Region Soil Report - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Soil Specialist Report 2 Introduction The Sargent grazing allotment is

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern

Region

Sargent Allotment Guadalupe Ranger District

Lincoln National Forest

Soil Report Completed by

Jennifer N Hill, Forest Soil Scientist

July 22, 2013

Soil Specialist Report 2

Introduction

The Sargent grazing allotment is located within Guadalupe Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, approximately 50 miles northwest of Carlsbad, NM. (Figure 1) The legal location for the allotment is:

T. 20 S., R. 19E., sections 19-20, and 29-32;

T. 21 S., R. 19E., sections 3-5, and 8-9

Area of Analysis

The allotment contains approximately 5,307 acres and represents the analysis area for this environmental analysis. The allotment varies in elevation from 5,500 feet to 6,100 feet. The allotment consists of piñon/juniper woodlands, grama/galleta grasslands and desert shrub grasslands. In general, forage consists mostly of species such as: blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), wolf tail (Lycurus setosus), sideoats grama (B. curtipendula), and oak (Quercus spp.). Active growing season on the grama grasses and wolf tail is usually from the mid-July and seed head maturity is reached around the middle of September. The growing season on the mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) and oak is from the beginning of April and reach maturity around mid-September. The major canyons located within the Sargent Allotment are Crooked and Sargent Canyons. There is no perennial free-flowing water or riparian vegetation on the allotment.

Key Resource Questions

What are the current soil conditions on the Sargent allotment?

What affects will proposed grazing alternatives have on soil conditions within the Sargent allotment?


Figure 1. Project area – Soil Resource Inventory Map Units and Pasture map.


Existing Conditions

Current soil condition ranges from satisfactory to impaired, within the allotment all depending on natural recovery. Impaired conditions generally occur in the lower woodland areas where hydrologic function is reduced in these areas due primarily to reductions in pore space from raindrop impact and compaction from ungulates. There is evidence of some rill and potential for gully erosion. Erosion pavement is evident in some areas in the allotment, mainly along the roadways.

Soil conditions were rated satisfactory in some areas; rock and litter are responsible for most effective ground cover in the areas of the allotment. There are localized areas of impaired conditions as a result of past activities located around tanks and in drainage bottoms.

Satisfactory soil condition exists at the proposed project locations (pipelines, storage tank and water improvements). Nearly all of the soils in the project area are functioning properly and retain their inherent productivity. Soil surface showed moderate and single grained structure. Loose pore space was evident in the upper surface of the profile. This also supports that soil compaction is not occurring. The A horizon (top soil) is present and well distributed, evidence of roots above and below the surface. Both litter and Vegetative Ground Cover (VGC) are distributed evenly across the soil surface there are desirable perennial plants and slight pedestaling.

Desired Future Condition

Soil desired conditions were developed by the interdisciplinary team. The soil desired condition for this project is identified as:

Maintain or improve soil stability and productivity.

Soils are satisfactory or approaching satisfactory on rangeland. The percent of good ground cover (plant basal area and litter) will be at least at a level to prevent accelerated soil loss (at or above tolerance) as described in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey for the Lincoln National Forest. Ground cover levels on non-capable range will be managed to its maximum natural potential to minimize sediment production as described in the TES.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed action is to continue to authorize livestock grazing on the Sargent grazing allotment in a manner consistent with Forest Plan direction for the Management Areas of 3E and 3F. Applicable federal regulations including Section 504 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1995, as amended (Public Law 104-19, 109 Stat. 212; and the Burns Amendment, P.L. 104-19). To meet Forest Plan objectives and other federal regulations, the proposed action would ensure a management strategy and authorize continued livestock grazing and management activities that would provide for movement toward or maintenance of desired resource conditions.


Relevant law, Regulation and Policy

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2554: The National Forest Management Act requires that lands be managed to ensure the maintenance and long-term soil productivity, soil hydrologic function, and ecosystem health. Soil quality is maintained when erosion, compaction, displacement, rutting, burning, and loss of organic matter are maintained within defined soil quality standards.

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures

Proposed Action

The proposed action was developed to address identified environmental concerns associated with grazing on the allotment, and the analysis process identifies alternatives and mitigation to avoid or minimize impacts. Compliance with the noted laws and regulations along with LNF Forest plan direction provide the basis for determining whether to authorize the Proposed Action or another alternative. The action would also formally establish management and administration on this allotment that is adaptable in order to respond to changing resource conditions such as climate, drought, seasonal fluctuations in forage production, or wildland fire. The proposed action would also incorporate adaptive management principles outlined in Chapter 90 of Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13.

The following Proposed Action has been developed to meet the project’s purpose and need. The Proposed Action consists of six components: authorization, new improvements, maintenance of existing improvements, adaptive management, monitoring, and resource protection. The proposed action follows current guidance from Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90 (Grazing Permit Administration; Rangeland Management Decision-making).

The elements of the Proposed Action are as follows:

A new 10-year term grazing permit would be issued authorizing up to 1584 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of grazing use per year.

The grazing system currently in place would be retrained on the Sargent Allotment. Pasture moves are determined annually based on current conditions and are outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI).

Install 2.5 miles of surface line pipe, one water storage tank, and two livestock drinkers.

Forage utilization guidelines for all key areas of the allotment would be set at 45% on Blue Grama dominated sites.

Existing structural range improvements and trails would be maintained to effectively serve their intended purposes.

For the purpose of this analysis and the associated decision document, stocking levels would be expressed in terms of AUMs. The term grazing permit and AOIs would continue to specify livestock numbers and annual seasons of use within the stocking levels parameters in this analysis.


An adaptive management strategy would continue to be implemented. Based on monitoring of progress toward desired future conditions and in consideration of identified decision criteria and constraints, future AOIs may alter the authorized number of livestock, season of use, grazing system, or utilization rate. Such alternations would follow predetermined courses of action.

Resource Protection Measures

The Nonpoint Source Intergovernmental Agreement signed by the Forest Service (R3) and the State of New Mexico, Environmental Improvement Division in 1990 states that the Forest Service will endeaver to minimize and mitigate all potential non-point source pollution activities. The purpose of this agreement is to ensure that perrennail waters meet water quality objectives defined by the U.S. Congress as stated in the Federal Water Pollutin Control Act as amended in 1987. These objectives are to restore and maintain the chemical, physcial, and biological integrity of our nation’s waters in New Mexico by complying with water quality standards identified for designated uses in perennial waters.

As agreed upon by the State of New Mexico and the USDA Forest Service, the most practices and effective means of controlling potential nonpoint pollution sources from forest and rangelands is through the development and implementation of preventative or mitigating land management practices, genally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMP) also stated as Resource Protection Measures. Refer to Table.1 These measures were designed with the objective of improving/and or maintaining long-term soil productivity and enhancing water quality.

Table 1. Resource Protection Required for All Action Alternatives.

# Resource Protection Measure Purpose

The District Range Staff will monitor permittee compliance with the Allotment Management Plan and Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) annually for the life of the Permit. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the livestock grazing permit will be strictly enforced including adaptive management and predetermined courses of action, monitoring agreements and any cost sharing for structural range improvements.

