Results of Assessment/Establishment of Cause
Achieving Standards for Rangeland Health Conforming with Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management Resource Area : Central Oregon Resource Area
Geographic Area of Assessment: Rudio Mountain
Allotment Areas Assessed: Sheep Gulch Allotment #4068
Period Assessment Conducted: 2005
Assessment determination:
Standard 1 Meeting
Making progress towards meeting
Standard 2 Not Meeting
Not making progress towards meeting
Standard 3 Not Meeting
Standard 4 Does not apply
Not making progress towards meeting
Standard 5 Not Meeting
Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management Conforms
Livestock not contributing
Livestock not contributing
Livestock not contributing
Assessment Benchmark: Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for
Public Lands in Oregon and Washington. Approved on August 12, 1997 by the Secretary of the Interior.
Assessment Objectives: Per USDI/USDA Tech Reference 1734-6 of2000: Provide preliminary assessment of
soil/site stability, hydrologic functi on, biological integrity. Help land managers identify areas that are potentially at
risk for degradation. Provide early warnings of potential problems and opportunities. Provide capability to
communicate fu ndamental ecological concepts to a variety of audiences. Improve communications among interest
groups. Provide capability to select monitoring sites for future monitoring programs. Help understand and
communicate rangeland health issues.
~~~
Assessment Preparel·s:
Date
t:e~s9/6/65
Hy rologist
~~~------
Date
Ran~gement Spec1ahst
Assessment Approval:
(',\A r\ ~t· b> M .
Field
Mana~
,J:,~t.l""'----_
Appendices: Due to the exaggerated file size of this document, Appendices C and 0 are contained in a separate electronic file. A.
Allotment Assessment Findings
B.
Map
C.
Field Data Worksheets
D.
Pictures
Appendix A
Allotment Assessment Findings
Notes:
l, This information applies only to BLM-administered lands within the allotment.
2, Where Allotment Monitoring Sites are referenced, information from these sites will include photographs,
vegetation data, trend rating forms, cover worksheets, and/or Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheets
(all iocated in the respective allotment's monitoring files) .
Allotment:
Public Land Upland Acres: 3,567
Public Land AUMs: 292
Public Land Riparian/Wetland Acres: 0
Public Land Stream Miles: 2 miles of quasi perennial stream
Allotment
Name
Ownershl
Sheep Gulch
BLM
Condition
Dominant Ve ctation
ACRES
3567
3567
L~tta.tif::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:7~:tfJ~iE~W:J~~~~W11~~i~k'1h~~{~!r§K~~;~~~~~:~~1~j~:W~U~~Ri~~~r1~~tl~~i~~~i;!.·~~~~fgz
big sagebrush f bluebunch wheatgrass
big sagebrush+bitterbrusl1 f bluebunch wheatgrass
ponderosa pine f bitterbrush I snowberry f elk sedge /Idaho
fescue
stiff sagebrush I Sandberg bluegrass
No Data
1808
119
29
145
ft~1Wl!fi':f~l!~;f•J~Bil~;~l~l~~~~~-~~~~}.W:t~~~{~:~~~]~·mft£.:1'Mtf::·:;~;:;,· : J~,;:;::~~r~\ ·a:~ a
big sagebrush+bitterbrush I bluebunch wheatgrass
Idaho fescue
Ronderosa pine I d~,las fir/ bitterbrush I elk sedge
275
Idaho fescue f bluebunch wheatgrass
Sandberg bluegrass
liHee-ue sagebrush I bluebunch wheatwass
35
298
5
bitterbrush I bluebunch wheatgrass
tufted hairgrass
No Data
507
335
5
r~&'gt)1,i1J~~i{>~{t%~~~Tiffii~Y~~1~1'2l~~t~~t!~!~n~Tlt'F~~*~a~~~!:~~1:111[~~<1~t~\~1~f:i!:~~~~i?j:~i~~~i~3~9:
~l'Q!Q.}[tf.1~1~\W~W'lf.~JmNt?~~v.q~~1~~'1~:~~~~~~~~~1~i:~~W~1Zl.l1i~~~1tf~~,~;,~s.~ff,.i~~~t1·~-?f~;~j~~ }
s:rt.
0
4
I. Standard 1 (Watershed Function- Uplands)
A. Determination
0
Meeting the Standard
0
Not Meeting the Standard; Making Significant Progress towards Standard
0
Not Meeting the Standard; Not Making Significant Progress towards Standard
B. Establishment of Cause:
0
Livestock are significantly contributing to the failure to meet the standard
0
Livestock are not significant contributors to the failure to meet the standard
0
Failure to meet the sta11dard is related to other uses or conditions: _ x_ on-site _off-site
2
C. Rationale/Evidence
The areas meeting this standard are the south half of the Middle Pasture, and the North, South and Cemetery
Pastures. Indicators of plant and titter cover, soil compaction, erosion and overland flow are close to what is
expected on the historical eco logical sites for this area. Also, the plant community composition and distribution
relative to infiltration and runoff are good. Thurber's ncedlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass have good dens ity
which is increasing and shows good vigor and seedling estab lishment. The South Pasture is occupied primari ly by
annuals and is the most removed from the historical eco logical condition, but meeting the standard with regards to
plant and litter cover, soil compaction, erosion and overland flow; however, a few scattered patches of bluebunch
wheatgrass are present.
