Prescott National Forest

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region April 2016 Prescott National Forest Smith Canyon Grazing Allotment: Soil Analysis Chino Valley Ranger District, Prescott National Forest Yavapai County, Arizona David Moore, Forest Soil Scientist Francisco Anaya, Forest Ecologist

2 This page is intentionally left blank.

3 File: 2200 Date April 21, 2016 Route: Chris Thiel Subject: Smith Canyon Livestock Grazing Project Soil Specialist Report To: Chino Valley District Ranger The purpose and need of the proposed action is to continue to authorize livestock grazing on the Smith Canyon in a manner consistent with the Prescott National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plans (2015). This assessment will serve as the soils analysis for the Smith Canyon Livestock Grazing Allotment and was developed in consideration of the best available science. The project was also reviewed to determine if it was consistent with the Prescott National Forest Plan (2015). The content included in this assessment is based on the direction provided by FSM 2550 Watershed and Air Management Soil Management Support Service Records (1990b). 1. Purpose. The purpose of the soil analysis is to provide interpretations of soil characteristics, describe soil conditions, and predict effects to the soil resources. 2. Soils data. The primary data sources used include the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (2000), Prescott National Forest soil pedon field description sheets (undated), Ecological Classification of the Prescott National Forest (2005), and DRAFT Ecological Response Units of the Southwestern United States (2014) 3. Method and intensity of investigation. Represenative Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) map units were analyzed throughout the allotment by pasture. Soil quality status was identified by assessing soil conditions at key areas within represenative TEUIs. Soil condition assignments were based on the USFS Southwest Region 3 Technical Guidance for Soil Quality Monitoring (2013) and were conducted inconjunction with ecological and rangeland management status sampling and identification. 4. Soil map of project area. An allotment map of represenative TEUIs are provided. 5. Characteristics and classification of the soils. The soil characteristics and classification are identified and based on the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (2000). 6. Soil interpretations and predictions. Soil interpretations and predictions are identified identified in the existing condition and effects section. 7. Evaluation of effects and recommendations. Soil effects are disclosed. Soil management recommendations that are compliant with the Prescott National Forest Plan (2015) are provided along with Best Management Practices. DAVID MOORE, Forest Soil Scientist FRANCISCO ANAYA, Ecologist Prescott National Forest ii

4 Table of Contents Methodology...1 Page Existing Condition, Objectives, and Recommendations...7 Cottonwood: Smith Canyon: Granites: Smith Canyon: Spider: Granites: Jones: Moano: Spider: Smith Mesa: Direct and Indirect Effects...31 Improvements...35 Literature Cited...36 Appendix A: Best Management Practices...41 Appendix B: PNF Resource Management Guidelines for Rangeland NEPA...46 Appendix C: Proposed New Range Improvement Map...47 Appendix D: EA Proposed Action...48 Appendix E: General Soil Effects Analysis...52 iii

5 Methodology This analysis evaluated soil resources using a myriad of different methods. Soil condition analysis utilized methodologies outlined in the Technical Guidance for Soil Quality Monitoring in the Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service (2013). The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (2000) was used as the basis to evaluate and assess soil and rangeland condition resources. Forest Plan (2015) elements associated with PNVTs, desired condition, and standard/guidelines were also used in conjunction with the analysis. Successional state elements (as described in the DRAFT Ecological Response Units of the Southwestern United States (2014)) are displayed and described how they relate to the Prescott National Forests PNVTs and subsequent TEUIs are also evaluated. This data considers existing successional state, potential successional state, and how this is contributing to soil and vegetation conditions. Specifics on how PNVT successional states relate to the Forest Plan direction is described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Prescott National Forest Land Management Plan, Volume 2 (2015). Analysis Appendixes include: Appendix A: Best Management Practices: Soil and water conservation practices identified to comply with the Clean Water Act Appendix B: Prescott National Forest Resource Management Guidelines for Rangeland NEPA. This establishes general prescription guidelines to move toward desired conditions and resource objectives. Appendix C: Map of New Range Improvement proposals. Appendix D: EA Proposed Action Appendix E: General Soil Effects Analysis Data collection methodologies included collecting soil and vegetation qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative soil quality indicators were collected using the Soil Condition Rating Guide (2013). Vegetation related collection utilized Daubenmire cover frequency to describe herbaceous cover and the 1/10 th acre plot was used to inventory dominant shrub and tree species. Soil surface component measurements were taken using the point intercept method and vegetation gap measurements were taken using the line intercept method. Both of these methodologies were collected as outlined in the Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (2005). Methodology Process The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Prescott National Forest (2000) was used as the basis to assess soil and rangeland conditions. The TES Survey consisted of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a systematic examination, description, classification and integration of the primary ecosystem components soil, vegetation, and climate. TES places a major emphasis on recognizing the relationships that exist between the primary components, which in turn define terrestrial ecological map units or terrestrial ecological unit inventory (TEUI). The TEUI contains detailed information on the biotic and abiotic characteristics of each of the map units, in addition to interpretations on potential plant communities, surface components, soil stability, soil condition, and production potential. The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott NF identifies a landscape scale soil condition assignment for all TEUIs across the forest. Project level TEUI s are selected and soil conditions are field verified to determine existing site specific conditions. For this analysis, representative TEUIs were selected, by pasture, to display the effects of livestock grazing. These selected TEUIs reflect what is happening within a pasture as a result of on-the ground management actions (USDA 1999). 1

6 Key area sampling sites were identified within each representative TEUI and were chosen based on their representation of environmental conditions of the selected map unit (USDA 1999). Since key areas were selected based on current managements actions, soil conditions may differ for the whole map unit versus the key area. For example, a majority of a TEUI s soil condition may be deteriorated in thick pinyon-juniper but livestock access is limited in these areas due to lack of forage, while a small portion of the same TEUI with minimal pinyonjuniper cover and ample forage production may be selected for a key area because this site represents current livestock management. Representative Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TEUI) map units were selected in each major pasture within the allotment (Figure 1). There were 7 TEUI map units chosen as key or critical areas to evaluate vegetation ecological status in 7 pastures. These map units were selected based on their accessibility to livestock, in other words, they are found on flat to gently sloping areas. Some of the locations are long term monitoring sites established in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Figure 1. Smith Canyon key TEUIs. The TEUI map units can be further grouped together based on the potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) that occupies a particular TEUI map unit. There are seven PNVTs on the 2

7 allotment. Three PNVTs make up 98 percent of the allotment, Piñon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, Juniper Grassland, and Interior chaparral. Inventories concentrated on these three areas of the allotment. The other PNVTs found on the allotment are Colorado Plateau Grassland, Riparian Gallery Forest, Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak, and Ponderosa Pine-Gamble Oak. Cattle are known to prefer grasses over shrubs when they are available, so inventory locations with a low shrub and tree canopy were selected as key areas to determine grazing influence on herbaceous vegetation. Shrubs provide a major amount of the available forage on the Smith Canyon Allotment and areas with a large shrub component were inventoried as well. Soil, vegetation, and water resource field data was collected by the Prescott National Forest Rangeland Core Team which consists of the Rangeland Management Specialist, Hydrologist, and Soil Scientist. The Interdisciplinary Team used this information, along with any other applicable data, to develop the Proposed Action, Desired Future Conditions, Management Objectives, and Resource Protection Measures. This information has been integrated and considered in this analysis Soil Condition Soil quality standards were analyzed using the USFS Southwest Region 3 Technical Guidance for Soil Quality Monitoring (1999). The Prescott National Forest Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) was used as the basis for this analysis and is defined as the systematic analysis, description, classification (soil/vegetation), mapping and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems (Robertson 2000). TES was used to determine if the soil resources were functioning within their ecological capability. Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality or the capacity of the soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biologic productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health (technical). The soil condition rating procedure evaluates soil quality based on an interpretation of factors that affect three primary soil functions. The primary soil functions evaluated are soil stability, soil hydrology, and nutrient cycling (technical). These functions are interrelated. Soil function is assessed by evaluating soil quality indicators associated with surface soil properties. Definitions of soil functions are as follows (USDA FS 2013). Soil Hydrology. The ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit water, both vertically and horizontally. This function is assessed by evaluating or observing changes in surface structure, surface pore space, consistence, bulk density, and infiltration or penetration resistance. Increases in bulk density or decreases in porosity results in reduced water infiltration, permeability and plant available moisture. Soil Stability. The ability of the soil to resist erosion. Soil erosion is the detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particle by water, wind or gravity. Vascular plants, soil biotic crusts, and vegetation ground cover (VGC) are the greatest deterrent to surface soil erosion. Visual evidence of surface erosion includes sheets, rills, and gullies; pedestalling, soil deposition, erosion pavement, and loss of the surface "A" horizon. Erosion models may also be used to predict on-site soil loss. Nutrient Cycling. The ability of the soil to accept, hold and release nutrients. This function is assessed by evaluating vegetative community composition, litter, coarse woody material, root distribution and soil biotic crusts. These indicators are considered an important source of soil organic matter, which is essential in sustaining long-term soil productivity. It provides a carbon and energy source for soil microbes, stores and 3

