**I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED**

**INTRODUCTION**

The livestock grazing permittee, has made application to renew the
existing term grazing permit for the Sandstone Allotment (#08013) (Map
1). This allotment is located in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (Monument). Fall/winter and
spring grazing on this allotment is part of the permitee's year-round
livestock operation, which also includes U.S. Forest Service and private
lands.

The Monument is currently in the process of developing its first
Resource Management Plan (RMP). Through this planning effort, the BLM
will is working collaboratively with interested parties to identify the
management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and
national needs and concerns.

**PURPOSE AND NEED**

An interdisciplinary team developed this EA for the purpose of analyzing
potential site-specific impacts on resources that would result from
issuing a new term permit for livestock grazing in the Sandstone
Allotment. This permit is needed to authorize the applicant permittee to
continue livestock grazing on public lands (43 CFR 4130.2(a)), address
public lands that are failing to achieve BLM Standards for Public Land
Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado (43
CFR 4180.2(c)) (standards and guidelines), assure protection of objects
of historic and scientific interest specified in the Monument
proclamation, and to comply with the 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP. Under
this RMP, livestock grazing must be managed to maintain or improve the
vegetation component of the ecosystem, to enhance the resource values of
the area, permit a balanced mix of uses and ensure sustained yield.

**BLM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC LAND HEALTH IN COLORADO**

In the summer of 2003, a BLM interdisciplinary team was assembled to
determine if the allotment was meeting the BLM Standards for Public Land
Health in Colorado (standards) (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). Information including
the 2001 Rangeland Health Assessment (rangeland health assessment),
proper functioning conditions assessments for both lotic (i.e., streams)
and lentic (i.e., springs) riparian areas, rangeland trends, vegetation
production and water quality data were considered in determining if the
five standards are being achieved or not achieved. These five standards
include 1) upland soils; 2) riparian systems; 3) healthy, productive
plant and animal communities; 4) special status, threatened and
endangered species; and 5) water quality. An explanation of these
standards is provided in Appendix A and is discussed in more detail in
the appropriate Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences sections
of this EA.

Table 1 summarizes the interdisciplinary team's determinations whether
the allotment is achieving the standards, along with causal factor(s).
In addition, a determination if the standards would be achieved under
Alternatives A, B, C, D and E along with causal factor(s) are provided
in Appendix B. Supporting documentation of the interdisciplinary team's
determinations is provided in this EA and is available by request from
the Dolores Public Lands Office.

Table 1. Summary of existing determinations and their causal factor(s)
for standards.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Standards**           **Determinations**      **Causal Factor(s)**

  Standard 1 - Upland     Not Achieving           Livestock grazing;
  Soils                                           Adjacent private land
                                                  weed sources

  Standard 2 - Riparian   Not Achieving           Livestock grazing; Road
  Systems                                         encroachment; Invasion
                                                  of exotic species
                                                  tamarisk and Russian
                                                  olive in riparian
                                                  areas; Agriculture and
                                                  irrigation practices on
                                                  upstream private lands.

  Standard 3 - Healthy,   Not Achieving           Livestock grazing;
  Productive Plant and                            Adjacent private land
  Animal Communities                              weed sources

  Standard 4 - Special    Not Achieving           Livestock grazing; Road
  Status, Threatened and                          encroachment; Invasion
  Endangered Species                              of exotic species
                                                  tamarisk and Russian
                                                  olive in riparian
                                                  areas; Agriculture and
                                                  irrigation practices on
                                                  upstream private lands.

  Standard 5 - Water      Not Achieving           Livestock grazing;
  Quality                                         Agriculture and
                                                  irrigation practices on
                                                  upstream private lands.
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**POTENTIALLY AFFECTED RESOURCES AND CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT**

The identification of issues for this EA was accomplished by considering
natural resources and critical elements of the human environment that
could be affected by implementation of one of the alternatives, through
input from the BLM interdisciplinary team.

Critical elements that could be affected by the Proposed Action or the
alternatives include Cultural Resources, Floodplains, Wetlands and
Riparian Zones, Water Quality and Invasive, Non-Native Species. They are
described below along with the following resources: Vegetation, Range,
Visual Resources and Socioeconomics.

***Cultural Resources:***

-   Range permit renewals are undertakings under Section 106 of the
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Livestock grazing and
    other rangeland management activities that would be authorized in
    the permit have the potential to affect cultural resources.

-   Direct livestock grazing effects to cultural resources include
    trampling, chiseling, churning, and compaction of site deposits and
    cultural features, artifact displacement and breakage, and impacts
    to standing walls, rock images, and other above ground cultural
    features. Construction of range improvements such as fences and
    stock ponds can result in damage or loss of cultural resources.

-   Indirect effects include an increased potential for erosion caused
    by livestock grazing; including trailing that can lead to the
    development of gullying in sites, as well as the potential for
    reduced vegetative and soil cover and changes in soil crust
    development.

-   Site types such as rockshelters, rock art, and sites with standing
    architecture are considered particularly vulnerable to the physical
    effects from livestock.

***Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Zones:***

-   9.4 miles of Sandstone Canyon was rated as Nonfunctional.

-   5.1 miles of Woods Canyon was rated Functional at Risk with a
    downward trend and 1.4 miles rated Nonfunctional.

-   7.9 miles of Yellow Jacket Canyon was rated Functional at Risk with
    trend not apparent.

***Water Quality:***

-   Yellow Jacket Canyon has high concentrations of ammonia.

***Invasive, Non-Native Species:***

-   Russian knapweed is common along the stream corridor in Woods
    Canyon. Musk thistle, Canada thistle, Dalmation toadflax and Russian
    knapweed are prevalent along the private/public land boundaries of
    the allotment.

-   Tamarisk is common along riparian corridors associated with Woods
    Canyon, Sandstone Canyon and Yellow Jacket Canyon.

***Vegetation:***

-   The rangeland health attributes, soil and site stability, hydrologic
    function and biotic integrity, dominantly reflect a moderate (at
    risk), or more extreme degree of departure, from the ecological site
    descriptions.

-   Vegetation condition ratings are poor and fair for slightly more
    than half of the allotment, reflected by 0-25% of the desired
    species composition for 11% of the allotment and 26-50% of desired
    species composition for 44% of the allotment.

-   Site productivity for the majority of the allotment is below
    potential. Over 80% of the capable acres produced less than 200
    pounds of forage per acre.

-   The landscape is primarily three, steep walled, narrow bottomed
    canyons. These canyon bottoms are uniformly degraded with decadent
    big sagebrush and invasive annuals on the terraces.

***Threatened or Endangered Species:***

-   Potential habitat for the Southwestern willow flycatcher could be
    impacted from livestock grazing.

***Migratory Birds:***

-   The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides oversight for the taking of
    native birds. There would be concern regarding disturbance and
    destruction of nesting birds. The Birds of Conservation Concern
    (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) which may be in this project's
    vicinity are: Lewis' woodpecker, gray vireo, pinyon jay, Virginia's
    warbler, black-throated gray warbler, golden eagle, and sage
    sparrow. This project is low impact and unlikely to result in the
    destruction or disturbance of nesting birds. There would be no
    impact to migratory birds.

***Range:***

-   Current stocking rate, given the estimated carrying capacity, is too
    high. Distribution of livestock has been poor. Majority of grazing
    use is concentrated in the canyon bottoms.

***Socioeconomics:***

-   Both local communities and ranchers (present and potential future)
    operating on the allotment could be financially impacted by a
    continuation of changes in livestock grazing management.

**ISSUES AND CRITICAL ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADDRESSED FURTHER**

BLM resource specialists have determined that the following critical
elements of the human environment are not present in the area addressed
in the Proposed Action or alternatives:

***Farm Lands (prime or unique)***

***Wastes (hazardous or solid)***

***Wild and Scenic Rivers***

***Wilderness***

The following resources and critical elements are present in the project
area, but would not be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives
for the reasons stated below.

***Air Quality***

Air Quality in the area of analysis is good, as is typical of
undeveloped areas of the western United States. The area is listed as
Class II under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program. The Proposed Action and alternatives would not increase
emission levels above current levels, which are within the Colorado
State Air Quality Standards.

***Environmental Justice***

No minority or economically challenged populations would be
disproportionately affected because none of these populations have any
investment or interest in the allotment.

***Native American Religious Concerns***

Native Americans are being consulted through a request for comment on
this EA. If Native American religious or other concerns are identified,
they will be brought forward for analysis. A list of the Native American
tribes and pueblos being consulted is provided in the Consultation,
Coordination, and Public Participation section of the EA.

***Areas of Critical Environmental Concern***

The ACEC boundary is coincidental to the more recent Monument
designation. Furthermore, Monument designation provides a higher level
of protection to objects of scientific and historic interest (i.e.
archaeological, geological and biological), than compared to the ACEC
designation. As stated in the section below (i.e. Conformance with BLM
Land Use Plan, Presidential Proclamation and Interim Guidance),
potential impacts to these objects are analyzed in this document or, if
not impacted, were omitted. Therefore, potential impacts to the ACEC are
addressed.

***Recreation***

Recreational activities within the allotment are minimal including some
hiking, camping, and rock-climbing. Therefore, it is not anticipated
that livestock grazing would diminish recreational experiences.

**CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLAN, PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION AND
INTERIM GUIDANCE**

The Proposed Action and alternatives described below are subject to the
San Juan/San Miguel RMP, approved September 1985 and its amendment (i.e.
Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing
Management in Colorado), approved February 1997. BLM finds the No Action
Alternative not in conformance and Alternatives B, C, D and E in
conformance with the resource objective that livestock grazing must be
managed to maintain or improve the vegetation component of the ecosystem
and enhance the resource values of the area, permit a balanced mix of
uses, to ensure sustained yield (U.S. Department of the Interior 1985).
Furthermore, the Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance
with the RMP decisions that livestock use adjustments (i.e. kind or
class of livestock grazing the allotment, season of use, stocking rate,
or grazing pattern) may be made on all allotments (San Juan/San Miguel
RMP), and that "spring use by domestic livestock in all allotments will
not be permitted on native ranges during the critical period of early
growth (i.e. March 1^st^ through May 30^th^) unless a grazing system is
implemented that provides critical period rest once every three years".

Additionally, the Proposed Action and alternatives have been reviewed
for conformance with the Presidential Proclamation, signed June 9, 2000,
designating the Monument. The Monument was designated to protect its
objects of scientific and historic interest (i.e., archaeological,
geological and biological). Potential impacts to these objects are
analyzed in this document or, if not impacted, were omitted.
Furthermore, the proclamation addresses livestock grazing by stating
that "laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and
administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its
jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the
Monument" (Clinton 2000).

Interim management guidance for the Monument is provided by both the BLM
Washington Office and the Colorado BLM State Director. This guidance was
developed to supplement the San Juan/San Miguel RMP, until completion of
the Monument's first RMP. This guidance directs BLM to continue
permitting livestock grazing, pursuant to the terms of existing permits
and leases; that appropriate grazing management practices should be
followed to protect rangeland resources and ensure compliance with BLM
Colorado's Standards and Guidelines, and administrative actions be
implemented under existing regulations to assure compliance with
existing permit and lease requirements (BLM Colorado 2002; BLM 2001).
The Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance with these
interim guidelines.

**RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, OR PLANS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES**

This EA is prepared under the authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (PL 91-852) and its regulations (40 CFR
1500-1508), Chapter V. The Proposed Action and alternatives described
below are consistent with other federal, state, and local laws,
regulations, and plans to the maximum extent possible.

The Montezuma County Comprehensive Plan, adopted January 6, 1997, states
that "declines in federal grazing will result in declines in ranching
and agriculture, which will result in declines in privately maintained
open space and wildlife" (Montezuma County 1997). Furthermore, the
County plan states that "such declines are counter to County policies in
support of multiple-use, economic diversity, cultural heritage, healthy
and productive landscapes, and collaborative problem solving" (Montezuma
County 1997). Following these policy determinations, BLM finds the No
Action alternative consistent with the Montezuma County Comprehensive
Plan, and alternatives B, C, D and E as partially consistent. A
partially consistent finding indicates that the Alternatives B, C, D and
E are consistent with only part of the County plan provision cited. In
these cases, BLM has determined that it cannot be consistent with a
portion of the provision due to conflicts with federal law and
regulation.

BLM finds the No Action alternative inconsistent and Alternatives B, C,
D and E consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), Public Range Improvement Act (PRIA), Taylor Grazing Act (TGA)
and BLM grazing regulations under 43 CFR 4100. FLPMA sets the basic
standard that public lands shall be managed for "multiple use" and
"sustained yield." (FLPMA § 102 (a)(7), 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(7)). FLPMA
defines "multiple use" as "harmonious and coordinated management of the
various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of
the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being
given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the
combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the
greatest unit output" (43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)).

The TGA enacted the following objectives: "To stop injury to the public
grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to
provide for their orderly use, improvement and development, to stabilize
the livestock industry dependent upon the public range, and for other
purposes" (48 Stat. 1269). PRIA establishes as the goal of managing
public rangelands to improve the range condition so they become as
productive as feasible except where the land use planning process
required pursuant to section 202 of \[FLPMA\] determines otherwise or
the Secretary determines, and sets forth his reasons for determination,
that grazing uses should be discontinued (either temporarily or
permanently) on certain lands (43 U.S.C. 1903 (b)).

The Proposed Action and Alternatives are also consistent with 43 CFR
4130.2(a) which states, in part, "grazing permits or leases shall be
issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and
other lands under the administration of the BLM that are designated as
available for livestock grazing through land use plans." Last, analysis
within this EA is made in accordance with regulations 43 CFR 4180,
Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for
Grazing Administration.

**II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES**

**ALTERNATIVE A: No Action**

Under this alternative the applicant's existing term grazing permit for
the Sandstone Allotment (#08013) would be reissued for a time period of
ten years with the currently stipulated terms and conditions. Livestock
grazing would occur during the season of use, and with the number of
AUMs, identified in Table 2 below. Permit terms and conditions
identified in Appendix B would apply.

Table 2. Grazing use authorized under Alternative A, No Action.

  ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
  Allotment   Livestock   Kind     Begin    End      Percent   Type Use AUMs^2^
              Number               Period   Period   Public             
                                                     Land^1^            

  Sandstone   400         Cattle   3/1      5/15     92        Active   919

              400         Cattle   11/15    2/28     92        Active   1,282
  ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- ---------

^1^ Percent of livestock forage in allotment contributed by public land.

^2^ Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the amount of forage required to sustain
one cow or its equivalent for one month.

**ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION (Deferred Grazing During Critical
Period)**

Under this alternative, BLM would reissue the term grazing permit for
the Sandstone Allotment (#08013) to the applicant for a time period of
ten years. Livestock grazing would occur during the seasons of use, with
the management flexibility outlined below, and with the number of AUMs,
identified in Table 3 below. The permitted AUMs were derived from
vegetation production information, collected in 2001, for perennial
species and palatable shrubs. Furthermore, these permitted AUMs were
calculated using 50 percent of the available forage production in the
allotment and assuming that 34 pounds of forage are required per
cow/calf per day during the spring period when cows are lactating with
calves and 27 pounds of forage per day during the fall/winter when
cattle are dry, and that there are 30.4 days per month. Permit terms and
conditions identified in Appendix B would apply.

Table 3. Grazing use authorized under Alternative B, Proposed Action
(Deferred Grazing During Critical Period).

  ----------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
  Allotment   Livestock   Kind     Begin^1^   End      Percent   Type Use AUMs^3^
              Number               Period     Period   Public             
                                                       Land^2^            

  Sandstone   300         Cattle   12/1       2/28     100       Active   888
  ----------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- -------- ---------

^1^ The period of use may alternate every other year from fall/winter
use to spring use as identified in detail below as long as the total
permitted aums are not exceeded, grazing use does not exceed 90 days and
spring grazing use does not occur in consecutive years.

^2^ Percent of livestock forage in allotment contributed by public land.

^3^ Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the amount of forage required to sustain
one cow or its equivalent for one month.

-   The period of use within the allotment may alternate every other
    year from fall/winter use between (11/15 -- 2/28) to spring use
    between (3/1 -- 5/30) as long as the total permitted AUMs are not
    exceeded, grazing use does not exceed 90 days and spring grazing use
    does not occur in consecutive years. The following is an example of
    the above described grazing rotation:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  YEAR                                SANDSTONE ALLOTMENT

  Year 1                              11/15 -- 2/28

  Year 2                              3/1 -- 5/30
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   Develop in cooperation with the permittee, a monitoring plan for the
    allotment to monitor riparian conditions within the Yellow Jacket,
    Woods Canyon and Sandstone Canyon drainages, upland range conditions
    and livestock forage production within the allotment.

**ALTERNATIVE C: GRAZING DURING DORMANT SEASON**

Under this alternative, BLM would reissue the term grazing permit for
the Sandstone Allotment (#08013) to the applicant for a time period of
ten years. Livestock grazing would occur during the seasons of use, and
with the number of AUMs, identified in Table 4 below. The permitted AUMs
were derived from vegetation production information, collected in 2001,
for perennial species and palatable shrubs. Furthermore, these permitted
AUMs were calculated using 50 percent of the available forage production
in the allotment and assuming that 27 pounds of forage are required per
cow/calf per day and that there are 30.4 days per month. Permit terms
and conditions identified in Appendix B would apply.

Table 4. Grazing use authorized under Alternative C, Grazing During
Dormant Season.

  ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
  Allotment   Livestock   Kind     Begin    End      Percent   Type Use AUMs^2^
              Number               Period   Period   Public             
                                                     Land^1^            

  Sandstone   260         Cattle   11/15    2/28     92        Active   833
  ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- ---------

^1^ Percent of livestock forage in allotment contributed by public land.

^2^ Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the amount of forage required to sustain
one cow or its equivalent for one month.

-   Institute a deferred rotational grazing system in the allotment, by
    using the three major drainages (Yellow Jacket Canyon, Sandstone
    Canyon, Woods Canyon) as separate pastures.

**ALTERNATIVE D: REST 1/3 OF ALLOTMENT EVERY YEAR**

Under this alternative, BLM would reissue the term grazing permit for
the Sandstone Allotment (#08013) to the applicant for a time period of
ten years. Livestock grazing would occur during the seasons of use, and
with the number of AUMs, identified in Table 5 below. The permitted AUMs
are less than alternatives B and C due to 1/3 of the allotment being
rested. The permitted AUMs were derived from vegetation production
information, collected in 2001, for perennial species and palatable
shrubs. Furthermore, these permitted AUMs were calculated using 50
percent of the available forage production in the allotment and assuming
that 34 pounds of forage are required per cow/calf per day during the
spring period when cows are lactating with calves and 27 pounds of
forage per day during the fall/winter when cattle are dry, and that
there are 30.4 days per month. Permit terms and conditions identified in
Appendix B would apply.

Table 5. Grazing use authorized under Alternative D, Rest 1/3 of
allotment every year.

  ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
  Allotment   Livestock   Kind     Begin    End      Percent   Type Use AUMs^2^
              Number               Period   Period   Public             
                                                     Land^1^            

  Sandstone   80          Cattle   3/1      5/15     92        Active   184

              101         Cattle   11/15    2/28     92        Active   348
  ----------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- ---------

^1^ Percent of livestock forage in allotment contributed by public land.

^2^ Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the amount of forage required to sustain
one cow or its equivalent for one month.

-   Institute a rotational grazing system in which rest and deferment
    from grazing is implemented by using the three major drainages
    (Yellow Jacket Canyon, Sandstone Canyon, Woods Canyon) as separate
    pastures. Every year one pasture would receive complete rest, while
    the remaining pastures would receive deferred grazing treatments.
    The following is an example of how the grazing system would be
    implemented:

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| YEAR^1^         | COMPLETE REST   | DORMANT         | GROWING SEASON  |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 | 11/15 -- 2/28   | 3/1 -- 5/15     |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Year 1          | Sandstone       | Woods Canyon    | Yellow Jacket   |
|                 | Canyon          |                 | Canyon          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Year 2          | Yellow Jacket   | Sandstone       | Woods Canyon    |
|                 | Canyon          | Canyon          |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Year 3          | Woods Canyon    | Yellow Jacket   | Sandstone       |
|                 |                 | Canyon          | Canyon          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

^1^ The grazing rotation would repeat itself after year three.

