Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 9 

RANGE CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY

Using the Intermountain Region Protocol, Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations 

for Forest Plan Revisions (USDA Forest Service, 1998b), capability and suitability analyses were 

completed. The capability analysis focuses on the ability of the land to support livestock 

grazing, while the suitability focuses on the appropriateness of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Criteria Used in Determination of Capable Rangeland Acres 

The capability analysis identified areas with the physical characteristics conducive to livestock 

grazing. Capable Forest rangelands were considered to have the following characteristics: 

• Capable of producing at least 200 pounds of forage per acre on an annual basis. 

• Having a dominant land slope gradient of less than 30 percent (sheep or cattle). 

• Having a dominant land slope gradient of less than 45 percent (sheep only). 

• Being within 1 mile of a surface water source. 

The methodology employed involved manipulation of various data layers within the Forest 

corporate GIS database. Data from the following GIS layers were used in this analysis: 

• Digital Elevation Model (DEM) layer 

• Cartographic Features File (CFF) for surface water features 

• Forest vegetation layer 

The DEM layer was used to determine slope breaks on the landscapes (0-30 percent for sheep 

and cattle, 31-45 percent for sheep only, and greater than 45 percent, which is generally not used 

by any class of livestock). The CFF file was used to determine distance to surface water. During 

the analysis, it became clear that the CFF layer did not contain all surface water sources known 

to exist on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains (many potholes), which resulted in the model 

understating capable range for that area. We therefore elected to drop the surface water source 

proximity criteria for modeling capable range in this area. Because the CFF was more accurate 

for all other areas, that criteria was retained for modeling capable range on the remainder of the 

forest. The vegetation layer was used as a surrogate for minimum forage production. In general, 

coniferous-forested vegetation types (spruce, fir, pine, Douglas-fir), oak, and barren areas were 

said to not produce the minimum 200 lbs/acre of forage. All other types were included as 

potential forage-producing types. While it is possible that some areas included in those types 

identified as not being able to produce 200 lbs/acre do produce that much, other acres noted as 

being able to produce that amount, do not (for example, low sagebrush rarely produces 200 

lbs/acre). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 2 

Criteria Used in Determination of Suitable Rangeland Acres 

Using the Intermountain Region Protocol, Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations 

for Forest Plan Revisions (USDA Forest Service, 1998b), criteria were reviewed and tailored to 

local conditions for a suitability assessment. This section discusses the criteria used in the 

determination of rangeland suitable acres for each of the seven alternatives. 

A review of the definitions and suggested considerations contained in the Regional Protocol was 

completed. Each Ranger District was assessed for how suitability might vary by alternative, 

given the intent of each alternative. Criteria suggested in the protocol were evaluated in 

conjunction with a review of local knowledge, data from monitoring, previous analyses of 

rangeland management such as Allotment Management planning, and discussions with each 

District Range Conservationist about potential suitability considerations that might be varied by 

alternative. In some cases, while a criterion seemed relevant, it was determined that there was 

not sufficient data to apply to analysis needed to support suitability differences by alternative. 

An example of this was the protocol criterion “noxious weed infestations where forage is not 

used by livestock or use would contribute to increase of the infestation.” A review of each 

District’s information regarding noxious weed infestations did not yield a direct relationship to 

livestock grazing in particular and thus it was agreed that this criterion would not be useful in our 

analysis. 

After considerable discussion and review of available data, analyses, and approaches to 

suitability, it was agreed that all capable rangelands within existing open allotments would be 

considered to be suitable except where the following conditions exist and these would be applied 

based on the nature of the alternative to blend with other aspects of the management direction 

there. Table B9-1 shows the outcome of applying the following factors in the determination of 

rangeland suitability by alternative. 

• Incompatible Uses: Presence of developed recreation sites and research natural areas 

(RNA’s). No proposed or existing RNA’s (including Red Butte, Mollens Hollow, and 

Morris Creek) have acres within any allotments. 

• Upland Range Conditions: Presence of upland rangelands in unsatisfactory condition 

(those not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives). The EIS interdisciplinary team 

determined that for Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 these areas should not be part of the suitable 

rangeland base for the forest. For Alternative 7, these acres remain suitable, but are grazed at 

30-40 percent, rather than 50 percent. 