8 provides nutrients which are needed for the growth of plants and soil organisms and by providing for cation and anion exchange capacities. Indicators of each soil function are assessed in order to place the soil into a soil condition category (technical). There are three soil condition categories which defines how the soil is functioning. The soil condition categories are satisfactory, impaired, and unsatisfactory. The definitions for the soil condition rating are as follows (Technical): Satisfactory. Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs is high. Impaired. Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to function properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate the ecosystem to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in land management practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate. Unsatisfactory. Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of vital soil functions result in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, sustain outputs or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions. Some soil quantifiable measurements taken used to assess soil condition include: Soil Surface Components. Quantifiable soil surface measurements were taken during the soil condition assessment. One element of the USFS Region 3 Soil Condition Evaluation is to consider how effective vegetative ground cover (i.e. basal vegetation and litter cover) contributes to all soil functions. This is done by evaluating how vegetative ground cover (VGC) is spatially distributed across the landscape both vertically and horizontally (technical, Robbie 2008). VGC measurements were taken in compliance with the Region 3 Soil Quality Monitoring Methods which defines effective litter as organic materials on the soil surface at least.5 inch thick (technical). VGC measurements were also taken as comparable values to Prescott National Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) potential which defines litter as organic materials on the soil surface at least 1 inch thick (Robertson 2000). The TES VGC levels are not used for the soil condition evaluation but provide insight how existing levels compare to potential levels along with how its spatial distribution contribute to soil condition. Vegetation Spatial Gap Intercept. The Gap Intercept Measurement provides quantifiable information on the proportion of the landscape occupied by vegetation and the portion of the landscape not vegetated (i.e. gap) (Herrick 2005). The gap intercept method does not measure the vegetation spatial pattern directly, but does proved an insight on vegetation spatial distribution by indicating the extent plants are aggregated or dispersed across the landscape (Herrick 2005). Vegetative gaps affect the hydrologic, stability, and nutrient cycling soil functions (Herrick 2005). Generally as gap sizes increase the organic matter decreases as you get further away from vegetation. This results in less protective cover, a decrease in nutrient cycling, poorer soil structure, and a decrease in infiltration. Consequently, soil in the gaps are more erodible (Herrick 2005). Larger vegetation interspaces are more prone to vesicular crust development, lower infiltration rates, and greater sediment production (Blackburn 1975). Erosion is further increased in areas with large gaps because they are more highly connected due to less vegetation obstruction to water flow (Herrick 2005). Vegetation gap measurements were conducted, on some TES map units, as outlined in the Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (2005). Measurement 4

9 data is displayed as percent of landscape with non-vegetative gap and percent of landscape occupied by vegetation. Gap measurements have been taken across the forest during soil condition assessments and these measurements have been compared to other soil quality indicators and overall soil functions to determine a general correlation between gap percentage and a qualitative classification. The Gap Intercept Measurement is one soil quality indicator used with a suite of other soil indicators to determine soil condition. Bulk Density. Bulk density is defined as the mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume (technical). This is one of the soil quality indicators used to assess the soil hydrologic function. Bulk density measurements provide insight on many soil processes such as pore space, infiltration and subsequent runoff, water storage, soil aeration, and soil resistance. Bulk density measurements were taken using an AMS 5cm diameter and 10 cm depth impact core sampler ( Standard laboratory soil bulk density measurements were utilized and compared to reference bulk density measurements associated with grazing exclosures. Bulk density soil quality indicator condition categories were based on the categories identified in the Soil Condition Rating Guide (2013). These categories are as follows: Satisfactory: Bulk density not increased. Impaired: Moderate bulk density increases (5-15%) Unsatisfactory: Significant increase in bulk density (>15%) Applicable Forest Plan Desired Condition & Standard and Guideline for Soil Resources Desired conditions describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should look and function (cite forest plan). Standard and guidelines provide sideboards and guidance for project and activity decision-making to help achieve desired conditions and objectives (Table 1). For each TEUI analyzed applicable forest plan elements refer to specific soil resource conditions (Table 2). Recommendations are provided to be compliant with Forest Plan desired conditions, standards and guidelines. 5

10 Table 1. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott NF 9 DC-Watershed-3 Soil productivity, function, and inherent physical, chemical, and biological processes remain intact or are enhanced. Elements necessary to sustain soil productivity and function include: Logs and other woody material are distributed across the soil surface to maintain soil function within the limitations of individual PNVTs. Soil loss does not inhibit soil function. Limited soil compaction does not affect ecological and hydrological functions. Vegetative ground cover, including biological soil crusts (i.e., soil consisting of lichens, mosses, cyanobacteria, and algae organisms), provides stability and fertility for soil function. Vegetative ground cover is distributed across the soil surface in sufficient proportions to meet or trend toward natural conditions listed for each map unit in the terrestrial ecosystem survey. Soils with a condition rating below satisfactory (i.e., impaired or unsatisfactory) do not further decline in function and trend toward a satisfactory rating where environmental factors allow. Table 2. Soil guidelines provide guidance for trending toward or achieving desired conditions labeled as DC-Watershed-1, DC-Watershed-3, DC-Veg-6 to 7, DC-Veg-9, DC-Veg-13, DC-Veg- 17, DC-Veg-23, and DC-Transportation and Facilities-1 in chapter 2 of this document. Guideline 1.) Soils (See also Watersheds Guidelines 1, 5, 7, and 8; Vegetation Guideline 3; Transportation Guidelines 2 and 6; Wilderness Standard 2; Scenic Guideline 2; All Minerals Standard 1; Locatable Minerals Standard 3 and Guideline 1; and Heritage Guide- Soils-1 Guide- Soils-2 Guide- Soils-3 Guide- Soils-4 Guide- Soils-5 Projects should be designed to limit activities that would cause long term impacts to soils such as loss of ground cover, severely burned soils, detrimental soil displacement, erosion, puddling, or compaction. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, project-specific soil and water conservation practices should be developed. Down logs and coarse woody debris should be retained at the appropriate tonnage per PNVT as outlined in the Vegetation desired condition sections to retain soil productivity. Operation of heavy equipment, such as dozers, backhoes, or vehicles, on slopes with a grade of 40 percent or greater should be avoided. If use of equipment in such areas is required, site-specific design features should be implemented to minimize disturbance to soil and vegetation. Project-specific design features to avoid soil impacts should be used when projects occur on slopes with a grade of 40 percent or greater or on soils that are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. Ground disturbing activity should be avoided when the soil moisture level is such that activity would cause damage to the soil character or function. 6

11 Allotment: Pasture: Date: 9/1/2015 TEUI: PNVT: Chaparral Smith Canyon Cottonwood Successional State: Potential: open-tree; Existing: close-shrub Taxonomy: Lithic Haplustalfs; loamyskeletal; shallow; coarse sandy loam Parent Material: Sedimentary Rock Landform: % Slope: 15 Gentle Hills Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter/ Basal veg 3 10 Bio crust 0 0 Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid Woody 63-shrub 39-shrub Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 6 8 Woody 8 9 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: Sandy Loam; >35% rock within profile. Measured: Not measured because soil structure does not indicate compaction nor is coarse textured soils with high levels of internal rock content on slopes vulnerable to compaction. Soil Condition: Measured: Satisfactory TEUI Designation: Impaired Soil Notes: This chaparral PNVT s potential vegetative state normally has a higher tree component but evidence of historic fire suggests a decrease of tree cover and a subsequent vegetative state change to close-shrub. The close-shrub successional state of this TEUI has contributed to satisfactory soil conditions. The litter directly affiliated with the dense shrub species is producing ample amounts of litter for soil protection and nutrient cycling. Litter cover is providing soil stability and being incorporated into internal soil organic matter (Mapfumo 2002). Litter associated with the chaparral is thick and results in the formation of granular soil structure that promotes infiltration and water holding capacity (Hart 1993). In addition, in these areas influenced by shrub species, the soil aggregate stability is high which suggests the soils are more resistant to erosion (Herrick 2001). There is some erosion pavement formation within the shrub interspace due to run-off flow patterns. However, these flow patterns affiliated with the interspaces are disrupted and noncontinuous due to the random obstruction of litter associated with shrub species and basal cover of graminoid species. PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3 (Page 6) Soil Quality Objective: Maintain existing condition. Recommendation: Standard utilization guidelines for graminoid species within interspace. 7

12 Pasture: Cottonwood TEUI: Photo: TEUI 425 exhibits typical chaparral ecosystem characteristics with closed shrub canopy cover and litter directly affiliated with shrub species. Map: TEUI 425 Map of Cottonwood pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 425, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Cottonwood is 6,318 acres with TEUI 425 containing 866 acres; therefore, TEUI 425 makes up approximately 14% of the total area. 8

