vegetation & range mgt. specialists...

Forest Service

Vegetation & Range Mgt.

Specialists Report Smith Canyon Allotment

Prescott National Forest – Chino Valley Ranger District

John A. Kava

4/8/2016

Smith Canyon Allotment Range & Specialist Report April 2016

Page 1 of 46

I. General Description

The Smith Canyon Allotment is located on the Chino Valley District of the Prescott National Forest

(PNF) and represents the project area for this analysis, an area of approximately 48,000 acres. The

allotment is located in the southwest portion of the district, approximately 17 miles west of Chino Valley,

Arizona. The allotment is bordered by the Old Camp, Stevens and Williamson Valley Allotments on the

north, Yolo South Allotment and deeded land on the west, and Tank Creek and Toohey Allotments on the

south.

83% of the allotment is in the Santa Maria River watershed the remaining 17% is in the Big Chino

Watershed. The western four fifths of the allotment is drained by Smith Canyon and Cottonwood Canyon

which are tributaries of the Santa Maria River. Riparian vegetation occurs along these stretches

dominated by woody species with some areas of aggradation with grass and grass like vegetation.

Elevation ranges from 3,195 feet at the junction of Smith Canyon and Cottonwood Creek to ~6,200 feet

on Sheridan Mountain. The topography is rough and broken with some flat mesas and more gentle

country in the far eastern portion.

Precipitation patterns in this area are bi-modal with monsoon events occurring during the summer and a

second period of precipitation occurring within the winter season. Precipitation at the Chino Valley

station recorded 13.7” for 2015. These records can be found on the internet at the site: www.wrcc.dri.edu

for the Western Regional Climate Center. For the period of record from 1941 to 2015, the mean annual

precipitation was 11.9”. Cool-season precipitation (October through May) for this timeframe had a mean

of 6.3”, and summer precipitation (June through September) accounted for 5.6”. The average minimum

temperature typically occurs in December, and is around 20 degrees F, and the average maximum

temperature occurs in July at just over 90 degrees F.

Bagdad has precipitation and temperature records from 1925 to 2012 found at the same internet site. For a

period of record from 1925 to 2012, the mean annual precipitation was 14.4”. Cool-season precipitation

(October through May for this timeframe had a mean of 9.4”, and summer precipitation (June through

September) accounted for 5”. The average minimum temperature typically occurs in January, and is

around 32 degrees F, and the average maximum temperature occurs in July at 96 degrees F.

Vegetation on the allotment consists primarily of Pinyon Juniper evergreen shrub and Interior Chaparral,

with ten percent considered Juniper grassland. Canopy cover from shrub species is moderately to

extremely thick in some locations to the extent that herbaceous forage is reduced or absent. A portion of

the forage base of the allotment is provided by desirable browse species such as turbinella oak with

mountain mahogany, deerbrush, and skunkbush in smaller quantities. Perennial grasses can be locally

abundant, especially in juniper woodlands that have been previously thinned, and south aspects. Important

forage grasses on the allotment include blue grama, sideoats grama, threeawns, sand dropseed, vine

mesquite and squirreltail.

Recreation activity on the allotment is primarily associated with camping, off road vehicle use, and

hunting. Access is not limited. There are no developed recreation sites on the allotment, though several

areas receive heavy impact from these activities. Big game hunting opportunities exist for deer, elk, bear,

turkey and javelina.

II. History of Use The first recorded account of the Smith Canyon Allotment was in 1941 when the Stewart Range was

transferred to the subject allotment. A total of 549 cattle yearlong (cyl) were permitted on the TJ and

Smith Canyon Allotments.

In 1948 a permit was issued for 560 cyl on the TJ, Smith Canyon and Sycamore Allotments. The TJ and

Smith Canyon permits were transferred in 1950 with 300 cyl and a temporary permit for 100 cyl.

In 1960 all previously discussed allotments were combined to form the Smith Canyon Allotment for 548

cyl. In October of 1962, commensurate property and cattle on the Old Camp portion of the Stewart

Allotment was sold and the Smith Canyon Allotment was changed to 502 cyl.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/


Page 2 of 46

In 1964, the commensurate property and livestock transferred with the preference number of 502 cyl and

10 head of free use horses.

Tailholt pasture of the Smith Canyon Allotment was transferred to the Williamson Valley Allotment

effective January 1, 1973. This transfer reduced the Smith Canyon permit from 502 cattle yearlong to

442 cyl. Free use privileges for 10 horses were cancelled.

In 1981 a permit for 296 head cows and 4 horses was issued and that number of animals is still authorized

today.

Livestock

While breed of livestock is not always discussed. For the recent past ownership the typical breed has been

a cross of Barzona cows with Brangus bulls. Bulls are kept with the cows yearlong. Calves are worked

and steers weaned for sale at market. Some heifers are kept on the ranch and culls usually come from

older cows when needed to reduce herd numbers in drought and to stay within the Permitted AUMs.

III. Grazing Management Actual Use

The term grazing permit has authorized 296 head of cattle and 4 horses since 1981 which equates to 3,600

AUMs. An AUM is defined here as a measure of the average amount of forage used by one cow-calf pair

over the course of one month. Grazing records show that between 2000 and 2014 actual cattle use

averaged 155 head (1,865 AUM). The low was in 2003 at 60 head for 4 months (240 AUM) and the high

in 2013 with 296 head for 10.4 months (3,088 AUM).

The allotment is managed by the use of one herd moving through five major and two minor pastures as

outlined in the Annual Operation Instruction (AOI). Each pasture typically receives a full year rest prior

to use. A typical rotation is east to west moving onto deeded land then returning to the forest moving west

to east. There are several handling facilities and deeded land where cattle are worked and held for short

periods of time. A typical rotation would move cattle from Moana to Spider and through Jones to Smith

Mesa and Cottonwood then into Smith Canyon and exiting to the “basin” deeded land west of the Forest

boundary. In the spring/summer they would move back through Smith Canyon via the north benches

through Smith Mesa or use the south benches through Granites then into Spider and winter in Moana.

Through the years fences and corrals have been added and removed to the existing collective of what

remains today, (Table 1). Water developments are well distributed and mostly in good condition. Control

of livestock is through herding and controlling water in larger pastures. Livestock are moved between

pastures by trailing along established roads and trails.

In most years pastures will receive complete rest as noted in Table 2.

Table 1 Structural Range Improvements

TYPE Number Names

Allotment Boundary Fences approx. 42 miles

Various

Allotment Interior Fences approx. 34 miles

Various


Page 3 of 46

Handling Facilities – corrals/water lots 39

Alkaline SP WL Anderson Bear SP WL Black Jack Bootleg WL Bullwater Burke SP Conger Cottonwood SP Cottonwood Cabin Cottonwood Cowboy Dillon WL Dillon Corral Dry Creek Trap Dry Creek Corral Dumbell Granite SP Jenkins Trap Left Hand SP WL

Left Hand WL Moana Mud Spring North Benches Old Camp SP Queens Rincon Rock Spring South Benches Seepage Sheridan Lake Smith Canyon Smith Mesa Spider WL Toohey WL Tub Trail Walker WL Willow SP Willow Springs Cabin

Earthen stock tanks 25 Alkaline Bootleg Bull Dillon Dyke Pond Eagle Horseshoe Jenkins Trap Jones Left Hand Moana Pemberton Queens

Rincon Saddle Seepage Sheridan Sheridan Lake Smith Mesa Spider South Benches Sycamore Springs Toohey Trap Walker

Wells/Water Systems (springs) 22 Cottonwood Well Alkaline Bear Bootlegger Bull Water Bull Burke Conger Water Cottonwood Deer Granite

Jenkins Laurel Left Hand Murphy Rock South Benches Strickland Sycamore Tubs Tunnel #2 Willow

Table 2 Pasture Rotations Year Pasture Number of Cattle Dates 2014 Granites 200 cows bulls 3/1-4/15 Smith Mesa

246 cows bulls 4/16-8/1

Cottonwood 8/2-10/15 Smith Canyon 10/16-1/15 2013 Cottonwood

246 cows bulls 3/1-3/15

Smith Canyon 6/15-9/15 Spider

200 cows bulls 9/16-12/15

Granites 12/16-2/28 2012 Jones 50 cows bulls 3/1-5/15 Moana 100 cows bulls 3/1-5/15 Smith Canyon

246 cows bulls 5/16-6/30

Smith Mesa 7/1-10/15 Cottonwood 10/15-2/28 2011 Cottonwood

296 cows bulls 3/15-4/14

Smith Mesa 4/15-7/15 Granites 250 cows bulls 7/16-9/1 Spider 251 cows bulls 9/2-12/15 Spider 125 cows bulls 12/15-2/28 Granites 100 cows bulls 12/15-2/28


Page 4 of 46

2010 Jones 50 cows 3/1-6/15 Smith Canyon

296 cows bulls 6/16-10/15

Cottonwood 10/16-2/28 2009 Smith Mesa

296 cows bulls 4/15-7/15

Spider 7/16-10/15 Granites 10/16-2/28 2008 Smith Canyon

170 cows bulls 7/15-10/15

Cottonwood 10/16-2/28 2007 Smith Canyon

170 cows bulls 3/15-5/15

Granites 5/16-8/15 Smith Mesa 8/16-10/15 Spider 105 cows 10/16-2/29 Jones 15 bulls 10/16-2/29 2006 Granites 95 cows 3/1-4/15 Jones 15 bulls 3/1-4/15 Smith Mesa

140 cows bulls 4/16-6/15

Smith Canyon 6/16-9/30 Smith Canyon 10/1-12/15 2005 Jones 25 heifers 3/1-4/15 Smith Canyon 25 heifers 4/25-8/1 Smith Canyon 85 cows bulls 6/15-8/1 Smith Mesa 110 cows bulls 8/2-11/15 Granites 95 cows 12/1-2/28 Jones 15 bulls 12/1-2/28 2004 Cottonwood

85 cows

3/1-4/7 Smith Mesa 4/8-7/7 Spider 7/8-9/20 Granites 9/21-12/15 Jones 25 heifers 2/1-2/28 2003 Smith Canyon

60 cows 7/15-9/15

Smith Mesa 9/16-11/15 Cottonwood 85 cows 11/16-2/28 2002 Smith Canyon 250 cows bulls 4/16-4/30 Spider 153 cows bulls 5/1-7/31 Granites 75 cows bulls 8/1-9/30 Cottonwood 54 cows bulls 10/1-2/15 2001 Granites 175 cows 3/1-3/31 Jones 25 bulls 3/1-3/31 Moana 50 cows 3/1-3/31 Smith Mesa 225 cows 25 bulls 4/1-7/15 Cottonwood 150 mixed 7/16-11/15 Granites 75 mixed 7/16-11/15 Smith Canyon 225 cows 25 bulls 11/16-2/28 2000 Smith Canyon

225 cows 25 bulls 3/1-4/15

Smith Canyon 7/15-8/15 Smith Mesa 8/15-9/15 Spider 225 cows 9/15-12/15 Spider

175 cows 12/15-2/15/01

Granites 2/15-2/29 Moana 50 cows 12/15-2/29/01 Jones 25 bulls 9/15-2/29/01

Stocking of the Smith Canyon Allotment on an approximate Animal-Month basis is shown in

Table 3. An Animal Month is one month of occupancy by one head of livestock, and does not

indicate a forage basis for stocking. Drought conditions were observed on the Prescott National

Forest beginning in the mid-late1990s. Drought conditions persisted from 2002-2008, as shown

by reduced numbers.