• Riparian Range Conditions: Presence of riparian rangelands in unsatisfactory condition 

(those not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives). The EIS interdisciplinary team 

determined that for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 these areas should not be a part of the suitable 

rangeland base for the forest. As with the upland areas in unsatisfactory condition, for 

Alternative 7, these acres remain suitable, but are grazed at 30-40 percent, rather than 50 

percent. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 3 

• Vacant Allotments- There are 12 allotments within the Forest that are currently vacant (i.e. 

there are no current Term Grazing Permits for these allotments). The EIS interdisciplinary 

team determined that for Alternatives 1 and 2 all vacant allotments would be closed and 

capable acres within them removed from the suitable rangeland base for the forest. The team 

determined that for Alternatives 6 only the three vacant sheep allotments in the Uinta 

Mountains (Burro, Thompson, and West Beaver) would be closed for bighorn sheep habitat 

and their capable acres removed from the suitable base. Alternative 7 closes these three 

vacant allotments as well as five allotments (Clegg, Hardscrabble, Mill Canyon, Shingle Mill 

and Wright) in the Davis and Salt Lake County watersheds. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 close no 

vacant allotments. 

• Cutthroat Trout Habitat Needs- For Alternative 2 only, portions of 6th order HUCs 

(watersheds) within allotments that have known populations of Bonneville or Colorado 

cutthroat trout, and that have 20 acres or more of riparian areas reported in the INFRA 

database as not meeting or moving toward Forest Plan objectives (unsatisfactory condition), 

were removed from the suitable acres. These acres are within the following Allotments: 

Logan Canyon, Middle Fork, Black Fork Cattle, North Rich, Gilbert Creek, Black Fork Stock 

Driveway, East Fork Smiths Fork, Poison Mountain, Walker, West Fork Smiths Fork, 

Woodruff, and Three Mile. 

One of the documented conflicts with livestock use on the Forest is from backcountry recreation 

users, often in designated Wilderness Areas. This has lead to suggestions that Wilderness areas 

be considered as not suitable for livestock grazing. Section 303 of the Utah Wilderness Act of 

1984 noted that recreation conflicts alone would not be the determining factor in the removal of 

livestock from those newly established Wilderness Areas, however, resource conditions could be 

cause for reductions in livestock numbers. Wilderness status was therefore not deemed 

appropriate as a criterion for rangeland suitability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 4 

Table B9-1. Analysis used for determining rangeland suitability by alternative. 

Criteria Alt1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Total Forest Capable Acres 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900

Capable Acres Within Currently 

Open (Active and Vacant) 

Allotments 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700

Developed Rec. Sites Within 

Currently Open Allotments 1

 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700

Capable Acres Within Currently 

Open Allotments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000

Capable Acres Removed within 

Vacant Allotments Closed for 

Maintaining Resource Conditions 2 -10,392 -10,392 0 0 0 0 -2,453

Capable Acres Removed within 

Vacant Allotments Closed For 

Bighorn Sheep 3

 -7,760 -7,760 0 0 0 -7,760 -7,760

Uplands Acres Removed- Not 

Meeting FP Objectives 4

 -16,200 -16,200 0 0 0 -16,200 0

Riparian Acres Removed- Not 

Meeting FP Objectives 4

 -2,100 -2,100 -2,100 0 0 -2,100 0

Acres Removed for Cutthroat Trout 

Management 5

 0 -26,000 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suitable Acres 263,548 237,548 297,900 300,000 300,000 273,940 289,787

Percent of Capable Within 

Currently Open Allotments 

(302,700 acres) 87.8% 79.2% 99.3% 100.0% 100.0% 91.3% 96.6%

1 Information from Forest Corporate GIS database. 2

 Alternatives 1 and 2 close all vacant allotments and Alternative 7 closes those vacant allotments (Clegg, Hardscrabble, Mill 

Canyon, Shingle Mill and Wright) within the Salt Lake and Davis County watersheds for watershed condition maintenance. 3

 Vacant allotments (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) closed for bighorn sheep health purposes. This would 

reduce suitable acres by 7,800 acres. 4

 Information extrapolated from monitored areas (INFRA database) and applied forest-wide. 5

 Entire watershed acres removed within allotments with both known cutthroat trout populations and reported riparian acres in 

unsatisfactory condition.