The north halves of both the Middle and Cemetery Pastures ore fai ling this standard due, to a high density of western
juniper which is increasing. The surface indicators sti ll show a funct ion ing system, but the shrub component is
greatly red uced or eliminated and the herbace.ous component is on the threshold of los ing vigor and density. As the
canopy closes and the herbaceous component diminishes surface erosion will increase. The extent of these stands
was not m.apped.
Overall, this standard is being met.
Vegetation Monitoring
The South Pasture contains one permanent trend study (TP-2) consisting of a 3ft.x3tl. photo plot and a I00 ft. line
intercept transect. The study was established in 1989 and no perennial bunchgrasses where present. The dominate
grass species in the study is cheatgrass, IJromus tectorum. Data has been collected in 1993, 1995, 11nd 2000. No
change has been indicated in the 3x3 plot or line intercept.
T he Middle Pasture contains one pennanent study (TP-3) consisting of a 3ft.x3 ft. photo plot, ·a I 00 ft. line in tercept
transect, and a Daubenmire transect. The 3x3 plot and line intercept where established in 1989 and the Daubenmire
in 2004. Data was also collected in I994, 1999, 1994, and 2004. The 3xJ plot diagram shows one large bluebunch
wheatgrass plant, Agropyron spicat11m (new nomenclature Pseudoroegneria splcata), dividing into six smaller
individuals and the of two new plants. Also, one squ irreltail plant, Elymus elymoides, was present in 1989, but was
gone in 1994. The line intercept has an increase ofbluebunch wheatgrass from 0.8% in 1989 to l ,8% in 1999 and a
decrease of squirreltail ti·om 0.55% in I989 to 0.0% in !999. No additional data has been collected from
Daubenmine transect since its establishment.
Forage utilization observations have been sporadic for the two main pastures from 1987 to 1998. Generally, use on
bluebunch in both pastures lends to be under 40% (light).
II. Standard 2 (W11 tershed Function- Riparian/Wetland Areas)
A. Determination
0
Meeting the Standard
0
Not Meeting the Standard; Making Significant Progress towards Standard
0
Not Meeting the Standard; Not Making Significant Progress towards Standard
0
Standard Does Not Apply
B. Establishment of Cause:
0
Livestock are significantly contributing to the failure to meet the standard
0
Livestock are not significant contributors to the failure to meet the standard
0
Failure to meet the standard is related to other uses or conditions: _on-site; _off-site
0
Not Applicable
C. Rationale/Evidence
Two miles of Sheep Gulch run through Midd le Pasture. Sheep Gulch is functionlng at risk with an upward trend, so
this standard is not being met, but significant progress is being made towards meeting the standard. The current
3
grazing schedule of2 years rest followed by short duration spring grazing is allowing an upward trend for Sheep
Gulch .
III. Standard 3 (Ecological Processes)
A. Determination
0
Meeting the Standard
0
Not Meeting the Standard; Making Significant Progress towards Standard
0
Not Meeting the Standard; Not Making Significant Progress towards Standard
0
Standard Does Not Apply
B. Estab lishment of Cause:
0
Livestock are significantly contributing to the failure to meet the standard
0
Livestock are not significant contributors to the failure to meet the standard
0
Failure to meet the standard is related to other uses or conditions: ___1L on-site
off-site
C. Rationale/Evidence
The pub lic land in the North Pasture and the south half of both the Middle and Cemetery Pastures are meeting this
standard. These areas have good plant composition, community structure, and litter layer which is promoting
nutrient cycling and energy flow.
This standard is not being met in the South Pasture and the north half of Cemetery Pasture due to a domina nee of
annual vegetation. 1t is in early seral condition which can only be altered by the application of herbicides and
seeding. The ability of the site to support ecological processes such as nutrient cycling and energy flow has been
greatly reduced from the historical condition. The ecological site was originally a big
sagebrushlbluebunchlbluegrass site which is now dominated by chcatgrass 1 sixwceks fescue, medusahead,
pepperweed, dalmatian toad flax, and snake weed. Historically, livestock may have contributed to the conversion
from a perennial range to an annual one, but they are not considered a factor at this time.
The areas with dense juniper stands in the north halfofthe Middle and Cemetery Pastures are also failing this
standard. The stands have reached a point where over 90% of the shrubs are gone, the grass component is starting to
dim!nish, and the herbaceous plants have been greatly reduced. These stands will continue to evolve into a
monoculture with increasing levels of soil loss. The previous levels of nutrient cyc ling and energy flow ofthe
ecosystem have been compromised and will continue to be altered as the juniper stands increase . Additional
rationale is provided under standard I .
