A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands

A Technical Document Supporting

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment

Matthew Clark Reeves and John E. Mitchell
Reeves, Matthew Clark; Mitchell, John E. 2012. A synoptic review of U.S. rangelands: a 

technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 128 p. 

Abstract: The Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 requires the USDA Forest Service 

to conduct assessments of resource conditions. This report fulfills that need and focuses on 

quantifying extent, productivity, and health of U.S. rangelands. Since 1982, the area of U.S. 

rangelands has decreased at an average rate of 350,000 acres per year owed mostly to conversion 

to agricultural and residential land uses. Nationally, rangeland productivity has been steady 

over the last decade, but the Rocky Mountain Assessment Region appears to have moderately 

increased productivity since 2000. The forage situation is positive and, from a national perspective, 

U.S. rangelands can probably support a good deal more animal production than current levels. 

Sheep numbers continue to decline, horses and goats have increased numbers, and cattle have 

slightly increased, averaging 97 million animals per year since 2002. Data from numerous sources 

indicate rangelands are relatively healthy but also highlight the need for consolidation of efforts 

among land management agencies to improve characterization of rangeland health. The biggest 

contributors to decreased rangeland health, chiefly invasive species, are factors associated with 

biotic integrity. Non-native species are present on 50 percent of non-Federal rangelands, often 

offsetting gains in rangeland health from improved management practices. 

Keywords: rangeland health, livestock, remote sensing, rangeland extent, grazing, coterminous 

United States, Renewable Resources Planning Act

Authors

Matthew Clark Reeves is a Post Doctoral Research Ecologist in the Human Dimensions 

program of the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station in Missoula, Montana. 

He earned his B.S. degree in Range Management from Washington State University, his M.S. 

degree in Environmental Resources from Arizona State University, and a Ph.D. in Ecosystem and 

Conservation Sciences from the University of Montana. He specializes in using remote sensing 

and spatial analysis to understand the status and trends of natural resources and biospheric 

processes and is an active participant in the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable and Society 

for Range Management.

John E. Mitchell is an Emeritus Rangeland Scientist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 

Fort Collins, Colorado. Prior to retiring in 2009, his research supported the rangeland component 

of the Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment. Since that time, he has continued to assist 

with rangeland work for the Assessment and has been an active participant in the Sustainable 

Rangelands Roundtable and Society for Range Management. Mitchell is a Certified Professional 

in Rangeland Management.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Acknowledgments

This work was initiated by John Mitchell, the author of the previous rangeland portion 

of the RPA Assessment. After the initial planning phase, the assignment was given 

to Matt Reeves in 2009. Dr. Mitchell provided the impetus to design the program to 

evaluate the U.S. rangeland base, excellent perspective, and mentoring throughout the 

development of the document and contributed significantly to Chapter 3: Ecosystem 

Goods and Services.

Staff from a wide range of organizations contributed guidance, review, and data to 

populate the report. Specifically, we thank John Reitsma, Phil Cooley, and Sherm 

Karl from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Operations Center for 

providing interpretation and data describing BLM land dispositions, grazing allotments, 

rangeland health, and grazing statistics. In a similar manner, USDA Forest Service 

range management staff provided data describing gross receipts from grazing Forest 

Service (USFS) lands, grazing statistics, allotment boundaries, and juxtaposition of 

USFS lands. Shelley Douthett, Kaylene Monson, and Lisa McBride, were all involved 

in this process. Other members of USDA also contributed: Marisa Capriotti provided 

data regarding conservation lands and Virginia Harris was instrumental in obtaining 

and understanding data from the National Agricultural Statistics Survey. 

In addition to agency personnel, staff from three universities contributed data and 

information for the report. Adam Moreno, under the direction of Dr. Steve Running, 

Professor of Forest Ecology, University of Montana developed the forecasts in rangeland productivity. Wasantha Kulawardhana and Dr. Robert Washington-Allen, Assistant 

Professor of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, developed 

the estimated footprint of livestock herbivory. Finally, Ian Leinwand, under the direction of Dr. Dave Theobald, Research Scientist, at Colorado State University, provided 

the analysis of human modified rangeland and fragmentation. Acquisition of data 

describing oil and gas networks and invasive species was performed by Robb 

Lankston, whose help enabled more timely completion of the document. Impetus for 

the climate change effects section was provided by Dr. Jack Morgan of the Agricultural 

Research Service. Dr. Morgan’s expertise on the subject enabled us to complete an 

overview of climate change effects. Kate Marcille provided editorial suggestions and 

was responsible for a good deal of formatting and compilation.Lane Eskew, Lindy 

Larson, and Nancy Chadwick patiently provided editorial assistance.

Finally, the RPA specialists and Washington Office management personnel provided 

continual support, answers, and guidance. Dr. Linda Langner and Margaret Connelly, 

both from the Washington Office, provided oversight and kept the document as upto-date as possible. In addition, Dr. Langner provided analysis and written evaluation 

of the RPA scenarios. Dr. Linda Joyce provided data and support for the downscaled 

climate data. Dr. Kurt Riitters provided the data and analysis for the rangeland fragmentation evaluation.

i
ii
Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Context, Design, and Impetus for the 2010 RPA Rangeland 

Assessment

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 

requires assessments and projections of the Nation’s renewable resources. Successive 

RPA Range Assessments have exhibited a central theme or context binding the 

chapters together. The 1989 Range Assessment extensively evaluated the forage 

supply and demand and relied on an econometric model (now retired) for forecasting 

purposes. It was generally concluded that the total U.S. forage supply was sufficient 

to meet projected demands. The 2000 Range Assessment was organized around the 

concept of criteria and indicators developed by the Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable 

and, like the 1989 Range Assessment, it concluded that forage quantity was sufficient 

for current and projected livestock levels. This 2010 Range Assessment addresses 

topics similar to its predecessors, but focuses on providing more spatially explicit 

data describing the status and trends of U.S. rangelands. Projections for rangeland 

resources are not provided here and will instead be available in forthcoming documents supporting this Assessment. As a result, this report focuses on contemporary 

issues, including rangeland extent and health, forage supply, and livestock numbers, 

while maintaining linkages with past assessments.

Chapter 2: Rangeland Extent and Global Concerns

Quantifying rangeland extent provides an area basis for estimating carbon sequestration and forage availability, serves as a baseline against which future estimates 

of resources can be compared, and is necessary for developing monitoring and 

management strategies. Extent of rangelands is also a component of at least three 

criteria and six indicators of rangeland sustainability. Rangeland area in the coterminous United States is between 511 and 662 million acres, depending on the definition 

used, and roughly one-third of these lands are protected. Since the pre-settlement era, 

approximately 34 percent of rangelands have been permanently modified by human 

activity. However, as reported in the 2000 Range Assessment, the U.S. rangeland 

base is relatively stable, though further fragmentation due to exurban development, 

oil and gas exploration, agricultural development and, to a lesser degree, residential 

development can be expected. Privately owned rangelands will continue a slow 

decline in area while publically owned rangelands will continue to be stable, and 

changes will usually result from land exchanges and oil and gas development. While 

data describing global rangelands are sparse, the worldwide situation appears less 

favorable than the conditions in the United States. 

Globally, rangelands occupy nearly one-half of the vegetated surfaces and at least 

half of these lands are grazed and provide livelihood to millions of people. Since 

rangelands are not explicitly monitored through the United Nations, it is difficult 

to quantify losses of this land type. However, global pasturelands have shrunk by 

approximately 4.7 million acres per year since 1995, largely at the expense of expansion in agricultural land use. Changes in rangeland extent in the future are difficult to 

predict, but projected increases in global population will undoubtedly result in further 

conversion of pasture and rangelands to agricultural uses. At the same time, sharp 

increases in demand for red meat will require greater output of goods and services 

per area of land. 

iii
Chapter 3: Ecosystem Goods and Services

The concept of rangeland goods and services is a relatively new subject receiving a 

good deal of attention. Rangelands provide extractable goods, such as plant materials, 

oil and gas, and livestock feed, as well as tangible and intangible rangeland ecosystem 

services, such as clean water, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy. This 

Range Assessment focuses on a subset of ecosystem goods and services, including 

trends in decadal productivity and forage supply, livestock production, alternative 

energy, and a summary of potential climate change effects. Overall, since 2000, U.S. 

rangelands have maintained a relatively constant level of productivity. The Rocky 

Mountain region, however, experienced a significant increase in productivity, but the 

causes of the greening of the region are unclear. 

The stable rangeland productivity has direct implications for the U.S. forage supply. 

The total forage supply is near 1.9 to 2.6 trillion pounds. Based on this estimate, 

the forage situation is positive and forage quantity is sufficient to support roughage 

requirements of wild and domestic herbivores now and into the foreseeable future. 

The degree to which climate change will affect forage supply and rangeland productivity is unclear, but research is being conducted to estimate these effects. The 

currently stable pattern of productivity is reflected in livestock numbers since 2000. 

Between 2002 and 2007, the U.S. cattle inventory remained within 1.4 percent of 

the estimated 10 year average of 96,563,644 animals, though the North Assessment 

Region lost nearly 26 percent of its cattle inventory. The situation with sheep is quite 

different. Since 1997, sheep numbers have declined by approximately 26 percent, 

reflecting the trend that has been in place since roughly the late 1930s when nearly 

50 million sheep were present in the United States. Horses, bison, and, to a greater 

degree, goats have increased sharply owed to changing dietary preferences and 

ranchers seeking to diversify their operations. To increase the profitability and diversify 

holdings and income streams, ranchers are increasingly involved with alternative 

sources of revenue. One of the more notable alternative streams of revenue reflecting 

the concern for climate change is the ubiquitous development of energy resources 

that do not preclude other land uses, including wind, unconventional natural gas, 

and biofuel. While solar energy yields more potential than some other sources, it 

is generally not compatible with other land uses and is therefore not addressed in 

this report.

Of all the energy sources derived from rangelands, natural gas provides more output 

than wind and biomass combined. Though not renewable, natural gas is a cleaner 

alternative to both coal and oil. Many of the major gas plays in the United States 

occur on western rangelands. Likewise, the large, often windswept, arid landscapes 

make rangelands uniquely poised to provide substantial quantities of energy from 

solar and wind facilities. The United States is the second leading wind generating 

nation, but wind only accounts for 1 percent of total energy production in the United 

States. Energy from biomass is predominantly derived from forest or agricultural 

residue and therefore, very little energy is derived from biomass emanating from 

rangelands. There is, however, significant promise for developing biomass sources 

from large statured grasses such as switchgrass. The future for alternative energy 

development on rangelands is bright but not without further research and serious 

consideration. Development of these energy sources needs to be balanced with 

social, economic, and environmental costs. 

iv
Chapter 4: Rangeland Health

Concepts of rangeland health are still evolving. Rangeland health is characterized 

using a variety of qualitative and quantitative indicators, but these methods are not 

consistently applied across agencies. Further, the extent and remoteness of rangelands make assessing these indicators of health and vitality difficult. No national 

monitoring framework is in place to collect data over time and, unlike the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, via 

the National Resources Inventory [NRI]), the USFS currently has no data collection 

protocol permitting evaluation of rangeland health on all NFS lands. 

Data from the BLM and NRCS suggest that coterminous U.S. rangelands are in 

reasonably good condition as roughly 80 percent of non-Federal and 75 percent of 

Federal rangelands exhibit overall healthy characteristics or are moving in a positive 

direction. Current processes that are decreasing rangeland health include the spread 

of invasive species, changing fire regimes, and woody encroachment, particularly by 

mesquite and juniper species. These interrelated factors often induce feedbacks that 

perpetuate the decreased health. The expansion of invasive species could be the 

most critical factor influencing the future health of U.S. rangelands. Invasive plants 

reduce the ability of rangelands to provide goods and services required by society 

and can interrupt ecological processes, including nutrient cycling, pollination, and 

predator and prey relationships, and can reduce biodiversity, increase soil erosion, 

degrade wildlife habitat, and reduce the carrying capacity of livestock. There are an 

estimated 3310 non-native species occurring within the contiguous United States, 

many of which are present on roughly 50 percent of non-Federal rangelands. The 

16 most pervasive species affect 126 million acres and are expanding at alarming 

rates of up to 4000 acres per day (approximately 1.5 million acres per year) in some 

regions such as the Great Basin.

Invasive plant species have continued to increase in spread and density, and estimates 

of expansion over time are reflected by the growth in concern over the associated 

problems. The size and scope of the problem, and the generally uncoordinated 

approach toward controlling invasive species, make determining the amount of effort 

committed to combating invasive species difficult. Despite this difficulty, in 2000 the 

total annual cost was estimated at $137 billion in losses and direct expenditures.

Despite the scope of the problem, the invasive species situation is not hopeless and 

substantial investments in control and mitigation efforts have been made. Programs 

such as the Citizen Scientist Project offer significant promise for inventorying, monitoring, and controlling the spread of invasive species. For maximum effectiveness, 

a national strategy for controlling invasive species should include a combination of 

biocontrol, herbicide application, public involvement, improved or revised management strategies and use of alternative livestock, such as goats, which readily ingest 

numerous invasive species.

v
Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ iii

Chapter 1: Context for the 2010 RPA Rangeland Assessment ................1

Chapter 2: Rangeland Extent and Global Concerns .................................5

Introduction............................................................................................................... 5

U.S. Rangelands ..................................................................................................... 13

Non-Federal Rangelands ............................................................................14

National Forest System Lands ....................................................................18

Bureau of Land Management Rangelands..................................................19

Rangelands in Protected Status..................................................................21

Extent and Disposition of Human Modified Rangeland ...............................25

The Conservation Reserve Program...........................................................33

The Outlook for Extent of U.S. Rangelands ................................................34

Global Rangeland Situation.........................................................................35

Summary ................................................................................................................. 41

Chapter 3: Ecosystem Goods and Services ............................................43

Introduction............................................................................................................. 43

Decadal Productivity Trends........................................................................43

North Central

Great

Plains

Intermountain

Pacific

Northwest

Northeast

NORTH

SOUTH

Southeast

Pacific

Southwest

South Central

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

PACIFIC COAST

vi
Forage Supply......................................................................................................... 50

Livestock Production............................................................................................. 54

Cattle and Sheep Numbers .........................................................................54

Grazing on Federal Lands...........................................................................57

Other Livestock............................................................................................60

Livestock Appropriation of Forage....................................................................... 63

Patterns of Forage Availability and Demand ...............................................64

Climate Change and Rangelands.......................................................................... 70

Complex Interactions...................................................................................70

Implications for Managers ...........................................................................72

Alternative Energy.................................................................................................. 73

Unconventional Natural Gas Production .....................................................74

Wind Energy................................................................................................76

Biofuel ........................................................................................................78

Summary ................................................................................................................. 78

Chapter 4: Rangeland Health ....................................................................83

Introduction............................................................................................................. 83

Health of Lands Managed by the BLM.................................................................. 84

Rocky Mountain Assessment Region..........................................................84

Pacific Coast Assessment Region...............................................................86

All BLM Lands .............................................................................................86

Health of Non-Federal Rangelands....................................................................... 88

Woody Encroachment by Native Species............................................................ 90

Junipers.......................................................................................................92

Mesquite Species ........................................................................................98

Exotic Plants Abundance and Distribution...................................................99

Cheatgrass........................................................................................102

Dalmation Toadflax ...........................................................................104

Knapweed.........................................................................................105

Leafy Spurge.....................................................................................107

Red Brome........................................................................................109

Federal Management Response to Invasive Species ............................... 111

Summary ............................................................................................................... 113

Literature Cited..................................................................................................... 115

vii

1

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Chapter 1: Context, Design, and Impetus for 

the 2010 RPA Rangeland Assessment

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 mandates a 

periodic assessment of the condition and trends of the Nation’s renewable resources. The 

RPA Assessment provides a snapshot of current conditions and trends in outdoor recreation, 

water, forests, urban forests, wildlife and fish, and range resources across all ownerships in 

the United States. The RPA Assessment further identifies drivers of change and projects 50 

years into the future, when possible. This report focuses on the status and trends of rangeland 

resources.

Rangelands are found in many ecoregions encompassing a diverse suite of vegetation. In 

general, rangelands are areas where the natural vegetation is comprised principally of grasses, 

forbs, grasslike plants, and shrubs that are suitable for browsing or grazing. An important 

distinction, however, is that the presence of current herbivory is not a prerequisite for rangeland classification. Further, herbivory can be liberally applied and generally means grazing 

or browsing by domestic livestock or wild herbivores. Rangelands are distinguished from 

grazing lands, with grazing land identified as any vegetated land that is grazed or has the 

potential to be grazed (SRM 1998), including rangeland, pastureland, grazed forestland, native 

and naturalized pasture, hayland, and grazed cropland. Rangelands are therefore a subset of 

grazing lands and are increasingly managed for multiple goods and services, of which grazing 

is often a component. It follows that the term “range resources” applies to goods and services 

derived from rangelands that increase social, economic, and biophysical well-being (Mitchell 

2000), the status and trends of which comprise the majority of this report.

The status of U.S. rangelands has arguably been of continual interest to Americans for perhaps 

thousands of years. Burning by Native Americans was especially useful to divert big game 

into smaller areas for easier hunting and to stimulate production of more nutritious fresh 

foliage for herbivores. Manipulating the vegetation in this manner is unquestionably a kind 

of “management” and had a profound impact on the function and composition of rangelands. 

Mitchell (2000) provided an in-depth review of the recorded history of U.S. rangelands, and 

therefore, we only synopsize key events here to orient the reader.

For over a half century after the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804, the vast western ranges 

remained largely undeveloped. Then, in 1862, the Homestead Act was passed leading to 

western expansion for extracting minerals, forage, and timber, which fostered unrestricted 

use, leading to serious depletion of rangeland resources. Passage of the Homestead Act, followed by the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 

enabled about 285 million acres to be privately claimed, which led to settled occupation of 

nearly all lands containing suitable water and forage for grazing (Mitchell 2000). Collectively, 

these homestead acts led to a 6-fold increase in cattle production resulting in roughly 27 

million head by 1890 (Poling 1991), while sheep numbers increased 20-fold peaking at 20 

million head in 1890 (Stoddart and Smith 1943). The rapid westward expansion, unrestricted 

use of privatized rangelands, and increased livestock numbers led to a dependence on public 

domain lands to meet the demand for forage (Carpenter 1981), causing severe depletion of 
2

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

both private and public rangeland resources. This situation prompted Senate Resolution 289 

in the 74th Congress requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a report on the status of 

range resources. This report was the first in a series of unscheduled reports over the next four 

decades that focused primarily on forage production and consumption. Finally, in 1974, the 

Forest and Rangelands RPA was enacted requiring, among other things, decadal assessments 

of renewable resource supplies, demands, and trends. The RPA further required forecasts of 

expected future supply and demand of resources.

The 1980 RPA Range Assessment (USDA FS 1980) focused primarily on forage supply and 

demand, reflecting apprehension regarding the ability of U.S. rangelands to meet forage 

demand linked to increasing red meat consumption. The report caused concern by forecasting a demand for red meat that could exceed the capacity of some regions to supply suitable 

forage quantities. The 1989 RPA Rangeland Assessment (Joyce 1989) also predicted a sharp 

increase in demand for grazed forage from 431 to 665 million animal unit months (AUMs; 

requirement of around 780 pounds of air dry forage per month). However, the report concluded that the increased demand for red meat could be met through expansion of forage 

production on private lands, especially more productive pasturelands. The 2000 RPA Range 

Assessment (Mitchell 2000) focused less on concerns over forage production capacity and 

more on contemporary issues regarding indicators of rangeland sustainability.

In this report, we attempt to maintain consistency with predecessors by evaluating the forage 

situation and addressing critical topics that have arisen over the period since the last report. 

Recognizing that future renewable resource conditions are influenced by common driving 

forces such as population change, economic growth, and land use change, and are likely 

to be influenced by climate change, a suite of scenarios were developed for the 2010 RPA 

Assessment to assist the resource forecasting process (USDA FS 2012). The current range 

assessment yields little insight to the estimated effects of various scenarios on rangeland 

resources, but forthcoming reports likely will. This document is organized into chapters, each 

providing information on critical issues potentially influencing the sustainability of rangelands 

for future generations. Though each section can be read independently, it is important for the 

reader to consider the potential interactions among all the elements.

Chapter 2 evaluates the global rangeland situation and the current rangeland base of the 

coterminous United States while documenting the loss of rangeland systems from pre euroAmerican settlement and the changing nature of U.S. rangelands. We document the ownership 

and composition of rangelands and provide spatially explicit estimates of the current U.S. 

rangeland distribution. In addition, we evaluate two critical issues regarding the areal extent 

of rangelands: (1) the degree to which human modification has irreparably changed non-forest 

landscapes, and (2) the extent and magnitude of fragmentation of non-forest landscapes.

Chapter 3 is dedicated to rangeland goods and services. Though ecosystem goods and services 

include both tangible and intangible products, this section communicates the importance of 

extractable goods from rangelands and their unique contributions to the Nation’s well-being. 

Specifically, we address key issues such as decadal rangeland productivity trends, forage 

supply, livestock production, renewable energy, and livestock appropriation of forage.
3

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Chapter 4 evaluates the health of U.S. rangelands through examination of data describing 

various aspects of “health” on Federal and non-Federal lands. Elements of rangeland health 

evaluated in this chapter are: rangeland condition, invasive species, and indicators of rangeland health (Herrick and others 2010). Specifically, we rely on the newly published reports 

based on the NRI, standards for rangeland health from the BLM, and data describing the 

extent of invasive species from a variety of sources.
4

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012
5

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Chapter 2: Rangeland Extent and 

Global Concerns

Introduction

Over 300 definitions have been constructed to describe rangelands globally (Lund 2007). The 

situation is no less complicated within the United States where land management agencies do 

not agree on a consistent definition of rangelands. Despite the differences in philosophy and 

definitions, quantifying the extent of the Nation’s rangelands is crucial to enable measurement 

of indicators of rangeland sustainability (Mitchell and others 1999). In addition, quantifying 

rangeland extent provides an area basis for estimating carbon sequestration and forage availability, serves as a baseline against which future estimates of resources can be compared, and 

is necessary for developing monitoring and management strategies (Lund 2007).

Federal agencies, policymakers, and researchers have long been interested in accounting for 

and monitoring natural resources at a national scale (Nusser and others 1998). A full accounting of area occupied by rangelands will prevent double counting during analyses aimed at 

quantifying goods, services, and biological processes such as carbon sequestration. Finally, 

the area of rangeland is a key indicator of sustainability at a national scale (Mitchell 2000; 

Mitchell and others 1999). The 2000 RPA Rangeland Assessment (Mitchell 2000) was constructed around the concept of criteria and indicators of rangeland sustainability. The concept 

of codified criteria and indicators to describe ecosystem sustainability was incepted for forests 

during the Montreal Process (Coulombe 1995). This system was later adapted to include 

rangelands that are summarized at http://sustainable.rangelands.org/pdf/Core_Indicators.pdf. 

As indicated in the previous RPA Rangeland Assessment (Mitchell 2000), the following indicators rely on rangeland area estimates:

Criterion 2: Conservation and Maintenance of Plant and Animal Resources on Rangelands

11. Extent of land area in rangeland.

12. Rangeland area by vegetation community.

14. Fragmentation of rangeland and rangeland plant communities.

Criterion 3: Maintenance of Productive Capacity on Rangelands

21. Rangeland aboveground biomass.

22. Rangeland annual productivity.

Criterion 4: Maintenance and Enhancement of Multiple Economic and Social Benefits to 

Current and Future Generations

33. Area of rangelands under conservation ownership or control by conservation 

organizations.
6

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

U.S. Rangelands

Current estimates of U.S. rangeland area vary widely from 398 million acres (Schuman and 

others 2002) to 770 million acres (Joyce 1989). Since the 1989 Rangeland Assessment, there 

has not been a comprehensive accounting of U.S. rangelands. Nor has there ever been a spatially explicit accounting of rangelands emanating from differing viewpoints at a national 

scale. The precise extent of rangelands is dependent on the definition used to define rangelands (Lund 2007), which necessarily causes confusion, inconsistencies, and administrative 

difficulties. Reeves and Mitchell (2011) sought to improve the situation by accounting for all 

rangelands in the coterminous United States by applying two different definitions of rangelands from land management agencies to spatially explicit data describing vegetation composition, structure, and historic makeup. Specifically, rangeland extent was characterized using 

rangeland definitions from both the USDA’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), administered by the USFS, and NRI, administered by the NRCS (table 1). The spatially explicit 

vegetation data were supplied by the LANDFIRE project (http://www.landfire.gov/) and 

included Existing Vegetation Type, Existing Vegetation Height, Existing Vegetation Cover, 

and Biophysical Settings (Reeves and others 2009; Rollins 2009; Zhu and others 2006). The 

vegetation classification used by LANDFIRE to describe current and pre-Euro-American 

vegetation was Ecological Systems (Comer and others 2003; Comer and Schulz 2007) and 

National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) alliances (Grossman and Others 1998). 

As a means of consistency with previous assessments, the areal extent of rangelands has been 

provided in a variety of summary units, including states, Federal lands, RPA Assessment 

Regions (figure 1) (Mitchell 2000), non-Federal lands, and protected areas.

The total rangeland area quantified using the NRI and FIA perspectives from Reeves and 

Mitchell (2011) in the coterminous United States is 662 and 511 million acres, respectively 

(figure 2). It should be noted that these area estimates will not be harmonized with other estimates of rangeland area from land management agencies for three reasons:

1. No other maps depicting rangeland area are available at a suitable level of detail 

from other agencies.

2. There is no equivalent geospatial dataset indicating where different forest types 

exist at 30-m resolution reflecting either the NRI or FIA perspectives.

3. The rangeland definitions were applied consistently, as objectively as possible, 

without regard for land use that could potentially create differences between other 

estimates of rangeland area.

Reeves and Mitchell (2011) outlined the caveats associated with their study, so not all 

are mentioned here. There are, however, several noteworthy caveats that are necessary 

elements of this report. First, though the LANDFIRE product suite is the most spatially 

comprehensive, thematically rich (398 Ecological Systems mapped) 30-m spatial resolution data produced for the United States to date, it describes the landscape circa 2001. 

Second, the analysis by Reeves and Mitchell (2011) assumed sufficient accuracy of the 

products, which at the level it was used, is quite suitable for this national assessment. 
7

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Table 1—Rangeland definitions used by the USFS FIA and NRCS NRI programs. Also included is the definition adopted 

by the BLM.

Agency Definition

USDA Forest Service Forest land: “Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size (or 5 percent crown cover

(through the FIA Program) a where stocking cannot be determined), or land formerly having such treecover, and is not currently developed for a non-forest use” (USDA FS 2010). The minimum area for classification as forest land is one acre. 

Roadside, stream-side, and shelterbelt strips of timber must be at [sic] have a crown width at least 120 feet 

wide to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails or natural clearings in forested areas shall be 

classified as forest, if less than 120 feet in width or an acre in size. Streams and other bodies of water within forest will be considered forest land if they are less than 1 acre and 30-feet wide. Grazed woodlands, 

reverting fields, and pastures that are not actively maintained are included if the above qualifications are 

satisfied (USDA FS 2010). In addition, forested strips must be “120.0 feet wide for a continuous length of 

at least 363.0 feet in order to meet the acre threshold” (USFS FIA 2010).

Pasture: “Land that is currently maintained and used for grazing. Evidence of maintenance, besides the 

degree of grazing, includes condition of fencing, presence of stock ponds, periodic brush removal, seeding, 

irrigation, or mowing” (USDA FS 2010).

Non-Forest: “This is land that (1) has never supported forests (e.g., barren, alpine tundra), or (2) was formerly tree land, but has been converted to a non-tree land status (e.g., cropland, improved pasture). Other 

examples of non-forest land are improved roads of any width, graded or otherwise regularly maintained 

for long-term continuing use, and rights-of-way of all powerlines, pipelines, other transmission lines, and 

operating railroads. If intermingled in forest areas, unimproved roads and non-forest strips must be at least 

120-feet wide and 1 acre in size to qualify as nontree land” (USDA FS 2010).

Rangeland: “Land primarily composed of grasses, forbs, or shrubs. This includes lands vegetated naturally or artificially to provide a plant cover managed like native vegetation and does not meet the definition 

of pasture. The area must be at least 1.0 acre in size and 120.0 feet wide” (USDA FS 2010).

Bureau of Land Land on which the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like

Management b 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 1998: 23). 

Natural Resources Forest land: “A land cover/use category that is at least 10 percent stocked by single-stemmed woody species

Conservation Service of any size that will be at least 4 meters (13 ft) tall at maturity. Also included is land bearing evidence of

(through the NRI natural regeneration of tree cover (cutover forest or abandoned farmland) and not currently developed for

Program) non-forest use. Ten percent stocked, when viewed from a vertical direction is a canopy cover of leaves and 

branches of 25 percent or greater. The minimum area for classification of forest land is 1 acre, and the area 

must be at least 100 feet wide ” (USDA NRCS 2007).

Pastureland: “The land cover/use category of land managed primarily for the production of introduced 

forage plants for livestock grazing. Pastureland cover may consist of a single species in a pure stand, a 

grass mixture, or a grass-legume mixture. Management usually consists of cultural treatments: fertilization, 

weed control, reseeding, or renovation, and control of grazing. For the NRI, pastureland includes land that 

has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of whether it is being grazed by livestock” (USDA NRCS 2007). 

Rangeland: “A land cover/use category that includes land on which the climax or potential plant cover is 

composed principally of native grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, 

and introduced forage species that are managed like rangeland. This would include areas where introduced 

hardy and persistent grasses, such as crested wheatgrass, are planted and practices such as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing, are used with little or no chemicals/fertilizer being applied. 

Grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be rangeland. Certain 

low forb and shrub communities, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also 

included as rangeland” (USDA NRCS 2007).

a To be considered rangeland, a stand must first meet the non-forest criterion. In Region 5 of the USFS (California and Hawaii), chaparral is not considered 

rangeland (USFS 2008). 

b Though the BLM sometimes uses this definition, area of rangeland is not estimated using this definition, nor is it applied consistently. 
8

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Third, scientific understanding of historic disturbance regimes, principally fire, is limited 

but is critically important to determining the U.S. rangeland base because both the NRI 

and FIA definitions implicitly require knowledge of whether a site was previously occupied by tree species. To be considered rangeland using the FIA perspective, a stand must 

first be classified non-forest. The non-forest definition (table 1) states, “Land that does 

not support, or has never supported, forests...” A forest designation requires a stocking 

(often canopy cover is used as a surrogate) of 10 percent by trees and only 5 percent for 

woodlands. It follows that past stand composition had to be inferred to determine if trees 

were normally dominant, requiring assumptions regarding the disturbance regime characterizing the area. Determining which U.S. Ecological Systems and NVCS alliances normally exhibited less than 10 percent and less than 25 percent tree cover corresponding to 

the FIA and NRI perspectives, respectively, is somewhat subjective but can be informed 

using the extensive LANDFIRE field reference database (Caratti 2006) and our understanding of historic disturbance processes. Table 2 describes Biophysical Settings map 

classes that were estimated to exhibit less than 10 and 25 percent tree cover to align with 

the FIA and NRI perspectives, respectively. These differences in canopy cover thresholds 

and basic definitions are apparent in figure 3.

Figure 1—Spatial configuration of the RPA Assessment Regions.
9

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 2—Rangelands of the coterminous United States, adapted from Reeves and Mitchell (2011). Panels depict the 

estimated rangeland extent from the NRI and FIA perspectives, respectively.
10

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 2—This table describes Ecological Systems (Comer 2003) that were estimated to exhibit less 

than 10 and 25% tree cover to align with the FIA and NRI perspectives, respectively. 

Bps name NRI FIA

Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra X X

Acadian-Appalachian Subalpine Woodland and Heath-Krummholz X X

Alabama Ketona Glade and Woodland X

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe X X

Arkansas Valley Prairie and Woodland - Prairie X X

Arkansas Valley Prairie and Woodland - Woodland X X

Atlantic Coastal Plain Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake X X

California Central Valley and Southern Coastal Grassland X X

California Maritime Chaparral X X

California Mesic Serpentine Grassland X X

California Montane Jeffrey Pine(-Ponderosa Pine) Woodland X

California Montane Woodland and Chaparral X X

California Northern Coastal Grassland X X

California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral X X

Central and South Texas Coastal Fringe Forest and Woodland X

Central and Upper Texas Coast Dune and Coastal Grassland X X

Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest X X

Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Longleaf Pine Savanna and Flatwoods X

Central Florida Pine Flatwoods X

Central Interior and Appalachian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems X X

Central Mixedgrass Prairie X X

Central Tallgrass Prairie X X

Chihuahuan Creosotebush Desert Scrub X X

Chihuahuan Grama Grass-Creosote Steppe X X

Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe X X

Chihuahuan Loamy Plains Desert Grassland X X

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub X X

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert Shrubland X X

Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub X X

Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland X X

Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub X X

Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland X X

Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland - Alkali Sacaton X X

Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland - Tobosa Grassland X X

Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland X X

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland X X

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland X X

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland X

Columbia Basin Foothill and Canyon Dry Grassland X X

Columbia Basin Palouse Prairie X X

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe X X

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland X X

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland X X

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and Savanna X

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland X

East Gulf Coastal Plain Dune and Coastal Grassland X X

East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland X

East Gulf Coastal Plain Jackson Plain Prairie and Barrens X X

East Gulf Coastal Plain Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods X

East Gulf Coastal Plain Savanna and Wet Prairie X X

Eastern Great Plains Tallgrass Aspen Parkland X

Eastern Great Plains Wet Meadow-Prairie-Marsh X X

Eastern Highland Rim Prairie and Barrens X X

Edwards Plateau Limestone Savanna and Woodland X

Florida Dry Prairie X X

(continued)
11

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Florida Peninsula Inland Scrub X X

Floridian Highlands Freshwater Marsh X X

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland X

Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral X X

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland X X

Great Lakes Coastal Marsh Systems X X

Great Plains Prairie Pothole X X

Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Tidal Marsh Systems X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland - Basin Big Sagebrush X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland - Wyoming Big Sagebrush X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub - North X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub - South X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Riparian Systems X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe - Low Sagebrush X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe - Mountain Big Sagebrush X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland X

Klamath-Siskiyou Xeromorphic Serpentine Savanna and Chaparral X X

Laurentian Pine-Oak Barrens X

Laurentian-Acadian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems X X

Llano Uplift Acidic Forest-Woodland-Glade X

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain Grand Prairie X X

Madrean Lower Montane Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland X

Madrean Oriental Chaparral X X

Mediterranean California Alpine Dry Tundra X X

Mediterranean California Alpine Fell-Field X X

Mediterranean California Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

Mediterranean California Subalpine Meadow X X

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland - Fire-maintained Savanna X

Mogollon Chaparral X X

Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub X X

Nashville Basin Limestone Glade and Woodland X X

North American Warm Desert Riparian Systems X X

North American Warm Desert Riparian Systems - Stringers X X

North American Warm Desert Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Dry Grassland X X

North Pacific Avalanche Chute Shrubland X X

North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland X

North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland or Fell-field or Meadow X X

North Pacific Maritime Mesic Subalpine Parkland X X

North Pacific Montane Grassland X X

North Pacific Montane Shrubland X X

North Pacific Oak Woodland X

North Pacific Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

North-Central Interior Sand and Gravel Tallgrass Prairie X X

Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral X X

Table 2—(Continued)

Bps name NRI FIA

(continued)
12

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Swale X X

Northern California Coastal Scrub X X

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothill Conifer Wooded Steppe X

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill-Valley Grassland X X

Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland X X

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna X

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna - Mesic X

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna - Xeric X

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland X X

Northern Tallgrass Prairie X X

Northwestern Great Plains Aspen Forest and Parkland X

Northwestern Great Plains Canyon X X

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie X X

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland X X

Northwestern Great Plains-Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna - Savanna X

Pacific Coastal Marsh Systems X X

Paleozoic Plateau Bluff and Talus X X

Pennyroyal Karst Plain Prairie and Barrens X X

Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland X X

Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field X X

Rocky Mountain Alpine Turf X X

Rocky Mountain Alpine/Montane Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland X

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland X X

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland - No True Mountain Mahogany X X

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland - True Mountain Mahogany X X

Rocky Mountain Subalpine/Upper Montane Riparian Systems X X

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow X X

Sierra Nevada Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland X X

Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub X X

Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub X X

Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral X X

Sonoran Granite Outcrop Desert Scrub X X

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub X X

Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub X X

South Florida Everglades Sawgrass Marsh X X

South Florida Pine Flatwoods X

South Texas Lomas X X

South Texas Sand Sheet Grassland X X

Southeastern Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie X X

Southern Appalachian Grass and Shrub Bald X X

Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Maritime Grassland X X

Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Pine Savanna and Flatwoods X

Southern Blackland Tallgrass Prairie X X

Southern California Coastal Scrub X X

Southern California Dry-Mesic Chaparral X

Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland X X

Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland X X

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Savanna X X

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Savanna - North X

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Savanna - South X

Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub X X

Tamaulipan Clay Grassland X X

Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub X X

Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland X X

Texas-Louisiana Coastal Prairie X X

Table 2—(Continued)

Bps name NRI FIA

(continued)
13

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Texas-Louisiana Saline Coastal Prairie X X

West Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Calcareous Prairie X X

West Gulf Coastal Plain Southern Calcareous Prairie X X

Western Great Plains Depressional Wetland Systems X X

Western Great Plains Depressional Wetland Systems - Playa X X

Western Great Plains Depressional Wetland Systems - Saline X X

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems X

Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland X X

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie X X

Western Great Plains Sandhill Steppe X X

Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie X X

Western Great Plains Sparsely Vegetated Systems X X

Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie X X

Western Highland Rim Prairie and Barrens X X

Willamette Valley Upland Prairie and Savanna X X

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe X X

Table 2—(Continued)

Bps name NRI FIA

Figure 3—Areas of disagreement in rangeland extent between the NRI and FIA LANDFIRE models. Areas of disagreement generally reflect different tree canopy cover thresholds and treatment of woodland species (such as Juniperus, Quercus, and Prosopis spp.) between the NRI and FIA rangeland definitions.
14

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Non-Federal Rangelands

Most rangelands are privately owned and lie west of the 95° meridian (figure 4). All rangeland area statistics in this section are supplied by the NRI program and not by the work of 

Reeves and Mitchell (2011) since the NRI is recognized as a statistical authority on the matter. 

According to the NRI (USDA 2009), area of non-Federal rangelands is 409,119,000 acres. 

The states currently exhibiting the greatest amount of non-Federal rangeland are shown in 

figure 5. Texas, at 98 million acres currently has the greatest non-Federal rangeland area by 

a wide margin, more than twice the area of the next highest state, New Mexico. There are no 

non-Federal rangelands (figure 5) in 27 states of the eastern United States according to USDA 

(2009).

Between 1982 and 2007, non-Federal rangelands throughout the United States have experienced a net loss of roughly 8.8 million acres of rangelands (table 3) (USDA 2009) representing an average annual loss of 350,000 acres. This loss constitutes roughly 2 percent of the 

current non-Federal rangeland base (USDA 2009). Area of non-Federal rangeland decreased 

sharply between 1982 and 1997, yet since the 2000 RPA Rangeland Assessment (Mitchell 

2000), non-Federal rangelands have increased by approximately 200,000 acres (figure 6). It 

should be noted that these area estimates do not include Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

acres as those are tallied as a separate land type category (table 3). Those states that lost 

rangeland area between 1982 and 2007 are shown in figure 7. Florida exhibited the highest 

loss of non-Federal rangelands in the country at 1.75 million acres between 1982 and 2007 

(USDA 2009).

Figure 4—Distribution of non-Federal and Federally owned rangelands (adapted from Reeves and Mitchell [2011]).
15

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 5—Ranking of non-Federal rangeland acres. Texas has the most non-Federal rangeland (NRI 2007). Hatched 

states indicate no non-Federal rangeland (NRI 2007). Data source: Natural Resources Inventory (2007) (USDA 2009).

Table 3—Net change in area of non-Federal rangelands from 1982 to 2007.

Net Change in:

Assessment Region/State Rangeland Pasture CRP land Crop land

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres 103- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pacific Coast

California -1600.2 -237.1 -941.3 327.0

Washington -163.1 -389.4 -1294.2 71.4

Oregon -147.5 -320.0 -746.7 110.3

Pacific Coast Total -1910.8 -946.5 -2982.2 508.7

Rocky Mountain

New Mexico -1495.9 54.9 -918.7 206.3

Montana -897.8 671.6 -3084.0 -28.8

South Dakota -784.8 -556.2 -245.4 1.6

Kansas -740.7 384.1 -3461.8 50.2

Nebraska -584.1 -197.3 -705.8 54.0

North Dakota -507.4 -5.8 -3033.6 85.1

Idaho -177.6 103.4 -1154.1 94.6

Colorado -92.4 -29.4 -3017.5 136.2

Nevada 39.3 -44.8 -345.9 54.0

Utah 43.6 161.3 -630.7 18.7

Arizona 75.3 4.7 -493.9 308.4

Wyoming 221.3 -178.0 -457.9 10.0

Rocky Mountain Total -4901.2 368.5 -17549 990.3

(continued)
16

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 3—Continued.

Net Change in:

Assessment Region/State Rangeland Pasture CRP land Crop land

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres 103- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

South

Florida -1752.3 -740 -741.7 246.8

Oklahoma -924.7 1271.7 -2784.9 81.4

Arkansas -3.9 -467 -683.7 66.5

Alabama -0.3 -361.8 -2250.3 -36.5

Georgia 0 -135.8 -2585.1 -62.5

Kentucky 0 -712.3 -734.9 -122.7

Mississippi 0 -731.3 -2675.4 136.4

North Carolina 0 -66.1 -1440.5 114.3

South Carolina 0 -103 -1324.6 69.6

Tennessee 0 -312 -1382.9 145.4

Virginia 0 -289.9 -635.2 -27.4

South Total -2681.2 -2647.5 -17239 611.3

North

Missouri -45.9 -1588 -1599.3 16.7

Connecticut 0 -12.2 -63.3 -3.7

Delaware 0 2.9 -105.1 11.7

Illinois 0 -953.6 -835.1 36.7

Indiana 0 -277.4 -615.0 -42.7

Iowa 0 -1245.1 -939.0 3.4

Maine 0 -141.5 -145.7 -90.6

Maryland 0 -77.3 -358.8 -1.6

Massachusetts 0 -51.6 -47.8 -56.0

Michigan 0 -724.5 -1538.0 -138.4

Minnesota 0 -62.9 -2265.3 -28.1

New Hampshire 0 -22.8 -50.4 -22.8

New Jersey 0 -84.3 -330.3 -6.6

New York 0 -1194.7 -873.5 159.6

Ohio 0 -495.6 -1330.4 -131.8

Pennsylvania 0 -602.4 -942.2 -128.8

Rhode Island 0 -12.9 -9.2 -3.4

Vermont 0 -136.8 -102.9 31.4

West Virginia 0 -459.1 -323.6 20.3

Wisconsin 0 -359.3 -1414.6 116.3

North total -45.9 6318.8 -8499.1 -13890

U.S. total -8780.1 32850.2 -12280.6 -62523
17

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 6—Trends in rangeland, forest, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) area in the coterminous 

United States from 1982 to 2007 (NRI 2007).

Figure 7—Net loss of non-Federal rangelands from 1982 to 2007 (NRI 2007). Gray states indicate no non-Federal 

rangeland (NRI 2007), while white states indicate a net gain in non-Federal rangelands from 1982 to 2007. State labels 

indicate the ranking of net loss of acres. Florida lost the most rangeland between 1982 and 2007 (NRI 2007). Data 

source: Natural Resources Inventory (2007) (USDA 2009).
18

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

The Rocky Mountain Assessment Region (table 3) exhibited the greatest loss of rangeland 

and the North Assessment Region exhibited the least. This is not surprising since the Rocky 

Mountain Assessment Region has the greatest amount of non-Federal rangeland and contains 

some of the fastest growing areas of the United States such as Phoenix, Arizona, Denver, 

Colorado, and Las Vegas, Nevada.

National Forest System Lands

Since no consistent method is used within USFS to quantify the extent of rangelands under 

its jurisdiction, no attempt is made to reconcile different estimates. Instead, we rely on two 

sources; the 1989 RPA Rangeland Assessment (Joyce 1989) and the recent work by Reeves 

and Mitchell (2011). The report by Joyce (1989) indicated that the USFS had 41 million 

acres under its jurisdiction. The analysis by Reeves and Mitchell (2011) estimated 48 million 

acres under USFS jurisdiction based on the 

NRI perspective and 28.93 million acres 

from the FIA perspective (table 4). Table 5 

shows those 10 administrative boundaries 

associated with the USFS with the highest 

rangeland area estimates. The Tonto National 

Forest has the most rangeland of any single 

administrative unit with 1,922,861 acres 

according to the NRI perspective—an estimate differing by nearly one million acres 

from the FIA perspective. This difference 

reflects the disparate treatment of species 

common in pinyon-juniper environments and 

the different tree canopy cover thresholds 

for a forest designation between the NRI and 

FIA perspectives.

Table 5—Administrative units (top 10) of the USFS and associated 

rangeland area estimates from the FIA and NRI perspectives.

Administrative unita NRI perspective FIA perspective

- - - - - - - - - - - - Acres - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tonto National Forest 1,922,861 966,450

Little Missouri National Grassland 1,626,332 1,543,288

Thunder Basin National Grassland 1,556,257 1,551,007

Modoc National Forest 1,012,663 615,693

Boise National Forest 938,687 527,350

Toiyabe National Forest 924,873 754,968

Buffalo Gap National Grassland 798,063 772,132

Gila National Forest 696,577 182,389

Apache National Forest 679,867 226,614

Fremont National Forest 672,995 196,803

a The administrative units used for estimating rangeland area were derived from the Federal 

lands database from the Protected Areas. Database Version 1.0 (USGS Version 1.0). 

Table 4—Comparison of rangeland area from NRI and FIA 

perspectives for land management agencies with significant 

amounts of rangeland.

140x106

120x106

100x106

80x106

60x106

40x106

20x106

0

BLM BOR DOD USFS FWS NPS

NRI Perspective

FIA Perspective

Other

Rangeland area (acres)
19

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Bureau of Land Management Rangelands

The BLM estimates rangeland area under its jurisdiction by summing the area of grazing 

allotments found in each state, without regard for the vegetation type present. This means that 

rangelands are characterized entirely from a land use perspective. To maintain consistency 

with past reports, we report rangeland area on BLM lands in this manner. However, we also 

provide an estimate of rangeland area from a land cover perspective, as is provided for the 

USFS (in the prior section), using the techniques from Reeves and Mitchell (2011).

The BLM has jurisdiction over 156,661,328 acres of lands within grazing allotments. All 

public lands within grazing districts (figure 8) are referred to as “Section 3” and are administered under the jurisdiction of the Taylor Grazing Act (1934) and various other laws and 

regulations enacted after the Taylor Grazing Act. These lands are generally characterized as 

large tracts. BLM lands outside grazing districts are referred to as Section 15 lands (they are 

described in Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act) and are administered under the jurisdiction of the Taylor Grazing Act and various other laws and regulations enacted after the Taylor 

Grazing Act. The Section 15 lands typically occur in smaller, isolated patches. In addition to 

these lands and others in the coterminous United States, the BLM manages nearly 75 million 

acres in Alaska (none of which are contained in grazing districts) for a total of 249,714,362 

acres under its jurisdiction. The BLM has lost roughly 12 million acres in the last decade 

Figure 8—Grazing allotments, districts, and pastures administered by the USFS and BLM.
20

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

(BLM 2000 to 2009). Loss of lands under BLM jurisdiction is due to land exchanges or 

disbursements (Karl, personal communication). Area within grazing allotments has also 

decreased over the last 10 years, partly due to new National Monument status designations 

(table 6). Although quantifying the extent of lands within grazing allotments is perhaps an 

important metric from an administrative viewpoint, it does not address the rangeland extent 

on BLM lands from a land-cover perspective.

The methods of Reeves and Mitchell (2011) provide an estimate of rangelands administered by the BLM in the coterminous United States of 139 and 131 million acres from the 

NRI and FIA perspectives, respectively. Essentially all BLM lands are found in the western 

United States, with 81 percent occurring in the Rocky Mountain Assessment Region (table 7). 

Assuming the estimates provided by Reeves and Mitchell (2011) are reasonably accurate, 

roughly 70 percent of BLM lands within the coterminous United States are considered rangelands from a land cover perspective.

Table 6—Monument designations since 2000 under BLM administration.

 Other Federal Non-Federal Total Designation

State Monument BLM acres acres acres acres date

Arizona Agua Fria 70,900 0 1,444 72,344 1/11/2000

Arizona Grand Canyon-Parashant 808,747 208,453 31,125 1,048,325 1/11/2000

Arizona Ironwood Forest 128,398 299 59,922 188,619 6/9/2000

Arizona Sonoran Desert 486,600 0 9,800 496,400 1/17/2001

Arizona Vermilion Cliffs 279,568 0 14,121 293,689 11/9/2000

Arizona total 1,774,213 208,752 116,412 2,099,377

California California Coastal 607 0 0 607 1/11/2000

California Carrizo Plain 207,237 0 39,575 246,812 1/17/2001

California Santa Rosa-San Jacinto Mountains 94,055 83,073 102,943 280,071 10/24/2000

 3/30/2009

California total 301,899 83,073 142,518 527,490

Colorado Canyons of the Ancients 163,892 0 18,530 182,422 6/9/2000

Idaho Craters of the Moon 274,693 462,832 14,799 14,810 11/9/2000

Montana Pompeys Pillar 51 0 0 51 1/17/2001

Montana Upper Missouri River Breaks 374,976 0 120,475 495,451 1/17/2001

Montana total 375,027 0 120,475 495,502

New Mexico Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks 4,124 0 1,278 5,402 1/17/2001

New Mexico Prehistoric Trackways 5,255 0 0 0 3/30/2009

New Mexico total 9,379 0 1,278 5,402

Oregon Cascade-Siskiyou 53,829 52 32,117 85,998 6/9/2000

Utah Grand Staircase-Escalante 1,866,331 13,977 153 1,880,461 9/19/1996

U.S. total 4,819,263 768,686 446,282 5,291,462
21

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Rangelands in Protected Status

The area of rangelands in protected area status is a key indicator of rangeland sustainability 

(http://sustainable.rangelands.org/pdf/Core_Indicators.pdf). Here, protected areas are identified using the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS) (Version 1.0, http://

www.protectedlands.net/padus/). These protected areas are broadly defined by the IUCN as: 

“An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or 

other effective means” (http://iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/). Although all protected lands can meet this definition, categories of status have also been defined to enable more 

succinct descriptions on the level of protection an area is subject to. Table 8 describes the different levels of protection each category receives according to the IUCN.

Table 7—Distribution of BLM lands in the coterminous United States. 

“AR” is Assessment Region.

 Area Proportion of coterminous 

State (2009) U.S. BLM holdings (2009)

 ac x 103 (%)

Oregon 1,613.38 9.225

California 1,529.85 8.748

Washington 43.02 0.246

Pacific Northwest AR Total 3,186.25 18.219

Nevada 4,780.67 27.336

Utah 2,285.62 13.069

Wyoming 1,836.75 10.503

New Mexico 1,347.70 7.706

Arizona 1,220.33 6.978

Idaho 1,160.95 6.638

Colorado 834.60 4.772

Montana 796.74 4.556

South Dakota 27.44 0.157

North Dakota 5.88 0.034

Nebraska 0.64 0.004

Rocky Mountain AR total 14,297.33 81.753

Wisconsin 0.24 0.001

Minnesota 0.14 0.001

Maryland 0.05 0

North AR total 0.44 0.002

Louisiana 1.65 0.009

Texas 1.18 0.007

Arkansas 0.61 0.003

Alabama 0.35 0.002

Florida 0.31 0.002

Oklahoma 0.20 0.001

Virginia 0.08 0

Mississippi 0.02 0

South AR 4.41 0.025

Coterminous U.S. 17,488.42 70
22

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 8—Protected area categories defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/index.html).

CATEGORY Ia: Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science. Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/

or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.

CATEGORY Ib Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection. Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without 

permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

condition.

CATEGORY II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. Natural 

area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the 

purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally 

compatible.

CATEGORY III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features. 

Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding 

or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.

CATEGORY IV Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through 

management intervention. 

CATEGORY V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of 

people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, 

ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an 

area.

CATEGORY VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure 

long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a 

sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.

The PADUS reveals an approximate area of 430.35 million acres of protected lands in the 

coterminous United States. Of these lands, rangelands occupy roughly 195.22 million acres 

or 45 percent of the total area or protected lands (table 9). Approximately 82 percent of the 

protected rangelands are found in just five states: Nevada, California, Oregon, Idaho, and 

Arizona. The most common Ecological Systems and NVCS alliances (Comer and others 

2003) occupying the top 20 largest protected areas dominated by rangelands are listed in 

(table 10).

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) (http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/research-natural-areas/) are a 

unique sort of protected lands administered by the USFS and found almost exclusively in the 

western United States (figure 9). These RNAs help protect biological diversity and represent common ecosystems in natural condition that can serve as reference areas. Based on the 

methods of Reeves and Mitchell (2011), RNAs are comprised of 70 and 50 percent rangeland 

vegetation from the NRI and FIA perspectives, respectively (table 11).
23

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Table 9—Extent and proportion of rangelands contained within protected lands adapted from Reeves and 

Mitchell (2011). Only those states with greater than 1 million acres of protected rangeland area are shown 

(million acres). 

Extent of Percent of protected Percent of protected

protected Rangeland area Rangeland area area that is rangeland area that is rangeland

State area (FIA perspective) (NRI perspective) (NRI perspective) (FIA perspective)

NV 98 64 74 76 66

CA 61 26 37 60 43

OR 39 17 21 53 43

ID 34 13 15 45 37

AZ 20 8 13 66 40

UT 16 4 5 34 24

NM 12 3 5 38 22

WY 14 3 4 26 22

CO 18 3 3 19 15

MT 22 3 3 15 12

SD 3 2 2 73 61

FL 12 0.5 2 18 4

TX 6 2 2 36 29

ND 3 2 2 76 63

WA 12 1 1 12 10

Table 10—Twenty National Forest examples of protected areas and their associated rangeland area (from NRI and FIA 

perspectives) and vegetation composition estimates.

 Rangeland area Rangeland area 

Area name (NRI perspective) (FIA perspective) Dominant rangeland Ecological System

Tonto NF 1,854,593 840,823 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub

Toiyabe NF 1,491,460 1,155,603 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland

Modoc NF 986,130 550,640 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

Prescott NF 742,851 175,921 Mogollon Chaparral

Sawtooth NF 689,967 540,708 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance

Targhee NF 291,522 252,723 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance

Uinta NF 313,912 143,255 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance

Wild Rivers Recreation Area 238,417 180,509 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

White River NF 201,090 126,341 Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance

Sevilleta NWR 190,535 166,595 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe

Mendocino NF 223,390 13,949 Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral

Rio Grande NF 162,261 137,499 Rocky Mountain Alpine Turf

Mazatzal Wilderness 205,409 83,647 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub

San Bernardino NF 246,504 46,593 Southern California Dry-Mesic Chaparral

Santa Fe NF 184,469 63,905 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie

Sitgreaves NF 174,847 106,423 Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance

Superstition Wilderness 140,226 83,344 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub

Wasatch-Cache NF 167,386 95,566 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance
24

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 11—Top 10 areas with most rangeland acres (from NRI and FIA perspectives) contained within Research 

Natural Areas (RNAs). 

 Area of Rangeland area Rangeland area Percent of RNAs Percent of RNAs

 RNAs NRI perspective FIA perspective as range from as range from

RNA name State (acres) (acres) (acres) NRI perspective FIA perspective

Smiley Mountain ID 3,099 2,058 2,058 66 66

Spring Branch CO 4,005 2,053 2,024 51 51

Red Butte Canyon UT 4,658 3,236 326 69 7

Lost Water Canyon MT 3,658 1,470 1,470 40 40

Middle Canyon ID 2,336 1,367 1,211 59 52

Harvey Monroe Hall CA 3,832 1,226 1,226 32 32

Gibson Jack Creek ID 2,316 1,247 1,170 54 51

Line Creek WY 1,884 1,168 1,168 62 62

Finger Mesa CO 3,194 1,094 1,094 34 34

Bald Mountain NV 5,781 1,082 905 19 16

Pasture 45 NE 939 925 925 98 98

Blillo NM 1,027 882 871 86 85

Meadow Canyon ID 3,954 865 809 22 20

White Mountain CA 1,848 994 675 54 37

Sentinel Meadow CA 1,933 1,092 552 56 29

Devil’s Garden CA 800 795 762 99 95

Devil’s Rock CA 5,709 1,448 0 25 0

Cliff Lake MT 2,347 633 620 27 26

Browse UT 1,394 858 370 62 27

Monumental Creek ID 755 658 557 87 74

Targhee Creek ID 2,714 586 586 22 22

Figure 9—Distribution of Research Natural Areas (RNAs) in the coterminous United States. RNAs are not shown to 

scale.
25

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Extent and Disposition of Human Modified Rangeland

Since the 2000 RPA Rangeland Assessment (Mitchell 2000), advances in remote sensing and 

data availability for U.S. rangelands have enabled new analyses characterizing the decline 

of coterminous rangelands since the pre-settlement era in addition to quantifying the current 

extent and magnitude of fragmentation and human modified lands. Spatially explicit data 

describing human modified cover were recently created by analyzing 6000 sites across the 

coterminous United States and digitizing human modified cover from high-resolution aerial 

photography. These training areas were used to extrapolate the percent of human modified 

cover across the landscape using a consortium of geospatial data sources. Here, “human modification” refers to permanent conversion from rangeland to another land type and represents 

the landscape circa 2005. Modifications such as agricultural, residential, resource extraction, 

recreation and transportation, mixed use, and undeveloped were mapped. Phenomena such as 

the presence of exotic species are not sufficiently evaluated here but arguably can be labeled 

as a human modification. An in-depth analysis regarding the alteration or disappearance of 

rangeland vegetation types is beyond the scope of this report. However, this section does 

provide a synoptic overview regarding the wide-scale alteration of key rangeland vegetation 

types.

The extent of current and historic rangelands is identified using the data estimated by Reeves 

and Mitchell (2011). The estimated historical extent of rangelands in the coterminous United 

States identified from the NRI and FIA perspectives portrayed in Reeves and Mitchell (2011) 

is approximately 1.1 billion and 883 million acres, respectively (figure 10). These data have 

Figure 10—Postulated historic distribution of rangelands according to the NRCS (2009) definition; modeled after 

Reeves and Mitchell (2011). 
26

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

been spatially intersected (overlain) with as-of-yet unpublished spatially explicit data depicting the percent of human modified rangelands (previously described). This process was also 

used to estimate the amount of residential development from 2010 to 2030. The resulting 

products are complete and consistent for the coterminous United States and are summarized in 

table 12.

Table 12—Evaluation of extent of human modified rangelands compared with historic distributions. In this 

study, “human modification” refers to permanent conversion from rangeland to another land use type. Only 17 

western states are evaluated and data are as-of-yet unpublished. 

