Copies of TR 1734-6 are available from:

BLM National Business Center

Printed Materials Distribution Service, BC-652

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, Colorado 80225-0047

Fax: 303-236-0845

E-Mail: BLM_NCS_PMDS@blm.gov

This document is available online at www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm
Produced By

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

National Science and Technology Center

Division of Science Integration

Branch of Publishing Services

P. O. Box 25047

Denver, Colorado

Technical Reference 1734-6

2005
Suggested citation:

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators

of rangeland health, version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology

Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122 pp.
g , uddp Ju, pdd

support for numerous interagency training sessions that provided the authors with

the feedback used to move from Version 3 to Version 4. Individuals who reviewed

or contributed to significant modifications of Version 4 include Jack Alexander,

Brandon Bestelmeyer, Peter Dunwiddie, Kirk Gadzia, Sherm Karl, Patrick

McCarthy, Mark Miller, Laura Burkett, Peter Russell, George Ruyle, Pete Sundt,

Arlene Tugel, and Bob Unnasch. Cynthia Dalzell reviewed and edited several

drafts of this document and is recognized for her contribution.

Thanks to Kathy Rohling and Janine Koselak of BLM’s National Science and

Technology Center for the editing, design, and layout of this technical reference

and to BLM’s National Business Center for managing the production aspects of

the final document. 

(3, pp3) 

collecting quantitative data is deferred to other publications. 

Based on a more thorough review of the literature, we have switched the attribute

assignment for the litter movement indicator from Hydrologic Function to

Soil/Site Stability in Version 4, Appendix 1. 

In Version 3, Appendix 1, all of the indicator rating categories except “Extreme

departure from the Ecological Site Description/Reference Area” implied that the

category included a range of values. This implication came either from the title

(for example None to Slight departure) or from the position within the range of

the other categories (for example Moderate was between Slight to Moderate and

Moderate to Extreme), but the fifth category, Extreme, caused some users to

believe that this category did not include a range, but was the absolute worst

departure possible. This was not our intention and we have changed the Extreme

category to Extreme to Total in Version 4, Appendix 1.

We strongly recommend that the indicator descriptors in the

Evaluation Matrix in Version 4, Appendix 4, for each ecological

site be revised and made more specific. This change has

been designed to improve consistency among

observers. The wording of the “default descriptors”

has been retained as “generic descriptors” in

nearly all cases. Only minor changes were made

to the generic descriptors. These changes clarify

the indicators and do not change their interpretation.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4
Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Vegetation Indicator Consistency: Production, Foliar Cover, and Standing Biomass . . . .14

States, Transitions, and Disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Instructions for Using the Rangeland Health Assessment Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Step 1. Identify the Evaluation Area, Determine the Soil and Ecological Site . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Describe the Evaluation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Determine the Soil and Ecological Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Actions to Take if Soil and/or Ecological Site Information Are Not Available . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Step 2. Obtain or Develop the Reference Sheet and the Corresponding Evaluation Matrix . . . .21

Obtain a Reference Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Instructions for Reference Sheet Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Obtain the Evaluation Matrix for the Ecological Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Instructions for Evaluation Matrix Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

16. Invasive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

17. Reproductive Capability of Perennial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

18. Optional Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Step 5. Determine the Functional Status of the Three Rangeland Health Attributes . . . . . . .41

Applications to Larger Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
ppppp

Table 4 - Example of a revised descriptor for the bare ground indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Table 5 - Quantitative indicators for selected indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Table 6 - Functional/structural groups that a prairie ecological site might include . . . . . .36

Table 7 - Selected species for nine functional/structural groups 

that a Great Basin Desert shrub steppe site might include . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Table 8 - Optional indicator and generic descriptors for 

biological crusts and vegetation structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

ecosystem properties and processes.

• Select monitoring sites in the development of monitoring programs.

• Provide early warnings of potential problems and opportunities by helping land

managers identify areas that are potentially at risk of degradation or where

resource problems currently exist.

The protocol is NOT to be used to:

• Identify the cause(s) of resource problems.

• Independently make grazing and other management changes.

• Monitor land or determine trend.

• Independently generate national or regional assessments of rangeland health.

Interpreting Indicators for Rangeland Health has been developed for use by experienced,

knowledgeable land managers or technical assistance specialists. This assessment

protocol is not intended for use by individuals who do not have experience or

knowledge of the rangeland ecological sites they are evaluating. This

protocol requires a good understanding of ecological processes,

vegetation, and soils for each site to which it is applied.

Our research has shown that the quality and consistency

of evaluations is improved when two or more

individuals (e.g., ecologist and soil scientist)

work together. The input of multiple individuals

is particularly critical in the development of
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4
“The degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and air, as

well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem are balanced and

sustained.” 

They defined integrity to mean “maintenance of the functional attributes characteristic

of a locale, including normal variability” (USDA 1997).

The challenge to scientists and managers is to translate this concept into terms

that the public can comprehend, and that resource specialists can use to assist in

identifying areas where ecological processes are or are not functioning properly.

This document describes a protocol to educate the public and agency personnel

on using observable indicators to interpret and assess rangeland health. This

protocol relies on the use of a qualitative (non-measurement) procedure to assess

the functional status of each indicator. 

The use of qualitative assessments is suggested as a fast survey

technique to rate site protection indicators, including both

plant and soil components (Morgan 1986). The use of

qualitative information (e.g., observations) to

determine range and soil conditions has a long

history of use in land management inventory

and monitoring. In some cases, qualitative

assessments were used independently, while in

other cases they were blended with quantitative
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

numerous field tests of Version 1a (Rasmussen, Pellant, and Pyke 1999) and

Version 1b into Version 2. Modifications of Version 2 received peer review and

numerous other comments to arrive at the process described in Version 3. 

The changes in Version 4 were based on input from a large number of users of

Version 3 and are designed to improve the consistency of the application of the

process. The most significant modification was the replacement of the Ecological

Reference Area Sheet with the Reference Sheet (Appendix 2) (Pyke et al. 2002).

The Reference Sheet facilitates consistent application of the process throughout

the ecological site by integrating all available sources of data and knowledge to

generate a description of the range of expected conditions for each indicator if a

site is in the reference state. This includes the associated spatial and temporal

variability. It is normally developed for existing ecological sites, but can also be

applied to any soil/climate-based land classification system that reflects site potential

(see ecological site definition in the Glossary).

Along the way, this procedure has been termed “rapid

assessment,” “qualitative assessment of rangeland

health,” and “visualization of rangeland health.”

This document refers to this procedure as

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland

Health – Version 4. This version will

be revised in the future as science and

experience provide additional information

on indicators of rangeland health and

their assessment.


The capacity of an area to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources (including

nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water.

Hydrologic Function

The capacity of an area to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall,

run-on, and snowmelt (where relevant), to resist a reduction in this capacity, and

to recover this capacity when a reduction does occur. 

Biotic Integrity 

The capacity of the biotic community to support ecological processes within the

normal range of variability expected for the site, to resist a loss in the capacity to

support these processes, and to recover this capacity when losses do occur. The

biotic community includes plants, animals, and microorganisms occurring

both above and below ground. 

Each of these three attributes is summarized at the end of

the Evaluation Sheet based upon a preponderance of

evidence approach using the applicable indicators

(Appendix 1). This assessment is preliminary

and may be modified with the interpretation
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4
climate, and topography (USDA 1997). 

In addition to ecological site identification, some knowledge of the potential range

of spatial variability and of landscape relationships (including characteristics of

surrounding areas) is required to interpret evaluations. Since the status of surrounding areas on other ecological sites may influence the evaluation area, we have

provided a means of documenting pertinent information about these surrounding

areas in the Evaluation Sheet (Appendix 1) and in the Reference Sheet (Appendix 2).

Spatial Variability

An understanding of the potential range of spatial variability both within and

among ecological sites is necessary to apply this technique. For example, southfacing slopes are subject to higher evaporation rates and generally have shallower

soils than north-facing slopes. Both higher evaporation rates and shallower soil

depth result in lower soil moisture availability, increasing bare ground and the

potential for rill formation, even on sites that are at or near their potential.

Sites that are located lower on the landscape (downslope) may

receive runoff water during intense storms or snowmelt. The

effect of increased runoff can be positive when the additional

water is retained onsite and becomes available for

plant growth. Increased runoff can be negative if

it results in greater erosion. Microsites that

capture wind-driven snow generally have a

higher production potential than sites that are

typically free of snow, except where snow persists

long enough that it significantly limits the length
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Qualitative watershed, sub-watershed, or sub-basin-scale analyses could be used to

generate a map for each of the three attributes based on ecological, site-level evaluations. Appropriate sampling designs are required to aggregate qualitative assessments

to larger landscape units. These maps can be overlaid on a soil or ecological site

map and used to help identify areas where management interventions are likely to

have the greatest effect on runoff, water quality, and other resource concerns. Due

to the inherent complexity of many landscapes, many parts of the watershed may

need to be mapped as “complexes” in which a single map unit represents several

ecological sites and/or a single ecological site that is rated differently in different

areas within the map unit (e.g., areas near herbivore watering points may be more

degraded than those far from water).

Natural Range of Variability

The biological and physical potential of every location is unique in

space and time (Bestelmeyer et al. 2004). To the extent possible,

the types and sources of spatial and temporal variability

should be described for each indicator on the

Reference Sheet (Appendix 2). Sources of spatial

variability include soils, climate, natural

disturbance events, vegetation communities

within the reference state (see States,

Transitions, and Disturbances), and

topographic position. While all of these

are expected to be similar within an 
The resistance and resilience of individual communities vary within a

state. Consequently, the specific community that is the least resistant to

and/or resilient following a particular disturbance is the one that is most

likely to proceed through a transition to another state. 

Indicators

Ecological processes are difficult to observe or measure in the field due to the

complexity of most rangeland ecosystems. Indicators are components of a system

whose characteristics (e.g., presence or absence, quantity, distribution) are used as

an index of an attribute (e.g., hydrologic function) that is too difficult, inconvenient,

or expensive to measure. Just as the Dow Jones Index is used to gauge the strength

of a portion of the stock market, different combinations of the 17 indicators are

used to gauge soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. 

Indicators have historically been used in rangeland monitoring

and resource inventories by land management and technical

assistance agencies. These indicators focused on vegetation

(e.g., production, composition, density) or soil

stability as surrogates for rangeland condition or

livestock carrying capacity. Such single attribute

assessments are inadequate to determine 

rangeland health because they do not reflect the

complexity of the ecological processes. There is

Figure 1. Changes in ecological processes

over time following disturbance for systems

that vary in resistance and resilience (adapted

from Seybold et al. 1999)
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

indicators for each of the three attributes, rather than selecting an equivalent

quantitative indicator for each qualitative indicator. The best quantitative indicators

are those that, as a group, are most consistently correlated with the ecosystem

functions associated with each of the three attributes. For example, bare ground

and soil aggregate stability are both highly correlated with resistance to erosion in

most ecological sites, and are therefore good indicators of the “soil/site stability”

attribute (Herrick et al. 2005).
• Soil surface resistance to erosion Proportion of soil surface covered Basal gap intercept (3)

• Soil surface loss or degradation by basal gaps longer than a Continuous line intercept (2)

• Plant community composition and defined minimum

distribution relative to infiltration Soil macro-aggregate stability Soil stability kit (3)

and runoff in water

• Compaction layer

• Litter amount

Biotic • Soil surface resistance to erosion Soil macro-aggregate stability Soil stability kit (3)

Integrity • Soil surface loss or degradation in water

• Compaction layer Plant canopy (foliar) cover by Line point intercept (2, 3)

• Functional/structural groups functional group Point frame (2)

• Plant mortality/decadence Plant basal cover by functional Line point intercept (2, 3)

• Litter amount group Point frame (2)

• Annual production Litter cover Line point intercept (1, 3)

• Invasive plants Point frame (2)

• Reproductive capability of Plant production by functional Harvest (1)

perennial plants group Double sampling (1)

Invasive plant cover Line point intercept (1, 3)

Invasive plant density Belt transect (2, 3)

Quadrats (2)
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

pygp

tion, current year’s growth that has been removed by livestock and/or wildlife, and

the expected growth (production) during the rest of the year. Expected growth is

estimated from standard growth curves. Annual production includes all aboveground production of all species, including stem elongation. Biomass includes all

above ground production regardless of the year it was produced.