Potential Future Changes in Suitable Acres - In addition to the closure of vacant allotments in 

the Eastern Uintas Management Area (Burro Peaks, Thompson Peak, and West Beaver) for 

bighorn sheep habitat, Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 allow for the future closure of Gilbert Peak, 

Henry's Fork-Hessie Lake, & Red Castle Allotments should those permits be voluntarily waived 

without preference. This would reduce suitable acres by 9,500 acres. Alternative 7 allows for 

these, as well as East Fork Blacks Fork, West Fork Blacks Fork, East Fork Bear River, and 

Stillwater allotments to be closed if permits are voluntarily waived without preference. This 

would reduce suitable acres by 9,800 acres (for a total of 19,300 acres) with the associated 

benefit being reduced risk for disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep as well 

as watershed protection and establishment of ungrazed benchmarks. Given that these Allotment 

closures would be based strictly on voluntary actions by permit holders, net effects on permittee 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 5 

operations would be expected to be positive. (Otherwise permittees could choose not to take this 

action). These wildlife and ungrazed resource condition values are foregone in Alternatives 3, 4, 

and 5. 

 

Calculations of Projected AUMs

Projected outputs in Animal Unit Months were calculated using factors that would yield the most 

realistic possible results. Data on actual use for the 10-year period 1991 to 1999 (Table B9-3) 

shows that there can be quite a range of outputs from grazing in the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. Permitted numbers have been consistently higher than actual use but also have varied 

significantly over the same time period. 

Table B9-3. Average AUMs for the period of 1990 to 1999, based on actual use 

Sheep AUMs Cattle AUM's Total AUMs Difference 

Percent 

Authorized 

vs. Permitted

Year Permitted Authorized Permitted Authorized Permitted Authorized Sheep Cattle Sheep Cattle

1990 32,965 29,139 44,785 39,165 77,750 68,304 3,826 5,620 88% 87% 

1991 34,118 30,754 46,357 34,366 80,475 65,120 3,364 11,991 90% 74% 

1992 31,277 24,341 45,136 37,254 76,413 61,595 6,936 7,882 78% 83% 

1993 36,762 24,501 42,759 36,989 79,521 61,490 12,261 5,770 67% 87% 

1994 34,389 26,828 44,013 32,874 78,402 59,702 7,561 11,139 78% 75% 

1995 31,615 21,579 39,798 33,393 71,413 54,972 10,036 6,405 68% 84% 

1996 17,321 14,348 27,146 15,850 44,467 30,198 2,973 11,296 83% 58% 

1997 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

1998 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

1999 29,555 24,879 41,692 37,774 71,247 62,653 4,676 3,918 85% 91% 

10 year 

maximum 36,762 30,754 46,357 39,165 83,119 69,919 12,261 11,991 90% 91% 

10 year 

minimum 17,321 14,348 27,146 15,850 44,467 30,198 2,973 3,918 67% 58% 

10 year 

average 30,711 24,613 41,507 34,321 72,218 58,934 6,098 7,186 80% 82% 

Given this, we decided to use the 10-year average of AUMs along with the suitable acres 

actually grazed during that period as a baseline. To identify suitable acres for these calculations 

we started with total capable acres within open allotments and subtracted developed recreation 

site acres and vacant allotment acres because neither of these produced grazing outputs. This left 

a total of 281,848 suitable acres. The 281,848 suitable acres divided by the 10-year average of 

58,934 AUMs provided an average “suitable acres per AUM” of 4.78. If each AUM produced 

requires an average of 4.78 acres, then the number of suitable acres that would be grazed in each 

alternative divided by this number would yield projected outputs by alternative. The forage 

utilization allowance assumption was 50% as adopted from the 1998 Rangeland Health 

Amendment. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 6 

Table B9-2 shows suitable acre calculations used to determine projected outputs (AUMs) by 

alternative. Vacant allotments have not been stocked and are not expected to be stocked within 

the planning period, so they have had no effect on actual outputs. 

Table B9-2. Suitable rangeland acres used for determination of AUMs by alternative 

Criteria Alt1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Total Forest Capable Acres1 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900 369,900

Capable Acres Within Currently 

Open (Active and Vacant) 

Allotments1

 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700 302,700

Developed Rec. Sites within 

Currently Open Allotments1 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700 -2,700

Remaining Capable Acres Within 

Currently Open Allotments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000

Vacant Allotments1 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152 -18,152

Upland Acres Removed for Not 

Meeting Forest Plan Direction2 -16,200 -16,200 0 0 0 -16,200 0

Riparian Acres Removed for Not 

Meeting FP Objectives2 -2,100 -2,100 -2,100 0 0 -2,100 0

Acres Removed for Cutthroat Trout 

Management3 0 -26,000 0 0 0 0 0

Total Suitable Acres 263,548 237,548 279,748 281,848 281,848 263,548 281,848

1

Information from Forest Corporate GIS database 

2

Information from monitored areas (INFRA database) and extrapolated forest wide 3

Entire watershed acres removed within existing allotments that have both known cutthroat trout 

populations and reported acres of riparian areas (estimated or verified) as not meeting forest plan 

objectives (desired conditions) 

.For Alternatives 1-6, the determination of projected AUMs (Table B9-4) was based on 

dividing the suitable acres for each alternative by 4.78 acres/AUM. 