Page 5 of 46

Table 3 Actual use on the Smith Canyon Allotment, 2000-2014

Year Animal-Months Year Animal-Months 2000 2,003 2007 1,722 2001 2,975 2008 1,264 2002 1,160 2009 3,088 2003 240 2010 2,650 2004 827 2011 2,958 2005 952 2012 2,593 2006 1,277 2013 1,926 2014 2,483 Average HMs 1,874 or 173 cattle

IV. Vegetation Trends Permanent key area cluster sites were established to monitor range vegetation condition and soil stability

using the Parker Three Step Method. The Parker Three Step method measures plant species that are

encountered within a ¾ inch loop placed at one-foot intervals on a 100 foot tape. If no plant is “hit” by the

loop at the one-foot increment, then the nearest perennial plant to the foot mark is noted, so that 100 plant

species are recorded that are either a “hit” or closest to the loop. This gives an indication of relative

species abundance, but it does not correlate to plant cover or density, or true plant composition. It does

give evidence for what the land looked like.

Vegetation condition ratings by the Parker Three Step Method are based on scores for three elements:

composition, forage plant cover, and vigor. Plant species are classified according to the manner in which

they respond to grazing or disturbance as decreasers, increasers, or invaders.

This is not a rating system that considers similarity with site potential based on soils or climate, nor does

it rate the overall ecological status.

Desirable plants that will “decrease” in abundance under grazing pressure within juniper woodland plant

communities include sideoats grama, wolfstail, and black grama. Forage plants that will “increase” with

some grazing pressure include blue grama, hairy grama, some threeawns, sand dropseed, and shrubby

buckwheat. Perennial plants that “invade” areas under heavy grazing or disturbance and/or are not

considered palatable to livestock include juniper, manzanita, snakeweed, shrub oak, wait-a-minute bush,

ring muhly, and some threeawns. Some plants, like blue grama, are listed in multiple categories. This

plant is an increaser when found in moderate amounts, but it is shown as an invader in high amounts.

Methods of scoring Parker Three Step clusters have changed since the key areas were first evaluated in

the 1960s, so the vegetation condition ratings shown in Table 4 list the condition classes (fair, poor, very

poor) for comparison purposes. The rating system indicates the quality of the rangeland for livestock

grazing based on cattle grazing preference, and does not suggest whether the site is at its ecological

potential based on vegetation, soil, slope, or climate.


Page 6 of 46

Table 4 Parker Cluster Data by Location

Cluster and Location TEUI Category 1963 1970 1999 C4, Spider Pasture. 486 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend Poor↑ poor→ N/A

Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 65% 84% 73% Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance

Blue grama 51% 54% 52% Fendler’s threeawn 3% 23% 17% Sideoats grama 2% 6% 2% Shrubby buckwheat 23% 9% 15%

C5, Granites Pasture,

¼ mile NE of Walker

Tank, Section 9.

468 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend Poor↑ N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 76% 69%

Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance Blue grama 23% 10% Sideoats grama 49% 49% Squirreltail 3% 2% Shrubby buckwheat 3% 12%

C9, Smith Mesa

Pasture, west of

Queens Tank Section

21.

490 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend Poor↑ N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 88% 34%

Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance Blue grama 49% 17% Sideoats grama 17% 2% Aristida spp. 21% 12% Shrubby buckwheat 5% 60%

C10, Smith Mesa

Pasture, east of Trap

Tank, Section 30.

490 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend poor↑ N/A N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 80% 64% 67%

Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance Blue grama 3% 1% 1% Sideoats grama 14% 24% 46% Squirreltail 50% 32% 3% Juniper 0% 6% 25%

C18, Moana Pasture,

east of Section 20.

486 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend poor↓ N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 99% 91%

Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance Blue grama 44% 50% Sideoats grama 10% 7% Hairy grama 21% 23% Shrubby buckwheat 1% 9% Juniper

C19, Moana Pasture,

between Section 20

& 21.

468 Category 1963 1998 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend Poor↑ N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 94% 82%

Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance Blue grama 67% 80% Fendler’s threeawn 16% 0% Ring muhly 10% 2% Shrubby buckwheat 6% 11%

C23, Smith Canyon

Pasture, South of

Dyke Pond Tank

Section 27.

427 Category

1963

1998

Vegetation Condition Score and Trend Poor↑ N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 42% 36%

Plant Species Trends for Relative Abundance Tobosagrass 42% 36% Broom snakeweed 26% 44% Mesquite 0% 16%

C24, Smith Canyon

Pasture, southeast of

Willow Spring,

Section 23.

461 Vegetation Condition Score and Trend poor↑ N/A N/A Relative Abundance of Perennial Grasses 71% 76% 74%

Plant Species Trends for Relative

Abundance

Curly mesquite 62% 67% 60% Blue grama 6% 1% 7% Sideoats grama 3% 7% 7% Shrubby buckwheat 2% 2% 3% Juniper 0% 9% 9%


Page 7 of 46

When the initial key areas were established in 1963 they rated poor with seven in upward trend and one in

downward trend. In 1970, 13 years after establishment C4 in the Spider was read, and rated poor stable

but the relative abundance of perennial grass had increased from 65% to 84%. The next time these sites

were read was in 1998-99, 35 years after establishment. The third reading did not get scored.

The fact that these sites were not examined on a more regular basis makes it difficult to interpret what

grazing practices may have influenced the change in vegetation scores. This data, though limited in its

utility to judge the ecological health of the land, does offer a glimpse into the changes that have occurred

on the landscape over time. The photographs tell a story of invasion of woody species on most locations.

Of particular note is the change in relative abundance of perennial grass species at the monitoring sites.

Spider Pasture

Relative abundance of perennial grass increased from 1963 to 1970, but decreased 11% at the time it was

read in 1999. Blue grama has remained steady through this time in the low 50% relative abundance,

Fendler’s threeawn increased significantly from 1963 to 1970 and decreased in 1999. These fluctuations

may have been caused by livestock or climate. Both have fluctuated over the years. Perhaps the most

telling is the photos below. Shrubs and trees continue to grow, and in the 2009 photo the grasses have

recovered significantly from the 1970 photo below.

Spider C4 1970 left, 2009 right.

Granites Pasture

Relative abundance of perennial grasses decreased slightly over the 35 years between readings. Blue

grama decreased 13% but other grasses remained steady as shrubby buckwheat increased 4 fold. This site

is in a stable trend. The evidence of seeing more rock in the 1975 photo compared to the 2015 photo

indicate higher vegetation cover in 2015.


Page 8 of 46

Granites C5 1975, 2015

Smith Mesa Pasture

Initial reading showed an 80% abundance of perennial grass vs. 67% read in 2009. Blue grama decreased

slightly while sideoats grama increased significantly. Squirreltail, a cool season grass has almost

disappeared, which may be due to warming temperatures. See notes on Smith Canyon pasture C23.

Perhaps most telling in the photos below is the increase in juniper density. With increased trees shading

out grasses the amount of forage is decreasing at this site.

Smith Mesa C10 1976, 2015

Moana Pasture

C18 - Relative abundance remained steady between readings, grass species did not change significantly.

The photos indicate encroachment of juniper into the open spaces of this savannah. Continued unchecked

the juniper will shade out the grasses.


Page 9 of 46

Moana Pasture C18 1975, 1999, 2009,

C19 – Relative grass abundance decreased 22% between readings, Fendlers threeawn disappeared from

the site and ring muhly decreased significantly, while blue grama increased to 80%. Stable. In the photos

below the juniper have increased in size so the deciduous trees in the early photo are becoming obscured

in the 2009 photo.

Moana Pasture C19 1975 left, 2009 right.


Page 10 of 46

Smith Canyon

C23 – Relative abundance of perennial grasses remained fairly stable between readings. Broom

snakeweed increased as did mesquite. Some texts report snakeweed is an indicator of disturbed areas

linked to livestock grazing, and others describe the natural cycling of snakeweed in communities.

Increasing mesquite may be due to warming climate. Heavy use has reduce diversity of grasses in this

area. See photos below.

Smith Canyon C23 1971, 2015

C24 – Relative abundance of perennial grasses has remained stable across the readings of this site. Curly

mesquite is the anchor that holds this area together with minor amounts of blue and sideoats grama. This

is a stable site for vegetation. Photos below show the encroachment of juniper into this formerly open

savannah.

Smith Canyon C24 1971, 2015

Cottonwood Pasture

C25 in photos below represent map unit 425. These photos show an area that had prescribed fire in 1987. Fire return

interval of this ecological response unit is 35-200 years based on the Ecological Response Units of the Southwestern


Page 11 of 46

United States, (USDA 2014). Photos show an increase in juniper and pinyon trees and the density of shrubs in higher as

the 2015 photos do not show as many granitic outcroppings.

Cottonwood Pasture C25T2 1971, 2015

Cottonwood Pasture C25T1 1971, 2015

V. Existing conditions Analysis

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest and its associated Ecological

Classification is used in describing the vegetative condition on the Smith Canyon Allotment. Process and

methodology are described in “Field Process for Assessing Rangeland Conditions as Part of Rangeland

NEPA Analysis on the Prescott National Forest”. The R3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training

Guide, provides guidance in the use of Desired Vegetation Status (DVS) to determine Rangeland

Management Status (RMS); RMS is the allotment managements’ success in meeting resource objectives.

For this project, the DVS was determined to be an ecological type (ET): the potential vegetation for each

ecological map unit described in the TES. However, in some cases the ET perennial grass indicator

species may not have been present in the site sampled, but if desirable perennial grasses were present

instead with canopy cover similar to ET average cover, then DVS was being met by existing conditions.

A community type (CT) refers to existing vegetation communities that do not currently reflect potential

vegetation due either to disturbance or natural processes related to the development of the community.

Vegetation may be disturbed by a number of factors including: grazing, fire, and other activities.


Page 12 of 46

For the purpose of these analyses, it is not practical to individually analyze each map unit occurring

within an allotment or project area. To facilitate a meaningful analysis, representative Terrestrial

Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TEUI) map units were selected in each major pasture within the allotment.

The areas selected for analysis are based on the key area concept; “a relatively small portion of a range

selected because of its location, use or grazing value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed

that key areas, if properly selected, will reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing management

over the range” (SRM 1998). There were 7 TEUI map units chosen as key areas to evaluate vegetation

ecological status in seven 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. Table 5 shows the relative acreage of

each of these key map units on the allotment.

Table 5 TEUI Map Units Analyzed

TEUI Map Unit Total Acres Percent of Allotment

425 2,042 4%

427 255 1%

461 2,698 6%

462 4,782 10%

477 5,081 11%

486 5,462 11%

490 5,082 11%

Total analyzed 25,403 53%

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 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. The TEUI units that make up the

PNVTs is shown in Table 6. 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.

Table 6 Potential Native Vegetation Type

PNVT TEUI included Within Acreage Percent of

Allotment

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub 430, 432, 434, 461, 462, 464, 477,

479, 481, 485, 486, 491 28,285 60

Juniper Grassland 427, 428, 490 5,742 12

Interior Chaparral 47, 425, 436, 448, 475, 476, 483, 551 12,451 26

Colorado Plateau Grassland 45 17 0

Riparian Gallery Forest 41, 48, 50 459

0

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak

505, 563 76 0

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak 55 80 0


Page 13 of 46

Figure 1 Map of Key TEUIs

TEUI 425, Cottonwood Pasture TES Map Unit: 425 Acres in Pasture: 866

% of Pasture: 14

Existing Ecological Community Type: CT1.2

Sampled Vegetation Potential % Cover, Species of ET1 Notes: The tree component

at this site is <1% due to

fire within last 10-15

years. ET1 PNC shrub

component is 64% similar,

and the graminod

component is 52% similar

to the described site

average.

Lifeform %

Cover Primary Species: % Cover Primary Species:

Tree: >1 Pied 3 Juniperus spp. Pinus edulis

Shrub: 63 Arpu, Cemo,

Qutu, Rhtr

39 Quercus turbinella, Rhus

trilobata

Perennial

Grass:

18 Arist, Bocu,

Bogr, Pofe, Elele

15 Arist, Bocu, Bogr, Elele,

Pofe

Rangeland Management Status: Satisfactory

Approximated Ecological Status: Mid-Similarity for perennial grasses (52%)

Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: None

Notes: Prescribed fire in 1990’s


Page 14 of 46

Photo 1 above: Key TEUI map unit in Cottonwood pasture, TEUI 425, September 2015

Discussion: The key map unit in the Cottonwood pasture, TEUI 425, is Chaparral on hills and elevated

plains with gentle to moderate slopes (0-40%) across the northwestern and central portion of the pasture.