 Rangeland threatened

State and Assessment Historic rangeland Rangeland Average distance by potential residential

Region (AR) (ac x 103)	 lost (%)	 (km) from ≥ 50 HMca development 2030 (ac x 103)b

WA 17,249 44 1.17 102

OR 34,488 15 4.61 80

CA 70,874 19 5.67 1,354

Pacific Coast AR 122,611 21 3.82 1,536

ID 29,763 20 4.71 77

NV 67,266 3 12.89 161

UT 38,748 7 9.39 166

AZ 66,974 5 12.61 364

MT 67,604 24 2.14 28

WY 49,306 8 3.18 13

CO 45,916 29 2.05 256

ND 43,214 71 0.17 29

SD 45,924 52 0.6 46

NE 47,538 56 0.64 74

KS 46,799 75 0.05 115

NM 68,636 9 7.93 137

Rocky Mountain AR 617,688 30 4.70 1,466

IL 20,247 87 0.01 188

WI 11,423 61 0.06 146

MO 15,027 69 0.02 132

IA 23,108 88 0.01 93

MN 21,708 84 0.07 116

North AR 120,364 78 0.034 800

OK 28,851 59 0.24 125

TX 128,547 36 2.57 1,129

FL 12,096 40 1.18 438

South AR 140,643 67 0.466 1,567

Coterminous U.S. total 1,001,306 34 3.13 5,369 

a HMc is the percent of human modified rangeland. 

b Estimates are derived from the SERGoM model (Buenemann 2010).
27

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Overlaying maps depicting estimated human modification of western rangelands with this 

postulated historic rangeland distribution reveals that 34 percent of historical rangeland area 

has been lost due to land cover change associated with human land use (figure 11).

However, historic rangeland area and rangeland loss varies on a state-by-state basis (table 12). 

For both historic and current estimates of rangeland, Texas has the greatest rangeland area 

(table 12) but has lost 36 percent through conversion to other land types. Of all states with 

significant rangeland area, Iowa has lost the most on a proportional basis, followed closely by 

Illinois and Minnesota (table 12). Nevada has lost the smallest proportion of rangeland area 

and remains largely intact. The Pacific Coast Assessment Region exhibits the smallest proportion of rangelands (21 percent) that have been modified, while the North Assessment Region 

exhibits the highest proportion (78 percent).

Cropland agriculture is responsible for the majority of rangeland loss, resulting in a loss of 18 

percent of the historic rangeland base (table 13). Residential land use contributes only about 

6 percent to historic rangeland modification. Data depicting expected residential development by 2030 reveal that another 5 million acres of rangelands are expected to be converted 

(table 12) (Theobald 2005). Both Texas and Florida are expected to host over 1 million acres 

of new residential development by 2030 (figure 12).

Figure 11—Estimated extent and magnitude of human modification on coterminous U.S. rangelands expressed as a 

percentage of an area.
28

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 13—Quantification of proportion of land use classes to which rangelands 

have transitioned to. These land use types are those most responsible for the 

extent of human modification identified in this study. Only 17 western states 

are evaluated and data are as-of-yet unpublished.

Modified rangeland area Rangeland modified

Land use class (Acres x 103) (% of historic area)

Residential 59,319 5.8

Mixed Use 6,244 0.6

Agriculture 183,228 18.0

Resource Extraction 74,936 7.4

Recreation 1,959 0.2

Transportation 1,968 0.2

Undeveloped 17,906 1.8

Total 345,561 34.0

Figure 12—Estimated increase in residential development represented as a percentage increase from present extent and 

magnitude of residential development. Projections are based on SERGoM model (Buenemann 2010). 
29

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Of particular interest from an ecological perspective is the proportion of human modification 

of each Ecological System and NVCS alliance. Table 14 depicts the estimated proportion of 

each Ecological System that has been converted to other uses. One caveat to the estimates 

of human modified rangelands is that the analysis described previously does not account for 

lands that are dominated by invasive species. In addition, the analysis does not always reflect 

the extent of pasturelands that are hard to detect from an aerial perspective and can rotate 

among land uses on a regular basis. Finally, oil and gas development since 2005 will not be 

Table 14—Biophysical Settings (BPS) that are thought to have occupied >5 million acres and associated 

estimates of the proportion of lands that have been human modified. The human modification here does not 

sufficiently account for pasture lands or those lands dominated by invasive or non-native species.

 Proportion

BPS (described by ecological systems and NVCS Alliances) Historic area HMca area modified (HMc)

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 110,477 50,115 45

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 6,522 6,874 10

Central Mixedgrass Prairie 64,535 40,530 63

Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 63,399 28,532 45

Central Tallgrass Prairie 56,664 46,627 82

Northern Tallgrass Prairie 35,784 32,772 92

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 35,441 5,989 17

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 27,837 1,492 5

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 26,701 10,540 39

Southeastern Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 26,186 18,309 70

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 23,066 1,167 5

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 20,692 1,280 6

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems 18,765 8,205 44

Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 18,742 1,069 6

Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 17,370 1,345 8

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland - Wyoming Big Sagebrush 16,277 600 4

Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 15,117 369 2

Western Great Plains Sandhill Steppe 14,669 4,724 32

North-Central Interior Oak Savanna 14,561 8,991 62

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 12,056 218 2

Chihuahuan Loamy Plains Desert Grassland 10,028 954 10

Edwards Plateau Limestone Savanna and Woodland 9,622 1,782 19

Southern Blackland Tallgrass Prairie 9,615 6,445 67

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 9,480 1,247 13

Texas-Louisiana Coastal Prairie 9,058 6,842 76

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 9,044 156 2

Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub 8,523 3,358 39

California Lower Montane Blue Oak-Foothill Pine Woodland and Savanna 8,045 1,916 24

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 7,791 468 6

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 7,736 594 8

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland 6,828 1,959 29

Mogollon Chaparral 6,203 188 3

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 5,936 29 0

North American Warm Desert Sparsely Vegetated Systems 5,736 369 6

Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 5,404 3,746 69

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 5,341 507 9

Central Florida Pine Flatwoods 5,042 2,301 46

Edwards Plateau Limestone Shrubland 5,020 424 8

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Riparian Systems 5,015 2,166 43

aHMc is human modified cover.
30

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

accounted for. Thus, some of the estimates of the proportion of human modification might 

appear lower than normal (as in the case of some tall grass prairie types). Of all rangeland 

types, the tall grass prairie systems appear to be the most converted. On average, Ecological 

Systems which occur in drier, less productive areas, have seen far less human modification.

The recent increase in visibility and concern (Hobbs and others 2008; Stokes and others 2006) 

regarding rangeland fragmentation provided impetus for research examining spatial extent 

and magnitude of the phenomena (for example, Leinwand and others 2010). Following is a 

spatially explicit, synoptic overview of fragmented rangelands using data that describe spatial 

patterns of rangeland vegetation and oil and gas development. Fragmentation is detrimental 

to natural landscapes due to factors such as loss of goods and services, decreased gene pools, 

and barriers to species that depend on rangelands for all or part of their life cycle.

At least two sources of data exist for characterizing fragmentation on coterminous United 

States rangelands, including Riitters (2010) and unpublished data derived from the human 

modification analysis. Here, both models of fragmentation are presented to facilitate a more 

complete understanding of the scope of fragmentation. Fragmentation, as quantified from the 

human modification analysis previously introduced represents the Euclidean distance from 

one human modified site to another (a site is “modified” when ≥50 percent of the area is 

modified by human activity) (table 12). Figure 13 indicates that the average distance between 

modified sites for coterminous U.S. rangelands is 1.77 miles. Agriculture accounts for the 

greatest amount of rangeland fragmentation.

Figure 13—Estimated extent of rangeland fragmentation. Values represent the distance between “human modified 

sites”—“modified” means ≥50% of the area has been permanently changed due to human intervention.
31

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

An in-depth analysis of the density and morphological spatial patterns of grass and shrubland 

communities of the coterminous United States is presented in Riitters (2010). Here, these data 

were adapted to provide an index of rangeland fragmentation (figure 14). The index yields 

a relative value indicating the ratio of rangeland vegetation edge to the area of urban and 

agricultural landscapes. Higher values (warmer tones) indicate areas of rangeland vegetation 

that are relatively more fragmented. Figure 14 shows that Nevada and Arizona are the least 

fragmented states, while the most fragmented areas are those corresponding to high agricultural land use. Since the work of Riitters (2010) was performed on the National Land Cover 

Dataset (Vogelmann and others 2001), it will not appropriately characterize the extent of 

current fragmentation from oil and gas development. Thus, a separate analysis is required to 

describe the extent and configuration of oil and gas exploration.

Figure 15 depicts the estimated number of oil and gas wells without regard to current status 

(for example, active or inactive) circa 2009. In 2009, there were approximately 2.8 million oil 

and gas wells in the United States (including offshore sites) (www.whitestar.com) so accounting for the impact and footprint is important. Figure 15 depicts oil well density only for those 

counties exhibiting greater than 50,000 acres of rangelands. For reference, the Powder River 

Basin and Book Cliffs area (two areas that have experienced significant oil and gas development) are displayed in white. Quantifying fragmentation associated with oil and gas well pads 

is beyond this report, but the general scope of the issue can be seen in figure 16.

Figure 14—Relative fragmentation of grassland and shrubland vegetation in the coterminous United States. Fragmentation is estimated using data from Riitters (2010). Only counties with ≥50,000 acres of rangelands (from Reeves and 

Mitchell [2011]) are shown.
32

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 15—Number of 

oil and gas well pads per 

county estimated from 

data distributed by the 

Whitestar Corporation. 

Counties with ≥100,000 

acres of rangelands 

with no oil wells in the 

database are depicted 

in white, while counties 

with ≤100,000 acres of 

rangelands are gray.

Figure 16—Estimated oil 

and gas well pad density. 

Where data are incom-

plete, states are shown in 

gray. The effect of even 

a modest number of well 

pads on rangeland patch 

size and fragmentation is 

evident in the air photo. 

Data source: www.whit-

estar.com.
33

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

The Conservation Reserve Program

While land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is not, by definition, rangeland (it cannot usually be grazed by livestock or hayed except during certified emergencies), 

it may provide similar functions as rangelands and can impact the juxtaposition of rangelands 

across the landscape, therefore, it warrants discussion here. Both the 1989 and 2000 RPA 

Rangeland Assessments provided considerable detail regarding legislation and political situations leading to creation of the CRP. Enacted in 1985 as a provision of the Farm Bill, the 

Program is a cost share and rental payment program administered by the USDA Farm Service 

Agency (FSA) implemented to conserve highly erodible or environmentally sensitive farmland and to improve agricultural commodity prices by reducing supply via conversion of cropland to tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filter strips, or riparian buffers (USDA 

FSA 2011; USDA NRCS 2011). Since 1985, the CRP has been amended considerably, most 

dealing with contract provisions. The 2008 Farm Bill stipulated that alfalfa is considered an 

agricultural commodity, which makes it eligible for the CRP process if it was cropped four of 

the previous six years (USDA ERS 2008). Also, for the first time, the bill allowed thinning to 

improve the condition of resources on lands containing windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife 

corridors (USDA ERS 2008). Rents received by landowners are determined by the productivity of the soils in the area and average dry land crop cash rent equivalent (USDA ERS 2008), 

and rental rates may not exceed the FSA’s maximum payment amount. In 2009, 766,400 CRP 

contracts were in place representing 34 million acres and an average rental payment of $51 

per acre (table 15) (Barbarika 2009). The Rocky Mountain Assessment Region had the most 

CRP acres but exhibited the lowest average rent per acre, reflecting lower crop yields and 

reduced vegetation productivity pervasive in the arid western United States.

While the CRP program has had negative impacts such as use of non-native species (for 

example, Agropyron cristatum [crested wheatgrass] and A. intermedium [intermediate wheatgrass] for reseeding former cropland (Mitchell 2000), recent studies have demonstrated significant ecological and economic benefits of the CRP program. The CRP is estimated to provide 

$500 million per year in benefits from reduced erosion and $737 million per year in wildlife 

viewing and hunting benefits (Sullivan and others 2004) (www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/

AER834). In addition, the recent emphasis on biological carbon sequestration (Follett and 

Reed 2010) by rangelands emphasizes the potential of CRP lands seeded with rangeland vegetation to eliminate a significant quantity of atmospheric CO2 (Jordan and others 2007). In 

Table 15—Number of contracts, farms, acres enrolled, rental payments, and average rent 

by RPA Assessment Region (USDA 2009).

Assessment Number of Number of Acres Rental payments Average rent

Region contracts farms enrolled (USD) per acre

Alaska 82 62 28,691 1,082,417 38

Pacific Coast 17,295 7,697 2,234,593 115,617,061 52

Rocky Mountain 185,928 95,932 16,205,074 605,739,921 37

North 428,654 238,024 7,954,919 691,820,221 87

South 134,441 88,781 8,237,589 350,940,260 43

Total 766,400 430,496 34,660,866 1,765,199,880 51
34

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

addition, FSA estimates that CRP has decreased erosion by 440 million tons per year, sequestered over 17.6 million tons of carbon annually, and reduced nitrogen application by 681,000 

tons. From a rangeland perspective, one of the greatest benefits from the CRP program is 

reduced fragmentation of landscapes, which enhances wildlife populations (USDA NRCS 

2009) and ecological function (Skaggs and others 1994).

The ultimate fate of 34 million acres of land enrolled in the CRP program and associated benefits is difficult to predict and is dependent on such factors as the economics of crop production, agricultural policy, and values held by CRP participants (Heimlich 1995). Though new 

research indicating conversion of CRP lands to rangelands (or simply leaving rangeland vegetation in place after the contract expires) is sparse, previous research indicates that less than 

20 percent of CRP lands will be maintained as grasslands (Heimlich and Kula 1990).

In addition to issues discussed by Mitchell (2000), two contemporary issues will likely 

influence the fate of CRP lands. First, is to address the extent to which CRP lands provide 

improved habitat or refuge for threatened or near-threatened species such as sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). Research suggests that sage-grouse populations are improved or 

maintained because of CRP lands (Schroeder and others 2006). Second, the quest and exploration for new sources of biofuels could remove lands from CRP but maintain them in permanent grass cover. About 17 million of the 34 million acres of CRP land (1998 data) (Adler 

and others 2009) may be available for biomass feedstock production (De La Torre Ugarte 

and others 2003). If native species are used, especially large statured warm season (C4 photosynthetic pathway) species such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and technologies are 

developed to make biofuel production economically attractive, rangeland-like landscapes may 

increase in the future as CRP contracts expire.

In summary, CRP lands are providing multiple benefits and can function like rangelands and 

decrease fragmentation in landscapes dominated by rangeland vegetation. The extent to which 

rangelands will replace current CRP lands is subject to many economic, social, and political 

factors. On a positive note, regardless of the fate of post-contract CRP lands, the rangeland 

base will not be negatively affected since these lands are not currently classified as rangeland.

The Outlook for Extent of U.S. Rangelands

Here, we discuss how current processes may affect the rangeland base in the near future. 

Between 1982 and 2007, nearly 350,000 acres of non-Federal rangelands were lost annually 

(figure 6) to various land use changes. In the 2000 RPA report, Mitchell (2000) discussed the 

issue of consolidation, subdivision, and urbanization of rangelands. It appears that the process 

of consolidation has, at least temporarily, leveled off, but subdivision continues to expand. 

The average farm size has decreased from 431 acres in 1997 to 418 acres in 2007 (USDA 

NASS 2009). In addition, the percent of small farms has steadily increased over the same 

period (table 16). Economic and demographic influences will continue to change patterns 

of development across non-Federal rangelands. Changes in non-Federal rangelands are estimated in figure 17. In each RPA scenario (Wear 2011), rangelands decrease slowly over the 

next 50 years averaging losses from 116,000 to 175,000 acres per year, but overall changes 

in areal extent are small compared to the total rangeland base. In each scenario, the Pacific 
35

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Table 16—Average farm sizes estimates 

for the United States during 1997, 2002, 

and 2007. 

Average farm

 size (acres) 1997 2002 2007

1 to 99 49.0 51.0 54.4

100 to 499 35.0 33.1 31.0

500 to 999 8.1 7.6 6.8

1000 to 1,999 4.6 4.7 4.2

>2000 3.4 3.7 3.6

Figure 17—Net loss of rangeland projected in Wear 

(2011). Wear (2011) explained why a good number 

of counties have no rangeland loss.
36

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Coast Assessment Region is projected to lose the most rangeland while the South and Rocky 

Mountain Regions are projected to experience smaller losses. Areas projected to experience 

the greatest loss are the Mojave Desert, particularly near Las Vegas, Nevada; the central 

Rocky Mountain Front; and eastern Texas near the transition from grasslands to forests and 

woodlands.

The extent of Federal rangelands will not likely decrease substantially in the future although 

a significant portion of lands have been transferred to non-Federal owners. For example, in 

Alaska alone, between 1999 and 2008 the BLM conveyed approximately 8.5 million acres 

(DOI 1999 and 2009) of lands to various groups, including Alaska Native Americans, via 

a variety of public laws, including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Karl, personal communication). Predicting losses 

and transfers of this magnitude in the future are beyond the scope of this report. While the 

extent of rangelands will probably not change dramatically in the future, it is reasonable to 

expect a slow decline (Mitchell 2000) and continued fragmentation, as indicated by figure 12.

At least three significant factors will potentially influence extent and fragmentation of U.S. 

rangelands that are noteworthy in this report:

1. The pattern of subdivision and urbanization of U.S. rangelands noted in the last 

Rangeland Assessment (Mitchell 2000) has continued over the last decade.

2. Rangeland decline due to recent surge in “sodbusting” or “new breakings” (Stubbs 

2007) and the ephemeral nature of contractually conserved lands (such as CRP).

3. Significant increase in oil and gas development.

In summary, if past trends are good predictors, the overall rangeland extent should not change 

markedly in the future, especially on Federal lands. This expectation should not, however, 

vanquish the need for continued monitoring because the composition, function, and connectivity of rangelands could change substantially in the future even if the total extent and relative juxtaposition remain somewhat constant.

Global Rangeland Situation

Globally, rangelands provide livelihood to millions of people (Papanastasis 2009) in addition 

to a multitude of biological and social benefits. Cattle alone provide tens of billions of dollars 

to the world economy. In 2009, the United States generated roughly $32 billion worth of beef 

cattle production (http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm). Though not all livestock 

are raised exclusively on rangelands, current livestock production levels are not possible 

without the forage base that rangelands supply. The increasing societal pressures on rangelands are not limited to food and fiber; rangelands need to meet multiple demands simultaneously (Lund 2007).

From a global perspective, threats to rangelands include climate change, degradation, and land 

conversion (Lund 2007). Monitoring the extent and magnitude of these processes requires 

identification of rangelands to provide a spatial framework and baseline against which future 

assessments can be compared. Determining the exact amount and location of all rangelands 
37

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

globally is not only impossible, it is probably not needed. What is needed, however, is a 

common, consistently used definition of rangelands on which future assessments and monitoring can be based. Because no unified definition of rangelands exists, every estimate is subject 

to interpretation but is still useful for understanding the global scale of this land type. Satellite 

remote sensing can be used to determine the spatial arrangement of rangelands across the 

world because it is generally agreed upon that most shrublands and grasslands are rangelands 

(though debate exists over which species should be shrubs or trees). Figure 18 reveals the distribution of grasslands and shrublands throughout the world derived from the 2005 Moderate 

Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Global Land Cover Product (University of 

Maryland Classification) (Friedl and others 2002). Excluding Antarctica, there are roughly 52 

billion acres of land in the world, of which rangelands occupy 47 percent (table 17).

Sere and Steinfeld (1996) estimated that roughly half of the world’s rangelands are used for 

grazing livestock, and in areas such as the western United States and parts of Africa, wild 

herbivores account for much of the use. The relative amount of rangelands used for livestock 

Figure 18—Global distribution of grass, shrub, and savanna vegetation (Hansen 2000). Data Source: MODIS NPP collection 4.5, http://

modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/directbrod/index.php. 
38

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 17—These classes are considered rangelands for this report. 

Area estimates were derived from the 2005 MODIS Global Land 

Cover Product (University of Maryland Classification) (Friedl and 

Others 2002). 

Land type (UMD classes) Area (ac. x 103) Percent of total land massa

Closed Shrublands 214,243 0.413

Open Shrublands 12,745,163 24.562

Woody Savannas 3,545,772 6.833

Savannas3,100,446 5.975

Grasslands 4,688,016 9.035

Total 214,243 46.818

a Excludes Antarctica and all significant inland water bodies.

grazing is likely to change in response to land use/land cover change, dietary preferences, and 

population trends. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization tracks land use/

land cover changes for four main groups: cropland, pasture, forest, and other. Rangelands are 

not explicitly accounted for. However, global pasturelands have shrunk by approximately 69 

million acres (<1 percent of the extent in 1995) (figure 19) since 1995, largely at the expense 

of permanent agriculture expansion (figure 19). However, changes in the global rangeland 

base in the future are difficult to predict due to climate change and demographic patterns. 

Figure 20 demonstrates the projected increase in global population concluding with a mean 

estimate of roughly 10 billion people in 2060 (Nakićenović and others 2000). Many of the 

fastest growing regions, or areas with current high population density, overlap with the 

world’s rangelands, which will undoubtedly affect distribution, sustainability, degradation, 

and desertification of rangelands. Like the decade between 1990 and 2000, desertification and 

degradation are two of the most critical topics involving rangelands from an international perspective. And, like the preceding decade, we still do not have spatially explicit information to 

verify the amount of desertification or the instability it causes (Mitchell 2000).

The formal definition of “desertification” provided by the United Nations Convention to 

Combat Desertification (http://www.unccd.int/) is “land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and 

dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human 

activities” (Reich and others 2001). Areas exhibiting a “very cold (boreal), hyper-arid or a 

humid” climate are not included in this definition. Significant debate exists over the causes 

and implications of perceived desertification. Two competing theories have been developed 

that explain vegetation dynamics. These are referred to as equilibrium and non-equilibrium 

dynamics, both of which can be used to explain the concept of rangeland degradation. 

Equilibrium theory, the older of the two, suggests that a vegetation community and condition of a site follows a linear trajectory of successional states ending in a climax community 

in the absence of the disturbance. This view necessarily emphasizes grazing management as 

a determinant of both composition and degree of degradation. In contrast, non-equilibrium 

theory suggests livestock grazing has little effect on the productive capacity of a site, which is 

largely determined by rainfall (Behnke and Scoones 1993; Ellis 1994; Scoones 1994; Wessels 

and others 2007). An important concept in non-equilibrium theory is the potential for crossing 

ecological thresholds, beyond which, the site loses productive capacity and exhibits irreparable changes in species composition, even when grazing is totally removed from the system 

(Behnke and Scoones 1993).
39

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 19—Percent of change globally in pastureland area from 1995 to 2009 (FAO 2009). Data source: United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization. 2009. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009: Table A.4 Land Use, ftp://extftp.fao.org/ES/Reserved/essb/ess/

ftp_essb/yearbook_2009_cd/20091109_cd_final/pdf/a04.pdf:2.

Figure 20—Global population growth 

projections according to the three IPCC 

storylines modified for RPA reporting 

process (Nakicenovic and others 2000).
40

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Regardless of soundness of theory, investigation, focus, and debate regarding global desertification (degradation) have increased. The increase in focus and alarm has not, however, noticeably improved field-referenced data collection efforts to facilitate consistent quantification of 

the phenomena. As a result, most studies focus on use of satellite remote sensing to evaluate 

the extent and magnitude of degradation. In addition, a large proportion of these studies focus 

on semi-arid regions in Africa (Prince and others 2009; Wessels and others 2007).

Estimates of degraded rangeland vary from 1.7 billion acres (Brown 2002) to 8.1 billion 

acres (UNEP 1991). Still, other estimates provided in figure 21 result in a mean estimate of 

44 percent of rangelands being degraded globally (Lund 2007). The process of desertification has affected every continent except Antarctica, leading to decreased productivity, irreparable changes in vegetation composition (Wessels and others 2007), altered nutrient cycles 

(Schlesinger and others 1990), and even faunal extinctions (Spottiswoode and others 2009). 

Primary areas currently experiencing desertification expressed as long-term decreases in 

rain use efficiency are sub-equatorial Africa, southeast Asia and south China, north-central 

Australia, and the Pampas grasslands of Argentina and Uruguay (Bai and others 2008). 

Figure 21—Estimated percent of global rangelands experiencing degradation (adapted from Lund [2007]).
41

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Currently, two antithetical processes are acting to suggest a troubling trend. While desertification is acting to reduce productive capacity, global per capita beef consumption and production have increased sharply since 2000 (figure 22) (USDA ERS 2009). As countries around 

the world seek to increase standards of living and become more urbanized, meat consumption 

is likely to increase (Gale 2002). For example, since 1994, per capita consumption of beef in 

China has increased over 200 percent (USDA ERS 2009). If red meat consumption increases 

concomitantly with estimates of future global population, the extent of degradation will 

expand.

Summary

The different methods for quantifying rangeland area among, and even within, land management agencies make consistent accounting for U.S. rangelands impossible. This situation 

inspired new research (Reeves and Mitchell 2011) aimed at consistently and objectively quantifying rangeland area. The results of that work provide spatially explicit data that consistently 

describe the area of coterminous U.S. rangelands from the FIA and NRI perspectives. This 

research enables rangeland area estimates to be provided to an extent not previously possible.

Reeves and Mitchell (2011) estimated that rangelands occupy between 662 and 511 million 

acres. The USFS administers up to 47 million acres of rangelands while the BLM manages 

Figure 22—Global beef production and consumption from 1994 to 2007 (USDA ERS 2009). 
42

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

up to 139 million acres. Rangelands account for nearly half of protected lands of the coterminous United States and up to 70 percent of the RNAs. Non-Federal rangelands account for 

409 million acres and decreased at a rate of 350,000 acres per year between 1982 and 2007, 

though the rate of loss has recently leveled off.

In addition to discussing new estimates of rangeland area, this report provides spatially explicit analyses describing the extent and nature of human modified rangelands. Approximately 

1.1 billion acres of rangelands existed during the pre-settlement era, of which 34 percent have 

been lost to human modification. Agriculture accounts for the greatest amount of rangeland 

conversion and significantly contributes to rangeland fragmentation. Fragmentation, as quantified here, represents the distance from one human modified site to another. The average 

distance between modified sites (a site is “modified” when ≥50 percent of the area is modified 

human activity) for coterminous U.S. rangelands is 1.77 miles.

Residential development is expected to convert another 5 million acres of rangelands by 2030. 

In addition, oil and gas development and new breakings (sodbusting) will probably continue 

to reduce the extent of non-Federal U.S. rangelands. In contrast, the extent of Federal rangelands is not expected to change dramatically in the future unless further land divestures by the 

BLM are realized or significant oil and gas exploration infrastructure such as roads, well pads, 

and similar structures are constructed and not reclaimed.

Unlike the situation in the United States, evaluating the status of trends of global rangelands is 

relatively difficult. There are about 24 billion acres of rangelands (from a remote sensing perspective), and although reductions in the rangeland base are difficult to estimate, since 1995 

roughly 69 million acres of pastures have been usurped largely by expansion of agriculture. 

Both degradation and increased demands for goods and services will continue to impact the 

extent, composition, health, and productivity of rangeland ecosystems. Current estimates of 

rangeland degradation range from 20 to 73 percent of the rangeland base. Increased standard 

of living portends an increased demand for red meat. Global population is expected to reach 

10 billion by 2060 and will create a situation where a decreased rangeland base (through 

further conversion to agricultural land) will be expected to supply more goods and services.
43

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Chapter 3: Ecosystem Goods and Services

Introduction

Public perceptions of rangelands have been transforming since the importance of rangelands 

became apparent more than 130 years ago (Harris 1977). Among these dynamics in recent 

years is an increased focus on the relevance of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) as a 

reason for rangeland sustainability.

The concept of rangeland EGS is not new, although some elements concerning them are in 

their infancy, for example, quantifying and marketing carbon sequestration on a meaningful 

scale. Though the list is potentially large, this report focuses on EGS with national 

significance and for which sufficient information exists at that scale. Specifically, we report 

on trends in decadal productivity, forage supply, livestock production, and alternative energy.

Decadal Productivity Trends

In its most basic form, rangeland productivity can be described as the rate of change in 

biomass accumulation expressed on an area basis. Since primary production provides the 

foundation for all herbivory, it is a critical component to monitor on rangelands. Further, 

rangeland primary production is the subject of scrutiny for Criterion 3 (Maintenance 

of Productive Capacity on Rangelands) (Mitchell and others 1999) (http://sustainable.

rangelands.org/pdf/Core_Indicators.pdf ). A national assessment of rangeland productivity 

is difficult since no national standard for monitoring productivity at meaningful scales has 

been established. Nor have national monitoring programs been instigated that would enable 

estimation of rangeland production for U.S. rangelands from field-referenced plot data. The 

NRI program does, however, provide a set of approximately 10,000 plots (Herrick and others 

2010) on which annual rangeland productivity can be estimated, but these data are only 

available on non-Federal rangelands and are not usually made available to scientists outside 

the NRCS to evaluate. For Federal lands, Joyce (1989) used authorized Animal Unit Months 

(AUMs) as a proxy for estimating productivity, though this process is only valid for lands 

within grazing allotments. Given the lack of data available for determining productivity for 

U.S. rangelands, ecosystem modeling, remote sensing (Fensholt and others 2006; Hunt and 

others 2004; Reeves and others 2006), or a combination of both (Jinguo and others 2006) can 

be used to estimate spatial and temporal trends across large areas.