Foliar cover is simply the proportion of soil surface covered by a vertical projection

of a plant canopy. This is effectively the area that is protected from raindrops and

the area in shade when the sun is directly overhead. This is the definition used in

erosion models. Foliar cover reflects changes in the density of the plant canopy

associated with leaf and twig mortality, as well as changes in the size and number

of individual plants in a defined area.

Foliar cover measurement or estimates may be based on several approaches including

line-point and visual estimates. The line-point method (Elzinga et al. 1998;

Herrick et al. 2005) is recommended because it measures the area

actually covered by leaves, twigs, and stems, and can be

used to assess indicators that are generally more

directly related to production, runoff, erosion,

and to remote sensing. This method is among

the easiest to standardize of all vegetation

cover methods and is the preferred

method to collect foliar cover for new

ecological site descriptions. 
Unlike community pathways (dashed arrows in Figure 2), these threshold transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or direction of factors that

produced the change. Instead, they may create a physically-altered state, such as an

eroded state that has lost part of its A soil horizon. Alternatively, they may require

new inputs such as revegetation or shrub removal. Practices such as these, enabling

a return to a pre-existing state (USDA 1997), are often expensive to apply.

Transitions among states in an ecological site are often caused by a combination of

feedback mechanisms that alter soil and plant community dynamics (e.g., Schlesinger

et al. 1990). For example, as shrubs replace grasses, runoff and erosion increase

from shrub interspaces further reducing soil resource availability for grasses.

The reference state is the state where the functional capacities represented by

soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity are performing at a near

optimum level under the natural disturbance regime. This state usually includes

more than one community, one of which is known as the “historic climax plant

community” (see Glossary) and is depicted as one of the communities in the

Reference State in Figure 2. Alternatively, some rangeland management or

ecology literature (Heady and Child 1994, SRM 1999,

Vallentine 1990), recognize one of the communities as the

“potential natural plant community.” While this technical

reference uses the reference state (but not any

particular community within the state) as the

reference for the rangeland health evaluation,

we recognize that managers may choose to

manage for communities in another state. In

other words, the reference state usually, but not
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Figure 2. Generic state and transition diagram. Dashed lines between

communities within a state are community pathways; solid lines between

states are transitions; and dotted lines between states indicate unlikely

reverse transitions (see table with figure for further explanation).

A Shrubs and native perennial grasses codominate (historic climax

plant community)

B Native perennial grasses are dominant; shrubs subdominant

C Shrubs dominate; perennial grasses subdominant

D Shrubs dominate; exotic grasses subdominant

E Exotic grasses dominate; shrubs subdominant

F Exotic annual grasses dominate

Transitions (relatively non-reversible)

1 Wildfire and introduction of exotic, invasive, annual grasses

2 Repeated wildfires that exceed natural fire-return interval
or concept for that step is then explained.

The flow chart in Figure 3 illustrates the

entire process and can be used to help decide

which steps to complete and the sequence of

those steps. Use the Checklist for Rangeland

Health Assessment Protocol (Appendix 8)

to ensure that you have completed all the

required steps.

Step 1. Identify the

Evaluation Area, Determine

the Soil and Ecological Site

(REQUIRED)

Complete page one of the Evaluation Sheet

(Appendix 1).

Describe the Evaluation Area

The front of the Evaluation Sheet is used to

record information on site location for the

assessment and basic site characteristic

information for an evaluation area

(Appendix 1). The back of this sheet is

completed during Step 5. 

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

Step 3.

Collect supplementary

Information

STRONGLY RECOMMENDED

Evaluation matrix

for the ecological site available

and obtained?

Reference sheet

available and obtained? Reference sheet developed?

REQUIRED

Step 4.

Rate the 17 indicators on

Evaluation sheet and justify

ratings with written comments

REQUIRED

Step 5.

Evaluate 3 rangeland health

Attributes based on the ratings

of the 17 indicators and justify 

ratings with written comments

REQUIRED

Develop evaluation matrix

STRONGLY RECOMMENDED

use reference sheet and 

adapt default descriptors or 

use defaults

Figure 3. Flowchart for the rangeland health assessment protocol.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

general view photographs taken in different directions (include some skyline for

future point of reference) should be taken along with photographs that illustrate

important indicator values or anomalies. Time, date, orientation, and location of

the photo should be recorded. 

Determine the Soil and Ecological Site

Each ecological site within the evaluation area should be verified by matching the

evaluation area to the appropriate ecological site description and soils. The best

way to confirm the soil classification, and thus the ecological site, is to dig several

shallow pits to verify that the soil profile characteristics are consistent with those

of the soils listed in the ecological site description. Soil surveys (which include

soil maps and other useful information) should also be consulted if the soil

information in the ecological site description is inadequate to correlate soils to

the appropriate ecological site description. The evaluator(s) should review the

ecological site description for consistency with the soils and vegetation

found on the evaluation area.

Always use the Reference Sheet corresponding to

the appropriate ecological site. On-site soil

description and comparison with soils listed or

described in the ecological site description

should be completed even when a soil

map is available. Soil maps should only be

used to help predict soils (and therefore

ecological sites) that might be found in
p gpjy

appropriate (see Table 3). Where ecological site descriptions are unavailable, these

resources can sometimes be used to identify relevant ecological site descriptions

that have been developed for similar areas in the region. Vegetation information

may be available from other sources, such as habitat-type descriptions, long-term

monitoring studies, and other inventory data. If possible, enlist the service of a

soil scientist to assist the evaluator(s) in making the initial soil/site correlations.

The process used to conduct the evaluation without the required soils and ecological

site information should be clearly documented by the team on the Evaluation

Sheet (Appendix 1). 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Soil surveys •Visit the local NRCS office (look under United States Government, Department of Agriculture, USDA 

and maps Natural Resources Conservation Service in the blue pages of the phone book), or check the NRCS website

(http://soils.usda.gov/survey) to obtain a copy of a soil survey for the county of interest. 

•STATSGO (State Soil Geographic Database) map coverage (1:250,000) is available for most areas. SSURGO

(1:24,000) maps are in the process of being digitized. Hard copies are available through local NRCS offices.

•Visit the local USFS office to obtain a Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey for the area of interest. Some offices

may have this data available in digital form.

Vegetation •BLM land: Soil Vegetation Inventory Method (SVIM) maps. These are maps of field-collected vegetation

inventory data inventory data. Some offices may have this data available in GIS form.

•Private land: NRCS status maps and Natural Resources Inventory data are found at

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/dataresources or http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land

General maps •BLM land status maps (look under United States Government, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, in the blue pages of the phone book)

Species lists •USFS, BLM, and NRCS offices (especially old monitoring records) 

•NRCS lists of plants: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/dataresources 

•See ecological site descriptions (NRCS) below. 

•Look up your local chapter of the Native Plant Society at http://www.nanps.org/about/frame.shtml 

•Plants national database at http://plants.usda.gov

Ecological (range) •Local NRCS office (ask for the “range site handbook” or go to http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov).

site descriptions •Some revised descriptions may not yet be on the Web.

Geologic maps •USGS Geologic Maps at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov

Invasive species •NRCS at http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=noxious.cgi 
site, professional opinion of what the site could be, visits to reference areas, or

reviews of old range or ecological site descriptions that do not contain reference

sheets are not adequate substitutes for a properly developed Reference Sheet.

However, all of these information sources can be used in the development of the

Reference Sheet.

Instructions for Reference Sheet Development

Before beginning development, be sure to check with the NRCS State Rangeland

Management Specialist to find out if a final or draft Reference Sheet is available. If

a draft is available, but has not been finalized, you may use it and provide comments or suggest modifications to the NRCS State Rangeland Management

Specialist. If no Reference Sheet exists, develop one using the following protocol

and send it to the NRCS State Rangeland Management Specialist. 

1. Assemble a diverse group of experts with extensive knowledge of the ecological site.

Individuals should be included who have long-term knowledge of the variability

and dynamics of the ecological site, in addition to rangeland professionals

who understand general soil-climate-vegetation relationships. 

2. Provide this group of experts with all available sources of

information.

Information should include relevant scientific

literature and data from potential reference

areas, including data used to support the

ecological site descriptions. 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

the ratings given on Indicator 12 on the Reference Sheet. Later at an evaluation

area, the observers can complete the actual dominance rating (complete the “Actual”

column on the worksheet) to aid in rating indicators on the evaluation sheet.

When evaluating a site, several of the 17 indicators require an interpretation

regarding changes in this dominance rating for the Functional/Structural Groups,

or in the numbers of species within these Functional/Structural Groups. It is

important to use the same measure of dominance in the evaluation as was used in

the Reference Sheet. For example, if percent of composition based on production

was used because the ecological site description used it, then percent of composition

by production should be the variable used by the observer when making the

evaluation of these indicators.

4. Visit one or more ecological reference areas (optional).

A visit to one or more potential ecological reference areas (ERAs) can be a useful

source of additional information for the Reference Sheet. It can also

be used by evaluators to improve their ability to recognize

the indicators in the field and to “field check” the

descriptors developed in the office.

An ERA is a landscape unit in which ecological processes are functioning within a

normal range of variability and the plant

communities have adequate resistance to

and resiliency from most disturbances. An
ecological processes and the plant community in a proper functioning state;

grazing use pattern maps are helpful in identifying these areas.

This concept is similar to that proposed by the Western Regional Coordinating

Committee-40 on Rangeland Research for using well-managed rangelands and

appropriate relict areas as benchmarks for assessments (West et al. 1994). The

concept of ERAs is also an integral component in the development of ecological

site descriptions. 

At each ERA, the evaluator(s) should take photographs, collect relevant quantitative

data (see Appendix 6), describe the status of each indicator, and record whether or

not you believe that it reflects reference conditions (based on all other available

information). The area should be used as a reference only for indicators that

would be rated as None to Slight based on the final version of the Reference Sheet.

The Reference Sheet is the ultimate standard against which all areas, including

“reference” areas, are evaluated.