Overall, this standard is not being met due to the dominance of annual vegetation and juniper invasion.
IV. Standard 4 (Wiltcr Qua lity)
A. Determination
0 Meeting the Standard
Not Meeting the Standard; Making Significant Progress Toward Standard
0
No1 Meeting the Standard; Not Making Sign ificant Progress Toward Standard
0
0
Standard Does Not App ly
B. Establishment of Cause (if applicable)
0
Livestock are significantly contributing to the failure to meet the standard
0
Livestock are not significant contributors to the failure to meet the standard
f-ai lure to meet the standard is related to other uses or conditions: _on-site; _
0
0
Not Applicab le
C. Rationale/Evidence
off-site
V. Standard 5 (Habitnt for Native, T&E and Locally lmpodant Species)
A. Determination
0
0
0 0
Meeting the Standard
Not Meeting the Standard; Making Significant Progress Toward
Not Meeting the Standard; Not Making Signi ficant Progress Toward
Standard Does Not Apply
B. Estab lishment of Cause:
0
Livestock arc significantly contributing to the failure to meet the standard
0
0
Livestock are not significant contributors to the failure to meet the standard
Failure to meet the standard is related to other uses or cond ition: _ x_ on-s ite _off-site
C. Rationale/Evidence:
Sorne upland habitats support healthy, productive and diverse communities of native plants and animals appropriate
to soil, climate, and landform. An exception to this is areas where increased juniper occupation has altered the
habitat function of many up land sites. In these cases juniper is out-competing (or has already out-competed) many
significant plant and shrub species making those sites less diverse and productive habitats for wildlife species. Big
game winter range is also being negatively impacted as many shrub species are disappearing from these juniper
dominated shrub-steppe ecosystems.
Western Juniper can be an important element in the habitat for many wildlife species, but at densities that allow a
hea lthy understory of shrubs and grasses (Miller 2001 ). Miller et al. (2005) states that ''there is no known data that
sugaest there are jun iper-obllgate species, or species that require dense, closed western juniper woodlands.
Maintaining low dens it ies of western juniper on portions of the landscape increases the abundance, diversity, and
richness ofavian and small mammal populations in the shrub-steppe. However, as western juniper dominance
increases, wildlife abundance, species richness, and diversity decline. This will also occur as the proportion of area
dominated by western juniper at the landscape level increases."
Desirable wildlife cover and structure conditions in rangelands currently dominated by annual grass species (cheat
grass and medusahcad rye), and juniper may be difficult to obtain In the short or long term without rehabilitation
efforts, regardless of the grazing system .
See Standard 3 for additional comments .
No fish bearing streams are within this allotment.
Overal l, this standard is not being met due to the dominance of annual vegetation and juniper tnvasion.
VJ. Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management:
0
0
Conforms with Guide lines for Livestock Grazing Management Does not conform with Gu idelines for Livestock Grazing Ma11agement, Guideline No(s) Recommendations; It is recommended that the present rest-rotation system be formlllized by means of an AMP or a written agreement. This system is working wel l and is benefiting the resources by allowing rtative bunchgrasses to regain vigor and increase in density. By documenting the system it will requ ire future lessees to adhere to the established system. ll is recommended that as funds become available, the juniper stands in the north halves of both the Middle and Cemetery Pastures be thinned. In addition, it is recommended that the annual grassland in the South Pasture and the north half of Cemetery Pasture be treated to restore as much of a native grassland as possible. This would require a com-bination of treatments using herbicides and seed ing. 5
Appendix B Allotment Map Sheep Gulch I 4068 T
11
s
T
12
s
.......
··
T
13
s
:j
Legend
·.. ',.. ... ""
0
·.:· ..
,I '
R2GE
R27 E
6
Appendix B Allotment Map Sheep Gulch /4068
T
11
s
T
12
s
. I .•
T
1l
s ...'.
Legend
k o h
D
·····
-=:t-nt>u' htnYalt • 190 fu1
.,.·.~
R26E
R 27 E
6
Appendix C Field Data Worksheets Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet
Part 1. Aroa of Interest Documentation (Bold ,....,, rtq~~iro completion, Olher infon•at:on It op1oonol)
Stolo
0/1
Pa$1uro/Wotorahod
Office
A:/,//,
C?51/
Monagomont Unit
I
lOll #&:>6B
Mofor land Resource Area
AI/,± -1-Je dt;//h:, ;:, t;j<' Y,v
logoiT jgj, ,R ~Sec i!:f.. , -=-. 1/4, ..:=.. 1/4 or Lot _ ,long _
Location (description)
Size of Evaluation Area
Observer(•)
tj ,If(?(> rcy;c<1
~ wA,.._, &mi ; A S:ut-M
Ecologlcal Site /},...
"f/j
Jl) dj/#,J<'
9-IJ, P<
'/-/;).