This report focuses on annual estimates of net primary production (NPP) from the MODIS 

(Collection 4.5 data) vegetation product (Running and others 2004) from 2000 to 2009. The 

MODIS NPP product, expressed in units of kg Cm2yr-1, is available at a nominal resolution of 

1 km2 spatial resolution and has global coverage (MODIS NPP data are available at https://

lpdaac.usgs.gov/lpdaac/get_data/). This product can estimate landscape-level NPP but does 

not provide a framework for quantifying the proportion of aboveground production suitable 

for grazing, though assumptions can be made enabling reasonable estimates (see the “Forage 

Supply” section). The decadal analysis summarized below was created by first removing all 

areas in the coterminous United States exhibiting tree canopy cover greater than 10 percent. 
44

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

This was done for two reasons. First, tree canopy cover obscures other vegetation beneath the 

canopy, and, therefore, NPP values derived from heavily forested areas will reflect the NPP of 

the trees, a poor depiction of rangeland vegetation. Second, a different technique was used in 

this report for estimating production (or forage) beneath tree canopies (see “Forage Supply”).

The following evaluation of MODIS NPP on U.S. rangelands is based on as-of-yet 

unpublished data. The vegetation classes used to determine productivity were gleaned from 

the LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type product. There are approximately 134 thematic 

classes describing rangeland vegetation (vegetation dominated by herbs and/or shrubs) in 

the LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type product. These classes were condensed to 23 

National Vegetation Classification System Groups and Macrogroups for reporting purposes 

and to reduce complexity (table 18). The crosswalk from NVCS Groups and Macrogroups 

to Ecological Systems is obviously subject to interpretation; table 18 communicates the 

implications of reported productivity estimates.

Table 18—Crosswalk between LANDFIRE Ecological Systems and Groups and Macrogroups from the National NVCS.

Existing vegetation type NVCS Group or Macrogroup (collapsed classes for reporting)

Northern California Coastal Scrub California Chaparral

California Maritime Chaparral California Chaparral

California Mesic Chaparral California Chaparral

California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral California Chaparral

California Montane Woodland and Chaparral California Chaparral

Southern California Coastal Scrub California Chaparral

Mediterranean California Mesic Serpentine Woodland and Chaparral California Chaparral

Southern California Dry-Mesic Chaparral California Chaparral

Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral California Chaparral

California Northern Coastal Grassland California Grassland & Meadow

California Central Valley and Southern Coastal Grassland California Grassland & Meadow

California Annual Grassland California Grassland & Meadow

Floridian Highlands Freshwater Marsh Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

Acadian Salt Marsh and Estuary Systems Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Tidal Marsh Systems Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

Laurentian-Acadian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

Great Lakes Coastal Marsh Systems Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

Central Interior and Appalachian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

Eastern Great Plains Wet Meadow-Prairie-Marsh Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh

North-Central Interior Oak Savanna Eastern North American Grassland, Meadow & Shrubland

East Gulf Coastal Plain Savanna and Wet Prairie Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb

Florida Dry Prairie Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Swale Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb

Texas-Louisiana Coastal Prairie Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb

Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb

Central and Upper Texas Coast Dune and Coastal Grassland Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb

Great Plains Prairie Pothole Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Western Great Plains Depressional Wetland Systems Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Central Mixedgrass Prairie Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland

(continued)
45

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie & Shrubland

North-Central Interior Sand and Gravel Tallgrass Prairie Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Northern Tallgrass Prairie Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Texas Blackland Tallgrass Prairie Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Eastern Great Plains Tallgrass Aspen Parkland Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Central Tallgrass Prairie Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Modified/Managed Northern Tall Grassland Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Modified/Managed Southern Tall Grassland Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Edwards Plateau Limestone Savanna and Woodland Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Southeastern Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Intermountain Singleleaf Pinyon - Western Juniper Woodland

Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna Intermountain Singleleaf Pinyon - Western Juniper Woodland

Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thornscrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Creosotebush Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Chihuahuan Loamy Plains Desert Grassland North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Sonoran Granite Outcrop Desert Scrub North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland

Western Great Plains Dry Bur Oak Forest and Woodland Northern Great Plains Woodland

North Pacific Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Mesic Grass & Forb Meadow

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Mesic Grass & Forb Meadow

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Mesic Grass & Forb Meadow

Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Mesic Grass & Forb Meadow

Western Great Plains Sparsely Vegetated Systems Sparsely Vegetated

Inter-Mountain Basins Sparsely Vegetated Systems Sparsely Vegetated

North American Warm Desert Sparsely Vegetated Systems Sparsely Vegetated

Pacific Coastal Marsh Systems Undifferentiated herb dominated

South Texas Sand Sheet Grassland Undifferentiated herb dominated

South Texas Lomas Undifferentiated herb dominated

South Texas Dune and Coastal Grassland Undifferentiated herb dominated

Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland Undifferentiated herb dominated

Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub Undifferentiated Shrub

Edwards Plateau Limestone Shrubland Undifferentiated Shrub

Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub Undifferentiated Shrub

Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill-Valley Grassland Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

(continued)

Table 18—(Continued).

Existing vegetation type NVCS Group or Macrogroup (collapsed classes for reporting)
46

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Quercus havardii Shrubland Alliance Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Quercus turbinella Shrubland Alliance Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Columbia Basin Palouse Prairie Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland

Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral Western North America Interior Sclerophyllous Chaparral Shrubland

Arctostaphylos patula Shrubland Alliance Western North America Interior Sclerophyllous Chaparral Shrubland

Mogollon Chaparral Western North America Interior Sclerophyllous Chaparral Shrubland

Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral Western North America Interior Sclerophyllous Chaparral Shrubland

Madrean Oriental Chaparral Western North America Interior Sclerophyllous Chaparral Shrubland

North Pacific Montane Shrubland Western North American Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow & Grassland

North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland or Fell-field or Meadow Western North American Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow & Grassland

Rocky Mountain Alpine Turf Western North American Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow & Grassland

Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland Western North American Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow & Grassland

Introduced Upland Vegetation-Perennial Grassland and Forbland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Western Great Plains Sandhill Steppe Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Columbia Basin Foothill and Canyon Dry Grassland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual Grassland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual and Biennial Forbland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Coleogyne ramosissima Shrubland Alliance Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland Western North American Scrub Woodland & Shrubland

California Coastal Live Oak Woodland and Savanna Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Central and Southern California Mixed Evergreen Woodland Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Southern California Oak Woodland and Savanna Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

California Central Valley Mixed Oak Savanna Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Madrean Juniper Savanna Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Madrean Encinal Western North American Warm Temperate Forest

Tamaulipan Mesquite Upland Scrub Western North American Warm Temperate Scrub Woodland & Shrubland

Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Western North American Warm Temperate Scrub Woodland & Shrubland

Table 18—(Continued).

Existing vegetation type NVCS Group or Macrogroup (collapsed classes for reporting)
47

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

The most productive systems occur in coastal California (generally chaparral types), Florida 

Peninsula and Scrub Vegetation, Eastern North American Grassland Meadow and Shrubland, 

Western North American Warm Temperate Forest, and Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie and 

Shrubland (table 19). Figure 23 depicts the spatial patterns of rangeland productivity across 

the coterminous United States. From 2000 to 2009, U.S. rangelands averaged approximately 

4300 pounds per acre (SD = 2700) (0.218 kg Cm2yr-1, SD = 0.137). This value includes 

above- and belowground vegetative structures as well as areas with shrubs, succulents, herbs, 

and, in some cases, trees due to the pixel resolution of the MODIS NPP product. Therefore, 

caution must be used in interpreting the values reported here as they cannot be reliably 

compared with aboveground herbaceous productivity from previous studies. Likewise, U.S. 

rangelands exhibited a mean coefficient of variation of around 16 percent (table 19). Regions 

with the highest variability generally occur in more xeric regions such as the southwestern 

United States and the southern Great Plains presumably in response to inter-annual variability 

in precipitation (Reeves and others 2006; Zhao and Running 2010) (figure 24). Some 

localized areas experienced decadal average coefficient of variability of over 100 percent. 

Table 19—Biomass (lbs ac-1) estimated from MODIS NPP (Running and others 2004) for NVCS Groups 

or Macrogroups.

Vegetation class NPPa CVb

(Group or Macrogroup-NVCS) Lbs ac-1 yr-1 (kg C m-2 yr-1) %

California Chaparral 6,586 (0.74) 10.78

California Grassland & Meadow 6,319 (0.71) 11.31

Florida Peninsula Scrub & Herb 6,141 (0.69) 9.34

Eastern North America Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian & Marsh 5,162 (0.58) 10.24

Western North American Warm Temperate Forest 4,450 (0.5) 16.28

Eastern North American Grassland, Meadow & Shrubland 4,005 (0.45) 10.16

Undifferentiated herb dominated 4,005 (0.45) 14.54

Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie & Shrubland 3,560 (0.4) 16.3

Northern Great Plains Woodland 3,560 (0.4) 17.28

Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Mesic Grass & Forb Meadow 3,382 (0.38) 12.07

Undifferentiated Shrub 3,382 (0.38) 21.16

Western North American Warm Temperate Scrub Woodland & Shrubland 3,115 (0.35) 22.56

Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland 2,848 (0.32) 17.79

Vancouverian & Rocky Mountain Grassland & Shrubland 2,314 (0.26) 14.57

Western North American Scrub Woodland & Shrubland 2,136 (0.24) 12.06

Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie & Shrubland 2,047 (0.23) 24.58

Western North American Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow & Grassland 1,958 (0.22) 13

Western North America Interior Sclerophyllous Chaparral Shrubland 1,869 (0.21) 18.18

Intermountain Singleleaf Pinyon - Western Juniper Woodland 1,513 (0.17) 14.12

Western North American Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland 1,513 (0.17) 15.79

North American Warm Desert Scrub & Grassland 1,246 (0.14) 23

Sparseley Vegetated 1,246 (0.14) 17.68

Averagec 0.37 (+/- .18) 15.5

a Represents average NPP (above-ground) of all vegetation life forms within the NVCS class based on the MODIS NPP vegetation 

product.

b CV is coefficient of variation and represents the amount of inter-annual variability of NPP from 2000 to 2009 in each vegetation class 

evaluated.

c These values must not be assumed to represent all rangelands and instead represent only the Groups or Macrogroups evaluated in the 

table. In addition, these values represent total aboveground NPP from a satellite perspective.
48

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 23—Mean annual 

rangeland net primary pro-

duction (NPP) from 2000 

to 2009. Here, NPP values 

represent both above and 

below-ground production. 

Only patches comprised of 

rangelands occupying ≥198 

contiguous acres are shown, 

thus eliminating many range-

land patches of the eastern 

United States (Zhao 2010). 

Figure 24—Mean annual 

coefficient of variability (CV) 

of rangeland net primary pro-

duction (NPP) from 2000 to 

2009 shown as a percentage. 

Here, the CV values represent 

both above and below-ground 

production. Only areas com-

prised of rangelands occupy-

ing ≥198 contiguous acres are 

shown, thus eliminating many 

rangeland patches of the 

eastern United States (Zhao 

2010). Data Source: MODIS 

NPP collection 4.5, http://

modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/

directbrod/index.php.
49

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

The vegetation types exhibiting the greatest variation were Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 

and Shrubland, North American Warm Desert Scrub and Grassland, and Western North 

American Warm Temperate Scrub Woodland and Shrubland. Rangeland vegetation exhibiting 

the highest average productivity tends to have the lowest variability among years (figure 25) 

reflecting greater stability (less inter-annual variation) in precipitation and moisture 

conditions. This phenomenon is expressed as an increasing rangeland productivity gradient 

extending from the Rocky Mountains eastward, as demonstrated in figure 23.

Figure 25—Relationship between mean rangeland vegetation productivity 

derived from the MODIS NPP products from 2000 to 2009 and coefficient of 

variation. More productive areas generally yield less variability, tending to 

produce more reliable forage abundance.

Overall, from 2000 to 2009, U.S. rangelands have exhibited a weakly positive, albeit 

insignificant, trend in productivity (r2 = 0.1, P<0.37) (figure 26). However, the Rocky 

Mountain Assessment Region exhibited a stronger increasing trend (r2 = 0.38, P<0.06) from 

2000 to 2009 than other assessment regions (figure 27). The increase in productivity in the 

region needs to be interpreted with caution and could be produced by a number of factors. 

Determining the exact cause of the increase is beyond the scope of this report and requires 

more research. Nevertheless, the region experienced a pulse of increased productivity over the 

time period examined.
50

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 26—The estimated net primary production from 2000 to 2009 derived from 1-km MODIS NPP Collection 4.5 data, http://modis.

gsfc.nasa.gov/data/directbrod/index.php. 

Forage Supply

The 1989 RPA Rangeland Assessment (Joyce 1989) extensively evaluated the forage supply 

and generally concluded that the amount of forage available for herbivory is a difficult metric 

to quantify. In addition, it was concluded that the forage supply would likely be sufficient 

to support the growing demand for red meat. We concur with that assessment based on 

the following crude but comprehensive method of accounting for the available forage in 

the coterminous United States. Estimates of forage derived from pastures are added to the 

previous section’s analysis of rangeland productivity, thus addressing the issue of overall 

forage supply. The true forage supply not only includes all grazing lands (figure 28) but also 

various feedstuffs, such as corn, oats, and barley (figure 28). The amount of grazeable crop 

residues or cereal grains is not quantified, therefore, the resultant estimates derived here could 

underestimate the total available forage in the coterminous United States.
51

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 27—Time series of net primary production from the MODIS sensor from 2000 to 2009 for each of the RPA Assessment Regions. 

Only the Rocky Mountain Assessment Region exhibited a significant (p = 0.056) positive increase in vegetation productivity over the last 

decade.

Using 10-year mean MODIS NPP, rangeland area identified by Reeves and Mitchell (2011), 

and the pasture areas and forested areas identified in the LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation 

Type, it is possible to conservatively estimate the total average annual forage supply using a 

series of assumptions. The assumptions used to convert average annual MODIS NPP from 

KgCm2yr-1 to above ground biomass (forage) are:

• Biomass is comprised of approximately 50 percent carbon.

• The root to shoot ratio on average ranges from 50 to 70 percent across vegetation 

types.

• Only 80 percent of the aboveground biomass in wildland settings, where herbs and 

shrubs dominate, is available forage (a gross estimate).
52

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 28—Estimated 2007 distribution of non-Federal grazing lands in the coterminous United States (USDA 2009).

This figure varies by ecosystem and the herbivore that is using the range (for example, a 

shrub field will generally be less useable for a herd of cattle than for goats or deer). In some 

vegetation types, this assumption of available vegetation is higher than one might expect. 

To account for this and to provide a conservative estimate of forage at the national level, 

we further assume that the estimates of forage derived using the methods presented here are 

overestimated by 30 percent.

Using the MODIS NPP data (data processing discussed in “Decadal Productivity Trends” 

section) and the assumptions to convert NPP to biomass, overall forage supply in the 

coterminous United States was estimated at roughly 1.9 to 2.6 trillion pounds of grazeable 

pasture, rangeland forage, and forage beneath tree canopies (table 20).
53

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Based on the remote sensing approach described here, pasture forage is conservatively 

estimated to average 4000 pounds per acre nationwide. At these levels, every one million 

acres of pasture lost correspond to 5.1 million AUMs or approximately 427,000 cattle per year 

assuming they are grazed continuously (not always the case). These analyses assume that all 

estimated forage is available, palatable, and nutritionally acceptable, which is a reasonable 

assumption for average pasture conditions since most pastures are managed to provide forage 

of some kind.

While most pasture lands in the southern United States are used on an annual basis, only a 

small fraction of grazeable forest land is used (Joyce 1989) and therefore might represent 

a relatively untapped reservoir of forage. Accurately estimating the amount of grazeable 

forage beneath forested canopies is beyond the capacity of this report. However, Gaines and 

others (1954) estimated that in the southeastern United States, longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) 

stands exhibited forage production that varied from 430 to 1000 pounds per acre depending 

on canopy closure. Using a conservative assumption that half of the lower end of this value 

(215 pounds per acre) can represent average forage production per acre for forested stands 

of the United States, it is possible to coarsely estimate a forage supply beneath forested 

stands. The Existing Vegetation Cover from the LANDFIRE vegetation product suite reveals 

an estimate of 660 million acres of lands with ≥10 percent tree cover. When combined with 

the conservative estimate of 215 pounds per acre of forage beneath forest canopies, yield 

is estimated at 71 million tons of forage. Not all of the forage is useable or palatable for all 

classes of herbivores, but this provides a conservative, defensible estimate of gross forage 

amount.

Even if the total forage supply, as quantified here, is over-estimated by 30 percent, the 

forage in the United States—minus crop residues and agriculturally developed feedstuffs 

for energy (for example, wheat, barley, and sorghum), protein (for example, cotton meal 

and sunflower meal), and roughages (for example, silages and wheat bran)—should support 

approximately 143 to 196 million animal units per year or 1.7 to 2.4 billion AUMs (table 21). 

Table 20—Coarse estimate of annual forage supply (from rangelands, forests, and 

pastures) across the coterminous United States estimated from MODIS NPP and a set of 

necessary assumptions.

Root:Shoot Forage Forage Forage Annual total

ratio from from from forage AUM

assumption rangelandsa pasturelandsb forest landsc estimate capacityd

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aboveground biomass (100,000’s lbs)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

70/30 13,787,185 11,030,733 1,419,000 26,236,918 3,363,707,435

50/50 9,847,989 7,879,095 1,419,000 19,146,084 2,454,626,153

aAssumes that 80% of aboveground NPP will be allocated to available forage–forage that is palatable and reachable.

bAssumes that 100% of aboveground NPP will be allocated to available forage–forage that is palatable and reachable.

cNo below-ground allocation needed since (Gaines and others 1954) estimated above-ground forage yield.

dAssumes monthly forage requirement of 780 lbs dry matter month-1 (Scarnecchia 1985). 
54

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

The conversions presented in table 21 are not straightforward (Van Tassel and others 1995) 

and many factors, beyond those presented here, must be considered at a local level. It should 

be noted that these forage calculations do not take into consideration areas dominated by 

transitional rangelands identified in Reeves and Mitchell (2011). In some regions, transitional 

rangelands represent large reservoirs of forage suitable for herbivory, but from a national 

perspective, the relative contribution to the forage base is small. Though these estimates are 

debatable, and the assumptions used to make these calculations do not apply to all situations, 

they yield insight to the magnitude of available forage in the United States for grazing or 

browsing herbivores.

Livestock Production

Vegetation production ultimately controls the capacity of the land to support herbivory, but 

from a commodity perspective, livestock production is one of the best measured indicators of 

goods and services. Joyce (1989) described historical trends in cattle, sheep, horses, and goats 

from the mid-1800s until 1986 while Mitchell (2000) provided historical context through 

1995. In this report, where possible, trends from the mid-1990s to roughly 2009 are the focus.

Cattle and Sheep Numbers

The United States has the largest fed-cattle industry in the world and is the world’s largest 

producer of beef (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Cattle/). Beef production tends to follow 

a rather predictable cycle that is characterized by a series of peaks and troughs in herd 

size and production that typically last from 8 to 12 years (Mitchell 2000). The 2000 Range 

Table 21—Estimates of animal capacity based on forage calculations from MODIS 

NPP and other GIS data products. A variety of species are chosen to give the reader a 

rough idea of how many animals can be supported by the estimated forage yield from 

rangeland, pasture, and forage beneath forested canopies. Agricultural feedstuffs 

such as corn, oats, and barley are not included in the available forage calculations.

Animalsa

 Assumed average AUM # for a year # for a month

Species weight (lbs) conversion (100,000’s) (100,000’s)

Cow 1,000 1 2,046 24,546

Horse 1,100 1 2,046 24,546

Elkb 600 1.5 3,068 36,819

Mule deerb 125 4.5 9,205 110,458

Sheep 120 5 10,228 122,731

Goat 120 5 10,228 122,731

Pronghorn antelope 90 6 12,273 147,278 

aEstimates assume that all other habitat requirements are met and only consider forage as a limiting resource. The 

numbers are conservatively based on the lower root:shoot ratio estimate of 50% from table 20. In addition, these 

numbers are offered only as a general guide. 

bWhile these AUM conversions have been used in the past (USDA SCS 1988), more careful computations for 

mule deer and elk would require knowledge of herd composition and the age of offspring. The numbers only 

represent mature animals and the “average” forage requirements.
55

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Assessment highlighted a prediction by the Economic Research Service (ERS) that by 2007, a 

peak of roughly 103 million head would be reached. In fact, numbers have not been that high 

since a peak in U.S. cattle production in 1982 of approximately 104 million animals (USDA 

NASS 2009). Table 22 indicates that the cattle numbers between 2002 and 2007 remained 

within 1.4 percent of the estimated 10-year average of approximately 96.6 million. Table 23 

illustrates the distribution of cattle circa 2007 and the loss in cattle population since 1997. 

The coterminous United States lost approximately 2.6 million cattle between 1997 and 2007 

(USDA NASS 2009) but losses were distributed asymmetrically. The North Assessment 

Region lost nearly 26 percent while the Pacific Coast Assessment Region gained 10 percent. 

In 2007, the South Assessment Region had the most cattle at approximately 34.1 million 

animals (table 23). The South Assessment Region, however, includes Texas and Oklahoma, 

which combined, comprise 56 percent of the cattle population in that region. Nebraska and 

Kansas each yield greater than 80 cattle per square mile, while Texas, which contained 

approximately 13.7 million cattle, only has 52 cattle per square mile (USDA NASS 2009). 

As indicated in Mitchell (2000), the situation with sheep numbers is completely different than 

with cattle.

Since 1997, sheep numbers have declined by approximately 26 percent reflecting the trend 

that has been in place since roughly the late 1930s when nearly 50 million sheep were present. 

In the United States, sheep numbers have declined by roughly 200,000 animals per year 

since 1997 and were estimated at only 5.8 million animals in 2007. Jones (2004) provided an 

excellent overview of the U.S. sheep industry and an analysis of the main factors linked to the 

steady decline. Chief among these factors are:

1. Lamb consumption is very low compared with other meats. Per capita sheep consumption has dropped by approximately 35 percent since 1975 (estimated from 

Jones [2004]).

2. Synthetic fabrics have decreased dependence on wool production.

3. Overall poor marketing of the U.S. sheep meat industry (imports have risen nearly 

500 percent since 1975 (estimated from Jones [2004])

4. Disease and predator losses continue to raise domestic production costs.

Although these factors have greatly decreased the U.S. sheep population, ranch diversification 

and re-kindled awareness of lamb and mutton through increased imports offer hope for the 

future of the U.S. sheep industry.

Table 22—Stock numbers from the NASS Agricultural Census. Bison were 

not counted in the 1997 Agricultural Census. 

Year Goats Cattle Horses Sheep Bison

1997 2,251,613 98,989,244 3,020,117 7,821,885 N/A

2002 3,780,466 95,497,994 3,644,278 6,341,799 231,008

2007 4,412,529 96,347,858 4,028,827 5,819,162 198,234
56

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Table 23—Cattle population and distribution in the coterminous United States and RPA Assessment 

Regions in 2007 and change since 1997. 

State Cattle Gain/(loss) (%) Gain/(loss)a

(Assessment Region) Population (2007) (1997 to 2007) Cattle per mi-2 since 1997

(Pacific Northwest AR)

California 5,498,025 7 35 376,092

Oregon 1,389,189 (10) 14 (133,562)

Washington 1,088,846 (11) 16 (122,504)

Pacific Northwest Total 7,976,060 10 24.8 120,026

(Rocky Mountain AR)

Kansas 6,669,163 3 81 231,324

Nebraska 6,576,950 (2) 85 (153,203)

South Dakota 3,687,728 (1) 48 (22,901)

Colorado 2,745,253 (19) 26 (516,840)

Montana 2,589,679 -0.002 18 (5,932)

Idaho 2,236,147 17 27 373,508

North Dakota 1,811,523 (0.001) 26 (1,753)

New Mexico 1,525,976 (12) 13 (178,487)

Wyoming 1,311,799 (27) 13 (349,101)

Arizona 1,000,038 13 9 133,252

Utah 843,474 (8) 10 (63,482)

Nevada 441,629 (17) 4 (74,481)

Rocky Mountain Total 31,439,359 0 26.9 (628,096)

(North AR)

Missouri 4,292,702 (1) 61 (60,512)

Iowa 3,982,344 7 71 264,950

Wisconsin 3,373,923 (4) 60 (123,552)

Minnesota 2,395,217 (0.002) 28 (4,400)

Pennsylvania 1,609,147 (5) 35 (81,217)

New York 1,443,297 (3) 30 (36,274)

Ohio 1,272,402 (5) 31 (64,735)

Illinois 1,231,105 (23) 22 (281,793)

Michigan 1,048,206 (0.003) 18 (2,924)

Indiana 875,350 (20) 24 (173,973)

West Virginia 411,028 (7) 17 (29,863)

Vermont 264,823 (15) 28 (39,816)

Maryland 190,504 (36) 20 (68,327)

Maine 88,191 (19) 3 (16,461)

Connecticut 50,213 (36) 10 (18,138)

Massachusetts 46,852 (37) 6 (17,510)

New Jersey 38,198 (53) 5 (20,285)

New Hampshire 36,880 (28) 4 (10,279)

Delaware 20,994 (34) 10 (7,125)

Rhode Island 5,085 (28) 5 (1,439)

North Total 22,676,461 (26) 34.3 (793,673)

(South AR)

Texas 13,709,543 (6) 52 (794,901)

Oklahoma 5,391,337 0.002 77 12,387

Kentucky 2,395,455 (3) 59 (81,494)

Tennessee 2,122,018 (4) 50 (91,701)

Arkansas 1,802,653 1 34 18,462

Florida 1,711,011 (9) 31 (147,244)

Virginia 1,566,217 (9) 39 (136,458)

Alabama 1,187,171 (30) 23 (359,228)

Georgia 1,117,087 (15) 19 (172,341)

Mississippi 987,342 (21) 21 (208,497)

Louisiana 878,664 (6) 19 (51,450)

North Carolina 820,182 (17) 17 (139,648)

South Carolina 400,996 (20) 13 (78,762)

South Total 34,089,676 (1) 40.2 (2,230,875)

U.S. Total 96,181,556 (7) 32 (3,532,618)

a Cannot sum values for each state to derive totals for each AR.
57

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Grazing on Federal Lands

While numerous state, local, and Federal agencies permit grazing on public lands, USFS and 

BLM administer the largest holdings of grazeable lands (figure 8). Permitted use on BLM and 

NFS lands is generally reported as AUMs. The traditional definition of an AUM is biomass of 

forage consumed by a 1000-lb cow with a suckling calf in one month, tantamount to 780-lb 

dry weight (Mitchell 2000). The BLM still uses this standard for evaluating forage supply, 

but for billing purposes a modified AUM concept is used. Both the USFS and BLM have 

modified the classical AUM definition for billing, making it more closely aligned with “Head 

Months” (HMs). HMs can be conceptualized as the number of animals per month without 

regard for breed or size differences due to the difficulty in tracking the size, breed, and species 

of all animals needed to make appropriate AUM calculations (for example, a 1200-lb cow will 

consume more than an 800-lb cow of the same breed). However, tracking these characteristics 

on public lands would be exceedingly difficult and costly.

During the 1980s and 1990s, permitted livestock use fluctuated within 10 percent of 

10 million AUMs. During the last decade, however, permitted livestock grazing on BLM 

lands has decreased by 12 percent and was at a decadal low in 2004 (table 24) (BLM 2000 

to 2009). The average annual permitted use decreased to approximately 7.9 million AUMs 

compared with approximately 10 million AUMs over the last two decades (Mitchell 2000). 

In comparison, permitted use on NFS lands has fluctuated within 19 percent of 7.6 million 

AUMs between 2000 and 2008 (table 25) (USDA FS 2000 to 2008).

Table 24—Livestock use from 2000 to 2009 on BLM lands expresses as AUMs. 