-   Deviations in Livestock numbers and/or period of use different that
    outlined above may be approved by the authorized officer as long as
    they do not exceed the total permitted aums specified for both the
    dormant season and growing season, as well as are consistent with
    the rangeland health standards.

**ALTERNATIVE E: NO GRAZING**

Under this alternative, the applicant would not be reissued a term
grazing permit for the Sandstone Allotment (#08013). As a result, no
livestock grazing would occur on this allotment.

**CONSIDERATION OF BOTH PERMITTED USE AND ACTUAL USE AUMS**

Upon review of historical actual use records for livestock grazing on
the Sandstone Allotment, it was determined that differences exist
between the number of permitted use AUMs (2,206) and average actual use
AUMs (1,519). The average actual use between 1983 through 2007 is 1,519
AUMs, with a high of 2,044 AUMs and a low of 1,108 AUMs. This
information was used to better analyze the impacts of livestock grazing
under the alternatives.

**III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONEMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

Affected resources and critical elements that might be impacted are
assessed in the paragraphs that follow.

**GENERAL SETTING**

The Sandstone Allotment is located west of U.S. Highway 491, east of the
Utah state line and north of the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. In this
area of analysis, biotic and abiotic characteristics (e.g., climate,
physiography, soils, vegetation and wildlife), land uses are similar.
The landscape's primary historic uses include livestock grazing,
cultivated agriculture, and oil and gas resource development.

**CURRENT GRAZING MANAGEMENT**

Currently grazing use on the allotment occurs between November 15^th^
and May 15^th^ every year following removal of livestock from National
Forest Lands where they are permitted to graze between June 1^st^ and
October 25^th^ every year.

The Sandstone Allotment is currently divided into three large pastures
(Yellow Jacket Canyon, Woods Canyon and Sandstone Canyon) using small
amounts of gap fencing combined with the natural topography (rimrock
ledges and steep talus slopes) which act as physical barriers to
livestock movement. These pastures are currently being used in a
deferred grazing rotation with the intent that one pasture receives
grazing rest every year during the critical spring growing season (March
1^st^ through May 31^st^).

Within the allotment the most reliable water sources for livestock occur
in the Yellow Jacket Canyon, Woods Canyon and Sandstone Canyon
drainages. Reliable livestock water is very limited on the mesa tops and
varies from year to year. As a result, livestock distribution has been
poor as they tend to congregate and spend most of their time in the
canyon bottoms and along the riparian areas in the above listed
drainages.

The grazing permittee has cooperatively worked with the BLM to implement
a more intensive grazing management system by hauling water as needed,
riding and herding livestock in difficult terrain to improve
distribution and investing in improvements such as fencing on their
adjacent private lands.

**VEGETATION**

**AFFECTED ENVIROMENT**

The Sandstone Allotment is 23,500 acres in size and 98% public lands.
Three large canyons, Sandstone, Woods and Yellow Jacket Canyons, make up
the headwaters of Yellow Jacket Creek and form the majority of the
allotment. The elevation of the mesas along the canyon rims is 6,400 to
6,900 feet and the lowest elevation at the bottom of the canyon is 5,400
feet. The mesa tops have deep, productive, sandy-loam soils derived from
aeolian deposited sands. The canyons dissect the mesas, cutting through
Dakota and Morrison geologic formations, exposing extensive outcrops of
Dakota sandstone and rocky slopes of mixed sandstone and shale deposits.
The canyon slope soils are mixed, shallow to deep, colluvium and
alluvium derived from the sandstone and shale deposits of the Morrison
formation. The canyon bottoms are fairly wide in Yellow Jacket canyon,
from \<100 up to 1,200 feet and narrower in Sandstone and Woods Canyon
from \<100 feet up to 500 feet. Soils in the canyon bottoms are, for the
most part, deep alluvial soils in floodplains and drainage-ways.

Average precipitation measured in Cortez, Colorado (approximately 10
miles to the southeast at an elevation of 6,210 feet) is 13 inches,
based on 74 years of record. Over the last 10 years the average
precipitation has been 11 inches, the last five years have been quite
dry with an average precipitation of 9 inches.

The dominant vegetation type is pinyon and juniper woodland, either on
relatively flat mesa tops or moderate to steep canyon slopes.
Approximately 2,654 acres of the pinyon juniper were chained and seeded
with crested wheatgrass in the late 1960s. The chaining treatment
occurred primarily on the deeper soils of the mesa tops in the 'loamy
foothills' ecological site. The purpose was to remove pinyon and juniper
trees and enhance production of grasses for livestock forage. The
bottoms of the canyons are typically terraces covered with big sagebrush
or greasewood and dissected by deeply incised channels. The channels
themselves typically support tamarisk, coyote willow and occasional old
cottonwood trees.

More specifically, the allotment has the following ecological sites.
Ecological sites are areas with uniform soils and topography that
produce a distinct natural (reference) plant community. The ecological
sites are described in detail in Table 6, with the reference community
compared to the existing vegetation. In addition to the following
ecological sites there are about 100 acres in agriculture or are
developed oil and gas facilities.

Table 6. Ecological sites in the Sandstone Allotment

  ------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------
  Ecological Site                       Acres           Proportion of
                                                        Allotment

  Pinyon Juniper                        9,783           42%

  Pinyon Juniper (steep canyonside)     6,090           26%

  Pinyon Juniper (chained)              1,245           5%

  Loamy Foothill                        2,607           11%

  Loamy Foothill (chained)              1,409           6%

  Loamy Bottom                          910             4%

  Alkali Bottom                         158             1%

  Desert Sand                           25              \<1%

  Rock                                  768             3%

  River Bottom (Riparian)               385             2%
  ------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------

A Rangeland Health Assessment was completed in 2001. This assessment
evaluated ecological sites on the allotment comparing existing site
conditions to those expected for the site at potential condition.
Eighteen site indicators were evaluated with a qualitative, descriptive
rating system, following BLM Technical Reference 1734-6, 2000,
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. The indicators were used to
evaluate three rangeland health attributes, Soil and Site Stability,
Hydrologic Function and Biotic Integrity. These attributes are used, in
part, to help make a determination as to whether the allotment is
meeting the Rangeland Health Standards for public land health (H-4180-1
Rangeland Health Standards, 1/19/01). Overall the Sandstone allotment
had the following ratings applied:

+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of acres in  | #### D |        |        |        |        |
| each rating          | egree  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | of Dep |        |        |        |        |
|                      | arture |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  from  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | Refere |        |        |        |        |
|                      | nce Si |        |        |        |        |
|                      | te Con |        |        |        |        |
|                      | dition |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Attribute            | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
|                      |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 22%    | 34%    | 40%    | 5%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 22%    | 39%    | 38%    | 1%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 1%     | 78%    | 17%    | 4%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Since the majority of acres are in a moderate or moderate to extreme
category (at risk or greater categories), the allotment was determined
not to be meeting the rangeland health guidelines for upland soils or
healthy and productive plant and animal communities. At risk rangelands
have a reversible loss in productive capability and increased
vulnerability to irreversible degradation based upon an evaluation of
current conditions of the soils and ecological processes (NRC, 1994).

Additional data was collected during the rangeland health assessment to
assist in making decisions regarding management of the allotment.
Vegetation cover, ground cover and production were measured on all of
the ecological sites in the allotment. Using this data, the vegetation
for each sample point was rated based on the existing species
composition as compared to a desired condition. The desired condition
was determined from the appropriate ecological site description,
reference sites within the monument if available, and a consideration of
the general conditions on the monument for each ecological site.

Overall, 12% of the rated acres were in excellent condition, with 76 to
100% of the desired plant community represented, 28% in good condition,
or 51 to 75% of the desired community, 48% in fair condition, or 26 to
50% of the desired plant community, and 12% in poor condition, or 0 to
25% of the desired plant community (Table 7).

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Ratings

  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------
  Condition rating   Percent of       Acres             Proportion of
                     desired plant                      allotment
                     community                          

  Excellent          76 -- 100%       1,950             12%

  Good               51 -- 75%        4,480             28%

  Fair               26 -- 50%        7,489             48%

  Poor               0 -- 25%         1,847             12%
  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------

More detailed information is provided for each ecological site in the
following discussion, and a complete data table with information for
each sample point, by ecological site, listing all species, is
available.

Site productivity for most ecological sites (85% of the allotment) was
below site potential, even considering "unfavorable year" production as
described by the NRCS in the ecological site descriptions. On a large
proportion of these sites production is very low, less than 200 pounds
per acre, which is minimal for livestock production, especially
considering that invasive annual grasses and forbs form a large
proportion of the production.

Each ecological site is described in detail below:

**Pinyon Juniper Ecological Site**:

The soils that make up the Pinyon Juniper Ecological site are a
Romberg-Crosscan complex (109,110) and a Gladel-Pulpit complex (42). The
Romberg-Crosscan soils typically occur on the steep canyon slopes with
the Romberg component being deep and the Crosscan shallow, alluvium and
residuum derived from sandstone and shale. These canyon slopes typically
have mature pinyon juniper woodland vegetation with elevation range of
5,400 to 6,800 feet. The Gladel soils are shallow, 12 to 20 inches, and
typically occur on the mesa edges at elevations of 6,200 to 7,400 feet.
All of the Gladel sites on the Sandstone allotment are chained pinyon
juniper sites.

Potential vegetation composition (by weight), as described by the NRCS
for "South West Mountain Pinyon and Juniper" is pinyon juniper woodland
with canopy cover dominance dependent on fire or other disturbance
history. Understory vegetation will differ in amount depending on the
dominance of the tree canopy cover. With a tree canopy cover greater
than 40%, understory production is low, 100 to 350 pounds per acre. When
tree canopy cover is 15 to 40%, understory production is a diverse mix
of grasses, forbs and shrubs with production between 400 and 600 pounds
per acre. When tree canopy cover is light, 0 to 15%, production is
highest at 700 to 900 pounds per acre. At this stage 40 to 60% of the
understory will be grasses and forbs and 40 to 55% shrubs. Typical
species to be expected at any of the canopy cover stages are the grasses
muttongrass, Indian ricegrass and galleta with smaller amounts of needle
and thread, bottlebrush squirreltail, sun sedge and sandberg bluegrass.
The dominant shrub is big sagebrush with smaller amounts of Greene's
rabbitbrush, bitterbrush, mountain mahogany and serviceberry.

Overgrazing of these sites results in a decrease in perennial cool
season grasses and palatable shrubs such as serviceberry, bitterbrush
and mahogany, an increase in Greene's rabbitbrush and big sagebrush and
invasion of annual grasses and forbs. Pinyon and juniper seedlings
establish more rapidly after disturbances such as fire or chaining if
grazing is heavy.

Existing vegetation was sampled in 2001. The analysis of these sites
assessed chained and unchained stands separately. Chained stands
typically occur on the mesa tops with Gladel soils and the mature pinyon
juniper stands typically occur on the Romberg-Crosscan soils of the
canyon slopes. These sites were split into stands with medium (25 to
40%) and high canopy (\>40%) cover.

There were 9 data points representing 1,245 acres in chained Pinyon
Juniper woodlands. Tree canopy cover was between 15 and 32% with an
understory of the following average composition based on production: 25%
perennial grasses primarily Indian ricegrass, needle and thread,
bottlebrush squirrel tail, crested wheatgrass and muttongrass, 13%
annual grasses, mostly cheatgrass, 18% perennial forb, all native
species, 16% annual forbs, mostly weedy non-native species, and 28%
shrub, mostly bitterbrush, snakeweed and rubber rabbitbrush. Reference
sites on the Sandstone allotment had 49% of the composition in perennial
grasses, mostly mutton grass with some bottlebrush squirreltail, galleta
and sun sedge, 4% annual grass, 24% forbs and 24% shrub (Table 8).

There were 15 data points representing 9,783 acres in unchained Pinyon
Juniper ecological sites. About 60% of this type is on steep slopes, 20%
to 30% slope. These sites had the following average composition based on
production: 25% perennial grasses, primarily mutton grass, bottlebrush
squirreltail and Indian ricegrass, 5% annual grasses mostly cheatgrass,
35% perennial forb, 17% annual forbs mostly native but some alien annual
forbs present, and 28% shrub mostly mahogany, serviceberry and
bitterbrush. Reference sites on the Sandstone allotment had 44% of the
composition in perennial grasses, mostly mutton grass with some
bottlebrush squirreltail, galleta and sun sedge, 2% annual grass, 15%
perennial forbs, 5% annual forbs and 33% shrub. Average pinyon juniper
canopy cover was 25 to 30% but went as high as 50% (Table 8).

Pinyon Juniper sites on slopes greater than 30%, or with barren rocky
slopes, were not sampled, and account for 26% of the acres on the
allotment.

Table 8. Pinyon Juniper ecological site, lifeform composition by weight

  ----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  Lifeform          Mature PJ     Mature PJ     Chaining      Chaining
                    reference     average       reference     average

  Perennial Grasses 44%           25%           49%           25%

  Annual Grasses    2%            5%            4%            13%

  Perennial Forb    15%           35%           13%           18%

  Annual Forb       5%            17%           11%           16%

  Shrub             33%           28%           24%           28%
  ----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

Species composition data, based on canopy cover, was collected at each
sample point. Each site was rated based on NRCS site description,
reference sites, and general vegetative conditions found on the
monument. Table 9 shows a summary of the condition ratings.

Table 9. Pinyon Juniper Vegetation Condition Ratings

  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------
  Condition rating   Percent of       Acres             Proportion of
                     desired plant                      Ecological Site
                     community                          

  Excellent          76 -- 100%       1,471             13%

  Good               51 -- 75%        3,298             30%

  Fair               26 -- 50%        4,597             42%

  Poor               0 -- 25%         1,589             15%
  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------

As described in the ecological site description, for sites at potential
with canopy cover between 15% and 40%, annual production in an
unfavorable year should be 400 pounds per acre, dry weight. The average
annual production during 2001 on chained sites was 213 pounds and on
unchained sites, 115 pounds.

The rangeland health ratings for Pinyon Juniper Ecological sites were:

+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of acres in  | #### D |        |        |        |        |
| each rating          | egree  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | of Dep |        |        |        |        |
|                      | arture |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  from  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | Refere |        |        |        |        |
|                      | nce Si |        |        |        |        |
|                      | te Con |        |        |        |        |
|                      | dition |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ##### Attribute      | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
| (Chaining)           |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 0%     | 16%    | 76%    | 8%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 0%     | 49%    | 51%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 0%     | 97%    | 3%     | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ##### Attribute      | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
| (Mature Pinyon       |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
| Juniper)             |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 32%    | 27%    | 36%    | 6%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 32%    | 35%    | 33%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 0%     | 85%    | 9%     | 6%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

**Trend**

There is one trend study on a chained pinyon juniper ecological site.
This transect was established in 1986 and last measured in 2007. There
was no statistical change in plant composition between 1986 and 2002
except for a decrease in rubber rabbitbrush. Since 2002, there has been
a significant decline in two of the three cool season perennial grass
species (Indian ricegrass and Crested wheatgrass). Trend was determined
to be down.

## Loamy Foothill Ecological Site

The soils that make up the Loamy Foothill Ecological site are Wetherill
Loam (143, 144), Pulpit (42) and Cahona (21). Landscape position is
gently rolling terrain on mesas with slopes between 1 and 12%. These
soils are very deep (\>60 inches) loams to fine sandy loams that
developed on loess overlying sandstone or shale. The elevation range for
these sites is from 6000 to 7000 feet.

## Potential vegetation composition (by weight), as described by the NRCS (ecological site description 284) is a continuum from grassland to shrubland to pinyon juniper woodland, depending on the fire history of the site. The Sandstone allotment has sites with mature pinyon juniper woodland (several hundred years old), recently burned grassland, shrubland and chained sites with young pinyon juniper cover. When the site has mature pinyon juniper, at potential, it should have an understory dominated by muttongrass, a perennial, cool season, bunchgrass. With fire disturbance the site should have grasses mixed with shrubs such as black or big sagebrush. Grasses common to more open canopy stages are muttongrass, western wheatgrass, junegrass, needle and thread and Indian ricegrass. Grasses would make up about 60% of the composition and shrub up to 15% in this situation.

All of these areas occur on the mesa tops between canyons. Many of these
areas are surrounded by private land and/or have difficult access. As a
result, livestock use on many of these sites is light. Existing
vegetation as sampled in 2001 on the Loamy Foothill sites was broken
down into mature pinyon juniper woodland stands, chained areas and
recently burned areas.

There were 9 data points representing 2,478 acres of Loamy Foothill
ecological sites in mature pinyon juniper with the following average
composition in the understory: 35% perennial grasses, primarily mutton
grass and bottlebrush squirreltail, 18% cheatgrass, 43% perennial and
annual forbs, mostly native, and 5% shrub, mostly bitterbrush. A
reference site on the Sandstone allotment had 51% of the composition in
perennial grasses, mostly mutton grass with some bottlebrush
squirreltail and Indian ricegrass, 14% annual grasses, 33% forbs and 2%
shrub. Pinyon juniper cover was between 35 and 60% on these sites.

There were 13 data points representing 1,409 acres in Loamy Foothill
ecological sites that have been chained with the following average
composition in the understory: 40% perennial grasses mutton grass,
Indian ricegrass, crested wheatgrass and bottlebrush squirreltail, 8%
annual grasses mostly cheatgrass, 29% perennial and annual forbs mostly
native but some alien annual forbs present, and 22% shrub mostly
bitterbrush, black and big sagebrush and lesser amounts of snakeweed,
ephedra and rabbitbrush. Reference sites on the Sandstone allotment had
64% perennial grass, mutton grass, Indian ricegrass and bottlebrush
squirreltail, 2% annual grass, 30% perennial forb, mostly perennial and
4% shrub, bitterbrush and big sagebrush. Average pinyon juniper cover on
chained sites was 20 to 25% but went as high as 50 to 60%. The pinyon
and juniper trees are what have returned to the site after the chaining
treatments done in the late 1960s. Typically trees are from 2 to 10 feet
tall.

There were three data points representing 126 acres in recently burned
areas with the following average composition: 33% perennial grasses
dominantly Indian ricegrass with some mutton grass and bottlebrush
squirreltail, 35% cheatgrass, 11% perennial and annual forbs mostly
native but some alien annual forbs and some musk thistle present, and
22% shrub mostly bitterbrush and rubber rabbitbrush (Table 10).

Table 10. Loamy Foothill lifeform composition by weight

  --------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Lifeform        Mature PJ   Mature PJ   Chaining    Chaining    Burn
                  reference   average     reference   average     average

  Perennial       51%         35%         64%         40%         33%
  Grasses                                                         

  Annual Grasses  14%         18%         2%          8%          35%

  Perennial Forb  14%         21%         24%         11%         6%

  Annual Forb     19%         22%         2%          18%         5%

  Shrub           2%          5%          4%          22%         22%
  --------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

As described in the ecological site description, for sites in the grass
shrubland stage, heavy livestock grazing can aid in the establishment of
pinyon and juniper seedlings by reducing competition from other plants,
exposure of mineral soil and reducing fuels so that fires no longer
carry through the site. Other species likely to invade degraded sites
are rubber rabbitbrush, snakeweed, cheatgrass and annual forbs.

Species composition data, based on canopy cover, was collected at each
sample point. Each site was rated based on NRCS site description,
reference sites, and general vegetative conditions found on the
monument. Table11 shows a summary of the condition ratings.

Table 11. Loamy Foothill Vegetation Condition Ratings

  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------
  Condition rating   Percent of       Acres             Proportion of
                     desired plant                      Ecological Site
                     community                          

  Excellent          76 -- 100%       479               12%

  Good               51 -- 75%        1,152             29%

  Fair               26 -- 50%        2,262             56%

  Poor               0 -- 25%         120               3%
  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------

As described in the ecological site description, for sites at potential
in a grass/shrub stage, annual production in an unfavorable year should
be 800 pounds per acre, dry weight. The average annual production during
2001 on a recently burned site (1988) was 619 pounds, on the chained
sites (1960s) it was 291, and in mature pinyon juniper sites it was 531
with light tree canopy cover, 185 with moderate tree canopy and 136 with
heavy canopy cover. The highest production encountered was 727 pounds
per acre on a recently burned site.