To achieve the objective of improving and/or maintaining long-term soil productivity, water quality, plant composition and productivity.

Grazing timing in each pasture and rotations would be determined by AOIs. Adequate rest during the growing season allows plants to become established and grow undisturbed. Adequate rest during the dormant season allows for the accumulation of plant litter and improved vegetation composition and basal area.

To achieve the objective of improving and/or maintaining long-term soil productivity, water quality, as well as plant composition and productivity.

Implement the following soil condition objectives: Manage livestock grazing at an intensity that will maintain or

To achieve the objective of improving and/or


# Resource Protection Measure Purpose

improve vegetative ground cover (litter and vegetation basal area) to enhance soil function (minimizes soil erosion, promote water infiltration and enhance nutrient recycling) and to improve the quality and quantity of desirable vegetation. Manage livestock grazing to move towards satisfactory soil conditions and natural vegetative ground cover levels with a minimum equal to or greater than tolerable vegetative ground cover levels. Unsatisfactory soils in the allotment will be monitored and grazing strategy adjusted if livestock grazing are contributing to impairment of vegetative ground covers.

maintaining long-term soil productivity, water quality. Plant composition and productivity.

Existing range structural improvements are to be maintained. New range structural improvements are to be installed and maintained as necessary. Structural range improvements such as corrals, troughs, trails, storage tanks, should not be located in areas such as swales, drainages, riparian areas and meadows. Installation and maintenance of approved range structural improvements will allow for the implementation of proper livestock control and distribution, based on 40 percent utilization guidelines and response to conditions.

To achieve the objective of improving and/or maintaining long-term soil productivity and enhancing water quality.

Affected Environment

Spatial bounding for the affected area was determined based on the allotment boundary located within the 6th HUC (Outlet Crooked Canyon and Headwaters Crooked Canyon). The proposed projects are localized in specific locations which consume a very small area (percentage) in comparison to the total acres of the entire allotment.

There are several indicators that are observed in the field while assessing the impacts of these improvements. Some of these indicators includes, infiltration, penetration resistance, bulk density, surface structure and pore space. Kruegar (2002) explains that livestock can affect soil quality through compaction, erosion, and changes in the plant community.

Smokliak and others (1976) state that moderate to heavy grazing can reduce plant density, cover, biomass, root growth, vigor and reproductive ability. Collectively, these factors can alter the relative composition and structure of grass, forb, shrub and tree components.

Intense continued defoliation causes plants to lose their photosynthetic capacity which may reduce plant vigor as measured by such factors as level of carbohydrate reserves, root growth, and reproductive capacity (Pieper 1988). As grazing intensities increase protective surface cover, herbage and root biomass, organic matter content, and aggregate stability have been repeatedly shown to decline (Hart 1993). Although, intense herbivore use has been shown to


enhance above-ground net primary production in mesic indigenous grasslands but there is little research that supports this phenomenon occurring in arid and semiarid rangelands (Heitschmidt 1990). Selective intense use of individual plants can alter their competitive ability which leads to a shift in plant composition at the community levels (Pieper 1988). This can also negatively impact the total cover and spatial distribution of herbaceous cover. The shift of vegetation composition usually favors the establishment and regeneration of less preferred plants (Pieper 1988). However, adaptive management measures which manage for defoliation frequency, intensity levels, and season of use can assist in the maintenance and promotion of plant health and cover. Using intensity guidelines have shown that rangeland conditions, trend, and standing crop biomass can be maintained or improved (Holechek 2000 & 2004).

Vegetative ground cover includes surface organic matter and living plant biomass but for quantifiable measuring purposes includes surface organic matter, .5 inch or greater in size, and basal vegetation (Mapfumo 2002, USDA FS 1999). Vegetative cover protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, slows runoff, and enhances infiltration (Hart 1993). Litter reduces soil erosion by reducing runoff and improves soil structure and fertility through addition of organic matter (Mapfumo 2002). Soil organic matter includes plant, animal, and microbial residue in various stages of decomposition (USDA NRCS 2001). Soil organic matter contributes to favorable soil function by enhancing aggregate stability, water holding capacity, fertility, cation absorption and productivity; improves porosity, infiltration, and root penetration; and reduces physical soil crusting, runoff, and erosion (USDA NRCS 2001). Grazing can change plant composition and distribution and increase or decrease the amount of organic matter in the soil through trampling and defoliation (USDA NRCS 2001, Heitschmidt 1990, Pieper 1988). Trampling can incorporate plant material into the soil but can also expose organic matter to decomposition and loss through erosion (USDA NRCS 2001). Standing and fallen litter mass and vegetation ground cover generally decrease while amount of bare ground increases with increased grazing intensity (Mapfumo 2002). Bare soils are more susceptible to raindrop impact and aggregate break down which can lead to surface sealing and increased erosion (Mapfumo 2002). Organic matter losses increase as erosion increases through soil loss, decomposition, and oxidation (USDA NRCS 2001). Soil fertility (i.e. Carbon and Nitrogen pools) associated with litter and root mass decreases as grazing intensities increases (Mapfumo 2002, Hart 1993). Herbage removal and redistribution by domestic livestock grazing has been described as a principal means by which nutrients are lost from grasslands (Hart 1993). Establishing intensity levels can assist in increasing and maintaining vegetative ground cover levels and organic matter. The retention of vegetation biomass promotes plant health and reproduction for the recruitment of favorable plant distribution across the landscape for organic matter accumulation, enhances root production, promotes favorable soil structure, decreases bare soil, stabilizes soils, and enhances nutrient cycling and soil fertility (USDA NRCS 2001).

Soil aggregates are groups of soil particles that are bound to each other more strongly than to adjacent particles and influence soil structure (USDA NRCS 2001). Aggregate stability is closely related to a number of ecosystem properties, processes and functions including the quantity


and composition of soil organic matter, soil biotic activity, infiltration capacity, resistance to erosion, and water availability (Herrick 2001, USDA NRCS 2001) Aggregate stability is largely associated with soil organic matter (Herrick 2001). Soil organic matter and aggregate stability is sensitive to management (Herrick 2001). Research has shown that as grazing intensities increase aggregate stability decreases through the reduction of vegetation cover and trampling (Hart 1993, Mapfumo 2002, Heitschmidt 1990). Grazing can also incorporate litter above the ground and standing dead vegetation into the soil, increasing the content of organic matter (USDA NRCS 2001). Heavy grazing that reduces plant production and its spatial distribution reduces aggregate stability by increasing the sizes of bare soil patches and reducing the inputs of organic matter (USDA NRCS 2001). Range management practices can maintain and increase aggregate stability by retaining vegetation biomass, litter, and promote soil organic matter while reducing the size and number of bare soil areas (USDA NRCS 2001).

Soil compaction is the packing together of soil particles by forces at the soil surface, resulting in an increase in soil density through a decrease in pore space (Hart 1993). Soil compaction has important hydrologic implications in terms of reduced infiltration rates, impacts on plant growth, and increases in runoff and erosion (Van Haveren 1983). Compaction reduces soil water holding capacities and water movement through the soil which can limit available water for plant growth and nutrient cycling (USDA NRCS 2001). Negative alterations of soil aeration, soil temperature, nutrient cycling, and physically restricting root growth are also products of soil compaction (USDA NRCS 2001).