The vegetation for this map unit fits within the Interior Chaparral PNVT. Soils are shallow and very stony

or very cobbly. Texture is course sandy loam. The site average is variable among the community types for

tree shrub and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 10-20% mostly comprised of Juniper. Shrub

cover ranges from 32-68% cover primarily consisting of turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial

grass cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover, having 15% cover from indicator species 3 Awn

(Aristida spp.), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), squirreltail

(Elymus elymoides), and muttongrass (Poa fendleriana).

The data to describe existing vegetation was collected September 2015. The growing season in 2015 had

about average precipitation and grasses were in good (Bogr-blue grama) and excellent (Bocu-sideoats

grama) vigor at the time of sampling. Sampling occurred prior to annual grazing. Grass cover was 18%

just above ET1 total graminoid cover mean of 15%. The site selected is adjacent to historic sampling site

for TEUI 425. The historic site was not within the prescribed burn area and may be experiencing

increased impact due to its closeness to a livestock loafing area.

Diversity of grasses and shrubs are in line with expected numbers of species for ET1. Seven perennial

grass species were found on site, ET1 maximum is eight. Cool season grasses make up one third of the

species found on site comprising 3% of the total cover. Shrub species on site is 8 and expected is 9.

High shrub cover and low tree cover on this site match best with CT1.2, but the grass cover on site

exceeds all classifications.

This area has responded well to the prescribed burn in 1985. Shrub component is healthy and showing

moderate historic use. Juniper has not begun to grow yet and skeletons of burned trees are still standing.


Page 15 of 46

TEUI 427, Smith Canyon Pasture TES Map Unit: 427 Acres in Pasture: 255

% of Pasture: 2



at this site is 8% similar to

ET1 PNC, shrub


and the graminod


to the described average.

Lifeform %


Tree: 0.2 Junip 36 Juniperus spp.

Shrub: 12 Prve, Yuba,

Oputia, Gusa,

Erwr

20 Erwr, Gusa, Opuntia, Prve

Perennial

Grass:

5 Himu, Elele 41 Bocu, Hibe, Plmu

Rangeland Management Status: Unsatisfactory

Approximated Ecological Status: Low-Similarity for perennial grasses (17%)

Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Parker Cluster data from Cluster 23 also located in this TEUI shown in

Table 4.

Notes: It appears this site has been grazed for an extended time (yearlong, unauthorized livestock). Measured

utilization was 42% on tobosagrass, it is greening up and starting regrowth.

Photo 2 above: Key TEUI map unit in Smith Canyon pasture, TEUI 427, October 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Smith Canyon pasture, TEUI 427, is pinon juniper woodlands found

on lowland and elevated plains with gentle to moderate slopes (0-24%) located in the west central portion

of this pasture. The vegetation for this map unit fits within the Juniper Grassland PNVT. Soils are deep,

very stony, silty clay loam with high shrink/swell properties. The site average is variable among the

community types for tree shrub and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 1-7% comprised of Juniper,


Page 16 of 46

shrub cover ranges from 12-27% cover primarily consisting of shrubby buckwheat (Eriogonum wrightii).

Perennial grass cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover, having 41% average cover dominated

by tobosagrass (Pleuraphis mutica) at 30% with sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) and curly

mesquite (Hilaria belangeri) making up less than 5% each.

The data to describe existing vegetation was collected October 2015. This site, like others visited seemed

to have received little to no precipitation and grasses were in poor vigor (Plmu-tobosagrass) at the time of

sampling. The day we monitored this site we were run off due to thunderstorm activity. Sampling

occurred soon after grazing. Utilization on tobosagrass was measured at 42% use by weight. Grass cover

was 5%, 8 times less than ET1 total graminoid cover mean. The site selected is a historic sampling site for

TEUI 427.

Diversity of grass on this site is well below expected when compared to the ecological classification

guide. Only two grass species were found on site while ET1 averages 7. CT1.3 shows only 2 grass species

with 8% cover and is described in the classification guide as evidence of disturbance. Of the two species

on site one was a cool season grass, squirreltail consisting of just over 1% canopy cover.

Due to grazing of this site prior to our data collection, measured at 42% by weight on tobosagrass, it may

be unfair to compare the canopy cover recorded with the Ecological Type average. The majority of above

ground weight is near the bottom of graminoid plants so 42% removal of weight removes a considerable

amount of canopy, well over 50%.

The dominance of velvet mesquite is also a sign of disturbance. Mesquite is well adapted to compete with

herbaceous species for moisture and may account for loss of grass cover, and could also be an indicator of

warming temps moving vegetation higher up in elevation.

TEUI 461, Smith Canyon Pasture TES Map Unit: 461 Acres in Pasture: 1,860

% of Pasture: 13



at this site is 18% similar

to ET1 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %

Cover

Primary Species: % Cover Primary Species:

Tree: 4 Juniper 36 Juniperus spp.

Shrub: 9 Qutu, Gusa,

Opuntia

20 Gusa, Qutu, Rhtr

Perennial

Grass:

41 Hibe, Bocu, Bogr 16 Bocu, Bogr, Bohi, Elele



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Parker Cluster data from Cluster 24 also located in this TEUI shown in

Table 4.

Notes: This site has been grazed heavily or for an extended period of time without rest. Measured utilization was

7% on curly mesquite (Hibe), however blue grama and sideoats grama present on site were difficult to

distinguish due to high use levels


Page 17 of 46

Photo 3 above: Key TEUI map unit in Smith Canyon pasture, TEUI 461, October 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Smith Canyon pasture, TEUI 461, is pinon juniper woodlands found

on elevated plains with gentle slopes (averaging 4%) located in the west central portion of this pasture.

The vegetation for this map unit fits within the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT. Soils are shallow

to moderately deep, extremely cobbly to extremely stony, clay loam or sandy clay loam with high

shrink/swell properties. The site average is variable among the community types for tree, shrub, and

graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 21-36% comprised of Juniper, shrub cover ranges from 9-20%

cover primarily consisting of turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial grass cover will vary

depending on shrub and tree cover, having 16% average cover made up of the grama grasses: Sideoats

grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) and hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta).

The data to describe existing vegetation was collected October 2015. This site, like others visited seemed

to have received little to no precipitation and grasses were in fair vigor (Hibe-curly mesquite) at the time

of sampling. Sampling occurred soon after cattle were removed from this pasture. Utilization on curly

mesquite was measured at 7% use by weight. Total perennial grass cover was 41%, 3 times more than

ET1 total grass cover average. Curly mesquite makes up 38% of the grass cover on site, the remainder

was sideoats and blue grama. ET1 describes 9 different species of grass in this soil type. Diversity is low

in comparison. Curly mesquite does well on compacted soils and will increase with moderate to heavy

grazing. This is not completely indicative of the TEUI. The site selected is a historic sampling site for

TEUI 461.

It is difficult to overgraze curly mesquite (average ungrazed height was 2.8”), but this grass rated as fair

and may be getting overused. Diversity may also be affected due to the closely grazed grass making it

difficult to determine if blue grama was interspersed with the curly mesquite.

This overall vegetation on this site best matches CT1.2 which lacks the presence of turbinella oak

compared to CT1.1.


Page 18 of 46

TEUI 461, Granites Pasture TES Map Unit: 461 Acres in Pasture: 401

% of Pasture: 9




to ET1 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %


Tree: 20 Juniper, Pied 36 Juniperus spp. Pied

Shrub: 24 Miacb, Opuntia

Yuba

20 Gusa, Qutu, Rhtr

Perennial

Grass:

10 Bocu, Bogr, Plmu 16 Bocu, Bogr, Bohi, Elele



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Parker Cluster data from Cluster 5 also located in this TEUI and pasture

shown in Table 4.

Notes: Vigor: Bogr good, Bocu good, Plmu good.

Photo 4 above: Key TEUI map unit in Granites pasture, TEUI 461, August 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Granites pasture, TEUI 461, is pinon juniper woodlands found on

elevated plains with gentle slopes (averaging 4%) located in the south central portion of this pasture

surrounding Walker Tank. The vegetation for this map unit fits within the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub

PNVT. Soils are shallow to moderately deep, extremely cobbly to extremely stoney, clay loam or sandy

clay loam with high shrink/swell properties. The site average is variable among the community types for

tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 21-36% comprised of Juniper, shrub cover


Page 19 of 46

ranges from 9-20% cover primarily consisting of turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial grass

cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover, having 16% average cover made up of the grama

grasses: Sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) and hairy grams (Bouteloua hirsuta).

The data to describe existing vegetation was collected August 2015. The growing season in 2015 had

about average precipitation and grasses were in good vigor (Bogr-blue grama, Bocu-sideoats grama, and

Plmu-tobosagrass) at the time of sampling. This particular location looked to have not received as much

rain as other areas to the east and north. Sampling occurred prior to grazing, and had been rested for

nearly 1 year. Total perennial grass cover was 10%, 6% lower than ET1 total graminoid cover mean.

Diversity of grasses is low with 4 species on site and 9 described in ET1. CT1.1 averages 3 species of

grass, which this site is most similar to. The site selected is a historic sampling site for TEUI 461.

TEUI 477, Granites Pasture TES Map Unit: 477 Acres in Pasture: 2,104

% of Pasture: 45




to ET1 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %

Cover


Tree: 14 Juniper spp, Pied,

Quem

20 Juniperus spp. Pied

Shrub: 38 Qutu, Arpu,

Cemo, Miacb,

Gawr

29 Arpr, Cemo, Miac, Qutu,

Rhtr

Perennial

Grass:

8 Bocu, Erin, Lyse,

Bogr, Bohi,

Muem

13 Bocu, Bogr



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: No Parker Cluster data correlation

Notes: Vigor: Bocu good, Erin good,

Photo 5 above: Key TEUI map unit in Granites pasture, TEUI 477, September 2015


Page 20 of 46

Discussion: A key map unit in the Granites pasture, TEUI 477, is pinon juniper woodlands found on hills

with gentle to steep slopes (0-40%) and make up the majority of usable acres in this pasture. The

vegetation for this map unit fits within the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT. Soils are shallow,

extremely bouldery, loamy course sand. Soils developed in granite, and rock outcroppings are common.

The site average is variable among the community types for tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover

ranges from 1-29% comprised of Juniper and piñon pine, shrub cover ranges from 29-51% cover

primarily consisting of turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial grass cover will vary depending on

shrub and tree cover ranges from 4-13%.


about average precipitation and grasses were in good vigor (Bocu-sideoats and Erin-plains lovegrass) at

the time of sampling. This particular location looked to have not received as much rain as other areas to

the east and north. A nearby spring that is fairly perennial was completely dry. Sampling occurred prior to

grazing.

Total perennial grass cover was 8%, 5% less than ET1 total graminoid cover average. With 8 grass

species found on site diversity is good as ET describes 13 species. This site matches CT1.1 better than

other described classifications. The site selected is midway between Elbow Spring and Anderson Field

water sources.

TEUI 462, Spider Pasture TES Map Unit: 462 Acres in Pasture: 988

% of Pasture: 14




to ET1 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %


Tree: 22 Juniper, 27 Juniperus spp. Pied

Shrub: 35 Cegr, Cemo,

Gawr, Miacb,

Qutu, Rhtr,

Opuntia

20 Cegr, Gusa, Qutu

Perennial

Grass:

19 Bocu, Bogr,

Koma, Aristida,

Elele

17 Bocu, Bogr, Bohi, Hibe



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Not represented with Parker Cluster data.

