Physiographic features

This site occurs on summit and shoulder positions on hillslope and fan remnant landforms at elevations between 5,700 and 7,000 feet. The slopes typically range from 10 to 45 percent, but the site could be found on any slope or aspect. Flooding and ponding do not occur on this site.

Landscape Definition:
hills -- A landscape dominated by hills and associated valleys.

valley -- An elongate, relatively large, externally drained depression of the Earth's surface that is primarily developed by stream erosion or glacial activity.

Landform Definition:
hillslope -- A generic term for the steeper part of a hill between its summit and the drainage line, valley flat, or depression floor at the base of the hill.

ridge -- A long, narrow elevation of the land surface, usually sharp crested with steep sides and forming an extended upland between valleys. The term is used in areas of both hill and mountain relief.

summit - (a) The topographically highest position of a hillslope profile with a nearly level (planar or only slightly convex) surface. Compare - shoulder, backslope, footslope, and toeslope, crest. (b) A general term for the top, or highest area of a landform such as a hill, mountain, or tableland. It usually refers to a high interfluve area of relatively gentle slope that is flanked by steeper slopes, e.g., mountain fronts or tableland escarpments.

shoulder - The hillslope profile position that forms the convex, erosional surface near the top of a hillslope. If present, it comprises the transition zone from summit to backslope. Compare - summit, crest, backslope, footslope, and toeslope.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Climatic features

Annual precipitation in the Bear River Valley ranges from 10 to 14 inches per year. Wide fluctuations may occur in yearly precipitation and result in more below average years than those with above average precipitation. Temperatures show a wide range between summer and winter and between daily maximums and minimums. This is predominantly due to the high elevation and dry air, which permits rapid incoming and outgoing radiation. Cold air outbreaks in winter move rapidly from northwest to southeast and account for extreme minimum temperatures. Roughly 25 to 30 percent of the precipitation occurs during the critical growth period, but the majority of precipitation accumulates outside the growing season, creating xeric-like conditions. The wettest rainfall month is May. The dominant plants (sagebrush and cool season grasses) are well adapted to these conditions. Daytime winds are generally stronger than nighttime and occasional strong storms may bring brief periods of high winds with gusts to more than 50 mph. The growing season is short (60 to 90 days) and cool (critical growth period): primary growth typically occurs between May and June. Growth of native cool-season plants begins about mid-April and continues to approximately early July. Some green-up of cool-season plants usually occurs in September with adequate fall moisture.

All data is based on the 30 year average from 1981through 2010.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Climate stations used

• (1) WOODRUFF [USC00429595], Woodruff, UT

• (2) RANDOLPH [USC00427165], Randolph, UT

• (3) SAGE 4 NNW [USC00487955], Cokeville, WY

Influencing water features

There are no influencing water features associated with this ecological site.

Wetland description

N/A

Soil features

The soils of this site are moderately deep to deep (20 to 60 inches) and formed in slope alluvium and colluvium derived from limestone, sandstone, and conglomerate rocks. Surface and subsurface textures are gravelly loams and sandy loams. Rock fragments are usually high on the soil surface and throughout the soil profile. These soils are well drained to somewhat excessively well-drained and permeability is moderate to moderately-rapid.
The soil moisture regime is xeric and the soil temperature regime is frigid.

Major Soil Series correlated to this site include: Chausse, Cooley, and St. Marys
Taxonomy: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic Calcixerepts; Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Calcic Haploxerolls; and Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Calcic Haploxerepts

Table 4. Representative soil features

Animal community

The following table lists suggested stocking rates for cattle under continuous season-long grazing under normal growing conditions with a harvest efficiency (HE) of 25 percent. These are conservative estimates that should be used only as guidelines in the initial stages of the conservation planning process. Often, the current plant composition does not entirely match any particular plant community (as described in this ecological site description). A field visit is required to document actual plant composition and production. More precise carrying capacity estimates, considering forage preference and accessibility (slope, distance to water, etc.), should be calculated using field data, particularly when grazers other than cattle are involved. Under more intensive grazing management, improved harvest efficiencies (up to 35 percent) can result in an increased carrying capacity, but recovery time for upland sites is much longer. If distribution problems occur, stocking rates should be reduced or facilitating conservation practices (i.e., cross-fencing, water development) implemented to maintain plant health and vigor.

Stocking rates are expressed in Animal Unit Months (AUMs) which is defined as the amount of forage consumed by a 1,000 lb. cow with a less than 4 month old calf at her side.

Plant Community Production (lbs./ac.) Initial Suggested Stocking Rate (AUMs/ac.)* Ac./AUM
1.1 Bunchgrass: 350-450-650 0.09 11
2.1 Short-stature grass/Mat-forming forbs: 250-350-550 0.04 25
3.1 Annual: 100-200-450 0.03 33


* Continuous, season-long grazing by cattle under average growing conditions.