As load bearing stress is applied, soil colloids align themselves and the volume of pore space decreases (Brady 1990). Coarse textured soils have a greater proportion of larger pores (i.e. macropores) while finer textured soils have a greater proportion of smaller pores (i.e. micropores). Coarse textured soils have a greater resistance to be compacted because their soil colloids have less surface area and pore space to enable realignment of soil colloids. Finer textured soils have a lower soil strength, or lower resistance to be deformed from load stresses, than coarse textured soils because the soil colloids have a higher surface area and lower bulk density due to more pore space (Brady 1990). Hence, finer-textured soils are more susceptible to compaction than coarse textured soils. Rock fragments within a soil profile and on the soil surface also tend to minimize soil compaction by dissipating load bearing stress and minimizing the amount of pore space within a soil profile.

Soil water content is one of the most influential factors in determining soil displacement and compaction (Hart 1993). More force is needed to compact a dry soil than to compact the same soil when wet (Van Haveren 1983). Soil moisture lubricates individual soil particles and enables them to rearrange and displace the air in the pore space when compactive force is applied, resulting in an increase of bulk density (Hart 1993). As discussed previously, soil moisture content tends to be more influential on finer textured soils because of their inherently low bulk densities and ability to hold more water (Hart 1993).

Livestock grazing can compact soil and significantly reduce water infiltration rates (Castellano 2007). Vegetation removal and trampling associated with increasing levels of grazing intensities show a corresponding increase of bulk density and compaction (Hart 1993, Van


Haveren 1983). Castellano found that sites that had been grazed versus ungrazed with similar vegetation cover still experienced higher levels of compaction and lower infiltration rates (2007).

Livestock management can limit compaction and physical crust formation through a myriad of practices. Minimizing livestock trampling when the soils are wet and discouraging livestock concentration on sensitive soils minimizes the continued load bearing stress and realignment of soil particles and loss of pore space. Soil compaction recovery is likely associated with wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles as well as biotic activity (Castellano 2007). Maintaining or increasing the content of organic matter, root biomass, and activity of soil organisms by improving plant cover and plant production assists in maintaining or improving soil structure (USDA NRCS 2001). Organic matter and living biomass associated with vegetative ground cover allows soils to be resistant to compaction by improving soil strength and helps cushion forces applied to the soil.

The process of water entering the soil is infiltration and the infiltration rate is how fast water enters the soil (USDA NRCS 2001). Soil water storage is replenished through infiltration which is needed for plant production, soil ecological function, and watershed processes. Poor management can reduce infiltration rates resulting in an increase of run-off or water ponding (USDA NRCS 2001). As infiltration decreases there is less water stored in the soil for plant growth, and plant production decreases, resulting in less organic matter for the soil and weakened soil structure that can further increase runoff (USDA NRCS 2001). Accelerated runoff can cause accelerated erosion and the loss of organic matter and nutrients.

Inherent soil properties that influence infiltration include soil texture, dense and/or restrictive sub-soil layers, and soil depth (USDA NRCS 2001). Coarse textured soils have larger pores than finer textured soils and provide higher infiltration rates. Soil depth and a restrictive dense subsurface soil layer restrict the amount of water a soil can hold and can cease infiltration when the soils become saturated.

Management and vegetation attributes that can influence infiltration include vegetative ground cover that decreases overland flow, vegetation biomass and organic matter that contribute to favorable soil structure and aggregate stability, and physical crust formation and compaction that seals and decreases pore space (USDA NRCS 2001). Livestock grazing can influence infiltration rates through defoliation and trampling. Vegetative cover protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, slows runoff, and enhances infiltration rate (Hart 1993). Vegetative ground cover generally decreases and bare soil increases as grazing intensities increase (Mapfuma 2002). Typical models suggest that increases in grass cover concurrently increase water infiltration where reductions in grass cover concurrently reduce water infiltration (Castellano 2007). However, soils with similar ground cover that have been compacted from livestock grazing versus not compacted have shown a decrease in infiltration (Castellano 2007). The combination of trampling and defoliation increases the decline of herbaceous cover (Pieper 1988). The decline of soil compaction and increase of grass abundance has also been shown to increase infiltration (Castellano 2007).


Livestock management measures that promote and maintain favorable infiltration rates include: Improving or maintaining plant production and vegetative ground cover to minimize continuous waterflow patterns and decrease overland flow while promoting water residence time and infiltration. Vegetation biomass and organic matter also promotes favorable soil structure and aggregate stability and alleviates physical crust formation which enhances infiltration. Practices that alleviate soil compaction and promote soil compaction recovery will consequently help maintain or improve infiltration.

Soil surface crusts are important soil quality indicators that influence the soils hydrologic, stability and nutrient cycling function. Physical crusts form when organic matter is depleted, soil aggregates become weak, and raindrops disperse the soil into individual particles that clog soil pores, seal the surface, and form a physical soil layer with reduced porosity (USDA NRCS 2001). They seal the soil surface, reduce infiltration rates, impede seeding emergence, and increase runoff. Physical crusts generally help to control wind erosion but contribute to accelerated water erosion. Although trampling degrades physical crusts, the benefits are short lived because the soil remains disaggregated and subject to re-sealing during the next rainfall (Hart 1993). Livestock influences and management implications for physical crusts are commensurate and directly linked to plant biomass, organic matter and aggregate stability (Belnap 2001).

Biological soil crusts have been shown to be susceptible to degradation through a variety of disturbances, such as fire and trampling, and may require lengthy periods in which to recover from such disturbances. A biological soil crust is a living community of lichen, cyanobacteria, algae, and moss growing on the soil surface and binding it together (USDA NRCS 2001). Biological crusts enhance aggregate stability, soil structure, organic matter, and stabilize soils (Belnap 2001). Biological crusts influence to static infiltration is variable but they increase surface roughness, reduce runoff, and increase infiltration (Belnap 2001, USDA NRCS 2001). Some biological crusts can increase the amount of nitrogen and other nutrients in the soil (USDA NRCS 2001). Research has shown that biological crusts do not compete with vascular plants or that vascular plant vigor and cover is enhanced by the presence of biological crust (Belnap 2001). The vertical and horizontal vascular plant structure of many arid and semi-arid vegetation communities optimizes growth of biological soil crusts (Bellnap 2001). Biological soil crusts are highly susceptible to degradation from intensive trampling and severe ground disturbance (Belnap 2001, USDA NRCS 2001). Non-severe disturbances such as, non-concentrated trampling, tends to only compress the surface and not have a negative impact upon biological soil crusts (Belnap 2001).

Livestock management strategies for biological soil crust health are similar to management strategies for other vegetation ground cover components. Biological crusts on coarse textured soils are less susceptible to disturbance when the soils are wet or moist, and the ones on fine textured soils are less susceptible when soils are dry (Bellnap 2001). Biological crusts are also less susceptible to disturbance when soils are frozen and/or snow covered (Bellnap 2001). Establishing intensity guidelines will consequently regulate trampling impacts and not negatively impact biological soil crusts.