Year Cattle, yearlings, and buffalo Horses and burros Sheep and goats Total

2000 8,890,057 55,253 892,278 9,837,588

2001 7,335,444 50,987 725,577 8,112,008

2002 7,111,592 48,778 712,149 7,872,819

2003 6,035,807 43,390 639,257 6,718,454

2004 5,930,432 44,023 620,503 6,594,958

2005 6,105,170 48,312 645,117 6,798,599

2006 6,825,124 48,357 662,931 7,536,412

2007 7,862,879 51,182 678,724 8,592,785

2008 7,858,634 51,726 682,059 8,592,419

2009 7,890,953 51,089 697,135 8,639,177

Average 7,184,609 49,310 695,573 7,929,522

SD 923,961 3,403 72,633 986,988
58

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012 Table 25—Livestock use and non-use from 2000 to 2008 on NFS lands expressed as number of animals, head months, and AUMs. Cattle Horses and burros Sheep and goats Total (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) (1,000s) Year Action na HMb AUMc n HM AUM n HM AUM n HM AUM 2000 Permitted 1,295.4 6,759.0 8,538.6 10.4 43.6 52.5 1,036.8 3,083.1 880.8 2,342.5 9,885.7 9,471.8 2000 Authorized 1,234.3 5,712.4 7,205.5 6.3 32.8 39.3 949.0 2,516.3 718.4 2,189.6 8,261.5 7,963.2 2001 Permitted 1,355.8 7,065.2 8,905.5 9.9 43.3 51.5 1,068.3 2,433.9 925.4 2,433.9 10,365.4 9,882.4 2001 Authorized 1,219.4 5,540.5 5,381.5 7.4 38.7 37.5 954.1 2,678.6 684.7 2,180.9 6,658.4 6,103.7 2002 Permitted 1,311.4 6,940.3 8,736.6 8.7 38.1 45.0 1,050.9 3,124.0 893.7 2,371.1 10,102.4 9,675.3 2002 Authorized 1,068.8 4,580.7 5,826.7 5.7 27.5 32.2 909.4 2,201.2 630.1 1,983.9 6,809.4 6,489.0

2003 Permitted 1,286.6 6,405.8 8,114.1 8.9 37.8 43.9 1,072.9 2,876.4 829.7 2,368.3 9,320.0 8,987.82003 Authorized 983.1 4,084.7 5,209.3 5.4 27.6 32.5 740.6 1,823.9 521.7 1,729.1 5,936.2 5,763.52004 Permitted 1,187.5 5,797.5 7,348.3 8.1 31.3 37.0 983.9 2,624.0 764.1 2,179.5 8,452.8 8,149.32004 Authorized 990.4 3,914.4 4,992.8 5.4 23.1 27.7 759.3 1,846.6 531.1 1,755.1 5,784.1 5,551.72005 Permitted 1,343.9 6,646.4 8,406.1 9.4 41.3 48.8 1,048.2 2,744.9 783.7 2,401.5 9,432.6 9,238.62005 Authorized 1,173.3 4,738.4 6,025.8 6.5 32.6 38.4 882.0 2,035.8 574.3 2,061.8 6,806.8 6,638.52006 Permitted 1,254.0 5,668.9 7,202.0 5.6 50.6 61.7 950.8 2,451.8 705.8 2,215.8 8,205.3 8,013.52006 Authorized 1,045.9 4,105.9 5,215.3 5.2 26.4 31.6 690.6 1,637.8 467.5 1,746.5 5,801.0 5,754.92007 Permitted 1,255.5 5,828.4 7,324.5 5.3 25.4 29.8 926.5 2,556.9 727.5 2,187.3 8,410.8 8,081.82007 Authorized 1,078.0 4,293.8 5,454.0 6.4 28.4 34.0 744.9 1,786.1 506.3 1,829.2 6,110.1 5,994.22008 Permitted 1,266.9 5,882.8 7,482.5 5.3 24.9 29.8 932.4 2,567.2 730.6 2,213.5 8,505.9 8,252.32008 Authorized 1,176.1 4,789.0 6,099.8 5.6 26.5 31.7 812.6 1,981.0 563.0 1,991.6 6,796.6 6,694.5

an indicates the number of animals in a given category.bHM is head months defined as “The time in months that livestock spend on National Forest System land.” This is the measurement used for billing purposes. (USFS 2000-2008, grazing statistical 

summaries).

cAUM here is defined by the USFS as “The amount of forage required by a 1,000-pound cow, or the equivalent for 1 month” (USFS 2000-2008, grazing statistical summaries). 
59

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Mere examination of permitted livestock use does not yield a complete representation 

of the public land grazing situation. Permitted use is the maximum amount of AUMs 

permitted to be utilized under a grazing permit, grazing agreement, livestock use permit, or 

other permitting document. USFS uses authorized use to track the amount of livestock 

authorized to graze on Federal lands for the current grazing year. Actual use, employed by 

the BLM, is the amount of AUMs that are actually utilized on Federal lands for the current 

grazing year. In some cases, where the BLM does not collect actual use data, billed use is 

a surrogate measure for actual use. Billed use (billed use refers to authorized and “active” 

types of uses, non-use, unauthorized use, etc., are not included in billed use) is the total 

amount of AUMs that were billed for a specific grazing permit (lease, etc.) for a specific 

grazing fee year. Authorized use and actual use can differ substantially from permitted 

use for a number of reasons, including weather conditions, rangeland readiness, allowable 

use, and permittee needs. Quantifying the non-use of permitted AUMs on National Forest 

System lands has been a topic of discussion in both Joyce (1989) and Mitchell (2000). 

Both Joyce (1989) and Mitchell (2000) defined non-use as 1–authorized AUMs/permitted 

AUMs, where authorized use was the sum of all paid permits contained in annual 

authorizations and permitted use was the sum of all animals permitted to graze, both 

expressed as AUMs (Mitchell 2000). Over the last 30 years, the percentage of non-use on 

sheep allotments has fluctuated between 18 and 37 percent (Mitchell 2000) (figure 29). 

Compared with the 1980s and 1990s, however, the most recent decadal data suggest a 

slight increase in proportion of non-use. Between 1977 and 1994, the average non-use by 

sheep and cattle was approximately 14 and 20 percent, respectively; those numbers both 

rose to approximately 28 percent from 2000 to 2008, each suggesting a slightly positive 

trend in non-use.

Figure 29—Percent nonuse ([1-(authorized AUMs/permitted AUMs)]) of grazing allotments 

administered by the USFS.
60

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Livestock grazing on Federal lands generates revenue on an annual basis, which is a function 

of either the authorized AUMs for BLM lands or HMs for NFS lands multiplied by the 

national grazing fee. The national livestock grazing fee has varied only 15 percent of $1.54 

over the last 22 years (Cooley, personal communication). The estimated average annual 

gross receipts from grazing activities on NFS lands is approximately $9.1 million, while 

the estimated annual gross receipts from grazing activity on BLM lands is $11.8 million 

(figure 30). Most of the money received from grazing on Federal lands comes from the 

western United States. The dollar figures presented here should only be used as a general 

guide and may not represent exact figures as local conditions and frequency of database 

updates produce slightly different numbers.

Other Livestock

Table 22 exemplifies several noteworthy trends that have manifested over the last decade. 

Horses have increased approximately 33 percent, while goats have increased by 96 percent. 

The trend in domestic goat production emulates the global trend. Since 1985, goat numbers 

have increased globally from 500 million to over 900 million (FAO 2009, http://faostat.fao.

org/). Many reasons can be attributed to the increase, the most notable of which suggest 

changing dietary preferences and ethnic influences on meat production (Solaiman 2007). In 

Figure 30—Estimated gross receipts from public lands cattle grazing on USFS and BLM allotments 

(Cooley 2010; USFS 2000 to 2008).
61

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

the United States, goats are also gaining popularity due to efficient conversion of feed. In 

addition, goats are valuable as holistic vegetation management tools (Luginbuhl and others 

2000). The distribution of goats in the coterminous United States is shown in figure 31. As 

noted by Mitchell (2000), most horses owned in the United States are used for recreational 

purposes. The distribution of horses is fairly even across the coterminous United States 

(figure 32). Both goat and horse numbers have increased substantially since the 2000 RPA 

Assessment (table 22).

Bison numbers on private lands is estimated at about 200,000 animals (USDA NASS 2009), 

which, combined with animals on public lands, yields an estimate of approximately 220,000 

bison. Since the last assessment, however, the number of bison has decreased. However, this 

decrease in bison numbers is not likely a reliable indicator of future trends. The USDA Census 

of Agriculture does not account for bison calf recruitment. Increased consumer demand and 

record meat prices have effectively drawn down the U.S. herd since 2002 (Matheson, personal 

communication). Bison numbers are greatest on the Northern Great Plains, particularly, South 

Dakota, which, in 2007, hosted approximately 38,000 bison on private lands alone (figure 33) 

(USDA NASS 2009).

Figure 31—Estimated 2007 distribution of goats in the coterminous United States (USDA, NASS 2010). Data Source: 

USDA Census of Agriculture (2007).
62

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 32—Estimated 2007 distribution of horses in the coterminous United States (USDA, NASS 2010). Data Source: 

USDA Census of Agriculture (2007).

Figure 33—Estimated 2007 distribution of bison in the coterminous United States (USDA, NASS 2010). Data Source: 

USDA Census of Agriculture (2007).
63

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Livestock Appropriation of Forage

Quantifying the amount of forage across the landscape is not the only metric needed to 

determine the relationship between forage supply and demand. Forage use across the 

landscape is asymmetrical, and understanding the distribution of forage and herbivores yields 

unique perspective regarding quantity and juxtaposition of herbivory and appropriation of net 

primary production to livestock. Such an analysis provides information on where thresholds 

might be crossed in the future, beyond which rangeland forage may not be sufficient for 

sustaining a given stocking rate.

Nearly 36 percent of global population depends on approximately $904 billion per year 

in dryland ecosystem goods and services that cover 41 percent of the terrestrial surface 

(Costanza and others 1997; MEA 2005). This dependence on rangelands for goods and 

services and the inherent susceptibility of rangelands to degradation, characterized as a 

reduction of vegetation canopy cover and accelerated soil erosion (Lepers and others 2005; 

MEA 2005), require monitoring of land degradation. Causes of degradation are not always 

clear and may be due to interactions between stressors. Examples of stressors are extreme 

climatic events and land management practices such as livestock grazing and El Niño and 

La Niña events that have three- to seven-year return intervals (Holmgren and Scheffer 2001; 

Holmgren and others 2006; Washington-Allen and others 2006). The goal of the current 

livestock appropriation study was to develop spatially explicit data describing the relationship 

between forage availability and forage demand. While the study described in this section 

is not a degradation monitor, per se, it does yield insight to the sustainability of livestock 

appropriation of NPP through space and time and where thresholds might be crossed, beyond 

which a given level of grazing may not be possible in the future.

To gain insight to this problem, research was conducted to quantify the proportion of 

aboveground biomass allocated to domestic livestock herbivory. Cattle and sheep are the main 

herbivores used for the analysis, which obviously falls short of a census that would include 

deer, elk, antelope, horses, goats (in some areas), bison, and other ungulates. Information 

regarding numbers and spatial distribution of wildlife and less abundant livestock are scant 

and difficult to interpret. Additionally, in 2007, bison and horses (combined) only represented 

4,227,061 animals requiring only 4.3 percent of the forage needed by cattle, sheep, and 

goats. In localized situations, horses and bison may have a significant impact on the forage 

supply, but from a regional or national perspective, bison and horses have a small influence. 

As a result and according to data availability, forage demand for sheep, goats, and cattle are 

reported here. In this section, we focus on livestock numbers available from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) and evaluate the estimated amount of NPP allocated 

to these livestock. Here, noteworthy results of the forage appropriation study are reported on, 

but limiting methodological details which will be available in a forthcoming peer-reviewed 

publication.

Spatially explicit data describing livestock numbers and available forage are needed to 

quantify livestock appropriation of NPP. Since spatially explicit, field-referenced data 

describing forage availability at regional or national scales are non-existent, remote sensing 

was used to estimate forage availability. To correspond to availability of other data, remote 
64

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

sensing time series analysis of forage quantity from 2000 to 2009 (figure 26) (see the “Forage 

Availability” section) was created. These data included estimations of NPP from the MODIS 

sensor, which has collected data globally at varying spatial resolutions from year 2000 to 

present day. The NPP data were converted to available forage as previously described in the 

“Forage Availability” section.

In contrast to forage availability, forage demand is reasonably well known at the state and 

county levels. The cattle and sheep numbers used for this study were derived from the NASS 

annual survey and bi-decadal censuses to create a time series from 2000 to 2009. The census 

and survey numbers from NASS, however, depict total numbers of livestock and therefore 

do not sufficiently separate animals fed in feedlots from those raised on rangelands. Given 

that most ranch calendars show grazing for 3 to 6 months during the growing season, animal 

numbers were converted to forage demand from rangelands by reducing the overall annual 

forage demand by 50 percent (6 months out of 12). This technique represents a conservative 

estimate of average forage demand from rangelands. Figure 34 shows the forage demand for 

cattle at the county-level in western U.S. rangelands, while figure 35 shows livestock (sheep, 

goats, and cattle) forage demand from 2000 to 2009 at the state level. After accounting for 

forage demand and forage availability, estimates of aboveground biomass appropriated to 

sheep, cattle, and goats were calculated as:

LAAGB = FA - FD [formula 1]

where LAAGB is livestock appropriation of aboveground biomass, FA is forage availability, 

and FD is forage demand.

Patterns of Forage Availability and Demand

The spatial pattern of forage availability shows an increasing gradient from west to east with 

lower production values in southwestern Arizona, southeastern California, west Texas, southcentral Wyoming, and Nevada (figure 26). The greatest levels of productivity occur along the 

eastern edge of the rangeland extent and in California. In general, livestock forage demand 

appears to follow an increasing gradient from east to west and from north to south for a sixmonth grazing period from 2000 to 2009 (figure 35). From 2003 to 2009, the Rocky Mountain 

states of Colorado and Wyoming hosted fewer livestock compared with 2000 (figure 35)—a 

pattern shared by other states in the region.
65

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 34—County-level cattle forage demand in western U.S. rangelands from 2000 to 2009 estimated from the USDA Census of Agriculture. County level data are not consistently available for goats and sheep. 
66

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 35—State-level livestock forage demand (cattle, goats, and sheep) in western U.S. rangelands from 2000 to 2009 estimated from the 

USDA Census of Agriculture. 

Analyzing the relationship using formula 1 revealed an assessment of livestock impacts at 

the national level (figures 36 and 37). Using formula 1, we characterize areas where FD>FA 

as hotspots. Likewise, areas where FD = FA are warm spots and areas where FD<FA as 

coolspots. From 2000 to 2009, approximately 11 million acres of rangelands appear to have 

unsustainable forage demands (hotspots), while 590 million acres show sustainable trends 

(coolspots, FA>FD). New Mexico showed the least amount of hotspots (hotspots, FA<FD) 

and Texas showed the most (table 26). Table 27 shows the proportion of hotspots and 

coolspots in states with large rangeland area from 2000 to 2009.
67

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 36—Appropriation of above-ground biomass to grazing livestock at the state level from western U.S. rangelands from 2000 to 

2009. In this analysis (including all the assumptions and missing data), a mean value of 144 g m-2 yr-1 suggests that from 2000 to 2009, on 

average, U.S. rangelands are running a surplus of about 1280 (±818) lbs ac-1 of forage based on the assumptions outlined in the “Forage 

Availability” section. 

This national-scale analysis examining the relationship between forage demand and forage 

availability indicates that most regions with significant rangeland area harbor sustainable 

numbers of livestock and suitable quantities of forage. On average, rangelands appear to be 

running a surplus of 1280±818 pounds per acre. This finding is corroborated by the analysis 

of overall forage found in table 20, which suggests, from a national perspective, the potential 

for an increase in animal units of approximately 30 to 50 percent. These analyses, however, 

do not consider local rangeland conditions, political or environmental implications, or the 

impact of feedlots or pastures on forage availability. These factors need to be considered when 

examining the coarse-scale results reported here.
68

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 37—Appropriation of above-ground biomass to grazing livestock at the county level from western U.S. rangelands from 2000 to 

2009.
69

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Table 27—Time series analysis of forage appropriated from U.S. rangelands to livestock at the county and state 

assessment levels. 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Mean

County-level cattle appropriation

Hotspots (FD>FA) 1.97 1.93 2.32 1.56 1.16 1.14 1.82 1.79 1.82 1.88 1.74

Cool spots (FD<FA) 98.03 98.07 97.68 98.44 98.84 98.86 98.18 98.21 98.18 98.12 98.26

State-level livestock appropriation

Hotspots (FD>FA) 0.26 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.06

Cool spots (FD<FA) 99.74 99.97 99.92 99.98 100.00 99.99 99.96 99.92 99.96 99.97 99.94

Table 26—Breakdown of forage appropriated from U.S. rangelands to livestock at the county and state assessment 

levels. Analysis represents average forage availability (FA) and forage demand (FD) from 2000 to 2009.

Forage appropriated to cattle Forage appropriated to livestock

Area effected Area effected

(County-level assessment) (State-level assessment)

Hotspots Coolspots Hotspots Coolspots Hotspots Coolspots Hotspots Coolspots

State (FD>FA) (FD<FA) (FD>FA) (FD<FA) (FD>FA) (FD<FA) (FD>FA) (FD<FA)

- - - - - - - % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ac (103) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ac (103) - - - - - -

Arizona 1.90 98.10 1,008 52,004 0.03 99.97 18.23 52,994

California 6.97 93.03 2,488 33,204 0.49 99.51 175.83 35,517

Colorado 1.41 98.59 423 29,536 0.01 99.99 1.56 29,958

Idaho 5.67 94.33 1,246 20,715 0.02 99.98 4.46 21,956

Kansas 7.22 92.78 954 12,252 0.19 99.81 25.53 13,180

Montana 0.49 99.51 239 48,105 0.00 100.00 1.92 48,343

Nebraska 1.29 98.71 342 26,238 0.02 99.98 4.67 26,576

Nevada 0.01 99.99 6 57,309 0.00 100.00 0.86 57,314

New Mexico 0.00 100.00 1 59,617 0.00 100.00 0.79 59,618

North Dakota 0.26 99.74 35 13,526 0.03 99.97 4.04 13,558

Oklahoma 6.36 93.64 848 12,482 0.67 99.33 88.81 13,241

Oregon 0.02 99.98 6 24,823 0.00 100.00 0.34 24,829

South Dakota 2.36 97.64 626 25,884 0.02 99.98 6.08 26,504

Texas 2.81 97.19 2,651 91,716 0.06 99.94 60.37 94,306

Utah 0.49 99.51 143 29,016 0.01 99.99 3.11 29,155

Washington 1.19 98.81 96 7,962 0.01 99.99 0.77 8,056

Wyoming 0.24 99.76 112 45,659 0.00 100.0 0.55 45,771

Total 11,224 590,048 398 600,876
70

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Climate Change and Rangelands

Other reports supporting the 2010 RPA Assessment have placed considerable emphasis on 

examining the potential effects of climate change using a suite of scenarios representing a 

range of hypothesized global social and economic situations. The purpose of scenarios in 

the RPA Assessment (USDA FS 2012) is to characterize the common demographic, socioeconomic, and technological driving forces underlying changes in resource condition and to 

evaluate the sensitivity of resource trends to a feasible future range of these driving forces. 

These scenarios closely mimic those of the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) assessment (Meehl and others 2007) and assume that different socioeconomic 

conditions produce varying amounts of greenhouse gas emissions that are assumed to affect 

Earth’s climate, as simulated using a host of Global Circulation Models (GCMs). These 

climate data, produced during the Fourth IPCC assessment, were subsequently spatially 

downscaled (Coulson and others 2010a, 2010b) to a resolution 0.083 degrees (nominally 4.96 

miles [8 km] resolution). These future climate possibilities can be used to estimate trends in 

rangeland goods and services in response to climate change.

Climate change will impact U.S. rangelands through manipulation of major drivers of 

vegetation growth and distribution such as temperature and precipitation (figure 38). Changes 

in these climatological components will be distributed asymmetrically, and some rangeland 

vegetation may respond favorably while some will perform poorly. Expected impacts on 

rangeland vegetation are difficult to characterize owed to uncertainty, regional variability, 

poorly understood vegetation dynamics, and complicated interactions and feedbacks. 

Understanding these complicated dynamics requires ecosystem models capable of simulating 

rangeland ecosystem behavior while considering multiple processes and stressors.

Complex Interactions

Precipitation and temperature have been reliable predictors of extent and ordination of plant 

groups (for example, cool-season C3 and warm-season C4 species) (Epstein and others 

1997; Knapp and others 2001; Paruelo and Lauenroth 1996) across the landscape. Changes 

in these drivers have clear and well understood implications for vegetation. However, rising 

CO2 levels may complicate these relationships in the future. For instance, warmer and drier 

conditions should favor C4 grasses (Knapp and others 2001; Winslow and others 2003) so, 

short and tallgrass prairies may stand to benefit, but rising CO2 should favor C3 species 

(Morgan and others 2004, 2007; Polley and others 2003, 2006; Reich and others 2001). 

Increased CO2 improves water use efficiency due to decreased time for which leaf stomates 

must remain open to acquire a suitable amount of CO2, but there are limits beyond which 

increased CO2 does not enhance water relations. Further complicating these relationships are 

changing temperature and precipitation regimes. Increased variation, intensity, and changes 

in the timing of precipitation can also influence species composition and productivity of U.S. 

rangelands. For example, as springtime temperatures increase in the Great Basin, the extent 

and magnitude of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) may increase as it becomes an even stronger 

competitor by using available moisture earlier in the season.
71

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 38— Estimated normalized change in mean maximum temperature (A) and percent change in precipitation (B) from 

the period of 2010 to 2100 based on three SRES scenarios (A1B, A2, and B2). Warmer tones in (A) indicate a greater increase in temperature relative to present conditions. Regional averages indicate the asymmetrical nature of expected change 

(C). Underlying data were created by Coulson and others (2010a, 2010b). 
72

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

As seen in figure 38, northern latitudes are expected to warm in all scenarios while 

maintaining or increasing precipitation. This combination of factors should enhance 

productivity on northern and high-altitude rangelands through lengthened growing season. 

However, if temperatures continue to rise as suggested in all scenarios (figure 39), gains in 

production owed to increased growing season length and precipitation could be offset due 

to decreased moisture availability at some time in the future, especially in the southwestern 

United States. The situation is just the opposite in the southwestern United States where 

increases in temperature are coupled with decreased precipitation. If this situation unfolds 

as climate projections suggest, rangeland productivity should decrease and only the most 

drought-tolerant species such as desert shrubs and succulents will prevail. Rangeland 

production will likely fall substantially under these conditions and desert and semi-desert 

grasslands in the region may retreat to new areas, perhaps at higher elevations or where 

microclimates permit growth and reproduction. However, predicting the re-ordination of 

species assemblages and plant functional groups is probably more difficult than evaluating the 

effects of changing climates on productivity.

Implications for Managers

Understanding what changing climates mean for future management strategies is difficult. 

There are a few possible effects, however, that are likely to influence management decisions 

in the future. Although increased CO2 generally increases rangeland productivity, it can 

decrease leaf nitrogen content (plants do not need to invest more in photosynthetic capacity 

if acquiring CO2 is easier), which decreases protein content (fewer chloroplasts and less leaf 

Figure 39—Ordination of estimated future climates based on three SRES 

scenarios (A1B, A2, B2). Underlying data were created by Coulson and others 

(2010a, 2010b) 
73

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

nitrogen content) and therefore nutritional value. This implies stocking rates and grazing 

systems will need to be adjusted accordingly so that animal performance and rangeland 

health are not adversely impacted. Similarly, increasing temperatures have been shown to 

increase cell wall constituents while decreasing soluble sugars; the combination of which 

reduces digestibility and forage quality. For example, Minson and McLeod (1970) found a 

1 percent decrease in digestibility per 2 °F increase in temperature along a latitudinal gradient 

from south to north. Changing species composition may also impact forage quality as higher 

CO2 seems to favor C3 over C4 plants, and C3 plants often have higher forage digestibility 

(Wilson and Brown 1983). Recent experimental results, however, confound this generality 

and found that needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata) and fringed sage (Artemisia frigida) 

(both are C3 species but have low forage value) strongly increased production under increased 

CO2 scenarios on a shortgrass steppe. Management strategies aimed at adapting to changing 

species composition should include increased use of alternative livestock such as goats, which 

readily utilize species that are generally unpalatable for cattle. Additionally, Federal land 

managers and land owners may need to consider utilization or promotion of a new suite of 

rangeland goods and services that could thrive under a more drought prone environment.

Warmer temperatures will likely result in increased fire frequency and intensity, potentially 

creating more favorable conditions for invasive species such as cheatgrass, which would 

likely decrease overall forage quality and biodiversity. Thus, management schemes must 

be flexible and sensitive to changes in species composition and productivity resulting from 

climate change. Changes are likely to manifest in unexpected ways and effects may be 

revealed subtly, suggesting that rigorous and comprehensive monitoring strategies could be 

needed.

Alternative Energy

Energy is fundamental to sustainable development because it is a critical component of any 

solution for mitigating the increasing challenges of food and water shortages, disease, poverty, 

and climate change (Serageldin 1999). The Twentieth Century was characterized by abundant, 

low-cost energy derived from fossil fuels. By the end of the century, fossil fuels accounted 

for 90 percent of global primary energy consumption, with about 40 percent being derived 

from crude oil (Smil 2000). The remaining 10 percent of energy demand was met almost 

exclusively by hydropower and nuclear sources while renewable energy, including solar and 

wind, provided less than 1 percent (Duncan 2001).

Energy production in the United States at the end of the Twentieth Century was similar to the 

global picture (Black and Veatch 2008). Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—provided 

more than 85 percent of all the energy used in the United States. Today, they still account for 

nearly two-thirds of our electricity supply and almost all of our transportation fuels.

There is broad agreement that more diverse sources of energy are needed in order for the 

United States and other developed countries to progress toward energy independence 

(Resources for the Future 2005). While energy independence remains elusive, moving toward 

it will involve greater use of nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, and geothermal resources (Rahman 

2003). Furthermore, while world energy demand is expected to increase 45 percent by 2030 
74

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

(mainly due to strong economic growth in China, India, and other developing countries), these 

countries are generally less able to exploit renewable energy sources than developed nations 

(IEA 2008). Consequently, developed nations, notably the United States, are expected to lead 

the shift toward renewable energy.

We emphasize the importance of western rangelands for providing future energy production, 

focusing on three “dual-use” energy technologies—unconventional natural gas, biomass or 

biofuels, and wind energy sources (in other words, those that do not preclude the simultaneous 

use of land for other purposes, including grazing) (Pimentel and others 1994). While solar 

energy yields more potential than all other sources, its development generally precludes other 

land uses, so it is necessarily excluded from this report. However, this does not mean that 

there are fewer “effects” due to development of wind, biomass, and unconventional natural 

gas. Indeed, oil and gas well heads, windmills, and harvest areas (in the case of biofuels) have 

unavoidable negative effects but can be developed in such a fashion that allows other land 

uses to occur.

Western rangelands hold significant potential for developing an unconventional, domestic 

fuels industry due to substantial oil and gas reserves, renewable biofuel opportunities, and 

significant wind energy sources (Black and Veatch 2008). Moreover, increased development 

of these energy sources is likely because their exploitation relies on well-established 

technologies. It should be noted at the outset that all energy sources, both renewable and nonrenewable, are subject to environmental and economic constraints, solutions to which will 

rely upon both economic and political driving forces (Chow and others 2003).

Unconventional Natural Gas Production

Natural gas derived from hydrocarbon-rich shale formations (plays) is a relatively clean fuel 

compared to oil or coal and is a key component of energy development for electricity and 

heating. In December 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected domestic 

supplies of natural gas from coal beds and shale by 2035 to dramatically exceed their 

previous projection, from 480 trillion cubic feet to 827 trillion cubic feet (http://www.eia.

doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/executive_summary.cfm). Support for these estimates is strengthened 

by observing the increased efforts of major producers to develop unconventional natural gas 

(Kuuskraa and others 2007). Presently, natural gas provides about 22 percent of the Nation’s 

energy sources, and it is estimated that current recoverable resources could supply natural gas 

for the next 90 years (GWPC 2009).

Gas plays are widely distributed in the United States. Major plays under rangeland ecosystems 

are located in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, 

and Texas (figure 40). These natural gas production sites are a substantial contributor to the 

U.S. strategy for moving toward energy independence. Natural gas is also a cleaner-burning 

fuel for power generation compared to coal (table 28) (EIA 2010).
75

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 40—Major shale plays in the contiguous 48 states. This figure is derived from the Energy Information Administration emanating from 

a variety of studies.

Table 28—Fossil fuel emission levels of various pollutants from natural gas, oil, and coal (EIA 2010).

Pollutant Natural gas Oil Coal

- - (lbs per billion Btu of energy input) - -

Carbon dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000

Carbon monoxide 40 33 208

Nitrogen oxides 92 448 457

Sulfur dioxide 1 1,122 2,591

Particulates 7 84 2,744

Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016
76

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Development of unconventional natural gas plays presents unique challenges. Federal statutes, 

including such legislation as the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, 

and National Environmental Policy Act, provide the regulatory basis for development. State 

and local agencies also have inputs into wellhead development and operations. Key issues 

include permitting of wells, water management, air emissions, wildlife impacts, and noise 

attenuation (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Rice and Bullock 2000; Sawyer and others 2006).

Research involving the use of enhanced gas recovery technologies to inject CO2 into coalbed 

methane sites shows promise to reduce CO2 emission from power production. The approach is 

comprised of a closed CO2-cycle process whereby waste CO2 generated by natural gas power 

plants is injected back into coalbed methane reservoirs to provide even more methane-based 

natural gas (Gunter and others 1997).

Sustaining rangeland ecosystem services in areas of natural gas development will likely rely 

upon the energy industry’s ability to balance the economics of exploration and production 

with environmental compliance requirements. Evolving practices that are facilitating this 

balance are: horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, reduced water demand, and efforts to 

reduce the surface disturbance of well siting and associated road networks.

Wind Energy

Wind-powered electricity production has increased by 25 percent annually in the United 

States since 2000 (Bird and others 2005). Current capacity of wind generated power in the 

United States is 40,180 MW, but China produces more wind energy than any other country 

and grew its production output by 75 percent in 2010 (WWEA 2011). Despite the dramatic 

increases, wind energy accounted for less than 1 percent of total electricity generation in the 

United States in 2007 (NRC 2007). The rangeland-rich state of Texas is the leading producer 

of electricity from wind power.

The greatest potential for increasing electricity production from wind exists both off-shore 

and on-shore in western states dominated by rangeland ecosystems (figure 41). Projections of 

future wind power vary widely. The U.S. Department of Energy (2005) determined that the 

United States could potentially produce up to 20 percent of its electricity demand by 2030, 

a 17-fold increase in wind power capacity to 300 GW, with improved turbine technology, 

significant changes in transmission, and expanded markets. More than 20 states now require 

electricity suppliers to include a small fraction of their supply from renewable energy sources, 

with proportions characteristically increasing over time. This, along with other factors, has 

created conditions for steady growth in wind power, even if the ambitious goal of 20 percent 

has not yet been reached.

The advantages of wind-energy facilities are that they are driven by a persistent energy 

source and emit no pollutants. Nevertheless, the expansion of such facilities can create 

adverse environmental effects. The construction and maintenance of wind-energy facilities 

alter ecosystems through habitat destruction and increase fatalities of birds and bats through 

collision with the turbine blades (Curry 2009). The long-term impacts on bird and bat 

populations depend upon multiple factors, including abundance, longevity, reproductive rates, 
77

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

and behavioral characteristics of affected species (Kunz and others 2007). Impacts on birds 

in the western United States is likely to be greatest for raptors because their migratory paths 

include ridges upon which wind turbines are most frequently placed (Erickson and others 

2001).