Notes: Vigor: Bogr good


Page 21 of 46

Photo 6 above: Key TEUI map unit in Spider pasture, TEUI 462, September 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Spider pasture, TEUI 462, is pinon juniper woodlands found on hills

with gentle to steep slopes (1-56%) and make up the majority of usable acres surrounding Lefthand and

Toohey tanks in this pasture. The vegetation for this map unit fits within the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen

Shrub PNVT. Soils range from shallow to moderately deep, extremely stony or extremely cobbly, sandy

clay loam. Soils developed in basalt or schist material. The site average is variable among the community

types for tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 5-29% comprised of Juniper and piñon

pine, shrub cover ranges from 16-42% cover primarily consisting of turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella).

Perennial grass cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover and ranges from 4-30%.


about average precipitation and grasses were in good vigor (Bocu-sideoats grama) at the time of

sampling. This particular location looked to have received more rain than most other areas visited.

Lefthand tank was just under half full, and a nearby spring was three quarters full.

Grass cover was 19%, above ET1 average 17%. Six grass species were on site compared to 7 described

for ET1. There are 5 classifications for ET1, this site does not fit into any of them.

The lack of pinyon pine would land it in CT1.5, but the increased amount of turbinella oak would put it in

CT1.3 and the grass cover fits into CT1.4 with the amount of sideoats grama.

This area was part of a prescribed fire in 1988. It has responded well with browse in good vigor.


Page 22 of 46

TEUI 486, Spider Pasture TES Map Unit: 486 Acres in Pasture: 2,545

% of Pasture: 36




to ET2 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %


Tree: 6 Juniper, Pied,

Quem

13 Juniperus spp. Pied

Shrub: 29 Arpu, Fone,

Gawr, Miac,

Qutu

29 Arpu5, Qutu2

Perennial

Grass:

7 Aristida, Bogr 16 Bocu, Bogr



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Parker Cluster data from Cluster 4 also located in this TEUI and pasture

shown in Table 4.

Notes: Vigor: Bogr poor, Aristida fair.

Photo 7 above: Key TEUI map unit in Spider pasture, TEUI 486, August 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Spider pasture, TEUI 486, is pinon juniper woodlands on elevated and

lowland plains on surrounding Jones Mountain with gentle slopes averaging 5% (0-15%). This TEUI

surrounds the Private land headquarters to the south and east of this pasture. The vegetation for this map

unit fits within the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT. Soils are shallow to deep, gravelly to very

gravelly. Texture is coarse sandy loam or loamy coarse sand from granitic parent material. The site


Page 23 of 46

average is variable among the community types for tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges

from 13-28% comprised of Juniper, Emory oak, and piñon pine, shrub cover ranges from 27-50% cover

primarily consisting of turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial grass cover will vary depending on

shrub and tree cover and ranges from 3-21%.


about average precipitation, however this area appears to have not received much of that rainfall. Grasses

were in fair (Aristida) to poor (blue grama) vigor at the time of sampling. Nearby Dillon tank was dry,

and generally does not hold water.

Total grass cover on site, 7%, is about half of ET2 average 16%. Shrub cover was on line and tree cover

was below ET2 average. Broom snakeweed indicates recent disturbance. And fair and poor vigor on arist-

threeawn and Bogr-blue grama indicate lack of precipitation this summer, or excessive use and poorly

developed root systems. Diversity of grasses is low with two species compared to 5 described for ET2.

This area and TEUI were included in a 1,130 acre fuelwood cutting treatment in the early to mid-1980s

followed by a prescribed fire in 1988

TEUI 486, Moana Pasture TES Map Unit: 486 Acres in Pasture: 370

% of Pasture: 18




to ET1 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %

Cover


Tree: 3 Juniper, Pied 28 Juniperus spp. Pied, Quem

Shrub: 2 Qutu, Rhtr,

Cholla, Arpu

29 Arpu5, Qutu2

Perennial

Grass:

55 Aristida, Bogr,

bocu, Muto

21 Arist, Bocu, Bogr



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Parker Cluster data from Cluster 18 & 19 also located in this TEUI and

pasture shown in Table 4.

Notes: Vigor: Bogr fair, Aristida excellent, Bocu good.


Page 24 of 46

Photo 8 above: Key TEUI map unit in Moana pasture, TEUI 486, August 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Moana pasture, TEUI 486, is pinon juniper woodlands on elevated and


makes up the southwest portion of this pasture. The vegetation for this map unit fits within the Piñon-

Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT. Soils are shallow to deep, gravelly to very gravelly. Texture is coarse

sandy loam or loamy coarse sand from granitic parent material. The site average is variable among the

community types for tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 13-28% comprised of

Juniper, Emory oak, and piñon pine, shrub cover ranges from 27-50% cover primarily consisting of

turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial grass cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover

and ranges from 3-21%.


about average precipitation. There were several horses in this pasture at the time of sampling however

little utilization was seen. Grasses were in fair (Bogr-blue grama), good (Bocu-sideoats grama), and

excellent (Aristida-three awn) vigor at the time of sampling. This site is near historic key area cluster 19.

Reliable water is over 1 mile away.

Grass cover is double and shrub and tree cover were far below of that described for ET1. Five grass

species are on site compared to ET1 average of 8.


Page 25 of 46

TEUI 486, Jones Pasture TES Map Unit: 486 Acres in Pasture: 588

% of Pasture: 34

Existing Ecological Community Type: PNC

Sampled Vegetation Potential % Cover, Species of ET1 Notes: Our team

performed an ocular

comparison of this

location to the

classification guide and

matched it with ET1 late

successional state, or

potential natural

community.

Lifeform %


Tree: 25-30 Juniper, Pied 28 Juniperus spp. Pied, Quem

Shrub: 25-35 Qutu, Rhtr,

Cholla, Arpu

29 Arpu5, Qutu2

Perennial

Grass:

15-20 Aristida, Bogr,

bocu, Muto

21 Arist, Bocu, Bogr


Approximated Ecological Status: Mid-Similarity for perennial grasses

Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: None

Notes: Vigor: Bogr fair, Aristida excellent, Bocu good.

Photo 9 above: Key TEUI map unit in Jones pasture, TEUI 486, August 2015

Discussion: A key map unit in the Jones pasture, TEUI 486, is pinon juniper woodlands on elevated and


surrounds the Private land headquarters to the south and east. The vegetation for this map unit fits within

the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT. Soils are shallow to deep, gravelly to very gravelly. Texture is

coarse sandy loam or loamy coarse sand from granitic parent material. The site average is variable among

the community types for tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 13-28% comprised of

Juniper, Emory oak, and piñon pine, shrub cover ranges from 27-50% cover primarily consisting of


Page 26 of 46

turbinella oak (Quercus turbinella). Perennial grass cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover

and ranges from 3-21%.

Our team performed an ocular comparison of this location to the classification guide and matched it with

ET1 late successional state, or potential natural community. The growing season in 2015 had about

average precipitation. This site is just north and east of the line of poor precipitation.

There were about 160 acres of this map unit open to fuelwood cutting in 1984. The area of inventory was

not open to fuelwood cutting.

TEUI 490, Smith Mesa Pasture TES Map Unit: 490 Acres in Pasture: 4,730

% of Pasture: 54




to ET2 PNC, shrub


and the graminod



Lifeform %

Cover


Tree: 16 Jude 10 Jude

Shrub: 13 Gusa, Opuntia,

cholla

7 Gusa

Perennial

Grass:

24 Bocu, Bogr, Muri 23 Bocu, Bogr, Elele, Koma



Correlation to Parker 3-Step Data: Parker Cluster data from Cluster 9 & 10 also located in this TEUI and

pasture shown in Table 4.

Notes: Vigor: Bogr fair, Bocu good,

Photo 10 above: Key TEUI map unit in Smith Mesa pasture, TEUI 490, September 2015


Page 27 of 46

Discussion: A key map unit in the Smith Mesa pasture, TEUI 490, is a juniper woodland common on

Smith and Tailholt Mesas. Slopes average 5% (0-15%). The vegetation for this map unit fits within the

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT. Soils are deep, very stony, silt loam with montmorillonitic

properties. Soils developed on basalt parent material extremely cobbly to extremely stoney, clay loam or

sandy clay loam with high shrink/swell properties. The site average is variable among the community

types for tree, shrub, and graminoid cover. Tree cover ranges from 10-35% comprised of Juniper, shrub

cover ranges from 4-19% cover primarily consisting of broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae).

Perennial grass cover will vary depending on shrub and tree cover ranging from 5-39% dominated by blue

grama (Bouteloua gracilis).


about average precipitation. This particular location looked to have not received as much rain as other

areas to the east and north. Grasses were in good (Bocu-sideoats grama) and fair (Bogr-blue grama) vigor

at the time of sampling. Cattle were moving into this pasture and use on new growth of sideoats grama

was at 33% by weight. Total perennial grass cover was 24%, no different than ET2 total graminoid cover

mean. Eight species of grass were on site compared to 5 for ET2. High cover of broom snakeweed is

described as indicating heavy grazing. This site best fits CT2.1 due to broom snakeweed cover class. The

site selected is a historic sampling site for TEUI 490 in this pasture.

VI. Desired Conditions

The desired condition or Desired Vegetation status (DVS), as developed by the Interdisciplinary Team, is

to manage for perennial grass canopy cover of mid to high similarity to ET providing for ecological

functionality and resiliency following disturbance while sustaining long term productivity of the land which

will thus provide for the maintenance of satisfactory RMS with a static or upward trend.

Desired Vegetation Status and Rangeland Management Status (RMS) for all key TEUI map units selected

within the pastures on this allotment are shown in Table 7 below. TEUI 425 in Cottonwood pasture was

treated with fire in 1985 and is responding well with high mid similarity for grasses. TEUI 461 in Smith

Canyon pasture has seen heavy grazing but rated mid similarity for vegetation. Key areas in Granites,

Spider, Moana, Jones and Smith Mesa all received mid similarity ratings for grasses, and a stable trend.

These factors lead to a determination of satisfactory Rangeland Management Status (RMS) for all but

TEUI 427 in the Smith Canyon Pasture.

Table 7: Desired Vegetation Status and Rangeland Management Status by Pasture

Pasture TEUI Map

Unit

Desired Vegetation

Status Trend

Rangeland Management

Status Cottonwood 425 Mid similarity for grasses Stable Satisfactory

Smith Canyon 427 Low similarity for grasses C23 Stable Unsatisfactory

461 Mid similarity for grasses C24 Stable Satisfactory

Granites 461 Mid similarity for grasses C5 Stable Satisfactory

477 Mid similarity for grasses Stable Satisfactory

Spider 462 Mid Similarity for grasses Stable Satisfactory

486 Mid Similarity for grasses C4 Stable Satisfactory

Moana 486 Mid similarity for grasses C19 Stable Satisfactory

Jones 486 Mid similarity for grasses Stable Satisfactory

Smith Mesa 490 Mid Similarity for grasses C10 Stable Satisfactory

Departure between Existing and Desired Resource Conditions

A comparison of existing resource conditions with desired conditions forms the basis for determining a

course of resource management actions. If existing conditions are the same as desired conditions, there is

no need for a change from current livestock management. If existing conditions and desired conditions are

not the same, there is a need for change. This project will only address changes that can be brought about

by changes in livestock management. For example, it may be desirable to have fewer juniper trees on a

woodland site, but this cannot be accomplished with livestock management. The desired condition for


Page 28 of 46

vegetation is to achieve (or move towards) mid to high similarity with the potential natural plant

community as described in the Ecological Classification of the Prescott National Forest (draft 2005).

Seven pastures on the allotment were surveyed by the Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team), and nine

representative upland Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) map units were chosen in areas that

are accessible to cattle and are representative of the forage base of the allotment. Inventory of the

vegetation and soil was conducted to determine if desired resource conditions were being met. Vegetation

was found to be meeting desired condition at all sites.

