big Wood River Wolf Management Project’ will be encouraged. Examples of responsive approaches that may be authorized would include modifying management found in the Annual Operating Instructions such as season of use, routing, bedground locations, etc., as appropriate.


The continued voluntary use of GPS collars on sheep bands as identified in the ‘Ketchum RD and Lava Lake Land and Livestock Working Agreement’ with Lava Lake and the District Ranger is encouraged. Spatial and temporal data gathered from the collars regarding sheep movements and use of the allotments will continue to be freely shared and used in order direct and guide monitoring and adaptive management of the allotment. The Forest Service will continue to provide one GPS collar at a minimum to be used annually on allotments permitted to Lava Lake or Muldoon Grazing Association.

VII. General Grazing Prescription The general grazing prescription such as season of use, class of livestock, numbers of sheep and routing will be determined each spring and incorporated in the Annual Operating Instructions for that years grazing authorization. Each year the permittee will meet with the District Range Staff to discuss the previous years grazing summary including GPS collar data (if available) and will include both positive results due to management as well as areas needing further attention. Included in this discussion will be management area direction, authorized use, maintenance needs, routing, shipping dates, special instructions, and possible influences that may affect the current seasons grazing. These discussions are designed to help manage annual grazing practices and associated impacts within the ability of the range to support and achieve resource management objectives and values. From these meetings Annual Operating Instructions will be developed and distributed to the permittee and his agents. Development of annual grazing prescriptions, such as routes, and grazing use within any given area contained in the AOI will emphasize “once over” grazing, one time use of bed-grounds, one time watering, and open herding practices. Exceptions to these practices (as provided for in the Forest Plan) will be identified in the AOI. In general routing will be described using the following geographic areas or drainages as descriptors:

- Narrows (headwaters of Cove Creek drainage above the junction with Cabin and Cove creek.

- Cabin Creek drainage (Cabin Creek drainage downstream to the junction of Moran and Big Witch Creek drainages.

- Big Witch Creek drainage. - Finley gulch (Finley gulch drainage north to the allotment boundary at Hook

draw east of Cove Creek) - Driveway-Fowler Gulch (Driveway and Fowler Gulch drainages) - Moran Creek drainage.

Management emphasis on the allotment will be to maintain riparian areas currently meeting Forest Plan desired conditions and/or continue to move riparian areas towards desired conditions where monitoring has indicated these conditions are not being maintained. Herding practices such as once over grazing, will be emphasized.


Management of the lower Cove Creek riparian area (approximately Fowler Gulch downstream to allotment boundary) identified as early-seral and not meeting Forest Plan desired conditions will continue to be emphasized. This area will be rested from grazing until mid-seral status has been achieved. Rest from grazing will continue in this area until monitoring indicates that recovery is sufficient to allow grazing to resume and to what degree. Progress towards achieving this objective will be assessed every three years. Incidental use by sheep such as crossings may be allowed to facilitate routing of the band on the allotment. These exceptions will be identified in the AOI. Camp locations: Both pack strings and sheep wagons will be utilized to service the herders. Where campsites become unavailable due to recreation or resource conflicts or loss of access, new locations will be approved by the District Ranger. Camps will be located outside of riparian areas.

VIII. IMPROVEMENTS Driveway Trough- SW1/4 Sec. 5. 3N. 19E. Fiberglass Trough (60’) Cabin Creek Trough- SE1/4 Sec. 16. 3N. 19E. Fiberglass Trough (60’) Rocky Springs Trough- NW1/4 Sec. 10, 3N. 19E. Fiberglass Trough (60’) Moran Trough-SW1/4 Sec. 9. 3N. 19E. Fiberglass Trough (60’) Big Witch Creek Corral- SW1/4 Sec. 10 3N, R19E. Shipping corral, (wood) Maintenance of the improvements is the responsibility of the permittee. No additional improvements have been identified under this analysis. Maintenance standards and requirements can be found in the current Term Grazing Permit issued to Lava Lake Land and Livestock L.L.C.