;;>..z
?'PI{
A
t1t;
f'l«a{p
-(/.,.:1;/.h -d·sr
or UTM Coord - - - ­
P.holo(s) Taken Yes .JC. No _
Dote _....c.fi....
;1..;..::z.~~,L-/0.a<;..::;S''------Soil Mop Unit Nome
fp_%
d/ff
.Sir,.p <:;;;)J
S!m'rf- IJ. vt:&j.tlo<
rk.j:'.­
,1-'IP%
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.;___;;..;....;.._ _ _ _ Soli/ Silo Ver1Rcatlon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ranaoland Ecological Site Description and/or Soil Survey Areo of lnloro•t Dolorminotlon
Surface T e x t u r e - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
Surface Tsxturo - - - - - - -- - - - ­
Dopth: Very ShallowO ShallowO ModerateD DeepO Deplh: Very ShollowO ShallowO ModerateD DoapO
(< 10")
(10"·20") (20"-40')
(>40')
jl0"·20') (20"-AO") (>40')
(<10")
Usl dlognoslic horizons In profile and dapih
list diagnostic horizons In prollle and depth
1
3 _ __ _ _ __
1
3 _ _ _ _ _ __
4 - - - -- - -
2
4----- --­
2
ft Topographic Position _ _ Aspect _L
Parent Material ____ Slope __ % E!evalion _
Part 2. lndl~ator Rating
O•portiWe from £col0jlcgt She
o..crlptlon/
lcologicot R•foNnco Areg(•)
AHrtbuto
lncllcolort
SH
1. Rills
Comments:
S,H
2. Water Flow Patterns
Comments:
S.H
3. Pedestals and/or TerraceHes
Comments:
S,H
4 . Bore Ground
Commenll:
S,H
S. Gullies
Commonls:
s
6. Wind·ScOIKod, Blowouts, ot'IJ/Of Deposition lvtas
Comments:
bh'eme
.....
'
Mgdoroto
lo Extreme
$light to
Modo~oto
..
Moderato
to
Slight
~
..
.
None
X
,
)(_
X
xX
7
Part 2. Indicator Rating lconllnued)
Departure from Ecological Silo De•crlptlon/
lcologlcal Reference Area(•)
I;: •.:,:_
Moderate :..:~.~._.,,~.r·..,•
( ~a"*'"'~·:'-•' Slight to · ~O~,O • !~ ~
·-..:l·'i"~~
,,bt
,O!"'O· • to Extreme odo to. Moderate ·~S!Ig~t ·, :·
lndlcatoro
Anrtbute
S,H,fl
a. Soil Surface Reslslance to Erosion
Commenll:
~.
kAr rii A
ft;,.,,t..,,t_
;,.,
.
'
-·
....
9. Soil Surface loss or Degradation
Commenll: 9L~<!. 11d.../.r
H
1'0. Plant Community Composition and
- tr•
Distributio n Relollve to Infi ltration nnd Runolf
Commenh: 9,,,,,.<:' :J-;1..',-t/L
S,H,B
llj l. Compadion Loyer
Comments:
8
12. Fundlonoi/Structural Groups
Comments: (f, ·,f, ,. •r. >'i!Lt ~
d,-f; r:f ~.flit
S,H,B
. I>.,..
··~
B
. ' ...
....,-;.
,.i;...,,/r
~~ I
..)!{.·;.
•f
.xJ.~;:
,;.,r.,..l"" ,.,./
,·.. ~# . ...
tF
.
X
.
•
.''
i :·, \!\,;~
X
:J'.:
13. Plcfnt MorJolity/Decadence
A.. . -tY
.~~'''
.~~7
:.~,.,
Comments: o~~r<i''!$11',/
14. liHer Amount
H,B
Comments:
:X::>
• +1,1
~, .. :.::?_..~:~;··;
.
B
\il~fi~~·:;
• :>;'··."~:;.,,,~;!~
·::I'·J.,.:t.t'":•,{
7. liHer Movement
H
Comment!:
.
I
.
X
t·· ":::•'
15. Annual Production
~;~~·:·;··t.::~~
·~·;:><1;ff~·
16. Invasive Plants
·'..\.. . . ·,<~:~.;·...- ~
l: -~~-;t·(,
C•;, (,
Comments:
s
Common!&: /?.r1~ }~ c:v ~<11tr!~
,,',.,{1 ,..•r
I
s
17. Raproductivo Copobillty of Perenni& Plants
Comments: j.,, tt/
,
ri?J:Jr"·
.• (}J/,.,.._
~
r
B
•)<t::-
".~·::~.
..
11
Departure from Ecological Site Description/
Ecological Reference Areo(s)
Rangela nd Health
s
• ;-:.w.
-,t; ./r
Port 3. Summary
A. Indicator Summary
H
,.
:·... ·,.