Resource Management Objectives:

Resource management objectives are concise statements of measurable, time-specific outcomes intended

to move toward achieving desired conditions. Management objectives are the means of measuring

progress toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions. The ID Team developed the management

objectives and time frames to achieve them considering the best available science as it pertains to the

potential for resource improvement that could be realized by changing grazing management only. The

following management objectives were developed to measure progress towards meeting desired

conditions:

Vegetation:

Maintain cover of perennial grasses at mid- to high similarity with the dominant grass canopy cover

and composition as shown in the Ecological Classification for the Prescott National Forest for key

TEUI map units; achieve an upward trend in vegetation condition towards this objective.

Attainability of Resource Management Objectives:

Improvement of areas not meeting desired condition for vegetation is expected to be measurable within

the 10-year timeframe indicative of the term grazing permit. Improvement will depend on adequate

precipitation within normal ranges. Prolonged drought would cause conditions to deteriorate even in the

absence of grazing. Annual monitoring of the implementation of the grazing plan will occur as well as

monitoring of short-term rangeland health indicators. This annual and short-term monitoring will be used

to inform managers to make needed annual adjustments in livestock management in order to maintain

desired conditions. Annual stocking levels would be commensurate with forage production, and would be

greatly reduced or resource protection non-use taken, in extreme drought.

VII. Prescott National Forest (PNF) Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP)

The project area contains Seven PNVTs as described within the PNF LRMP shown in Table 6 on page

12. The conditions for all vegetation described below are desired to assist with the restoration and

maintenance of healthy ecosystems while providing for the sustainable use of those ecosystems.

Sustainable uses, including livestock grazing, firewood cutting, and timber harvest contribute to the

social, economic, and cultural structure and stability of rural communities. Only 3 of the PNVTs on the

allotment are in sizable acres to manage at a landscape level. Management emphasis by PNVT is

described below..

A. Background for Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub (60% of allotment)

The Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT, with an understory dominated by a mix of shrub

species, generally occurs on elevated and lowland plains, hills, and low mountain slopes. The

soils associated with this PNVT are variable and include those derived from granite, limestone,

basalt, sandstone, and alluvium. Covering more than 463,000 acres, this is the most common

Piñon-Juniper PNVT on the Prescott NF.

The Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT is moderately departed from desired conditions. For

example, within-group tree and shrub density is higher than expected, and shrub canopy cover

lacks variability. Current fire frequency and severity show some similarity to desired conditions.


Page 29 of 46

Management Emphasis: Improve watershed and rangeland conditions, vegetation structure, and

wildlife habitat, using mechanical treatment and wildland fire.

B. Background for Juniper Grasslands (12% of allotment)

The Juniper Grassland PNVT, with a grass and forb dominated understory and scattered overstory

trees, generally occurs on flats, basins, gentle sloping foothills, and transitional valleys at

generally lower elevations.

Juniper grasslands are moderately departed from desired conditions. Fire has been excluded from

this PNVT for most of the last century, allowing for increases in the age, density, and canopy

cover of trees and shrubs and a reduction in fire stimulated regrowth and germination of perennial

grasses and forbs. The Smith Canyon allotment has 5,742 acres of Juniper Grassland about 12

percent of the allotment.



C. Background for Interior Chaparral (26% of allotment)

The Interior Chaparral PNVT extends over 315,600 acres, and represents the second largest

PNVT on the Prescott NF. Interior chaparral occurs at mid-elevations (3,400 to 6,600 feet) on

foothills and lower mountain slopes. It is bordered by ponderosa pine or piñon-juniper woodlands

at the upper elevations, and semi-desert grasslands at the lower elevations. Interior chaparral has a

uniform dense structure dominated by shrubs with thick, stiff, waxy evergreen leaves. Mixed

shrub associations include: shrub live oak, manzanita, desert ceanothus, mountain mahogany,

silktassles, Stansbury cliffrose, evergreen oaks, sumacs, and various cacti. Grasses are a minor

component in chaparral and may include grama, threeawn, and muttongrass species.

The plant composition, structure, and fire regime found within the Interior Chaparral PNVT are

similar to desired conditions; however, some nonnative invasive species, such as yellow star

thistle and Dalmatian toadflax, are known to infest small portions of this PNVT.

Under projected warmer and drier climate conditions, the Interior Chaparral PNVT is susceptible

to decreases in plant productivity from water limitations and increased heat; increases in insect

attacks; colonization of invasive species; longer and more severe fire seasons; and altered

frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial extent of disturbance events (e.g., droughts, flash

flooding, landslides, windstorms, and ice storms).

Interior chaparral makes up 26 percent (12,451 acres) of the allotment.



D. Relevant Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines:

Standards and guidelines provide sideboards and guidance for project and activity decision

making to help achieve desired conditions and objectives. Standards must be followed and can

only change with a plan amendment. Guidelines must be followed, but they may be modified

somewhat for a specific project if the intent of the guideline is followed and the deviation is

addressed in a decision document with supporting rationale.

Range Management

Std-Range-1 Water troughs shall incorporate escape devices to prevent animal entrapments

Std-Range-2 Year-long livestock grazing in riparian areas (streams, springs, and seeps) shall

be avoided to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and riparian habitat in

those areas


Page 30 of 46

Guide-Range-1 The placement of salt, minerals, and/or other supplements for the purposes of

livestock management should be located further than one-quarter mile from

riparian areas or seasonally present water.

Guide-Range-2 For structural improvements:

Implement design features that incorporate wildlife needs and reduce

barriers to movement and entrapment hazards

Consider wildlife needs in fence placement and design to reduce barriers

and hazards to movement and minimize chances of entrapment

Remove fencing when it is no longer needed

Guide-Range-3 After occurrence of wildland fire or mechanical activity that removes most

vegetation, a time period for recovery, establishment, and regrowth of

vegetation should be determined and applied to meet site-specific objectives

Guide-Range-4 Livestock salting should be located away from known locations of

Southwestern Region sensitive plant species so that plants are not adversely

affected by associated trampling

Guide-Range-5 Livestock use of woody riparian species (e.g. cottonwood, willow, ash, and

alder) should provide for maintenance of those species and allow regeneration

of new individuals leading to diverse age classes of woody riparian species

where potential for native woody vegetation exists

Guide-Range-6 Grazing intensity, frequency, occurrence, and period should provide for growth

and reproduction of desired plant species while maintaining or enhancing

habitat for wildlife

Watersheds guidelines

Guide-WS-4 Adverse impact to stream channel features (e.g. streambanks, obligate riparian

vegetation) should be minimized by modifying management actions. Examples

of modification could include, but are not limited to: adjusting timing and season

of grazing, limiting use and location of heavy machinery, or avoiding placing

trails or other recreation structures where recreation use could negatively affect

stream channel features

Guide-WS-5 Ground cover sufficient to filter runoff and prevent erosion should be retained in

riparian corridors, seeps, and springs

Guide-WS-9 Along perennial streams, perennial intermittent streams, and spring ponds,

mitigation such as offsite water for livestock should be provided to reduce

impacts on riparian communities and groundwater dependent sites

Guide-WS-10 Measures that restrict use should be considered as a way to mitigate recurring

negative impacts to aquatic species and riparian plants. These could include, but

are not limited to: installation of barriers, road closures, area closures, or seasonal

restrictions

Soils Guideline

Guide-Soil-1 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.

Vegetation Standard

STD-Veg-2 When treating nonnative and invasive plant species, design features in appendix B

of the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of


Page 31 of 46

Noxious or Invasive Weeds” (Forest Service, 2005a) or the most current direction

must be followed to protect endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate

wildlife and plant species and their habitats.

VIII. Alternative Descriptions

Alternative 1: Yearlong grazing is fully described in the project record as the scoping document mailed

to the public on 1/19/2016 that is incorporated in its entirety by reference.

Authorization

The Chino Valley District Ranger proposes to continue to authorize livestock grazing on the Smith

Canyon Allotment under the following terms:

Yearlong grazing for a range of cattle numbers typically between 200 and 275 adult cattle,

cow/calf pairs and bulls. Not to exceed 3300 AUMs.

Livestock will be managed on a deferred rotation system. Typically moving east to west,

wintering on private lands west of the Forest, one year and on the east end of the Allotment the

next year. Alternating route of travel through Smith Canyon pasture 1 in 3 years (using south

benches route to enter or exit Granites pasture).

The term grazing permit will be issued for up to ten years. The permit will authorize livestock use within

parameters identified in this proposal, and subsequent permits may be issued as long as resources con-

tinue to move toward desired conditions or are being maintained in satisfactory condition, as appropriate.

Adaptive Management The Proposed Action includes the application of adaptive management principles. Adaptive management

is designed to provide sufficient flexibility to allow management to address changes in climatic condi-

tions, seasonal fluctuations in forage production and other dynamic influences on the ecosystem in order

to effectively make progress toward or maintain desired conditions of the rangeland and other resources.

Adaptive management will also include the implementation of resource protection measures described

below. Under the adaptive management approach, regular/annual monitoring of short-term indicators may

suggest the need for administrative changes in livestock management. The need for adaptation would be

based on the magnitude or repeated re-occurrence of deviations from guidelines provided, or due to

indications of a lack of progress toward desired resource conditions.

Resource Protection Measures Allotment-wide Measures: On those portions of the allotment where no specific resource concerns were

identified by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team, livestock will be managed with the objective of maintaining

or improving the condition of rangeland resources through the use of grazing intensity guidelines.

Grazing intensity is the degree of herbage removed through grazing and trampling by livestock. Grazing

intensity may be described in terms of herbage removed during the grazing and/or growing period or as a

utilization level at the end of the growing period. Utilization is the proportion or degree of current year’s

forage production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (Interagency Technical Reference 1996).

Allowable utilization levels are guidelines to be achieved as an average over the long term to maintain or

improve rangeland vegetation and long-term soil productivity. Relative utilization may be measured

before and during the growing season and can be utilized as a tool to manage livestock so that

expectations of end of growing season utilization measurements can be achieved.

Allowable utilization guidelines will be applied across the allotment to provide rangeland managers with

information needed to adapt management through adjustments, as may be needed, on an annual basis.

Utilization data can be used: (1) to identify use patterns; (2) to help establish cause-and-effect

interpretations of range trend data; and (3) to aid in adjusting stocking rates when combined with other

monitoring data (Interagency Technical Reference 1996). In addition to using utilization levels as a tool to

manage livestock grazing impacts, the critical stubble height necessary for key forage species to maintain

plant health and watershed protection values will also be considered. Examples of appropriate grazing


Page 32 of 46

intensity and forage use guidelines for areas of the allotment that are generally described to be in

satisfactory condition include:

1. A management guideline of 35-45% utilization of key forage plants in upland key areas as

measured at the end of the growing season or seasonal use period;

2. Up to 50-60% leaders browsed on key upland woody species;

3. Minimum stubble height on key riparian herbaceous species: four to six inches where sedges and

rushes are key and eight inches where deergrass is key;

4. Up to 20% use by weight on key woody species within riparian areas; or less than 50% of

terminal leaders browsed on woody species less than 6 feet tall.

Site-specific Resource Protection Measures: Through the allotment analysis process undertaken by the

interdisciplinary team, some areas have been identified where the current condition of vegetation and or

soils are in less than the desired condition. The soil map unit TEUI 427 in Smith Canyon Pasture has low

similarity between existing perennial grass cover and composition as compared to what the soil is capable

of supporting, and the soil condition is rated as unsatisfactory. TEUI 461 in this same pasture received an

impaired soil condition rating. Key soil map unit TEUI 461 in Granites Pasture is not meeting desired

condition for soils and has a mixture of unsatisfactory and impaired soil condition. Key soil map unit

TEUI 486 in Spider Pasture is not meeting desired condition for soils and displays a mixture of

satisfactory and unsatisfactory soil condition. Key soil map unit TEUI 490 in Smith Mesa Pasture is not

meeting desired condition for soils that display a mixture of impaired and unsatisfactory soil condition.