IX. MONITORING The use of the monitoring protocols identified in the following sections will be adaptive. Changes in protocols used may occur where new or more effective protocols are developed, identified protocols are found to not be effective in evaluating achievement of objectives, etc. The Permittee conducts additional monitoring of grazing patterns and grazing effects as part of their management program. As appropriate, this information will be used along with Forest Service monitoring to evaluate achievement of desired conditions and annual grazing use. The voluntary use of GPS collar data in order to guide and direct all aspects of monitoring will be used as appropriate and available.


Implementation Monitoring Annual grazing use limits listed in Section IV, Management Requirements, and the grazing standards and guidelines found on pages III-45 through III-47 in the Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan will be monitored for compliance within the allotment. Seasonal monitoring and allotment administration will include field reviews of grazing practices, to include inspections with permittee and their agents, review of annual grazing use information provided by the permittee, and pertinent information provided by Forest specialists working within the allotment. This information will be evaluated on a yearly basis to insure management deficiencies are corrected and that successful management practices continue moving the resource in the desired direction. The results of this monitoring will help determine the need for adaptive changes to livestock management. Annual inspections will also focus on:

• Presence of livestock in closed or outside the permitted area or season. • Extent and location of impact areas (e.g. salting, nooning, bedding, and trailing). • General patterns of utilization and identification of areas of concentrated use or

areas underutilized. • Areas showing recent impacts due to drought or other weather related influences

such as drying up of springs and seeps, increased use on vegetation or areas not generally used, and obvious increase in bare ground through lack of production.

a. Riparian Implementation Monitoring: The main purpose of this type of monitoring is to aid in within season grazing management. The monitoring protocol and location of the implementation monitoring sites are intended to measure whether the desired level of use has occurred on the allotment and whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are met. Protocols: Stubble height, woody vegetation regeneration, and stream bank alteration, Stubble height measurements will be used where appropriate and streambank alteration and /or woody vegetation regeneration measurements at the remainder of sites. Location/Number of Sites: See following table. Timing/Frequency: Monitoring would be performed annually. Implementation monitoring would not be performed at a site if it were determined that sheep were not grazed or routed through that site in that year. Participants: Range staff would perform stubble height monitoring; either range or aquatics staff would take stream bank alteration measurements.


Table 1- Riparian Implementation Monitoring DMA Name and Location Site Type Study Type/Protocol Short Term Monitoring

End-of- Season Indicator Lower Cabin Creek

NW1/4 S. 15 T.3N. R19E (proposed 2011-2012)

Photo Point Lotic Checklist

Assessing Functioning Condition, TR 1737-15

1998

Stubble Ht. >4 in. Bank Alteration < 20%

Woody Utilization< 25 %

West Fork Big Witch Creek SW1/4 S.35 T.3N. R19E.

(proposed 2011-2012)



1998



Cove Creek (GL-1) NW1/4 S.10 T.3N. R19E.

(2008))



1998



Big Witch Creek Est. 2008

Lat: 43° 50’ 13.463”N Long: 114° 17’30.808’W



1998



b. Upland Mesic Riparian Upland mesic riparian generally refers to seeps and springs. The main purpose of this type of monitoring is to aid in within season grazing management for upland, or headwater springs and seeps that are used by sheep. The sites will be located in upland headwater spring areas that form Cove creek above the “narrows”, and in the Finley Gulch and Moran Creek drainages. Additional sites will be added as needed. Each implementation site will be located with an appropriate effectiveness monitoring site in order to assess long term changes in condition. Protocols: Stubble height, woody vegetation utilization, and physical alteration, Stubble height measurements will be used where appropriate along with soil alteration and/or woody vegetation regeneration use will be used. Location/Number of Sites: See following table. Timing/Frequency: Monitoring would be performed annually. Implementation monitoring would not be performed at a site if it were determined that sheep were not grazed or routed through that site in that year. Participants: Range staff would perform stubble height monitoring, utilization on woody species and physical alteration of the spring. Table 2. Upland Mesic Monitoring

DMA Name and Location Site Type Study Type/Protocol Short Term Monitoring End-of- Season Indicator

Cove Creek (Narrows)

(proposed, 2011-2012)