Where possible, a number of ERAs that represent the range of

variability in the reference state should be visited (see Figure 2

in States, Transitions, and Disturbances in the

Concepts section).
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

The Evaluation Matrix includes five descriptors for each indicator which reflect

the range of departure from what is expected for the site: None to Slight, Slight to

Moderate, Moderate, Moderate to Extreme, and Extreme to Total. The descriptor

for “None to Slight” comes directly from the Reference Sheet (Appendix 2) and

reflects the range of variation of the indicator in the reference state. The descriptors for the other four classes are derived from the Reference Sheet and the generic

descriptors included in Appendix 4 by the team developing the Evaluation Matrix.

A unique Evaluation Matrix will eventually be included in each ecological site

description. Until this information is available, generic descriptors may be used or

adapted to better reflect current knowledge. To maintain consistency of assessments

on specific ecological sites, one of the following options MUST be applied:

• Add notes to the generic descriptors (Appendix 4) to clarify how each descriptor

is interpreted for the site.

OR

• Create an ecological site-specific Evaluation Matrix (see

the following instructions for Evaluation Matrix

Development).

This Evaluation Matrix (Appendix 4)

should be used for subsequent evaluations

on the same ecological site and any

changes should be forwarded to the person

responsible for maintaining ecological site
Indicators of soil/site stability are particularly likely to require these changes due to

the inherently higher erosion potential on certain ecological sites. An Evaluation

Matrix (Appendix 4) example follows (Table 4) of a modified and expanded bare

ground descriptor narrative for the Limy ecological site in MLRA 42 (south-central

New Mexico). Similar changes should be made for other indicators.

Table 4. Example of a revised descriptor for the bare ground indicator.

Departure from Reference Sheet

Indicator Extreme Moderate Moderate Slight to None to

to Total to Extreme Moderate Slight

4. Bare 

ground

Greater than 75%

bare ground with

entire area 

connected. Only

occasional areas

where ground cover

is contiguous, mostly

patchy and sparse.

60-75% bare ground. Bare

patches are large (>24”

diameter) and connected.

Surface disturbance areas

becoming connected to one

another. Connectivity of

bare ground broken 

occasionally by contiguous

ground cover.

45-60% bare ground

with much connectivity

especially associated

with surface 

disturbance.Individual

bare spaces are

large and dominate

the area.

30-45% bare ground.

Bare spaces greater

than 12” diameter and

rarely connected. Bare

areas associated with

surface disturbance are

larger (> 15”) and

may be connected to

other bare patches.

Reference Sheet: 20-30%

bare ground; bare patches

should be less than 8-10”

diameter and not connected

occasional 12” patches

associated w/shrubs. Large

bare patches also associate

with ant mounds and small

mammal disturbances.

Generic

Descriptor

Much higher than

expected for the

site. Bare areas are

large and generally

connected.

Moderate to much higher

than expected for the site.

Bare areas are large and

occasionally connected.

Moderately higher

than expected for the

site. Bare areas are

of moderate size

and sporadically

connected.

Slightly to moderately

higher than expected

for the site. Bare areas

are small and rarely

connected.

Amount and size of bare

areas match that expected

for the site.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Ecological Reference Areas

Ecological reference areas (see Step 2), where available, can help by providing a

visual representation of the expected status of each indicator at the time of the

evaluation. Quantitative data (see Table 5) can also be used to supplement the

information in the Reference Sheet. Ecological reference areas should be functioning

at least as well as described in the Reference Sheet with respect to soil/site stability,

hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. 

Evaluators need to examine ecological reference areas in the same year and season

as the evaluation area, since weather during that year may affect the rating of

indicators. However, ecological reference areas may be located in different watersheds within the geographic region as long as the current year’s weather has been

similar between locations. See the “Reference Sheet Development” section in

Step 2 for more information on ecological reference areas. 

Functional/Structural Groups Sheet

The Functional/Structural Groups Sheet (part of which

was developed as part of Step 2) can be used to directly

compare potential (Step 2) and actual (fill in the

“Actual” column of the Functional/Structural

Groups Sheet) relative dominance

(composition) of the functional/

structural groups.
* Described in the “Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems” (printed copies available from University

of Arizona Press in pdf format at http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/JER/Monit_Assess/monitoring.htm.

Recme

(for low 

cover)

Step 4. Rate the 17 Indicators on the Evaluation

Sheet (REQUIRED)

Complete the Evaluation Sheet (Appendix 1, back page) using the Evaluation Matrix

(Appendix 4).

Evaluators select the category descriptor (i.e., narrative) on the Evaluation Matrix

(Appendix 4) that most closely describes each indicator and records it on the

Evaluation Sheet, Page 2. The rating for each indicator in the evaluation area is

based on that indicator’s degree of departure from the Reference Sheet (Appendix 2).

This is based on the ecological site description and other information, including

expert knowledge of structure, function, and dynamics of ecological

reference areas and other areas within the ecological site (see

Step 2). The Reference Sheet reflects the range of variability

expected for soils and plant communities in the reference

state. The Functional/Structural Groups worksheet

(Appendix 3) is also useful in evaluating several

indicators. For other relevant quantitative

indicators, see Table 2 in the Concepts section. 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

pgppp

on many of the soil-related indicators can be found in the Rangeland Soil Quality

Information Sheets (NRCS Soil Quality Institute et al.2002;

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/soil_quality/land_management/range.html).

1. Rills

Rills (small erosional rivulets) are generally linear and do not necessarily follow the

microtopography that flow patterns do. They are formed through complex interactions between raindrops, overland flow, and the characteristics of the soil surface

(Bryan 1987). The potential for rills increases as the degree of disturbance (loss of

cover) and slope increases. Some soils have a greater potential for rill formation

than others (Bryan 1987, Quansah 1985). Therefore, it is important to establish

the degree of natural versus accelerated rill formation by interpretations made from

the soil survey, rangeland ecological site description, and the ecological reference

area. Generally, concentrated flow erosional processes are accelerated when the

distance between rills decreases and the depth and width of rills increase (Morgan

1986, Bryan 1987). 

2. Water Flow Patterns

Flow patterns are the path that water takes (i.e.,

accumulates) as it moves across the soil surface

during overland flow. Overland flow will

occur during rainstorms or snowmelt

when a surface crust impedes water

infiltration, or the infiltration capacity is

exceeded. These patterns are generally
Terracettes are benches of soil deposition behind obstacles caused by water movement (not wind). As the degree of soil movement by water increases, terracettes

become higher and more numerous and the area of soil deposition becomes larger.

Terracettes caused by livestock or wildlife movements on hillsides are not considered

erosional terracettes, thus they are not assessed in this protocol. However, these

terracettes can affect erosion by concentrating water flow and/or changing infiltration.

These effects are recorded with the appropriate indicators (e.g., water flow patterns,

compaction layer, and soil surface loss and degradation).

4. Bare Ground

Bare ground is exposed mineral or organic soil that is susceptible to raindrop splash

erosion, the initial form of most water-related erosion (Morgan 1986). It is the

remaining ground cover after accounting for ground surface covered by vegetation

(basal and canopy (foliar) cover), litter, standing dead vegetation, gravel/rock, and

visible biological crust (e.g., lichen, mosses, algae) (Weltz, et al. 1998). 

The amount and distribution of bare ground is one of the most

important contributors to site stability relative to the site potential; therefore, it is a direct indication of site susceptibility to

accelerated wind or water erosion (Smith and Wischmeier

1962, Morgan 1986, Benkobi, et al. 1993,

Blackburn and Pierson 1994, Pierson et al.

1994, Gutierrez and Hernandez 1996, Cerda

1999). In general, a site with bare soil present

in a few large patches will be less stable than a
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

while a healing gully is characterized by rounded banks, vegetation growing in the

bottom and on the sides (Anderson 1974), and a reduction in gully depth (Martin

and Morton 1993). Active headcuts may be a sign of accelerated erosion in a gully

even if the rest of the gully is showing signs of healing (Morgan 1986). 

6. Wind-Scoured, Blowout, and/or Depositional Areas

Accelerated wind erosion, on an otherwise stable soil, increases as the surface

crust (i.e., either physical, chemical, or biological crust) is worn by disturbance or

abrasion. Physical crusts are extremely important in protecting the soil surface

from wind erosion on many rangelands with low canopy (foliar) cover. The exposed

soil beneath these surface crusts is often weakly consolidated and vulnerable to

movement via wind (Chepil and Woodruff 1963). As wind velocity increases, soil

particles begin bouncing against each other in the saltation process. This abrasion

leads to suspension of fine particles into the wind stream where they may be

transported off the site (Chepil 1945, Gillette, et al. 1972, Gillette, et al. 1974,

Gillette and Walker 1977, Hagen 1984).

Wind erosion is reflected by wind-scoured or blowout

areas where the finer particles of the topsoil have

blown away, sometimes leaving residual gravel,

rock, or exposed roots on the soil surface

(Anderson 1974). They are generally

found in interspace areas with a close

correlation between soil cover/bare patch

size, soil texture, and degree of accelerated

erosion (Morgan 1986).
sediment to be deposited (Thurow, et al. 1988a).

The inherent capacity for litter movement on a soil is a function of its slope and

geomorphic stability. For example, alluvial fans and flood plains are active surfaces

over which water and sediments are moved in response to major storm events. The

amount of litter movement varies from large to small depending on the amount of

bare space typical of the plant community and the intensity of the storm. 

The size of litter moved by wind or water is also an indicator of the degree of litter

redistribution. In general, the greater distance that litter is moved from its point of

origin and the larger the size and/or amount of litter moved, the more the site is

being influenced by erosional processes. 

8. Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion

This indicator assesses the resistance of the surface of the soil to erosion.

Resistance depends on soil stability and on the spatial variability in soil stability

relative to vegetation and microtopographic features. The stability of

the soil surface is key to this indicator (Morgan 1986). Soil

surfaces may be stabilized by soil organic matter which has

been fully incorporated into aggregates at the soil surface,

adhesion of decomposing organic matter to the soil

surface, and biological crusts. The presence of

one or more of these factors is a good 

indicator of soil surface resistance to erosion

(Blackburn et al. 1992, Pierson et al. 1994).
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

stability will appear to retain their integrity until the water in the bottlecap is

agitated or gently swirled. Highly stable aggregates will retain their shape, even

when agitated indefinitely. For multiple samples, or where more precision is desired,

a simple soil stability kit can be used to generate a rating from one (unstable) to

six (stable) (Herrick et al. 2001) (Appendix 7). This indicator is more highly correlated with water erosion (Blackburn and Pierson 1994; Pierson et al. 1994) than

with wind erosion. However, susceptibility to wind erosion also declines with an

increase in soil organic matter (Fryrear et al. 1994) and biological crust cover

(Belnap and Gillette, 1998). Both are correlated with soil stability in water.

Biological crusts consist of microorganisms (e.g. algae, cyanobacteria) and nonvascular plants (e.g. mosses and lichens) that grow on or just below the soil surface.

Soil physical and chemical characteristics, along with seasonal precipitation patterns,

largely determine the dominant organisms comprising the crust. 

Biological crusts are important as cover and in stabilizing soil surfaces

(Bond and Harris 1964, Belnap and Gardner 1993, Eldridge

and Greene 1994). In some areas, depending on soil

characteristics, they may increase or reduce the infiltration of water through the soil surface or

enhance the retention of soil water (i.e.,

acting as living mulch). In general, the

relative importance of biological crusts

increases as annual precipitation and

potential vascular plant cover decreases. If
Chemical crusts rarely form in rangelands except on soils formed from particular

parent materials (e.g., salt desert shrub communities; see the soil survey that covers

the evaluation area and/or the ecological reference area) and in abandoned, irrigated

agricultural fields. Where they do occur, they can reduce infiltration and increase

overland water flow similar to physical crusts. They are usually identified by a

white color on the soil surface. 