Water erosion is the detachment and removal of soil material by water (USDA NRCS 2001). Accelerated erosion is erosion levels that are above natural conditions and has the potential, in some cases, to exceed natural soil formation rates and negatively impact soil productivity. Accelerated erosion occurs when plant cover is depleted, the spaces between plants increase, and soil structure is degraded by excessive disturbance or reduced inputs of organic matter (USDA NRCS 2001). This results in a decrease in infiltration and a corresponding increase of runoff and erosion. Erosion breaks down soil structure, exposing organic matter within soil aggregates to decomposition and loss, diminishes nutrient cycling and fertility, and reduces water holding capacity and infiltration (USDA NRCS 2001). Livestock grazing impacts and management strategies that influence vegetation production, organic matter, aggregate stability, compaction, and infiltration indirectly influence erosion.

The soil condition rating procedure evaluates soil quality based on an interpretation of factors that affect three primary soil functions. The primary soil functions evaluated are soil stability, soil hydrology, and nutrient cycling (Appendix A). These functions are interrelated. See Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.18 for additional information.

Definitions of soil functions are as follows:

Soil Hydrologic Function. The ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit water, both vertically and horizontally. This function is assessed by evaluating or observing changes in surface structure, surface pore space, consistence, bulk density, infiltration or penetration resistance. Increases in bulk density or decreases in porosity results in reduced water infiltration, permeability, and plant available moisture.

Soil Stability. The ability of the soil to resist erosion. Soil erosion is the detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particles by water, wind, or gravity. Vascular plants, soil biotic crusts, and vegetation ground cover (VGC) are the greatest deterrent to surface soil erosion. Visual evidence of surface erosion includes sheets, rills, and gullies; pedestalling, soil deposition, erosion pavement, and loss of the surface "A" horizon. Erosion models may also be used to predict on-site soil loss.

Nutrient Cycling. The ability of the soil to accept, hold and release nutrients. This function is assessed by evaluating vegetative community composition, litter, coarse woody material, root distribution, and soil biotic crusts. These indicators are considered an important source of soil organic matter, which is essential in sustaining long-term soil productivity. It provides a carbon and energy source for soil microbes, stores and provides nutrients which are needed for the growth of plants and soil organisms and by providing for cation and anion exchange capacities.

Soil Condition Categories

Ecological land units are assigned a soil condition category which is an indication of the status of soil functions. Soil condition categories reflect soil disturbances resulting from both planned and unplanned events. Current management activities provide opportunities to maintain or improve soil functions that are critical in sustaining soil productivity.


The definitions for soil condition ratings are as follows:

Satisfactory. Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs is high.

Impaired. Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to function properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate the ecosystem to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in land management practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate.

Unsatisfactory. Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of vital soil functions result in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, sustain outputs or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions.

Soil Resource Inventory

A Soil Resource Inventory (SIR) was completed by Forest Service and covers the Guadalupe Ranger District (USDA, 1973). The descriptions of the soils from this report were used in determining reference conditions for the soils observed. The Guadalupe District does not have a completed Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES). The northern section of the district, where the Sargent Allotment is located is one of these areas that lack an updated TES.

Table 2 describes the soil characteristics and properties of each representative SIR used in this analysis by pasture. It was not possible to visit every MU in each pasture therefore some MUs are used as reference points for the entire allotment. For location of MU within the allotment refer to figure 1. Reference the glossary for specific TES definitions.

Table 2. Soil resource inventory data

SRI MU

Soil Taxonomic Name

Slope %

Surface Texture

Soil Erosion Hazard

Vegetation Parent Material

Unit location by pasture on the allotment

53 Ustollic 0-10% Clay Loam Slight BOGR2/PIED JUDE2

Limestone

New, Canyon, Buck, Crooked, Sargent House Trap

260 Lithic Haplustolls

0-30% Gravelly Loam

Moderate PIED/JUDE2 Dolomite limestone

New, Canyon, Buck, Crooked, Sargent House Trap

263 Lithic Calciustolls

5-30% Cobbly Clay Loam

Moderate DAWH2/AGLE

Dolomite limestone

New, Canyon, Buck, East Crooked,


Crooked, Sargent House Trap

266 Lithic Calciustolls

30-150

Cobbly Clay Loam

Severe DAWH2/AGLE

Dolomite limestone

New, East Crooked

1. Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) units numbers that were previously mapped for the Guadalupe Ranger District 2. Soil Taxonomic subgroup name 3. Slope; 0-15% upper limit for most mechanized equipment used in re-vegetation (rangeland drill, etc.) on stable

slopes – Areas of deposition and therefore considered stable. 40- 80% upper limit for angle of repose of soils

without the binding effect of roots and are therefore unstable – Areas of denudation and therefore considered

active (TES handbook, 1986). 4. Surface texture. (TES handbook, 1986). 5. Soil Erosion rating: Erosion hazard is the probability of soil loss resulting from complete removal of vegetation

and litter. A rating of moderate indicates that rates of soil loss will result in lowering of site productivity if left

unchecked. Conditions are such that cultural practices to mitigate soil loss are reasonable and economically

feasible. A rating of severe indicates that rates of soil loss have a high probability of lowering site productivity

before mitigating measures can be applied (TES handbook, 1986). 6. Vegetation Symbol (Scientific Plant Name): BOGR2 (Boutelous gracilis), JUDE2 (Juniperus deppeana), PIED

(Pinus edulis), DAWH2 (Dasylinon Wheeleri) and AGLE (Agave Lechugilla)

Table 3. Total allotment acres by TES map unit and pasture.

SRI Map Unit New Sargent House

East Crooked Canyon Buck Crooked SRI Map Unit Total

53 9 8

1 48 8 73

260 861 5

316 308 364 1855

263 102 1 27 723 25 209 1087

266 5 981

1294 2280

Pasture Acres 978 14 1009 1040 381 1870 5295

SRMU 53 has 73 acres within the allotment can be located in 5 pastures. These soils are located in concave positions as narrow stringers and broad swales. Soils depths are generally deep, but decrease toward the outer edges of the unit. Large areas often have a deep carbonitic layer. This unit contains the most productive soils on the district. However, an estimated 10- 25% of the original soil surface has been lost through gully erosion, as a result of overgrazing. These soils are developing alluvium derived from sandstone, dolomite and limestone of the San Andres, Queens, Grayburg, and Seven Rivers formations. Elevation ranges from 5,300 – 6,500 feet.

SRMU 260 has 1855 acres within the allotment and can be located in 5 pastures. These soils are shallow, dark grayish brown gravelly loams or clay loams over dolomite limestone-bedrock. Formations include the Grayburg and San Andres. These soils are extensive throughout the area covering ridge tops and side slopes. Elevation is 5,000 to 6,500 feet.

SRMU 263 has a total of 1087 acres and can be located in all 6 pastures. These soils are shallow, grayish brown, gravelly loams over dolomite-limestone bedrock. Formations include the San Andres and Grayburg. Gently rounded scarp slopes and dip slopes form ridge tops. Moderate deep alluvium soils can be found in drainages and occasional depression on ridges. In very


excellent years range production potential may reach moderate levels. This unit is a sloping phase of unit 261. Elevation ranges from 5800 to 6100 feet.