The rangeland health ratings for the three health attributes, Soil and
Site Stability, Hydrologic Function and Biotic Integrity for Loamy
Foothill sites were:

+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Attributes by major  | ###    |        |        |        |        |
| vegetation stage     | # Degr |        |        |        |        |
|                      | ee of  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | Depart |        |        |        |        |
|                      | ure fr |        |        |        |        |
|                      | om Ref |        |        |        |        |
|                      | erence |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  Site  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | Condit |        |        |        |        |
|                      | ion, p |        |        |        |        |
|                      | ercent |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  of ac |        |        |        |        |
|                      | res in |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  each  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | rating |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Mature Pinyon        | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
| Juniper              | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
|                      |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 0%     | 63%    | 37%    | 0%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 0%     | 43%    | 57%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 1%     | 61%    | 38%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Chainings            | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
|                      |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 0%     | 52%    | 44%    | 4%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 6%     | 63%    | 26%    | 5%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 1%     | 61%    | 38%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Burn                 | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
|                      |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 0%     | 39%    | 21%    | 40%    |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 0%     | 39%    | 61%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 0%     | 60%    | 40%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

# 

# Loamy Bottom Ecological Site

The soils that make up the Loamy Bottom Ecological site are, Ramper (98)
and Ustic Torrifluvent (135). Landscape position is alluvial fans,
drainageways and flood plains on slopes less than 3%. The soils are very
deep (\>60 inches). Parent material is alluvium derived from sandstone
and shale. The elevation range for these sites is from 5400 to 7400
feet.

## Potential vegetation composition (by weight), as described by the NRCS (ecological site description 035XY011UT), when close to potential the site should be a mixed grass shrub community dominated by basin big sagebrush and great basin wild rye. The dominant grasses are wildrye, Indian ricegrass, Sandburg bluegrass, muttongrass, and western wheatgrass (5 to 10% each). Subdominant grasses are needle and thread, bottlebrush squirreltail, sand dropseed, bluegrama, galleta and alkali sacaton (up to 10%). The dominant shrub is basin big sagebrush (25 to 30%). Other shrubs present at 0 to 5% are rubber rabbitbrush, fourwing saltbush, greasewood, and winterfat.

Existing vegetation, as sampled with six data points in 2001, had the
following composition: perennial grasses 4%, crested wheatgrass, slender
wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, western wheatgrass, needle and
thread and sand dropseed; shrubs, 51% of the composition, were dominated
by basin big sagebrush with smaller amounts of snakeweed, rabbitbrush
and fourwing saltbush; 3% perennial forbs, mostly native; and the
remainder was annual grasses and forbs, mostly invasive weedy species,
42%.

As described in the ecological site description, when the ecological
condition deteriorates due to over grazing, the plant species most
likely to invade the site is cheatgrass. Perennial grasses, especially
the large cool season bunchgrasses will decrease and there will be a
corresponding increase in basin big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and
juniper. The Loamy Bottom ecological sites on the Sandstone Allotment
were dominated by 27% cheatgrass, 51% basin big sagebrush, and 15%
invasive weedy annual forbs. Perennial grasses were only a minor
component (Table 12).

Table 12. Comparison of reference site to existing community, lifeform
composition

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Lifeform                Potential composition   Existing composition

  Perennial Grasses       45 -- 55%               4%

  Annual Grasses          5 -- 10%                27%

  Perennial Forb          3 -- 5%                 3%

  Annual Forb                                     15%

  Shrub                   35 -- 45%               51%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

About 50% of the composition by weight is outside the range of the
desired plant community. Even considering that 10% of the cheatgrass and
30% of the big sagebrush is accepted as part of the desired community.

Species composition data, based on canopy cover, was collected at each
sample point. Each site was rated based on NRCS site description,
reference sites, and general vegetative conditions found on the
monument. Table 13 shows a summary of the data.

Table 13. Loamy Bottom Vegetation Condition Ratings

  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------
  Condition rating   Percent of       Acres             Proportion of
                     desired plant                      Ecological Site
                     community                          

  Excellent          76 -- 100%       0                 0%

  Good               51 -- 75%        30                4%

  Fair               26 -- 50%        556               77%

  Poor               0 -- 25%         136               19%
  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------

**Trend**

There is a long-term trend monitoring study for this ecological site in
Yellow Jacket Canyon. Although there are few species present on this
transect, it shows that sand dropseed has increased between 1988 and
2004. However, sand dropseed is the only perennial grass species present
in any significant amounts. Cheatgrass is common and Russian thistle is
steadily increasing. Forbs are dominated by undesirable non-native
weeds. Fourwing saltbush and sagebrush are stable. Sand dropseed appears
to be a species that comes in quickly after disturbance and could
indicate an upward trend for this transect.

As described in the ecological site description annual production in an
unfavorable year should be 700 pounds per acre, dry weight. The average
annual production during 2001 was 595 pounds, 85% of the potential,
comprised mostly of sagebrush, cheatgrass and annual forbs.

The rangeland health ratings for Loamy Bottom sites were:

+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of acres in  | #### D |        |        |        |        |
| each rating          | egree  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | of Dep |        |        |        |        |
|                      | arture |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  from  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | Refere |        |        |        |        |
|                      | nce Si |        |        |        |        |
|                      | te Con |        |        |        |        |
|                      | dition |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Attribute            | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
|                      |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 35%    | 20%    | 45%    | 0%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 35%    | 20%    | 45%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 0%     | 72%    | 28%    | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

# Alkali Bottom Ecological Site 

The soil that makes up the Alkali Bottom ecological site is Battlerock
(12). Landscape position is typically floodplains, drainage ways and
alluvial fans on slopes less than 6%. This soil is very deep, greater
than 60 inches, with a parent material of alluvium derived from
sandstone and shale. Soil texture is a clay loam and the soil can be
slightly to strongly alkaline. The elevation range is 5,000 to 5,700
feet

Potential vegetation as described by the NRCS (ecological site
description 413), when close to potential the site should be dominated
(50% of community, relative composition by weight) by alkali sacaton,
western wheat, sandburg bluegrass, inland saltgrass and great basin
wildrye. Alkali sacaton is the dominant species with 20 to 25% of the
total annual production. Forbs make up a small component of the
community (\<10% composition by weight). Shrubs make up 25 to 35% of the
community with the following species being common: greasewood, Nuttall
saltbush, spiny hopsage, shadscale, fourwing saltbush, prickly pear and
basin big sagebrush.

Existing vegetation as sampled with two data points in 2001,
representing 158 acres, had the following composition: perennial grasses
and forbs 0%; annual grasses 11%, entirely cheatgrass; annual forbs 6%,
all non-native invasive species; shrubs 83%, dominantly greasewood and
basin big sage with smaller amounts of four wing saltbush.

As described in the ecological site description, when the ecological
condition deteriorates due to over grazing, the plant species most
likely to increase on the site are greasewood, and big sagebrush. These
species will increase to the extent that the site will be dominated by
shrubby vegetation. Invasive species are cheatgrass and Russian thistle.
Species that would tend to decrease are shadscale, fourwing saltbush,
Nuttalls saltbush, alkali sacaton, western wheat and wildrye. The Alkali
Bottom ecological sites on the Sandstone allotment are dominated by the
increaser shrubs greasewood and sagebrush, with an understory of
cheatgrass and no remaining perennial grasses and forbs (Table 14).

Table 14. Comparison of reference site to existing community, lifeform
composition

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Lifeform                Potential composition   Existing composition

  Perennial Grasses       45 -- 65%               0%

  Annual Grasses          2 -- 3%                 11%

  Perennial Forb          2 -- 10%                0%

  Annual Forb                                     6%

  Shrub                   25 -- 35%               83%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Over 60% of the composition by weight is outside the range of the
desired plant community.

Species composition data, based on canopy cover, was collected at each
sample point. Each site was rated based on NRCS site description,
reference sites, and general vegetative conditions found on the
monument. Table 15 summarizes the condition ratings.

Table 15. Vegetation condition for each sample point

  -------------- -------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Sample Point   Percent Similar to   Range Condition   Acres in
                 Desired Community    Rating            allotment

  291            35%                  Fair              49

  292            20%                  Poor              2
  -------------- -------------------- ----------------- -----------------

Annual production in an unfavorable year is 200 to 250 pounds per acre
dry weight per year with grasses making up 45 to 65%; forbs 2 to 10%;
and shrubs 25 to 35% of the composition. The average production during
2001 was 805 pounds comprised almost entirely of greasewood, big
sagebrush and cheatgrass.

The rangeland health ratings for Alkali Bottom sites were:

+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of acres in  | #### D |        |        |        |        |
| each rating          | egree  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | of Dep |        |        |        |        |
|                      | arture |        |        |        |        |
|                      |  from  |        |        |        |        |
|                      | Refere |        |        |        |        |
|                      | nce Si |        |        |        |        |
|                      | te Con |        |        |        |        |
|                      | dition |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Attribute            | E      | Mod to | Mo     | Sight  | None   |
|                      | xtreme | E      | derate | to     | to     |
|                      |        | xtreme |        | Mo     | Slight |
|                      |        |        |        | derate |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Soil and Site        | 0%     | 96%    | 4%     | 0%     | 0%     |
| Stability            |        |        |        |        |        |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hydrologic Function  | 0%     | 96%    | 4%     | 0%     | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biotic Integrity     | 0%     | 0%     | 100%   | 0%     | 0%     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

## Ground Cover and Soil Stability Ratings

The amount of bare soil has a direct effect on soil and site stability
and hydrologic function (Pellant et al., 2000). Bare soil is a soil
surface without living vegetative cover, vegetative litter, rock, or
biological crust cover. The amount of bare ground is a direct indication
of site susceptibility to accelerated wind or water erosion (Pellant et
al., 2000; Branson et al., 1981, page 112 - 117). When a soil does not
have aerial cover, such as a vegetative canopy or surface cover such as
biological crust, litter, rock or plant base, the site is more
susceptible to raindrop splash erosion, decreasing infiltration, and
increasing sediment suspension. Overland flow increases as a direct
result, and if unimpeded by surface cover, will collect and cause
erosion and sedimentation. On the Sandstone allotment cheatgrass adds a
significant amount of litter to sites, however the widely fluctuating
amounts of cheatgrass from year to year and the light 'trashy' nature of
the litter makes it less dependable or effective as a soil protective
cover. Sites on the Monument thought to represent close to reference
conditions, with low amounts of cheatgrass, had an average 20% bare
soil. Even considering cheatgrass aerial cover and litter, 66% of the
Sandstone allotment had more than 20% bare soil surface and more than
30% bare soil on 22% of the rated acres.

Soil stability was measured during the rangeland health assessment with
the Slake test (Pellant et al. 2000) to evaluate infiltration rates both
under plant canopy and in the interspaces between plant canopies. For
the Sandstone allotment, soil stability was reduced in plant interspaces
for a majority of the sites. There was a correlation between the amount
of bare soil on a site and the soil stability rating in the plant
interspaces. Sites with more than 30% bare soil were less stable,
indicating lower infiltration rates, less incorporated organic matter
and a higher potential for erosion. Soils with decreased infiltration
rates will have an increase in overland flow resulting in more water
available for sediment transport (Branson et al, pg 132, 1981).

**Biological Crusts**

Biological crusts are a living soil surface cover consisting of
cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses and fungi. These crusts
reduce wind and water erosion of soil surfaces. In cool deserts of the
Colorado Plateau, biological crusts generally increase water
infiltration (Belnap et al.2001, pg 35 - 40). The cyanobacteria and
cyanolichens that are a common component of biological crusts in this
area, are an important source of fixed nitrogen for plants (Belnap et
al.2001, pg 31). Studies have shown that many native species have higher
seedling establishment where crusts are more developed. Alien species
such as cheatgrass have reproductive strategies that are not adapted to
sites with crust cover and seedling establishment is reduced (Belnap et
al.2001, pg 33).

Biological crusts are easily disturbed by hoof or foot impacts, vehicles
and bicycles and by high intensity fire. The lichen and moss components
are less tolerant of disturbance than the cyanobacterial component. The
positive effects of biological crusts such as nitrogen fixation,
protection from wind and water erosion and increased infiltration, are
higher where crusts are more developed. Recovery rates after disturbance
vary greatly depending on the intensity of the disturbance, local
climate, soil texture and shading availability. Cyanobacteria, the most
common component of biological crusts, begins to recover from
disturbance relatively quickly, 14 to 34 years on the Colorado Plateau.
The cyanolichen component will take more than 50 years to recover. Later
successional lichens and mosses will take several hundred years to
recover (Belnap et al. 2001, pg 46). The species components that are
present and their abundance will give an indication of the intensity and
time since the disturbance occurred.

Within the Monument, the highest biological crust cover value sampled
was 60% and the lowest 0%. The highest values for individual components
were 45% cyanobacteria, 29% moss and 16% lichen. Biological crust cover
varied greatly depending on the amount of associated rock cover and
vegetative litter as well as the level of disturbance for each site. The
highest cover values found on the Sandstone allotment was 26%
cyanobacteria, 24% moss and 4% lichen. Average values for all sites
sampled on the Sandstone allotment were 10% total biological crust
cover, 6% cyanobacteria, 4% moss and \<1% lichen.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

# Alternative A - No Action

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

It has been determined that the rangeland health standards for upland
soils, healthy and productive plant and animal communities and riparian
systems are not being met. Existing grazing management practices and
levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing to achieve the
standards. Continuing the current management system at the present
stocking levels will not allow the currently unacceptable conditions to
improve so that progress can be made towards meeting these standards
(Sandstone Rangeland Health Determination Report, 7/31/2003).

There are a high proportion of acres in the 'at risk' category for the
Rangeland Health Evaluation attributes: Biotic Function, Soil and Site
Stability and Hydrologic function. 'At risk' rangelands have a
reversible loss in productive capability and increased vulnerability to
irreversible degradation based upon an evaluation of current conditions
of the soils and ecological processes (NRC, 1994). With no change in
management it is likely that acres in the 'at risk' category could trend
towards an even more extreme degree of departure from reference
condition. As these sites are further degraded to conditions in the
extreme categories, it is likely that changes will be irreversible.
There are also a fairly significant proportion of acres above the 'at
risk' category, into the extreme categories, for hydrologic function and
soil and site stability. These areas are already in a highly degraded
state, likely irreversible. There would be no improvement on these acres
under this alternative.

Plant composition, measured in 2001, shows a disproportionate amount of
the site productivity (over 60%) taken up in annual grasses and forbs,
and unpalatable shrubs. It is apparent from examining the existing plant
composition in relation to the NRCS ecological site descriptions and
local reference sites that native perennials and many of the more
palatable shrubs have declined or are absent on the Sandstone Allotment.
For the capable rangelands (less than 30% slope), about 60% of the acres
rated in the poor or fair range condition categories, poor condition
having a species composition of less than 25% of the desired plant
community and fair condition having less than 50% of the desired plant
community.

The trend study in the chained pinyon-juniper vegetation type is down
with a decline in cool season perennial grass species. The trend study
in the Yellow Jacket canyon is difficult to determine because the site
is in such a degraded state. However, at this study site Sand dropseed
has steadily increased but it is the only perennial grass species in
significant amounts. Consequently, cheatgrass is common and Russian
thistle has been steadily increasing on the site. In addition, forbs at
this site are dominated by undesirable non-native weedy species.

Under current stocking and management, it is unlikely that there will be
an improvement in species composition.

Site productivity is below site potential for the majority of the
capable acres that were rated on the allotment. In addition the majority
of these acres produce less than 200 pounds per acre, an amount that is
minimal for livestock production. The loss of site productivity is
likely due to the degraded conditions as evidenced by poor and fair
range conditions, at risk or greater health evaluation categories and
low site productivity. This condition is not likely to change without a
change in management and/or stocking level.

An estimated capacity for the allotment was calculated during 2001 from
production clipping and estimates. The capacity considers perennial
grasses, forbs and palatable shrubs and uses 50% of available
production. The capacity for the Sandstone Allotment was 759 Animal Unit
Months (AUM). The recorded actual use numbers, 1,519 AUMs, is double the
capacity.

Stocking levels on the Sandstone allotment indicate livestock depend on
the presence of annuals such as cheatgrass and filaree for a large
portion of their diet. These plants are available in abundance in some
years but are not dependable from year to year. Annuals are short lived
and after drying early in the spring are not available and provide
little summer, fall or winter forage. Livestock are also depending on
unpalatable shrubs such as sagebrush and greasewood for a large portion
of their diet. Although cattle will eat these shrubs, other, more
palatable species, will be taken at high utilization levels first. By
depending on annuals and unpalatable shrubs for forage, more palatable
species are damaged and will decline in the plant community.

The amount of bare soil is an issue affecting soil stability on about
20% of the allotment. Under current stocking levels and management there
is no potential for increased litter production or perennial vegetative
cover to protect soils, add organic matter and increase soil stability.

With no change in management or stocking, biological crust cover will
not increase. Grazing occurs during wet, dry and frozen soil surface
conditions so there is no advantage to crusts at any time of the year.
The benefits of increases in biological crust cover such as reductions
in wind and water erosion, increased soil nitrogen levels, and improved
chances of native seedling establishment, will not occur under this
alternative.

Riparian vegetation that rated in a non-functioning condition or proper
functioning condition - at risk, will not recover. Cattle will remain
concentrated in the canyon bottoms of Yellow Jacket, Woods and Sandstone
Canyons with inconsistent recovery periods. Tamarisk will not decline in
these areas without herbicide treatment and will continue to de-water
the system and compete with native riparian species.

At current stocking levels, with current management, there will be no
improvement in plant composition or site productivity. There will be no
progress towards meeting rangeland health standards for upland soils,
for healthy and productive plant and animal communities or for riparian
systems.

**Alternative B -- Proposed Action (Deferred grazing during the critical
period)**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Implementing a rotational grazing system, stocking near calculated
capacity, allowing for regular rest during the critical growing period
in spring, and reducing the grazing season from 6 months to 3 months
will allow for improvement in vegetation condition. A perennial plant's
carbohydrate reserve storage is typically lowest during the initial
growth period through the flowering period. Cool season grass species
initiate growth early in the spring (April, May). Grazing during this
period adds to the depletion of the reserve (Holechek et al. 1998, pgs
115 - 118). By deferring use during this critical period, plants should
respond. The shorter grazing periods and regular rest during the
critical period will allow for re-growth and inputs to carbohydrate
reserves. Lighter utilization levels on palatable species will reduce
carbohydrate expenditures. Seedlings will have a longer period to become
established before the next grazing period when trampling will have an
effect.

Changing the stocking rate to near the calculated capacity will reduce
livestock pressure. Reduced stocking, especially during critical periods
of growth, can improve conditions where soil degradation has not been
too severe and palatable perennial forage plants still remain (Holechek
et al. 1998, pg 157). Studies have shown that heavy stocking
consistently causes a downward trend in ecological condition, light
stocking causes an upward trend, and slight improvement occurs under
moderate stocking (Holechek et al.1999). By reducing stocking to a level
more consistent with available forage, plants should respond with an
upward trend, where there is still potential.

Rangelands that have been severely degraded and are heavily dominated by
unpalatable shrubs or invasive annual species may be in a degraded
stable state requiring more than just improved management and reduced
stocking for change to occur. An input of energy such as herbicides,
mechanical treatment, burning and/or seeding may be required for these
areas to improve within a reasonable time (Westoby et al. 1989). If
improvement does not occur with the implementation of reduced stocking
and deferred management, these treatments may be required to meet the
standards for rangeland health.