Areas in which there is little to no soil present due to the presence of natural rock

cover (nearly 100 percent surface cover by stones) or there is continuous open

water (e.g., marshes in the Southeast) should be rated as “None to Slight.”

9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation 

The loss or degradation of part or all of the soil surface layer or horizon is an

indication of a loss in site potential (Dormaar and Willms 1998, Davenport et al.

1998). In most sites, the soil at and near the surface has the highest organic matter

and nutrient content. This generally controls the maximum rate of water infiltration

into the soil and is essential for successful seedling establishment

(Wood et al. 1997). As erosion increases, the potential for loss of

soil surface organic matter increases, resulting in further degradation of soil structure. Historic soil erosion may result in

complete loss of this layer (Satterlund and Adams

1992, O’Hara et al. 1993). In areas with limited

slope, where wind erosion does not occur, the

soil may remain in place, but all characteristics

that distinguish the surface from the subsurface
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

more textural components (e.g., Hennessey et al. 1986) may make identification of

appropriate reference areas difficult. 

10. Plant Community Composition and Distribution Relative

to Infiltration and Runoff

Vegetation growth form is an important determinant of infiltration rate and

interrill erosion (Thurow et al 1988a, b). The distribution of the amount and type

of vegetation has been found to be an important factor controlling spatial and

temporal variations in infiltration and interrill erosion rates on rangelands in

Nevada (Blackburn 1975; Blackburn and Wood 1990), Idaho (Johnson and

Gordon 1988, Blackburn and Wood 1990) and Texas (Wood and Blackburn

1984, Thurow et al. 1988a, b). 

Changes in plant community composition (see Appendix 3, Functional/Structural

Groups Sheet) and the distribution of species can influence (positively or negatively)

the ability of a site to capture and store precipitation. Plant rooting

patterns, litter production and associated decomposition

processes, basal area and spatial distribution can all affect

infiltration and/or runoff. In the Edwards Plateau in

Texas, shifts in plant composition between

bunchgrass and short grasses over time

have the greatest potential to influence

infiltration and soil erosion (Thurow et al.

1986, 1988a, b). An example of a 

composition change that reduces infiltration
A compaction layer is a structural change, not a textural change, as described in a

soil survey or observed at an ecological reference area. Compacted layers in rangelands are usually less than 6 inches below the soil surface. They are detected by

digging a small hole (generally less than 1-foot deep) and describing the soil structure and root morphology; this is done by a person with soils experience. These

layers may be detected in some soils with the use of a penetrometer (Larson and

Pierce 1993) or by simply probing the soil with a sharp rod or shovel and “feeling”

for the compaction layer (Barnes et al. 1971). However, any potential compaction

layer should be confirmed using multiple indicators, including direct observation

of physical features. Those physical features include such things as platy or blocky,

dense soil structure over less dense soil layers, horizontal root growth, and

increased density (measured by weighing a known volume of oven-dry soil)

(Blake and Hartge 1986). Increased resistance to a probe can be simply due to

lower soil moisture or higher clay content. 

12. Functional/Structural Groups

Functional/structural groups are a suite of species that are grouped

together, on an ecological site basis, because of similar shoot

(height and volume) or root (fibrous vs. tap) structure, photosynthetic pathways, nitrogen fixing ability, or life

cycle (Chapin 1993, Dawson and Chapin 1993,

Solbrig et al. 1996). Functional composition

and functional diversity are the principal factors

explaining plant productivity, plant percent

nitrogen, plant total nitrogen, and light penetration
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Instead, the comparison should be to communities in the reference state (in the

state and transition model for the ecological site). For more information, please

see the Concepts section. 

The Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet can accommodate changing or

adding functional group categories for different ecological sites (see Tables 6 and 7).

Functional groups that are now present, but were not original components of the

site (e.g., weeds, introduced plants), need to be identified on this sheet.

The number of species in each functional group is also considered when selecting

the appropriate rating category on the Evaluation Sheet. If the numbers of species

in many of the functional/structural plant groups have been greatly reduced, this

may be an indication of loss of biotic integrity. Both the presence of functional

groups and the number of species within the groups have a significant effect on

ecosystem processes (Tilman et al. 1997). 

Non-vascular plants (e.g., biological crusts) are included in

this example since they are an important component of

this Great Basin ecological site. Biological crusts are

components of many ecosystems and should

be included in this evaluation when

appropriate.

Dotted Prairie

gayfeather coneflower

Leadplant

Leguminous Perennial W

Shrubs Forbs S
py g p

and transport of soil (Hester et al. 1997). Litter biomass represents a

significant obstruction to runoff (Thurow et al. 1988a or b).

The amount of litter (herbaceous and woody) present is compared to the

amount that would be expected for the same type of growing conditions

in the reference state per the Reference Sheet. Litter is directly related to

weather and the degree of biomass utilization each year. Therefore, climatic influences (e.g., drought, wet years) must be carefully considered in

determining the rating for the amount of litter. Be careful not to confuse

standing-dead plants (plant material that is not detached from the plant

and is still standing) with litter during this evaluation.

Some plant communities have increased litter quantities relative to the

site potential and current weather conditions. An example is the increased

accumulation of litter in exotic grass communities (e.g., cheatgrass) compared to native shrub steppe plant communities. In this case, the litter in

excess of the expected amount results in a downgraded rating for

the site. Note in the Comments section on the Evaluation Sheet

for this indicator if the litter is undergoing decomposition

(darker color) or oxidation (whitish color which may also be

an indication of fungal growth). In addition to

amount, litter size may be important because

larger litter tends to decompose more slowly

and is more resistant to runoff. If litter size is

considered as part of this indicator, it should be

addressed in the Reference Sheet (Appendix 2). 

Astragalus Lupine

Phlox Arrowleaf Biscuitroo

Balsamroot

Cheatgrass

Moss Lichens

Biological Annual Perennial Perennia

Crust Grass Forbs–Not Forbs–N 

N fixers Fixers 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

structure and function, but not above-ground biomass production. 

As with the other indicators, it is important to consider all possible local and

landscape level explanations for differences in production (e.g., runoff/run-on

due to landscape position, weather, regional location, or different soils within an

ecological site) before attributing production differences to differences in other site

characteristics. 

16. Invasive Plants

Invasive plants are plants that are not part of (if exotic), or are a minor component

of (if native), the original plant community or communities that have the potential

to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species

that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g. short-term response to

drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. This indicator deals with plants that

are invasive to the evaluation area. These plants may or may not be

noxious and may or may not be exotic.

Invasives can include noxious plants (i.e., plants that

are listed by a State because of their unfavorable

economic or ecological impacts), nonnative, and native plants. Native invasive

plants (e.g., pinyon pine or juniper into

sagebrush steppe) must be assessed by

comparing current status with potential
becomes a basic measure of reproductive potential for sexually reproducing plants,

and clonal production (e.g., tillers) for vegetatively reproducing plants. Since

reproductive capability of perennial plants is greatly influenced by weather, it is

important to determine departure from the expected value in the Reference Sheet

by evaluating management effects on this indicator. Ecological reference areas

provide a good benchmark to separate weather versus management influences

on this indicator. 

Seed production can be assessed by comparing the number of seedstalks and/or

number of seeds per seedstalk of native or seeded plants (not including invasives)

in the evaluation area with what is expected as documented on the Reference

Sheet. Mueggler (1975) recommended comparison of seedstalk numbers or culm

length on grazed and ungrazed bluebunch wheatgrass plants as a measure of plant

recruitment potential. Seed production is related to plant vigor since healthy

plants are better able to produce adequate quantities of viable seed than are plants

that are stressed or decadent (Hanson and Stoddart 1940). 

For plants that reproduce vegetatively, the number and distribution of tillers or rhizomes is assessed relative to the expected

production of these reproductive structures as documented in

the Reference Sheet. 

Recruitment is not assessed as a part of this

indicator since plant recruitment from seed is

an episodic event in many rangeland ecological
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Examples of two optional indicators, Biological Crusts and Vertical Vegetation

Structure, are included in Table 8. Both are partially addressed by Indicator 12

(Functional/Structural Groups); however, many users find that this indicator often

becomes heavily focused on plant community composition. Both optional indicators

are also partially reflected by Indicator 4 (Bare Ground). Soil stabilized by visible

biological crust (e.g., lichens, mosses, and algae) is not considered bare ground.

Table 8. Optional indicator and generic descriptors for biological crusts and vegetation structure.

Departure from Reference Sheet

Indicator Extreme Moderate Moderate Slight to None to

to Total to Extreme Moderate Slight

Biological 

Crusts

Found only in protected

areas, very limited suite

of functional groups.

Largely absent, occurring

mostly in protected areas.

In protected areas and

with a minor component

in interspaces.

Evident throughout the

site but continuity is

broken.

Largely intact and

nearly matches site

capability.

Vertical

Vegetation

Structure

Number of height classes

greatly reduced and/or

most height classes lost

and/or dramatic increase

in number of height

classes expected for 

site and/or dramatic

reduction in the number

or density of individuals

across several height

classes.

Number of height classes

significantly reduced

and/or more than one

height class lost and/or

addition of more than one

height class not expected

for site and/or significant

reduction in the number or

density of individuals across

several height classes.

Number of height classes

moderately reduced and/

or one height class lost

and/or addition of height

class not expected for 

site and/or moderate

reduction in the number

or density of individuals

across several height

classes.

Number of height

classes slightly reduced

and/or slight reduction

in the number or density

of individuals across

several height classes.

Number and type of

height classes and

the number and 

density of individuals

in each height class

closely match that

expected for the site.
Step 5. Determine the Functional Status of the Three

Rangeland Health Attributes (REQUIRED)

Complete the Evaluation Sheet (Appendix 1, back page).

The interpretation process is the critical link between observations of indicators

and determining the degree of departure from the Reference Sheet for each health

attribute in an evaluation area. The interpretation of the indicators and the selection of the degree of departure of the rangeland health attributes (soil/site stability,

hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) are made at the bottom of Page 2 of the

Evaluation Sheet. This summary rating is made by reviewing the indicator ratings

and comments from all of the sheets, to arrive at a single degree of departure from

the Reference Sheet for each attribute. 

A “preponderance of evidence” approach is used to select the appropriate departure category for each attribute. This decision is based, in part, on where the

majority of the indicators for each attribute fall under the five categories. For example, if four of the soil/site stability indicators are

in the “moderate” and six are in the “slight to moderate” departure from the ecological site description/ERA categories, the

soil/site stability attribute departure would be rated

as “slight to moderate” assuming that the evaluator(s) interpretation of other information

and local ecological knowledge supported

this rating. However, if one of the four
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4
d g) dg

or determine if the trend is satisfactory under existing management. Areas in which

one or more attributes is rated “Extreme to Total” or “Moderate to Extreme”

usually have easily identified severe resource problems and have often crossed an

ecological threshold. The cost effectiveness of management actions in these areas

is often lower than in areas that have not yet crossed a threshold. Changes in

management are not appropriate based solely on the evaluation of range health

per the procedures in this document. 



y, , J, J, j, g

in the American Southwest: approaching ecosystem complexity with conceptual state-and-transition

models. Environmental Management. 34:38–51.