Calculation for stocking rates are as follows: Using RV values for production, take forage palatable to grazing cattle and multiply by 0.25 HE and divide by 912.5 lbs./AUM air-dry weight (ADW) to arrive at the initial suggested stocking rate in AUMs/acre.

Not all kinds of livestock or wildlife have the same forage demand as a 1000-pound lactating cow. In addition, forage demand varies within a species depending on its class, i.e., its growth rate (e.g. heifers and steers vs. mature cow), lactating and maintenance (e.g., dry cow vs cow with calf). For this reason, animal unit equivalents (AUE) are provided in the National Range & Pasture Handbook to assist with this approximate determination of forage demand based on the kind, class and size of animal (NRPH, 2003). For cattle with a different average weight than a 1000 pound average, AUE can be adjusted (i.e., every 100 pounds of animal weight equates to about 0.10 Animals Units thus a 1200-pound cow with a calf would be 1.2 AUE .

Grazing by domestic livestock is one of the major income-producing industries in the area. Rangeland in this area may provide year-long forage for cattle, sheep, or horses. During the dormant period, the forage for livestock must be supplemented with protein because the quality does not meet minimum livestock requirements.

Distance to water, shrub density, and slope can affect grazing capacity within a management unit. Accessibility adjustments should be made for the planning area as necessary. For example, 30 percent of a management unit may have 25 percent slopes and distances of greater than one mile from water, resulting in a 50% reduction in grazing access; therefore, the adjustment is calculated for 30 percent of the unit (i.e. 50 percent reduction on 30 percent of the management unit). Fencing, slope length, management, access, terrain, kind and class of livestock, and breeds are all factors that can increase or decrease the percent of grazing access within a management unit. Adjustments should be made that incorporate these factors when calculating the carrying capacity of a management unit.

Wildlife Interpretations:
Sagebrush grassland habitats are critically important for wildlife. The LRU provides crucial winter range for mule deer, elk, pronghorn and moose. Portions of the LRU fall within overlapping crucial winter range delineated for three species of big game. Nearly all of the LRU in Wyoming supports a designated migration corridor and numerous associated stopover habitats, where thousands of mule deer from the Wyoming Range Herd Unit move north and south between summer and winter ranges. Healthy vegetative communities within migration stopover areas are extremely important as forage and cover where mule deer may spend several days resting and feeding to refuel before moving again. The middle segment of the LRU (east and west of the Bear River) is within sage grouse core habitat, providing breeding leks, nesting, early brood rearing, late brood rearing, and winter habitats. Maintaining intact high quality sagebrush grassland habitats with a diversity of successional stages is vitally important for meeting the needs of wildlife using this landscape.
Wildlife Habitat Threats:
Winter moisture characteristics of the BRV LRU promote environmental conditions ideal for cheatgrass establishment and persistence. Cheatgrass presence is increasing and competing with native perennial grasses and forbs to deteriorate habitat function for big game, sage grouse and other sagebrush obligate wildlife. Advanced cheatgrass invasion is expected to alter fire regimes to a shorter Fire Return Interval outside the natural range of variability, where sagebrush stands burn frequently resulting in a reduction of browse and cover availability for wildlife. Eventually, shrub cover dominance could revert to green (aka yellow rabbitbrush in USDA PLANTS) or rubber rabbitbrush, significantly impacting wildlife dependent on sagebrush in this landscape for survival.
Current and future anthropogenic impacts to sagebrush grasslands include agriculture expansion, energy development, water storage projects, and subdivision/residential development. Increasing demand for expanding private lands hay production has seen conversion of sagebrush stands in and near sage grouse core habitat to center pivot sprinkler irrigation. Sage grouse may use these new fields during the late brood rearing period, but there is a loss of important sagebrush cover for escape, lekking, nesting, and winter cover/forage as critical life stage habitat needs for sage grouse. Energy transmission projects have recently created interest and opportunities for solar farm development in the LRU. These solar energy projects could permanently convert site specific sagebrush-grassland habitat to industrial development locations with negative cumulative impacts for sage grouse, wintering big game, and other sagebrush dependent wildlife. Aesthetic values of the Cokeville area may attract future demand for small acreage home developments, especially in the Smith’s Fork River Valley and Raymond Mountain foothills. Increased fencing and sagebrush removal usually associated with residential development could be extremely detrimental to big game migration and migration stopover habitats.
Wildlife Habitat Uses:
This site supports fringed sagewort, which is a preferred forage for wintering wildlife. When located on south and west aspect slopes and windswept ridge tops during winter months with little to no snow accumulation, it is an important browse component for pronghorn, mule deer, and elk. Associated bunchgrasses and rhizomatous grasses may exhibit low productivity, but serve as readily available winter forage for elk due to the same site characteristics.