In addition to impacts of wind-energy generation on various species, effects to humans 

include diminished aesthetic quality of the landscape, elevated noise, shadow flicker, and 

electromagnetic interference (Krohn and Damborg 1999). One further consideration is that, 

while developing wind energy will benefit society at large, the environmental and social costs 

of such developments are borne by local landowners and communities located near wind 

farms. The need for new transmission lines to connect wind farms to the Nation’s power 

grid also has social and economic implications costs to rural communities and landowners 

(Denholm 2006).

Figure 41—Annual average wind speed in the United States (wind resource estimates developed by AWS Truepower, LLC for wind 

Navigator available at: https://www.windnavigator.com and http://www.awstruepower.com. 
78

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Biofuel

Biomass potentially provides an abundant carbon-neutral, or even carbon-negative, resource 

for producing energy (Mathews 2008). Progress in producing energy from biomass, 

particularly cellulosic biomass, rests with progress in biotechnology, genetics, biochemistry, 

and engineering (Ragauskas and others 2006). The U.S. Department of Energy has 

investigated achieving the goal of replacing 30 percent of oil used for transportation with 

biofuels—a program called the “Billion Ton Study” (Perlack and others 2005). Achieving 

such a goal will not be easy but might be feasible (Parikka 2004).

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) has attracted considerable attention for biofuel production 

due to its considerable energy production potential with lower fertilizer and fossil fuel inputs 

on marginal croplands than corn (Walsh and others 2003). However, there are concerns 

over conversion of large swaths of native rangelands to biofuel monocultures (Fargione 

and others 2008). Possible effects include increased agrichemical pollution, loss of diverse 

forage resources, and loss of landscape and associated biological diversity (Bies 2006; Cook 

and others 1991; Groom and others 2008). Biological obstacles also exist to the commercial 

economic production of switchgrass for biofuels, although advances in genetic engineering 

and plant breeding show potential to mitigate obstacles to some extent (Sanderson and others 

2006). In the Midwest, the highest potential for switchgrass production is concentrated in 

the tallgrass prairie region, but it extends throughout the central and eastern United States 

(McLaughlin and Kszoz 2005).

Dedicated energy crops, like switchgrass, can be cost effectively produced on land unsuited 

for row crops, while still providing erosion control for agricultural set-aside lands (Milbrandt 

2005) (figures 42 and 43). Mixed native grasslands can produce significant biomass, 

especially in tall grass prairies where biomass can exceed 8100 pounds per acre (10 tons per 

hectare) (Kucera and others 1967). Tilman and others (2006) reported that biofuel derived 

from low-input, high-diversity mixtures of native species provided more usable energy, 

greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution than corn-based ethanol 

or soybean biodiesel. In addition, this approach would avoid the loss of biodiversity due to 

conversion of existing multi-species grasslands to biofuel monocultures partly because native 

species mixtures can grow on agriculturally degraded lands. Production of biofuel from 

existing rangelands may, therefore, offer ranchers new income generating opportunities but 

would likely also result in tradeoffs with existing livestock and wildlife operations.

Summary

During the last decade, a concerted effort to quantify EGS has been made. Only a subset 

of the total list of EGS has been discussed in this report. Most bio-centric ecosystem goods 

and services derived from rangelands are linked to productivity. Overall, from 2000 to 2009, 

primary productivity on coterminous U.S. rangelands has remained relatively constant 

but more xeric regions have experienced wide inter-annual variability, presumably due 

to oscillations in precipitation. The Rocky Mountain Assessment Region experienced an 

increase in productivity averaging approximately 44 pounds per acre per year of aboveground 

production. The productivity of U.S. rangelands is directly linked to the overall forage supply.
79

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 42—Area of land under CRP circa 2010.

From a national perspective, there appears to be a moderate surplus of forage during an 

average year considering current livestock levels. Using remote sensing and a series of 

assumptions, the total estimated forage supply should support approximately 143 to 196 

million animal units per year or 1.7 to 2.4 billion AUMs. This estimate does not account for 

agricultural feedstuffs, crop residues, or feedlots. While vegetation production ultimately 

controls the capacity of the land to support herbivory, livestock production is one of the best 

measured indicators of rangeland EGS.

Overall, livestock numbers have remained relatively constant from 2000 to 2009. Cattle 

production has remained within 1.4 percent of the estimated 10 year average of 96.6 million 

head. At 80 cattle per square mile, both Kansas and Nebraska have the highest cattle densities 

in the United States, while the South Assessment Region contains the most cattle and the 

North Assessment Region contains the least. Sheep numbers have continued to decline by 

about 200,000 animals per year since 1997 and are now estimated at fewer than 6 million 

animals, a decline of over 800 percent since peak numbers in the 1930s. Sheep and cattle 

are the largest animal class in terms of numbers, but since 2000, several significant trends in 

numbers of other livestock classes have been revealed.
80

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Figure 43—Potential switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) production on CRP lands estimated from the Oak Ridge Energy Crop County 

Level Database, December 20, 1996 version. CRP area estimates came from the USDA Farm Service Agency, County CRP signup 26 

information July 2003.

Since 2000, horses have increased approximately 33 percent, while goats have increased by 

96 percent emulating a significant increase of roughly 300 million goats worldwide since 

1985. As a niche market, bison have also increased in numbers to approximately 230,000 

animals nationwide.

Grazing on Federal lands remains a critical service provided by the BLM and USFS as 

annual average gross receipts (grazing fee multiplied by AUMs) from grazing yields about 

$21 million per year. The grazing fee has averaged $1.42 (SD = $0.14) since 2000. The total 

livestock levels on BLM lands have varied within 12 percent of 7.9 million animals since 

2000, while grazing on NFS lands has remained within 19 percent of 7.6 million AUMs 

between 2000 and 2008. Merely evaluating livestock numbers does not tell the whole story 

because livestock are distributed asymmetrically across the landscape and in some cases can 
81

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

exceed the capacity of the land to sustain them. In light of this fact, this 2010 RPA Rangeland 

Assessment contained a description of the estimated appropriation of net primary production 

to livestock.

Overall, most rangeland areas produce far more forage than is utilized by livestock. From 

2000 to 2009, approximately 2 percent of coterminous U.S. rangelands appear to have 

unsustainable forage demands (where forage demand exceeds forage availability) at the 

county level, while 98 percent show a sustainable situation. On average from 2000 to 2009, 

Texas yielded the greatest area of unsustainable forage demands while New Mexico exhibited 

the least. This appropriation assessment, however, will require further analysis in the future, 

especially with regard to the number of feedlots in each county, which may skew the results 

reported here. Though analyses of goods and services provided by rangelands often focus on 

livestock numbers, the recent emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions has sparked a 

quest for understanding the potential for cleaner energy.

At the end of the Twentieth Century, coal, oil, and natural gas provided more than 85 percent 

of all the energy used in the United States. There is broad agreement that more diverse 

sources of energy are needed for the United States and other developed countries to lead the 

way toward more reliance on renewable energy. Rangelands are uniquely qualified to provide 

access to cleaner energy sources because they are often comprised of broad, windswept plains 

receiving a relatively high proportion of solar radiation. The remoteness and juxtaposition of 

rangelands make them prime candidates for developing cleaner energy sources such as wind, 

sun, and natural gas.

Though natural gas is not always seen as a viable cleaner energy source, in terms of 

pollutant discharge, it is 30 percent cleaner than oil and 45 percent cleaner than coal. 

Natural gas provides about 22 percent of the Nation’s energy, and it is estimated that current 

recoverable resources could supply natural gas for the next 90 years. Many of the most 

productive, unconventional natural gas plays are located on western rangelands. Sustaining 

rangeland ecosystem services in areas of natural gas development will rely upon society’s 

ability to balance the economics of energy exploration and production with environmental 

considerations and public demand.

In concert with increased emphasis on natural gas production, wind power generation has 

increased 25 percent per year since 2000 but has still comprised less than 1 percent of total 

electricity generation in the United States in 2007. Most wind generation facilities occur 

in relatively open, windswept areas and Texas currently leads the Nation in wind power 

generation. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2030 wind power could deliver 

up to 20 percent of total energy needs. For this to happen, a dramatic increase in generation, 

storage, distribution, and transmission infrastructure on U.S. rangelands is required. Despite 

being a very clean source of energy, wind power will not come without environmental cost, 

and the potential effects of wind power generation on a large scale are unknown and need 

further study.

Power generation from biofuels has received considerable attention recently. The U.S. 

Department of Energy has investigated the goal of replacing 30 percent of oil used for 

transportation with biofuels, which will not be easy but could be feasible. Rangelands hold 
82

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

significant promise for the development of biofuels, particularly in the more productive 

areas, including the tallgrass prairie region. In particular, switchgrass has received much 

attention as a species requiring less fossil fuel and fertilizer inputs than row crops, while often 

yielding 8000 pounds per acre or more. While switchgrass and other native tallgrass prairie 

species could provide a sustainable supply of easily harvested biomass, there are concerns 

over conversion of large swaths of native rangelands to biofuel monocultures, including 

increased agrichemical pollution, loss of diverse forage resources, and loss of landscape and 

associated biological diversity. Perhaps the most appropriate solution will include innovative 

methods of rejuvenating degraded rangelands to increase the output of EGS while harvesting 

the resultant biomass from a variety of rangeland ecosystems, including rejuvenated areas 

and sites dominated by invasive mesquite, juniper, and other brush species. Ultimately, the 

development of cleaner energy sources will involve significant use of U.S. rangelands, and 

more research is needed to quantify tradeoffs between power generation, other EGS, and 

environmental concerns.
83

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Chapter 4: Rangeland Health

Introduction

Rangeland health can be defined as “the degree to which the integrity of soil and the ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained” (NRC 1994). The concept of rangeland 

health has evolved greatly since inception and was originally focused on comparison of current 

vegetation composition to a climax plant community postulated to represent a site-specific 

equilibrium state (Dyksterhuis 1949; Joyce and others 2000). Assessment of rangeland health 

using this more traditional theory is hindered by an inherent difficulty of determining reference conditions (Herrick and others 2010).

More recent research has offered a competing theory of non-equilibrium rangeland dynamics, 

first espoused by Westoby and others (1989), represented by steady states bounded by ecological thresholds, beyond which new states exist. At the same time, ecologists began to argue 

that ecosystem stress should be described by metrics other than merely vegetation composition (Rapport and others 1985). Rangeland health is currently characterized using a variety 

of both qualitative and quantitative indicators (Herrick and others 2010) describing multiple 

facets of ecosystem integrity such as erosion, percent bare ground, species composition, and 

annual production (Pellant and others 2005). There is critical need for information describing types, patterns, and severity of rangeland degradation to support policy and management 

(McPeak 2003) and identify ecosystem processes requiring restoration (Geist and Lambin 

2004; Herrick and others 2010). Mitchell (2000) identified that these scientific advances had 

not yet been incorporated into national datasets of rangeland condition. Unfortunately, with 

the exception of the NRI, the situation has improved little since 2000. In addition, aside from 

the NRI, data sets of rangeland condition are still not homogenized in a manner permitting 

comparisons between data collected by multiple agencies, though efforts are being made to 

standardize protocols (for example, Herrick and others 2010). Further, unlike the BLM and 

NRCS, the USFS currently has no agency-wide data collection mandate permitting consistent 

evaluation of rangeland health on NFS lands.

Most data describing rangeland condition or health of Federal rangelands analyzed by Joyce 

(1989) and Mitchell (2000) have either become obsolete or were not collected in a comprehensive or timely manner sufficient for deriving meaningful inferences about rangeland 

health for the current report. For these reasons, this chapter will evaluate health of Federal 

rangelands through analysis of data collected by the BLM, while non-Federal rangelands are 

characterized through synopsis of publications (for example, Herrick and others 2010) (http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/home) based on data from the NRI. These 

recent works summarizing NRI data combined with other information permit focus on attributes of rangeland health, afforestation (or woody encroachment), and invasive species’ abundance and distribution.
84

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Health of Lands Managed by BLM

Since 1978, as mandated by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, the BLM has been 

monitoring the ecological status of rangelands using predominantly the Ecological Site 

Inventory (ESI) and the Soil-Vegetation Inventory Method (SVIM) to report on the condition of rangelands. Since inventorying and monitoring using the ESI and SVIM procedures 

began, rangeland condition of BLM lands has been classified into four ecological status 

categories. Each category represents percent similarity of the Potential Natural Community 

(PNC) (Habich 2001) species assemblages on a biomass basis (Mitchell 2000). These classes, 

expressed as percent similarity to PNC vegetation conditions are: 76-100 percent PNC, 51-75 

percent—late seral, 26-50 percent—mid seral, and 0-25 percent—early seral.

While the ESI and SVIM methods permit characterization of rangeland condition, they are not 

suitable for evaluating other phenomena that are linked to rangeland health (such as ecological processes). Thus, in response to the changing philosophies regarding rangeland health and 

the need to evaluate other metrics than merely vegetation composition, the BLM created the 

Standards for Rangeland Health (DOI BLM 2001). Originally, the standards were written to 

evaluate four fundamentals of rangeland health as they are affected by livestock grazing practices, but later included the effects of other land use activities such as recreation and mineralogical exploration. The four standards promote:

1. keeping ecological processes in order;

2. water quality that complies with state standards;

3. habitats of protected species; and

4. watershed function.

Each state where the BLM administers land determines the most appropriate indicators of 

rangeland health to monitor the selected land health standards. In the following discussion, 

results of the ESI, SVIM, and sampling related to the Standards for Rangeland Health are 

summarized. In table 29, greater scores indicate that the region has vegetation that is more 

similar to the vegetation that the region supported at potential, in other words, vegetation that 

existed prior to the settlement of the region by Euro-Americans or vegetation that would exist 

in the future if human influence was removed from now into the future. A greater score suggests that the region exhibits a greater abundance of plant species and a more similar mixture 

of plant species compared with the vegetation that the region could support at full potential.

Rocky Mountain Assessment Region

As in all reporting regions, the apparent trend change between 2003 and 2004 (table 29) is due 

to changes in reporting methods. Therefore, trends can only be evaluated between 2004 and 

2009. About 90 percent of all rangeland area for which a condition score has been given is 

found in the Rocky Mountain Assessment Region. Wyoming exhibits the highest percentage 

of rangelands designated as PNC while Idaho generally supports the least amount since 2004. 

In contrast, Idaho exhibits the highest proportion of early seral designation. Montana, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota (evaluated as a single unit) support the least proportion of land 

designated as early seral. No significant change in condition categories is readily apparent on 

BLM lands in the Rocky Mountain Assessment Region (table 29).
85

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Table 29—Rangeland condition on BLM rangelands. Numbers in parentheses indicate the acres (ac x 10-3) sampled 

since 1978. For the apparent change in rangeland condition between 2003 and 2004, see text.

Condition Year

Classa 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Rocky Mountain AR

Arizona (6,246) PNC 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 9

Late 33 30 30 32 43 44 43 44 44 42

Mid 24 25 24 26 38 38 38 38 37 39

Early 7 7 7 7 11 10 10 11 11 11

Colorado (3,615) PNC 3 4 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 6

Late 17 18 20 20 27 27 27 27 27 28

Mid 30 30 30 30 41 41 41 41 41 41

Early 20 19 18 18 25 25 25 25 25 25

Idaho (8,536) PNC 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Late 27 31 31 27 25 24 25 25 25 25

Mid 35 35 36 38 38 38 38 41 41 41

Early 22 21 23 27 35 35 34 33 33 33

Montana, North and South Dakota (6,135) PNC 7 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 9 9

Late 62 55 57 58 66 65 68 68 66 66

Mid 22 22 21 21 25 26 22 23 24 23

Early 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Nevada (17,617) PNC 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Late 22 22 27 27 39 38 38 38 38 38

Mid 36 36 32 31 45 46 46 46 46 46

Early 9 10 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12

New Mexico (9,506) PNC 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Late 35 30 30 30 24 24 24 24 24 24

Mid 44 42 41 41 43 43 43 43 43 42

Early 16 22 22 22 30 30 30 30 30 29

Utah (13,383) PNC 11 11 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12

Late 29 29 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 31

Mid 43 43 42 42 45 45 45 44 44 45

Early 12 12 12 13 14 14 13 13 13 13

Wyoming (10,405) PNC 5 6 6 24 27 27 27 27 27 27

Late 43 43 43 34 38 38 38 38 38 38

Mid 34 33 33 27 30 30 30 30 30 30

Early 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Pacific Coast AR

California (1,243) PNC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Late 21 21 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21

Mid 42 42 42 43 45 45 45 45 45 45

Early 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31

Oregon and Washington (7,815) PNC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Late 22 21 21 21 27 27 28 28 28 28

Mid 45 45 45 45 60 59 59 59 59 59

Early 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 12 12

Total (84,501)

aThe BLM defines PNC as “The biotic community that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without interference by man 

under the present environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development. Potential natural communities can include naturalized nonnative species” (Habich 2001:1686).
86

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

The results for state-level standards for rangeland health are found in table 30. Roughly 

72 percent of rangelands within grazing allotments administered by the BLM have been 

evaluated to determine the appropriate designation in relation to meeting the standards for 

rangeland health corresponding to 97 million acres. Of these lands, 57.6 million acres have 

been designated as meeting all standards or making significant progress toward meeting the 

standard. In contrast, only 2.8 million acres have been designated as not meeting standards 

or making significant progress toward meeting the standards, and no appropriate action has 

been taken to ensure significant progress toward meeting the standards where livestock is a 

significant factor. Of all lands that have been evaluated in the Rocky Mountain Assessment 

Region, Arizona has the greatest proportion (92 percent, ~7.8 million acres) of land designated as meeting all standards while Idaho has the least (38 percent, ~3.4 million acres). Where 

livestock is not a significant factor, Colorado exhibits the greatest proportion (13 percent, 

~1 million acres) of land designated as not meeting all standards or not making significant 

progress toward meeting the standards while Arizona exhibits the least amount (<1 percent, 

~21,000 acres).

Pacific Coast Assessment Region

On average, since 2004, Oregon and Washington (evaluated as a single unit) have exhibited 

the lowest proportion of rangelands designated with PNC status, while California supports 

the highest proportion of early seral designation. Along with the Rocky Mountain Assessment 

Region (table 29), the Pacific Coast Assessment Region has not exhibited any significant 

change in rangeland conditions on BLM lands since 2004.

Oregon and Washington exhibit the highest proportion (64 percent, ~5.9 million acres) of 

lands designated as meeting all standards or making significant progress toward meeting the 

standard (table 30). California exhibits the highest proportion (11percent, ~626,000 acres) 

of lands designated as not meeting all standards or not making significant progress toward 

meeting the standards due to causes other than livestock grazing.

All BLM Lands

The condition of all BLM lands from 2004 to 2009 has been quite stable when quantified with 

the ESI and SVIM results (table 31). The 2000 RPA Rangeland Assessment included similar 

conclusions regarding the condition of rangelands administered by the BLM. Roughly 75 

percent of the lands administered by the BLM are in the mid and late seral stages indicating 

an overall positive situation. Approximately 68 percent of all BLM grazing lands have been 

evaluated for determining the level to which they are meeting the standards for rangeland 

health. Of all BLM lands that have been evaluated for rangeland health standards, 89 percent 

have been designated as meeting all standards or making significant progress toward meeting 

the standard. This analysis corroborates evidence developed by the ESI and SVIM results and 

indicates an overall positive picture of lands managed by the BLM.
87

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment Table 30—Categorized summary of cumulative accomplishments as of 2009 relating to the inventory and monitoring of standards for rangeland health implemented by the BLM. Area is quantified as acres x 10-3. Category A.a B.b C.c D.d E.e F.f G.g Assessment Allot. Allot. Allot. Allot. Allot. Allot. Allot. Region No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres Rocky Mountain Arizona 624 7,756 10 359 15 256 5 21 654 8,391 168 3,025 822 11,417 Colorado 1,613 4,671 245 1,678 26 262 253 1,016 2,137 7,628 269 229 2,406 7,857 Idaho 1,030 3,363 298 4,141 31 260 203 1,124 1,562 8,888 628 2,684 2,190 11,573 Montana/Dakotas 4,198 6,590 316 1,008 75 128 318 416 4,907 8,142 304 46 5,211 8,188 Nevada 300 15,550 95 9,760 17 871 45 1,702 457 27,883 335 15,940 792 43,823 New Mexico 534 2,342 73 429 22 12 93 164 722 2,947 1,569 9,871 2,291 12,818 Utah 752 9,321 145 2,338 9 357 59 1,447 965 13,463 448 8,229 1,413 21,693 Wyoming 1,336 8,062 288 4,997 85 683 100 573 1,809 14,314 1,717 3,291 3,526 17,605 Total 10,387 57,654 1,470 24,711 280 2,830 1,076 6,462 13,213 91,656 5,438 43,316 18,651 134,972 Pacific Coast California 363 2,856 68 1,699 20 626 62 626 513 5,808 173 2,305 686 8,113 Oregon/Washington 799 5,851 117 1,737 35 1,014 114 494 1,065 9,096 977 4,481 2,042 13,577 Total 1,162 8,707 185 3,436 55 1,641 176 1,120 1,578 14,903 1,150 6,786 2,728 21,689 BLM total 11,549 66,361 1,655 28,146 335 4,470 1,252 7,582 14,791 106,560 6,588 50,101 21,379 156,661 aRangelands meeting all standards or making significant progress toward meeting the standard. bRangelands not meeting all standards or making significant progress toward meeting the standards, but appropriate action has been taken to ensure significant progress toward meeting the standards (livestock is a significant factor). cRangelands not meeting standards or making significant progress toward meeting the standards, and no appropriate action has been taken to ensure significant progress to- ward meeting the standards (livestock is a significant factor). dRangelands not meeting all standards or making significant progress toward meeting the standards due to causes other than livestock grazing. eTotal number of allotments that have been assessed. fTotal number of allotments that have not been assessed.

gTotal number of allotments.
88

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Health of Non-Federal Rangelands

Many aspects of rangeland health are easy to observe but difficult or expensive to quantify 

(Herrick and others 2010), making the use of indicators a logical means of systematic rangeland monitoring. The recently produced rangeland health assessments reported on here relied 

on the rangeland health protocol implemented in the NRI which was fashioned after Pellant 

and others (2005). The rangeland health protocols used in the NRI and the accompanying 

analysis performed by Herrick and others (2010) are significant for at least two important 

reasons. First, they provide a model that land management agencies could consider as part 

of a rangeland health evaluation strategy on public lands. Second, it is the first effort of its 

kind in terms of depth and scope of analysis. No other agency has collected such diverse data 

describing rangeland health on such a wide scale in a spatially explicit manner.

Three attributes are used by the NRI and are reported and summarized by Herrick and others 

(2010) to describe rangeland health on non-Federal rangelands:

• Soil and site stability—the capacity of a site to limit redistribution of loss of soil 

resources, including nutrients and organic matter, by wind and water.

• Hydrologic function—the capacity of the site to capture, store, and safely release water 

from rainfall, run-off, and snowmelt (where relevant); to resist a reduction in this 

capacity; and to recover this capacity following degradation.

• Biotic integrity—the capacity of a site to support characteristic functional and structural communities in the context of normal variability, to resist loss of this function and 

structure caused by disturbance, and to recover following such a disturbance.

Each attribute is monitored using a suite of indicators (Pellant and others 2005) (table 32). 

The NRI program has collected rangeland health information on approximately 10,000 sample 

sites, but current field-data collection protocols were not employed until 2003 (Herrick and 

others 2010). We provide a synopsis of key findings from Herrick and others (2010) and the 

2007 NRI report (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/home), which 

reflects data collected on non-Federal rangelands from 2003 to 2006.

Table 31—Condition of all BLM lands (2004 to 2009). 

All BLM lands PNCa Late seral Mid seral Early seral

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2004 7.7 34.0 41.0 17.7

2009 7.7 34.1 41.1 17.9 

aThe BLM defines PNC as “The biotic community that would become established if all 

successional sequences were completed without interference by man under the present 

environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development. Potential 

natural communities can include naturalized non-native species” (Habich 2001: 1686). 
89

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

The assessment performed by Herrick and others (2010) revealed that 21.3±1.3 percent of the 

392 million acres of rangelands analyzed showed at least moderate departure from reference 

conditions for at least one of the three forementioned attributes. Similarly, 9.7±1.1 percent 

of rangelands analyzed showed at least moderate departure for all three attributes (Herrick 

and others 2010). Biotic integrity exhibited the largest amount of departure, with moderate 

departure recorded on 18.2±1.1 percent of the land, while hydrologic function was second at 

14.9±1.4 percent, followed by soil and site stability at 12.0±1.4 percent (Herrick and others 

2010). Biotic integrity appears to be most affected by the presence of non-native species, 

though invasive native species also contribute to decreased biotic integrity, especially mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and juniper (Juniperis spp.). Non-native species are now present on 

roughly 50 percent of non-Federal rangelands and represent over 50 percent of the total plant 

cover on 5 percent of non-Federal rangelands. It is important to understand that the mere 

presence of non-native species does not necessarily affect all aspects of rangeland health. For 

example, a site can be dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermus, an exotic grass species 

common on many rangelands) and still exhibit a high degree of hydrologic function and soil 

and site stability.

Table 33 demonstrates the results of the NRI rangeland health assessment. In general, the 

Northern Great Plains appear more intact in all three attributes than the southwestern United 

States (Herrick and others 2010). Texas has the largest overall percent of non-Federal rangeland with health attribute ratings of moderate, moderate-to-extreme, or extreme-to-total 

Table 32—Standard Indicators included in the NRI Rangeland Health protocol and attribute (soil and site stability, 

hydrologic function, and/or biotic integrity) to which each indicator applies (Pellant and others 2005). The “X” indicates 

that the indicator is applied to the attribute.

Rangeland health attribute

Soil and site Hydrologic Biotic

Rangeland health indicator stability function integrity

1. Rills X X

2. Water flow patterns X X

3. Pedestals and/or terracettes X X

4. Bare ground X X

5. Gullies X X

6. Wind scoured, blowouts, and/or deposition areas X

7. Litter movement X

8. Soil surface resistance to erosion X X X

9. Soil surface loss or degradation X X X

10. Plant community composition and distribution relative to infiltration and runoff X

11. Compaction layer X X X

12. Functional/structural groups X

13. Plant mortality/decadence X

14. Litter amount X X

15. Annual aboveground production X

16. Invasive plants X

17. Reproductive capability of perennial plants X
90

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

departures from expected (indicating a lower degree of rangeland health), followed by Utah, 

Arizona, and New Mexico. Unfortunately, the margins of error were large enough on one 

or more attributes in California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, 

Nebraska, and Washington to prevent a suitable inter-comparison of rangeland health attributes among these states. Overall, roughly 80 percent of the non-Federal rangelands in the 

coterminous 48 states are in relatively healthy condition and exhibit no significant soil, hydrologic, or biotic integrity problems (table 33).

Woody Encroachment by Native Species

Woody encroachment has been defined as establishment, development, and spread of tree 

or shrub species (Hughes and others 2006). We amend the definition to be more specific to 

rangeland ecosystems; we define “woody encroachment” as the establishment, development, 

and spread of tree or shrub species onto rangeland sites that are postulated to have hosted less 

dense cover by woody species in the past.

Table 33—Percent of non-Federal rangeland by state where rangeland health attribute ratings 

are moderate, moderate-to-extreme, or extreme-to-total departures from expected with margins 

of error. California had 39.2 (±5.8) percent of non-Federal rangeland not reporting rangeland 

health. Only 1.7 (±0.3) percent of the area non-Federal rangelands in the United States did not 

have rangeland health reported. Table adapted from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/

rangeland/health.html#table2.

 Soil and site Hydrologic Biotic All three At least one

State stability function integrity attributes attribute

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arizona 18 (±5.5) 22 (±6.3) 18.5 (±6.6) 12.4 (±5.3) 26.7 (±6.7)

California 0 (NA) 0 (NA) Trace 0 (NA) Trace

Colorado 7.8 (±3.4) 12 (±5.0) 13.5 (±4.0) 6.6 (±3.0) 16.7 (±5.4)

Florida 0 (NA) 0 (NA) Trace 0 (NA) Trace

Idaho Trace Trace 5.3 (±2.0) Trace 5.6 (±2.1)

Kansas 5.8 (±2.0) 7.6 (±1.9) 6 (±2.2) 2.9 (±1.6) 10 (±2.5)

Louisiana 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA)

Montana 2.3 (±1.2) 4.1 (±1.8) 3.6 (±1.5) Trace 6 (±2.0)

Nebraska 3.7 (±2.2) 4.5 (±2.3) 7.9 (±2.4) 1.8 (±1.5) 10.2 (±2.9)

Nevada Trace 3.9 (±3.0) 12.9 (±6.4) Trace 13.6 (±6.2)

New Mexico 13.4 (±3.9) 15.9 (±4.0) 17.1 (±3.8) 10.5 (±3.7) 21.2 (±3.7)

North Dakota Trace Trace 4.5 (±2.1) 0 (NA) 4.9 (±2.1)

Oklahoma 6 (±3.1) 9.4 (±3.0) 26.6 (±5.2) 3.4 (±1.8) 30.6 (±4.7)

Oregon 4.4 (±2.1) 6.5 (±3.2) 11.4 (±4.8) 3.9 (±2.2) 11.9 (±4.8)

South Dakota Trace Trace 5.6 (±3.1) Trace 5.9 (±3.1)

Texas 24.6 (±4.4) 30.5 (±4.6) 37.7 (±4.1) 23.6 (±4.3) 39.1 (±4.1)

Utah28.2 (±11.7) 34.5 (±13.3) 33 (±9.3) 19.4 (±7.9) 43.8 (±13.5)

Washington Trace Trace 16.4 (±5.0) Trace 17.5 (±5.3)

Wyoming 10.2 (±4.5) 9.4 (±4.1) 8 (±3.6) 4.1 (±3.1) 13.6 (±4.2)

Nation 11.6 (±1.3) 14.4 (±1.4) 17.7 (±1.1) 9.4 (±1.1) 20.7 (±1.2)
91

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

The frequency and stature of trees and shrubs has increased over the last 200 years, especially 

in the southwestern United States and globally in arid and semi-arid ecosystems (Archer and 

others 1995). In some cases, native woody plants are increasing in abundance within their 

historic geographic ranges; in other cases, non-native woody plants are becoming dominant 

(Archer and others 1995). Many areas where this phenomenon occurs are classified as grassland, shrub-steppe, or savanna ecosystems that occupy large areas both in the United States 

and elsewhere. At present, with some exception given to data collected by the NRI, comprehensive data describing historic or modern rate, areal extent, and pattern of woody plant 

expansion (Hibbard and others 2001) is lacking. However, a large body of literature exists 

describing effects of invasive woody species.