For Alternative 7, acres of riparian and upland rangelands in unsatisfactory condition were 

given a lower output projection (i.e. more acres necessary to produce 1 AUM) because these 

areas have a lower forage utilization allowance in this Alternative. In all other Alternatives, the 

utilization allowance is 50% on suitable lands. In Alternative 7 the forage utilization allowance 

is 30-40% for those areas in unsatisfactory condition (16,200 acres of upland and 2,100 acres of 

riparian) and 50% for areas in satisfactory condition (263,548 acres). The average acres per 

AUM is 6.72 . Outputs for this alternative were based on dividing each of the acreages (263,548 

acres of satisfactory and 16,200 acres of unsatisfactory) by the appropriate acres per AUM (4.78 

for satisfactory and 6.72 for unsatisfactory). Given these acres, a total of 57,867 AUMs are 

estimated under this alternative (263,548 acres divided by 4.78 acres/AUM, plus 18,300 acres 

divided by 6.70 acres/AUM on unsatisfactory rangelands). Forest-wide, cattle are 58 percent of 

total AUMs, and sheep are 42 percent of total AUMs 

It is recognized that vacant allotments have forage that could potentially increase projected 

AUMs. However, recent budget trends do not allow the Forest Service to administer and plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 7 

for proper grazing use of currently active allotments. Therefore the probability of conducting the 

site-specific environmental analysis necessary to reintroduce livestock grazing to vacant 

allotments within the planning period is so low that we felt it would be misleading to include 

increases in AUMs based on the stocking of vacant allotments. 

Table B9-4. Projected outputs (AUMs) by alternative. Alternatives 1-6 are based on 50 percent 

use on suitable rangelands. Alternative 7 is based on 30 percent use on unsatisfactory condition 

rangelands and 50 percent use on satisfactory condition rangelands. 

Livestock 

10-Year 

Average 

AUMs 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 2

Suitable acres 281,848 263,548 237,548 279,748 281,848 281,848 263,548 281,848

Satisfactory Condition 263,548

Unsatisfactory Condition 3 18,300

Total Average AUMs 55,136 49,696 58,525 58,934 58,934 55,136 57,859

Cattle AUMs 34,300 31,979 28,824 33,944 34,182 34,182 31,979 33,563

Sheep AUMs 24,600 23,157 20,872 24,580 24,752 24,752 23,157 24,304

Total AUMs 58,900 55,136 49,696 58,525 58,934 58,934 55,136 57,867

1

Average Authorized AUMS

2

For Alternative 7, 4.78 acres/AUM on satisfactory range, 6.70 acres/AUM on unsatisfactory range 3

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands extrapolated from areas of the forest where those data have been estimated or 

verified and applied forest wide 

For Alternatives that provide for closure of sheep allotments currently actively grazed (as 

opposed to the Three vacant Allotments with bighorn sheep habitat-Burro Peaks, Thompson 

Peak, and West Beaver) on the North Slope Uinta Mountains (in the event of voluntary waiver of 

permits without preference), the capable acres within those allotments (Gilbert Peak, Henry’s 

Fork-Hessie Lake, and Red Castle for Alternative 6 and these plus East Fork Blacks Fork, West 

Fork Blacks Fork, Stillwater, and East Fork Bear River for alternative 7) were assumed to 

continue to provide outputs given the uncertainty of future voluntary waivers. 

Source of Data: 

Capable acres were determined from the Forest corporate GIS database and included percent 

slope determined by the digital elevation model, as well as the vegetation and hydrology GIS 

layers. Ten years of data (1990 – 1999) from the RAMIS database were used to determine the 

10-year maximum, 10-year minimum, and 10-year mean AUMs permitted and authorized. From 

these, the AUMs by alternative were determined.

Ten years of permitted and authorized AUM data (1990–1999) is from the RAMIS database, 

which were used to determine the 10-year maximum, 10-year minimum, and 10-year averages. 

From these, the AUMs by alternative were determined. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 8 

Economic Suitability Analysis 

The following analysis meets the requirements for an economic suitability analysis for livestock 

grazing on the Forest. It gives additional information to the deciding official regarding 

allocation of lands to livestock grazing management. The AUMs and suitable acres used in the 

economic analysis are from those determined for each alternative in Table B9-4 above. 