SRMU 266 has a total of 2280 acres and can be located in 3 pastures. These soils range from very shallow to shallow in depth. These soils are grayish brown gravelly loams and clay loams. They are developing from Loess, and dolomite-limestone, and sand stone of the following formations: Captain Limestone, Cherry Canyon, Goat seep Dolomite, fraybrug, Queen, San Andres, Yates and Yeso. Rockland constitutes 25% of the Unit. The series is a member of the loamy-skeletal carbonitic, thermic, family of Lithic Calciustolls. This unit has a slope range of 30-150% and elevation ranges from 4500 – 7000 feet.

Plants provide for ecosystem productivity and health by enriching soils, providing soil cover, and protecting watersheds from runoff and wind erosion. Beyond the grazing effects on plants, livestock activity can compact soils and damage stream banks and channels. The combinations of these changes to the biotic and physical landscapes also affect the relative composition and structure of grass, forb, shrub and tree components in an area and overall watershed health. Ultimately, decreased vegetation cover would diminish soil organic matter and root biomass, resulting in a loss of soil nutrients and productivity.

Livestock grazing influences soil resources and ecological processes through defoliation, trampling, and nutrient redistribution (Pieper1988, Heitschmidt 1990). This influences soil productivity mainly through the modification of soil hydrologic properties which consequently influences soil stability and nutrient cycling (Hart 1993). Krueger and others state that several soil functions relate to soil quality of grazing lands are directly or indirectly affected by livestock activities, especially the level and frequency of forage plant defoliation (Krueger and others 2002). These soil functions include soil respiration, infiltration (the process of rainfall entering the soil), bulk density (the ratio of soil mass to bulk volume, an indicator of compaction), and aggregate stability (the resistance of soil aggregates to external destructive forces). Resource Protection Measures and range condition monitoring would be implemented to minimize effects. Refer to table 1.

Resource effect Measurement Indicators

Soils within the project area are assessed according to the indicators in the Soil Condition rating guide (Appendix A). These indicators (Table 4) will determine if soil is protected from erosion, mass wasting, and displacement. When soil is protected from compaction, rutting, and puddling, it can function hydrologically. That is, water can infiltrate the soil, be stored, and be released for uptake by plants, and the soil will have the right proportion of macro-and micropore space so that it can drain properly.

These indicators can be quantified because 1) baseline data is available and can be compared against future changes; (2) provide a sensitive and timely measure of a soil’s ability to function with a given ecosystem; (3) Applicable over large areas and (4) capable of providing a continuous assessment.


The soil condition rating procedure evaluates soil quality based on an interpretation of factors that affect three primary soil functions. The primary soil functions evaluated are soil stability, soil hydrology and nutrient cycling. These functions are interrelated (FSH 2509.18) and are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Indicators

Hydrologic Surface Structure Surface Pore Space Rupture resistance Near Surface Subzones (Surface crusting or subsurface compaction) Bulk Density Infiltration Penetration Resistance

Stability Modeled Soil Loss Visible Sheet Rill & Gully Erosion Pedestaling Erosion Pavement Soil Deposition (Displacement) Surface "A" Horizon

Nutrient Cycling Vegetative Community Composition Litter Coarse Woody Material Root Distribution

Effects Analysis

Soil Surface Components

Quantifiable soil surface measurements were taken during the soil condition assessment. One element of the USFS Region 3 Soil Condition Evaluation is to consider how effective vegetative ground cover (i.e. basal vegetation and litter cover) contributes to all soil functions. This is done by evaluating how vegetative ground cover (VGC) is spatially distributed across the landscape both vertically and horizontally (USDA FS 1999, Robbie 2008). VGC measurements were taken in compliance with the Region 3 Soil Quality Monitoring handbook which defines effective litter as organic materials on the soil surface at least 0.5 inch thick (USDA FS 1999). VGC measurements were also taken as comparable values to the Lincoln National Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) potential which defines litter as organic materials on the soil surface at least 1 inch thick (Robertson 2000). The TES VGC levels are not used for the soil condition evaluations but provide insight in how existing levels compare to potential levels along with how its spatial distribution contributes to soil condition.

It was not feasible to visit every single SRI MU within the allotment, therefore the following SRI MUs were used as a representative sites for assessing soil conditions. We focused our attention where the range improvements would occur. Table 5 and 6 is a summary of field


observations conducted in the proposed project activities. Photos 1 and 2 were taken at these locations during the field observation.

Table 5. Soil Existing Condition

TES Acres Percent of Allotment

Watershed Name Slope Gradient

Vegetation Taxon

263 1087 21% Outlet crooked canyon and Headwaters crooked canyon

10% Pied/Jumo/Jude

Soil Surface Components % Litter 1” % Basal % Soil % Rock

Existing GC % 10 50 40

Other observations (Indicators) Coarse Woody Material

Infiltration rate (surface)

Bulk Density g/cc

NA 3 seconds N/A Too rocky/shallow soil

Date Field Notes & Soil Condition Rationale

02/26/2013 The hydrologic, stability, and nutrient cycling capability is functional. Soil field observations indicate favorable soil structure, even distribution of litter across the soil surface and no signs of excessive erosion.

Canopy cover scored out as follows:

Tree 20% (Jumo, Jude, Pied)

Shrubs 9% (Allegita, ATCA, Sumac)

Forbs 8 % (Snake, lump unknown)

Graminoids 63% (Blue grama, side oats, wolftale)

Soils are rated as being satisfactory.

Range Improvements Drinker #1


Photo 1

Table 6. Soil Existing Condition

TES Acres Percent of Allotment

Watershed Name Slope Gradient

Vegetation Taxon

260 1855 35 % Outlet crooked canyon and Headwaters crooked canyon

10% One seed Juniper, Pinon, Alligator

Soil Surface Components % Litter 1” % Basal % Soil % Rock

Existing 0 55 8 37

Other observations (Indicators)

Coarse Woody Material

Infiltration rate (surface)

Bulk Density g/cc

NA 3 seconds N/A Too rocky/shallow soil

Date Field Notes & Soil Condition Rationale

03/07/2013 Water drop method was conducted at this location, it took less than 3 seconds to infiltrate. There was lots of gravel, cobble and stone which also is providing GC.

Canopy cover scored as follows:

Trees 45% (1 seed juniper, Pinon, Alligator),

Shrubs 11% (Alliegita, Yucca, Sumac, Choya)

Forbs 7% (Snake, Lump unknown)

Graminoids 37% (3 awn, Blue, Side oats, Wolftale) Soils are rated as being satisfactory.

Range Improvements

Trough Fencing


Photo 2.

Methodology

The base maps used for the analysis are the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute

quadrangle maps. Information from the Forest Service corporate Geographic Information

System database (GIS) was used to overlay multiple datasets over the quad map.