Litter cover and biological crust cover should increase due to the
lighter stocking levels. There will be more vegetative material
remaining under lighter utilization levels to provide litter. Biological
crust cover should improve slightly due to reduced impacts and longer
periods of recovery. Higher litter cover and the possibility of
increased development of biological crusts will provide greater ground
cover. Wind and water erosion will be reduced as a result of the ground
cover and increased infiltration rates.

Improvements in plant composition and health and increased ground cover
and infiltration will improve site productivity. Increased forage
production should increase to the potential for the ecological sites.

Riparian vegetation that rated in a non-functioning condition or proper
functioning condition - at risk, will have a chance to improve due to
the lighter stocking levels and longer periods for recovery. Reducing
the length of time livestock have access to riparian areas is critical
for recovery. The canyon bottoms of Yellow Jacket, Woods and Sandstone
Canyons will remain concentrated use areas, however the length of time
livestock would be in these areas would be significantly shorter, use
would be deferred during the spring period and the numbers of livestock
would be less. Any improvement would be slowed due to the presence of
tamarisk. Tamarisk will not decline in these areas without herbicide
treatment and will continue to de-water the system and compete with
native riparian species.

Recovery under this alternative will be slower than with alternative C,
D or E. This alternative will make progress towards moving the allotment
toward meeting the Rangeland Health Standards for healthy and productive
plant and animal communities, upland soils and riparian systems.

**Alternative C -- Grazing During Dormant Season**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Grazing during the dormant period will have the lowest impact on plants
and provide the greatest potential for improved conditions than any
other grazing period, especially when stocked at the calculated
capacity, and rotation grazing systems are consistently implemented.
Deferring use during the growing period will allow for plant re-growth
and inputs to carbohydrate reserves. Lighter utilization levels on
palatable species will reduce carbohydrate expenditures. Seedlings will
have an entire growing season to become established and dormant period
grazing should have less of a trampling effect. There is a high
potential for improvement in the plant community where those resources
are not so degraded that recovery is still possible.

Rangelands that have been severely degraded and are dominated by
unpalatable shrubs or invasive annual species may be in a degraded
stable state requiring more than just improved management and reduced
stocking for change to occur. An input of energy such as herbicides,
mechanical treatment, burning and/or seeding may be required for these
areas to improve within a reasonable time (Westoby et al. 1989). If
improvement does not occur with the implementation of reduced stocking
and dormant season use, these treatments may be required to meet the
standards for rangeland health.

Litter cover will increase since plants will have the entire growing
season to produce vegetative matter without being grazed. There will
also be greater amounts of material remaining after grazing due to the
lighter stocking levels. Higher litter cover will provide soil cover and
increase organic matter in the soil surface. Erosion will decrease and
water infiltration will increase.

Biological crusts on sandy soils are less sensitive to impacts when damp
or frozen (Belnap et al. 2001). There is a higher potential for soils to
be damp or frozen during the scheduled dormant grazing period than in
April and May when temperatures are warmer, wind is common and
precipitation levels lower. Grazing during the dormant period only,
should improve cover and complexity of biological crusts on these
allotments. Increases in the amount of biological crust cover will
provide benefits such as a reduction in wind and water erosion,
increased soil nitrogen levels, and improved chances of native seedling
establishment.

Grazing in the winter is thought to be the best time of year for grazing
in riparian areas while allowing for recovery (Chaney, Elmore and
Platts, 1993). In the winter, livestock tend to concentrate less in
riparian areas since snow provides for more dispersed water sources.
There are fewer hot days when livestock seek out shade and water,
although cattle may seek out shelter in riparian areas during very cold
periods. Reduced stocking and a grazing system that provides for shorter
periods of use in each canyon will also dramatically improve conditions.
Improvement will be slowed due to the presence of tamarisk. Tamarisk
will not decline in these areas without herbicide treatment. It will
continue to de-water the system and compete with native riparian
species.

Except for alternative D and E, this alternative has the highest
potential for recovery of the plant community and development of ground
cover. This alternative will allow the allotment to meet the Rangeland
Health Standards for healthy and productive plant and animal
communities, upland soils and riparian systems.

**Alternative D -- Rest 1/3 of Allotment Every Year**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Implementing a rotation grazing system that regularly incorporates total
rest for one year, as well as stocking at the calculated capacity, will
allow for improvement in vegetation condition. The shorter grazing
periods and total rest during one year of three will allow for re-growth
and inputs to carbohydrate reserves. Lighter utilization levels on
palatable species will reduce carbohydrate expenditures. Seedlings will
have an entire year to become established before the next grazing
period. Plants will be healthier, seed production higher and seedling
establishment less likely to be disturbed by trampling.

Rangelands that have been severely degraded and are dominated by
unpalatable shrubs or invasive annual species may be in a degraded
stable state requiring more than just improved management and reduced
stocking for change to occur. An input of energy such as herbicides,
mechanical treatment, burning and/or seeding may be required for these
areas to improve within a reasonable time (Westoby et al. 1989). If
improvement does not occur with the implementation of reduced stocking
and rest, these treatments may be required to meet the standards for
rangeland health.

Litter cover and biological crust cover should increase due to the
lighter stocking levels and periods of complete rest. There will be more
vegetative material remaining under lighter utilization levels to
provide litter. Every period of rest will provide an entire growing
cycle of material to be incorporated as litter. Biological crust cover
should improve slightly due to reduced impacts and longer periods of
recovery. However, improvement will be limited since use still occurs
during dry soil surface conditions. The higher litter cover and the
possibility of increased development of biological crusts will provide
greater ground cover. Wind and water erosion will be reduced as a result
of the ground cover and increased infiltration rates.

Riparian vegetation that rated in a non-functioning condition or proper
functioning condition - at risk, will improve due to the lighter
stocking levels, longer periods for recovery and regular rest. The
canyon bottoms of Yellow Jacket, Woods and Sandstone Canyons will remain
concentrated use areas, however the length of time in these areas will
be shorter, use will be deferred during the spring period, an entire
growth cycle will be allowed every three years and the numbers of
livestock will be less. Improvement will be slowed due to the presence
of tamarisk. Tamarisk will not decline in these areas without herbicide
treatment. It will continue to de-water the system and compete with
native riparian species.

This alternative will make the greatest progress of all the stocked
alternatives, and will allow the allotment to meet the Rangeland Health
Standards for healthy and productive plant and animal communities,
upland soils and riparian systems.

**Alternative E -- No grazing**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

This alternative has the highest potential for improvement in the plant
community where those resources are not so degraded that recovery is
still possible. Plants will be able to complete their entire growing
cycle each year allowing for balanced carbohydrate reserves and regular
production of seeds for reproduction. Seedlings will be able to
establish without damage from trampling. The recovery response may be
negligible in certain situations where there is a very limited seed
source for native perennial species or where there is dominance of big
sagebrush, tamarisk, cheatgrass or pinyon-juniper. An input of energy in
the form of herbicides, seeding, fire or mechanical treatment will be
necessary to see improvement in any reasonable time.

Ground cover in the form of vegetative litter will increase since plants
will only be utilized by wildlife. Due to reduced disturbance from hoof
impacts, biological crust cover will increase and over time will develop
characteristics of older crusts such as increased depth, and lifeform
and species complexity. These two factors combined will reduce erosion,
increase infiltration and site productivity and promote seedling
establishment (Belnap et al. 2001).

It is to be expected under this alternative that improvement in the
riparian vegetation will occur. Dramatic riparian vegetation changes can
occur when grazing stress is removed. If habitat deterioration is not
severe, herbaceous and woody vegetation can rebound within 5 to 10
years. Severe habitat deterioration can require longer recovery times,
perhaps decades or more (Clary and Medin, 1990). Cottonwood, willow and
native streamside herbaceous species of carex and sedge will increase.
Age class diversity of woody species will improve. The amount of
tamarisk will not decline without herbicide treatment. It will continue
to de-water the system and compete with native species.

This alternative has the highest potential for recovery of the plant
community and development of ground cover in the shortest amount of
time. This alternative will allow the allotment to meet the Rangeland
Health Standards for healthy and productive plant and animal
communities, healthy riparian areas and upland soils.

**THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

Two Endangered, one Threatened and one Candidate species have potential
to occur on lands administered by the San Juan Field Office. Endangered
species are *Astragalus humillimus*, Mancos milk-vetch and *Pediocactus
knowltonii*, Knowlton's cactus. The threatened species is Sclerocactus
mesae-verdae, Mesa Verde cactus and the Candidate species is *Astragalus
tortipes*, Sleeping Ute milkvetch (USFWS letter of 1/29/03). None of the
Endangered, Threatened or Candidate species with potential to occur on
lands administered by the San Juan Field Office have potential habitat
within the analysis area.

*Astragalus humillimus* has only been found on exfoliating Point Lookout
sandstone formation of the Mesa Verde group (Spackman et al. 1997).
*Pediocactus knowltonii* is known only from a very restricted area south
and east of Bayfield, Colorado, on cobbly riverine alluvium (Spackman et
al. 1997). *Sclerocactus mesae-verdae* is only known from clay hills
underlain by the Mancos Shale or the Fruitland Formation east of
Sleeping Ute Mountain. *Astragalus tortipes* occurs on the Southern
flank of Sleeping Ute Mountain on Mancos shale badlands overlain by
pediment gravel (Anderson and Porter, 1994). These habitats do not occur
within the Sandstone allotment

Eleven Sensitive plant species are known to occur on lands administered
by the San Juan Field Office (BLM Colorado State Office Information
Bulletin No. CO-2000-014). Within the analysis area for this
Environmental Assessment, no species are known and five species have
potential habitat. A list of these species, the habitats they are known
to occupy and their potential to occur in the analysis area are
summarized in Table 16 below.

Table 16. Sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur on lands
administered by the San Juan Field Office.

+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| Scientific    | Fe    | Habitat                 | Potential to     |
| Name          | deral |                         | occur in         |
|               | S     |                         | analysis area    |
| Common Name   | tatus |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Amsonia      | Sens  | Runoff-fed draws on     | Yes, habitat     |
| jonesii*,     | itive | sandstone in            | within analysis  |
|               |       | pinyon-juniper, and     | area             |
| Jones blue    |       | desert shrub            |                  |
| star          |       | communities, 3,900 to   |                  |
|               |       | 7,000 feet              |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Astragalus   | Sens  | Mancos Shale and on     | No, habitat not  |
| cronquistii*, | itive | substrates derived from | present          |
|               |       | the Morrison Formation, |                  |
| Cronquist     |       | 4,800 to 5,800 feet     |                  |
| milkvetch     |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Astragalus   | Sens  | Sandstone mesas,        | Yes, habitat     |
| n             | itive | ledges, crevices and    | within analysis  |
| aturitensis*, |       | slopes, 5,000 to 7,000  | area             |
|               |       | feet                    |                  |
| Naturita      |       |                         |                  |
| milkvetch     |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Epipactis    | Sens  | Decomposed sandstone;   | Yes, habitat     |
| gigantea*     | itive | sandstone seeps;        | within analysis  |
|               |       | \<8,000 feet            | area             |
| Giant         |       |                         |                  |
| helleborine   |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Erigeron     | Sens  | Saline soils in alcoves | Yes, habitat     |
| kachinensis*, | itive | and seeps in canyon     | within analysis  |
|               |       | walls, 4,800 to 5,600   | area             |
| Kachina daisy |       | feet                    |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Eriogonum    | Sens  | Shale soils in          | No, habitat not  |
| clavellatum*  | itive | shadscale communities,  | present          |
|               |       | 4,300 to 5,500 ft.      |                  |
| Comb Wash     |       |                         |                  |
| buckwheat     |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Ipomopsis    | Sens  | Mancos shale; barren    | No potential     |
| polyantha*    | itive | shrublands; around      | habitat; Pagosa  |
|               |       | 7,000 feet              | area only        |
| Pagosa        |       |                         |                  |
| skyrocket     |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Lesquerella  | Sens  | Mancos shale; ponderosa | No potential     |
| pruinosa*     | itive | pine, Gambel oak; 6,800 | habitat, Pagosa  |
|               |       | to 8,000 feet           | area only        |
| Frosty        |       |                         |                  |
| bladderpod    |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Lygodesmia   | Sens  | Juniper and sagebrush   | No potential     |
| doloresensis* | itive | communities, 4,600 to   | habitat; San     |
|               |       | 5,700 feet              | Miguel County    |
| Dolores       |       |                         | only             |
| skeleton      |       |                         |                  |
| plant         |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Mimulus      | Sens  | Shallow caves and seeps | Yes, habitat     |
| eastwoodiae*, | itive | on canyon walls, 4,700  | within analysis  |
|               |       | to 5,800 feet           | area             |
| Eastwood      |       |                         |                  |
| monkey-flower |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+
| *Oreocarya    | Sens  | Shale slopes in         | No potential     |
| rollinsii*,   | itive | pinyon-juniper or cold  | habitat; San     |
|               |       | desert shrublands,      | Miguel County    |
| Rollins       |       | 5,300 to 5,800 feet     | only             |
| cryptanth     |       |                         |                  |
+---------------+-------+-------------------------+------------------+

**FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

The Sandstone allotment is completely contained within 6 unnamed USGS
6^th^ level watersheds. The major drainages within Sandstone allotment
are Sandstone Canyon, Woods Canyon and Yellow Jacket Canyon. All
drainages are tributary to McElmo Creek.

Most of the tributaries to the three major drainages are ephemeral or
interrupted systems. They flow in response to runoff events and may or
may not support discontinuous patches of riparian vegetation. The
riparian vegetation generally consists of cottonwoods, willow, tamarisk
and little to no herbaceous riparian species. Some drainages are
dominated by sagebrush, greasewood and rabbitbrush due to limited
amounts of available water in the system.

Yellow Jacket Canyon is a perennial stream. Sandstone and Woods Canyons
are intermittent streams with short perennial reaches. Riparian
vegetation for the perennial and intermittent streams is similar to the
ephemeral and interrupted systems (e.g., cottonwoods, willow, and
tamarisk) although present in more abundance with an herbaceous riparian
vegetation component. Also present on perennial or intermittent streams
is Russian olive.

**BLM Standards for Public Land Health in Colorado**

Of the five standards evaluated for public land health, riparian systems
is discussed under this section. This standard is not being achieved for
the Sandstone allotment. Furthermore, a causal factor for this
determination is identified as livestock grazing. Information used by
the BLM interdisciplinary team to come to this determination is the
proper functioning condition assessments for lotic (flowing water)
riparian areas.

**Proper Functioning Condition Assessments**

Sandstone, Woods and Yellow Jacket Canyons were assessed using Proper
Functioning Condition protocol (Table 17). This is a qualitative survey
used to assess stream hydrology, vegetation and erosional/depositional
processes. Streams are rated Proper Functioning Condition (PFC),
Functional-At Risk (FAR) or Nonfunctional (NF). Functional-At Risk
ratings include an assessment of trend (BLM TR 1737-9 1993). Definitions
for these ratings are provided in Appendix C.

Table 17. Lotic PFC ratings.

+--------+-------+----------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Stream | Date  | Type of        | #           | Causal Factors      |
|        |       | Evaluation     |             |                     |
|        | Eval  |                | # Rating    |                     |
|        | uated |                |             |                     |
+--------+-------+----------------+-------------+---------------------+
| San    | 2002  | Ground survey  | NF          | Livestock grazing,  |
| dstone |       |                |             | road encroachment,  |
| Canyon |       |                |             | invasion of exotic  |
|        |       |                |             | species tamarisk    |
|        |       |                |             | and Russian olive,  |
|        |       |                |             | agriculture and     |
|        |       |                |             | irrigation          |
|        |       |                |             | practices upstream  |
+--------+-------+----------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Woods  | 2002  | Ground survey  | F           | Livestock grazing,  |
| Canyon |       |                | AR-downward | road encroachment,  |
|        |       |                | trend for   | invasion of exotic  |
|        |       |                | 1.4 miles   | species tamarisk    |
|        |       |                |             | and Russian olive,  |
|        |       |                | NF-for 5.1  | agriculture and     |
|        |       |                | miles       | irrigation          |
|        |       |                |             | practices upstream  |
+--------+-------+----------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Yellow | 2002  | Aerial         | FAR-trend   | Livestock grazing,  |
| Jacket |       | reconnaissance | not         | agriculture and     |
| Canyon |       | of entire      | appare      | irrigation          |
|        |       | stream, ground | nt/possibly | practices upstream  |
|        |       | survey along   | stable      |                     |
|        |       | upper public   |             |                     |
|        |       | reach          |             |                     |
+--------+-------+----------------+-------------+---------------------+

Sandstone Canyon traverses Sandstone allotment for 9.4 miles. Sandstone
Canyon rated Nonfunctional. The width/depth ratio is high and the
gradient is steeper than expected for much of the channel length. The
riparian area is not at its potential extent and is lacking herbaceous
riparian species. Recruitment of willow and cottonwood species is low.
Comparison of 1992 photos to present conditions indicates that exotic
species are increasing in number although both native and exotic
riparian species have low vigor at the present time. An abandoned road
and heavily utilized terraces adjacent to the stream channel are
increasing water and sediment delivery to the stream. Photo
documentation and the comparison of channel cross-sections over a 10
year period indicate that vertical scour and lateral cutting is
occurring at an accelerated rate.

Woods Canyon traverses Sandstone allotment for 6.5 miles. The middle
section of Woods Canyon rated Nonfunctional (1.4 miles) while the upper
and lower reaches rated Functional-At Risk with a downward trend.
Conditions for Woods Canyon are similar to Sandstone Canyon except that
riparian species in Woods Canyon have higher vigor at the present time
and there is less lateral instability. The Nonfunctional reach of Woods
Canyon is an entrenched reach that is the result of vertical
instability. Headcuts several feet high have decreased sinuosity and
increased the gradient of the channel. Entrenchment has reduced the
width of the floodplain and decreased the amount of riparian vegetation
available for stability. Steep vertical side slopes adjacent to the
channel along this reach will contribute large amounts of sediment to
the system until the channel widens enough to build a functional
floodplain. The new floodplain will be at a lower elevation than the
rest of the stream and requires that the stream be assessed in the
future with a different potential for proper functioning condition.

Yellow Jacket Canyon was aerially surveyed in 2002. Overall rating for
Yellow Jacket Canyon was Functional-At Risk with trend not apparent or
possibly stable. Sinuosity was low, width/depth ratio was high and the
gradient was steep along much of the channel length. Recruitment of
cottonwood was low. Tamarisk and Russian olive were encroaching upon
cottonwood and willow species. The riparian herbaceous component was
patchy. Unvegetated vertical banks existed along much of the channel
indicating that lateral stream movement was occurring at an accelerated
rate. Point bars were not revegetating as expected.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**Alternative A - No Action**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under this alternative, the Sandstone Allotment would "not achieve" the
standard for riparian systems. The rationale for this conclusion, along
with potential PFC ratings, is presented below.

Under this alternative, the portion of Woods Canyon rated FAR would
trend towards NF. The portion of Woods Canyon rated NF would continue to
be NF. Sandstone Canyon would continue to be NF. Yellow Jacket Canyon
would continue to be FAR but with a more apparent downward trend.

Although critical season use can result in better livestock
distribution, it does not allow for regrowth of vegetation prior to
seasonal rains in late July and August. Without regrowth of upland
vegetation infiltration on upland soils would decrease and runoff would
increase resulting in increased sediment delivery to the stream channel.
Without regrowth of riparian vegetation physical functions of the
riparian system, such as capturing and filtering sediment and stream
shading, are less likely to occur. The size of the riparian area for all
streams would be expected to decrease. Recruitment of cottonwoods would
be unlikely and willow species would not achieve potential diversity
allowing for exotic riparian species to increase. Width/depth ratio and
gradient would increase and sinuosity would decrease with the end result
being an increase in lateral and vertical instability. Increased lateral
erosion would be more likely to occur in Sandstone and Yellow Jacket
Canyons while increased vertical erosion would be more likely to occur
in Woods Canyon.

### Alternative B, Proposed Action (Deferred Grazing During Critical Period) and Alternative C, Grazing During Dormant Season 

# 

Impacts of Alternatives B and C are similar except for the amount of
time expected for recovery of riparian conditions. Deferred grazing
would require a longer recovery time than grazing during the dormant
season.