Blackburn, W.H. 1975. Factors influencing infiltration and sediment production of semiarid rangelands.

Nevada Water Resources Res. 11:929–937.

Blackburn,W.H. and M.K. Wood. 1990. Influence of soil frost on infiltration of shrub coppice dune

and dune interspace soils in southern Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist. 50:41–46.

Blackburn, W.H. and F.B. Pierson Jr. 1994. Sources of variation in interrill erosion on rangelands. In

W.H. Blackburn, F.B. Pierson Jr., G.E. Schuman, and R. Zartman (eds). Variability in rangeland water

erosion processes, Pages 1-10. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America.

Blackburn, W.H., F.B. Pierson, C.L. Hanson, T.L. Thurow, and A.L. Hanson. 1992. The spatial and

temporal influences of vegetation on surface soil factors in semiarid rangelands. Transactions of the

ASAE 35:479–486.

Blake, G.R. and K.H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk density. In A. Klute (ed).

Methods of soil analysis. Part I. Second Edition, Pages 363-75.

Agron. Monogr. 9. Madison, Wisconsin: ASA and SSSA.

Bond, R.D. and J.R. Harris. 1964. The influence

of the mircoflora on the physical properties of

soils. I. Effects associated with filamentous

algae and fungi. Australian Journal of Soil

Research 2:111–122.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Cooper, J.P. (ed.) 1975. Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Davenport, D.W., D.D. Breshears, B.P. Wilcox, and C.D. Allen. 1998. Viewpoint: sustainability of

piñon-juniper ecosystems—a unifying perspective of soil erosion thresholds. Journal of Range

Management 51:231–240.

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of plant Synecology. Harper & Row, New York,

New York.

Dawson, T.E. and F.S. Chapin, III. 1993. Grouping plants by their form-function characteristics as an

avenue for simplification in scaling between leaves. Pages 313-322, In: Ehleringer, J.R. and Field, C.B.

(eds.), Scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Dormar, J.F. and W.D. Willms. 1998. Effect of forty-four years of grazing

on fescue grassland soils. Journal of Range Management 51:122–26.

Eldridge, D.J. and S.B. Greene. 1994. Microbiotic soil

crusts: a review of their roles in soil and ecological

processes in rangelands of Australia. Australian

Journal of Soil Research 32:389–415.
Gutierrez, J. and I. I. Hernandez. 1996. Runoff and interrill erosion as affected by grass cover in a

semi-arid rangeland of northern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments 34:287–295.

Hagen, L.J. 1984. Soil aggregate abrasion by impacting sand and soil particles. Transactions of the

American Society of Agricultural Engineering 27:805–808.

Hansen, W.R. and L.A. Stoddart. 1940. Effects of grazing upon bunch wheatgrass. Amer. Soc. Agron. J.

32:278–289.

Harper, J.L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York.

Hassink, J., L.A. Bouwman, K.B. Zwart, and L. Brussaard. 1993. Relationships between habitable pore

space, soil biota, and mineralization rates in grassland soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 25:47–55.

Heady, H.F. and R.D. Child. 1994. Rangeland ecology and management. Westview Press, San

Francisco, California.

Hennessy, J.T., B. Kies, R.P. Gibbens, and J.M. Tromble. 1986.

Soil sorting by forty-five years of wind erosion on a southern

New Mexico range. Soil Science Society of America Journal

50:391–394.

Hennessy, J.T., R.P. Gibbens, J.M. Tromble,

and M. Cardenas. 1983. Vegetation changes

from 1935 to 1980 in mesquite dunelands

and former grasslands of southern New Mexico.

Journal of Range Management 36:370–374.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

ggyg ppyp

Costanza, B. G. Norton, and B. D. Haskell (eds.), Ecosystem health—new goals for environmental

management, Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Lacey J., P. Husby, and G. Handle. 1990. Observations on spotted and diffuse knapweek invasion into

ungrazed bunchgrass communities in western Montana. Rangelands 12:30–32.

Lackey, R. T. 1998. Ecosystem management: paradigms and prattle, people and prizes. Renewable

Resources Journal 16:8–13.

Larson, W.E. and F.J. Pierce. 1993. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management. In J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart (eds). Defining soil quality for

a sustainable environment, SSSA Special Publication Number 35. Pages 27-51.

Martin, S.C. and H.L. Morton. 1993. Mesquite control increases grass density and reduces soil loss in

southern Arizona. Journal of Range Management 46:170–175.

Morgan, R.P.C. 1986. Soil erosion and conservation.

Davidson, D.A. (ed.), Longman Scientific and

Technical, Wiley, New York.

Morgan, R.P.C., K. McIntyre, A.W.

Vickers, J.N. Quinton, and R.J.

Rickson. 1997. A rainfall simulation

study of soil erosion on rangeland in

Swaziland. Soil Technology 11:291–99.
Pierson, F.B., W. H. Blackburn, S.S. Van Vactor, and J.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning small scale spatial

variability of runoff and erosion on sagebrush rangeland. Water Resources Bulletin 30:1081–1089.

Pierson, F.B., K.E. Spaeth, M.A. Weltz, and D.H. Carlson. 2002. Hydrologic response of diverse western

rangelands. Journal of Range Management 55:558–570.

Pimm, S.L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature. 307:321–326.

Puigdefábregas, J. and G. Sánchez. 1996. Geomorphological implications of vegetation patchiness on

semi-arid slopes. In Anderson, M.G., and S.M. Brooks. Advances in Hillslope Processes. 

Pages 1029-1060. Vol. 2. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pye, K. 1987. Aeolian dust and dust deposits. Academic Press. San Diego, California.

Pyke, D.A. 1995. Population diversity with special reference to rangeland plants. Pages 21-32, In West,

N.E. (ed.), Biodiversity of rangelands. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, Vol. IV, College

of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan.

Pyke, D.A., J.E. Herrick, P. Shaver, and M. Pellant. 2002.

Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative

assessment. Journal of Range Management 55:584–297.

Quansah, C. 1985. The effect of soil type, slope,

flow rate and their interactions on detachment

by overland flow with and without rain. Pages

19-28 In Jungerius, P.D. (ed.), Soils and

geomorphology. Catena Supplement, 6,

Catena Verlag, Germany.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Sheley, R.L., J.K. Petroff, and M.M. Borman. 1999. Introduction. In R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff (eds).

Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Pages 1-3. Oregon State University Press,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Smith, D.D. and W.H. Wischmeier. 1962. Rainfall erosion. Advances in Agronomy 14:109-148.

Smith, E. L. 1999. The myth of range/watershed health. Pp. 6-11, In Riparian and watershed management

in the interior northwest: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oregon State University Extension Service

Special Report 1001, Corvallis, Oregon.

Society for Range Management. 1999. A glossary of terms used in range management. Society for Range

Management. Denver, Colorado. 20p.

Soil Science Society of America. 1997. Glossary of soil science terms. Soil Science

Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 138p.

Solbrig, O.T., E. Medina, and J.F. Silva. 1996.

Biodiversity and savanna ecosystem processes: a global

perspective. Springer, New York.
Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, and C.A. Taylor, Jr. 1988b. Some vegetation responses to selected livestock grazing strategies, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of Range Management 41:108–114.

Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature. 367:363–367.

Tilman, D., J. Knops, D. Wedin, P. Reich, M. Ritchie, and E. Siemann 1997. The influence of functional

diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science Vol. 277:1300–1302.

Tiscareño-Lopez, M., V.L. Lopes, J.J. Stone and L.J. Lane. 1993. Sensitivity analysis of the WEPP watershed model for rangeland applications. 1. Hillslope Processes. Transactions of the ASAE 36:1659–72.

Tongway, D. J. 1994. Rangeland soil condition assessment manual. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne,

Australia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. National range

and pasture handbook. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1973. Determination of erosion condition class, Form

7310-12. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. 1993. Riparian area

management: process for assessing proper

functioning condition. Technical Reference

1737-9. Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Whitford, W.G. 1988. Decomposition and nutrient cycling in disturbed arid ecosystems. Pages 136-161,

In Allen, E.B. (ed.) The reconstruction of disturbed arid lands. American Association for the

Advancement of Science, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Whitford, W.G. 1996. The importance of the biodiversity of soil biota in arid ecosystems. Biodiversity

and Conservation 5:185–195.

Whitford, W. G. 2002. Ecology of Desert Systems. San Diego: Academic Press.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems, 2nd edition. Macmillan, New York.

Wicklum, D. and R. W. Davies. 1995. Ecosystem health and integrity. Canadian Journal of Botany

73:997–1000.

Willat, S.T. and D.M. Pullar. 1983. Changes in soil physical properties under grazed pastures.

Australian Journal of Soil Research 22:343–348.

Wood, M.K. and W.H. Blackburn. 1984. Vegetation and soil responses to

cattle grazing systems in the Texas Rolling Plains. Journal of

Range Management. 37:303–308.

Wood, M.K. E. Eckert Jr., W.H. Blackburn,

and F.F. Peterson. 1997. Influence of

crusting soil surfaces on emergence and

establishment of crested wheatgrass,

squirreltail, Thurber needlegrass and

fourwing saltbush. Journal of Range

Management 35:282–87.
Badland: A land type consisting of steep or very steep barren land, usually broken by an intricate maze

of narrow ravines, sharp crests, and pinnacles resulting from serious erosion of soft geologic materials

(SRM 1999).

Bare ground (bare soil): All land surface not covered by vegetation, rock, or litter (SRM 1999). As

used in this document, visible biological crusts and standing dead vegetation are included in cover

estimates or measurements and therefore are not bare ground (e.g., mineral soil). 

Basal area (plants): The cross-sectional area of the stem or stems of a plant or of all plants in a stand.

Herbaceous and small woody plants are measured at or near the ground level; larger woody plants are

measured at breast or other designated height. Synonym: basal cover (SRM 1999).

Basal cover (plants): The percent of soil surface covered by plant bases. Synonym: basal area (SRM 1999).

Biological crust: Microorganisms (e.g., lichens, algae, cyanobacteria, microfungi) and non-vascular

plants (e.g., mosses, lichens) that grow on or just below the soil surface.

Synonym: microbiotic crust and cryptogamic crust.

Biomass (plants): The total amount of living plants above

and below ground in an area at a given time (SRM 1999). As

used in this document, biomass refers only to parts of

standing living plants above ground, and not

the roots.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

single state.

Compaction layer: A near surface layer of dense soil caused by the repeated impact on or disturbance of

the soil surface. When soil is compacted, soil grains are rearranged to decrease the void space and bring

them into closer contact with one another, thereby increasing the bulk density (SSSA 1997).

Composition: The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area; it may be

expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. Synonym: Species composition (SRM 1999).

Cool-season plant: A plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth during the late fall,

winter, and early spring. Cool season grasses generally exhibit the C-3 photosynthetic pathway. cf.

warm-season plants (SRM 1999).

Cover: Percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include live

and standing dead vegetation, litter, biological crust, cobble, gravel, stones, and bedrock. Ground cover

plus bare ground would total 100 percent. Synonym: ground cover.

Decomposition: The biochemical breakdown of organic matter into

its original compounds and nutrients.