13 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Smith Canyon Soil Condition: Measured: Unsatisfactory TEUI Designation: Impaired Date: 10/29/2015 TEUI: PNVT: Juniper Grass Successional State: grass-forb Taxonomy: Vertic Argiustolls; fine; deep Parent Material: Landform: % Slope: 6 Basalt Elevated Plain Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter Basal veg 5 15 Bio crust 0 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid 5 41 Woody Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 2 7 Woody 4 8 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: silty clay loam; <15% internal rock Measured: Reference: 0.85 % Change: none Soil Notes: The sampling site was located between 2 soil types that entailed an area with a high level of cobble rock cover and an area that consists of a soil depositional zone. Soils are in unsatisfactory condition. Compaction and soil displacement is prevalent. However bulk density and rupture resistance indicates shrink-swell properties are enabling the compacted soils to open up which enables an increase of pore space (USDA NRCS 2001). However, the platy soil structure and formation of vesicular physical soil crusts disrupts pore space connectivity and retards infiltration (Blackburn 1975, Hart 1993). The soils generally have low surface and internal biomass and organic matter with high levels of bare soil. These soils have a very low aggregate stability which determines the soils ability to retain it adhesiveness when wet and causes soil peds to dissolve and are highly erodible (Herrick 2001). Nutrient cycling is poor due to the lack of organic matter. However, areas associated with dense cobble and boulder cover are well armored and able to protect graminoid species. Graminoid diversity is low and can contribute to soil function (Printz 2014). PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3; Guide- Soils-5 (Page 6) Soil Quality Objective: Improve graminoid diversity and cover, vegetation spatial distribution and graminoid basal cover. Utilize these factors to assist in improving compacted soils (USDA NRCS 2001, Castellano 2007). Recommendation: Integrate rest through deferment and control water use to alleviate concentrated use, compaction and allow recovery (Van Haveren 1983, Warren 1986). Prescribe incidental use (lower end of light use) to promote biomass retention and subsequent litter development (Molinar 2001, Mapfumo 2002). 9

14 Pasture: Smith Canyon Photo: TEUI: Soil damage is occurring when wet from hoof impacts causing soil displacement and compaction. Soils with higher surface cobble cover is armoring soils and allowing more retention of graminoid cover. 10

15 Map: TEUI 427 Map of Smith Canyon pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 427, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Smith Canyon is 14,362 acres with TEUI 427 containing 255 acres; therefore, TEUI 427 makes up approximately 2% of the total area. 11

16 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Granites Soil Condition: Measured: Unsatisfactory/Impaired TEUI Designation: Impaired Date: 8/28/15 TEUI: medium tree PNVT: PJ Shrub Successional State: Potential: close-tree; Existing: open-tree Taxonomy: Typic Argiustolls; fine; moderately deep; clay loam Parent Material: Landform: % Slope: 5 Basalt Elevated Plain Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter Basal veg 5 1 Bio crust 0 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid Woody Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 4 9 Woody 5 9 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: Not measured Measured: NA Reference: NA % Change: NA Soil Notes: The preponderance of this TEUI is associated with a close-tree successional state. However, the sampled location is an inclusion which is affiliated with an open-tree successional state and subsequently produces higher graminoid forage levels. Soils associated with the close-tree state (i.e. dense juniper cover) are in unsatisfactory condition. The dense juniper canopy cover has resulted in the loss of a lower vegetative cover component e.g. lack of a graminoid component that has resulted in a lack of protective ground cover and organic matter (Davenport 1998). This has resulted in widespread sheet erosion and gullying in areas; hummocking of trees; and loss of the A-soil horizon. Sampled soil conditions, that are associated with an open-tree successional state, are impaired. This vegetative patch is connected hydrologically and ecologically from open inter-patch areas associated with closed canopy juniper sites (Ludwig 2005). Accelerated run-on from these adjacent unsatisfactory sites has resulted in elevated overland flow within the graminoid interspaces. The graminoid cover is well distributed but the proportion of the landscape occupied by graminoid cover is lacking resulting in the lack of surface litter and lower internal organic matter. This has resulted in the development of physical soil vesicular crusts that retard water infiltration (Blackburn 1975). TEUI potential woody cover is higher than sampled conditions and graminoid cover and diversity is lower than potential. This suggests that woody competition is not completely contributing to low graminoid cover resulting in a decrease to soil function. However, interconnectivity of eco-hydrologic processes from adjacent unsatisfactory soils are negatively influencing the key area (Ludwig 2005) 12

17 PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3 (Page 6) Soil Quality Objective: Improve and maintain graminoid cover, diversity, and vegetation spatial distribution to maintain vegetative patchy eco-hydrologic function. Recommendation: Lower end of conservative utilization levels (30-40%) and deferred season of use to allow further graminoid biomass retention and promote diversity (Molinar 2001, Valentine 1990, Trimble 1995). Control water facilities to improve distribution and alleviated livestock travel corridor patterns to allow vegetation and soil recovery. Photo: Sampled site location exhibiting impaired soil conditions. Graminoid cover is present but not well distributed, resulting in elevated run-off and soil loss. 13

18 Pasture: Granites TEUI: Unsatisfactory soil condition associated with TEUI 461. Widespread erosion pavement, hummocked trees, and loss of the A-horizon are common. Map: TEUI 461 Map of Granites pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 461, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Granites is 4,705 acres with TEUI 461 containing 401 acres; therefore, TEUI 461 makes up approximately 9% of the total area. 14

19 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Smith Canyon Soil Condition: Measured: Impaired TEUI Designation: Impaired Date: 10/28/2015 TEUI: PNVT: PJ Shrub Successional State: Potential: close-tree; Existing: grass-forb Taxonomy: Lithic Argiustolls; clayeyskeletal; shallow; sandy clay loam Parent Material: Landform: % Slope: 5 Basalt Elevated Plain Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter 6 20 Basal veg Bio crust 0 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid Woody 6 56 Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 3 9 Woody 9 1 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: sandy clay loam Measured: 1.05 Reference: <0.85 % Change: +23% Soil Notes: Soils are in impaired condition predominantly due to compaction and low litter levels. Graminoid cover is high and well distributed across the site and occupies a large portion of the landscape. This is providing stability for the soils (Bird 2007). However, graminoid diversity is low. Rangeland plant diversity contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of above- and belowground biological and ecological interactions that keeps soil function intact and maintains soil resiliency (Printz 2014). Soil compaction is evident by high bulk density levels, blocky soil structure, and hard rupture resistance. Compaction and the lack of pore space has resulted in low internal and surface organic matter levels (USDA NRCS 2001). This has reduced the soils nutrient cycling and hydrologic function. The decrease of pore space and low organic matter has resulted in formation of physical soil crusts that has decreased infiltration and increased run-off (Blackburn 1975). PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3; Guide- Soils-5 (Page 6) Soil Quality Objective: Increase vegetative ground cover levels, improve vegetation diversity, and decrease compaction. Recommendation: Standard utilization levels. Integrate seasonal deferment rest and improve livestock distribution by controlling waters and herding. This will allow an increase of species richness, improve internal soil biomass and organic matter, and alleviate compaction (Van Haveren 1983, Valentine 1990, Warren 1986, Hart 1993). 15

20 Pasture: Smith Canyon Photo: TEUI: Soils predominantly have high graminoid levels. However, soil compaction has elevated overland flow and sheet erosion in places. Map: TEUI 461 Map of Smith Canyon pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 461, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Smith Canyon is 14,362 acres with TEUI 461 containing 1,860 acres; therefore, TEUI 461 makes up approximately 13% of the total area. 16

21 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Spider Soil Condition: Measured: Satisfactory TEUI Designation: Unsatisfactory Date: 9/16/2015 TEUI: PNVT: PJ Shrub Successional State: Potential and Existing: open-tree Taxonomy: Typic Haplustalfs; clayeyskeletal; moderately deep Parent Material: Landform: Hills % Slope: 24 Sedimentary Rock Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter Basal veg 8 10 Bio crust 0 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid Woody Soil Notes: Site is located on gently sloping hills with deep sedimentary rock that supports multiple vegetative structure classes. These consist of mosaic tree patches, a dense shrub mid-story component, and a healthy graminoid component located within the interspaces. Soils are in satisfactory condition. The chaparral component is the predominant catalyst contributing to soil function by producing high levels of litter for favorable soil structure, nutrient cycling, and soil stability. Graminoid cover is well distributed within the interspaces and the proportion of the landscape occupied by vegetation is high. This decreases overland flow, promotes water infiltration, and provides soil stability (Herrick 2005, Bird 2007). PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3 (Page 6) Soil Quality Objective: Maintain existing condition. Recommendation: Standard rangeland management practices. Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 6 7 Woody 7 8 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: sandy clay Measured: 0.92 Reference: <1.00 % Change: None 17