It is widely postulated that causal mechanisms responsible for expansion of woody species 

into previously herb-dominated systems involve overgrazing (Briggs and others 2002; Sankey 

and Germino 2008), decreasing fire frequency, and optimal climate conditions for plant 

growth (Miller and Rose 1999). Regardless of the causes, the densification and encroachment 

of woody species can induce significant ecological change. Therefore, evaluation of woody 

encroachment into U.S. rangelands is important from an ecological and economic perspective.

When increasing woody species abundance transforms grasslands into savannas and savannas 

into shrublands or woodlands (Hughes and others 2006), substantial alterations can occur in 

fire regimes (Ansley and Rasmussen 2005; Miller and Rose 1999), nutrient cycling (Rau and 

others 2010; Strand and others 2008), biodiversity, and forage yield (Miller and others 2005). 

Ironically, encroachment by some woody species, such as mesquite, lead to increased aboveground carbon storage, which, from a CO2 mitigation perspective, is considered a beneficial 

phenomenon. Mesquite has been estimated to increase aboveground C stocks from less than 

9800 pounds per acre in low-density stands to more than 39,000 pounds per acre in mature 

stands on clay loam soils (Hughes and others 2006). Shrub encroachment can also increase 

soil organic matter, leading to the ultimate effect of increasing sequestered carbon, which is 

dependent on many factors such as temperature and rainfall with relatively wetter sites receiving a greater amount of sequestered carbon (Knapp and others 2008). Paradoxically, the same 

encroachment leads to a multitude of economic and ecological concerns.

In arid regions, increases in the abundance of shrubs at the expense of grasses are a type of 

desertification often accompanied by accelerated rates of wind and water erosion. Likewise, 

in semi-arid and subhumid areas, encroachment of shrubs and trees into grasslands and savannas may promote primary production and accumulation of soil organic matter but potentially 

reduce stream flow, ground water recharge, livestock production, and biological diversity 

(Archer and others 2001). In this section, we provide a brief synoptic overview of the extent 

and magnitude of woody encroachment by three key genera: Prosopis, Juniperus, and Pinus. 

Though some positive effects of increased woody populations exist (Ansley and Rasmussen 

2005), here we focus on the ecological and economic consequences and magnitude of 

invasions.
92

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Junipers

The principle Juniperus species addressed in this report are Juniperus occidentalis (western 

juniper), J. ostesperma (Utah juniper), J. monosperma (one-seeded juniper), J. ashei (Ashe 

juniper), and J. virginiana (eastern red cedar). Approximately 10 percent of U.S. rangelands 

are occupied by invasive Juniperus species other than J. virginiana (table 34). In general, 

pinyon and juniper woodlands occupy approximately 74 million acres in the western United 

States (Miller and others 2005). Most of the growth is found between 2000 and 6000 ft in 

elevation (Gedney and others 1999). Western juniper exists in the western-most domain 

of junipers discussed here and is found intermittently in California, southern Idaho, and in 

sparse, scattered stands in south-central and southeastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and the 

northwest corner of Nevada (figure 44).

The greatest abundance of western juniper occurs in continuous stands in central Oregon 

and occupies between roughly 7 (Chambers 2008) and 9 million acres (Miller and others 

2005) throughout its range. Miller and Rose (1999) report that western juniper expansion 

began between 1875 and 1885, and Miller and others (2005) indicated that stands dominated 

by at least 10 percent canopy cover in eastern Oregon have increased from 456,000 acres 

in 1936 (Cowlin and others 1942) to 2.2 million acres in 1988 (Gedney and others 1999). 

Table 34—Percent of non-Federal rangeland by state where selected native invasive species 

are present (margins of error displayed in parentheses). 

 Eastern Juniper species, excluding Juniper species, including Mesquite

State redcedar eastern redcedar eastern redcedar species

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arizona 0 (NA) 13.0 ±4.9 13.0 ±4.9 14.0 ±3.6

California 0 (NA) Trace Trace 0 (NA)

Colorado Trace 7.6 ±3.7 8.3 ±4.0 0 (NA)

Florida 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA)

Idaho 0 (NA) 4.0±2.8 4.0±2.8 0 (NA)

Kansas 5.1±1.8 0 (NA) 5.1±1.8 0 (NA)

Louisiana 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA)

Montana 0 (NA) 12.2 ±3.9 12.2±3.9 0 (NA)

Nebraska 4.6 ±1.9 0 (NA) 4.6 ±1.9 0 (NA)

Nevada 0 (NA) Trace Trace 0 (NA)

New Mexico 0 (NA) 12.9 ±5.7 12.9 ±5.7 14.1±4.4

North Dakota 0 (NA) 6.8 ±2.5 6.8±2.5 0 (NA)

Oklahoma 20.4±4.7 Trace 21.3±4.1 7.5±4.2

Oregon 0 (NA) 13.3±4.2 13.3±4.2 0 (NA)

South Dakota Trace Trace 1.2±1.1 0 (NA)

Texas 2.6±0.8 19.2±4.5 21.5±4.5 47.6±4.5

Utah0 (NA) 20.3±8.9 20.3±8.9 0 (NA)

Washington 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA)

Wyoming 0 (NA) 3.1±2.3 3.1±2.3 0 (NA)

Nation 1.8±0.3 10.0±1.2 11.8±1.3 14.1±1.2
93

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Figure 45 indicates the general proportion of non-Federal rangelands where Juniperus species 

are present. Note the comparison of figure 45 with the distribution of the Colombia Plateau 

Western Juniper Woodland (Comer and others 2003; Comer and Schulz 2007) depicted in 

figure 44. Western juniper has increased the area it occupies by as much as 10-fold throughout 

much of its range during the past 130 years (Miller and Rose 1999). Between 1985 and 2005, 

Sankey and Germino (2008) estimated an increase in juniper encroachment of approximately 

1.5 percent per year. They also noted that the increases were more dramatic in grazed areas 

and on intermediate slopes. In the southern extent of the interior northwest, pre-settlement 

juniper densities averaged 2 to 11 stems per acre, while current densities average 80 to 358 

stems per acre—a 10- to 100-fold increase (Miller and others 2008)—most of which were 

established after 1860 (Johnson and Miller 2008). This pattern of encroachment or densification is exemplified in figure 46. The estimated amount of non-Federal rangelands where 

Juniperus species other than J. virginiana are present is shown in table 34.

Figure 44—Estimated distribution of U.S. Ecological Systems (Comer 2003) that are dominated by invasive Juniperus and Prosopis

spp. Only those systems estimated to occupy at least 500,000 acres are shown. This map does not reflect the distribution of the species in 

question but does represent the Ecological Systems dominated by each species. 
94

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

In addition to regionally changing fire and fuel conditions, evidence suggests that the 

increased abundance of western juniper is also reducing aspen in some stands (loss of aspen is 

a significant issue discussed in Mitchell [2000]) and decreasing the water available for watersheds due to increased transpirational demand. Finally, densification of western juniper is also 

linked to reduced understory biomass and diversity of wildlife and plant species (Wall and 

others 2001).

Compared with Ecological Systems dominated by western juniper, the Great Basin and 

Colorado Plateau and Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Ecological Systems occupy much 

larger areas (figure 44). These Systems are bounded by an extensive geographic region (figure 

44). Although pinyon-juniper woodlands occupy a large area in the United States, less information appears to be available documenting the densification and expansion of individual 

Figure 45—Proportion of non-Federal rangelands where invasive Juniperus spp. (excluding J. virginiana) are present. 
95

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

species within these areas. Most literature references pinyon-juniper woodlands system as 

opposed to individual species such as Utah juniper. The following information reflects that 

distinction.

Blackburn and Tueller (1970) provided estimates near 100 million acres of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands in the United States. More recent studies indicate less extensive coverage and 

document that pinyon-juniper woodland area has increased from 7.41 million acres to 74 

million acres since the mid 1800s (Miller and Tausch 2001; Miller and others 2008). Further, 

since 1860, Miller and others (2008) estimated the area occupied by pinyon and/or juniper 

has increased 125 to 625 percent, varying by location. Following past trends, tree-dominated 

woodlands are projected to increase from the current 20 to nearly 75 percent of the total 

woodland area within the next 30 to 50 years (Miller and others 2008). Without disturbance or 

management, most invaded landscapes will probably become closed woodlands resulting in 

the loss of understory plant species, decline of sagebrush communities, loss of habitat, decline 

in herbaceous production, decline of landscape heterogeneity, and increase in restoration costs 

(Miller and others 2008).

Figure 46—Keystone Ranch east of Prineville, Oregon. Most trees are junipers but a few Pinus ponderosa individuals are present. Smaller 

trees in panel A appear to be about 10 to 25 years old, and larger trees appear to be 60 to 70 years (Miller and others 2005). Panel B represents significant encroachment seen in many parts of the western United States. Photo by Stu Garrett.
96

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

The final Juniperus species discussed here are Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei) and eastern red 

cedar. Ashe juniper occurs in scattered populations in southwestern Missouri and Arkansas 

and southern Oklahoma. The main population occurs in west-central Texas, largely on the 

Edwards Plateau (Sullivan 1993), as indicated in figure 44. In a similar fashion to pinyonjuniper woodlands, without fire, Ashe juniper increases and herbaceous biomass decreases 

at exponential rates until dense canopy woodlands form (Fuhlendorf and others 1996). 

Ecological thresholds exist, beyond which these conversions may be irreversible (Fuhlendorf 

and others 1996).

Soil erosion resulting from juniper encroachment is a major concern, and grassland communities in the Great Plains are especially vulnerable (Ansley and Rasmussen 2005). Ashe juniper, 

unlike species such as Juniperus pinchotii (Pinchot’s juniper), does not resprout when cut, but 

expansion rates of the species appear to be exponential (Bidwell and others 1995). Perhaps 

more troubling is the nature of the expanding individuals. The junipers that establish in overgrazed lands are young, vigorous, dense, multi-trunked, and shallow-rooted, making it difficult for remaining grasses to compete for water. These dense, shallow-rooted shrubs result in 

less water reaching the soil, thereby decreasing soil yield (Owens and others 2006). Bidwell 

and others (1995) estimate Ashe juniper and eastern red cedar have increased by 79 percent in 

some areas over a nine-year period. Expansion rate into Oklahoma rangelands is exponential 

and estimated at 280,000 acres per year from 1985 to 1994 (Bidwell and others 1995). Eastern 

red cedar and Ashe juniper now occupy over 6 million acres of rangeland and forestland in 

Oklahoma (approximately 15 percent of the land area) influencing almost 30 percent of the 

estimated 21.6 million acres in native plant communities (Bidwell and others 1995).

In contrast to Ashe juniper, eastern red cedar tends to invade more northerly rangelands, 

especially former tallgrass prairie. The species occurs in nearly every state east of the Rocky 

Mountains but appears invasive toward the western edge of its range (figure 47). Eastern red 

cedar is the most widely distributed conifer east of the Mississippi River and pioneers aggressively into abandoned fields and grasslands (Schmidt and Leatherberry 1995). Native tallgrass 

prairie can be converted to red cedar forest in as little as 40 years with a maximum expansion 

rate of around 6 percent per year (Briggs and others 2002). Schmidt and Leatherberry (1995) 

estimated red cedar occupied around 12.4 million acres of forestland in 1993 in the lower 

Midwest representing a 113 percent increase from two decades earlier.

Relative to other juniper species, invasions by eastern red cedar are particularly problematic 

because the species threatens tallgrass prairie, one of the most endangered ecosystems in 

North America (Briggs and others 2005). Invasions by red cedar, like those perpetrated by 

other Juniperus species, elicit ecological consequences. The establishment of red cedar forests 

or woodlands in areas formerly dominated by grasslands can result in decreased biodiversity 

(Norris and others 2007), as well as significant changes in fire regimes, productivity, nutrient 

cycling, forage availability, and soil properties. Horncastle and others (2005) suggested that 

an increase in overstory cover from 0 percent to 40 percent red cedar can change “a speciesrich prairie community” to a community dominated by a single species. In small mammal 

communities, biodiversity decreases as red cedar increases. Further, even a 5 percent increase 

in red cedar cover can preclude use by grassland endemic songbirds such as the grasshopper 

sparrow (Bidwell and others 1995).
97

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

In tallgrass prairie, Norris and others (2007) found that former stands of tallgrass prairie 

now occupied by red cedar exhibited a 2.5-fold increase in aboveground productivity. The 

increased productivity is partly due to the two-fold increase in nitrogen-use-efficiency compared with grasses on similar sites. The increase in productivity and stature, in turn, greatly 

increases the possibility of crown fire, which can permanently alter the site characteristics precluding development by other species, thereby creating a nefarious feedback cycle. Ironically, 

eastern red cedar has been widely promoted as a species used for conservation purposes with 

an estimated 2.8 million seedlings distributed by state nurseries in 2001 (Ganguli and others 

2008).

Figure 47—Proportion of non-Federal rangelands where Juniperus virginiana is present.
98

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Mesquite Species

Overgrazing is widely thought to drive encroachment by Prosopis (mesquite) species; but 

debate still remains as to the exact causes (Kupfer and Miller 2005). Lack of fire has played 

a role, and evidence suggests that even widespread seed dispersal from increased herbivory 

via introduction of domestic livestock is largely responsible for the current spread of Prosopis

species throughout their range (ingestion of mesquite seeds and subsequent digestive processes appear to increase seed germination) (Brown and Archer 1989). Ecological Systems and 

NVCS alliances dominated by mesquites occupy a large region of the Southwest coterminous 

United States with significant coverage in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Table 34 indicates the proportion of non-Federal rangelands where invasive Juniperus and Prosopis species 

are present. Texas hosts the largest proportion of non-Federal rangelands where mesquite is 

present; roughly 48 percent are occupied (figure 48). Given that mesquites occupy semi-arid 

Figure 48—Proportion of non-Federal rangelands where Prosopis glandulosa is present.
99

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

and arid landscapes, a large focus of current research on encroachment implications is the 

potential for an increasing area of arid land or desertification. In these landscapes, mesquite 

can exploit any additional soil moisture that infiltrates under intermittent streambeds and in 

local areas where water accumulates during runoff (Schlesinger and others 1990).

Mesquite is an ideal woody invader of grasslands due to its production of abundant seed, 

ability to germinate and establish in a variety of soil types, and ability to fix nitrogen at the 

seedling and adult stages (Archer and others 1988). These competitive advantages are especially evident outside the natural range of Prosopis glandulosa (honey mesquite). Honey mesquite has been introduced in at least six other countries and earned the reputation as one of 

the top 100 invasive species according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) (http://www.globalspecies.org/ntaxa/778707).

Domestically, Prosopis species (P. glandulosa, P. velutina, P. torreyana, or P. juliflora) are the 

dominant woody plant on more than 94 million acres of what has been considered semi-arid 

southwestern grasslands (Van Auken 2000). Such a large distribution and, in some cases, high 

stem densities create similar ecological consequences as Juniperus species. Much is unknown, 

however, regarding the long-term implications of mesquite invasions for carbon budgets, 

primarily due to lack of information regarding distribution and amount of belowground biomass—a critical component of the carbon budget (Jurena and Archer 2003). Encroachment by 

mesquite can markedly increase the near-surface soil carbon and nitrogen pools and the rapid 

rates of soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration are now documented (Gill and Burke 1999; 

Jurena and Archer 2003).

In addition to altering nutrient cycles, mesquite invasions greatly reduce herbaceous forage 

and thus create an economic burden for working ranches. Warm season herbaceous biomass 

is linearly related to the amount of mesquite cover (Teague and others 2008). Teague and 

others (2008) documented a decrease of 12.5 pounds per acre in herbaceous biomass for each 

1 percent increase in cover by honey mesquite for a total reduction of up to 73 percent relative 

to sites where honey mesquite was not significantly present. Reduction in cover of mesquite, 

usually by herbicide, has been linked to significant increases in forage production (Bedunah 

and Sosebee 1984).

Though the effect of fire on individual species or systems is well studied, the influence of 

Prosopis species on fuelbed characteristics (and subsequent fire behavior potential) is not. 

Generally speaking, however, invasion by mesquite generally lowers the potential for wildfire through reduction in fine fuels, especially when the invasion is coupled with intensive 

grazing, resulting in patchy fuels (Streeks and others 2005) and increased bare ground (Comer 

and others 2003).

Exotic Plants Abundance and Distribution

Globally, numerous species are spreading outside their historic ranges and causing many types 

of disruptions across the landscape (Mitchell 2000), including decreases in rangeland health. 

Exotic or non-indigenous plants are species that have been introduced into ecosystems in 

which they did not evolve (Mitchell 2000) and may potentially displace or otherwise adversely affect native flora or fauna. Monitoring non-native plant species is a vital component of 
100

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

assessing rangeland health, and developing an understanding of the potential effects of these 

species is necessary (NISC 2008). The spread of exotic or non-indigenous plants throughout 

U.S. rangelands has had harmful effects on overall rangeland health and presents management 

obstacles (Mitchell 2000). It is important both economically and environmentally to address 

infestations of invasive weeds during early stages of invasion to prevent long-term establishment (Smith and others 1999) (figure 49).

Figure 49—Successful plans for coping with and mitigating invasive species, such as knapweed, 

will include a combination of strategies. Here, one of the author’s goats (A) is eating knapweed, 

which some goats seem to enjoy. Knapweed root weevils (B), shown infecting a knapweed root, 

are one of several effective biocontrol agents found on some U.S. rangelands.
101

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

The plant invasion process on rangelands can be conceptualized by four primary stages—

including introduction, establishment, spread, and impact (Vasquez and others 2010)—each 

of which results in growing economic, ecological, and human health consequences (Mitchell 

2000). Geographical barriers for propagules must be overcome for introduction to occur while 

biotic and abiotic factors (such as competition) must be suitable for establishment to occur. 

Likewise, the spread of invasive plants relies on survival and production of propagules that 

are capable of persisting in new sites. During the impact stage, invasive plants are dominant 

and have noticeable effects on ecosystem processes (Vasquez and others 2010).

Today, an estimated 3310 non-native species occur within the coterminous United States, and 

of that, 126 million acres are infested by 16 prominent invasive plant species (Duncan and 

others 2004). The rangelands of the United States have seen increased expansion of invasive plant species and subsequent ecosystem shifts. Non-native species have been shown to 

degrade natural ecosystem integrity and are now estimated to be present on 48.5±1.4 percent 

of U.S. rangelands and represent over 50 percent of total plant cover on 5.3±0.5 percent of 

rangelands (Herrick and others 2010). Invasive plant species have continued to increase 

in spread and density, and estimates of expansion over time are reflected by the growth in 

concern over the associated problems.

While the drastic increase in abundance and spread of invasive weeds across U.S. rangelands 

is often asserted, estimating the total magnitude of expansion is still difficult (Mitchell 2000). 

Many studies focus only on a subset of invasive species; there is limited collaboration across 

management entities; and quantifying the extent of spread is difficult. Yet, even a small percentage of non-native species in an ecosystem can cause notable harm and add to shifts in 

ecosystem functions (NISC 2008).

In 2000, the damage and control efforts resulting from the costs of invasive plant expansion 

in the United States was approximately $137 billion annually, with costs to the agricultural 

sector amounting to about $27 billion per year (Stitt and others 2006). These losses are 

accounted for in decreased yield and lower quality of forage, grazing interference, animal 

poisonings, and increasing management cost. In addition to these losses, the cost of merely 

controlling invasive species on rangelands is estimated at $5 billion annually (DiTomaso and 

others 2010). Some research asserts that the solution to invasive plant species needs to be economic in nature (Perrings and others 2002), but the estimated overall cost of invasive species 

will continue to change over time. It can be surmised that estimates of costs associated with 

invasive species are likely to underestimate the problem due to potential quantitative challenges (Perrings and others 2002).

In addition to economic effects, exotic plant invasions pose serious threats to natural systems, 

often altering ecological functions. Invasive plants reduce the ability of rangelands to provide 

goods and services that are required by society (Masters and Sheley 2001) and have been 

known to cause issues such as interruption of processes, including nutrient cycling (Evans and 

others 2001), pollination, and predator and prey relationships (NISC 2008), reducing biodiversity, increasing soil erosion, degrading wildlife habitat, and reducing the carrying capacity 

of livestock (Frost and Launchbaugh 2003).
102

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Soil erosion is of particular interest because prior to the establishment of the Soil 

Conservation Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps, strategies implemented to combat 

land degradation across U.S. rangelands largely focused on soil stabilization (Herrick and 

others 2010). Ironically, efforts to control soil erosion, as well as to increase rangeland productivity and stabilize roadsides, often included seeding of invasive plant species, which have 

since been documented as propellants of erosion (Herrick and others 2010).

Management action and livestock operations enhance the spread of invasive species, and 

the misuse of grazing practices as weed control may cause additional expansion (Frost and 

Launchbaugh 2003). However, invasive weed spread is not always linked to a human disturbance, and some invasive species have been found in areas devoid of livestock grazing such 

as National Parks (Frost and Launchbaugh 2003). The species’ ability to invade new areas 

without human assistance increases the concern regarding the spread potential of invasive 

plant species as a whole. The National Park Service estimates that non-native species are 

spreading at a rate of 4000 acres per day on western lands and occupy 8.5 million acres in the 

Great Basin alone (http://www.nps.gov/grba/naturescience/fireregime.htm). Such evidence 

indicates invading plants often out-compete native species for sunlight, nutrients, and space. 

Most problematic invasive plant species exhibit a host of traits allowing them to spread and 

maintain a significant presence in the biotic community, including multiple reproductive pathways, rapid dispersion of propagules, fast growth rates, and phenotypic plasticity. These traits 

enable some invasive species to become aggressively prolific creating unnatural fire regimes 

that, in turn, create more unfavorable conditions for propagation of native species.

Loss of ecosystem services and biotic integrity remain grave issues facing rangeland health 

and management, with the exact nature of change across the landscape largely unknown. 

Difficulties surrounding accounting of ecosystem values add to the barriers associated with 

estimating the true loss associated with the invasion and replacement of native plants (Hester 

and others 2006).

Despite the obstacles in synthesizing information regarding invasive species across U.S. 

rangelands, in the following sections, we discuss the distribution and status of some of the 

most problematic species that commonly invade rangelands: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), red brome (Bromus 

rubens), and knapweeds (Centaurea diffusa, C. maculosa, and Acroptilon repens) (DiTomaso 

and others 2010). The distributions of these invasive species are debatable, and those provided here were obtained from the Center for Invasive Species (http://www.bugwood.org/). 

Improvement in the estimates of the distribution of these species requires an intensified, 

unified, interagency approach, including a publically accessible, spatially explicit database 

describing the location, magnitude, and composition of infestations.

Cheatgrass

Cheatgrass is considered one of the most abundant invasive plant species in North America 

(Mitchell 2000) and is known for its ability to successfully out-compete native grasses and 

forbs. Cheatgrass is found from northern Montana to southern New Mexico and eastern 

Oregon to western Nebraska in dense populations but exists most prominently in the Great 

Basin and throughout the western United States (figure 50). The dominance of cheatgrass in 
103

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

the western United States has steadily increased in the last two decades and is expected to 

continue expansion at the current rate, if not more rapidly (Bradley and others 2006).

In 1994, cheatgrass dominated 3.3 million acres of public lands in the Great Basin Desert 

with an additional 76.1 million acres either infested or susceptible to invasion (Pellant 1996). 

Cheatgrass and other annual bromes are highly invasive in communities of sagebrush, pinyonjuniper, and other shrub species. Cheatgrass, with its high local adaptation potential, has 

expanded into higher elevations during the past 10 to 15 years, signaling that elevation may 

be an important component of management plan development (Brown and Rowe 2004). The 

species is an adept invader of previously burned areas and often re-colonizes charred ecosystems more quickly than native species (Bradley and others 2006). Throughout its growing 

range, cheatgrass competes with native perennials and is good at attaining necessary moisture 

(Rafferty and Young 2002). Very few species can compete with cheatgrass at the seedling 

level, and it is likely to thrive in the early stages of development (Reid and others 2008). 

Figure 50—Approximate distribution of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) across the coterminous United States. Data source: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (http://www.bugwood.org/).
104

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Cheatgrass can also affect plant communities and ecosystems by altering fire regimes and 

competing with native plants (Brown and Rowe 2004) through changing nitrogen dynamics. 

It has a sizeable impact on sagebrush-grass rangelands, creates a positive feedback in relation to wildfire (Mitchell 2000), and is particularly flammable from late spring until early 

fall. Cheatgrass expansion will lead to increased frequency and extent of fires (Bradley and 

others 2006), adding to the difficulties for native plant restoration. Cheatgrass has increased 

the occurrence of rangeland wildfires throughout the Great Basin, thereby impacting wildfire 

suppression and overall landscape rehabilitation costs (Pellant 1996). Costs associated with 

cheatgrass are not limited to fire suppression.

Cheatgrass and the domestic livestock industry interact regularly throughout the West. 

Livestock managers continue to have a great deal of interest in the relationship between cheatgrass and cattle grazing practices. Also, some research notes a positive impact on livestock 

operations (Pellant 1996) as cheatgrass is suitable forage at some stages for herbivores (Reid 

and others 2008). However, the relationship between cheatgrass and fire frequency fluctuations alters forage supply and increases the variability of herbage between wet and dry years 

(Reid and others 2008), creating livestock management concerns. The widespread invasion of 

cheatgrass and its deleterious effects on native communities make it one of the most significant plant invaders in North America (Chambers and others 2007).

Dalmation Toadflax

Dalmation toadflax is most prominent in the northwestern United States and southern 

California (figure 51; some of the most noted infestations are in California, Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Erskine Ogden and Renz 2005). While not common 

in the southern and southeastern states, dalmation toadflax can be found in all continental 

states (Wilson and others 2005). It is estimated that the species infects approximately 399,197 

acres in the western states but only 499 acres in the eastern United States (Duncan and others 

2004) (figure 51).

Dalmation toadflax has been observed to easily dominate native plant communities (Wilson 

and others 2005) and alter the ecosystem dynamics. With high seed production and the ability 

to colonize quickly, it is often able to dominate and persist on newly established sites (Wilson 

and others 2005) from early stages. A single plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds annually; and once established, the extensive root system is very difficult to control or eradicate 

(Erskine Ogden and Renz 2005). Early prevention methods are found to be most effective at 

controlling or managing infestations.

In addition to rangeland managers, members of the livestock industry are interested in monitoring the spread of this species. Dalmation toadflax contains a poisonous glucoside in its 

stem liquid that should not be consumed by cattle in large amounts due to potential health 

risks (Erskine Ogden and Renz 2005). Although cattle have been observed to eat dalmatian 

toadflax, it is not preferable forage (Jacobs and Sing 2006) and there is concern regarding the 

toxic potential to grazing animals.
105

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Knapweed

Knapweed species (Centaurea and Acropitolon spp.) are mostly found in the western United 

States with very dense populations in the Southwest and Intermountain regions (figure 52). 

Knapweed is one of the most commonly identified and acknowledged invasive plant species. 

It is estimated to infest approximately 5 million acres across the United States (Wilson and 

Randall 2005). Many species of knapweed are found across the entire United States, but 

three of the most prolific are spotted (Centaurea maculosa), diffuse (C. diffusa Lam.), and 

Russian (Acroptilon repens [L.] DC) knapweed. Russian knapweed is estimated to infest 

1,200,188 acres in the West and 250 acres in the East; diffuse knapweed infects approximately 

1,840,560 acres in the West and 4997 acres in the East, and spotted knapweed infects about 

5,231,000 acres in the West and 1,712,308 acres in the East (Duncan and others 2004).

Figure 51—Approximate distribution of toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) across the coterminous United States. Data source: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (http://www.bugwood.org/).
106

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Spotted knapweed is the most widely distributed of the Centaurea species and occurs in all 

but four states (Wilson and Randall 2005), prolifically throughout the Northern Intermountain 

Region. It has been observed to displace native plant species, even in undisturbed areas has 

been spreading at a rate of approximately 27 percent per year over the last 80 years across 

the rangelands of Montana (Jacobs and Sheley 1999). Spotted knapweed is often associated 

with increased runoff and sediment yield and loss of topsoil, leading to the sedimentation of 

reservoirs and other water sources (Lacey and others 1989). Reductions in wildlife habitat, 

biodiversity, and livestock forage have often been associated with spotted knapweed expansion (Jacobs and Sheley 1999). Knapweeds have the potential to alter native habitat, causing 

declines in both native flora and fauna. In 2008, it was estimated that spotted knapweed 

infested over 7.4 million acres of grassland habitat in North America (Broennimann and 

Guisan 2008) and over 1,976,000 acres in Montana alone (Smith and others 1999).