The management objective for low-similarity of graminoid vegetation is to improve grass cover and

composition to mid-similarity rating when compared to site description. Where soil condition is rated

unsatisfactory, the management objective is to improve compaction, graminoid cover and the spatial

distribution of vegetation levels similar to the site descriptions.

Site-specific measures are summarized as follows:

1. Smith Canyon Pasture TEUI 427 and 461

a. Incidental use of 0-30% would be allowed in this soil map unit until satisfactory progress

towards similarity (increased diversity) and groundcover objectives have been achieved.

b. Integrate seasonal deferment or rest

c. Improve livestock distribution by controlling access to waters and herding

2. Granites Pasture TEUI 461

a. Integrate seasonal deferment or rest

b. Improve livestock distribution by controlling access to waters and herding

3. Spider Pasture TEUI 486 Dillon Field


toward potential grass and litter cover and spatial distribution

4. Smith Mesa Pasture TEUI 490


toward potential grass and litter cover and spatial distribution

b. Rest or deferment to improve compacted soils

c. Controlling access to water or herding to increase distribution

d. No salting or supplementing in this soil

Structural Range Improvements

Construction of New Range Improvements: This alternative includes construction of the following new

structural improvements that have been developed to address resource concerns or improve grazing

management (map on Appendix 3). Upland water developments will provide livestock water away from

riparian areas and allow for achievement of riparian management objectives. Monitoring may indicate

that some of these improvements are not necessary; however, if some or all of these improvements are not

implemented, the upper limit of permitted livestock numbers may not be achievable on a sustained basis.

Different types of water developments may be employed depending on the location, and could include a

catchment apron and storage tank (“trick tank”) with pipeline to water troughs.


Page 33 of 46

1. Construct 3 reliable water developments in Smith Canyon Pasture: one north of Sheridan Lake in

the north half of section 21; one on the south benches in NE quarter of section 35; one in north

half of section 6. Two of these (section 21 and 35) are to replace existing earthen stock tanks that

are non-functional and replace with trick tanks.

2. Five additional water developments in the following locations: Cottonwood Pasture SW quarter

of section 31; Granites Pasture north half section 4; Moana Pasture west half of section 22

(replace non-functional earthen stock tank); Spider Pasture NE quarter of section 32; Jones

Pasture NW quarter of section 33.

3. Construct drift fences to better control livestock distribution: one in Smith Canyon Pasture near

Sycamore Spring; one in Smith Mesa Pasture along the trail west of Horseshoe Tank; and one in

the Granites Pasture along the trail north of Saddle Tank.

4. Construct fences (Water Lots) around Alkaline Tank and Dyke Pond in the Smith Canyon Pasture

to better control livestock use patterns.

5. Construct an east-west fence to split Smith Mesa Pasture into Mesa and Rincon Pastures if

controlling access to water does not sufficiently improve distribution and result in achieving

desired resource conditions.

6. Expand the existing fencing at Alkaline Spring to include protection for the spring area.

Maintenance of Range Improvements: The Term Grazing Permit includes a list of all improvements

which the permittee will continue to maintain at a level that effectively provides for their intended uses

and purposes. Range improvements will be inspected periodically during the term of the permit to

document condition. Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) will identify range improvements in need of

maintenance. Existing improvements may be replaced when conditions warrant.

While Trails are not range improvements they are critical to livestock movement and management on the

Smith Canyon Allotment, particularly in the Smith Canyon Pasture. Trail 56 is key to successful

management of this pasture. It is important to be able to give the north benches rest from grazing while

still traveling through this pasture on Trail 56 and onto Trail 55 into Granites pasture.

Access to Improvements: Authorization for cross-country motorized travel is provided for the permittee

to administer the livestock operation and maintain improvements under the terms and conditions of the

Term Grazing Permit.

Annual authorization for actions implementing management direction in the Allotment Management Plan

will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions, such as a description of the anticipated level of

cross- county travel, travel needed for improvement maintenance, new improvement construction, or

reconstruction of existing improvements.

All authorizations for cross-country motorized travel are subject to existing regulations intended to

protect natural and/or heritage resources. Cross-country travel is not allowed when such travel would

cause unacceptable resource damage.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing

Alternative 2 is the No Action/No Grazing Alternative required by FSH 2209.13 Chapter 90. Under

Alternative 2, livestock grazing on the Smith Canyon Allotment would be discontinued and the Term

Grazing permit would be cancelled after a 2-year notification to the permit holder (FSM 2231.62d/FSH

2209.13-16.24).

Authorization

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not be authorized.

New Range Improvements

Under this alternative, no new range improvements would be constructed on the allotment.

Maintenance of Existing Range Improvements


Page 34 of 46

Under this alternative, maintenance of range improvements normally assigned to the permit holder would

no longer occur. Allotment boundary fences would be maintained by adjacent active grazing allotment

permit holders.

Cancellation of the Grazing Permit

After cancellation of the Term Grazing Permit, existing structural improvements that contribute to

resource protection or that are important to other resources and functions, such as water sources for

wildlife populations or fire control, would remain but would not be maintained unless this activity were

funded under another resource area on the Prescott NF or by a cooperating partner. Removal of

improvements losing their functionality would have to be authorized under a future NEPA decision if new

ground disturbance were anticipated. Where allotment boundary fences are necessary, the maintenance of

these fences could be reassigned to adjacent grazing permit holders in order to maintain the integrity of

the boundaries of adjacent allotments.

The cancellation of the term permit under this alternative does not represent an official administrative

closing of the allotment; rather it would represent the suspension of grazing on this allotment for an

undetermined amount of time, until or unless a different decision is made.

IX. Vegetation Effects Analysis by Alternatives

The following is a discussion, by alternative, of the expected effects that the alternative would have on the

vegetation and trend, from an upland vegetation resource standpoint, on the Smith Canyon Allotment. No

change in condition is expected in areas determined to be no capacity because of incidental livestock

access due to steepness of slopes or distance from water.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action:

1. Timing/Season of Use/Stocking Rate:

A term grazing permit will be issued providing for livestock numbers of 200-275 head of cattle, cow/calf

pairs and bulls yearlong.

Effects:

The estimated grazing capacity on the Smith Canyon Allotment is based on these sources: actual use

records compiled from 2000 to 2014 (shown in Table 3) and application of calculations based upon

Holechek (1988) and shown in Appendix 2. These sources indicate that the allotment would support a

range of livestock numbers based on fluctuating conditions.

The actual use records for the allotment from 2000 through 2014 show a range of stocking levels from

240 Animal-Months (AMs) in 2003, and up to 3,088 AMs in 2009. This upper number is equivalent to

257 adult cattle year long. Over time, if grazing intensity is too high, indirect effects can occur such as a

loss of plant species and a resultant shift in composition to less-preferred forage plants, and total forage

production can be reduced. Inspection records show occasional instances of use above standards, but there

is no indication of repeated overuse causing damage to plant physiology.

Using the methods outlined in Holecheck (1988), grazing capacity estimates were made on the allotment

as a whole by calculating the total amount of forage production by TEUI map unit as shown in the

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott NF (“FORG” value). Animal Units 1 calculated at 274

(3339 AUM) when 45% of the available forage estimate is allocated to livestock. The forage production

values given in the TES survey are overall average for TEUI units forest-wide and actual site specific

production may vary considerably. Yearly fluctuations in forage production based on precipitation levels

will be taken into account by adjusting yearly stocking through adaptive management.

1 Animal Units and Animal Months used in these calculations are based upon the Society for Range Management

(1974) definition: An animal unit is one mature (1000lb) cow. This animal would be expected to consume 2.6% of

its body weight per day or 26 lbs.


Page 35 of 46

As with any capacity estimate, monitoring over time will be necessary to validate the proposed stocking

rate. The adaptive management approach to grazing management seeks to balance stocking levels with

forage production on a yearly basis. This allows for stocking in response to changes in forage production

that naturally occur as a result of fluctuations in precipitation levels and seasonality. The maximum level

of stocking (275 head yearlong) that is proposed may not be achievable in all years, but the actual use

records show that the allotment has been stocked on average at 78% of this upper limit in the last 5 years.

While stocked at 78% of new proposed maximum allowed for the past 5 years records have not indicated

excess utilization at any key areas. In 1948 a total of 549 cattle grazed this area. In 1962 a reduction

changed the total to 502 head, and in 1973 that was reduced to 442 cattle year long. Actual use for those

years may have been much lower depending on climate effects. In 1981 the authorized number was again

reduce to 296 head. Adjustments have been made based on field analysis. With our current understanding

and scientific research we now feel this proposed 275 head will allow us to maintain the vegetation

similar to ecological type description.

Yearlong grazing in a rest rotation pasture system with Alternative 1 will allow for rest in each pasture.

This will allow for improved vigor for warm-season grasses such as blue grama, sideoats grama, ring

muhly, and black grama grasses that are found on the allotment and cool-season grasses such as New

Mexico feathergrass, threeawns and squirreltail. Compliance with allowable use levels should provide for

maintaining and improving the cool-season grass species that are present, and maintain the warm season

grass species diversity.

2. Structural Range Improvements/ Structural Resource Protection Measures:

Effects:

The construction of new water sources can result in the removal of vegetation in areas up to ¼-acre each.

Water sources will draw livestock to use forage within proximity of the water source. Grazing impacts

may be locally heavy within ¼-mile of a water source. Rotation strategies for pastures will help forage

plants to recover after use. The new water sources will provide for dispersion of the grazing herd into

under-utilized areas, and remove impact on and around current water sources, springs and riparian areas

especially. Access to existing improvements for maintenance and new improvements by overland travel

with machinery will damage some herbaceous plants in a limited area. These plants should recover

quickly once precipitation occurs. No new roads will be developed to construct new improvements.

Travel ways to access new improvements will be surveyed for cultural properties to avoid impacts during

construction. Employing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that limit travel to when soils are dry

should mitigate long-term effects to soils and retain the productive potential for vegetation.

3. Grazing Intensity:

Effects:

Range research supports the concept that forage plant productivity, and overall ecological condition of

rangelands can be improved or maintained through properly managed livestock grazing (Holecheck, et al.

1999). The conservative utilization guidelines as prescribed for this project have been shown to maintain

forage production (Holecheck et al. 2004). A study by Navarro, et al (2002) of Chihuahuan desert

rangelands in New Mexico showed that from 1952 through 1999, the amount of rangeland classified in

late seral stage or climax ecological condition increased from 25% to 38% while grazed at 34% average

utilization. Ecological condition fluctuated most during periodic drought events in this study. Loeser, et

al. (2007) compared the effects to vegetation composition and cover of three grazing practices on a

semiarid grassland site near Flagstaff, AZ. The study was conducted during a period of recurrent drought

from 1997 to 2004. The three grazing treatments were no grazing, high-impact grazing, and moderate

grazing (less than 50% biomass removal). The study showed that the effect of the various grazing

treatments on plant cover depended on environmental conditions that fluctuate over time, such as

precipitation. They found that high-impact grazing brought about a decrease in plant cover over time, but

treatment plots where cattle had been removed demonstrated no consistent differences in cover from the


Page 36 of 46

moderately grazed treatment plots. Climate and rainfall will have the most significant impact on the cover

and vigor of perennial grasses when grazing is properly managed. A study describing 30 years of weather

influence on ungrazed areas in New Mexico found that sideoats grama reduced in canopy cover by almost

half in 2007 as compared to 1977 in response to decreased precipitation (Moir 2011). Research by

Molinar et al. (2011) showed that during a 38-year study period on Chihuahuan desert rangelands,

managed livestock grazing and excluded livestock grazing had the same long-term effects on change in

plant frequency and rangeland ecological condition when use levels were kept at conservative or

moderate rates in most years.

The prescribed use levels would allow for retaining 55-65% of the plant biomass on-site as residual

biomass. This residual biomass, or mulch, provides beneficial functions by protecting the soil surface

from erosion, enhancing water infiltration, and shading the soil surface from evaporation of soil water.