22 Pasture: Spider Photo: TEUI: Typical view of TEUI 462. Map unit has a strong chaparral component with a mosaic of juniper and pinyon trees. Map: 462 Map of Spider pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 462, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Spider is 7,123 acres with TEUI 462 containing 988 acres; therefore, TEUI 462 makes up approximately 14% of the total area. 18

23 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Granites Soil Condition: Measured: TEUI Designation: Satisfactory Satisfactory Date: 09/16/2015 TEUI: PNVT: PJ Shrub Successional State: Potential & Existing: open-tree Taxonomy: Lithic Haplustalfs; loamyskeletal; shallow; loamy coarse sand Parent Material: Landform: Hills % Slope: 20 Granite Soil Notes: Soils are stable and in satisfactory condition. Shrub density is high and producing ample litter levels for nutrient cycling and favorable soil structure. The interspaces are bouldery and well armored which is stabilizing the soils. PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3 Soil Quality Objective: Maintain existing condition. Recommendation: Standard rangeland management practices. Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil 7 5 Litter Basal veg 2 10 Bio crust 1 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid 8 13 Woody Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 5 7 Woody 9 13 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: Loamy Sand; internal rock 6%. Measured: 1.08 Reference: <1.00 % Change: Soil structure indicates favorable condition. 19

24 Pasture: Granites Photo: TEUI: Site is well armored and stable due to high levels of boulders and shrub cover. Map: TEUI 477 Map of Granites pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 477, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Granites is 4,705 acres with TEUI 477 containing 2,104 acres; therefore, TEUI 477 makes up approximately 45% of the total area. 20

25 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Jones Soil Condition: Measured: Satisfactory TEUI Designation: Unsatisfactory Date: 08/26/2015 TEUI: PNVT: PJ Shrub Successional State: Potential & Existing: open-tree Taxonomy: Typic Haplustalfs; fineloamy; moderately deep; coarse sandy loam Soil Notes: Site is meeting TEUI vegetation potential and is in satisfactory soil condition. Sampling location is highly productive and able to maintain multiple vegetative structural states of large tree species and a strong chaparral component. The coarse textured granitic soils inherently have a high infiltration rate with minimal run-off (Brady 1990). Soils are stable due to boulder conditions, high vegetative cover, and thick litter levels. Parent Material: Granite PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3 Landform: % Slope: 5 Elevated & Lowland Plain Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Ocular 35 Bare soil similar 15 Litter Potential 45 Basal veg 10 Bio crust NA Soil Quality Objective: Maintain existing condition. Recommendation: Standard rangeland management practices. Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid Ocular 21 Woody similar Potential 57 Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 6 8 Woody 9 14 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Not measured Not measured Reference NA NA 21

26 Pasture: Jones Photo: TEUI: Sampled location supports multiple vegetation structure of monarch trees and a strong chaparral component. Map: TEUI 486 Map of Jones pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 486, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Jones is 1,735 acres with TEUI 486 containing 588 acres; therefore, TEUI 486 makes up approximately 34% of the total area. 22

27 Allotment: Pasture: Smith Canyon Moano Soil Condition: Measured: Satisfactory TEUI Designation: Unsatisfactory Date: 08/26/2015 TEUI: PNVT: PJ Shrub Successional State: Potential: open-tree; Existing: grass-forb Taxonomy: Typic Argiustolls; fine-loamy; deep Parent Material: Sedimentary Rock Landform: % Slope: 5 Elevated & Lowland Plain Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter/ 6 35 Basal veg 3 10 Bio crust 1 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid Woody 3 47 Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 5 8 Woody 4 14 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Bulk Density: Soil Texture: Loamy Sand; 35% internal rock Measured: 0.94 Reference: <1.00 % Change: None Soil Notes: Soil conditions are satisfactory. These soils are formed from sedimentary deposits with granite lithology which makes them inherently erosive. These depositional soils and their landscape position makes these soils more amenable to support a strong grassland component (Jacobs 2008). TES describes this map unit s potential state as open-tree but the sampled state is grass-forb. Hence, due to the lower level of woody cover and lack of competition, graminoid production is expected to be higher than described by TEUI. Soil conditions are satisfactory. Graminoid cover is well distributed across the landscape and enabling ample protective cover to stabilize soils from splash erosion, overland flow and promote favorable infiltration rates. The soils hydrologic processes and nutrient cycling is functional. This is indicated by lower bulk density measurements, favorable soil structure, high levels of pore space, favorable root distribution, and high levels of internal soil organic matter. Graminoid diversity is below potential slightly and vegetative ground cover is low. Rangeland plant diversity contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of above- and below ground organic matter that keeps soil function intact and maintains soil resiliency (Printz, 2014). PNF LRMP: DC-Ecosystem Resilience-1; DC-Watershed-3 Soil Quality Objective: Manage and move graminoid diversity and vegetative ground cover in an upward trend. Recommendation: Integrate seasonal deferment to improve/ maintain graminoid diversity and vegetative ground cover (Vallentine 1990). Standard utilization guidelines. 23

28 Pasture: Moano Photo: TEUI: Sedimentary depositional site provides favorable niche for a grassland ecological state. Map: 486 Map of Moano pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 486, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Moano is 2,070 acres with TEUI 486 containing 370 acres; therefore, TEUI 486 makes up approximately 18% of the total area. 24

29 Allotment: Pasture: Date: 9/26/15 TEUI: PNVT: PJ Shrub Smith Canyon Spider Successional State: Potential: open-tree; Existing: open-shrub Taxonomy: Typic Haplustalfs;loamy; shallow Parent Material: Landform: % Slope: 5 Granite Elevated Plain Ground Cover: Measured Potential Rock Bare soil Litter Basal veg 3 1 Bio crust 4 NA Vegetative Cover: Measured Reference Graminoid 7 16 Woody Diversity: Measured Reference Graminoid 2 5 Woody 9 12 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Measured Reference <25 >75 Soil Condition: Measured: Satisfactory/ Unsatisfactory TEUI Designation: Unsatisfactory Soil Notes: Site is in an open shrub successional state. This consists of a mosaic pattern of dense chaparral and openings that support forbs and graminoids. Areas associated with dense chaparral are in satisfactory soil condition. The litter directly affiliated with the dense shrub species is producing ample amounts of litter for soil protection and nutrient cycling. Litter cover is providing soil stability and being incorporated as internal soil organic matter (Mapfuma 2002). Litter associated with the chaparral is thick and results in the formation of granular soil structure that promotes infiltration and water holding capacity (Hart 1993). In addition, in these areas, the soil aggregate stability is high which suggests the soils are more resistant to erosion (Herrick 2001). Shrub species are randomly and well distributed across the landscape which disrupts overland water patterns and promotes infiltration (USDA NRCS 2001). The large mosaic openings located within the open shrub component are exhibiting unsatisfactory soil conditions. Soil structure shows signs of compaction and minimal pore space which retards infiltration, increases run-off, and elevates soil loss (Brady 1990, USDA NRCS 2001). Continuous sheet erosion is prevalent with the formation of erosion pavement in places. Organic matter is sparse and not being incorporated into the soil resulting in a loss to the nutrient cycling function. PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3 Soil Quality Objective: Improve graminoid cover, vegetation spatial distribution, and vegetative ground cover within the mosaic openings. Recommendation: Alleviate regular use through assignment of non-capacity that will result in incidental use (i.e. lower end of light use). This will allow graminoid establishment and retention of additional biomass for litter development and internal soil organic matter (Molinar 2001, Warren 1986). 25

30 Pasture: Spider Photo: TEUI: The dense chaparral component is in satisfactory soil condition. Mosaic openings are exhibiting unsatisfactory soil conditions as indicated by high levels of bare soil and lack of surface organic matter. 26

31 Map: TEUI 486 Map of Spider pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 486, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Spider is 7,123 acres with TEUI 486 containing 988 acres; therefore, TEUI 486 makes up approximately 36% of the total area. 27