Hydrological functions

Water is the principal factor limiting forage production on this site. This site is highly variable and is dominated by soils in hydrologic groups B and C. Infiltration ranges from moderately slow to moderate, largely due to high amounts of rock framents on the soil surface. Runoff potential for this site varies from moderate to high depending on soil hydrologic group, slope and ground cover. In many cases, areas with greater than 75% ground cover have the greatest potential for high infiltration and lower runoff. An example of an exception would be where short-grasses form a strong sod and dominate the site. Areas where ground plant cover is less than 50% and rock fragment is greater than 50% have the greatest potential to have reduced infiltration and higher runoff (refer to Part 630, NRCS National Engineering Handbook for detailed hydrology information).

Rills and gullies are not typically present due to vegetative cover and rock fragments on the surface that armor the site. Water flow patterns should be barely distinguishable. Pedestals are only slightly present in association with bunchgrasses . Herbaceous litter expected to move only in short distances (to leeward side of shrubs) due to wind. Woody litter will show short movement (less than 3 feet) associated with large precipitation events on steeper slopes (>8%).Chemical and physical crusts are rare to non-existent. Biological crusts are present, but only cover up to 1% of the soil surface.

Recreational uses

This site provides hunting opportunities for upland game species. The wide variety of plants which bloom in the spring have an aesthetic value that appeals to recreationists and combined with landscape position attract pollinators such as butterflies.

Inventory data references

Information presented here has been derived from historic and recent clipping data and other inventory data. Field observations from range trained personnel were also used.

References

• . 2021 (Date accessed). USDA PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov.

• . 2021 (Date accessed). USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2019. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.03. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC.. USNVC: http://usnvc.org/.

• . 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook (NRPH). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C..

• Bestelmeyer, B., J.R. Brown, K.M. Havstad, B. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J.E. Herrick. 2003. Development and Use of State and Transition Models for Rangelands. Jornal of Range Management 56:114–126.

• Bestelmeyer, B., J.R. Brown, J.E. Herrick, D.A. Trujillo, and K.M. Havstad. 2004. Land Management in the American Southwest: a state-and-transition approach to ecosystem complexity. Environmental Management 34:38–51.

• Bestelmeyer, B. and J. Brown. 2005. State-and-Transition Models 101: A Fresh look at vegetation change.

• Bestelmeyer, B.T., K. Moseley, P.L. Shaver, H. Sanchez, D.D. Briske, and M.E. Fernandez-Gimenez. 2010. Practical guidance for developing state-and-transition models. Rangelands 32:23–30.

• Bonnin, G.M., D. Martin, T. Lin, M. Parzybok, M. Yekta, and D. Riley. 2011 (Date accessed). “Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States” NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1 Version 5.0. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/.

• Briske, D.D., B.T. Bestelmeyer, T.K. Stringham, and P.L. Shaver. 2008. Recommendations for Development of Resilience-Based State-and-Transition Models. Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:359–367.

• Chambers, J.C., J.L. Beck, T.J. Christiansen, K.J. Clause, J.B. Dinkins, K.E. Doherty, K.A. Griffin, D.W. Havlina, K.F. Henke, L.L. Kurth, J.D. Maestas, M. Manning, K.E. Mayer, B.A. Mealor, C. McCarthy, M.A. Perea, and D.A. Pyke. 2016. Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and Greater sage-grouse in their eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach.. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-356.. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 1–143.

• Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick, and R.J. Tracey. 1973. “Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States” NOAA Atlas 2, Volume 5 (Idaho). National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

• Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick, and R.J. Tracey. 1973. “Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States” NOAA Atlas 2, Volume 2 (Wyoming). National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

• Ott, J., F.F. Kilkenny, and D.D. Summers. 2019. Long-term vegetation recovery and invasive annual suppression in native and introduced postfire seeding treatments.. Rangeland Ecology & Management 72:640–653.

• Schoeneberger, P.J. and D.A. Wysocki. 2017. Geomorphic Description System, Version 5.0..

• Stringham, T.K., W.C. Kreuger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and Transition Modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106–113.

Other references

Site concept, plant community data, and interpretations are based on ecological site descriptions (ESDs) from MLRA 34A-Foothills and Basins West (10-14W).
This ESD replaces R034AY212WY Gravelly MLRA 34A-Foothills and Basins West (Gr 10-14W), but only within geographic extent of the Bear River Valley LRU.
Further data collection and ecological site refinement are ongoing until the ESD has reached "Approved" status.

Contributors

Bryan Christensen
Karen Clause

Approval

Kirt Walstad, 9/07/2023

Acknowledgments

Utah State University
Wyoming Game and Fish