Photo Point Lentic Checklist

Assesing Functioning Condition, TR 1737-16

1999 rev 2003


Woody Utilizatin< 25 %


Finley GulchEst. 2009 Photo Point

Lentic Checklist

Assing Functioning Condition, TR 1737-16

1999 rev 2003


Woody Utilizatin< 25 % Moran Creek

(proposed 2011-2012)

Photo Point Lentic Checklist

Assesing Functioning Condition, TR 1737-16

1999 rev 2003


Woody Utilizatin< 25 %

Effectiveness Monitoring: The main purpose of this type of monitoring is to determine condition/trend and progress toward achievement of desired conditions as described in the Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Trail and Cove Creek Environmental Assessment. Data from this monitoring will allow the Forest to document successful adaptive management and compliance with Forest Plan goals and objectives. Consistent with an adaptive management approach new monitoring protocals may be employed as they emerge.

a. Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring: Protocols: Green line vegetation community composition, woody species regeneration, and stream bank stability; per Burton et al. 2007 and /or Pacfish Infish Biological Opinion monitoring protocols for stream systems. For springs and seeps monitoring protocols will follow Prichard et al 2003, Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition for Lentic riparian- wetland areas TR 1737-16. Location /Number of sites: Each effectiveness monitoring site will be co-located with an implementation monitoring site. Sites selected are: Table 3. Lotic Systems (Stream) Monitoring

DMA Name Location

Last Monitored

Site Type Study Type Protocol

Desired condition

Current Condition

DMA: Big Witch Creek

Est. 2008

Lat: 43° 50’ 13.463”N

Long: 114° 17’30.808’W

2008 Stream bank

MIM (Burton

et.Al. 2007)

Late Bank Stability 88% Covered bank >/=

85%

Late 98% Bank Stability

96% Covered bank

95%

DMA: Cove Creek (GL-1)

Est. 2002 Greenline, MIM

2008 Lat: 43°

37’.153”N Long: 114° 11’692”W

2008 Stream bank

MIM (Burton

et.Al. 2007)

Late Bank Stability 88 %

Covered bank >/=

85%

Late 69% Bank Stability

90% Covered bank

85%


DMA: Cabin Creek

NW1/4 S. 15 T.3N. R19E

(proposed

2011-2012)

Stream bank

MIM (Burton

et.Al. 2007)

Late Bank Stability > 90%

of potential Covered bank >/=

85%

Lower Cove Creek

NW1/4 S.4 T.3N

R19E

(proposed

2011-2013)

Stream bank

MIM (Burton

et.Al. 2007)

Late Bank Stability > 90%

of potential Covered bank >/=

85%

Timing/ Frequency: After establishment, data collection at each site would follow at three to five-year intervals. Because this effort is intended to be long term monitoring, the data collection would not occur at any particular time relative to sheep routing or location on the allotment. Participants: Range staff would perform vegetation community and woody regeneration monitoring in cooperation with the permittee. Range and/or aquatics staff would take stream bank stability measurements or for springs perform Properly functioning assessments.

b. Upland Mesic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring- (e.g. seeps and springs)

Table 4. Seeps & Springs monitoring

DMA Name Location

Last Monitored

Site Type Study Type Protocol

Desired Condition

>50% Hydric/PFC No active erosinal

features Current Condition

Cove Creek (Narrows)

(proposed, 2011)

Photo Point Lentic

Checklist

TR 1737-16 1999Rev.

2003

Finley Gulch

2009

Photo Point Lentic

Checklist

TR 1737-16 1999Rev.

2003

Properly functioning

Moran Creek (proposed 2011-2012)

Photo Point Lentic

Checklist

TR 1737-16 1999Rev.

2003


c. Photo Points In order to collect additional information on the long-term effectiveness of the adaptive management strategy, additional photo points will be established at sites that reflect impacts from grazing. Repeat photos will be taken at these sites at a three to five year interval (per Hall 2002 protocol).