.,..... ····•''I'•'
Attrtb~too
lxtrem•
Soil/Site Stabillly !Indicators 1·6, 8, 9 & 11}
'
Hydrologic function !Indicators 1·5, 7·1 1 & 14)
Biotic Integrity (Indicators 8·9 & 1 1·171
Moderate
to (x.Jtem•
Slight to
Mo·d;ra,o.: Moderato
-
3 ·
None to 1
.sllah~·
l:
;2..
7
9
d
:.z.
'7
II
9
1/
B. Attribute ~ummary ·Check lhe category that best fits the "preponderance of evidence' for each of tho threo
oHributos relative to the dislribvllon of indicator ratings in the preceding Indicator Summary table.
Anribute
. • Moderate
b trimi' to Extremo
· '·'"·
·M~il'!:i;,·;,;
Sll9hrto ·· None-to
:i SIIgh!:·-
Moderate
Soli/ Site Stability Rationale:
Hydrologic Function Rationale:
&lotlc Integrity Rationale:
......
...•
·.·
.. r •
·::···:·~
~
8
Page_of_
STANDARDS & GUIDELINES COVER DATA
11t>·c­
Study Number 5.tf'A -111 1
Date r{pp ,4 5' Examiner/.. tft1c/tl" yj/..1 _ll'nsture /IJ,r/,1/...
Allotment N~e & Number
Jhf"I"J') G~
c."
,J'I
Study Locntion
l/tP6%
rr 4-•t/',.,. ; 7.'
CJ;(?.f •I?JI~o,;f 'IIJ'J:i.~!l7mt'l
Number of Points
~~~
IJI/It'~?
~ fii1 ~ ta ·~
Ground-Level Cover liil 1G
Category
Dot
Count
Bnre
Ground
B
L
GS
Litter
-
~mlBI"
ll?J
Total
Hits
It>
% Covcc
It>
Gravel­
Stone
s Dead Veg
JZl N BJ
Vegetation
Standing
vascular
Total
IJ l.nlSIS
1\1t:
32.
11
I
1P
/ocJ
;12
;7
I
1/~
/t>c?
Basal and Canopy/F olia r Cover
Bsl or Ornd-Lcv
Levell
/34
L. · ­
_
/!J
-­
A-r r1J
_AI-:4
__/~
Dot Count
~·
- _!1-;-!/
..
L
.J~l.OC..
' ,
5'
J~t-~ c
t..
-
'=
lit:.Lf-­
VI..
'/
I
)
Jx.e>c.
I
'
-...6..J<J4.
_. - ­
I
I
I
'
-·--·-----1­
£./u_Y­
/(
'f!Y~~,:. .~61:
(~~
~t</
dJ,.­
t.J.'I'ldt:!:~ ~ tfCLt._
__&..,c./f.W,
A~i'.L-
~.,~ J ~-cu
I
.z.
'
l~t'JC..
2Arni..=_ll-'1ti, /
7
s'
,_
'
nqc.
..hd.·
-<ikE! J....~uJ;.., ~.&
I
..
__f:J_d·:L.t·
L
L
1/
~
....
..
-»fl_
Total Hits
,
~1rf:h
/...
--~
PS-05/02
Level3
Level2
&-tl
r;::;.Jll.ll
;r;,.oc
'
-
-
I
11
£2
/:J
t'
I
:<.
b
Total
7't.'
0 Check I\ere if reverse side is used
9
Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet
Part 1. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold honu roqulro compt.tlon, othor inlormofon it optional)
State
@'Z
Office
Poslure/Wotershed
Management Unit
Major land Resource Ateo
b__. &rr/1 'fi;,T.. rc< f.Yd1J7 /l11,.,., 7-f.
legal T E!. ,R Ji£ ,Soc U.., ...:::_ 1/4, -=-. 1/4 or lot _
,long Size of Evaluation Area ~f., 2M qci'.-.S
V
No _
DCJte _...::;.l/.c-0_t""e'7'/'-"'o_.["<------­
A,;-
Soil Mop Unit
~~me ,s;;,a, -Pr v?o-"•vkx­
3 - W% ,ft,l'c,/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S oli/Site Verification
Rangeland Ecological Slfe Description ond/or Soli Survey
Surface Texture
Dopth:VeryShollowO ShallowO ModerateD DeepO
(<10"1
{10"-20') (20' ·40'1
(>~0'1
List dlogno$llc horizons In profile ond depth
1
3
2
4
4
II
or UTM Coord---­
ehoto(a) Taken Yes
dn/r<wt. ?arf,... t$ws crd .C,lht
£cologlcal Site
Gu.t; /A,.i1 -qMuta ,1.
