R-4 PROTOCOL
 FOR
RANGELAND CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY  DETERMINATIONS
 FOR FOREST PLAN REVISIONS

This protocol  was developed by an interdisciplinary group using the R-1 Grazing Protocols, a Draft from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, an April 25, 1997 clarification of requirements from theWO, and R-4's Properly Functioning Condition Draft of 9/8/97.  It will become an amendment to the R-4 Revision Deskguide after additional external circulation and any necessary revision.  A first draft was circulated for review and comment prior to this revision.  The intent is to keep this Regional protocol broad while allowing ample room for local tailoring based on local information and conditions.

Implementing regulations at 36 CFR §219.20 require a determination of rangeland capability and suitability in forest plans.  Also required is a determination of condition and trend of suitable rangelands.  The following protocol includes definition of terms, analysis and information needs, recommended criteria for consistent determinations, and advice for describing rangeland conditions in the planning records.

Definitions:  These definitions vary from those traditionally used in Forest Service rangeland management.  Adherence to these definitions (as stated in regulations) is necessary to meet requirements for analysis in forest planning.
	l Capability:  "the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management intensity.  Capability depends on current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease."  
	l Suitability:  "the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and alternative uses foregone.  A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices."  

Analysis for Determination:  The determination of rangeland capability and suitability is a two-step process.  The first step is determination of those lands that are capable of being grazed.  The second step, through the forest planning process, identifies which of those capable lands are suitable for grazing under various management scenarios.

Rangeland capability represents the biophysical determination of those areas that can sustain grazing.  Capability is determined by assessing biophysical characteristics conducive to livestock grazing.  Lands capable of being grazed will be the same in all forest plan alternatives.  Rangeland capability for revision of forest plans can be determined either through an aggregation of planning unit determinations or applying capability criteria at the forest scale, or a combination of the two.  Determine the appropriateness of the use of larger scale assessments; and, if not used explain why.  The capability analysis and determination in Forest Plans is not a decision to graze livestock on any specific area of land nor is it a decision on livestock grazing capacity.  

Once capability is determined, the next step in the planning process is to determine rangeland suitability.  Rangeland suitability is a forest plan decision and represents the integration of capability and the appropriateness of grazing livestock on a particular area of land considering  such things as economics, social concerns, and grazing compatibility with other land uses.  Suitability analysis and determination may lead to a decision to graze livestock on a specific area in the Forest Plan.  Together, they can provide management direction for project level analysis of allotment(s) and subsequent NEPA decisions.

Criteria for Rangeland Capability:  Forest planning records should contain a description of the criteria used in the analysis to identify capable rangelands. As a minimum, the capability criteria listed below should be addressed.  However, Forests may change these criteria if they have documented data which indicates changes are warranted; or, additional criteria may be developed if local conditions warrant.  The determination of capability should be made considering the whole of the criteria rather than any one criterion alone.

	l Areas with less than 30% slopes for cattle and less than 45% slopes for sheep.
	l Areas producing more than or having the potential to produce an average of 200 lbs. of forage/acre on an air dry basis over the planning period.
	l Areas with naturally resilient soils (not unstable or highly erodible soils).
	l Areas where ground cover (vegetation, litter, rock > ¾ in.) is sufficient to protect soil from eroise.  The minimum percentage cover will be 60% unless local data is available for use in setting more specific ground cover requirements.
	l Areas accessible to livestock (without such factors as dense timber, rock, or other physical barriers).
	l Areas  within 1 mile of  water or where the ability to provide water exists.  

National Forest System lands that meet the above criteria will be considered capable of being grazed by domestic animals.  The acreage of capable lands will remain constant for all alternatives for the planning area and will be displayed.

Criteria for Rangeland Suitability:  Once capability is determined, an assessment of suitability, by alternative, is conducted to address whether livestock grazing is compatible with management direction for a management area's other uses and values, and which, if any, other uses would be foregone with livestock grazing.  Forest planning records should contain a description of the criteria used in the analysis to identify suitable rangelands.  Advice for suitability criteria are listed below.  Additional criteria may be developed if local conditions warrant.  Situations listed below may or may not be suitable for livestock grazing depending on an overall evaluation of potential effects and opportunities to mitigate adverse effects:
	l Developed recreation sites or special use sites.
	l Special area designations such as Research Natural Areas.
	l Administrative sites and research facilities or study sites.
	l Key wildlife habitat areas (such as winter ranges).  
	l Important habitats for TES species (viability considerations).
	l Noxious weed infestations where forage is not used by livestock or use would contribute to increase of the infestation.
	l Unique habitats such as bogs, fens, jurisdictional wetlands, or rare plant communities.
	l Areas where livestock grazing is impracticable due to economic considerations, either from a permittee or agency standpoint.
	l Transitory range created by timber harvest activities where the associated mitigation costs to protect timber resource values is excessive.
	l Areas where the social consequences and values foregone are not acceptable.

The number of acres suitable for livestock grazing, by alternative, shall be displayed.  The number of acres suitable may vary by alternative.

Determination of Condition and Trend:  The terms "condition" and "trend" have been used to describe different concepts over the years as learning about ecological systems has evolved.  Given the variety of possible interpretations of these terms today, the following advice is based on our assessment of the intent of the 36 CFR §219.20 requirements.  "Most recent" inventories, assessments and analyses of rangelands cover the spectrum in terms of scale, level of detail, application of evolving ecological principles, and variations in classification and mapping techniques.  Condition and trend ideally would be derived as part of a multi-scale (including landscape pattern and process) assessment with some comparison to historical ranges of variation.  Condition and trend as measures of "healthy" or properly functioning landscapes would be based on the relationship between land use, ecosystem health, and species divesity with inherent disturbance processes and biophysical capability.

Current Forest Service annual reporting requirements include the "Allotment and Vegetation Management Report" which places all acres of  rangeland vegetation into one of three categories:  1) meeting Forest Plan objectives; 2) moving towards Forest Plan objectives; or 3) not meeting or moving towards Forest Plan objectives.  Reports are modified each year to reflect the results of the previous year's monitoring.  This report can be used to determine condition and trend as related to current Forest Plan objectives.  However, where Plan objectives for rangeland management are identified as "needs for change" in revision, other measures of condition and trend will be needed for revision assessment work.

Other sources of information for this determination during Plan Revision include:  Level II or III Riparian Inventories following methodolgies in the Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide; Allotment Management Plan Revisions; Nested Frequency Monitoring; Properly Functioning Condition (riparian and/or upland) Assessments Ecosystem Analyses at the Watershed Scale; Sub-Basin Reviews; etc.  Use the best information available for any given area even if other areas may have less current information.  This approach is consistent with the Region's continuous assessment and planning and will allow for future analyses to fill gaps and gain more current coverage as Forest Plans are amended and updates of Allotment Management Plans are completed.