Table 5. Photo Points

Year Last Monitored Location Timing Frequency Responsibility

Finley Gulch SE1/4 S. 34 T.5N. R.18E Post Use 1-3 yrs. Range

Narrows NE ¼ S. 15 T.5N.R18E Post use 1-3 yrs. Range Upland Spring NW ¼ S. 34 T. 5N. R.18E Post use 1-3 yrs. Range

d. Upland Effectiveness Monitoring: Nested Frequency Plots (USDA et. al. 1996): These are established to provide quantitative measurements of frequency and ground cover. Frequency is the presence or absence of a species on a quadrant by quadrant basis. It is a useful index for monitoring changes in vegetation over time and comparing different plant communities. Ground cover is the percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. These measurements will be made along the frequency belts using the sharp pins of the frame. Line Intercept measurements of sagebrush crown canopy cover will be conducted along each leg of the Nested Frequency Plot. These measurements provide an estimate of the relative cover of the shrub species measured on the study site. Nested frequency plots will be read at 5 year intervals. Table 6. Upland Effectiveness Monitoring

Upland DMA Year Last Monitored

Location Protocol Desired Condition

Current Condtition

TC-1 Driveway/Indian Cr.

2009 Lat: 43° 36’57.518”N Long: 114° 13’39.240”W

Nested Frequency & Line Intercept

<30% sagebrush cover >70% Soil cover

7.2% sagebrush cover 83% Soil Cover

TC-2 Big Witch Creek

2009 Lat: 43° 36’16.714”N Long: 114° 10’40.565”W



47% sagebrush cover 81% Soil Cover


Upland DMA Year Last Monitored

Location Protocol Desired Condition

Current Condtition

TC-3 Finley Gulch

Proposed 2011-2012

SE1/4 S. 34 T.5N. R.18E



TC-4 Cabin Cr. Proposed 2011-2012

Sec. 16 T.5N. R.16E Nested Frequency & Line Intercept


e. Aspen Monitoring Aspen stands selected for monitoring will demonstrate a history of sheep grazing use Once established aspen monitoring will occur at five year intervals. In the Cove Creek allotment two aspen stands will be selected for monitoring. Monitoring will focus on:

- Aspen regeneration –stems per acre (Belt transect) - Aspen browsing- utilization of terminal leader. (Belt transect) - Domestic vs. wild ungulate use- fecal count/browsing height. (Ocular

estimate) - Ground cover –bare ground. (Ocular estimate)

Table 7. Aspen Monitoring

Aspen DMA

Year Last Monitored

Location Desired Condition Current Condition

Finley Gulch

Proposed 2011-2012

>500 stms./ac.<1” dbh < 20% leader use

Headwaters Cove Creek (Narrows)

Proposed 2011-2012 >500 stms./ac.<1” dbh

< 20% leader use

Additional photo-points or ground cover measurements will be installed in 2012 within the key vegetative communities addressed in Chapter 3 of the Trail/Cove Creek EA. These will include locations selected to evaluate areas with trailing concerns and upland seeps and springs.


Vl. References Bartos, Dale L. 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests, in

Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-18.

Burton, David; et al. 2002. Aspen Delineation Project – Protocol for Recording

Aspen Location and Condition. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Burton, Timothy A., Cowley, Ervin R., and Smith Steven J. 2007. Monitoring Stream

Channels and Riparian Vegetation-Multiple Indicators. Technical Bulletin 2007-01.USDI Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office.

Mueggler, Walter F. 1988. Aspen Community Types of the Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-250. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2004. Browsed Plant Method for

Young Quaking Aspen - An Annual Monitoring Method for Determining the Incidence of Use on Sprouts and Young Plants During the Growing Season.

USDA Forest Service, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDI Bureau

of Land Management. 1996. Sampling Vegetation Attributes - Interagency Technical Reference. BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730.

USDA Forest Service, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDI Bureau

of Land Management. 1996. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements - Interagency Technical Reference. BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. DRAFT: An integrated approach to adaptive

management of aspen on rangelands. Rangeland Analysis and Planning Guide. Pacific Southwest Region.

Winward, Alma H. 2000. Monitoring The Vegetation Resources In Riparian

Areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1999. Revised 2003. Prichard, D., Riparian

Area Management: A User Guide to Assesing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic areas. TR 1737-16 1999 rev. 2003

cove creek sheep and goat ketchum ranger district sawtooth...

Documents