Obaerver(s)
51(~ ({i;,kh d/(,j­
lt ,4. ~
&ac <fm•L!{"mrt<al;ai. ;,.,~ .-,t>t;t:w. AI~ aul',-1 te 4.1-!ll..t.o
SeHti
tacatton tdescrlptlonl
t?IL;<'?~)i
ID# rP.<B
Area of Intored Determination
Surface Texture
Dopth:VeryShollowO ShallowO ModorotoO DeepO
(<10"1
(10"-20' 1 (20".40' 1 (>40')
list diagnostic horizon& In prolile ond depth
1
3
2
4
--=---------­
It Topographic Position _ _ Aspect
Parent Material _ _ _ Slope __ % Elevation _
_2...._
Avg Annual Preclp - - - Recent Weather (last 2 years) Drought _ _ Normal _ _ Wet _ __
Describe wildlife and livostock use ond recent d isturbances
4uriZ=-6
u(<l",
Doacrlbo oHalto Influences on area of lntercut - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PCJrt 2. Indicator Rating
Dopartvro from lcologlcol $Ito Doocription/
fcologlcol Roloron<o Aroa(•l
Attribute
Modoralo
Extreme to IJ<tro~o
Indicaton
'.'I,'"
S,H
1. Rills
Comments:
S,H
2. Wotor Flow Pollems
Comments:
s
Slight to
Moderato
Nona to
SUght
X
X
.
S,H
3. Pedestals and/or TerrcceHes
Comments:
SH
4. Bare Ground
Comments: f'}..- .,,..1, ~ ,.., ,..,. c.:! ,."j- /) .., "'
S,H
5. Gu~les
Comments
.M9~o~ato
"' if ·'!
6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or Deposi6on/veos
Comments:
"
c,.. ,...,
.
K
1;· ,.' ~ /A-h• ..f. t'/k,­
~.
>('
)(
10
Part 2. Indicator Rating lconr.nued)
Doportv,. from l cologlcol Silo Do1<rtpllon/
!cologlcot Rot.r.nco Areo(s}
•
,·
t
.-\ ~I:\'
lncllcoton
AHrlbuto
. l xtrom9
Mocloroto iif't~ !;·:,.:· Slight to . None,;, .
to b t....,o McidorGto Modorolo ·$1)vht.
#'<
H
7. liHer Movement
Comments.
S,H,8
8. Soil Surface Resislonce to Erosion
Comment•:
S,H,B
9. Soil Surloce lou or Dogrodatioo
·,.
~·
1--·
<.~. I
·~.
...
X
x-·.
'
.
:
' \t'·
..
X .·
.
X
13 . Plont Mortalitv/Decodence
},'~~
.
\
/~; J.'j;.J...r ""tft. lbi,.,,.rj~ ~f- .A.~.',..,.]
..
~ 'VC"~
15. Annual Production
B
Comments:
\::• ,
·_ )(-'.
8
16. Invasive Plonb
Comments:
7.:;;. ~..
.J-_);,,. -k.). ..jJ
17. Rop(odudive Capability of Perennial Plants '': . • t
8
.:a:z,..
{J;i,;.
'.~ -,
::
S,H,B
11 . Compoclion Loyer
Comment&:
12. funclionoi/Structurol Groups
8
CommonIs:
Comments: A.,..,Jot.t<'lj t.?k.-'f'"/.om.., ,;;f;•l,·;;"
7
14. litter Am7vnt
H,8
Commenls:
x-
..
.•
Comment•: /'JJ'fiJu.., /s
H
10. Plont Community Composition and
Diwibullon Relative to Infiltration and Runoff
Comments:
B
X
, .......,
'y
I
X
..·•· .. -- I
.· )'
"..f/(•
I
"
y·
·~·
"'/·~
~ ... rbJIIPr
'.
.......
'
bH
X
..
~~ .·~
Commonh:
Po rt 3 . Summary
A. Indicator Summary
Oeporture from Ecological Site Description/
Ecological Roference Areols)
Rangeland Heallh AHrlbut••
s
H
(l
txtr.·~··
Slight to
Madorato
Ia lxtrem• Madorato Moderate
3
Soil/Sit~ Stability !Indicator~
1-6, 8, 9 &11)
Hydrologic Function Ondicotor1 IS, 7-11 & 141
Biotic Integrity llndlcotor~ 8·9 & 11-171
7
I
I
:2..
J
None to
S!lght'~!. ~
t:
9
-7
11
9
g
B. Attribute ~um mory ·Check the category thor best fill the •p~eponderance of evidence• lor ooch of the lhree
anribvles relollvo lo the dillribuflon of indicota< rollngs in the precodlno Indicator Summary labia.
AHrlbute
Soli/ Site Sta bility Rallonole:
Hydrologic function Rationale:
Biotic lntog rlty Rationale:
Modoratt
lxtnrne to btremo
M
odo;o••
Slight to N~no tci
Moderate \Slight
..
·:::.,x;...-
':
...
--x·
~)(
-
11
Page_or_
STANDARDS & GUIDELINES COVER DATA
1/tJ ";;
StudyNumberSGA-7/~:;....
Allotment Na~J& Number
Ji<fl~/P i;.J..
'
.# ':/~ ,{g
I
Category
Dot
Count
Bare
Ground
B
L
Date.b~o~ ("'Examiner/_,
Study Location Ji. .,,,y-1'~1,
JPasture ~I(.T.{
Number of Points
~A 7t5~;{ •• Yf?JCKif171'1/t h'A/lJ.