32 Allotment: Pasture: Date: 09/02/15 TEUI: Smith Canyon Smith Mesa PNVT: Juniper Grass Successional State: Potential, Parker Sample Site, & Exclosure: open-tree; Sample outside exclosure: grass-forb Taxonomy: Vertic Paleustolls, fine, deep Parent Material: Landform: % Slope: 5 Ground Cover: Parker Basalt Elevated Plain TEUI Potential Rock Bare soil Litter 0 15 Basal veg 7 15 Bio crust 0 NA Outside Exclosure Inside Exclosure Rock Bare soil Litter 36 0 Basal veg 3 0 Bio crust 0 NA Vegetative Cover: Parker TEUI Potential Graminoid Woody 15 Tree 10 Tree Outside Exclosure Inside Exclosure Graminoid Woody <5 tree 28 tree Diversity: (Not calculated inside and outside of exclosure) Parker TEUI Potential Graminoid 8 5 Woody 1 1 Gap: % Gap % No Gap Parker Reference <25 >75 Inside Exclosure Outside Exclosure Bulk Density: Soil Texture: Clay Parker: 0.94 Outside Exclosure: 0.86 Inside Exclosure: 0.77 % Change: +15% Soil Condition: Measured: Impaired/ Unsatisfactory TEUI Designation: Unsatisfactory Soil Notes: All sampling sites are within component.1 of TEUI 490. Soil sampling occurred, within Smith Mesa pasture, on a number of sites within close proximity. Sampling areas include: 1. Inside a grazing exclosure which has maintained its natural juniper cover of 28%, is in an open-tree successional state, and represents reference conditions; 2. immediately outside the exclosure that is regularly grazed. This site has been previously treated for juniper species and has less than 5% cover from juniper cover, resulting in a grass-forb successional state; 3. A Parker 3-step monitoring location that was established to determine long-term trend and rangeland conditions. This site has lower juniper cover than the exclosure sampling site but has the same successional state of open-tree. Soil conditions are impaired/ unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory soil conditions are generally affiliated with juniper treated areas in a grass-forb successional state. Impaired 28

33 soils are generally affiliated with areas associated with an open-tree successional state. Soils are compacted as indicated by bulk density measurements and massive to platy soil structure. Soil displacement due to hoof impact when the soils are wet is prevalent in areas associated with the grass-forb successional state. The soil displacement has damaged the soil structure ability to retain aggregation and connectivity of pore space. Spatial vegetation is poor as indicated by the spatial gap data which indicates a large proportion of the area is not protected from vegetative cover. Bare soil levels are high and susceptible to splash and sheet erosion (USDA NRCS 2001). Aggregate stability is minimal due to the lack of surface and internal soil organic matter. This impacts the soils ability to retain its ped structure, has a low aggregate stability, and are erodible (Herrick 2001). Nutrient cycling is poor due to the lack of organic matter. However, areas associated with open juniper sites have a graminoid presence and are providing additional soil stability by retarding overland flow and soil movement. PNF LRMP: DC-Watershed-3; Guide- Soils-5 (Page 6) Soil Quality Objective: Improve compacted soils and vegetation spatial gap distribution. Maintain or improve graminoid cover and vegetative ground cover levels that are similar to exclosure reference conditions and TEUI potential. Recommendation: Promote management practices that result in incidental use (i.e. lower end of light use) and integration of rest. Management practices, such as controlling water and supplement location that focusses livestock use in northern portion of pasture and discourages regular use in TEUI 490. This will promote biomass retention, litter development, and alleviate compaction (Van Haveran 1983, Warren 1986, Molinar 2001, Mapfumo 2002). 29

34 Pasture: Smith Mesa TEUI: Photo: TEUI 490. Exclosure on left is in an open-tree successional state and has satisfactory soil conditions. The grazed area on the right is in a grass-forb successional state and has unsatisfactory soil conditions. Map: TEUI 490 Map of Smith Mesa pasture, showing TEUI composition and data collection point. Highlighted area indicates TEUI 490, as represented by the data collection sample. In area, Smith Mesa is 8,838 acres with TEUI 490 containing 4,730 acres; therefore, TEUI 490 makes up approximately 54% of the total area. 30

35 Direct and Indirect Effects Appendix E: General Soil Effects Analysis provides a detailed assessment of soil processes and how livestock grazing can impact those processes and soil function. The following Direct and Indirect Effects is based on research findings and rationale provided in Appendix E. Table 3 is a synthesis of predicted projection of soil conditions by Alternative. Table 3. Current soil condition with direct and indirect effects of grazing versus no grazing. Pasture TEUI Acres Existing Soil Condition Alternative 1: Grazing Alternative 2: No Grazing Cottonwood 425 6,318 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Smith Canyon ,362 Unsatisfactory Impaired Impaired/Satisfactory Granites 461 4,705 Unsatisfactory/Impaired Unsatisfactory/Impaired Unsatisfactory/Impaired Smith Canyon ,362 Impaired Satisfactory Satisfactory Spider 462 7,123 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Granites 477 4,705 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Jones 486 1,735 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Moano 486 2,070 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Spider 486 7,123 Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Satisfactory/Impaired Satisfactory/Impaired Smith Mesa 490 4,730 Impaired/Unsatisfactory Impaired Satisfactory Alternative 1: Grazing Cottonwood-425, Spider-462, Granite-477 and Jones 486 are all within the Pinyon-Juniper Shrub and Chaparral PNVT which support high levels of shrub cover. All of these soils satisfactory conditions would be maintained. The dense shrub cover would continue to provide high litter levels for soil stability protection, favorable soil structure and infiltration, and nutrient cycling. Some interspaces are experiencing some elevated runoff and erosion within the interspace but soils are in functional status. In addition, Jones-486 and Granite-477 interspaces are extremely boulder and well armored which is stabilizing the soils. Utilization guidelines would continue to maintain residual graminoid cover within the shrub interspaces for additional soil protection. Livestock use may have negligible impacts to the soils. However, the high shrub cover and litter production would maintain functional soil status and the effects would be immeasurable. Soil conditions would remain in satisfactory condition. Smith Canyon-427 is in unsatisfactory condition and affiliated with the Juniper Grassland PNVT. The management objective is to improve graminoid cover and the spatial distribution of vegetation to improve soil organic matter, soil stability, and to assist in improving compacted soils. Project design features include integrating rest to improve soil compaction and controlling water access to improve pasture distribution. Prescribe incidental use levels (0-30%) to promote biomass retention and subsequent litter development. Design features include integrating seasonal deferment or rest and improving livestock distribution by controlling access to waters and herding. These practices would alleviate compaction by discouraging concentrated use, allow additional recovery periods and retain additional biomass and mulch for soil function. This would allow soils to improve to impaired condition. However, non-incidental use that regularly uses this site at 30% could limit the soils ability to improve and the soils could remain in unsatisfactory status but show some improvement. Regular use would continue to have some soil impacts from hoof impacts and partial-removal of biomass and organic matter retention. Because of the soils non-functional status, the soils resiliency and resistance would retard the soils ability to recover because of continued regular stress (Seybold 1999). 31

36 Granites-461 is located in the Pinyon Shrub PNVT and exhibits unsatisfactory/impaired soil condition. Unsatisfactory conditions are affiliated with dense juniper cover which is limiting herbaceous recruitment resulting in accelerated runoff and erosion in the form of extensive erosion pavement. Impaired soil conditions are affiliated within the interspaces which support herbaceous cover that is below TEUI potential by half. The management objective for TEUI 461 is to improve litter and graminoid cover and vegetation spatial distribution. Design features include deferred season of use to allow further graminoid biomass retention and control access to water facilities to improve distribution. An additional water source is proposed that would distribute cattle away from the area needing improvement. This would decrease the frequency and duration of use and utilization level would decrease slightly. EA proposed levels of would subsequently result in less hoof impact; some increase in biomass retention; and surface and subsurface organic matter may potentially improve slightly. Accelerated run-off, soil instability, subsequent loss of organic matter, and further reduction to nutrient cycling could have a higher probability of stabilizing. Overall, impaired/unsatisfactory soil conditions would likely remain the same. Erosion pavement from adjacent unsatisfactory sites could expand resulting in continued impacts to soil conditions. Smith Canyon-461 is located within a Pinyon Juniper Shrub PNVT and is in impaired condition. Soils have VGC and graminoid levels that are greater than potential and its spatial distribution is favorable. However, compaction is prevalent and accelerating runoff which is creating elevated erosion levels. Soil objectives are to alleviate compaction by integrating seasonal deferment or rest and improve livestock distribution by controlling access to waters and herding. Soil conditions are expected to improve to satisfactory status because soil compaction would improve. Spider-486 is within the Pinyon-Juniper Shrub PNVT and exhibits a combination of satisfactory/unsatisfactory conditions. Soils exhibiting satisfactory conditions are affiliated with dense shrub cover areas that provide high litter levels for soil stability protection, favorable soil structure and infiltration, and nutrient cycling. However, the interspaces are experiencing some elevated runoff and erosion. Livestock use may have negligible impacts to these areas but, the high shrub cover and litter production would maintain functional soil status and the effects would be immeasurable. Mosaic openings in Spider-486 are highly compacted, have minimal graminoid cover, and have high levels of bare soil. The management objective for TEUI 486 is to improve grass and litter cover and vegetation spatial distribution within these mosaic openings. Project design features have assigned these areas no capacity and incidental use may occur (0-30%). These practices would alleviate concentrated use by discouraging concentrated use, allow additional recovery periods for compaction and retain additional biomass and mulch for soil function. This would allow soils to improve to impaired condition. However, non-incidental use that regularly uses this site at 30% could limit the soils ability to improve and the soils could remain in unsatisfactory status but show some improvement. Regular use would continue to have some soil impacts from hoof impacts and partial-removal of biomass and organic matter retention. Because of the soils non-functional status, the soils resiliency and resistance would retard the soils ability to recover because of continued regular stress (Seybold 1999). Moano-486 is in the Pinyon-Juniper Shrub PNVT but the sampled area is representative of a grassland. Soil conditions are satisfactory. Adaptive management measures and Best Management Practices would continue to be practiced. Standard grazing intensity levels would be employed and be commensurate with soil conditions. This will allow sufficient residual biomass for vegetation ground cover retention and protection of the soil resources as described in Alternative 2. 32