Table B9-5 shows the Forest Service component of the economic efficiency information for each 

alternative. Revenues to the Forest Service in 2002 were $1.43 per head-month of cattle and 

$0.29 per head-month of sheep. The revenues per acre, therefore, are the revenues/AUM 

multiplied by the number of AUMs, divided by the number of suitable acres by alternative. 

These revenues are between $0.28 and $0.30 per acre. The Forest Service budget expenditures 

were determined for each alternative using the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool 

(FEAST) and from this, the costs to the Forest Service per suitable acre by alternative were 

determined. These values ranged from $1.27 to $1.43. Range revenues to the Forest Service, 

based on revenues per head-month, ranged from $51,396 to $60,953 and net benefits per acre 

range from –$ 1.06 to –$1.21. 

Table B9-6 shows the Permittee component of the economic efficiency information for each 

alternative. In this portion of the analysis, example costs to permittee (sheep and cattle) are 

estimated based on an example provided by the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado. While 

these costs will vary from area to area, and from permittee to permittee, they are used as a means 

to assess potential total costs per AUM (Forest Service costs plus permittee costs). Because 

these costs are fixed they do not vary by alternative. Costs to manage sheep are greater than for 

cattle because of the costs associated with hiring herders. In addition to wages, these include 

workman’s compensation, health insurance, food and supplies, dog food, etc. In the examples 

provided below, total costs per AUM were $16.81 for sheep and $11.49 cattle. 

Note: Appeal decision for the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado (USDA Forest Service 

2001e). In this Decision on the topic of Livestock Grazing Capability And Suitability 

Determination, the Forest Service Chief stated “I do not... agree with appellant’s contention that 

if the suitability determination reveals that non-grazing values outweigh grazing values, the area 

should in all instances be deemed unsuitable for livestock grazing.” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 9 

Table B9-5. Summary of the FS Component of the Economic Analysis for Livestock Grazing 

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

AUMs-Cattle 31,980 28,820 33,940 34,180 34,180 31,980 33,560 

AUMs-Sheep 23,160 20,870 24,580 24,750 24,750 23,160 24,300 

AUMs Total 55,140 49,690 58,520 58,930 58,930 55,140 57,860 

Head-Months – Cattle 24,227 21,833 25,712 25,894 25,894 24,227 25,424 

Head-Months – Sheep 77,200 69,567 81,933 82,500 82,500 77,200 81,000 

Head-Months – Total 101,427 91,400 107,645 108,394 108,394 101,427 106,424

Suitable Acres in Active Cattle 

Allotments (55% of total) 144,951 130,651 153,861 155,016 155,016 144,951 155,016

Suitable Acres in Active Sheep 

Allotments (45% of total) 118,597 106,897 125,887 126,832 126,832 118,597 126,832

Total Suitable Acres 

in Active Allotments 263,548 237,548 279,748 281,848 281,848 273,900 281,848

Acres/Head-Month – Cattle 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.99 5.99 5.98 6.10 

Acres/Head-Month – Sheep 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.57 

Acres/Head-Month – Total 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.65 

Head-Months/Suitable Acre 

Cattle 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 

Head-Months/Suitable Acre 

Sheep 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 

Total Head-Months/ 

Total Suitable Acre 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 

Acres per Total AUM 

(Sheep + Cattle) 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 (sat) 

6.7(unsat)

AUMs/Suitable Acre 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 

Forest Service Revenues and Costs

Revenue/Head-Month - Cattle 

(2002 fees/Head-Month) $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 

Revenues/Head-Month - Sheep $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 

Revenues/Acre - Cattle $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.131 $ 0.129 

Revenues/Acre - Sheep $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.085 $ 0.083 

Cattle + Sheep 

Head-Month Revenues/Acre $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.216 $ 0.212 

FS Budget Expenditures (dollars) by 

the Range Program: 4 $340,000 $340,000 $391,000 $378,000 $391,000 $359,000 $359,000