//Jo
Ground-Level Cover ~ ~ Ji ~TiP lji1 ~" 111 'f!
Total
Vegetation
Standing
G S Gravel·
Litter
Dead Veg vnscmar ll l;fUS t~
- . Stone
s
allr,
Total
Hits
%Cover
,9
SG
8
5"'6
..
....
'.
~g@N
0
--1nhl"w$
,~
,')
I
J--7
3
/t!!O
/
1.7
3
/CJo
5
Basal and Canopy/Foliar Covel'
Level l
Bsl or Grnd·Lev
j_
Level 2
Level3
Total Hits
I
M
•.£6fl.c.
L
L
!?~:.;;.
J..
~~+&)(·
~:
..
A/17-t'
..,'
b.
L
Ci.-y
.1#
fi-.ct'G.ft;iuy ~t"r/fhr" m
L
,
···­
___
-
-
3
'.
__[)_r.J.; ,_1;t:.Ln·­
-
Dol Count
··--­
.'
3
'i
I
~
I
.
.,
· - ­----·
...
-
/~or
,.,-..-r -,.,?., :c.~{{
/?.L!('~-C=JI&I li.
!h,,
?Y'I<rr
p
4'f".d&
c:.>
.'~'!4- ---·
I
J; rArl~~. -If­
..hrJf'
/3
8
&L/...r'· lie.
Jkd::JJ.e.J£~ /
1i.~~> ..•.
P.S-05/02
()
tJ&t
::3
2..
r'lrv
..
:r,.,() c.
...
tJ
Total
:A?
0 Check here if reverse side Is used
12
Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet
j
Part 1. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold lttt~~s roquore ecwnplorion. olhor lnlormotion '' optlonoq
Stato
Q/1
Office
Posturo/Woterlhed
c;,lf~.
<26??5":/
ID#
Management Unit
1f:2<0rJ
.5£,.qzfu~J.
Major land Rosovrco
A/lr
Ate/, '!"4':, M.
lfAaha ,-J; k« ,J..K-f:.b1 .,,cu.,£ t£urz, }6;,ju 1!/ev. IleA/c.
4'~
JJ, JU!~tf r.,N~
r
/
legal T 12J,R Jil',Sec ::J..i.. , ~ 1/4, -=..1/4 or Lot_ ,long _
or UTM Coord---­
Location (description)
n
;",j
3:<0
Size of Evaluation Are a
P.hoto(s) Taken Yes ~No_
a.<:::.rr.t
Guf<) /.ftccb rttf. (..,,/-4 Oato__..~;.%c....~.::cSol~;,.c:;%}i)...:d~$'~--,...--J12 &eft /2. -16/2
Soil Mop Unit Nome 74/ c=~v j.,..,.,
Ob&erver(l) dn/uwf,,
Ecologlcol Site
~(')- 'It!>~
.r;..t'....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S o i l / S i t e VeriRcatlon _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _......;_ __._......__
Rongolond Ecologlcol Silo DescripHon ond/or Soil Survey Arao of Interest Detormlnotlon
Surface Texlure
Surface Texlure - - - - - - - - - - - Deplh: Very ShollowO ShollowO ModerateD DeepO Depth: Very ShollowO ShollowO ModerateD DeepO
(<I 0"1
(1 0"·20'1 (20"·40"1 {>40"1
(<1 0'1
(10"·20'1 (20'·40'1 (>40"1
List dlognoslic horizons In profile ond depth
List dlasnostlc horizons In profile ond depth
I
2
Parent Material
3
1
4
3 ------­
2
4
Slope __ % Elevation __ 11 Topographic Po~ Ilion .- - Aspect
L
Avg Annual Preclp - - - Recent Weather (lost. 2 years) Drought _ _ Normal _ _ Wet - - Describo wil.dlifo on livestock use and recent disturbances
Do1crlbo oH•Ito lnfluonc:u en area of lntered _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Part 2, Ind icator Rating
O.ponur• lrom fcologlcal Sit• D•nrlptlon/
lcologlcal Roftrtn<t Anto(t)
A"rlbuto
tndlcotors
S,H
1. Rills
Comments:
2. Water Flow Patterns
S.H
Comments:
S,H
3. Pedestals and/or Terrocellos
Comments:
S,H
4. Bore Ground
Comments:
S,H
5. Gullies
Comment):
s
6. Wtnci.Scoured, Blowouts, ond/rx Depc»l~on Areos
Comments:
-
~ - '·.
Modorott
Slight to
f><lremo lo flltromo Moi!.tat• Modoroto
... .•
..
.
~~
......
Nonolo
Slight
y
_2{_
X
.•
)(
~
X
X
13
Part 2. Ind icator Rating loonlinu&d)
Otparlure from l«>loglcal Sl'- Dt«rlptlon/
lcologlcallhferonce Area(• }
lndkators
Alfrlbute
.·Y ·''"
7. LiHer Movemenl
Comments·
S.H,8
8 . Soil Surfoce Reli!lance to Erosion
H
~·lo..