### *Direct and Indirect Impacts*

Under these alternatives, the Sandstone allotment would be "making
progress towards achieving" the standard for riparian systems but would
not "achieve" the standard over the long term. The rationale for this
conclusion, along with potential PFC ratings, is presented below.

All streams within the allotment would show minor improvement over time.
They may reach a FAR status with a static trend, but it is unlikely that
they would achieve a PFC rating due to the limited recovery of the
upland terraces and upstream management activities.

Both deferred and dormant season grazing with an adjustment in stocking
levels would allow upland conditions to improve although improvement of
the terraces adjacent to the riparian area would be limited due to poor
existing conditions. Therefore under alternatives B and C, water and
sediment delivery from terraces adjacent to the stream channel would not
be significantly reduced. Some improvement would be expected to occur
within the riparian area itself. Species such as cottonwood would be
more likely to establish, willow species would increase in diversity and
the amount of herbaceous understory would increase. Vigor of all
riparian species would improve over the long term. An increase in
diversity and abundance of riparian vegetation would improve channel
conditions slightly, although the hydrologic processes occurring from
poor upland terrace conditions and upstream management activities will
result in little to no improvement in width/depth ratio, gradient and
sinuosity. As a result, lateral and vertical instability would be
expected to continue at current rates.

### 

### Alternative D - Rest 1/3 of Allotment Every Year 

### 

### *Direct and Indirect Impacts*

Under this alternative, the Sandstone allotment would be "making
progress towards achieving" the standard for riparian systems but would
not "achieve" the standard over the long term. The rationale for this
conclusion, along with potential PFC ratings, is presented below.

All streams within the allotment would improve over time. The portion of
Woods Canyon rated FAR with a downward trend would rate FAR with an
upward trend and after may eventually reach PFC. The portion of Woods
Canyon that rated NF would also rate FAR with an upward trend and may
reach PFC given its new potential within its new floodplain. Sandstone
and Yellow Jacket Canyons may reach a FAR status with a static or upward
trend, but it is unlikely that they would achieve a PFC rating due to
the large contributing area of upstream management activities.

Through the 1/3 rest system upland conditions, including terraces, would
show significant improvement. An improvement in upland conditions would
increase infiltration and decrease runoff. Sediment delivery to stream
channels would be reduced. Riparian areas would increase in size if not
already at their potential extent. Riparian species such as cottonwood
would be able to establish, willow species would increase in diversity
and the amount of herbaceous understory would increase. Vigor of all
riparian species would improve. Reduced water and sediment delivery and
an improved riparian system would result in decreases in width/depth
ratio and gradient and an increase in sinuosity. Lateral and vertical
instability would decrease, although lateral erosion would be expected
to continue in Sandstone and Yellow Jacket Canyons due to upstream
management activities.

### 

### Alternative E - No Grazing

### *Direct and Indirect Impacts*

Under this alternative, Sandstone allotment would be "making progress
towards achieving" the standard for riparian systems but would not
"achieve" the standard over the long term.

Woods Canyons would become FAR with an upward trend and is likely to
rate PFC in the long term. Sandstone and Yellow Jacket Canyons may reach
a FAR status with a static or upward trend, but it is unlikely that they
would achieve a PFC rating due to the large contributing area of
upstream management activities.

No grazing throughout the allotment would allow for the quickest
recovery of upland conditions and riparian systems. Improved upland
conditions as a result of no grazing would increase infiltration and
decrease runoff. Sediment delivery to the stream channel would be
reduced. Riparian vegetation would improve. Cottonwood would be able to
establish, willow species diversity would increase and the amount of
herbaceous understory would increase. Vigor of all riparian species
would improve. A marked improvement to the uplands and riparian
vegetation would decrease width/depth ratio, increase sinuosity and
reduce stream bank erosion. Lateral stream movement and excessive
erosion should improve, however, due to upstream conditions in Sandstone
and Yellow Jacket Canyon may not drop below an accelerated rate.

**WATER QUALITY**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

Intermittent waters within Sandstone allotment include Sandstone and
Woods Canyons. Perennial waters within Sandstone allotment include
Yellow Jacket Canyon. Sandstone and Woods Canyons are tributary to
Yellow Jacket Canyon and Yellow Jacket Canyon is tributary to McElmo
Creek. All streams are augmented by irrigation return flows diverted
from the Dolores River basin with Yellow Jacket Canyon receiving the
most. There are several seeps and springs in the allotment that are
considered tributary to Yellow Jacket Canyon for purposes of assigning
State water quality standards. All streams are within the larger San
Juan River basin.

**BLM Standards for Public Land Health in Colorado**

Of the five standards evaluated, water quality is discussed under this
section. A definition for this standard is provided in Appendix A. As
presented in Table 1, this standard is not being achieved for the
Sandstone allotment. Causal factors for these determinations are
primarily the land use activities upstream in the watershed (e.g.
agriculture, irrigation). State of Colorado, Water Quality Standards
information was used by the BLM interdisciplinary team to come to these
determinations, and are discussed below.

**State of Colorado Water Quality Standards**

The State of Colorado establishes classifications and numeric standards
for surface waters in compliance with the Colorado Water Quality Control
Act (Table 18). The classifications identify beneficial uses of the
water. Beneficial uses may include public water supply, domestic,
agricultural, industrial and recreational uses, and the protection and
propagation of terrestrial and aquatic life. Beneficial use
classifications are to be maintained and protected in accordance with
antidegradation regulations as set forth by the State, unless given a
use-protected designation. A use-protected designation allows for some
water quality degradation as long as use classifications, such as public
water supply, continue to meet State standards.

Table 18. Classifications and numeric standards for McElmo and Yellow
Jacket Creeks and their tributaries.

+-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ##                | ##    | ##          | ##          |             |
|                   |       |             |             |             |
| ##                | ##    | ##          | ## Numeric  |             |
|                   |       |             |  Standards  |             |
| ##                | ##    | ##          |             |             |
|                   |       |             |             |             |
| ##                | ##    | ## Benefic  |             |             |
|                   |       | ial Use Cla |             |             |
| ## Se             | ## D  | ssification |             |             |
| gment Description | esign |             |             |             |
|                   | ation |             |             |             |
+-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|                   |       |             | ## P        | ##          |
|                   |       |             | hysical and |             |
|                   |       |             |  Biological | ## I        |
|                   |       |             |  Parameters | norganic Pa |
|                   |       |             |             | rameters^3^ |
+-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 7a. Mainstem of   | \[N   | Aquatic     | D. O. = 5.0 | NH~3~(ac) = |
| McElmo Creek from | one\] | Life Warm 1 | mg/L        | TVS**^2^**  |
| the source to the |       |             |             |             |
| Colorado/Utah     |       | Recreation  | pH =        | NH~3~(ch) = |
| border, except    |       | 1a          | 6.5-9.0     | 0.06 mg/L   |
| for specific      |       |             |             |             |
| listings in       |       | Agriculture | F. Coli. =  | NO~2~ =     |
| segment           |       |             | 200/100mL   | 0.05 mg/L   |
| 7b**^1^**.        |       |             |             |             |
| Mainstem of       |       |             | E. Coli. =  |             |
| Yellow Jacket     |       |             | 126/100mL   |             |
| Creek, including  |       |             |             |             |
| all tributaries,  |       |             |             |             |
| wetlands, lakes   |       |             |             |             |
| and reservoirs,   |       |             |             |             |
| from the source   |       |             |             |             |
| to the confluence |       |             |             |             |
| with McElmo       |       |             |             |             |
| Creek.            |       |             |             |             |
+-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

^1^ Ute Mountain Indian Reservation segments

^2^TVS = table value standard, a numerical criteria set forth in the
Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water Regulation

^3^ Parameters listed include only those affected by livestock
management

Numeric standards exist for physical, biological, inorganic and metal
parameters. Only those inorganic parameters listed in Table 18 would be
affected by changes in livestock management. Metal parameters would not
be affected by changes in livestock management and were therefore not
listed. The temperature standard for the stream segments within the
allotment is a maximum 3 C increase over a minimum four hour period
lasting a maximum of thirteen hours. To meet State water quality
standards temperatures should maintain a normal pattern of diurnal and
seasonal fluctuations with no abrupt changes. In addition to the numeric
standards and the temperature standard, the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission has included a narrative statement for all surface
waters that states that all water (except in wetlands and/or except
where authorized by approved permits, certificates, or plans of
operation) shall be free from substances attributable to human caused
point or nonpoint source discharges in amounts, concentrations, or
combinations that:

-   can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial
    uses,

-   are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals,
    plants, or aquatic life, and

-   produce a predominance of aquatic life.

Bottom deposits can include fine sediments.

The State of Colorado has identified McElmo Creek tributaries
(Sandstone, Woods, and Yellow Jacket Canyons) as fully supporting all of
its designated beneficial uses in its Status of Water Quality in
Colorado-2006 report. However, water quality for Yellow Jacket Canyon
was not discussed. Information for Yellow Jacket Canyon comes from grab
samples collected by the BLM between 1983 and 2001. Grab sample data
indicate that the beneficial uses of Recreation 1a and Agriculture are
being fully supported on Yellow Jacket Canyon, but that the beneficial
use of Aquatic Life Warm 1 is not being fully supported due to high
concentrations of ammonia. Acute and chronic standards for ammonia were
exceeded for all samples between 1983 and 2001. Failure to meet acute
and chronic standards for ammonia is most likely due to irrigation
return flows containing fertilizers and to a lesser extent livestock use
in or near the stream. Water quality at seeps and springs has also been
sampled by the BLM since 1981. Water quality parameters sampled include
temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen. The data indicates that existing
beneficial uses are being fully supported throughout the allotment.

The primary parameters that are affected by livestock management include
the numeric physical and biological standards of dissolved oxygen, pH,
and bacteria, the inorganic standards of ammonia and nitrite, the
temperature standard and the narrative standard applicable to the
accumulation of fine sediments. In relation to livestock management,
dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrite and the presence of fine sediments are
influenced by the amount of erosion occurring on the watershed. Bacteria
and ammonia are influenced by the presence of livestock in the stream
channel or riparian zone and to a much lesser degree their presence and
concentration on the uplands. Temperature is influenced by the amount of
stream shading and by physical characteristics of the stream, such as
width/depth ratio.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

Livestock grazing generates non-point source pollution. The level of
non-point source pollution varies considerably with site specific
conditions and is highly dependent on the frequency, magnitude and
timing of runoff events, watershed condition, number of livestock,
proximity of livestock to surface water systems, duration of grazing and
season of use.

**Alternative A - No Action**

##### *Direct and Indirect Impacts* 

Under this alternative, Sandstone allotment would "not achieve" the
standard for water quality. Water quality for Sandstone, Woods and
Yellow Jacket Canyon would decline. Water quality for seeps and springs
would decline. State water quality standards affected by livestock
grazing that are presently met may not continue to be met. The State
water quality standard for ammonia would continue to not be met.

Under this alternative, the soil surface would continue to be vulnerable
to erosion and the quality of water draining from the uplands would
continue to decline. Sediment concentrations in Sandstone, Woods and
Yellow Jacket Canyons would increase. The increase in sediment would
lead to changes in dissolved oxygen, pH and nitrite concentrations.
Dissolved oxygen may decrease and nitrite concentrations may increase.
Direct access to the streams by livestock would result in consumption of
riparian vegetation that would lessen the amount of stream shading
thereby increasing stream temperature or allowing for abrupt changes in
stream temperature. High width/depth ratios would persist and would also
affect stream temperatures, (i.e., where the stream is shallow,
temperatures would be expected to be higher and undergo large diurnal
changes). Direct access by livestock to stream channels would elevate
the amount of bacteria and ammonia in the stream channel.

Seeps and springs would receive increased sediment thereby affecting
dissolved oxygen, pH and nitrite concentrations. The amount of riparian
vegetation around seeps and springs would likely decrease affecting
local temperatures. Concentration of livestock would result in high
levels of bacteria and ammonia. Developed springs would be most at risk
for increased levels of bacteria and ammonia.

**Alternative B, Proposed Action (Deferred Grazing During Critical
Period) and Alternative C, Grazing During Dormant Season**

Impacts of Alternatives B and C are similar except for the amount of
time necessary for water quality improvements to occur. Improvements
would occur more quickly with dormant season grazing than deferred
grazing.

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under these alternatives, the Sandstone allotment would "not achieve"
the standard for water quality although water quality would improve
slightly for some parameters. Water quality for seeps and springs would
improve. State water quality standards would continue to be met for
those parameters affected by livestock grazing with the exception of
ammonia in Yellow Jacket Canyon.

Implementing a rotational or deferred grazing system with a reduction in
livestock numbers would improve soil and water resources throughout the
allotment although improvement to adjacent stream terraces would be
limited due to poor existing conditions. Therefore, under alternatives B
and C, sediment delivery to the streams would not decrease
significantly. As a result, dissolved oxygen and nitrite concentrations
are unlikely to change. Regardless of the condition of adjacent stream
terraces, riparian vegetation would be expected to increase in abundance
and vigor, resulting in lower stream temperatures allowing for cooler
temperatures and lessening the possibility of abrupt temperature
changes. Direct access by livestock to stream channels would result in
elevated amounts of bacteria and ammonia during times when livestock
concentrate on the stream channel.

Seeps and springs would receive less sediment as a result of a
rotational or deferred grazing system affecting dissolved oxygen, pH and
nitrite concentrations. Riparian vegetation around seeps and springs
would increase in abundance and vigor reducing local temperatures and
preventing abrupt temperature changes. Concentration of livestock around
seeps and springs would still result in high levels of bacteria and
ammonia, particularly around developed springs.

**Alternative D - Rest 1/3 of Allotment Every Year**

###### *Direct and Indirect Impacts*

Under this alternative, the Sandstone allotment would "not achieve" the
standard for water quality however, water quality would improve for some
parameters. Water quality for seeps and springs would improve. State
water quality standards would continue to be met for those parameters
affected by livestock grazing with the exception of ammonia in Yellow
Jacket Canyon.

The 1/3 rest system with a reduction in livestock numbers would improve
soil and water resources throughout the allotment including adjacent
stream terraces. Sediment delivery to the streams would decrease. As a
result, dissolved oxygen may increase and nitrite concentrations may
decrease. Riparian vegetation would be expected to increase in abundance
and vigor, resulting in lower stream temperatures allowing for cooler
temperatures and lessening the possibility of abrupt temperature
changes. Direct access by livestock to stream channels would result in
elevated amounts of bacteria and ammonia during times when livestock
concentrate on the stream channel.

Seeps and springs would receive less sediment affecting dissolved
oxygen, pH and nitrite concentrations. Riparian vegetation around seeps
and springs would increase in abundance and vigor reducing local
temperatures and preventing abrupt temperature changes. Concentration of
livestock around seeps and springs would still result in high levels of
bacteria and ammonia, particularly around developed springs.

**Alternative E - No Grazing**

###### *Direct and Indirect Impacts*

Under this alternative, Sandstone allotment would "not achieve" the
standard for water quality. However, a condition of "not achieved" would
be due to land use activities upstream in the watershed (e.g.,
agriculture, irrigation) and not due to livestock grazing on public
land. Water quality in Yellow Jacket Canyon would be expected to improve
above existing conditions. Water quality for seeps and springs would
improve. State water quality standards would continue to be met for
those parameters affected by livestock grazing with the exception of
ammonia, due to upstream land use activities.

No grazing throughout the analysis area would allow for the quickest
recovery of upland vegetation and soils. Vegetative cover would increase
and soil compaction would be reduced and possibly eliminated from much
of the analysis area, resulting in less soil erosion and surface runoff.
Sediment delivery to Sandstone, Woods and Yellow Jacket Canyons would
decrease. As a result, dissolved oxygen may increase and nitrite
concentrations may decrease. Riparian vegetation would increase in
abundance and vigor along stream channels within the allotment and
width/depth ratios would be expected to decrease and possibly fully
recover in Woods Canyon. This would reduce stream channel temperatures
and lessen diurnal fluctuations. Bacteria and ammonia would decrease,
but may still be delivered from private lands upstream during periods of
high flow.

Seeps and springs would receive less sediment under this alternative,
affecting dissolved oxygen, pH and nitrite concentrations. Riparian
vegetation around seeps and springs would increase in abundance and
vigor reducing local temperatures and preventing abrupt temperature
changes. Bacteria and ammonia concentrations would decrease.

**THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

This allotment falls within the range of several listed threatened or
endangered species. The Project Area does not provide suitable habitat
for the following listed species: black-footed ferret and Canada lynx.
The black-footed ferrets historic distribution included southwest
Colorado but there are no known ferrets currently occupying this area
(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Since they have been extirpated from this area
and there are no large prairie dog colonies, they have been removed from
the list of threatened and endangered species to be considered for
project impacts (San Juan Public Lands Unit Species List, August 8,
2007).

There may be suitable habitat for Mexican spotted owls within the
canyons of this allotment. However, recent survey efforts in Sand and
Cross Canyons (within the Monument) have been unsuccessful.

Bald eagles are occasionally seen foraging along McElmo Creek during the
winter but are not known to nest within the vicinity of the project.
They are also likely to forage in Yellow Jacket Canyon where there is
perennial water and forage opportunities. They may forage into Sandstone
Canyon, as well.

As described in the Southwest Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan (2002), a
portion of the Monument is within the Upper Colorado Recovery Unit.
Habitat was assessed in Sandstone Canyon in 2004. It was determined that
although the willow patches rate as being in good condition and
suitable, they were too small to support breeding willow flycatchers.
Observations by surveyors since 1997 have noted the impacts of cattle
grazing on suitable and potential habitat and have concluded that
changes to grazing practices would likely improve that habitat. In
addition, there is evidence in other portions of the flycatcher's range
that indicate tamarisk may provide suitable habitat (T. Ireland pers.
comm.). Habitat assessments are conducted on a periodic basis and
protocol surveys are conducted when a project may impact habitat. No
flycatchers have been located within the Monument to date.

Creeks and canyons within these allotments are tributary to the San Juan
River. Water depletions are not associated with range management so
there would be no effect to listed San Juan River fishes. They will not
be addressed further in this assessment.

Two candidate species may occur in this area: yellow-billed cuckoo and
the boreal toad. The yellow-billed cuckoo and boreal toad are rare and
not likely to be found in this ecosystem. There is no suitable habitat
for either species within these allotments.

Several sensitive species are considered for this analysis including:
Gunnison's sage grouse, ferruginous hawk, spotted bat, Allen's big-eared
bat, fringed myotis, Yuma myotis, big free-tailed bat, peregrine falcon,
bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker. There is a diversity of
habitats suitable for these species from steep, rocky canyons to
pinyon-juniper woodlands.

The ferruginous hawk is uncommon to fairly common during the winter in
southwest Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). It may be sighted
foraging within these allotment areas. Ferruginous hawks predominantly
forage on jackrabbits and cottontails west of the Continental Divide
(Preston 1998). In the Monument, black-tailed jackrabbits and both
desert and mountain cottontails are likely to be found (Fitzgerald et.
al. 1994). Desert cottontails tend to forage largely on forbs and
grasses but the jackrabbit and mountain cottontail utilize shrubs such
as juniper, sagebrush, greasewood, and rabbitbrush over the course of a
year. Past grazing practices, as well as effects from past chaining
projects in the pinyon-juniper have likely affected the distribution and
abundance of rabbits.

Allen's big-eared bats and fringed myotis roost in mines and caves and
are known to forage in pinyon-juniper woodlands. There are few, if any,
mine and cave structures such as these within the Monument overall.
However, there may be roosts on adjacent lands and as a result
pinyon-juniper woodlands, particularly within the Cahone allotment,
would play an important role.

The big free-tailed and spotted bats are likely to be found within this
area. They roost in rocky cliffs with crevices and fissures. These
features are typically found in canyons such as Yellow Jacket, Risley,
Rincon, Hovenweep, and Sand.