Forest Service Costs/Acre 5 $1.29 $1.43 $1.40 $1.34 $1.39 $1.36 $1.27 

Range Revenues – Cattle $34,645 $31,222 $36,768 $37,028 $37,028 $34,645 $36,357

Range Revenues – Sheep $22,388 $20,174 $23,761 $23,925 $23,925 $22,388 $23,490

Total Range Revenues 4 $57,033 $51,396 $60,529 $60,953 $60,953 $57,033 $59,847

Net Revenues per Acre 6 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.21 

Net Benefits per Acre 7 - $1.07 - $1.21 - $1.18 - $1.12 - $1.17 - $1.15 - $1.06 

1

 In Alternatives 1-6, which apply a 50 percent utilization rate on all rangelands, it was calculated that 4.8 acres are 

required to support an AUM. Alternative 7 applies this 50 percent utilization rate on satisfactory condition rangelands 

and a 30-40 % utilization rate on unsatisfactory condition rangelands. This results in 6.7 acres/AUM on 

unsatisfactory rangelands. 2 Revenues/AUM = Fees collected in 2002 per head-month (sheep = $0.29; cattle = $1.43) converted to fees per AUM 3

 Revenues/Acre = Revenues/AUM multiplied by AUMs/Suitable Acres

4

 From FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool) used in economic analysis for forest plan (on file) 

5 Cost/Acre = FS Budget Expenditures by the Range Program divided by Acres Capable and Suitable 

6 Net Revenues/Acre = Range Revenues divided by Acres Capable and Suitable 

7 Net Benefits/Acre = Net Revenues/Acre minus Cost/Acre 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 10 

Table B9-6. Summary of the Permittee Component of the Economic Analysis for Livestock 

Grazing8

Sheep: for 1000 head, example head-months = 3,000 

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Herder wages $700/ month $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 

Workman’s comp $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 $ 192 

Health insurance $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 

Food and supplies for camp $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 

Two horses $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 $ 315 

Camp $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 

Horseshoeing $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 

Tack $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 

Dog food $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 

Camp Tender $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 

4 pack mules 

(divided by four herds) $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ 375 

Pond maintenance $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 

Predator loss 

(3% of 1150 lambs @ $85) $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 

Stray loss 

(3% of 1150 @ $85) $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 $ 2,932 

Ewe stray loss 

(2% of 1000 ewes @ $120/ewe) $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 

Vehicles $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 

Total $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 $15,281 

Per Head-Month in this example $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 $ 5.09 

Cattle: for 1250 head, example AUMs = 4,377 

Permittees plus pool rider = 

3 @ $2000/ month x 4 months $24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000

Workman’s comp (15%) $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 3,600

6 horses x $2,500/10yr. $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500

Salt/ mineral supplement 

(2 ton/month x $600/ton) $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800

Vehicle/ATV $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Range Improvement Maintenance 

Materials $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 

Labor (3 weeks = $ 1,500) 

In pool rider salary $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 

Vet Bills $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 

2% death loss @ 

$500/head (25 head) $12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $12,500 

Total $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 $50,300 

Per Head-Month in this example $11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $ 11.49 $11.49 

8 Because AUMs are adjusted in direct proportion to suitable acres, the summary by alternative does not vary by 

alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B9 - 11 

Table B9-8 shows, by alternative, the costs per acre for permittees to graze cattle and sheep on 

the Forest. This illustrates a range from $2.12 to $2.16 for cattle and $3.44 to $3.51 for sheep. 

Table B9-8 illustrates that the total costs per acre (permittee plus Forest Service) to graze 

livestock on National Forest lands. These costs range from $8.10/acre in Alternative 7 to 

$8.52/acre in Alternative 2. 

Table B9-7 Permittee Cost Per Acre for Grazing Cattle and Sheep by Alternative

Summary by Alternative – Cattle 

Permit $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.23 

Non-Permit $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 1.88 

Total $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.16 $ 2.12 

Summary by Alternative – Sheep 

Permit $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 

Non-Permit $ 3.32 $ 3.31 $ 3.32 $ 3.31 $ 3.31 $ 3.32 $ 3.35 

Total $ 3.50 $ 3.50 $ 3.51 $ 3.50 $ 3.50 $ 3.51 $ 3.44 

Table B9-8. Total Cost (Forest Service & Permittee) Per Acre for Grazing Livestock by Alternative

Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 

Total Cost/Acre – Cattle $3.45 $3.59 $3.56 $3.50 $3.55 $3.52 $3.39 

Total Cost/Acre – Sheep $4.79 $4.93 $4.90 $4.84 $4.89 $4.87 $4.71 

Total Costs/Acre $8.24 $8.52 $8.46 $8.34 $8.44 $8.39 $8.10 

Note: Permit Administration costs per allotment increase as numbers decrease because Congress 

fixes dollars allocated to administer permits and, in general, there are insufficient funds to 

manage all allotments to standard.