Soil condition field data was collected on February 26, 2013. Forest Range Specialists and Soil

Scientist completed field observations which included looking at the hydrologic, soil stability

and nutrient cycling function. Field data consisted of visiting representative areas of proposed

range improvements. Soil condition information was then gathered and used in the preparation

of this report.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The No Action alternative is non-implementation of the proposed action. Livestock grazing would not be permitted and no development of new range improvements would occur. There would be no direct effects from removal of biomass; the standing crop should increase in the short term and no compaction should occur from livestock grazing. The lack of load bearing stress from livestock and additional vegetative ground cover would promote favorable soil structure, maintain and improve infiltration along with nutrient cycling and soil stability. Precipitation (timing and amount) will influence the amount the amount and extent of vegetative ground cover that occurs on the allotment. Brady et al (1989) noted in a 16 year study of grazed and ungrazed, semi-desert grasslands that ground cover increased more on the


ungrazed plot, but that ground cover increased on both grazed and ungrazed plots and suggest precipitation was the reason for the increase in ground cover on both plots.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct & Indirect Effects

Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the actions that cause soil disturbance, such as soil compaction caused by concentrated hoof action from livestock or plant removal by consumption and trampling. Indirect effects occur sometime after or some distance away from the initial disturbance, such as increased runoff and down-slope erosion from previously compacted areas. These effects were considered for temporary (season of use), short term (duration of the permit, or 10 years), and long term (beyond 10 years) impacts to soils.

Managing livestock distribution would influence utilization and decrease overgrazing. If overgrazing should occur, this can alter a plant community resulting in reduced plant growth, less forage production, lower plant vigor and lower reproduction. Greater management flexibility is needed to distribute grazing pressure and minimize grazing impacts in sensitive areas. The range improvements will contribute to a productive system which will allow for better management of the vegetation resource and gains in plant vigor, forage plant frequency, recruitment and watershed stability. Implementing the range improvements would allow for better distribution of cattle across the allotment thereby lessening the impacts from heavy grazing. This will reduce direct impacts to plants and Biological Soil Crust from hoof action. This will have a positive impact on plants, Krueger and others state that grazing can stimulate basal shoot production on grasses and lateral branching in shrubs (Krueger and others 2002), which will increase ground cover, provide protection from soil erosion occurring and compaction. Biological crusts will benefit from varying the timing of seasonal deferred use, improved distribution of cattle, and incorporation of rest periods in pastures.

Two livestock drinkers are being proposed in the allotment. Drinker #1 falls into the SRI MU 263 and is located in the Crooked pasture. Drinker #2 is located in SRI MU 260 and is within the New Pasture. The construction of these drinkers will create some disturbance and soils will experience heavy disturbance by repeated livestock use during the life of the permit. Soil compaction will occur along the trail leading to/from the drinker locations. Cattle will create pathways by repeated hoof action of trailing. The soils along the trail will be compacted, vegetation ground cover will be decreased, and erosion will be increased. However, these areas will be localized to the trail way. Changes to bulk density and total soil porosity will result from the hoof compression, which impedes root growth, and the decreased pore continuity, which restricts water and air movement (Soane et al. 1981). Pore continuity is more sensitive to compaction than is either air-filled porosity or bulk density. Studies also have shown that natural processes such as soil wetting and drying cycles and grazing recovery periods can restore the physical condition of soil (Greenwood and McKenzie 2001: Heady and Child 1994; Weltz and Wood 1986; Wheeler et al. 2002). Soil changes can result from excessive compaction during grazing, Soil compaction by livestock is most severe in the surface 5 cm of soil but can extend as deep as 30 cm (Greenwood and McKenzie 2001). Krueger and others state that as grazing animals walk, their weight falls on restricted areas of their hooves, and weight per


contact area can exceed soil strength (resistance to penetration). However pasture rotations will minimize these impacts. Currently, field observations indicate that the soil structure is granular below the surface, indicting stable structure with no current compaction involved. There is also evidence of roots below the surface layer and are intact. The surface has sufficient vegetative ground cover and litter which is very important for soil stability and productivity. There are no signs of pedestaling occurring. These soils are shallow in depth and have an erosion hazard of moderate. The soil will have impacts in a localized area around the drinkers (troughs); soil compaction would be increased from livestock concentration. There is the potential for short term impacts to occur from the excavation of the surface and in the subsoil. Short term effects have the potential to change the vegetation composition, litter and soil conditions. The estimated area of impact will be greatest within 250 yards of the trough. Areas beyond this radius will be minimal. In areas of high concentration, soil compaction will result in the upper surface structure changing from a granular to a platy thin compacted layer. Once this occurs there will be a decrease in water infiltration and run off would occur. The top soil will begin to erode as a result of this run off. If highly adverse impacts should arise during the construction stage, an on-site soil investigation will be conducted to determine what resource protection measures should be administered to minimize impacts.

One water storage tank will be established on surface of the top soil. This storage tank falls into the SRI MU 260 and is within the New Pasture. There will be minimal soil disturbance during the implementation of this storage tank because no excavation of soil will be involved. A surface area of 20x20 feet is where the storage tank will occur.

Adaptive management would be adjusted to comply with Resource Protection Measures a means to protect and improve soil and water values. Refer to Table 1. Soil conditions would be maintained or improved because livestock grazing intensity levels would be commensurate with soil conditions. Proposed range improvements would improve livestock distribution that would alleviate load bearing stress (i.e. hoof impact) and promote herbaceous biomass production and organic matter retention for soil function and protection. On satisfactory soils, residual biomass would be retained on site to protect and maintain soil and upland watershed function. Soils in impaired conditions would retain additional vegetation ground cover and load bearing stress from hoof impacts would be minimized because 40% utilization guidelines would be followed. The increase of vegetation ground cover would provide soil organic matter, improve soil structure and help alleviate soil compaction, encourage nutrient cycling, and promote soil stabilization. Impaired soil would improve and in some instances result in an improvement in soil condition class.

Resource Protection Measures will be implemented under this action therefore there will be no substantial impacts to soil productivity and stability. Monitoring will be conducted periodically to determine if changes are warranted for livestock management.

Alternative 3 - Current Management (not analyzed in detail)

A term grazing permit authorizing grazing on the Sargent grazing allotment is currently in place, however there is limited management flexibility. Livestock would continue to use existing water


developments, which is currently experiencing heavy use. Soils in these concentrated areas would decrease soil stability and productivity.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary for soil effects is the Outlet Crooked Canyon (21,094 acres) and Headwaters Crooked Canyon (26,826 acres) 6th hydrologic unit code watersheds. Past, present, future and foreseeable actions are within this cumulative effects analysis boundary area. The timeframe of the analysis will be a project period of 10 years following the decision, based on the life of the permit. Ground disturbing activities from the proposed action will have had suitable time to recover within this time.

There are other federal lands and private property located within these watersheds, we are not able to quantify what the contributed sediment delivery and erosion potential would be in these locations. Soils within the Sargent allotment are rated in satisfactory conditions (except along roads and in the bottom drainage areas) thus, we do not expect in increase sediment delivery. Furthermore, following 45 percent utilization guidelines, project design, and mitigation measures will maintain and improve soil conditions on the allotment which would minimize erosion.

In summary, no significant cumulative impacts on watershed and soil resources would be sustained from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with the effects of the proposed action or any of the alternatives considered in this assessment. The proposed action represents no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on long-term soil productivity and stability. The actions within the Proposed Action would improve effective vegetative ground cover through increased retention of litter and plant basal area. The rate of improvement would be dependent on adaptive management and the timing and amount of precipitation, but vegetative and litter components should improve in the short-term, while unsatisfactory soils would only improve slightly in the long term. Monitoring will be conducted periodically to determine if changes are warranted for livestock management.