S.H,B
9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation
H
10. Plan! Community Composition and
Distribution Relallve to lnfiltrolfon and Runoff
S,H,B
X
• ;' •
,.
·,'>(·'···."'.
.,~ ~
•
.
'
.•
·,,
· .•·,. •
_6__
:·.·~ .t':·~ ~·.
l1. Compaction toyor
Commonh:
ll
12. Funcllonoi!Struclurol Groups
8
13. Plant Morlolity/Docadonce
)( ' '
, ,;.,·:::·:
r
.•
Commenls:
H,B
14. liHer Amount
II
15. Annual Production
II
16. Invasive Plants
B
17. Rop~odudive Capability of Poronniol PionIs
:X..- ...
.,
r"'
~' ;
X_
·<
'X'•
v
Rangeland Health Atfrlbutu
8
X_
_
'
Deporluro from Ecological Sile Oescriplion/
Ecologi<ol Reference Area(s)
A. Indicator Summary
s
~
,.,
/
H
..... ........ ·.
·· ~ ,....,
1
Pa rt 3. Summary
.· f
Mocl.,.ote
Ex !tom•' lolxiTeme
1-6, 8, 9 & 11)
H)'drologic Funclion (Indicators 1-5,7-11 & 14)
Biotic lnlegrity (Indicators 8-9 & 11·17)
~
Modorolt
Slight to
Moderate
2
Soil/Site Slobillty (Indicators
I
.J..
I
I
Nono to
.sn0ht
',
z ···..
:£
·'I·
r
9
11
9
B. Attribute ~ummary ·Check the category that besl fits the "preponderance of evidence• for each of thelhree
ahributes relotlvo to tho dlstribulloo of Indicator rotingl In lhe preceding Indicator Summary table.
AHribute
SoU/ Site Stabi lity Rationale:
Modorot. ,:·..\~·;· .­ . Sllthl to NO.e -,..;
htrenii to lxtremo -~~~~~·to Moderato };J IIght ·.
:···!
Hydrologic Funttlon Rationale>:
llotic Integrity Rationale:
...... ~~;
..
-~
14
Page_ of
STANDARDS & GUIDELINES
COVER DATA.
..
­
"
S1udy Nwnber5t;;,;1- r/l3
jDate t alffi>IExaminer
~tudy Locarion f, n//-,-7
Allotment N~tc & Number
rlen~ c;,",... I!
R'-rtJ~~~
'
Category
Dot
Count
Total
Hits
%Cover
IL
Litter
tl!1 ; .
~~a
13
tWIP. 7
/¢,?
I
l~se
;.,_.,
(/
..
''
.l.
J.t
-<
-
. '/!-/
2..
teve12
Level 3
{ y
/3
/....
.r~~ ,.,c
L..
11;!, r
r:
/....
fn: f.
.. .
-11....
JJ,i~
.&c.
~·
I
JllbC
,.."Hc>r.:ft"
J~,J,
I
6
8.'
,.
..
.
I
2.
I
I
shrxb ­ ,£,.,·,.,I. ~
/l,-/;f
s/,,..,J- )),.,,b., /
(.i.m
3
I
.
7.
I
I
0
"';;;;!R
&;ir
I
'
.
--I
I
A...... ~lh
(j_.-j;.,
A m1 ,...."''" r
/r?
I.
A,-tr-J­
!3, -r;.
..,..,j
I
<
Q'
'
r
f:Z.t..l.~t?.
lfb:_~~-· "'·lk·
Total Hits
/Jfl)
I~//"""!.,¥-
1­
;._
.
Cftrv
Y/.1
I
I
/t?CJ
..
.rl;1.
..-,'/,:I
j,,.
(6_9'
/C??J
II
Dot Count
(},-j,..
L
l
II
;jlj
:(
f~r
_/J.d.e
ll c.:rusts
:zt'
/..
(j C-
Total
Vegetation
..'fi!SCUiar
Basal and Canopy/Follnr Cover
Levell
~
l
· ~ Gravel· S Standing
G-$.)to,~e .' ·
;o~ad '{eg
;J..!J
I
13
L
Ira
1"'1n~e,1r_s !PastureGn•,..,~~: ... v
/
,.11 ,Number of Points
Ground-Level' Cover ~ ~ ~ 'f1lf/ '{Iff~ f! Iii!
Bare
Ground
B
Bsl or Grnd-Lev
.1'15""9t.l" !!: '17.2~t:Jf"p,, M
L.
If
1
1
___:t_
1/
;;;t,.,~
8
Total
~o/')
0 Check here if reverse side Is used
15
Appendix D Pictures 16
17
18 Fire rehab in the North Pasture of the Timber Basin Fire.
19
Stand of Dalmation toadtlax in the Cemetery Pasture.
20