The benefits of retaining sufficient residual mulch have been shown to translate into increased forage

production in a number of studies discussed by Molinar et al (2001). Effects of site specific resource

protection measures for areas are discussed below.

In Smith Canyon pasture there are two soil map units that are unsatisfactory for soils and one is

unsatisfactory for vegetation. Utilization in these areas will be set at 0-30%. Light use will be

accomplished by limiting access to water developments through new water lots constructed around

existing earthen stock tanks on the “north benches” and construction of a drift fence that will help prevent

unauthorized use in this pasture. Effects of these structures, elimination of unauthorized use and light use

levels should result in increased biomass and reduced impact on the soil in these areas. In TEUI 461

diversity is low and with lower impact to “increaser grasses” other species may be able to increase over

time. Reducing or eliminating unauthorized use is key to light use levels and will provide increased

success at improving diversity.

In Granites pasture TEUI 461 is not meeting desired condition for soils. TEUI 461, surrounds Walker

tank, 1 of 2 existing reliable sources of water in this pasture. The management objective is to improve

litter and graminoid cover and vegetation spatial distribution. Design features includes rest or deferred

season of use to allow further graminoid biomass retention and controlling access to Walker tank to

reduce impacts in TEUI 461. Continued rest and deferring use seasonally should lead to meeting

objectives to improve soil. A new water development in the northern portion of this pasture will also

alleviate the need for perennial use of Walker tank. Seasonal deferment allows plants too fully mature and

full rest will allow that vegetative material to remain on site until new growth occurs. Natural die off of

some portion of the roots of perennial plants adds to soil organic matter. Above ground vegetation that is

not consumed, but falls or is trampled to the surface of the soil provides protection and enhances water

infiltration.

In Spider pasture the project design feature is to implement incidental use (0-30%) in the Dillon Field

(TEUI 486). Incidental use will allow the plants that are there to mature and produce more roots and

seeds. The biomass (>70%) left behind from limited use will also be retained on site to protect and be

incorporated into the soil. No new structural improvements are planned for this TEUI.

In Smith Mesa pasture project design features is to implement light use (0-30%) include the integration of

rest, the construction of drift fencing, and controlling water access and supplement locations that will

discourage concentrated use in TEUI 490. Rest and deferment are beneficial to graminoid plants, in that it

allows them to fully develop root and seed. The perennial nature of these plant and root and leaf and stem

die back provide organic material to the soil. The stem and leaf material become litter and protect the

upper layer of soil, providing shade and retaining moisture. Reduced impact from livestock near the water

sources in this TEUI will result in less impact on the soils and less compaction. Drift fencing will reduce

or eliminate unauthorized use in Smith Mesa pasture. Yearlong or extended season grazing can damage a

plants ability to fully mature, and reduce effectiveness of its roots. This will benefit the soils as described

above. 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.


Page 37 of 46

4. Summary:

Grazing by cattle can directly affect upland plants by reducing plant height, total canopy cover, and

ground cover. The degree of these effects is influenced by utilization guidelines and timing of use. Over

time, if grazing intensity is too high, indirect effects can occur such as a loss of plant species and a

resultant shift in composition to less-preferred forage plants, and total forage production can be reduced.

At the Key TEUI inventory sites on the allotment the existing canopy cover and species composition is

found to be meeting desired condition for vegetation at all but one location, TEUI 427. Grazing

management that includes growing season rest, adherence to allowable use levels, and adequate

precipitation is essential to achieving optimal plant vigor and production. By following these guidelines

the desired conditions for vegetation should be sustainable at those locations that are meeting desired

condition. At the key TEUIs in Smith Canyon, Granites, Spider and Smith Mesa pastures that are not

meeting either vegetation or soil desired conditions special design has been made as described above in

the Site Specific Resource Protection Measures (para 4). Following project designed site specific

protection measures, and adequate precipitation is essential to achieving optimal plant vigor and

production. The proposed new water sources and fences will aid in proper livestock control and

distribution so that under-utilized areas will take away some of the grazing pressure from traditional

congregation areas. More reliable upland water will also alleviate cattle watering in riparian areas or

relying solely on springs. These areas should respond favorably and trend toward satisfactory conditions

under this management design.

Alternative 2: No Grazing

Under the No-Action Alternative, all cattle grazing within the allotment would be phased out over a 2-

year period. Livestock impacts on vegetation would be removed. Only incidental wildlife grazing would

occur sporadically at light intensities. The removal of grazing may allow for slightly more rapid

improvement than alternative 1 in vegetation cover, vigor, and composition in areas not influenced by

woody plant canopy. Where shrub cover is currently greater than would be expected for the Potential

Natural Community, there will likely be limited to no improvement in perennial grass cover unless the

tree and/or shrub canopy is removed by fire or vegetation treatments. This stable state of shrub dominance

is expected to persist even in the absence of grazing. Those areas currently considered in satisfactory

condition would remain as such under the no grazing alternative. More residual biomass would be

retained under this alternative, which has been demonstrated to improve water infiltration and enhance

nutrient cycling, thus promoting vigorous plant growth.

The cancellation of the grazing permit would create an absence of maintenance of structural

improvements. Water developments and fencing would no longer be maintained unless sufficient Forest

Service or partnership funds allowed for such maintenance. Allotment boundary fence maintenance may

have to be assigned to adjacent grazing permit holders, creating an economic burden on them. The loss of

water system improvements may have adverse impacts on wildlife habitat.

No vegetation would be impacted by the construction of new range improvements.

X. Cumulative Effects:

The cumulative effects analysis area considered for effects on range/vegetation resources consists of the

Smith Canyon Allotment project area. The past and present activities and events that have affected the

vegetation include livestock and wildlife grazing, past wildfires, prescribed fire, juniper cutting, and

roads. These activities may affect vegetation in ways similar to livestock grazing through removal of

herbaceous plant canopy cover. Indirectly these activities may affect vegetative productivity by causing

soil compaction that leads to reduced water infiltration and then to reduced plant growth. Removal of

vegetation can expose the soil to erosion and thereby reduce long-term productive potential for

vegetation.

Site visits show that impacts from recreational activities on the allotment are limited to small, localized

areas consisting of dispersed camping spots along main roads. The Arizona Motorcycle Riders


Page 38 of 46

Association Sheridan Mountain Showdown uses the Sheridan Mountain trails for an 80 mile timed race.

Long-term impacts from 100 plus years of grazing on the allotment are reflected in baseline conditions for

vegetation, discussed previously. There is evidence of browse use on desirable shrubs by deer and other

wildlife, but this use is minimal over the entire allotment. Allowable use guidelines do not distinguish

between wildlife use and livestock use. Vegetation effects of past wildfire or prescribed burning are not

evident on the allotment at the current time. Limited past or current mining activity is evident on the

allotment. Juniper thinning activities in the past have caused a reduced tree canopy from site potential,

and increased canopy cover of grasses. Some juniper removal practices in the past, such as chaining,

could have negatively impacted herbaceous vegetation in the short term, but these areas have since

recovered. Some woodcutting activities have caused unauthorized roads or trails to be developed that are

devoid or limited in herbaceous plant cover. These effects are on a small scale. Where roads exist on the

allotment there is an absence of vegetation. No new roads are planned, and this effect should remain

constant and localized. Occasional road maintenance may damage or remove small amounts of vegetation

adjacent to roads. Run-off from improperly drained roads has the potential to accelerate soil erosion and

remove existing plants. The impacts created through livestock grazing, improvement construction, and

adaptive management, described for alternative 1, when added to the other past, present and future

activities do not together accumulate to levels that are considered to be significant for the vegetative

resources, nor are they expected to lead to irreversible effects to vegetation.


Page 39 of 46

References Burzlaff, D.E., and L. Harris. 1969. Yearling steer gains and vegetation changes of western Nebraska

rangelands under three rates of stocking. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 505.

Castellano, M.J. and T.J. Valone. 2007. Livestock, soil compaction and water infiltration rate: Evaluating

a potential desertification recovery mechanism. Journal of Arid Environments 71: 97-108. Available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=272559&_user=4250274&_pii=S01

40196307000730&_check=y&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=2007-10-

31&wchp=dGLzVlk-zSkWA&md5=2b9c7c8359447cc0771e2cf88a5c3f04/1-s2.0-S0140196307000730-

main.pdf

Gault, D., F. Molinar, J. Navarro, J. Joseph and Holechek, J. L.. 2000. Grazing Capacity and Stocking

Rate. Rangelands 22(6): 7-11.

Holechek, J. L. 1988. An approach for setting the stocking rate. Rangelands 10:10-14

Holechek, J. L., and D. Galt. 2000. Grazing intensity guidelines. Rangelands 22(3): 11-14.

Holecheck, J., D. Galt, J. Joseph, J. Navarro, G. Kumalo, F. Molinar, and M. Thomas. 2003. Moderate

and light cattle grazing effects on Chihuahuan desert rangelands. J. Range Manage. 56(2): 133-139.

Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing Studies: What We’ve Learned.

Rangelands 21(2):12-16.

Holechek, J. L., Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbal. 1989. Range Management Principles and

Practices. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Holechek, J. L., Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbal. 2004. Range Management Principles and

Practices. 5th ed. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, from page

250 Table 8.14, General Grazing Intensity Guide for Converting Stubble Heights of

Shortgrasses, Midgrasses and Tallgrass into Percent Utilization;

Klipple, G.E., and D.F. Costello. 1960. Vegetation and cattle responses to different Intensities of grazing

on shortgrass ranges of the Central Great Plains. USDA Tech. Bull. 1216

Laycock, W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: A

viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44(5):427-433.

Loeser, M.R.R., T.D. Sisk, and T.E. Crews. 2007. Impact of Grazing Intensity during drought in an

Arizona Grassland. Conservation Biology 21(1):87-97.

Moir, W. H. 2011. Thirty years of weather change and effects on a grassland in the Peloncillo Mountains,

New Mexico. Rangelands 33(3): 50-57. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38417

Molinar, F., D. Galt, and J. Holecheck. 2001. Managing for mulch. Rangelands 23(4): 3-7.

Molinar, F., J. Navarro, J. Holecheck, D. Galt, and M. Thomas. 2011. Long-term vegetation trends on

grazed and ungrazed Chihuahuan desert rangelands. J. Rangeland Ecol Manage 64:104-108.

Navarro, J.M., D. Galt, J. Holecheck, J. McCormick, and F. Molinar. 2002. Long-term Impacts of

livestock grazing on Chihuahuan Desert rangelands. J. Range Manage. 55(4):400-405.

Society for Range Management. 1998. A glossary of terms used in range management. 4th ed. Society for

Range Management, Denver, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Ecological Classification of the Prescott

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2014. Ecological Response Units of the

Southwestern United States.


Page 40 of 46

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2005. FSH 2209.13. Grazing Permit Administration,

Ch. 90 – Rangeland Management Decision-making.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at

equilibrium. J. Range Manage. 42(4):266-274.

Glossary of Terms: 2209.13_90R3 Supplement 90.5 Definitions

Adaptive Management is a formal, systematic, and rigorous approach to learning from the outcomes of

management actions, accommodating change, and improving management.

Reference: Nyberg, J.B., Forest Practices Branch, BC Forest Service. An Introductory Guide to Adaptive

Management For Project Leaders and Participants, January 1999.

Apparent Trend. An interpretation of trend based on observation and professional judgment at a single

point in time.* An assessment, using professional judgment, based on a one-time observation. It includes

consideration of such factors as plant vigor, abundance of seedlings and young plants, accumulation or

lack of plant residues on the soil surface, and soil surface characteristics (i.e. crusting, gravel pavement,

pedestalled plants, and sheet or rill erosion). Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4

Benchmark. A permanent reference point, in range inventory and effectiveness (trend) monitoring, it is

used as a point where changes in vegetation, in response to applied management through time, are

measured. Adapted from “A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management.” Fourth Edition, edited by

the Glossary Update Task Group, Society for Range Management, Thomas E. Bedell, Chairman. 1998.