37 Smith Mesa-490 is in impaired/unsatisfactory condition and affiliated with the Pinyon-Juniper Grass PNVT. Impaired conditions are affiliated with areas supporting juniper cover. Unsatisfactory soil conditions are associated with grasslands and the juniper species have been previously treated. The management objective is to improve compacted soils and vegetation spatial gap distribution and maintain or improve graminoid cover and vegetative ground cover levels that are similar to exclosure reference conditions and TEUI potential. Project design features include the integration of rest to alleviate soil compaction and the use of management practices such as controlling water access and supplement locations to discourage concentrated use in TEUI 490 with incidental use levels prescribed as 0-30% until conditions improve. If these management options are not successful in improving soil condition, then a fencing option is proposed that would split the pasture and allow for more control of livestock access to areas needing improvement. These practices would alleviate compaction by discouraging concentrated use, allow additional recovery periods and retain additional biomass and mulch for soil function. This would allow soils to improve to impaired condition. However, non-incidental use that regularly uses this site at 30% could limit the soils ability to improve and the soils could remain in unsatisfactory status but show some improvement. Regular use would continue to have some soil impacts from hoof impacts and partial-removal of biomass and organic matter retention. Because of the soils non-functional status, the soils resiliency and resistance would retard the soils ability to recover because of continued regular stress (Seybold 1999). Alternative 2: No Grazing Cottonwood-425, Spider-462, Granite-477 and Jones 486 soil conditions would be similar as described in Alternative 1 and remain in satisfactory soil condition. The dense shrub cover biomass and litter production would continue to provide soil stability protection, favorable soil structure and infiltration, and nutrient cycling. No grazing would show a negligible to no difference as described in Alternative 1. However, Graminoid cover and litter within the interspace may show improvement and provide additional soil protection, because no grazing would occur. Jones-486 and Granite-477 interspaces would show no difference because of the armoring of the interspaces associated with extremely boulder conditions. Smith Canyon-427 unsatisfactory soil conditions are expected to improve because no grazing impacts would occur. Graminoid cover and soil and surface organic matter would increase and be retained on site. This, in addition to a lack of load bearing stress associated with livestock grazing would improve soil compaction and soil structure. Nutrient cycling and infiltration rates would improve resulting in a decrease in run-off and soil stability. Soil conditions are expected to move toward satisfactory condition but maybe limited due to climatic restrictions as represented by the presence of desert shrub species. Soil conditions are expected to achieve satisfactory/impaired condition. Granites-461 soil conditions would improve but soil condition status would remain in unsatisfactory/impaired condition. No grazing would allow graminoid and organic matter production to improve and subsequently retard accelerated erosion to an extent, within the interspaces. Improvement is expected to occur predominantly within the interspaces and would assist in stabilizing impaired soil conditions. However, the high density of juniper cover would continue to limit the soils ability to recruit an herbaceous component and would have large portions that would remain in unsatisfactory condition. Unsatisfactory soils would continue to influence adjacent impaired soils with accelerated run-on and soil deposition. 33

38 Smith Canyon-461 would improve as depicted in Alternative 1 but to a greater extent. Graminoid cover, VGC, and its spatial distribution are expected to remain the same but may show some improvement because the lack of grazing. Soil compaction associated with hoof impact would not occur. This would result in soil conditions improving to satisfactory status. Moano-486 would remain in satisfactory soil condition because no livestock grazing would occur. Existing elevated vegetation ground cover would be retained on site for nutrient cycling, favorable soil structure and infiltration, and soil stability. Spider-486 soil conditions, affiliated with dense shrubs, would be similar as described in Alternative 1 and remain in satisfactory soil condition. Measurable differences of soil conditions associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be difficult to discern. The dense shrub cover biomass and litter production would continue to provide soil stability protection, favorable soil structure and infiltration, and nutrient cycling. No grazing would show a negligible to no difference as described in Alternative 1. However, Graminoid cover and litter within the interspace may show improvement and provide additional soil protection, because no grazing would occur. Spider-486 unsatisfactory soil conditions, affiliated with mosaic openings, are expected to improve to a greater extent than Alternative 1 because no grazing impacts would occur. Graminoid cover and soil and surface organic matter would increase and be retained on site. This, in addition to a lack of load bearing stress associated with livestock grazing, would improve soil compaction and soil structure. Nutrient cycling and infiltration rates would improve resulting in a decrease in run-off and soil stability. However, soil conditions would only improve to impaired status. The severely compacted soils would not recuperate in a timely manner because of its low shrink-swell priorities associated with granitic coarse textured soils. In addition, the droughty characteristics of these coarse textured soils would limit its ability to recruit an herbaceous component. Smith Mesa-490 unsatisfactory soil conditions are expected to improve to satisfactory condition because no grazing impacts would occur. Graminoid cover and soil and surface organic matter would increase and be retained on site. This, in addition to a lack of load bearing stress associated with livestock grazing would improve soil compaction and soil structure. Nutrient cycling and infiltration rates would improve resulting in a decrease in runoff and soil stability. Soil conditions are expected to move toward representative conditions exhibited within the Smith Mesa exclosure (see Existing Condition section). 34

39 Improvements Range Improvements Adaptive management provides the flexibility to employ a myriad of rangeland management strategies to achieve desired conditions and effects. This includes constructing, reconstructing, re-locating, and maintaining range improvements. All existing and proposed range improvements are listed and described in the Vegetation Specialist Report. The indirect effects of range improvement impacts to the soil resources have been considered in the Soil Condition Direct/Indirect Effects section because it was based on adaptive management being employed. The direct effects of the physical impact associated with range improvement installation and maintenance has the potential to decrease and damage protective vegetative ground cover, cause soil displacement, and compaction. This has the potential to decrease infiltration, increase runoff, accelerate soil loss, disrupt nutrient cycling, and ultimately negatively impact productivity. Soil disturbance and excavation can also expose unfavorable subsurface soil properties that may reduce soil productivity. For example, subsurface soils with high levels of clay may negatively impact infiltration, soil aeration, and plant propagation. Also, disturbance to calcareous soils may expose lime to the soil surface resulting in the increase of ph levels which can negatively impact the cation exchange capacity and ultimately soil fertility. These potentially negative impacts would be largely mitigated by implementing range improvement soil and water conservation practices identified in the BMPs. Range Improvement Effects Alternative 1: Grazing. The installation and maintenance of range improvements has the potential to damage the soil resources but these adverse effects would be largely mitigated by implementing Best Management Practices. Range improvement soil and water conservation practices, identified in the BMPs, provide guidance on site evaluation, site preparation, and erosion control measures as a means to minimize soil damage to productivity. Alternative 1: No Grazing. There would be no impacts to the soil resources from range improvement installation and maintenance because livestock grazing would not occur. However, the removal of range improvements has the potential to negatively impact the soil resources but these impacts would be largely mitigated by implementing Best Management Practices. Range improvement soil and water conservation practices, identified in the BMPs, provide guidance on site evaluation, site preparation, and erosion control measures as a means to minimize soil damage to productivity. 35

40 Literature Cited Abdel-Magid A., Trlica M.J., & Hart R Soil and Vegetation Responses to Simulated Trampling. J. Range Management 40(4): Baker M. and Jemison R.L Soil Loss Key to understanding site productivity. Agencies and Science Working for the Future New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. Brady N.C The Nature and Properties of Soils. Macmillan Publishing Co. New York. Belnap, Kaltenecker, Rosentreter, Williams, Leonard, & Eldridge TR Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Bird, S., Herrick, J., Wander, M., and Murray, L Multi-scale Variability in Soil Aggregate Stability: Implications for Understanding and Predicting Semi-Arid Grassland Degradation. Geoderma. 140: e&_srch=docinfo(%23toc%235807%232007% % %23fla%23di splay%23volume)&_cdi=5807&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=24&_acct=c &_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= &md5=350d69a97dd9261ba8885e b58787f764. Blackburn, W.H Factors Influencing Infiltration and Sediment Production of Semiarid Rangelands in Nevada. Water Resources Research. 11: Blackburn, Warren, and Taylor Soil Hydrologic Response to Number of Pastures and Stocking Density under Intensive Rotation Grazing. J. Range Management 39(6): Brady, N.C The Nature and Properties of Soils. Macmillan Publishing Co. New York. Cassels D., Gillen RL, McCollum T, Tate K, & Hodges M Effects of grazing management on standing crop dynamics in tall grass prairie. J. Range Management 48(1): Castellano M., and Valone T Livestock, Soil Compaction and Water Infiltration Rate: Evaluating a Potential Desertification Recovery Mechanism. J. Arid Environments. 71: Cole DN Disturbance and Recovery of Trampled Montane Grassland and Forests in Montana. Research Paper INT-389. USFS Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 36