The Yuma myotis is found in pinyon-juniper woodlands and semi-desert
environments. They are tied to surface water and riparian areas. They
are likely to be found in Yellow Jacket Canyon where there is perennial
water.

Peregrine falcons are not known to occur within the Sandstone allotment
but have been sighted within the boundaries of the Monument. This
species is rebounding and was recently delisted from protection under
the Endangered Species Act. They are beginning to re-occupy cliff sites
that have not been used in decades. New sites are located in southwest
Colorado annually.

The project area falls within the historic range of the Gunnison's sage
grouse. No grouse are known to occur and no suitable habitat is within
the project area. Gunnison sage grouse are located more than 10 miles
away on private lands north of the Cahone allotment and near the town of
Dove Creek.

The bluehead and flannelmouth suckers have been located in Yellow Jacket
Canyon. Other texts also support their location within Montezuma County,
specifically McElmo Creek (Woodling 1985). The bluehead is found in
headwater streams and large rivers, requiring water of moderate to fast
velocity (Woodling 1985). The flannelmouth is found in larger streams
and rivers and all habitat types including riffles, runs, eddies, and
backwaters (Woodling 1985). Both fish are bottom feeders, eating a
variety of invertebrates.

The longnose leopard lizard is on the State Director's Sensitive Species
List but was incorrectly omitted for the San Juan Public Lands Office.
Until the list is corrected, it is being considered sensitive for this
area. In addition, it was identified in the Monument proclamation. This
lizard is known to occur in southwest Colorado and has been observed on
Hamilton, Cannonball, and Risley Mesas. Habitat for the leopard lizard
is flat or gently sloping shrublands with a large percentage of open
ground. Hammerson (1999) describes other habitat associations in
southwest Colorado including areas along the Dolores River where leopard
lizards inhabit areas with sandy-rocky soils and scattered sagebrush,
junipers, and skunk brush in canyon bottoms. Other habitats within
Montezuma County include mesa tops above canyons. Like the desert spiny
lizard, the longnose leopard lizard has a small home range from 1.6 to 6
acres in size (Hammerson 1999). It is slightly more limited in its
activity period (from May to early August) and they have an unwary
behavior, which makes them vulnerable to human exploitation (Hammerson
1999). They are not known to occur within this allotment but survey
information is incomplete. They have been located within a few miles of
the allotment boundaries.

The desert spiny lizard is also on the State Director's Sensitive
Species List, and is listed in the Monument proclamation. It is not
likely to occur within the project area as the southwest corner of
Monument appears to be on the extreme edge of their range. The primary
period of activity is from May to September with some activity in April
and October, during warm weather (Hammerson 1999). Habitat includes
shrub-covered dirt banks and sparsely vegetated rocky areas near flowing
streams or arroyos (Hammerson 1999). Courtship takes place in May and
hatchlings first appear in early August. Adults stay within a small home
range (1.6 to 6 acres) from year to year (Hammerson 1999).

The Mesa Verde night snake is not on the State Director's Sensitive
Species List but was recognized in the Monument proclamation. It may be
found in the Project Area. This snake inhabits landscapes (rocky slopes
and canyons) that are generally not suitable for extensive development
(Hammerson 1999). Hammerson (1999) stated that the habitat for this
snake is largely intact and not threatened, and the distribution of this
snake in western Colorado is probably more extensive than is now known.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**Alternative A - No Action**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under this alternative, there would be little change in the current
downward trend of habitats within the allotments. Riparian areas would
continue to be degraded. Habitat for the southwest willow flycatcher
would seldom reach its potential or become suitable habitat. Forage
availability for prey species for the ferruginous hawk would decline
over time with extreme population fluctuations. These rodent and rabbit
species would become less likely to withstand the pressures of droughts,
such as experienced in 2002.

There would be little impact on bald eagles. They are very mobile and
would go where the foraging can be most successful. Bat populations
would remain relatively unchanged, and are more likely to fluctuate with
insect populations. This alternative would not affect bat roosting
habitats.

Peregrine falcon annual breeding success is strongly tied to prey
availability. Potential impacts to peregrines could occur as a result of
changes to their prey base but this is difficult to tie back to grazing
practices. Peregrines eat a diversity of bird species including
neotropical migrants and year-round residents. Several neotropical
migrants known to occur in the area are negatively impacted by heavy
grazing including the horned lark and green-tailed towhee. Conversely,
other birds are positively impacted by heavy grazing such as the
mountain bluebird and sage thrasher (Saab et. al. 1995).

The bluehead and flannelmouth sucker may be impacted when cattle drink.
Trampling at riparian edges and the resulting sedimentation may reduce
prey availability. The sensitive lizards and the nightsnake may be
impacted by trampling. Cattle may crush burrows and nests, particularly
if cattle use is concentrated in one area.

**Alternatives B, C and D: Proposed Action (Deferred grazing during the
critical period); Grazing during Dormant Season and Rest 1/3 of
allotment every year.**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under these alternatives there would be improvements in vegetative
conditions overall, both in quality and quantity. Riparian areas would
improve in all allotments. Southwest willow flycatcher habitat that is
currently potential or degraded suitable as a result of past grazing, is
likely to improve. There would be more nesting opportunities. In
addition, mitigation measures, which would fence out currently degraded
riparian areas in McElmo Creek would also improve habitat for the
flycatcher.

There would be more grasses, forbs, and shrubs available as a food
source for animals such as jackrabbits, mice, insects, and birds. As
discussed above, many of these animals are prey items for sensitive
species like the ferruginous hawk. Improvements in grazing practices
benefit the food chain overall.

Trampling concerns would not change and there may continue to be impacts
to lizards and fish.

**Alternative E - No Grazing**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

This alternative promotes the most positive response for threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species. There would be no trampling by
livestock. Grasses and forbs would provide the maximum nutritional value
as forage for a variety of species. Riparian vegetation would recover in
all areas. However, as described in the vegetation section, land
management practices would likely have to be implemented to manage the
invasive plant problem (cheatgrass and tamarisk) and the areas where
degradation is beyond natural recovery. No grazing in combination with
other practices would restore the resiliency of the area.

**GENERAL WILDLIFE SPECIES**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

Within the project area there were no emphasis areas identified (e.g.
critical or severe big game winter ranges) in the 1984 RMP. Resident
deer can be found within and adjacent to the project area throughout the
year. Wintering deer also utilize the area. Deer likely compete with
cattle for the limited forage available in these allotments.

Elk are rare in this area and would be limited by insufficient cover for
winter and little summer forage. However, they may be found in canyons
and on mesa-tops within the allotment where pinyon-juniper stands and
protected canyons border agricultural fields. Elk are known to forage
extensively in these fields, particularly during the winter. Evidence of
elk during the late summer and early fall has been noted in areas
adjacent to this allotment.

Several species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to be found within
the project area including the bull snake, striped whipsnake,
red-spotted toads, and collared lizards. Most are either highly mobile,
have a large home range, or are likely to be found in riparian areas.

Birds within the project area are typical of those associated with
shrubsteppe habitats. According to Brock et al. (1993), the most
important shrubsteppe neotropical migrant birds are horned lark, sage
thrasher, Brewer's sparrow, vesper sparrow, and western meadowlark, all
of which are ground nesting birds. The sage thrasher and Brewer's
sparrow are more linked to sagebrush communities and have not been
located during casual bird counts (Leslie Stewart and Cliff Stewart
pers. comm). Other neotropical birds that have been noted in the
vicinity include the uncommon black-throated sparrow, gray flycatcher
and gray vireo; and the more common Bewick's wren, black-throated gray
warbler, blue bird, Say's phoebe, and ash-throated flycatcher. Birds in
this environment are primarily influenced by extreme and irregular
fluctuations in precipitation and ecosystem productivity. As a result,
they are highly opportunistic and ecologically adaptable (Brock et al.
1993).

Mammals that may be within the project area include: red and gray fox,
raccoon, desert shrew, possibly the Merriam's shrew, black-tailed
jackrabbit, desert and mountain cottontail, chipmunks, ground squirrels,
prairie dogs, woodrats, several species of mice, and the ringtail
(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The condition of the grasses and forbs
throughout the project area would affect the rodent, rabbit, and prairie
dog populations, since these vegetation types are the forage base for
these animals. Available forage is limited and in poor condition as
evidenced by the results of the Land Health Assessment. Animals that
utilize these vegetation types can illustrate extremes in numbers,
fluctuating with available food resources and weather conditions.
Rodents and rabbits, in turn, are prey for the carnivores likely to be
found within the Monument. Numerous studies have illustrated the cause
and effect relationship between healthy carnivore populations and
availability of prey.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**Alternative A - No Action**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under the No Action alternative, there would be little change in the
current downward trend of habitats within the allotments. Riparian areas
would continue to be degraded. Populations would decline over time with
extreme fluctuations. Many would become less likely to withstand the
pressures of droughts, such as experienced in 2002. Big game would
continue to compete with livestock for limited resources and be more
susceptible to disease and predation.

**Alternatives B, C and D: Proposed Action (Deferred grazing during the
critical period); Grazing during Dormant Season and Rest 1/3 of
allotment every year.**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under these alternatives there would be improvements in vegetative
conditions overall, both in quality and quantity. Riparian areas would
improve in all areas.

There would be more grasses, forbs, and shrubs available as a food
source for animals such as jackrabbits, mice, insects, and birds. As
discussed above, many of these animals are prey items for other animals
commonly found within these allotments. Improvements in grazing
practices benefit the food chain overall.

**Alternative E - No Grazing**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

This alternative promotes the most positive response for wildlife. There
would be no trampling by livestock. Grasses and forbs would provide the
maximum nutritional value as forage for a variety of species. Riparian
vegetation would recover in all areas. There would be no competition for
resources between livestock and big game. Deer populations would be
healthier with improvements in forage availability and less susceptible
to disease.

As described in the vegetations section, other land management practices
would likely have to be implemented to manage the invasive plant problem
(cheatgrass and tamarisk) and the areas where degradations is beyond
natural recovery. No grazing in combination with other practices would
restore the resiliency of the area. Wildlife populations in these
circumstances are healthier and are capable of responding to extremes in
annual weather.

**INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

The following species are included on the Colorado State Noxious Weed
List and have been inventoried within the Sandstone Allotment: Russian
knapweed (170 acres), musk thistle (121 acres), Dalmatian toadflax (20
acres), and Canada thistle (2 acres). These species generally occur in
disturbed areas and low lying areas that receive additional moisture in
the form of surface runoff. Most of the inventoried Russian knapweed
within the allotment is found in the Woods Canyon drainage, while most
of the inventoried musk thistle is found in the Sandstone Canyon
drainage. All of the inventoried Dalmatian toadflax and Canada thistle
is found in the extreme southern part of the allotment, in the Yellow
Jacket Canyon drainage. Tamarisk is also common in the Woods Canyon,
Sandstone Canyon, and Yellow Jacket drainages.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**Alternative A - No Action**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Current stocking rates would continue to allow invasive species
populations to expand within the allotment. Current grazing management
would continue to suppress forage species, particularly in the drainage
bottoms, and invasive species would continue to gain a competitive
advantage in theses areas. Additional areas would need to be treated
with herbicides to control invasive species populations.

**Alternative B: Proposed Action (Deferred Grazing During Critical
Period)**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Providing regular deferred grazing of forage species would allow forage
species to increase in vigor and should result in a decrease in the rate
of spread of invasive species, as compared to Alternative A.

**Alternative C - Grazing During Dormant Season**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Allowing grazing only during the dormant season would allow forage
species to increase in vigor at a faster rate than under Alternative B,
and should result in a further reduction in the rate of spread of
invasive species.

**Alternative D - Rest 1/3 of Allotment Every Year**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

The impacts to invasive species from resting one pasture each year would
be similar to those from Alternative C.

**Alternative E - No Grazing**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

The impacts to invasive species from no grazing would be similar to
those from Alternative C.

**CULTURAL RESOURCES**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

A cultural resource assessment based upon existing archaeological
information (a Class I inventory) was completed for the Sandstone
grazing allotment pursuant to Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029
(Interim historic preservation guidelines and procedures for evaluating
the effect of rangeland management activities on historic properties).
The Sandstone grazing allotment contains approximately 22,699 acres of
public lands administered by the Canyons of the Ancients National
Monument, Bureau of Land Management.

The Class I inventory was conducted using the Canyons of the Ancients
National Monument cultural resource inventory/site overlays and GIS
database; and the COMPASS site database maintained by the Colorado State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). National Register eligibility was
derived from the COMPASS database.

A total of 24 livestock concentration areas were identified on 7.5
minute scale U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle maps by the Range
Specialist. The livestock concentration areas (LCAs) consist of water
sources such as springs and reservoirs (9); Canyon bottoms (9) including
Yellow Jacket, Sandstone, and Woods Canyons, as well as smaller un-named
canyons; one stock trail; and 5 fence-lines or portions of fence-lines.
Areas in which livestock are known or are expected to concentrate are
those areas where the potential to impact cultural resources is expected
to be greatest. The livestock concentration areas identified within the
Sandstone Grazing Allotment total approximately 4,480 acres, this
represents approximately 20 percent of the entire allotment.

Sixteen Class III cultural resource inventories have been previously
conducted within the Sandstone grazing allotment. A total of 2,507 acres
or 11 percent of the 22,699 acre grazing allotment has been intensively
examined for cultural resources. Approximately 16.5 percent of the 4,480
acres of livestock concentration areas have been intensively surveyed.

Approximately 510 archaeological sites have been previously documented
within the boundaries of the grazing allotment. One hundred forty sites
(27 percent) are located within LCAs, and 370 sites (73 percent) are
located outside of the LCAs. The majority of the sites are affiliated
with prehistoric Ancestral Puebloan occupations that date between A.D.
500 and 1300. These prehistoric sites include artifact scatters,
processing areas/temporary campsites, kilns, rockshelters, fieldhouses,
water control features including dams, checkdams, and reservoirs, rock
art, and habitations including

masonry pueblos/rubble mounds with associated kivas and middens, and
slab rooms/blocks.

Based upon the results of previous inventories conducted within and in
the general vicinity of the allotment, it is expected that an extremely
high potential for site occurrence exists in the remaining
un-inventoried portion of the allotment. When current known sites and
inventoried acres are used to project the number of sites per square
mile, the results indicate 130 sites per square mile; a distribution of
approximately one site per 4.9 acres.

The following table displays the National Register of Historic Places
eligibility status for the documented sites within the allotment:

**NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY**

**KNOWN SITES WITHIN THE SANDSTONE GRAZING ALLOTMENT**

WITHIN HIGH IMPACT AREAS OUTSIDE HIGH IMPACT AREAS

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Listed: 2                           Listed: 1

  Eligible: 35                        Eligible: 74

  Not Eligible: 14                    Not Eligible: 19

  Unevaluated (Need Data): 78         Unevaluated (Need Data): 141

  No Information: 11                  No Information: 135

  TOTAL: 140                          TOTAL: 370
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Quantification of livestock impacts to cultural resources utilizing
existing site documentation is difficult due to data limitations. These
limitations include the fact that long periods of time have elapsed
since site documentation occurred, so condition data is not current. For
example many of the sites were recorded during a large inventory project
conducted in the late 1960s. A consistent methodology for recording and
quantifying site condition information has not been used by
archaeologists who have documented sites through time; therefore a great
deal of variability exists regarding site condition information
contained in site documentation.

A review of all site forms for the sites recorded within the Sandstone
Allotment was completed to identify impacts attributed to livestock
grazing. This compilation noted:

-   The presence or absence of livestock impacts, or constructed range
    improvements within the site.

-   The location of the site within or outside of identified LCAs.

A total of 83 sites (59 percent of the total 140 sites) located within
LCAs were noted as having livestock impacts. Impact descriptions and
corresponding numbers of sites noted with those impacts are as follows:

General impacts noted as minor/light/or observable but no specific
information -- 33 sites

General impacts noted as moderate/heavy/or intensive, but no specific
information -- 23 sites

Trampling/bioturbation -- 8 sites

Shelter/shade -- 5 sites

Manure in overhang -- 1 site

Impacts to Rock Art -- 1 site

Trailing -- 6 sites

Range Improvement (near site) -- 1 site

Structural damage -- 2 sites

Erosion result of livestock -- 3 sites

A total of three sites located outside of LCAs (0.08 percent) were noted
as having livestock impacts. The impacts noted at these sites all fell
into the category of "General impacts noted as minor/light/or observable
but no specific information." The frequency of noted impacts is greater
at sites located within the LCAs than for those located outside the
LCAs.

No sites were noted with constructed range improvements located within
them.

The second phase of this analysis utilized data collected during the
2002 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument archaeological survey of
selected areas within the monument. Woods Canyons Archaeological
Consultants, Inc. conducted the survey under contract. Site condition
information was collected on all sites recorded during the survey.
Specific disturbances for which data was collected included: chaining,
livestock, commercial, erosion, recreation, vandalism, and vehicular.
Disturbance levels from each disturbance factor were rated on a scale of
0-10; 0 was equated with no disturbance, a value of 5 indicated moderate
disturbance, and a value of 10 heavy disturbance or complete
destruction.

For analytical purposes, only the livestock category was used. The
numerical disturbance level ranking scale was grouped as follows in
order to yield disturbance categories of:

0 = No disturbance

1-3 = Low level of disturbance

4-6 = Moderate level of disturbance

7-9 = High level of disturbance

10 = Complete destruction

This survey covered approximately 1,430 acres within the Sandstone
grazing allotment. A total of 147 sites were recorded; of these, 52 (35
percent) sites are located within LCAs, and 95 (65 percent) sites are
located outside LCAs.

Table 19 displays the results of the review, and the levels of
disturbance:

Table 19. Levels of Disturbance

+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
| **            | **Sites Located**         | **Sites Located**        |
| Disturbance** |                           |                          |
|               | **Within LCA**            | **Outside LCA**          |
| **Level**     |                           |                          |
+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
| **0**         | **11 (21%)**              | **26 (28%)**             |
+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
| **1-3**       | **29 (56%)**              | **37 (39 %)**            |
+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
| **4-6**       | **12 (23%)**              | **24 (26%)**             |
+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
| **7-9**       | **0**                     | **7 (7%)**               |
+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
| **10**        | **0**                     | **0**                    |
+---------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+

There is a slightly higher frequency of archaeological sites located
outside of LCAs that have no documented disturbance attributed to
livestock (28 percent), than those within LCAs with no documented
disturbance (21 percent).

Sites located within LCAs have a higher frequency of low level livestock
disturbance (56 percent) than those located outside of the LCAs (39
percent). Conversely, sites located outside of LCAs have a higher rate
of livestock disturbance at the moderate (26 percent) and high level (7
percent) than do the sites located within the LCAs (moderate level-23
percent and 0 percent for high impacts). No sites were noted within the
LCAs as having disturbance levels over a 6.

Site types noted with livestock disturbance both within and outside LCAs
with disturbance levels of moderate and high were rock shelters, sites
with architecture, and artifact scatters.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

Impacts to cultural resources resulting from livestock grazing range
from direct physical damage to indirect impacts such as erosion.
Physical impacts include livestock rubbing against standing walls or
other architecture, rock art images; trampling, urinating and defecating
in archaeological deposits.

Certain site types are considered more sensitive and vulnerable to
impacts from livestock such as sites with standing architecture
(prehistoric and historic), rock art, and rock shelters.

-   Damage to architecture such as standing walls includes collapse or
    dislodging rubble leading to accelerated collapse, and/or erosion.

-   Natural rock shelters can be attractive places for animals seeking
    shelter from sun or weather. In addition to increased erosion from
    trailing up slopes to reach rock shelters, the fragile site deposits
    are at risk from trampling, mixing, and chemical
    alteration/deterioration from concentrations of urine and dung.
    Preservation of perishable archaeological remains is often
    exceptional because of dry conditions in natural rock shelters, so
    this rare class of artifacts is particularly vulnerable to damage or
    destruction from livestock.

-   Rock art images are fragile by nature, as are the rock faces onto
    which they are applied. Abrasion by animals has a potential to
    deteriorate or even destroy rock art.