Second Printing 2003.

Deferment. The delay of grazing to achieve a specific management objective. A strategy aimed at

providing time for plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, restoration of plant vigor, a return to

environmental conditions appropriate for grazing, or the accumulation of forage for later use. *

Deferred Grazing. The deferment of grazing in a non-systematic rotation with other land units. *

Deferred-Rotation. Any grazing system, which provides for a systematic rotation of the deferment among

pastures. *

Desired Conditions. Descriptions of the social, economic and ecological attributes that characterize or

exemplify the desired outcome of land management. They are aspirational and likely to vary both in time

and space. Adapted from: Foundations of Forest Planning: Volume 1(Version 2.0) Model of a Forest

Plan. USDA Forest Service, January 2005

Ecological Site (ES) is a kind of land with specific physical characteristics which differs from other kinds

of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and its response to

management.* Also refer to the National Range and Pasture Handbook, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, page 3.1.

Ecological Site Description (ESD) ESDs contain information about soil, physical features, climatic

features, associated hydrologic features, plant communities possible on the site, plant community

dynamics, annual production estimates and distribution of production throughout the year, associated

animal communities, associated and similar sites, and interpretations for management. ESDs are

narratives and map units containing ecological sites. Many ESDs also have State and Transition Models

developed for them. Refer to the National Range and Pasture Handbook, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, page 3.1-1.

Ecological Type is a category of lands with a distinctive (i.e., mappable) combination of landscape

elements. The elements making up an ecological type are climate, geology, geomorphology, soils, and

potential natural vegetation. Ecological types differ from each other in their ability to produce vegetation


Page 41 of 46

and respond to management and natural disturbances. (Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical

Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales, USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report WO-68, 2005)

Ecological Units. Map units designed to identify land and water areas at different levels of resolution

based on similar capabilities and potentials for response to management and natural disturbance. These

capabilities and potentials derive from multiple elements: climate, geomorphology, geology, soils and

potential natural vegetation. Ecological units should, by design, be rather stable. They may, however, be

refined or updated as better information becomes available. (Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory

Technical Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales, USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report WO-68,

2005)

Grazing Frequency refers to the number of times forage plants are defoliated during the grazing period.

See Reed Floyd, Roy Roath, and Dave Bradford. 1999. The Grazing Response Index: A Simple and

Effective Method to Evaluate Grazing Impacts. Rangelands 21(4): 3-6.

Frequency (as a measurement for trend) The ratio between the number of sample units that contain a

species and the total number of sample units.*

Grazing Intensity is the degree of herbage removed through grazing and trampling by livestock. Grazing

intensity may be described in terms herbage removed during the grazing and/or growing period or as a

utilization level at the end of the growing period. It is important to clearly define how intensity is being

viewed and described. Removal of leaf material, when the plant is actively growing can affect root

growth which in turn affects future leaf growth. Sufficient leaf area is essential to support plant functions

through photosynthesis. Heavy to severe intensity or utilization can affect current plant development and

growth, as well as growth during subsequent growing seasons.

Grazing Intensity is discussed by Holechek (Reference 1 below):

Light- Only choice plants are used. There is no use of poor forage plants. The range appears practically

undisturbed.

Moderate- About ½ of the good and fair forage value plants are used. There is little evidence of

livestock trailing and most of the accessible range shows some use.

Heavy- Range has a clipped or mowed appearance. Over half of the fair and poor value forage plants are

used. All accessible parts of the range show use and key areas are closely cropped. They may appear

stripped if grazing is very severe and there is evidence of livestock trailing to forage.

The above descriptions may be especially helpful when reviewing grazing during the growing season.

Additional qualitative assessment of grazing intensity can be determined using the Landscape Appearance

Method. It can be found in the Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3 Utilization Studies and Residual

Measurements. Page 119.

Grazing Intensity as depicted as a utilization level at the end of the growing season as discussed by

Holechek, (Reference 2 below):

Light to non-use 0-30 percent

Conservative 31-40 percent

Moderate 41-50 percent

Heavy 51-60 percent

Severe 61+ percent

References:

(1) Holechek, Jerry L., Rex D. Pieper, and Carlton H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management,

Principles & Practices. Prentice Hall, page 248.

(2) Holechek, Jerry L. and Dee Galt. 2000. Grazing Intensity Guidelines. Rangelands 22(3): 11-

14.


Page 42 of 46

An additional qualitative grazing assessment and planning tool is the Grazing Response Index (GRI).

Reed Floyd, Roy Roath, and Dave Bradford. 1999. The Grazing Response Index: A Simple and Effective

Method to Evaluate Grazing Impacts. Rangelands 21(4): 3-6.

Grazing Occurrence is how often a given area is grazed. How often a pasture is exposed to grazing or

rested from grazing provides for different responses within the plant community due to differing

opportunities for plant recovery.

Grazing Period is defined as the length of time grazing livestock or wildlife occupy a specific land area. *

The length of time a pasture is exposed to grazing affects many variables such as potential for regrowth of

plant material, soil impacts and animal behavior. The grazing period influences the intensity of grazing

and the frequency of grazing. It can also influence items tied to animal behavior such as trailing, and

trampling such as between loafing and watering areas.

Key Area A relatively small portion of a range selected because of its location, use or grazing value as a

monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed that key areas, if properly selected, will reflect the overall

acceptability of current grazing management over the range. *

Key Species (1) Forage species whose use serves as an indicator to the degree of use of associated

species. (2) The species which must, because of their importance, be considered in the management

program.*

Monitoring The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data to evaluate progress

toward meeting management objectives. This process must be conducted over time in order to determine

whether or not management objectives are being met. *

Implementation Monitoring- This short-term monitoring answers the question, was the management

implemented as designed. Annually documents several items. Examples include:

1) Were management actions implemented as designed, and

2) Did the management actions achieve the annual effect expected?

Items which may be documented through implementation monitoring include, but are not limited to:

actual use (livestock numbers and days), condition of range improvements, utilization, wildlife

observations.

Effectiveness Monitoring- This long-term monitoring documents whether management actions are having

the expected progress towards achieving resource management objectives.

Resource Management Objectives are concise statements of measurable, time –specific outcomes

intended to achieve desired conditions. The objectives for a plan are the means of measuring progress

toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions. Adapted from: Foundations of Forest Planning:

Volume 1(Version 2.0) Model of a Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, January 2005

Rest is to leave an area of grazing land ungrazed or unharvested for a specific time, such as a year, a

growing season or a specified period required within a particular management practice. *

Rest-Rotation. A grazing management scheme in which rest periods for individual pastures, paddocks or

grazing units, generally for the full growing season, are incorporated in a grazing rotation. *

Seasonal Utilization is the amount of utilization that has occurred before the end of the growing season.

Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3, page 1.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory: (TES/TEUI): is the systematic

examination, description, classification, mapping and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems. A terrestrial

ecosystem is an integrated representation of soil, climate and vegetation as modified by geology,

geomorphology, landform and disturbance processes. Refer to Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory

Technical Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales, USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report WO-68,

2005.


Page 43 of 46

Timing is the time of season grazing occurs relative to the phenological stage of plant development, such

as early growth period, reproductive period, or dormant period. Disturbance, such as that from grazing,

may provide differing responses within the plant depending upon the stage of development.

Trend. The direction of change in an attribute as observed over time.*

Utilization is the proportion or degree of the current year’s forage production that is consumed or

destroyed by animals (including insects). The term may refer either to a single plant species, a group of

species, or to the vegetation community as a whole. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3, page 133.

* Society for Range Management. 1989. A glossary of terms used in range management. 3rd ed. Society

for Range Management, Denver, CO.


Page 44 of 46

Appendix 1 Range Inspection Summaries, July 2002-October 2015:

July 2002 - Granite pasture readiness inspection, Elbow Springs, Saddle Tank, in midst of

drought.

September 2002 – Cottonwood pasture readiness inspection, riparian areas springs, etc.

November 2002 – Cottonwood utilization inspection. Light use in cottonwood springs. High use

in Cottonwood canyon. Moderate to High use around Pine Creek Spring.

May 2003 – Smith Mesa and Canyon inspection. Water in some tanks

September 2003 – Spider pasture use inspection, ready to move to Mesa. Mesa readiness

inspection, water and feed available.

July 2004 – Smith Mesa inspection. First area: Grass use light, browse moderate, horseshoe tank

very low, queens tank good water. Second area, grass use moderate to heavy, browse light

May 2011 – Smith Canyon, Granites, and Spider inspection. Unauthorized cows in Smith

Canyon, moderate use on grasses in Granites pasture.

July 2011 – riparian inspection, Granites Pasture. Readiness inspection. Good shape.

August 2011- Granites use inspection. Use on grass and sedge in Elbow spring within tolerance,

same near Anderson Field.

April 2014 – Smith Mesa brush treatment inspection. 200 acres cut by hand (chainsaw)

April 2015 – Utilization inspection Granites – TEUI 425 ~15% use on grasses, 20-25% on

browse; TEUI 477 20% browse, 20-25% on grasses.

January 2015 – Moana unit inspection of tanks and springs, 2 head unauthorized cattle.

Bootlegger tank nonfunctional. Moana caught water as did Pemberton tank.

July 2015 – checked Jones, North Dillon trap, spider and Moana for unauthorized use. No

livestock.

August 2015 – Smith Mesa utilization on grasses 30%.

October 2015 – Cottonwood spring drainage use - 10.6 inches on sedges.


Page 45 of 46

Appendix 2 Forage Capacity Calculations

Smith Canyon

Entire Allotment

Calculation of total usable forage:

Forage Production (lbs/acre) Rx allowable use: 45.0%

163

x percent allowable use 73.35 available forage

x area 48,099 acres

total forage available for grazing 3,528,062

Calculation of Forage demand:

Weight of cows 1000 lbs

x daily dry matter (% body weight) 2.6% months

x number of days pasture will be grazed 365 12

forage demand by cows 9490

Calculation of stocking rate:

Total Usable Forage (lbs/acre) divided by forage demand equals number of cows area will carry (unadjusted for slope) 372

Hitt

Adjustment for slope: Correction

factor

Amount of area with 0-10% slope: 17,803.00 acres x adjustment for slope 1.0 0.37 0.370225

Amount of are with 11-30% slope: 19,780.00 acres x adjustment for slope 0.7 0.41 0.287936

Amount of are with 31-60% slope: 9,619.00 acres x adjustment for slope 0.4 0.20 0.080013

Amount of are over 60% slope: 885.00 acres x adjustment for slope 0.0 0.02 0

Total 48,087.00 acres 1

Grazing Capacity of Area adjusted for slope: 274 0.738175

Adjustment for Water Distribution

Correction

factor

Amount of area within 1 miles of water 48,099.00 acres x adjustment for slope 1.0 1.00 1

Amount of area 1-2 miles of water 0.00 acres x adjustment for slope 0.5 0.00 0

Amount of area over 2 miles from water 0.00 acres x adjustment for slope 0.0 0.00 0

Total 48,099.00 acres 1

Cow/Bull

Grazing Capacity of Area adjusted for water: 274 1 14

A.U A.U.M

274 3339

Spreadsheet created using Holechek's; Calculation of Stocking Rate from his 4th Edition; Range Management, Principles and Practices, Chapter 8, pg 222-232

Forage production data , averaged by pasture, from Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (Forg); is an estimate of the total annual yield (air dry weight expressed in pound/acre/year) of edible herbaceous/woody vegetation available to grazing animals. The zone of estimation is from the soil surface to a height of 4.5 feet (height that an animal can reach). Vegetation coefficients presented are those for shrubs, forbs and graminods.


Page 46 of 46

Appendix 3 New Range Improvements Map

vegetation & range mgt. specialists...

Documents