Deposition area: An area offsite from where the

original soil erosion occurred that now has

the soil deposits from the original soil

erosion area.
Ecological reference area: An area representing a single ecological site in which ecological processes are

functioning within a normal range of variability and the plant community has adequate resistance to

and resistance from most disturbances. These areas do not need to be pristine, historically unused lands

(e.g., climax plant communities or relict areas).

Ecological site: A kind of land with specific physical characteristics which differs from other kinds of

land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its response to management. Apparently synonymous with ecological type used by USDA Forest Service. Synonym: Rangeland

Ecological Site (SRM 1999).

Ecological site description: Description of the soils, uses, and potential of a kind of land with specific

physical characteristics to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation.

Ecosystem: Organisms together with their abiotic environment, forming an interacting system, inhabiting

an identifiable space (SRM 1999).

Energy flow: Conversion of sunlight to plant and animal matter; one of the ecological

processes.

Erosion: Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments

by water, wind, ice, gravity; the land surface worn away by

running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including

such processes as gravitational creep (SRM 1999).

Evaluation area: The area (generally 1/2 to 1

acre in size) where the evaluation of rangeland

health attributes takes place. 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

of expectations for the ecological site.

Geomorphology: The science that studies the evolution of the earth’s surface. The science of landforms

(SSSA 1997).

Grass: Members of the plant family Poaceae (SRM 1999).

Ground cover: Percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include

live and standing dead vegetation, litter, biological crust, cobble, gravel, stones, and bedrock. Ground

cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent.

Ground cover (as used in this document): Percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering

the land surface. It may include live and standing dead vegetation, biological soil crusts, litter, cobble,

gravel, stones, and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent.

Gully: A furrow, channel, or miniature valley, usually with steep sides through which water commonly

flows during and immediately after rains or snowmelt (SRM 1999). Small channels

eroded by concentrated water flow.

Headcut: Abrupt elevation drops in the channel of a

gully that accelerate erosion as it undercuts the gully

floor and migrates upstream. 

Half-shrub: A perennial plant with a

woody base whose annually produced

stems die each year (SRM 1999).
Invader: Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original vegetation of a specific

range site and will invade or increase following disturbance or continued heavy grazing (SRM 1999).

Invasive plants: Plants that are not part of (if exotic), or are a minor component of (if native), the original plant community or communities that have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant

species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management

interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g. short-term response to

drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants.

Inventory (rangeland inventory): (1) The systematic acquisition and analysis of resource information

needed for planning and management of rangeland; (2) the information acquired through rangeland

inventory. (SRM 1999).

Life form: Characteristic form or appearance of a species at maturity (e.g., tree, shrub, herb) (SRM 1999).

Litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, essentially the

freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetal material (SRM 1999). In

this document, it includes persistent and non-persistent organic

matter that is in contact with the soil surface. 

Microsite: A spatial unit that contains only a few biological individuals that has a distinct climate or

soil from the surrounding units (e.g., the

spaces between plants relative to the spaces

under plants).
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

organisms.

Oxidation: The loss of one or more electrons by an ion or molecule (SSSA 1997). Oxidation is a chemical

process of decomposition whereby nutrients are released into the atmosphere instead of into the soil.

Oxidation commonly increases as aridity increases.

Pedestal (erosional): Plants or rocks that appear elevated as a result of soil loss by wind or water erosion

(does not include plant or rock elevation as a result of non-erosional processes such as frost heaving). 

Perennial plant: A plant that has a life span of three or more years (USDA 1997).

Physical crust: Thin surface layers induced by impact of raindrops on bare soil causing the soil surface

to seal and absorb less water.

Plant decadence: In a plant community, decadence refers to an overabundance of dead or dying plants

relative to what is expected for a site given the natural range of variability in disease, climate, and

management influences. 

Plant mortality: The death of a plant, or in a plant community,

the death of a number of plants in the community. 

Potential natural community (PNC): The

biotic community that would become

established on an ecological site if all

successional sequences were completed

without interferences by man under the
Range condition: The present status of vegetation of a range site in relation to the climax (natural

potential) plant community for that site. It is an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds,

proportions, and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the climax plant community

for the site (SRM 1999).

Rangeland: Land on which the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs and is managed as a natural ecosystem. If plants are introduced,

they are managed similarly. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, many deserts,

tundra, alpine communities, marshes, and wet meadows (SRM 1999). The authors of this document

also include oak and pinyon-juniper woodlands in this definition. 

Rangeland health: The degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and air, as well as

the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem, are balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as

maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a locale, including normal

variability (SRM 1999).

Recruitment: The successful entry of new individuals into the breeding

population.

Reference state: The reference state is the state where the

functional capacities represented by soil/site stability,

hydrologic function, and biotic integrity are

performing at an optimum level under the

natural disturbance regime. This state usually
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

jumping action of soil particles 0.1 to 0.5 mm in diameter by wind, usually at a height of <15 cm above

the soil surface, for relatively short distances; the rolling, bouncing or jumping action of mineral grains,

gravel, stones, or soil aggregates affected by the energy of following water; the bouncing or jumping

movement of material downslope in response to gravity (SSSA 1997).

Shrub: A plant that has persistent, woody stems and a relatively low growth habit, and that generally

produces several basal shoots instead of a single bole. It differs from a tree by its low stature (generally

less than 5 meters, or 16 feet) and non-arborescent form (SRM 1999).

Similarity index (rangeland): The present state of vegetation and soil protection on an ecological site in

relation to the historic climax plant community. Synonym: range condition. (SRM 1999).

Soil aggregates: A group of primary soil particles that cohere to each other more strongly than to other

surrounding particles (SSSA 1997).

Soil association: A kind of map unit used in soil surveys comprised of delineations, each of which

shows the size, shape, and location of a landscape unit composed of two or more kinds of component

soils or component soils and miscellaneous areas, plus allowable inclusions

in either case. The individual bodies of component soils and

miscellaneous areas are large enough to be delineated at

the scale of 1:24,000. Several bodies of each kind of

component soil or miscellaneous area are apt

to occur in each delineation, and they

occur in a fairly repetitive and describable

pattern (SSSA 1997).
yypppg 

surveys are classified according to the kind and intensity of field examination (SSSA 1997).

Soil texture: The relative proportions of the various soil separates (sand, silt, and clay) in a soil (SSSA 1997).

Species composition: The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. It

may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. (SRM 1999).

Standing dead vegetation: The total amount of dead plant material, in aboveground parts, per unit of

space, at a given time. (USDA 1997). This component includes all standing dead vegetation produced

in the previous (not the current) growing season that is not detached from the plant and is still standing.

State: A state is comprised of an integrated soil and vegetation unit having one or more biological communities that occur on a particular ecological site and that are functionally similar with respect to the

three attributes (soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) under natural disturbance

regimes. See Concepts section.

Structure (soils): The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into

secondary units or peds. The secondary units are characterized on the basis

of size, shape, and grade (degree of distinctiveness) (SSSA 1997).

Structure (vegetation): The height and area occupied by different plants or life forms in a community.

Subdominant (subordinate) species:

Daubenmire (1968) defines subordinate species

as “those species, which if removed singly, would
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

that function properly, and the capacity to provide values and commodities to a degree that external

inputs are required to restore the health of the land (NRC 1994).

Vascular plants: Higher plants with vessels that conduct sap throughout the plant.

Vesicular crust: A type of physical crust that contains numerous small air pockets or spaces similar to a

sponge causing a reduction in infiltration.

Viable seed: Wildland plant seed that is capable of germination given appropriate environmental conditions.

Warm season plant: A plant which makes most or all its growth during the spring, summer, and fall,

and is usually dormant in winter; a plant that exhibits the C-4 photosynthetic pathway (SRM 1999).

Water cycle: The capture, storage, and redistribution of precipitation. Synonym: hydrologic cycle.

Weather: The current state of the atmosphere with regard to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture,

pressure, etc.

Well-managed rangelands: Rangelands that have properly functioning ecological processes, biotic integrity, and soil stability

associated with human uses of the land.

Wind-scoured area: Areas, generally in interspaces, where the finer soil particles have

blown away sometimes leaving residual

gravel, rock, or exposed roots on the soil surface.

hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Average annual precipitation _____inches Seasonal distribution _________________________________

Recent weather (last 2 years) (1) drought _____, (2) normal _____, or (3) wet _____.

Wildlife use, livestock use (intensity and season of allotted use), and recent disturbances: 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Off-site influences on evaluation area:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criteria used to select this particular evaluation area as REPRESENTATIVE (specific info. and factors considered; degree of “representativeness”)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other remarks (continue on back if necessary)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reference: (1) Reference Sheet:_____________________; Author:_________________________________; Creation Date:_________

or (2) Other (e.g., name and date of ecological site description; locations of ecological reference area(s))____________________
12. Functional/structional groups

13. Plant mortality/decadence

14. Litter amount

15. Annual production

16. Invasive plants

17. Reproductive capability of

 perennial plants

S

S

S

S

S

S

H

H

H

H

H

H

B

B

B

B

B

B

Attribute Rating

Justification

Hydrologic

Function:

E-T

H (10 indicators):

Hydrologic Function

Rating:

M-E M S-M N-S

Attribute Rating

Justification

Soil & Site

Stability:

E-T

S (10 indicators):

Soil & Site Stability

Rating:

M-E M S-M N-S

Attribute Rating

Justification

Biotic

Integrity:

E-T

B (9 indicators):

Biotic Integrity

Rating:

M-E M S-M N-S
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Average annual precipitation _____inches Seasonal distribution _________________________________

Recent weather (last 2 years) (1) drought _____, (2) normal _____, or (3) wet _____.

Wildlife use, livestock use (intensity and season of allotted use), and recent disturbances: 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Off-site influences on evaluation area:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criteria used to select this particular evaluation area as REPRESENTATIVE (specific info. and factors considered; degree of “representativeness”)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other remarks (continue on back if necessary)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reference: (1) Reference Sheet:_____________________; Author:_________________________________; Creation Date:_________

or (2) Other (e.g., name and date of ecological site description; locations of ecological reference area(s))____________________

8-12

X

Summer thunderstorms dominate

Wildlife use is dominated by pronghorn antelope in the winter. Livestock use was extremely heavy yearlong during 1900-1930. Last 50 years, livestock use

has been cow/calf moderate yearlong use.

None

Area is located near a pasture key area. It is located in the center of the ecological site and represents the typical amount of livestock, wildlife and

recreational uses on this area. This ecological site dominates this pasture. The area is 3/4 of a mile from the closest water source.

Limy SD—42B J. Christensen 03/23/2002

Limy Ecological Site

042XB999NM, June 2001
12. Functional/structional groups

13. Plant mortality/decadence

14. Litter amount

15. Annual production

16. Invasive plants

17. Reproductive capability of

 perennial plants

S

S

S

S

S

S

H

H

H

H

H

H

B

B

B

B

B

B

Attribute Rating

Justification

Hydrologic

Function:

E-T

H (10 indicators):

Hydrologic Function

Rating:

M-E M S-M N-S

Attribute Rating

Justification

Soil & Site

Stability:

E-T

S (10 indicators):

Soil & Site Stability

Rating:

M-E M S-M N-S

Attribute Rating

Justification

Biotic

Integrity:

E-T

B (9 indicators):

Biotic Integrity

Rating:

M-E M S-M N-S

M

S-M

M-E

S-M

N-S

S-M

Subdominate group basically gone (warm season stoloniferous grass) and Subdominate group (warm

season narrow leaf bunchgrass) and Minor group (Evergreen subshrub) have

Very little litter is on the site for the time of year and rainfall for the year

Production is about 70% of expected

Plants show some signs of stress that will reduce seed production and stolon production

this year

Although there is

some active erosion

in flow patterns,

most is old and

healing. Lots of

water leaving the

site, but not much

erosion. All erosion

occuring as concentrated flow.