41 Daniel J, Potter K, Altom W, Aljoe H, Stevens R Long-Term Grazing Density Impacts on Soil Compaction. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 45: efer=7&access= Davenport, D.W., Breshears, and Wilcox, A Viewpoint: Sustainability of pinon-juniper ecosystems a unifying perspective of soil erosion thresholds. J. Range Management 51: de Soyza A., Whitford W., Herrick J., Van Zee J., and Havstead Early Warning Indicators of Desertification: Examples of Tests in Chihuahuan Desert. J. Arid Environment. 39: Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Background for NEPA Reviewers: Grazing on Federal Lands. Office of Federal Activities. Washington D.C. Galt D., Molinar F., Navarro J., Joseph J., & Holechek Grazing Capacity and Stocking Rate. Rangelands. 22(6): Gifford G.F. and Whitehead J.M Soil Erosion Effects on Productivity in Rangeland Environments; Where is the Research? J. Range Management 35(6): Hart, J. and Hart, S A Review of Factors Affecting Soil Productivity in Rangelands, Grasslands, and Woodlands of the Southwestern United States. School of Forestry Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, AZ. Hart RH, S. Clapp, & PS Test Grazing strategies, stocking rates, and frequency and intensity of grazing on western wheatgrass and blue grama. J. Range Management 46: Heitschmidt, R The Role of Livestock and Other Herbivores in Improving Rangeland Vegetation. Rangelands 5: Herrick, Whitford, de Soyza, Van Zee, Havstad, Seybold, and Walton Field soil aggregate stability kit for soil quality and rangeland health evaluations. Catena 44: Herrick, J.E., Van Zee, J.W., Havstad, K.M., Burkett, L.M., and Whitford, W.G Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Volume I: Quick Start. In Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Volume I: Quick Start, eds JE Herrick, JW Van Zee, KM Havstad, LM Burkett and WG Whitford Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Hofmann L. and Ries R.E Relationship of soil and plant characteristics to erosion and runoff on pasture and range. J. Soil and Water Conservation 46(2):

42 Holechek, J.L. and Galt, D Grazing Intensity Guidelines. Rangelands 22 (3): pdf Holecheck J., Galt, D., Joseph, J., Navarro, J., Kumalo, G., Molinar, F., and Thomas, M Moderate and light cattle grazing effects on Chihuahuan Desert rangelands. J. Range Management 56: rizona.edu/volume56/number2/ Holecheck, J., Gomez, H., Molinar, F., and Galt, D Grazing Studies: What We ve Learned. Rangelands 21(2). brary.arizona.edu/volume21/number2/ Holechek, J. and D. Galt More on Stubble Height Guidelines. Rangelands 26 (4): Jacobs, B.F., Rome, W.H., and Allen, C.D Mapping old vs. young pinon-juniper stands with a predictive topo-climatic Model. Ecological Applications. Ecological Applications 18(7): Johnston, A Effects of Grazing Intensity and Cover on the Water-Intake Rate of Fescue Grassland. J. Range Manage. 15: Jones A Effects of Cattle Grazing on North American Arid Ecosystems: A Quantitative Review. Western N. American Naturalist. 60(2): Ludwig, J.H., Bradford, Wilcos, Breshears, Tongway, and Imeson Vegetation Patches and runoff-erosion as interacting ecohydrological processes in semiarid landscapes. Ecology 86(2) ecohydrology connection. Lusby, G Hydrologic and Biotic Effects of Grazing vs. Non-grazing Near Grand Junction, Colorado. J. Range Management. 23: Mapfumo, M., Naeth, M., Baron, V., Dick, A., and Chanasyk, D Grazing Impacts on Litter and Roots: Perennial Versus Annual Grasses. J. Range Management. 55: Molinar, F., Galt, D., and Holecheck, J Managing for Mulch. Rangelands. f. Pieper R, Heitschmidt R Is Short-Duration Grazing the Answer? J. Soil and Water Conservation. 43:

43 Printz, J.L., Toledo, D., and Boltz, S.C Rangeland health assessment: The key to understanding and assessing rangeland soil health in the Northern Great Plains. J. Soil and Water Conservation. 69: 73A-77A. Rauzi, F Water-Intake Studies on Range Soils at Three Locations in the Northern Plains. Range Manage. 13: %2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Drauzi%26wc%3Don%26dc%3DAll%2BDisci plines&item=2&ttl=271&returnarticleservice=showarticle Rauzi, F Water Intake and Plant Composition as Affected by Differential Grazing on Rangeland. J. Soil and Water Conservation. May-June: Rauzi, F., and Hanson, C Water Intake and Runoff as Affected by Intensity of Grazing. J. Range Manage. 19: Robertson, G., Boness, P., Gallegos, J., Hurja, J., Leahy, S., Miller, G., Robbie, W., Scalzone, K., Stein, R., and Steinke, R Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest. Southwest Region. Albuquerque, NM. Seybold, C.A., Herrick, J.E., and Brejda, J.J Soil Resilience: A fundamental component of soil quality. Soil Science. 164(4): Trimble, S. and Mendel, A The cow as a geomorphic agent A critical review. Geomorphology 13: H&_user= &_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gate way&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchstrid= &_re runorigin=scholar.google&_acct=c &_version=1&_urlversion=0&_userid= &md5=720c8e49866bd20ea2a6bd9b8fdb472b&searchtype=a USDA Forest Service [FS]. 1990a. Forest Service Handbook Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. USDA U.S. Forest Service [FS]. 1990b. Forest Service Manual Soil Management Manual. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service [FS]. 1999a. Forest Service Handbook Soil Management Handbook, Soil Quality Monitoring R-3 Supplement Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. USDA Forest Service [FS]. 1999b. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. USDA Forest Service [FS] Ecological Classification of the Prescott National Forest. Prescott National Forest. Prescott, AZ. USDA Forest Service [FS] Technical Guidance for Soil Quality Monitoring in the Southwestern Region. Albuquerque New Mexico. 39

44 USDA Forest Service [FS] DRAFT Ecological Response Units of the Southwestern United States. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque New Mexico. USDA Forest Service [FS] Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott National Forest, Yavapai and Coconino Counties Arizona. Prescott, AZ. USDA Forest Service [FS] Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Volume 2. Prescott, AZ. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] Rangeland Soil Quality Information Sheets. Valentine, J.F Grazing Management. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California. Van Haveren, B Soil Bulk Density as Influenced by Grazing Intensity and Soil Type on a Shortgrass Prairie Site. Journal of Range Management. 36: arizona.edu/volume36/number5/azu_jrm_v36_n5_586_588_m.pdf Wahlberg, M.M., F.J. Triepke, W.A. Robbie, S.H. Strenger, D. Vandendriesche, E.H. Muldavin, and J.R Malusa Ecological Response Units of the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service Forestry Report FR-R3-XX-XX. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, Albuquerque, NM. 201 pp. Warren, Blackburn, and Taylor Soil hydrologic response to number of pastures and stocking density under intensive rotation grazing. J. Range Management. 39(6):

45 Appendix A: Best Management Practices Best Management Practices Soil and water conservation measures are means to comply with the Non-Point Source Section of the Clean Water Act and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) signed by the Forest Service (R3) and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) (Jolly 1990). As per the IGA, the most practical and effective means of controlling potential non-point source pollution is through the development of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The general BMP categories were largely derived from the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, but were supplemented and modified to meet project needs (USDA FS 1990a). The number affiliated with each BMP references Southwestern Region FSH (1990a). The following BMPs will be employed. Practice numbers and titles are followed by a brief explanation of site-specific application plans Range Management Soil and water resources were considered in the development of the proposed action to ensure desired conditions are maintained or achieved. Part of the adaptive management strategy employs the use of soil and water conservation practices to achieve soil and water desired results. Adaptive management is dynamic and utilizes a number of rangeland management practices based on site specific characteristics and conditions. Some adaptive management strategies that may be considered are: assigning and adjusting stocking levels, adjusting livestock distribution, establishing deferred or rest rotation schedules, setting utilization and/or stubble height standards, adjusting season and duration of use, fencing, exclosures, range improvements, supplementing, etc Range Analysis, Allotment Management Plan, Grazing Permit System, and Permittee Operating Plan. Objective. To manage rangelands through integrated resource management and ensure they are meeting Forest Land Management Plan objectives (USDA FS 1990a). An interdisciplinary approach was used to ensure objectives of the Forest Land Management Plan are or will be met. This entails reviewing the forest plan and other policy, procedural, and environmental law guidance. Affected environment and current conditions are analyzed for applicable resources and used to determine what is needed to achieve desired conditions. Land managers evaluate current rangeland strategies and integrate adaptive rangeland prescriptions as a proposal to achieve desired conditions. The analysis is incorporated into the 10-year term permit in the form of an Allotment Management Plan (AMP). Annual operating instructions are created every season to implement the AMP and the terms of the permit Controlling Livestock Numbers and Season of Use. Objective. Safeguard water and soil resources under sustained forage production. Managed forage utilization by livestock to maintain healthy ecosystems for all resource objectives (USDA FS 1990a). For specifics review soil recommendations by TEUI and the Effects Analysis. Appendix B provides the Rangeland Utilization Guidelines developed by the Prescott National Forest Rangeland NEPA Core Team Determining Grazing Capability of Lands. Objective. To maintain or improve soil stability, soil productivity and water quality by grazing the land within its capability (USDA FS 1990a). 41