-   Areas where livestock concentrate are considered particularly
    vulnerable to livestock impacts from the effects of concentrations
    of numbers of animals as well

> as repetition. Such areas include water sources, shade trees or
> sheltered locations, around salt/mineral blocks, and along
> fence-lines. In some cases larger more obvious sites were avoided by
> chaining activities that were conducted in the past. The trees
> remaining on such sites often provide the only shade sources, causing
> cattle to concentrate in these site areas in order to access the
> shade. Depending upon topography in concentration areas, the rate of
> erosion can be greatly increased by concentrations of use.

-   Construction of range improvements such as tanks, fences, access
    roads, and spring improvements also have direct effects to cultural
    resources if built on or near sites. Indirect effects can also occur
    to sites if construction of nearby range improvements results in
    changes in use patterns.

-   Degraded vegetation conditions such as large expanses of bare soil,
    decreased ground litter and biological crusts are subject to
    increased rates of erosion from both wind and water; these
    conditions can cause accelerated rates of deterioration to cultural
    resources. A healthy ecosystem condition is considered generally
    beneficial to cultural resources.

# Alternative A - No Action 

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

The Rangeland Health Assessment determined that the rangeland health
standards for upland soils, healthy and productive plant and animal
communities and riparian systems are not being met in the Sandstone
grazing allotment; and that existing grazing management practices and
levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing to achieve the
standards. As noted in the vegetation section, the amount of bare soil
in an area is a direct indication of the susceptibility to accelerated
water and wind erosion. Increased rates of erosion also have the
potential to degrade the stability of cultural resources.

Continuation of the current management system at the present stocking
levels will allow the currently compromised Biotic Function, Soil and
Site Stability, and Hydrologic function to continue to degrade. As these
areas are further degraded to conditions in the extreme categories, it
is likely that changes may become irreversible. As a result, there is a
potential that accelerated, irreversible deterioration of the physical
stability of cultural resources may occur under this alternative. Direct
physical impacts to cultural resources resulting from livestock grazing
would still occur under this alternative.

**Alternative B - Proposed Action (Deferred grazing during the critical
period)**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Implementing rotation grazing systems, stocking at the calculated
capacity, and allowing for occasional rest during the critical growing
period in spring, will allow for improvement in vegetation condition and
plant composition. An increase in litter and biological crust cover will
potentially provide greater ground cover; and reduce wind and water
erosion as well as increasing infiltration rates. Management under this
alternative should result in the allotment moving toward meeting the
Rangeland Health Standards; and would also provide increased physical
stability of cultural resources within the allotment. Direct physical
impacts to cultural resources resulting from livestock grazing would
still occur under this alternative.

**Alternative C - Dormant season use**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Grazing during the dormant period will have the lowest impact on plants
and provide the greatest potential for improved conditions than any
other grazing period, especially when stocked at the calculated
capacity, and rotation grazing systems are consistently implemented.
Litter cover will increase since plants will have the entire growing
season to produce vegetative matter without being grazed. There will
also be greater amounts of material remaining after grazing due to the
lighter stocking levels. Higher litter cover will provide soil cover and
increase organic matter in the soil surface. Erosion will decrease and
water infiltration will increase. Grazing during the dormant period
only, should improve cover and complexity of biological crusts on these
allotments. Increases in the amount of biological crust cover will
provide benefits such as a reduction in wind and water erosion,
increased soil nitrogen levels, and improved chances of native seedling
establishment.

Except for alternative D and E, this alternative has the highest
potential for recovery of the plant community and development of ground
cover. An increase in both vegetative and biological crust ground cover
would not only benefit the physical stability of cultural resources, but
also would provide more screening and would help to make cultural
resources less obvious on the landscape. Direct physical impacts to
cultural resources from livestock grazing would still occur under this
alternative.

**Alternative D - Rest one third**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Implementing a rotation grazing system that regularly incorporates total
rest for one year, as well as stocking at the calculated capacity, will
allow for improvement in vegetation condition. Litter cover and
biological crust cover should increase due to the lighter stocking
levels and periods of complete rest. Wind and water erosion will be
reduced as a result of the ground cover and increased infiltration
rates. This alternative is expected to allow the allotment to make the
greatest progress of all of the stocked alternatives towards meeting the
Rangeland Health Standards for healthy and productive plant and animal
communities, upland soils and riparian systems. Healthy ecosystem
conditions also are beneficial to the physical stability of cultural
resources. Direct physical impacts to cultural resources from livestock
grazing would still occur under this alternative.

**Mitigation Alternatives A -- D**

Class III (intensive) cultural resources inventory will be conducted on
approximately 445 acres within "livestock concentration areas" within
Sandstone and Yellowjacket Canyons; including 3 water sources, and 2
miles of fenceline. This would increase the sample of archaeological
survey within the LCAs to about 26 percent. Sites that are identified
will be documented according to standards in the Colorado BLM Cultural
Resources Handbook and BLM Manual. These sites will be assessed for
livestock and other impacts using a standardized monitoring form; and
they will be evaluated for NRHP eligibility and effects.

In addition, the seven sites identified with the highest disturbance
ranking during the analysis will be relocated, updated, and
recommendations for mitigation formulated if warranted. A sample of 6
sites in the moderate impact ranking will be selected to be relocated,
updated, and mitigation measures formulated if needed. These will be
done each year, for a minimum of 2 years. These inventories and
assessments will be conducted within the 10-year term of the grazing
permit.

If the BLM determines following inventory and site monitoring, in
consultation with the SHPO, that livestock grazing or other range
management activities are adversely affecting historic properties,
mitigation measures will be developed and treatment plans will be
prepared. Following approval of the treatment plans; the BLM would treat
the affected properties during 10-year term of the permit.

Any new range improvements associated with the allotments (e.g. spring
developments, stock tanks, fences) are subject to compliance with
Section 106 of NHPA, and would undergo standard cultural resources
inventory and evaluation procedures prior to construction of range
improvements.

**Cumulative Impacts**

Conducting inventory to identify sites within livestock concentration
areas; and updating condition assessments on previously recorded sites
in order to determine effects, along with regular monitoring and
treatment to mitigate such effects should serve to prevent or stop
on-going damage from livestock during the term of this permit. Impacts
to archaeological sites resulting from direct and indirect impacts (as
discussed in the Environmental Consequences section above) would become
cumulative if mitigation measures are not taken to address them.

**Alternative E - No grazing**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

This alternative has the highest potential for recovery of the plant
community and development of ground cover in the shortest amount of
time. Ground cover in the form of vegetative litter will increase since
plants will only be utilized by wildlife. Due to reduced disturbance
from hoof impacts, biological crust cover will increase and over time
will develop characteristics of older crusts such as increased depth,
lifeform, and species complexity. These two factors combined will reduce
erosion, increase infiltration and site productivity as detailed above
in the vegetation section. A stable, healthy, functioning ecosystem is
also beneficial to the physical stability of cultural resources.

Under the no grazing alternative, the physical impacts to cultural
resources from livestock grazing would be removed from the allotment.
This would greatly contribute to the physical protection and
preservation of the cultural resources.

**SOCIOECONOMICS**

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

Livestock grazing is recognized as an important aspect of the local
custom, culture, and economy in Montezuma County and is supported in
their 1997 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Livestock grazing is also
recognized as an appropriate use of public lands in the Presidential
Proclamation that established the Monument.

Montezuma County is located in southwestern Colorado and is
predominantly rural. As of 1994, the county included 1,303,012 acres of
which 29 percent or 372,591 acres were in private ownership (Preston
2001). Furthermore, of the 372,591 acres in private ownership, 230,842
acres or 62 percent were assessed as grazing land (Preston 2001).

From 1970 to 2000 Montezuma County grew by 10,834 people, an 83 percent
increase in population as illustrated in Figure 1 below (BEA REIS 2000
CD, Table CA30).

Figure 1. Population in Montezuma County from 1970 to 2000.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.501388888888889in"
height="2.345138888888889in"}

Between 1990 and 2001 the population of Montezuma County increased 29
percent, or 5,327 people for a total of 24,000. This time period also
marks the beginning of an upward trend in rural residential development
in the county, with 80 percent of the growth in the 1990s occurring in
the unincorporated areas of the county (Preston 2004). This trend in
residential development has resulted in an increase in the subdivision
of agricultural land. Table 20 provides summary data on this trend in
Montezuma County from 1970 to 2000.

Table 20. Montezuma County Agricultural Land Subdivision Trends by
Decade: 1970 to 2000.

  ----------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                          **1950/60s**   **1970s**   **1980s**   **1990s**   **Total**

  Agricultural Parcels    6              25          29          68          128
  Subdivided                                                                 

  Acres Subdivided        402            3,672       2,171       12,781      19,026

  Average Agricultural    67             147         75          188         149
  Parcel Size                                                                

  Subdivision Lots        237            531         623         704         2,095
  Created                                                                    

  Average Subdivision     1.69           6.92        3.48        18.15       9.08
  Parcel Size                                                                
  ----------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Source: Montezuma County Planning Office

One result of the increased subdivision of agricultural land in
Montezuma County was the establishment of the Landowner Initiated Zoning
(LIZ) system. Through LIZ the county has "encouraged cluster development
and facilitated the establishment of zoning to protect neighborhoods
that wished to remain agricultural. Much of the productive agricultural
land in the Montezuma Valley has been moved into agricultural zoning.
Recent subdivision has been primarily in the pinyon-juniper landscape.
The open parcels in and around the City of Cortez, have not seen the
establishment of a zoning pattern leaving a lot of unresolved questions
about the future expansion of Cortez and the desire to retain openness
and agricultural character of the landscape along highway corridors and
surrounding future urban growth" (Preston 2004).

The Montezuma County Comprehensive Land Use Plan emphasized the public's
desire to sustain the rural character and wildlife populations in the
county. The plan specifically stated that "Declines in federal grazing,
will result in the declines in ranching and agriculture, which will
result in declines in privately maintained open space and wildlife."

Net income from farming and ranching in the county has dropped from \$2
million in 1970 to negative \$5 million in 2000 as illustrated in Figure
2 below (BEA REIS 2000 CD, Table CA45).

Figure 2. Net farm income in Montezuma County from 1970 to 2000.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.40625in" height="2.2395833333333335in"}

In 1970 gross farm income exceeded production expenses by \$6 million.
By 2000, gross farm income minus production expenses (i.e. realized net
income) equaled negative \$4.4 million (BEA REIS 2000 CD, Table CA45).

Figure 3. Gross farm income vs. production expenses in Montezuma County
from 1970 to 2000.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.260416666666667in"
height="3.3854166666666665in"}

Farm employment in the year 2000 in Montezuma County was 873 or 6.4
percent of total employment. In contrast, farm employment was 701 or
13.6 percent of total employment in the county in 1970. The percent
change in county farm employment from 1970 to 2000 in Montezuma County
was negative 7.2 percent (BEA REIS 2000 CD, Table CA25).

Within the Monument there are currently 8,492 active AUMs authorized for
livestock grazing under 22 individual livestock operations under section
three Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) permits. Furthermore, 95 percent of the
public land area within the Monument is permitted for livestock grazing.
The applicant holds a total of 2,206 active permitted AUMs in the
allotment considered in this EA. These active permitted AUMs represent
26 percent of the total current active AUM allocations for livestock
grazing in the Monument. A January 2002 inventory of all cattle
including calves in Montezuma County totaled 19,000 (Colorado Department
of Agriculture 2002). The applicant's existing permit provides
authorization to seasonally (November 15^th^ -- May 15th) graze 400
cattle, or 2 percent of the total number of cattle in the county. If the
average actual use of 1,519 AUMs for this allotment is applied to this
calculation, then the applicant's existing permit provides authorization
to seasonally graze about 276 cattle, or 1.4 percent of the total number
of cattle in the county.

Livestock grazing provides direct and indirect benefits to local
economies. Assuming all 2,206 AUMs under the existing permit are used
for livestock grazing, then permit fees calculated using the 2007
grazing fee of \$1.35/AUM associated with these AUMs directly generate
\$2,978.10 per year, of which 12.5 percent, or \$372.26 is returned to
the State of Colorado. The state then distributes this \$372.26 among
its four Boards of Grazing Advisors, using an established formula. The
portion of this \$372.26 that is distributed to the Montrose Board of
Grazing Advisors is then disbursed to local ranchers, using a 50/50
matching-funds formula, for use in range improvement and maintenance
projects on public lands. If the average actual use of 1,519 AUMs is
applied to this calculation, then permit fees associated with the AUMs
directly generate \$2,050.65 per year, of which 12.5 percent or \$256.33
is returned to the State of Colorado.

To accurately assess the economic viability of the applicant's livestock
operations, personal economic data would be required. Some of these data
include the applicant's production expenses (e.g., labor, capital, rent,
taxes) and other income sources (e.g. wages, salary, dividends,
interest, rent, transfer payments). These data are not available, nor
does the BLM want to make public, personal financial information for the
applicant. However, one means of estimating the net revenues generated
by the applicant, from their livestock operation is to review estimates
of production costs and returns for many typical Colorado operations.
The 2000 to 2001 Colorado Livestock Enterprise Budget (budget) developed
by the Colorado State University Cooperative Extension provides such an
estimate. Based on a typical cow-calf operation of 250 cows this budget
estimated a net value per cow of negative \$34.32. This negative net
value per cow is consistent with the overall trend of negative net
income from farming and ranching in Montezuma County illustrated in
Figure 2.

The budget does not represent all types of livestock production systems
and should not be interpreted to reflect the actual budget of the
applicant's operation. However, it does provide a reasonable estimate of
the net value per cow, based on actual farm operations, data from actual
records, and/or budget studies for the state of Colorado. Factors that
could change this budget estimate include an operator's own level of
debt, labor expenses, etc. In addition to personal economic data,
another variable which would affect the current budget's projections is
the market price for cattle, which fluctuates over time.

Market cycles in the livestock industry have been relatively consistent
for many decades. Prices hit lows near the middle of each decade, and
the number of breeding animals is sold down. By the transition between
decades, breeding herds have been reduced to a point where demand causes
prices to rise, which triggers a gradual expansion of breeding herds
resulting in declining prices toward the middle of the next decade. When
prices are adjusted for inflation, there is also a steady long term
decline in relative purchasing power from livestock sales as illustrated
in Table 21.

Table 21. Colorado average annual steer and heifer prices per hundred
weight in current dollars and adjusted to 1980 dollars.

  --------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
                        **1980**   **1985**   **1990**   **1995**   **2000**

  Steers and Heifers    \$66.80    \$59.90    \$80.00    \$66.60    \*\$89.50
  cwt.                                                              

  Inflation Adjustment  1.000      0.729      0.645      0.528      \*0.482
  1980                                                              

  Adjusted 1980 dollars \$66.80    \$43.67    \$51.60    \$35.16    \*\$43.14
  --------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------

Source: 1980-1995 Colorado Ag Statistics adjusted for inflation to 1980
dollars using

Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index. \* 2000 based on weighted average,
Greeley

Producers, March 7, 2000 adjusted to 1980 Denver-Boulder CPI as of 1998.

Regardless of the negative net income from farming and ranching in
Montezuma County, livestock grazing contributes to the local economy.
Livestock grazing indirectly generates additional monies throughout
local communities by supporting local services and acquisition of goods
related to the livestock industry. In Montezuma County, gross cash
receipts for livestock and livestock products in 2001 totaled
\$8,961,000, while net cash receipts for all agricultural sales in the
same year equaled \$4,845,000 (Colorado Department of Agricultural
2002). The exact amount that cash receipts from livestock and livestock
products contributed to the net cash receipts for all agricultural sales
in 2001 is unknown. Furthermore, the proportion of these totals that are
directly attributable to livestock grazing on the Sandstone Allotment
analyzed in this EA is also unknown.

Last, aside from the economics of livestock grazing there is a question
of its role in the heritage, culture and aesthetics of Montezuma County.
As part of a previous grazing permit renewal process, Montezuma County
convened three focus groups. These focus groups included four ranching
families. Focus group participants were asked why they stay in ranching.
A summary of their responses to this question is provided below.

*"In some cases, people have never known any other way of making a
living. Some have done other things and came back to full time ranching
because they like the 'way of life' that goes with it. Others continue
to have additional sources of income and spend virtually all their 'free
time' operating a family ranch for the same 'way of life' reasons"
(Preston 2001).*

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**Alternative A - No Action**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

This alternative would not change the applicants existing permitted
AUMs. Under this alternative the permittee would continue to be
authorized to graze 400 cattle from November 15^th^ through May 15^th^
for a total of 2,206 AUMs. The impact to the Colorado Boards of Grazing
Advisors would remain unchanged in which they would receive \$372.26
generated from these permit fees.

The analysis in this EA also demonstrates that under this alternative
existing resource conditions would continue to decline. As a result it
is likely that over time the economic viability and sustainability of
the livestock applicants operation would also decline.

**Alternative B - Proposed Action (Deferred Grazing During Critical
Period)**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under this alternative, 888 AUMs or 300 cattle would be authorized to
graze for a 3 month period. This grazing would alternate every other
year between November 15^th^ through February 28^th^ and March 1^st^
through May 30^th^. The cost to the Colorado Boards of Grazing Advisors
from this reduction in AUMs would be \$149.85 in lost permit fees,
assuming all 888 AUMs are used for livestock grazing.

This 60% decrease in permitted AUMs could result in a decrease in
livestock-generated revenues to the applicant, assuming an alternative
location could not be found to seasonally graze the same number of
cattle. Furthermore, this decrease in permitted AUMs could also result
in a decrease to livestock-generated revenues to local goods-and
services providers. As noted, in Montezuma County gross cash receipts
for livestock and livestock products in 2001 totaled \$8,961,000, while
net cash receipts for all agricultural sales in the same year equaled
\$4,845,000 (Colorado Department of Agriculture 2002). The proportion
that the 1,318 AUMs not permitted to graze under this alternative could
contribute to this total is unknown.

Under this alternative existing resource conditions would improve
resulting in improvements in rangeland health conditions. With
improvements in land health resulting from this alternative, the
sustainability of livestock grazing on this allotment would be improved.
Subsequently, the economic viability of the applicant's livestock
operations could be improved as a result of a more productive,
sustainable rangeland being available for future use. Also, improving
the economic viability of the applicant's operations would support
preserving the ranching culture in Montezuma County.

**Alternative C - Grazing During Dormant Season**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under this alternative, 833 AUMs or 206 cattle would be authorized to
graze from November 15^th^ through February 28^th^. The cost to the
Colorado Boards of Grazing Advisors from this reduction in AUMs would be
\$231.69 in lost permit fees, assuming all 833 AUMs are used for
livestock grazing.

This 62% decrease in permitted AUMs could result in a decrease in
livestock-generated revenues to the applicant, assuming an alternative
location could not be found to seasonally graze the same number of
cattle. Furthermore, this decrease in permitted AUMs could also result
in a decrease to livestock-generated revenues to local goods-and
services providers. As noted, in Montezuma County gross cash receipts
for livestock and livestock products in 2001 totaled \$8,961,000, while
net cash receipts for all agricultural sales in the same year equaled
\$4,845,000 (Colorado Department of Agriculture 2002). The proportion
that the 1,373 AUMs not permitted to graze under this alternative could
contribute to this total is unknown.

Under this alternative existing resource conditions would improve
resulting in improvements in rangeland health conditions. With
improvements in land health resulting from this alternative, the
sustainability of livestock grazing on this allotment would be improved.
Subsequently, the economic viability of the applicant's livestock
operations could be improved as a result of a more productive,
sustainable rangeland being available for future use. Also, improving
the economic viability of the applicant's operations would support
preserving the ranching culture in Montezuma County.

**Alternative D - Rest 1/3 of Allotment Every Year**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under this alternative, 532 AUMs or anywhere from 80 -- 101 cattle would
be authorized to graze from November 15^th^ through May 15^th^. The cost
to the Colorado Boards of Grazing Advisors form this reduction in AUMs
would be \$282.48 in lost permit fees, assuming all 532 AUMs are used
for livestock grazing.