Glossary of Terms

The following glossary of terms is provided for a common understanding of the fundamentals considered in this analysis. The terms identified are not a comprehensive list of all the elements considered in this analysis.

Anion Exchange Capacity: The sum of exchangeable anions that a soil can adsorb. Usually expressed as centimoles, or millimoles, of charge per kilogram of soil (or of other adsorbing material such as clay).

Biological Soil crust: In this analysis biological soil crusts were considered when evaluating vegetative ground cover (VGC) and its ecological implications. Management strategies for biological soil crusts are automatically considered when managing for soil quality. The following referenced statements of biological soil crusts coincide and are considered when managing for VGC and soil quality.

The disturbance of biological soil crusts is dependent on the impact’s severity, size, frequency, and timing (Belnap 2001).

Severe disturbance may break filaments that hold the soil together or actually bury the crustal organisms (Belnap 2001, Johnston 1997).

Non-severe disturbances such as, non-concentrated trampling, tends to only compress the surface and not have a negative impact upon biological soil crusts (Belnap 2001).

Recovery rates of biological crusts varies drastically and are dependent on many factors including disturbance type, severity, and extent; vascular plant community structure; adjoining substrate condition; inoculation material availability; and climate during and after disturbance (Belnap 2001).

Biological crusts may recover in l to 5 years or within decades depending on the disturbance severity (Belnap 2001, Johnston 1997).

Biological crusts on coarse textured soils are less susceptible to disturbance when the soils are wet or moist, and the ones on fine textured soils are less susceptible when soils are dry. Biological crusts are also less susceptible to disturbance when soils are frozen and/or snow covered (USDA NRCS 2001).

Cation Exchange: The interchange between a cation in solution and another cation in the boundary layer between the solution and surface of negatively charged material such as clay or organic matter.

Climax Class (Robertson 2000): TES recognizes primary climax and disclimax classes of vegetation. Primary climax and disclimax classes are named for the landscape feature (topography, soils, etc.) and disturbance (fire, grazing, etc.) that influences plant communities. The controlling factors for a plant community may also be a combination of features and disturbances.


Erosion Hazard: is a classification that is based on the comparison of quantifiable erosion rates with tolerable soil loss limits. The erosion hazard provides a relative susceptibility (worst case scenario) to sheet and rill erosion upon removal of all vegetation and litter (Robertson 2000). The erosion hazard ratings are as follows:

Slight: Removal of all vegetative ground cover results in potential soil loss rate not exceeding the tolerable soil loss rate. However, site degradation will occur by creating unfavorable changes in soil physical and chemical properties.

Moderate: The predicted potential soil loss rate will result in a reduction of site productivity.

Severe: The predicted potential soil loss rate will have a high probability of reducing site productivity.

Erosion Pavement: A layer of coarse fragments, such as sand or gravel, remaining on the surface of the ground after the removal of fine particles by erosion.

Map Unit Components: Map units can be composed of up to 4 components or ecological types and two ecological type inclusions in R3 TEUI. Each individual inclusion usually makes up < 20% of a map unit. “Map Unit Components are the different ecological types of which a TEUI map unit is composed.” They differ in one or more of the classifications listed in the map unit component name found in the map unit legend. They differ in soil class, vegetation class, slope class, climate class, or climax class, either one of these or a combination of these. All of the map unit components for a map unit occur within a polygon labeled with that map unit number.

Map Unit Delineation: are closed polygons that may be dominated by a single soil or nonsoil component plus allowable similar or dissimilar soils, or they can be geographic mixtures of groups of soils or soils and non-soil areas.

Map Unit: Is a collection of areas defined and named the same in terms of their soil components or miscellaneous area or both. (Soil Survey Manual, Chapter 5, p.1). This define has been expanded for use in terrestrial ecosystem survey. A map unit is a collection of areas defined and names the same in terms of their soil/vegetation components or miscellaneous areas or all three. Each individual area is a delineation. Each map unit consists of one or more components.

Soil Compaction: The increase of bulk density, which changes the soil structure and reduces the size and continuity of pores (USDA NRCS 2001). Compaction can reduce soil permeability, reduce soil water retention, decrease infiltration, increase run-off, increase erosion, and limit plant growth and nutrient cycling. The natural recovery of compacted soils occurs by vegetation root growth, cycles of wetting/drying and freezing/thawing that creates a shrink/swell condition that can break down compacted layers. Maintaining or increasing the content of organic matter in the soil by improving plant cover and plant production also helps maintain or improve soil structure (USDA NRCS 2001). Organic matter and living biomass associated with


VGC allows soils to be resistant to compaction by improving soil strength and helps cushion forces applied to the soil.

Soil Strength: Soil strength is the capacity of a soil to withstand load stresses without giving way to those stresses by collapsing or becoming deformed and displaced (Brady 1990). Soil strength essentially refers to the soils susceptibility to be damaged when exposed to load stresses.

Soil Structure: Soil structure is defined as the combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary particles, units, or peds (Brady 1990). Soil structure is influenced by organic matter, living biomass, physical soil properties, soil voids and load bearing stresses (e.g. compaction).

Soil Taxa: Is an abstract concept in that it is a grouping according to specific ranges of soil properties for purposes of scientific categorization. Soil taxa are modified with phases, such as slope and stoniness to convey more specific information.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES): A terrestrial ecosystem is a conceptual unit of interacting soil and vegetation controlled by a specific climate.

Vegetative Ground Cover (VGC): The Southwest Region 3 Soil Condition protocols defines effective litter as organic materials on the soil surface that are at least .5 inches thick (USDA FS 1999). Biotic Crusts, organic matter, and living biomass (e.g. plant roots) also provide an ecological benefit to soil resources.


APPENDIX A

SOIL CONDITION RATING GUIDE

CONDITION CATEGORY

Function Indicator Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory

Surface Structure 1/

Moderate/strong granular or single grained

Sub-angular blocky or weak granular

Massive or platy

H Y

Surface Pore Space 1/

Many/common tubular pores

Common/few tubular pores

Few tubular pores

D R O

Rupture Resistance 1/

Loose to slightly hard (dry) Loose to friable (moist)

---- Very hard to very rigid (dry) Extr. firm to very rigid (moist)

L O G

Near Surface Subzones 1/

No surface crusting or sub-surface compaction

Water compacted or mechanically or surficially bulked

Mechanically compacted

I C

Bulk Density Bulk density not increased.

Moderate bulk density increases (5-15%)

Significant increase in bulk density (>15%)

Infiltration No decrease in infiltration.

Moderate decrease in infiltration (10-50%)

Significant decrease in infiltration (>50%)

Penetration Resistance

No increase in resistance.

Moderate increase in resistance (10-50%)

Significant increase in resistance (>50%)

Modeled Soil Loss

Current soil loss < tolerance (T) where natural soil loss < T

----

Current soil loss > tolerance (T) where natural soil loss < T

Visible Sheet Rill & Gully Erosion

Sheets/rills/gullies not evident.