9

7 11

84 6

2135

M

Lots of water 

leaving the site.

Runoff is increasing

and all litter is

being washed away.

14

10 9

8 4 11

2135

M-E

Shift in functional

structural groups is

significant, justifying

moderate rating.

17

14 12 15 16

8 9 13 11

M


hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

10. Effect of plant community composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration

and runoff: 

11. Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction

on this site):

12. Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground production or live foliar cover (specify)

using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to; place dominants, subdominants and “others”

on separate lines):

Dominants:

Sub-dominants:

Other:

13. Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence): 

14. Average percent litter cover ( _______%) and depth ( ______ inches).

15. Expected annual production (this is TOTAL above-ground production, not just forage production):

__________ - __________ lbs./acre or kg/ha (choose one)

16. Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states

and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and

growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years

(e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing

what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site.:

17. Perennial plant reproductive capability:
9. Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type and A-horizon color and thickness): 2-4 inch dark brown A horizon with medium

granular structure (Otero County Armesa series description refers to platy structure; probably not from a true reference site).

10. Effect of plant community composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration

and runoff: High grass canopy and basal cover and small gaps between plants should reduce raindrop impact and slow overland flow, providing

increased time for infiltration to occur. High root density of blue grama can limit infiltration. High herbaceous vegetation on this site will result in

less rain necessary to sustain this site because more water is retained.

11. Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction

on this site): None

12. Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground production or live cover (specify) using

symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to; place dominants, subdominants and “others” on

separate lines): 

Dominants: Blue grama > Black grama > 

Sub-dominants: warm season bunchgrasses > Yucca = shrubs >> 

Other: sub-shrubs = succulents; Forbs 0 – 8 % depending on the year.

13. Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):

Grasses will nearly always show some mortality and decadence

14. Average percent litter cover ( _______%) and depth ( ______ inches). 20 – 25 % litter cover and 0.25 inch depth

15. Expected annual production (this is TOTAL above-ground production, not just forage production):

__________ - __________ #/acre or kg/ha (choose one) 650 to 1200 pounds/acre based on ecological site description. Could be even higher on

particularly good years.

16. Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states

and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and

growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years

(e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing

what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site.: Possibly creosote bush which is an invader on similar ecological

sites; snakeweed is cyclical, so not regarded as an invasive plant on this ecological site.

17. Perennial plant reproductive capability: all species should be capable of reproducing

*This example includes the absolute minimum information required. Ideally, Reference Sheets should include at least as much information as is included in the “Standard Example” on the next page.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

ground. Within this range, lower slopes are expected to have less bare ground than steeper slopes. Upper end of precip range (10) will also hav

less bare ground. Canopy gaps generally less than 12 inches in diameter in the intervals between natural disturbance events. Bare ground would be

expected to increase to 80% or more the first year following wildfire but to decrease to prefire levels within 2–5 years depending on climate and

other disturbances. Multi-year droughts can also cause bare ground to increase to 30%.

5. Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies: Gullies are rare and would only be present when a high intensity summer thunderstorm occurs after wildfires, with high levels of natural herbivory, extended drought, or combinations of these disturbances.

6. Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas: Wind erosion is minimal. Moderate wind erosion can occur when disturbance

such as severe wildfires, high levels of natural herbivory, extended drought, or combinations of these disturbances. After rain events, exposed soil

surfaces form a physical crust that tends to reduce wind erosion.

7. Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel): Litter movement consists primarily of redistribution of fine

litter (herbaceous plant material) in flow patterns for distances of 1–3 feet on 2–15% slopes, 4–6 feet on 15–30% slopes, and 7–10 feet on 30–50%

slopes. After wildfires, high levels of natural herbivory, extended drought, or combinations of these disturbances, size of litter and distance litter

moves can increase with coarse woody litter and fine litter moving up to 10' (2–15% slope); 25' (15–30% slope); 100' (30–50% slope).

8. Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages – most sites will show a range of values): Values o

4.5–5.5 under canopies and in intercanopy spaces.

9. Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type and strength of structure, and A-horizon color and thickness): Surface

layer is light brown and 6–7 inches thick with moderate granular structure. Loss of several millimeters of soil may occur immediately after a high

intensity wildfire, high levels of natural herbivory, extended drought, or combinations of these disturbances.

10. Effect of plant community composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff

Perennial plants and especially sagebrush capture snow, increasing soil water availability in the spring. High bunchgrass density increases infiltratio

by improving soil structure and slowing runoff. Loss of sagebrush after a high intensity wildfire reduces snow accumulation in the winter, reducing

the depth of soil water recharge negatively affecting growth and production of deep rooted forbs and perennial grasses. This reduced soil water

recharge is part of the site dynamics if exotics or other management actions don’t delay the succession back to a sagebrush-grass plant community.
climate and plant production increases to postdisturbance levels in one to five growing seasons.

15. Expected annual production (this is TOTAL above-ground production, not just forage production): 400 lbs/ac in low precip years,

600 lbs/ac in average precip years and 800 lbs/ac in above average precip years #/acre. After wildfires, high levels of natural herbivory, extended

drought, or combinations of these disturbances, can cause production to be significantly reduced ( 100–200 lbs per ac. the first growing season

following a wildfire) and recover slowly under below average precipitation regimes.

16. Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states

and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and

growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years

(e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing

what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site.: Cheatgrass is the greatest threat to dominate this site after

disturbance (primarily wildfires but disturbances also include high levels of natural herbivory and/or extended drought). Exotic mustards and

Russian thistle may dominate soon after disturbance but are eventually replaced as dominants by cheatgrass. Hoary cress, Russian knapweed, bur

buttercup and tall whitetop may meet the definition of an invasive species for this site in the future, but do not currently meet the criteria of being

a threat to dominate the site after the disturbance.

17. Perennial plant reproductive capability: Only limitations to reproductive capability are weather-related and natural disease or herbivory that

reduces reproductive capability.


hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Noxious Weeds

Invasive Plants

Biological Crust3

Indicate whether each “structural/functional group” is a Dominant (D) (roughly 40-100 % composition), a Sub-dominant (S) (roughly 10-40%

composition) a Minor Component (M) (roughly 2-10% composition), or a Trace Component (T) (<2% composition) based on weight or cover

composition in the area of interest (e.g., “Actual2

” column) relative to the “Potential1” column derived from information found in the ecological

site/description and/or at the ecological reference area.

Biological Crust3 dominance is evaluated solely on cover, not composition by weight.
Noxious Weeds

Invasive Plants

Biological Crust3T T

Indicate whether each “structural/functional group” is a Dominant (D) (roughly 40-100 % composition), a Sub-dominant (S) (roughly 10-40%

composition) a Minor Component (M) (roughly 2-5% composition), or a Trace Component (T) (<2% composition) based on weight or cover

composition in the area of interest (e.g., “Actual2

” column) relative to the “Potential1” column derived from information found in the ecological

site/description and/or at the ecological reference area.

Biological Crust3 dominance is evaluated solely on cover, not composition by weight.


hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Generic Descriptor Water flow patterns Water flow patterns Number and length Number and length Matches what is

extensive and more numerous of water flow of water flow expected for the

numerous; unstable and extensive patterns nearly patterns match what site; minimal

with active erosion; than expected; match what is is expected for the evidence of past or

usually connected. deposition and cut expected for the site; some evidence current soil

areas common; site; erosion is of minor erosion. deposition or

occasionally minor with some Flow patterns are erosion.

connected. instability and stable and short.

deposition.

3. Pedestals and/or Reference Sheet:

Terracettes

Generic Descriptor Abundant active Moderate active Slight active Active pedestalling Current or past

pedestalling and pedestalling; pedestalling; most or terracette evidence of

numerous terracettes common. pedestals are in formation is rare; pedestaled plants or

terracettes. Many Some rocks and flow paths and some evidence of rocks as expected

rocks and plants plants are interspaces and/or past pedestal for the site.

are pedestaled; pedestaled with on exposed slopes. formation, Terracettes absent

exposed plant roots occasional exposed Occasional especially in water or uncommon.

are common. roots. terracettes present. flow patterns on

exposed slopes.

* Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer to the criteria included

in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1).
Generic Descriptor Common with Moderate in number Moderate in number Uncommon, Match what is

indications of to common with with indications of vegetation is expected for the

active erosion and indications of active active erosion; stabilizing the bed site; drainages are

downcutting; erosion; vegetation vegetation is and slopes; no represented as

vegetation is is intermittent on intermittent on signs of active natural stable

infrequent on slopes and/or bed. slopes and/or bed. headcuts, channels;

slopes and/or bed. Headcuts are Occasional nickpoints, or bed vegetation common

Nickpoints and active; down- headcuts erosion. and no signs of

headcuts are cutting is not may be present. erosion.

numerous and apparent.

active.

6. Wind Scoured, Reference Sheet:

Blowout, and/or 

Depositional Areas

Generic Descriptor Extensive. Common. Occasionally Infrequent and few. Match what is

present. expected for the site.

* Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer to the criteria included

in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1). 
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Generic Descriptor Extremely reduced Significantly Significantly Some reduction in Matches that

throughout the site. reduced in most reduced in at least soil surface stability expected for the

Biological plant canopy half of the plant in plant interspaces site. Surface soil is

stabilization agents interspaces and canopy interspaces, or slight reduction stabilized by

including organic moderately reduced or moderately throughout the site. organic matter

matter and beneath plant reduced throughout Stabilizing agents decomposition

biological crusts canopies. the site. reduced below products and/or a

virtually absent. Stabilizing agents expected. biological crust.

present only in 

isolated patches.

9. Soil Surface Loss Reference Sheet:

or Degradation

Generic Descriptor Soil surface horizon Soil loss or Moderate soil loss Some soil loss has Soil surface

absent. Soil structure degradation severe or degradation in occurred and/or horizon intact. Soil

near surface is throughout site. plant interspaces soil structure structure and

similar to, or more Minimal differences with some shows signs of organic matter

degraded, than in soil organic degradation beneath degradation, content match that

that in subsurface matter content and plant canopies. especially in plant expected for site.

horizons. No structure of surface Soil structure is interspaces.

distinguishable and subsurface degraded and soil 

difference in layers. organic matter 

subsurface organic content is 

matter content. significantly reduced.

* Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer to the criteria included

in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1).
compaction).

11. Compaction Reference Sheet:

Layer (below soil 

surface)

Generic Descriptor Extensive; severely Widespread; Moderately wide- Rarely present or is Matches that

restricts water greatly restricts spread, moderately thin and weakly expected for the

movement and root water movement restricts water restrictive to water site; none to

penetration. and root movement and root movement and root minimal, not

penetration. penetration. penetration. restrictive to water 

movement and root 

penetration.

* Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer to the criteria included

in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1).
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

13. Plant Mortality/ Reference Sheet:

Decadence 

Generic Descriptor Dead and/or Dead plants and/or Some dead and/or Slight plant Plant mortality and

decadent plants are decadent plants are decadent plants are mortality and/or decadence match

common. somewhat common. present. decadence. that expected for the

site.

14. Litter Amount Reference Sheet:

Generic Descriptor Largely absent or Greatly reduced or Moderately more or Slightly more or Amount is what is

dominant relative increased relative to less relative to site less relative to site expected for the site

to site potential and site potential and potential and potential and potential and

weather. weather. weather. weather. weather.

* Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer to the criteria included

in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1).
17.Reproductive Reference Sheet:

Capability of 

Perennial Plants 

(native or seeded)

Generic Descriptor Capability to Capability to Capability to Capability to Capability to

produce seed or produce seed or produce seed or produce seed or produce seed or

vegetative tillers is vegetative tillers is vegetative tillers is vegetative tillers is vegetative tillers is

severely reduced greatly reduced moderately reduced slightly reduced not reduced

relative to recent relative to recent relative to recent relative to recent relative to recent

climatic conditions. climatic conditions climatic conditions. climatic conditions. climatic conditions.

* Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer to the criteria included

in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1).


hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

1a  Rills are a natural component of this site due to erodible soils.

1b - Short linear rill caused by accelerated water flow.
2a  Extensive water flow pattern in plant interspace indicative of high overland water flow.

2b - Short water flow pattern (white dotted line) in plant interspaces.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

3a  Plant pedestal caused by wind erosion. Note the exposed roots (arrow).

3b - Terracette (arrow) caused by litter obstruction in water flow pattern.
3c - Terraces formed by ungulate grazing on hillsides are not evaluated

with this indicator. Other indicators that may be applicable in this

situation include numbers 4, 8, 9, and 11.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

4a  Amount of bare ground is slight relative to site potential and recent weather.

4b - Amount of bare ground is excessive relative to site potential and recent weather.
5a  Gully that shows signs of active erosion (nickpoints  see arrows) and downcutting.

5b - Relatively stable gully with few signs of active erosion with good vegetation recovery occurring.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

6a  Windscoured areas in plant interspaces (star) with soil and litter deposition occurring at plant bases

(arrows).
7a  Litter movement and accumulation in a water flow pattern.

7b - Litter redistributed by wind under shrub canopy and around obstructions in the interspaces.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

8a  Surface physical crusts in plant interspaces can increase overland flow of water.

8b - Soil surface fragment on right is resistant to breakdown in water indicating presence of soil-binding

organic matter. Soil surface fragment on left is “melting” indicating less organic matter and stability.
9a  Evidence of soil surface loss (foreground) is evident when compared to the cover of the plant and

biological crust in the background.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

10a  Desert grassland site where grasses promote infiltration and minimize runoff.

10b - Degraded desert grassland site where runoff has dramatically increased due to conversion from grass

to shrubs.
11a  An example of a restrictive compaction layer that reduces root penetration and water percolation.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

12a  Nitrogenfixing forb (Astragalus spp.) that is included in a different functional group than non

nitrogen-fixing forbs.

12b - Biological crusts (foreground) are an important functional/structural component in many plant communities.
12c  Sagebrushperennial bunchgrass site near potential. Native annual grasses are a minor component of

the vegetation mix.

12d - Perennial bunchgrasses have been replaced with cheatgrass, an exotic annual grass. Accelerated

erosion is also evident.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

13a  Dead and decadent sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) plants.

13b - Decadent shrub with dead branches.
14a  Amount of litter is in balance with site potential and recent weather.

14b - Litter is uncommon compared to what is expected given the site potential and recent weather.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

14c  Amount of litter and standing dead vegetation is well above what is expected due to the presence of

an exotic annual grass.
15a  Production of current years aboveground biomass is consistent with site potential and recent weather.

15b - Production of current year’s aboveground biomass is well below site potential relative to recent weather.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

16a  Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is an exotic invasive annual grass that can dominate the understory in

disturbed shrublands.

16b - State-listed noxious weeds, such as this knapweed in Idaho, are another category of invasive plants.
16c  Juniper, a native tree, is invasive when it invades rangeland sites where the potential is for shrubs and

herbaceous plants.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

17a  Perennial forbs and grasses show good potential for reproduction as evidenced by flowers and seed

stalk production.

17b - Reproduction potential of this shrub is low due to lack of seed production.

hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

8. Soil surface resistance to Average soil surface stability Soil stability kit (surface)(3) Surface aggregate stability is positively related to soils resistance to 

erosion wind and water erosion.

9. Soil surface loss or Average soil sub-surface Soil stability kit Sub-surface soil structure degrades and organic matter declines as

degradation stability (sub-surface)(3) surface soil is lost, thus sub-surface aggregate stability is negatively 

related to soil surface loss or degradation.

10. Plant community Percent composition Line-point intercept (2,3) or Changes in species composition can be related to changes in

composition and distribution production (1,2) infiltration. For example, root and shoot morphology of tussock vs.

relative to infiltration stoloniferous plants.

and runoff. Proportion of basal gaps > Basal gap intercept (3) Changes in basal gaps can be related to changes plant distributions

25, 50, 100, 200 cm that relate to infiltration and runoff.

11. Compaction layer Ratio of penetration Impact penetrometer (3) Ratios of penetration resistance or bulk density above 1 can indicate

resistance in the upper 15 cm the presence of a compaction layer.

(6 inches) between the

evaluation and reference area

Ratio of mass-per-volume of Bulk density

soil in the upper 15 cm 

between the evaluation and 

reference area

12. Functional/structural Percent composition by Line-point intercept (2,3) Composition and richness of functional or structural groups are

groups functional or structural group Production (1,2) positively related to plant functional or structural groups qualitative 

and group richness indicator

13. Plant mortality/decadence Proportion of live-to-dead Line-point intercept (2,3) The live-to-dead proportion is positively related to the plant mortality o

canopy decadence qualitative indicator

14. Litter amount Litter mass Litter mass The amount of litter mass and cover per unit area is related to litter 

Litter cover Line-point intercept (2,3) amount.

15. Annual production Total annual production Production (1,2) Productions relates directly with the qualitative indicator of annual 

production

16. Invasive plants Density of invasive species Belt transect (1,2,3) Number of species and their densities or cover will directly relate to th

Percent foliar cover of Line-point intercept (2,3), qualitative indicator

invasive species Production (1,2), or quadrat 

cover (1,2)

17. Reproductive capability None

of perennial plants

hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

1cm

5cm

3.5cm

21cm

10.5cm

drawn by:

Tye Lightfoot

1.65mm mesh

Stability class table

(see table 1)

(c)

(a)

(b)

Adapted from Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett and W.G. Whitford. 

2004. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. 

USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM. Distributed by University of Arizona Press.
“Veg” column on the data form.

RULES:

a. The area to be classified is as large as the sample area (6 to 8 mm or 

1/4 inch in diameter.

b. Record the dominant cover class in the “Veg” column.

C = perennial grass, shrub or tree canopy cover

NC = no perennial grass, shrub or tree canopy cover

3. Collect a surface sample.

a. Excavate a small trench in front of the area to be sampled (Figure 1).

b. Lift out a soil fragment and trim it (if necessary) to the correct size.

c. The soil fragment should be 2 to 3 mm in diameter (the diameter of a

wood pencil eraser) (Figures 2 and 3). 

d. Collect samples at the exact point. Move the sample point only if it has

been disturbed during previous measurements or the soil surface is 

protected by a rock or embedded litter. Move the point a standard 

distance (1 m) and note this change on the data form.

e. Minimize shattering by:

• slicing the soil around the sample before lifting;

• lifting out a larger sample than required, and trimming it to the size of 

the palm of your hand; or

• misting the sample area before collection.

f. If the soil is too weakly structured to sample (falls through the sieve), mist it

lightly with deionized water (use an atomizer or equivalent) and then take

a sample. Perfume and plastic hair spray bottles work well for this. If the

sample still will not hold together, record a “1” on the data form.

g. If the soil surface is covered by a lichen or cyanobacterial crust, include

the crust in the sample. If the sample is covered by moss, collect the sample from under the moss.

h. Gently place the sample in a dry sieve (Figure 4); place sieve in the

appropriate cell of a dry box. Leave the box lid open (Figure 5).

Figure 3. Ensure correct sample size.

Figure 4. Place sample in sieve.

Figure 5. Complete soil stability kit with

water and samples.
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

Figure 8. The photos illustrate

the key steps of testing a soil

sample for four different 

stability rankings.

Important Note: Some of

the fragments shown in these

samples may appear large.

They are for illustration only.

Be sure to follow the size

guidelines. Figure 8A. Original Sample Figure 8B. After 5 Seconds

Figure 8C . After 5 Minutes Figure 8D. After 5 Dips

Sequence for stability class = 1

h. Hydrophobic samples (samples that float in water after being pushed under) are rated 6.

Bottlecap test (Semiquantitative alternative)

Place a soil fragment in a bottle cap filled with water. Watch it for 30 seconds. Gently swirl the water for five 

seconds. Assign one of the following three ratings:

M = Melts in first 30 seconds (without swirling) S = Stable (even after swirling)

D = Disintegrates when swirls (but does not melt)
Figure 8I. Original Sample Figure 8J. After 5 Seconds

Figure 8K. After 5 Minutes Figure 8L. After 5 Dips

Sequence for stability class = 5
hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4
Line

____

In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line__

Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos V

0:00 5:00 0:30 5:30 1:00 6:00

3:00 8:00 

1:00 6:00 

Monitoring plot: Observer: 

Recorder: 

Veg = NC (no perennial canopy), C (plant canopy cover). # = Stability value (1-

beginning in upper left corner and working left to right. 

Notes:

Protected sam

All samples (Samples w/Veg = 

Line Surface Subsurface Surface Plot Avg.

Avg. Stability = Sum of Stability Rankings (i.e., #) / Total No. Samples Take15 Seconds Between SamplesNotes:30 Seconds Between Samples

4:00 9:00

2:00 7:00

3:30 8:30

1:30 6:30

Line

____

In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line__

Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos V

0:00 5:00 0:15 5:15 0:30 5:30

1:30 6:30 

3:00 8:00

2:00 7:00

3:30 8:30

1:45 6:45

3:15 8:15


hnical Reference 1734-6, Version 4

If reference sheet is draft, undergoes development or revision,

send copy to NRCS State Rangeland Management Specialist

Develop Functional/Structural Groups Sheet (species list and

complete the “potential” column

Visit ecological reference area if available and incorporate

information from it in the development of the Reference Sheet.

Obtain or develop Ecological Site Evaluation Matrix 

(Information from reference sheet becomes none to slight 

values in evaluation matrix).

Step 3. Collect Supplementary Information 

(OPTIONAL BUT HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

Collect quantitative data and spatial and temporal information 

at the evaluation area. Complete the “Actual” column of the

Functional/Structural Sheet

Step 4. Rate 17 Indicators

Include written comments to explain/justify all ratings

Step 5. Evaluate 3 Rangeland Health Attributes

Include written comments to explain/justify preponderance 

of evidence ratings for each attribute.
The mention of company names, trade names, or

commercial products does not constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use by the Federal

Government.