This 76% decrease in permitted AUMs could result in a significant
decrease in livestock-generated revenues to the applicant, assuming an
alternative location could not be found to seasonally graze the same
number of cattle. Furthermore, this decrease in permitted AUMs could
also result in a decrease to livestock-generated revenues to local
goods-and services providers. As noted, in Montezuma County gross cash
receipts for livestock and livestock products in 2001 totaled
\$8,961,000, while net cash receipts for all agricultural sales in the
same year equaled \$4,845,000 (Colorado Department of Agriculture 2002).
The proportion that the 1,674 AUMs not permitted to graze under this
alternative could contribute to this total is unknown.

Under this alternative existing resource conditions would improve
resulting in improvements in rangeland health conditions. With
improvements in land health resulting from this alternative, the
sustainability of livestock grazing on this allotment would be improved.
Subsequently, the economic viability of the applicant's livestock
operations could be improved as a result of a more productive,
sustainable rangeland being available for future use. Also, improving
the economic viability of the applicant's operations would support
preserving the ranching culture in Montezuma County.

**Alternative E - No Grazing**

***Direct and Indirect Impacts***

Under this alternative, the cost to the Colorado Boards of Grazing
Advisors would be the loss of \$372.26 from permit fees, assuming all
2,206 AUMs not permitted under this alternative would be used for
livestock grazing.

This 100% decrease in permitted AUMs would result in a significant
decrease in livestock-generated revenues to the applicant, assuming an
alternative location could not be found to seasonally graze the same
number of cattle. Furthermore, not permitting livestock grazing on this
allotment could also result in a decrease to livestock-generated
revenues to local goods-and services providers. As noted, in Montezuma
County gross cash receipts for livestock and livestock products in 2001
totaled \$8,961,000, while net cash receipts for all agricultural sales
in the same year equaled \$4,845,000 (Colorado Department of Agriculture
2002). The proportion that the 2,206 AUMs not permitted to graze
seasonally under this alternative could contribute to this total is
unknown.

**Cumulative Impacts**

All other resource values have been evaluated for cumulative impacts,
and were found to be negligible.

Ranching operations often operate close to the margin and their
profitability can be significantly affected by market conditions.
Federal land grazing plays an important and vital role in the economic
viability of those ranchers in Montezuma County who hold grazing
permits, and significant changes to the permitted livestock numbers
affect those operations.

Alternative E (No Grazing) would be the most detrimental alternative for
the applicant permittee because it would remove livestock grazing from
public land. The uncertainty of being able to find alternative pasture
lands, combined with fluctuating market conditions would adversely
affect the viability of the applicant permittees livestock operation.
Therefore, this alternative would contribute to an adverse cumulative
effect. Alternative A (No Action) would have no immediate effect to the
current livestock operation. However, current stocking levels would
eventually decrease the current resource conditions of the allotment and
eventually adversely effect the ranching operation. Therefore, the No
Action would contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on the long-term
sustainability of livestock grazing.

Alternatives B (Proposed Action; Deferred Grazing During the Critical
Period), C (Grazing During Dromant Season) and D (Rest 1/3 of Allotment
Every Year) would immediately affect the current livestock operation by
adjusting permitted livestock numbers and season of use. Of these three
alternatives the Proposed Action would have the least impact to the
permittee. Although these alternatives may immediately affect the
current permittee, the resource conditions of the allotment would
improve and provide for the long-term sustainability of livestock
grazing within the allotment. Therefore, Alternatives B and C would not
contribute to adverse cumulative economic effects because they would
ensure that livestock grazing would continue on the allotment.

**IV. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION**

**Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted**

A copy of the Environmental Assessment will be mailed directly to the
following for a 30-day comment period:

Glenna Harris

Dolores Board of County Commissioners

Montezuma Board of County Commissioners

Montezuma County Stewardship Committee

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Southwest Resource Advisory Council Monument Subgroup

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

**Native American Tribes will be Consulted Through Review of this
Environmental Assessment.**

The Northern Ute Tribe

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

The Southern Ute Tribe

The Navajo Nation

The Hopi Tribe

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe

The Pueblos of Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Picuris,
Pojoaque, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Sandia, San Felipe, San Juan, San
Ildefonso, Santa Clara, Tesuque, Taos, Zia, and Zuni.

**Public Notification**

Notification of the availability of the EA for a 30-day public comment
period will be made through the local media and Monument website.

(<http://www.co.blm.gov/canm/index.html>[).]{.underline}

**V. LIST OF PREPARES**

LouAnn Jacobson, Monument Manager

Michael Jensen, Rangeland Management Specialist

Kathy Nickell, Wildlife Biologist

Penny Wu, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Shauna Jensen, Hydrologist

Leslie Stewart, Ecologist

Linda Farnsworth, Archaeologist

Roger Baker, Noxious Weed Program Coordinator

**Appendix A**

**STANDARDS**

**FOR PUBLIC LAND HEALTH**

**AND**

**GUIDELINES**

**FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT**

**IN COLORADO**

January 1997

**Standards for Public Land Health**

**STANDARD 1:** *Upland soils* exhibit infiltration and permeability
rates that are appropriate to soil, type, climate, land form, and
geologic processes. Adequate soil infiltration and permeability allows
for accumulation of soil moisture necessary for optimal growth and
vigor, and minimizes surface runoff.

Indicators:

-   Expression of rills and soil pedestals is minimal.

-   Evidence of actively-eroding gullies (incised channels) is minimal.

-   Canopy and ground cover are appropriate.

-   There is litter accumulating in place and is not sorted by normal
    overland water flow.

-   There is appropriate organic matter in soil.

-   There is a diversity of plant species with a variety of root depths.

-   Upland swales have vegetation cover or density greater than that of
    adjacent uplands.

-   There are vigorous, desirable plants.

**STANDARD 2:** *Riparian systems* associated with both running and
standing water, function properly and have the ability to recover from
major disturbances such as fire, severe grazing, or 100-year floods.
Riparian vegetation captures sediment, and provides forage, habitat and
bio-diversity. Water quality is improved or maintained. Stable soils
store and release water slowly.

Indicators:

-   Vegetation is dominated by an appropriate mix of native or desirable
    introduced species.

-   Vigorous, desirable plants are present.

-   There is vegetation with diverse age class structure, appropriate
    vertical structure, and adequate composition, cover, and density.

-   Streambank vegetation is present and is comprised of species and
    communities that have root systems capable of withstanding high
    streamflow events.

-   Plant species present indicate maintenance of riparian moisture
    characteristics.

-   Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by
    the watershed (e.g., no headcutting, no excessive erosion or
    deposition).

-   Vegetation and free water indicate high water tables.

-   Vegetation colonizes point bars with a range of age classes and
    successional stages.

-   Active floodplain is present.

-   Residual floodplain vegetation is available to capture and retain
    sediment and dissipate flood energies.

-   Stream channels have appropriate size and meander patterns for the
    streams' position in the landscape, and parent materials.

-   Woody debris contributes to the character of the stream channel
    morphology.

**STANDARD 3:** *Healthy productive plant and animal communities* of
native and other desirable species are maintained at viable population
levels commensurate with the species and habitat's potential. Plant and
animals at both the community and population level are productive,
resilient, diverse, vigorous, and able to reproduce and sustain natural
fluctuations, and ecological processes.

Indicators:

-   Noxious weeds and undesirable species are minimal in the overall
    plant community.

-   Native plant and animal communities are spatially distributed across
    the landscape with a density, composition, and frequency of species
    suitable to ensure reproductive capability and sustainability.

-   Plants and animals are present in mixed age classes sufficient to
    sustain recruitment and mortality fluctuations.

-   Landscapes exhibit connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors
    to prevent habitat fragmentation.

-   Photosynthetic activity is evident throughout the growing season.

-   Diversity and density of plant and animal species are in balance
    with habitat/landscape potential and exhibit resilience to human
    activities.

-   Appropriate plant litter accumulates and is evenly distributed
    across the landscape.

-   Landscapes are composed of several plant communities that may be in
    a variety of successional stages and patterns.

**STANDARD 4:** *Special status, threatened and endangered species*
(federal and state), and other plants and animals officially designated
by the BLM, and their habitats are maintained or enhanced by sustaining
healthy, native plant and animal communities.

Indicators:

-   All the indicators associated with the plant and animal communities
    standard apply.

-   There are stable and increasing populations of endemic and protected
    species in suitable habitat.

-   Suitable habitat is available for recovery of endemic and protected
    species.

**STANDARD 5:** *The water quality* of all water bodies, including
ground water where applicable, located on or influenced by BLM lands
will achieve or exceed the Water Quality Standards established by the
State of Colorado, Water Quality Standards for surface and ground waters
include the designated beneficial uses, numeric criteria, narrative
criteria, and antidegradation requirements set forth under State law as
found in (5 CCR 1002-8), as required by Section 303© of the Clean Water
Act.

Indicators:

-   Appropriate populations of macroinvertabrates, vertebrates, and
    algae are present.

-   Surface and ground waters only contain substances (e.g., sediment,
    scum, floating debris, odor, heavy metal precipitates on channel
    substrate) attributable to humans within the amounts,
    concentrations, or combinations as directed by the Water Quality
    Standards established by the State of Colorado (5 CCR 1002-8).

**Colorado Livestock Grazing Management Guidelines**

1.  Grazing management practices promote plant health by providing for
    one or more of the following:

    -   Periodic rest or deferment from grazing during critical growth
        periods;

    -   Adequate recovery and regrowth periods; and

    -   Opportunity for seed dissemination and seedling establishment.

2.  Grazing management practices address the kind, numbers, and class of
    livestock, season, duration, distribution, frequency and intensity
    of grazing use and livestock health.

3.  Grazing management practices maintain sufficient residual vegetation
    on both upland and riparian sites to protect the soil from wind and
    water erosion, to assist in maintaining appropriate soil
    infiltration and permeability, and to buffer temperature extremes.
    In riparian areas, vegetation dissipates energy, captures sediment,
    recharges ground water, and contributes to stream stability.

4.  Native plant species and natural revegetation are emphasized in the
    support of sustaining ecological functions and site integrity. Where
    reseeding is required, on land treatment efforts, emphasis will be
    placed on using native plant species. Seeding of non-native species
    will be considered based on local goals, native seed availability
    and cost, persistence of non-native plants and annuals and noxious
    weeds on the site, and composition of non-natives in the seed mix.

5.  Range improvement projects are designed consistent with overall
    ecological functions and processes with minimum adverse impacts to
    other resources or uses of riparian/wetland and upland soils.

6.  Grazing management will occur in a manner that does not encourage
    the establishment or spread of noxious weeds. In addition to
    mechanical, chemical, and biological methods of weed control,
    livestock may be used where feasible as a tool to inhibit or stop
    the spread of noxious weeds.

7.  Natural occurrences such as fire, drought, flooding, and prescribed
    land treatments should be combined with livestock management
    practices to move toward the sustainability of biological diversity
    across the landscape, including the maintenance, restoration, or
    enhancement of habitat to promote and assist the recovery and
    conservation of threatened, endangered, or other special status
    species, by helping to provide natural vegetation patterns, a mosaic
    of successional stages, and vegetation corridors, and thus
    minimizing habitat fragmentation.

8.  Colorado Best Management Practices and other scientifically
    developed practices that enhance land and water quality should be
    used in the development of activity plans prepared for land uses.

> **Appendix B**
>
> **TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO ALTERNATIVES A, B, C & D.**
>
> **Resource/Livestock Management**

1.  The terms and conditions of this grazing permit could be modified if
    additional information indicates that a revision is necessary to
    conform with Title 43 CFR 4180, or if livestock use is jeopardizing
    cultural resources on public lands.

2.  All grazing use shall be in accordance with the grazing regulations
    found in 43 CFR 4100, and shall meet the requirements as described
    in Appendix A -- BLM Standards for Public Land Health in Colorado.
    All livestock grazing use shall be managed according to BLM
    Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado (Appendix
    A).

3.  During the dormant season livestock numbers may be increased to make
    use of the full amount of permitted AUMs during a shortened grazing
    season. These changes must be applied for and approved in advance of
    the grazing season.

4.  At a minimum periodic rest from livestock grazing must be provided
    at least 1 out of every 3 years during the critical growing season
    (March 1^st^ -- May 31^st^) unless there is a functioning rotational
    grazing system implemented that rest 1/3 of the allotment during
    this critical growing period every year.

5.  Utilization levels shall not exceed 50 percent on key forage species
    of current years growth as measured at the key monitoring sites.

6.  The placement of salt blocks, supplemental feed, water tanks,
    holding pens or other facilities on public lands requires prior
    authorization from BLM.

7.  Maintenance of all authorized structural range improvements and
    other projects (i.e. reservoirs, springs, corrals, etc.) would be
    the responsibility of the permittee to which it has been assigned.
    Maintenance would be in accordance with cooperative range
    improvement agreements and/or range improvement permits. Cultural
    resource inventories may be required prior to authorizing any
    maintenance activities.

8.  The permittee is responsible for informing all persons associated
    with their livestock operation that they are subject to prosecution
    for knowingly disturbing Native American shrines, historic and
    prehistoric archaeological sites, or for collecting artifacts of any
    kind, including historic items, and/or arrowheads and pottery shards
    from Federal lands.

9.  If archeological or historic sites are discovered during livestock
    operations on the allotment, the BLM would be notified as soon as
    possible so that further deterioration and resource loss can be
    prevented.

10. As provided for in Title 43 CFR 4130.3-2 (h), the permittee shall
    provide reasonable administrative access across private and leased
    lands to the BLM for the orderly management and protection of the
    public lands.

11. Livestock grazing use that is different from that authorized by a
    permit or lease must be applied for prior to the grazing period and
    must be filed with and approved by the authorized officer before
    grazing use can be made.

12. An accurate actual grazing use report showing use by pasture must be
    turned in within fifteen days after completing grazing use.

**Administrative**

13. No member of, or delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner,
    after his election or appointment, or either before or after he has
    qualified, and during his continuance in office, and no officer,
    agent, or employee of the Department of the Interior, other than
    members of advisory committees appointed in accordance with the
    Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1) and Sections 309 of
    the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701
    et seq.) shall be admitted to any share or part in a permit or
    lease, or derive any benefit to arise therefrom; and the provision
    of section 3741 Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 22; 18 U.S.C. Sections
    431-433, and 43 CFR Part 7), enter into and form a part of a grazing
    permit or lease, so far as the same may be applicable.

14. Grazing fee payments are due on the date specified on the billing
    notice and must be paid in full within fifteen days of the due date,
    except as otherwise provided in the grazing permit or lease. If
    payment is not made within that time frame, a late fee (the greater
    of \$25 or 10 percent of the amount owed but not more than \$250)
    would be assessed.

15. Billing notices are issued which specify fees due. Billing notices,
    when paid, become a part of the grazing permit or lease. Grazing use
    cannot be authorized during any period of delinquency in the payment
    of amounts due. Including settlement for unauthorized use.

16. Grazing permit or lease terms and conditions and the fees charged
    for grazing use are established in accordance with all the
    provisions of the grazing regulations now or hereafter approved by
    the Secretary of the Interior.

17. This grazing permit/lease is subject to cancellation, in whole or in
    part, at any time because of:

> a\. Noncompliance by the permittee/lessee with rules and regulations.
>
> b\. Loss of control by the permittee/lessee of all or part of the
> property upon
>
> which it is based.
>
> c\. A transfer of grazing preference by the permittee/lessee to
> another party.
>
> d\. A decrease in the lands administered by the BLM within the
> allotment(s)
>
> described.
>
> e\. Repeated wilfull unauthorized grazing use.

18. Those holding permits or leases must own or control and be
    responsible for the management of livestock authorized to graze.

19. The permittees/lessees grazing case file is available for public
    inspection as required by the Freedom of Information Act.

20. Grazing permits or leases are subject to the nondiscrimination
    clauses set forth in Executive order 11246 of September 24, 1964, as
    amended. A copy of this order may be obtained from the authorized
    officer.

21. The authorized officer may require counting and/or additional or
    special marking or tagging of the livestock authorized to graze.

> **Appendix C**
>
> **PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION DEFINITIONS**

-   Riparian areas are functioning properly (PFC) when there is adequate
    vegetation and landform structure present to dissipate stream energy
    from high flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water
    quality, filtering sediment, aiding floodplain development,
    improving flood water retention and ground water recharge,
    developing root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting
    action, developing pools and channel characteristics necessary for
    fish production (where applicable) and other uses, and supporting
    greater biodiversity.

-   Riparian areas are functional-at-risk (FAR) when they are
    functioning properly but an existing soil, water, or vegetative
    attribute make them susceptible to degradation.

-   Non-functioning (NFC) are streams where the lack of floodplain and
    riparian vegetation reduce the streams' ability to dissipate water
    energy; thus, every major flow event can have serious impacts such
    as down-cutting, and excessive siltation.

**Appendix D**

**LITERATURE CITED**

Anderson, John L. and J. Mark Porter. 1994. *Astragalus tortipes*
(*Fabaceae*), a New Species from Desert Badlands in Southwestern
Colorado and its Phylogenetic Relationships within *Astragalus*.
Systematic Botany19 (1) pp 116 -- 123.

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds. Denver Museum of
Natural History. 442 pp.

Belnap, Jayne, R. Rosentreter, Steve Leonard, J. H. Kaltrenecker, J.
Williams and D. Eldridge, 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and
Management, USDI, BLM -- National Science and Technology Center, 2001.
Technical Reference 1730-2.

BLM, 2001. State Director's Interim Management for Canyons of the
Ancients National Monument.

BLM, 2002. Interim Management for all National Monuments.

Brock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1992. Effects of
livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North
America in Finch, D.M. and P.W. Stangel, eds. 1993. Status and
management of neotropical migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes
Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 422 pp.

Branson, Ferrel A. G.F. Gifford, K.G. Renard, and R.F. Hadley, 1981.
Rangeland Hydrology. Society for Range Management, Range Science Series,
second edition.

Chaney, Ed, Wayne Elmore and William S. Platts, 1993. Managing Change,
Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Clary, Warren P. and Dean E. Medin, 1990. Differences in Vegetation
Biomass and Structure Due to Cattle Grazing in a Northern Nevada
Riparian Ecosystem. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station,
Research Paper INT-427.

Clinton, William B. 2000. A Proclamation, Establishing Canyons of the
Ancients National Monument.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program Rare, Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive Species Overlays and Accompanying Reports (CNHP), 1994.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality
Control Division. 2006. Status of Water Quality in Colorado 2006.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of
Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of
Colorado. 467 pp.

Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. University
Press of Colorado. 484 pp.

Holechek, Jerry L., Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbel, 1998. Range
Management Principles and Practices, third edition.

L. Stewart, BLM Ecologist and C. Stewart, Forest Service Range
Specialist, personal communication.

National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Rangeland health: new methods to
classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. National Academy Press,
Washington DC. National Research Council.

Pellant Mike, P. Shaver, D. A. Pyke and J. E. Herrick, 2000. USDI, BLM
-- National Science and Technology Center, Technical Reference 1734-6,
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, version 3.

Preston, C.R. 1998. in Kingery, H.E., editor. Colorado breeding atlas.
Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 636
pp.

Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock
grazing effects in western North America. In Martin, T.E. and D.M.
Finch, editors. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds a
synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press. 489
pp.

Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and
C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program.

United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land
Management. 1997. Environmental Assessment, Decision Record and Finding
of No Significant Impact, Standard for Public Land Health and Guidelines
for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Record of Decision for the San
Juan-San Miguel Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Montrose District, Colorado.

United States Department Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 1997. Soil Survey of Cortez Area, Colorado, Parts of Dolores
and Montezuma Counties.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interpreting Indicators of
Rangeland Health, Version 3, Technical Reference 1734-6.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Riparian Area Management, Process
for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR 1737-9.

Western Regional Climate Center, National Weather Service Cooperative
Network - Precipitation Records.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic Management
for Rangelands Not at Equilibrium. Journal of Range Management.
42:266-274.

Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's little fish guide to the minnows and
lesser known fishes in the state of Colorado. Colorado Division of
Wildlife. 77pp.