46 This practice is an administrative and preventative control (USDA FS 1990a). Grazing capacity was determined by evaluating historical use records and reviewing historical production and utilization studies. Projections of livestock capacity were performed based on distance to water, available forage production, and topography. Resource conditions and concerns were evaluated through an interdisciplinary team setting and desired conditions and site specific management objectives were developed. Adaptive management strategies will integrate the resources capabilities to ensure resource desired conditions and objectives are met Controlling Livestock Distribution. Objective. To manage sustained forage production and forage utilization by livestock while protecting soil and water resources. Maintaining healthy ecosystems for wildlife and other resources (USDA FS 1990a). Pasture fencing and natural barriers are used to control the distribution of grazing on all allotments. Distribution within each pasture occurs by controlling access to water, by herding, changing season of use, and supplement placement. Distribution needs and techniques will be implemented through Adaptive management Revegetation and Reseeding Objective. Establish vegetative cover on sites to prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation (USDA FS 1990a). Reseeding/revegetation, mycorrhizae inoculation, and/or fertilization may occur to improve/maintain rangeland, vegetation, soil, riparian, watershed, and ecosystem health. Revegetation/reseeding preparation may include scarifying and /or ripping soils Erosion Control Objective. Maintain soil productivity and safeguard water quality (USDA FS 1990a). Erosion control practices and/or maintenance may be employed to improve/maintain rangeland, vegetation, soil, riparian, watershed, and ecosystem health. Some vegetation, soil, and water conservation practices may include: Mulching, wattle construction, water bars, soil imprinting. Constructing channel stabilization structures such as weirs/check dams and bank revetments. Re-contouring landscapes associated with gullies and constructing erosion control structures and revetments. Placing barricades and/or signage to discourage public access to sensitive areas Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas. Objective. To avoid adverse impacts, including impacts to water quality, associated with disturbance of modification of wetlands (USDA FS 1990a). 42

47 The following provides general utilization levels based on riparian/ wetland ecosystem conditions. Site specific conditions and characteristics may require site specific prescriptions. Riparian Condition including springs, seeps, and wetlands Fully Functional Partially Functional Non-Functional Woody 20% Use 20% Use Incidental use Herbaceous 5 minimum stubble height on key riparian species. 8 minimum stubble height on key riparian species. Incidental use Riparian/wetland areas are properly functioning when adequate vegetation, physical channel features and debris is present to 1) develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action, 2) dissipate energies associated with stream flow, 3) filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; and 4) improve flood-water retention and ground water discharge. In riparian areas utilization guidelines for both woody and herbaceous species -- are appropriate only if there is adequate cover or density of riparian vegetation. Generally speaking, riparian areas with perennial surface or subsurface water should support riparian vegetation. Grazing should be deferred on key areas with very low cover or density of riparian vegetation until livestock grazing impacts can be minimized though the application of utilization guidelines. Trailing cattle through riparian areas, especially in narrow valley bottoms where cattle must walk in the channel, greenline and near floodplain, should be avoided. Proper allowable use within riparian areas will not exceed 20 percent on woody species. The goal of the herbaceous species guidelines is primarily to provide residual vegetation for stream channel protection, and secondarily to protect plant vigor. In areas where livestock grazing is occurring stubble height is commonly used as an indicator of sufficient use and as a threshold for removal of livestock from the specific riparian area. It is used where herbaceous vegetation is dominant along the stream edge and controls streambank stability. Stubble height has also been evaluated in terms of plant physiology and the needs to maintain healthy plants. Stubble height, itself, is not a riparian management objective but an indicator of livestock use and potential impacts. It is appropriate where herbaceous vegetation is dominant along the stream edge and controls streambank stability (University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team 2004). It helps to determine if there is enough herbaceous vegetation to move toward meeting management objectives of streambank stability and bank building Fire and Other Post Vegetation Treatment Recovery Soil and vegetation resources will be evaluated after post treatment activities to determine livestock adaptive management strategies to ensure the maintenance of site productivity. An evaluation of sites exposed to treatments is required at the end of the second growing season 43

48 to determine if adequate resource recovery has occurred and identify if any additional adaptive management strategies are needed Rangeland Improvements. Objective. To improve, maintain or restore range resources, including soil and water through the use of rangeland improvements (USDA FS 1990a). Resource protection in the form of rangeland improvements can be constructed as a means to protect soil, water, and vegetation resources and the ecological services they provide. The following BMP s provide general guidelines for newly constructed or reconstruction of range improvements. Range improvements may be constructed as an adaptive management technique. Existing range improvements will be reconstructed and maintained as needed. Adaptive management strategies may lead to constructing new facilities in order to achieve the desirable attainable effects Special Erosion Prevention Measures on Disturbed Land All sites subjected to surface disturbance will be inspected to determine appropriate erosion control measures. Areas will be evaluated to determine the need for prepatory erosion control measures, such as re-smoothing or sloping areas to its natural contours, ripping or scarifying the soil surface, etc Streamside Management Zone A designated zone that consists of the stream and an adjacent area of varying width where management practices that might affect water quality, fish, or other aquatic resources are modified. The SMZ is not a zone of exclusion, but a zone of closely managed activity. It is a zone which acts as an effective filter and absorptive zone for sediment; maintains shade; protects aquatic and terrestrial riparian habitats; protects channel and streambanks; and promotes floodplain stability. The SMZ may be wider that the riparian area. Evaluations are done to determine if there is a need for special soil and water conservation prescriptions and, if so, to develop them. Normally areas up to 150 feet from the channel are evaluated; however, wide floodplains may require a greater area of evaluation and evaluation may determine that a narrower area is all that is required for specific prescriptions Soil Moisture Limitations All operations will be conducted during periods when the probabilities for precipitation, wet soils, and runoff are low Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas All areas that have been disturbed will be evaluated to determine if reseeding is necessary or if natural recruitment is adequate. TES will be used to determine the appropriate grass seed specification Slash Treatment in Sensitive Areas When conditions are warranted, all disturbed sites will be mulched with vegetation slash, certified weed free hay, or any other material deemed appropriate. Other erosion control practices may be implemented in lieu of mulch on a case-by-case basis (e.g., water bars, etc.). 44

49 24.14 Protection of Extremely Unstable Lands Range improvement installation locations will avoid unstable lands. Unstable lands that are unavoidable will require special erosion control measures. 41 Access and Transportation Systems To protect soil and water resources cross country travel will not occur during wet conditions or on slopes 40% gradient or greater Maintenance of Roads Road maintenance will concentrate on improving drainage. Road drainage measures will not channel run-off directly into stream channels. This includes out-sloping the road and maintaining leadoff ditches. Roadwork will not occur during wet or storm conditions. 45

50 Appendix B Prescott National Forest Resource Management Guidelines for Rangeland NEPA Prepared by the Range NEPA Core Team Soils Conditions: Soil Condition: Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Rx: Conservative Intensity (30-40% Use). Light Intensity (0-30% Use). Incidental use regardless of season. Upland Vegetation Conditions: Trend Rangeland Management Status Towards Static Away From Satisfactory Conservative Intensity (30-40% Use) -- Unsatisfactory -- Light Intensity (0-30% Use) Incidental Use regardless of season. *Incidental Use: Discourage regular use while recognizing that use within the lower end of the light use category may occur. However, adaptive management methods and practices to achieve this will be based on site specific allotment management scenarios. Riparian (all riparian vegetation including springs and seeps) Conditions: Fully Functional Partially Functional Non-Functional Rx: Woody 20% Use (Forest Plan S+G s) 20% Use (Forest Plan S+G s) Discourage Use Herbaceous 4-8 minimum stubble height* on key riparian herbaceous species minimum stubble height on key riparian herbaceous species. *Higher end of stubble height is more applicable to facultative species (e.g., deergrass). 46

51 Appendix C Smith Canyon proposed new range improvement map. 47