Rills/gullies are small, discontinuous, poorly defined & not connected into any pattern

Rills/gullies actively expanding, well-defined, continuous and connected into a definite pattern

S T A B I

Pedestaling No/slight pedestaling of plant, litter and rocks. No evidence of exposed roots.

Grasses, forbs and rock fragments are pedestaled. Small, fibrous root strands of forbs & grasses are exposed on the soil surface

Trees and shrubs are pedestaled and may be hummocked. Shallow, lateral roots of trees and shrubs are exposed


1/Categories and/or descriptions defined in USDA Handbook No. 18, Soil Survey Manual, October, 1993.

2/ Certain soils within desert ecosystems inherently contain erosion pavement (desert pavement) surfaces.

Desert pavements are not used to indicate soil condition.

L I T Y

Erosion Pavement 2/

None to slight. If erosion pavement exists it is discontinuous or localized.

-----

Erosion pavement is continuous or exists in interspaces between canopy cover of trees and shrubs

Soil Deposition

None

Soil and/or litter deposition is present. Fine litter may be patterned as small debris accumulations.

Soil and/or litter is deposited on the uphill side of logs, brushpiles, etc. Soil may be moving offsite

Surface ("A") Horizon

"A" horizon is present, well distributed, not fragmented.

"A" horizon is present, but not evenly distributed. Changes in physical properties exist.

"A" horizon is absent or present in association with prominent plants. Properties are similar to those of the underlying subsoil

N C U Y T C R L I I

Vegetative Community Composition

Distribution of desirable, perennial plants reflects species by vegetative layer (i.e. trees, shrubs, forbs & graminoids) as identified in the potential plant community

Changes in vegetation composition indicate a shift towards a drier, less productive plant community. There may also be an increase in annual plants, shallow-rooted grasses, taprooted and perennial forbs & other woody plants.

The perennial forb and/or graminoid vegetative layers are absent or sparse.

E N N G T

Litter

Litter is distributed evenly across the soil surface and is associated with all vegetative layers

-----

Litter is either absent or is associated only with prominent plants and is not evenly distributed across the soil surface

Coarse Woody Material

Pipos/Quga-----5-10 t/ac. Pipos/Fear2-----7-14 t/ac. Abco/Fear2------8-16 t/ac.

-----

Pipos/Quga-----<5 t/ac. Pipos/Fear2-----<7 t/ac. Abco/Fear2------<8 t/ac.

Root Distribution1/

Many/common roots in surface horizons

Moderately few roots in surface horizons

Few/very few roots in surface horizons


References Cited

Brady N.C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Macmillan Publishing Co. New York.

Brady, W.W., M.R. Stromberg, E.F. Aldon, C.D. Bonham, and S.H. Henry. 1989. Response of a

semidesert grassland to 16 years of rest from grazing. Journal of Range Management 42(4)

284-288.

Belnap, Kaltenecker, Rosentreter, Williams, Leonard, & Eldridge. 2001. TR-1730-2 - Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI Bureau of Land Management. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/CrustManual.pdf

Castellano M, and Valone T. 2007. Livestock, Soil Compaction and Water Infiltration Rate: Evaluating a Potential Desertification Recovery Mechanism. J. Arid Environments. 71:97-108.

Decagon Devices, Inc. 2005. Minidisk Infiltrometer Version 1. Pullman, WA. http://www.decagon.com/infiltrometer/

Greenwood, K.L, and B.M. Mckenzie. 2001 Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: A review. Aust J. exp Agric 41: 1231-1250

Hart, J. & Hart, S. 1993. A Review of Factors Affecting Soil Productivity in Rangelands, Grasslands, and Woodlands of the Southwestern United States. School of Forestry – Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, AZ.

Heitschmidt, R. 1990. The Role of Livestock and Other Herbivores in Improving Rangeland Vegetation. Rangelands 5:147-150.

Herrick JE, Van Zee JW, Havstad KM, Burkett LM, and Whitford WG. 2005. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Volume I: Quick Start. In Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Volume I: Quick Start, eds JE Herrick, JW Van Zee, KM Havstad, LM Burkett and WG Whitford Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/monit_assess/monitoring_main.php

Herrick, Whitford, de Soyza, Van Zee, Havstad, Seybold & Walton. 2001. Field soil aggregate stability kit for soil quality and rangeland health evaluations. Catena 44: 27-35.

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

Holecheck J, Galt D, Joseph J, Navarro J, Kumalo G, Molinar F, and Thomas M. 2003. Moderate and light cattle grazing effects on Chihuahuan Desert rangelands. J. Range Management 56: 133-139.

Holecheck J, Gomez H, Molinar F, and Galt D. 1999. Grazing Studies: What We’ve Learned. Rangelands 21(2).

http://www.decagon.com/infiltrometer/


Holechek, J. and D. Galt. 2004. More on Stubble Height Guidelines. Rangelands 26 (4):3-7.

Johnston, R. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/micro_crusts.pdf

Jolly, D., and Mitzelfelt R. 1990. Intergovernmental Agreement Between The State of New Mexico and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

Krueger, W., Sanderson, M., Crooper, J., Miller-Goodman., M., Kelley, C., Pieper, R., Shaver, L., Trlica, M. 2002. Environmental Impacts of Livestock on U.S. Grazing Lands

Mapfumo M., Naeth M., Baron V., Dick A, and Chanasyk D.m 2002. Grazing Impacts on Litter and Rotts: Perennial Versus Annual Grasses. J. Range Management. 55:16-22.

Molinar F, Galt D, and Holecheck J. 2001. Managing for Mulch. Rangelands. http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Frangelands.library.arizona.edu%2FVolume23%2FNumber4%2Fazu_rangelands_v23_n4_3_7_m.pdf

Pieper R, Heitschmidt R. 1988. Is Short-Duration Grazing the Answer. J. Soil and Water Conservation. 43:133-137.

Rauzi F, 1960. Water-Intake Studies on Range Soils at Three Locations in the Northern Plains. . Range Manage. 13:179-184.

Robbie, W. 2008. Conversation Record May 2008: Litter and Vegetative Ground Cover. Southwestern (R3) Regional Soil Scientist.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Handbook. (1986). FSH 2509.14 R-3 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 3, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service [FS] 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System lands. Vol.1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. 2012.

USDA Forest Service [FS] 1999. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook, Soil Quality Monitoring R-3 Supplement 2509.18. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.18!r3.

USDA Forest Service [FS] 1999B. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service [FS] 1990a. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r3

USDA U.S. Forest Service [FS] 1990b. Forest Service Manual 2550 - Soil Management Manual. Washington D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?2500!

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2005. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. Online: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/.

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/micro_crusts.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.18!r3

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r3

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?2500


USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality Information Sheets. http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/monit_assess/assess_main2.php

USDA Soil Resource Inventory for Guadalupe Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 1973

Van Haveren, B. 1983. Soil Bulk Density as Influenced by Grazing Intensity and Soil Type on

a Shortgrass Prairie Site. Journal of Range Management. 36: 586-588.

http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/monit_assess/assess_main2.php

Documents

Region Soil Report - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Soil Specialist Report 2 Introduction The Sargent grazing allotment is