Figure 52—Approximate distribution of knapweeds and starthistles (Centaurea spp.) across the coterminous United States. Data source: 

Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (http://www.bugwood.org/).
107

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Diffuse and Russian knapweeds are both present, predominantly in western states, and have 

caused additional woes for native plant communities and related animal species. Diffuse 

knapweed has been found in over 100 counties and on over 2 million acres of land in the 

western United States (Sheley and others 1997) and is expected to expand at an increasing 

rate. Russian knapweed has been associated with reduced livestock carrying capacity, reduced 

wildlife habitat, and soil and water imbalances (Jacobs and Denny 2006).

The Centaurea species are harmful to rangelands and have been found to invade both grazed 

sites and relatively healthy ecosystems (Mitchell 2000). In addition, the roots of some knapweeds produce a toxin that stunts the growth of many native plant species and causes a 

noticeable decline in native perennial populations, drastically altering these communities and 

impacting the food supply, protection, and habitat of other species (Ortega and others 2006).

The livestock industry could be impacted through loss of forage, as well as the threat of 

poison from knapweed. For example, prolonged ingestion of Russian knapweed by horses has 

been observed to lead to a fatal neurodegenerative disorder (Jacobs and Denny 2006). With 

millions of affected acres of rangelands, the species has the potential to cause increasingly 

severe economic impacts due to the costs of protection, mitigation, and eradication.

Leafy Spurge

The latter half of the Twentieth Century saw exponential increase in leafy spurge populations 

across the United States. While the increase has been drastic, some experts assert that it already 

occurs in areas of the United States in which it is best adapted (Mitchell 2000). Leafy spurge 

is found most predominantly in the northwestern United States with dense populations in 

eastern Montana and Wyoming (figure 53). The species has become the most abundant weed in 

the Northern Great Plains (Everitt and others 1995) and has invaded approximately 3,673,475 

acres in the western states and 926,630 acres in the East (Duncan and others 2004). Observed 

in 35 states and 10 Canadian provinces, leafy spurge is considered a serious problem in Colorado, 

Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

Wyoming (Sandell and Knezevic 2010) as it leads to the loss of valuable grassland habitat.

Leafy spurge is a quick invader and is very difficult to remove once it has established in a 

community. Leafy spurge has been named among the top 10 worst weed problems (Dunn 1979), 

and its presence has become increasingly unmanageable. Its deep roots make it highly competitive with native species. In the Great Plains, leafy spurge is causing dramatic negative 

effects on rangeland and pasture carrying capacity (Sandell and Knezevic 2010). Through 

competition with forages, leafy spurge has reduced carrying capacity by as much as 75 percent 

with the potential for even greater changes (Sandell and Knezevic 2010). It has been known to 

reduce species richness of an ecosystem and disrupt numerous natural processes (Butler and 

Cogan 2004) as well as displace native plants in riparian areas and rangelands alike (Williams 

and Hunt 2002). In the badlands ecosystem, it forms monocultures with the potential to completely displace entire native communities (Stitt and others 2006). Some wildlife species are 

negatively impacted by the plant species composition shifts resulting from leafy spurge colonization. In a simple stand sampling comparison, stands infested with leafy spurge averaged 

61 percent less species richness than their non-infested counterparts (Butler and Cogan 2004).
108

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

In addition to ecological integrity, the economic stability of rangeland is of growing concern 

due to invasive plant species. Many invasive species, including leafy spurge, create costs for 

rangeland owners and managers through both decreased grazing capacity and wildlife habitat 

(Mitchell 2000). Leafy spurge adds to the reduction of livestock carrying capacity on rangelands (Butler and Cogan 2004), and through displacement of other vegetation, leafy spurge 

forms single-species stands that reduce once desirable forages. Potential economic impacts of 

leafy spurge invasion are: loss of income for stock growers and landowners, reduced production by ranchers, reduced recreation, and increased concerns surrounding water conservation 

and habitat integrity (Leitch and others 1994).

Figure 53—Approximate distribution of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) across the coterminous United States. Data source: Center for 

Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (http://www.bugwood.org/).
109

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Duncan and others (2004) revealed that the direct and secondary impacts of leafy spurge in 

Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming alone were about $130 million. By 2006, 

the estimated cost for the same four states had risen to $144 million per year (Stitt and others 

2006). The reduced business activity and economic loss in the Northern Great Plains attributed to leafy spurge invasion is estimated at $120 million annually (Bourchier and others 2006). 

Leafy spurge has invaded approximately 900,000 acres in North Dakota, causing direct and 

indirect losses exceeding $100 million annually. In Nebraska, with a leafy spurge invasion 

estimated around 321,000 acres, the direct and indirect losses exceed $16 million per year 

(Sandell and Knezevic 2010).

Reduction in land value due to the spread of leafy spurge is of great interest to land managers and home owners alike. Due to increased expansion, environmental threats, and potential 

economic disruption, leafy spurge invasion will continue to be a pressing factor of rangeland 

health.

Red Brome

Red brome is found predominantly in the southwestern United States, especially in southern California, Nevada, and Arizona (figure 54). Red brome is found to occur from British 

Columbia to Mexico and from California to western Texas. In the past 50 years, red brome 

has occupied fewer new areas overall, yet has expanded its range into eastern Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico (Reid and others 2008). This spread into new areas indicates that 

red brome may not be contained to its current range.

The invasion of red brome continues to threaten native plant communities and has been found 

to significantly alter fire frequency and intensity, causing harmful effects on native species 

(Reid and others 2008) such as the fire-intolerant, iconic Saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea). Red brome produces finer fuels than other annual bromes, such as cheatgrass, fostering 

an increase in fire behavior that adds to the threat posed to native species (Reid and others 

2008).

Observations show that during El Niño Southern Oscillation events, red brome can become 

the dominant annual species in parts of the Sonoran and Mojave deserts, and it may still be 

expanding in this area (Reid and others 2008). The species has been very successful at outcompeting native species for light and nitrogen, posing an increasing threat to southwestern 

communities (Salo and others 2005). Expected CO2 enrichment could increase red brome’s 

ability to dominate native plants as it has been observed to grow faster, larger, and have higher 

seed production than native species in instances of atmospheric CO2 enrichment (Nagel and 

others 2004).

Overall, the invasive species discussed here will continue to pose economic and ecological hardships and increasingly problematic management concerns. Vigilant management, 

appropriate financial resources and, most importantly, interagency focus toward inventorying, 

monitoring, and controlling new populations are critical to reduce the impact of these invasive 

species. There is an increasing need for better methods of monitoring invasive populations 

that enable compilation of the necessary data for future assessments (Williams and Hunt 2002).
110

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Federal Management Response to Invasive Species

Despite the economic and ecological effects of invasive species on rangelands, little interagency coordination exists at the national level that is aimed at mapping and systematically 

monitoring invasive species. Since the 2000 RPA Assessment, progress has been made on the 

issue and several notable programs and projects have arisen, but most lack an interagency, 

national perspective. Table 35 exemplifies just a few of the many programs in place (these are 

just examples; dozens, perhaps hundreds of programs exist) specializing in various aspects of 

the invasive species problem. However, research and management communities still lack an 

easily accessible, publically available, spatially explicit, centralized database describing the 

location and extent of key invasive species for the United States.

Figure 54—Approximate distribution of red brome (Bromus rubens) across the coterminous United States. Data source: Center for Invasive 

Species and Ecosystem Health (http://www.bugwood.org/).

0 105 210 420 630 840

Mi.

Approximate distribution

of red brome

Red brome present

Red brome not present

Less than 500,000 acres of rangeland

®

(Bromus rubens)
111

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment Table 35—Examples of the multitude of projects aimed at compiling and characterizing information regarding invasive species. Project Website Agency/organization USFS Invasive Species Program http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/ USFS National Invasive Species Council http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ Interagency USGS Invasive Species Program http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/ USGS The National Invasive Species Council http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ Interagency The Global Invasive Species Program http://tncinvasives.ucdavis.edu/ The Nature Conservancy Union of Concerned Scientists: Invasive Species http://www.ucsusa.org/invasive_species/ Non-profit National Institute of Invasive Species Science http://www.gisin.org/cwis438/websites/niiss/Home.php?WebSiteID=1 Interagency, administered by USGS Ecology and Management of Invasive Plants Program http://www.invasiveplants.net/ Cornell University Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health http://www.invasive.org/ University of Georgia RMRS Invasive Species Working Group http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/invasive_species/iswg.php USFS, RMRS USDA National Invasive Species Information Center http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/ USDA
112

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

The lack of cohesiveness makes developing a report on the status and trends of invasive 

species on U.S. rangelands problematic. There is hope, however, as recognition of the need 

for better coordination, inventory, and monitoring has improved. For example, in 2010, the 

Office of Inspector General developed an audit of the USFS Invasive Species Program and 

concluded that the agency needed to improve its monitoring strategy, reduce confusion, 

and improve efficacy of internal databases. Progress is being made at the national level to 

increase the amount of interagency focus. The Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Defense, 

and Energy Departments combined with the EPA have created the Federal Interagency 

Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. These efforts will increase the 

availability of data and, as a result, our ability to characterize the status of invasive species 

across rangelands will be improved. In addition, substantial efforts have materialized toward 

combating invasive species. In 2010, the USFS treated 309,228 acres infested with invasive 

plant species. Merely reporting acres treated, however, falls short of describing the total level 

of effort dedicated to combating invasive species. For example, much effort is dedicated to 

decontaminating vehicles and equipment as well as to conducting inventories and surveys, 

but there is no national performance metric enabling credit for the work so little information 

is available regarding the costs associated with these activities. In addition, there is more 

work on education, inventorying, surveying, and monitoring than on controlling (for example, 

spraying) invasive species (Ielmini, personal communication).

New research is providing information and tools for management of invasive species. In 

addition, increased public awareness has resulted in citizens participating in weed pulls and 

educational activities at the local level. One of the more promising products is the concept of 

the “citizen scientist,” which provides a venue for the public to inform management agencies 

regarding invasive species infestations for which treatments could be prescribed. In an era of 

decreasing budgets, such a system could become increasingly necessary in our fight against 

invasive species.

Successful management programs will need to include a host of intervention techniques, 

including bio-control, prescription grazing (Frost and Launchbaugh 2003) (such as use of 

alternative livestock during a specific season and for a specific duration to reduce cover of 

invasive species such as knapweed) (figure 49), herbicide application, and suitable management practices.

Summary

Despite the critical need for information describing rangeland health to support policy and 

management, little interagency collaboration aimed at characterizing and providing such 

information in a systematic, cohesive manner exists. Scientific advances in the ability to 

describe rangeland health have not been incorporated into land management agencies’ inventory and monitoring protocols on a meaningful scale. There are effectively four widespread 

protocols aimed at characterizing rangeland health employed by the BLM and the NRCS. The 

ESI, SVIM, and standards of rangeland health are used by the BLM while the NRCS employs 

the indicators of rangeland health. The analysis of the health of U.S. rangelands relies mostly 

on data summaries from these four systems. Of all lands evaluated by the BLM using the ESI 

and SVIM protocols, 90 percent of all rangeland area for which a condition score has been 
113

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

given are found in the Rocky Mountain Assessment region. Wyoming exhibits the highest percentage of rangelands designated as PNC while Idaho generally supports the least since 2004. 

Overall, no significant change in condition categories has been readily apparent on BLM 

lands in the Rocky Mountain Assessment region since 2004.

Roughly 72 percent of rangelands within BLM grazing allotments have been evaluated using 

the standards for rangeland health, resulting in 57.6 million acres designated as meeting all 

standards or making significant progress toward meeting the standard. Only 2.8 million acres 

have been designated as not meeting standards or making significant progress toward meeting 

the standards. Of all lands that have been evaluated in the Rocky Mountain Assessment 

Region, Arizona has the greatest proportion of land (92 percent, ~7.8 million acres) designated as meeting all standards while Idaho has the least (38 percent, ~3.4 million acres) where 

livestock is a significant factor. From the standpoint of standards for rangeland health, BLM 

lands in the Rocky Mountain Assessment region are in reasonably good status.

As with the Rocky Mountain Assessment region, BLM lands in the Pacific Coast region do 

not exhibit any notable changes in relation to PNC status. Approximately 30 percent of rangelands administered by the BLM in California are in early seral status reflecting an overall 

lower condition than Washington and Idaho. Similarly, California exhibits the highest proportion (11 percent, ~626,000 acres) of lands designated as not meeting all standards or not 

making significant progress toward meeting rangeland health standards.

At least 75 percent of rangelands under BLM jurisdiction are in mid to late seral stages indicating, from a national perspective, the health of these rangelands is reasonably good and has 

changed little since 2000. In addition, roughly 89 percent of BLM lands evaluated are meeting 

or making progress toward the standards for rangeland health, providing further evidence for 

the positive picture that has emerged over the last decade. Some areas are in very poor condition and require additional resources and changes in management, but from a synoptic perspective, the rangeland health situation for most BLM lands is good.

The rangeland health situation for non-Federal rangelands is somewhat similar to lands 

managed by the BLM. Roughly 80 percent of non-Federal rangelands show no significant 

departure from reference conditions, and only 10 percent of rangelands showed significant 

departure in all three health attributes. Texas exhibits the greatest degree of departure from 

reference conditions, followed by Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. Biotic integrity is the 

largest factor contributing to declines in rangeland health owed mostly to the presence of 

invasive species.

The expansion of invasive species, particularly by exotics, could pose the largest threat to the 

future health of U.S. rangelands and cause a serious financial burden to society. In 2000, the 

damage and control efforts resulting from the costs of invasive plant expansion in the United 

States was approximately $137 billion annually. Today, an estimated 3310 non-native species 

occur within the coterminous United States. In addition, 126 million acres are infested by 16 

prominent invasive plant species, and non-native species are estimated to be present on 49 

percent of U.S. rangelands and represent over 50 percent of total plant cover on 5 percent of 

non-Federal rangelands.
114

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

However, not all invasive species are exotic; invasions by shrubs such as mesquite and juniper 

species have also created negative consequences. The frequency and stature of trees and 

shrubs has increased over the last 200 years in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. At present, 

with some exception given to data collected through the NRI, comprehensive data describing historic or modern rate of expansion, areal extent, and pattern of woody plant expansion 

(Hibbard and others 2001) are lacking. Overgrazing, decreasing fire frequency, and optimal 

climate conditions for plant growth are top factors thought to aid the increased density of 

invasive shrub species. Juniper species have increased rapidly over the last 100 years and in 

many cases have increased 10- to 100-fold. The increase in eastern red cedar is particularly 

troubling because it threatens the sustainability (and perhaps the existence) of the tallgrass 

prairie—one of the most endangered grassland systems in North America. The situation for 

mesquite is similar, and Texas hosts the largest population of mesquite, with 48 percent of its 

non-Federal rangelands occupied by mesquite.

While the situation is critical, efforts are underway to control invasive species at the Federal 

and non-Federal level. For example, in 2010, the USFS treated 309,228 acres infested with 

invasive plant species. Merely reporting acres treated, however, falls short of describing the 

total level of effort dedicated toward combating invasive species. For example, much effort 

is dedicated to decontaminating vehicles and equipment and to conducting inventories and 

surveys, but little information is available regarding the costs associated with these activities. 

In addition, there is more work on education, inventorying, surveying, and monitoring than on 

controlling (for example, spraying) invasive species (Ielmini, personal communication).

New research on tools, education, biocontrol, grazing management, and education offer significant promise for the future. The concept of the “citizen scientist” could prove to be especially valuable and necessary component of the fight against invasive species. In fact, some of 

the information in this report was compiled using the work of citizen scientists.

Finally, the situation is being elevated to include an interagency focus—the Agriculture, 

Interior, Transportation, Defense, and Energy Departments and EPA have created the Federal 

Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, which should 

improve interagency collaboration and data collection and sharing. Hopefully, the increase 

in education, tools, research, and programs will coalesce into an effective system for dealing 

with invasive species.

Literature Cited

Adler, P.R.; Sanderson, M.A.; Weimer, P.J.; Vogel, K.P. 2009. Plant species composition and 

biofuel yields of conservation grasslands. Ecological Applications 19: 2202-2208.

Ansley, R.J.; Rasmussen, G.A. 2005. Managing native invasive juniper species using fire. 

Weed Technology 19: 517-522.

Archer, S.; Schimel, D.S.; Holland, E.A. 1995. Mechanisms of shrubland expansion: land use, 

climate or CO2? Climate Change 29: 91-99.

Archer, S.; Scifres, C.; Bassham, C.R.; Maggio, R. 1988. Autogenic succession in a subtropical savanna: conversion of grassland to thorn woodland. Ecological Monographs 58: 

111-127.
115

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Archer, S.A.; Boutton, T.W.; Hibbard, K.A. 2001. Trees in grasslands: biogeochemical consequences of woody plant expansion. In: E. Schulze, S.P. Harrison, M. Heimann, E.A. 

Holland, J. Lloyd, I.C. Prentice, and D. Schimel (eds.). Global Biogeochemical Cycles in 

the Climate System. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 363 p.

Bai, Z.G.; Dent, D.L.; Olsson, L.; Schaepman, M.E. 2008. Proxy global assessment of land 

degradation. Soil Use and Management 24: 223-234.

Barbarika, A. 2009. Conservation Reserve Program: Annual Summary and Enrollment 

Statistics—FY 2009. Assisted by Skip Hyberg, Rich Iovanna, and Catherine Feather with 

EPAS/FSA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Analysis 

Group, Economic and Policy Analysis Staff (EPAS), Farm Service Agency (FSA). 78 p.

Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E. 1984. Forage response of a mesquite-buffalograss communityfollowing range rehabilitation. Journal of Range Management 37:483-490.

Behnke, R.H.; Scoones, I. 1993. Rethinking range ecology: implications for rangeland management. In: Behnke, R.H.; Scoones, I.; Kerven, C. (eds.). Range Ecology at 

Disequilibrium. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK: 1-30.

Bidwell, T.G.; Engle, D.M.; Moseley, M.E.; Masters, R.E. 1995. Invasion of Oklahoma rangelands and forests by eastern red cedar and ashe juniper. Oklahoma State University: 1-12.

Bies, L. 2006. The biofuels explosion: is green energy good for wildlife? Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 34: 1203-1206.

Bird, L.; Bolinger, M.; Gagliano, T.; Wiser, R.; Brown, M.; Parsons, B. 2005. Policies and 

market factors driving wind power development in the United States. Energy Policy 33: 

1397-1407.

Black and Veatch. 2008. Renewable energy options. Overland Park, KS: Black and Veatch 

Corporation.

Blackburn, W.H.; Tueller, P.T. 1970. Pinyon and juniper invasion in black sagebrush communities in East-Central Nevada. Ecology 51: 841-848.

Bourchier, R.; Hansen, R.; Lym, R.; Norton, A.; Olson, D.; Randall, C.B.; Schwarzlander, M.; 

Skinner, L. 2006. Biology and biological control of leafy spurge. In: U.S. Forest Service 

(eds.): Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team: 1-125.

Bradley, B.A.; Houghton, R.A.; Mustard, J.F.; Hamburg, S.P. 2006. Invasive grass reduces 

aboveground carbon stocks in shrublands of the western US. Global Change Biology 

12:1815-1822.

Briggs, J.M., Hoch, G.A.; Johnson, L.C. 2002. Assessing the rate, mechanisms, and consequences of the conversion of tallgrass prairie to Juniperus virginiana forest. Ecosystems 

5:578-586.

Briggs, J.M.; Knapp, A.K.; Blair, J.M.; Heisler, J.L.; Hoch, G.A.; Lett, M.S.; McCarron, J.K. 

2005. An ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic 

grassland to shrubland. BioScience 55:243-254.

Broennimann, O.; Guisan, A. 2008. Predicting current and future biological invasions: both 

native and invaded ranges matter. Biology Letters 4: 585-589.

Brown, C.S.; Rowe, H. 2004. The unwelcome arrival of bromus tectorum to high elevations. 

Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 12 p.

Brown, J.R.; Archer, S. 1989. Woody plant invasion of grasslands: establishment of honey 

mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa) on sites differing in herbaceous biomass 

and grazing history. Oecologia 80: 19-26.
116

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Brown, L.R. 2002. World’s rangelands deteriorating under mounting pressure. Earth Policy 

Institute (February 5, 2002). Update 6. Bulletin 34: 1203-1206.

Buenemann, M.; Martius, C.; Jones, J.W.; [and others]. 2010. Integrative geospatial approaches for the comprehensive monitoring and assessment of land management sustainability: 

rationale, potentials, and characteristics. Land Degradation & Deveopment. 14 p.

Butler, J.L.; Cogan, D.R. 2004. Leafy spurge effects on patterns of plant species richness. 

Journal of Range Management 57: 305-311.

Caratti, J.F. 2006. The LANDFIRE reference database. In: The LANDFIRE prototype 

project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data and tools for wildland 

fire management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

Missoula, MT: 69-98.

Carpenter, F.R. 1981. Establishing management under the Taylor Grazing Act. Rangelands 3: 

105-115.

Chambers, J.C. 2008. Sagebrush steppe: a story of encroachment and invasion. Joint Fire 

Science Program: 1-6.

Chambers, J.C.; Roundy, B.A.; Blank, R.R.; Meyer, S.E.; Whittaker, A. 2007. What makes 

Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 

77: 117-145.

Chow, J.; Kopp, R.J.; Portney, P.R. 2003. Energy resources and global development. Science 

302: 1528-1531. 

Comer, P.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Evans, R.;[and others]. 2003. Ecological systems of the 

United States: a working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. Arlington, VA. 75 p.

Comer, P.J.; Schulz, K.A. 2007. Standardized ecological classification for mesoscale mapping 

in the southwestern United States. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60: 324-335.

Cook, J.H.; Beyea, J.; Keeler, K.H. 1991. Potential impacts of biomass production in the 

United States on biological diversity. Annual Reviews: Energy and Environment 16: 

401-431.

Cooley, P. 2010. Personal communication. Phone call/email correspondence to M. Reeves. 

Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farberk, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; 

Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural 

capital. Nature 387: 259-260.

Coulombe, M. J. 1995. Sustaining the world’s forests: the Santiago Agreement. Journal of 

Forestry 93: 18-21.

Coulson, D.P.; Joyce, L.A.; Price, D.T.; McKenney, D.W.; Siltanen, R.M.; Papadopol, P.; 

Lawrence, K. 2010a. Climate scenarios for the conterminous United States at the 5 arc 

minute grid spatial scale using SRES scenarios A1B and A2 and PRISM climatology. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/data_archive/dataaccess/US_ClimateScenarios_

grid_A1B_A2_PRISM.shtml [2010, August 2].

Coulson, D.P.; Joyce, L.A.; Price, D.T.; McKenney, D.W. 2010b. Climate scenarios for the 

conterminous United States at the 5 arc minute grid spatial scale using SRES scenario B2 

and PRISM climatology. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/data_archive/dataaccess/US_ClimateScenarios_grid_B2_PRISM.shtml [2010, August 2]. 
117

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Cowlin, R.W.; Briegleb, R.A.; Moravets, F.L. 1942. Forest resources on the ponderosa pine 

region of Washington and Oregon. Miscellaneous Publication.

Curry, A. 2009. Deadly flights. Science 325: 386-387.

De La Torre Ugarte, D.G.; Walsh, M.E.; Hosein, S.; Shapouri, H.; Slinsky, S.P. 2003. The 

economic impacts of bioenergy crop production on U.S. agriculture. Agricultural Economic 

Report No. 816. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Denholm, P. 2006. Improving the technical, environmental and social performance of wind 

energy systems using biomass-based energy storage. Renewable Energy 31: 1355-1370.

DiTomaso, J.M.; Masters, R.A.; Peterson, V.F. 2010. Rangeland invasive plant management. 

Rangelands 2:43-47.

Duncan, C.A.; Jachetta, J.J.; Brown, M.L.; Carrithers, V.F.; Clark, J.K.; Ditomaso, J.M.; Lym, 

R.G.; McDaniel, K.C.; Renz, M.J.; Rice, P.M. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technology 

18: 1411-1416.

Duncan, R.C. 2001. World energy production, population growth, and the road to Olduvai 

gorge. Population and Environment 22:503-522.

Dunn, P.H. 1979. The distribution for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and other weedy 

Euphorbia spp. in the United States. Weed Science 27: 509-516.

Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949. Condition and management of rangeland based on quantitative 

ecology Journal of Range Management 2: 104-115.

Ellis, J.E. 1994. Climate variability and complex ecosystems dynamics: implications for pastoral development. In: Scoones, I. (ed.). Living with uncertainty. London, UK: Intermediate 

Technology Publications: 37-46.

Energy Information Administration [EIA]. 2010. Natural gas annual 2009. DOE/EIA0131(09). Washington, DC: Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Energy. 260 p. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/overview.html [2010, February 2].

Epstein, H.E., W.K. Lauenroth, I.C. Burke, and D.P Coffin. 1997. Productivity patterns of C3 

and C4 functional types in the U.S. Great Plains. Ecology 78:722-731.

Erickson, W.P.; Johnson, G.D.; Strickland, M.D.; Young, D.P.; Sernka, K.J.; Good, R.E. 2001. 

Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparison to 

other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating 

Committee Resource Document. Cheyenne, WY: Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 

62 p.

Erskine Ogden, J.A.; Renz, M.J. 2005. Dalmation toadflax (Linaria genistifokia spp. 

Dalmatica): New Mexico State University Weed-Factsheet. New Mexico State University. 

5 p.

Evans, R.D.; Rimer, R.; Sperry, L.; Belnap, J. 2001. Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen 

dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecological Applications 11: 1301-1310.

Everitt, J.H.; Anderson, G.L.; Escobar, D.E.; Davis, M.R.; Spencer, N.R.; Andrascik, R.J. 

1995. Use of remote sensing for detecting and mapping leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). 

Weed Technology 9: 599-609.

Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P. 2008. Land clearing and biofuel 

carbon debt. Science 319: 1235-1237.

Fensholt, R.I.; Sandholt, M.S.; Rasmussen, S.; Stisen, S.; Diou, A. 2006. Evaluation of 

satellite based primary production modeling in the semi-arid Sahel. Remote Sensing of 

Environment 105: 173-188.
118

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Follett, R.F.; Reed, D.A. 2010. Soil carbon sequestration in grazing lands: societal benefits 

and policy implications. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63: 4-15.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. 2009. FAO statistical yearbook 2009: Table A.4 Land Use. Available: ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/ES/Reserved/essb/ess/

ftp_essb/yearbook_2009_cd/20091109_cd_final/pdf/a04.pdf:2.

Friedl, M.A.; McIver, D.K.; Hodges, J.C.F.;[and others]. 2002. Global land cover mapping 

from MODIS: algorithms and early results. Remote Sensing of Environment 83: 287-302.

Frost, R.A.; Launchbaugh, K.L. 2003. Prescription grazing for rangeland weed management: 

a new look at an old tool. Rangelands 25: 43-47.

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Smeins, F.E.; Grant, W.E. 1996. Simulation of a fire-sensitive ecological 

threshold: a case study of Ashe juniper on the Edwards Plateau of Texas, USA. Ecological 

Modelling 90: 245-255.

Gaines, E.M.; Campbell, R.S.; Braisington, J.J. 1954. Forage production on longleaf pine 

lands in southern Alabama. Ecology 35: 59-62.

Gale, F. 2002. China’s food and agriculture: Issues for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 64 p.

Ganguli, A.C.; Engle, D.M.; Mayer, P.M.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. 2008. What are native species 

inappropriated for conservation plantings? Rangelands 30: 27-32.

Gedney, D.R.; Azuma, D.L.; Bolsinger, C.L.; McKay, N. 1999. Western juniper in eastern 

Oregon. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture (eds.). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 64 p.

Geist, H.J.; Lambin, E.F. 2004. Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. BioScience 54: 

817-829.

Gill, R.A.; Burke, I.C. 1999. Ecosystem consequences of plant life form changes at three sites 

in the semiarid United States. Oecologia 121: 551-563.

Groom, M.J.; Gray, E.M.; Townsend, P.A. 2008. Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for creating better policies for biofuel production. Conservation Biology 22: 602-609.

Grossman, D.H.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Weakley, A.S.;[and others]. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume 

I. The National Vegetation Classification System: Development, Status, and Applications. 

Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

Groundwater Protection Council [GWPC]. 2009. Modern shale gas development in the United 

States: a primer. U.S. Department of Energy, Fossil Energy & National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, Award #DE-G26-04NT15455.

Gunter, W.D.; Gentzis, T.; Rottenfusser, B.A.; Richardson, R.J.H. 1997. Deep coalbed 

methane in Alberta, Canada: a fuel resource with the potential of zero greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Conservation and Management 38: S217-S222.

Habich, E.F. 2001. Ecological site inventory. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Iinterior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 112 p.

Hansen, M.C.; DeFries, R.S.; Townshend, J.R.G.; Sohlberg, R. 2000. Global land cover classification at the 1km spatial resolution using a classification tree approach. International 

Journal of Remote Sensing: 1331-1364.

Harris, G.A. 1977. Changing philosophies of rangeland management in the United States. 

Journal of Range Management 30: 75-78.
119

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Heimlich, R.E. 1995. Financial and structural characteristics of CRP enrollees, 1991. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 15 p.

Heimlich, R.E.; Kula, O.E. 1990. Grasslands: the future of CRP land after contracts expire. 

Journal of Production Agriculture 3: 7-12.

Herrick, J.E.; Lessard, V.C.; Spaeth, K.E.; Shaver, P.L.; Dayton, R.S.; Pyke, D.A.; Jolley, L.; 

Goebel, J.J. 2010. National ecosystem assessments supported by scientific and local knowledge. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 403-408.

Hester, S.M.; Sinden, J.A.; Cacho, O.J. 2006. Weed invasions in natural environments: 

toward a framework for estimating the cost of changes in the output of ecosystem services. 

University of New England: 2-35.

Hibbard, K.A.; Archer, S.; Schimel, D.S.; Valentine, D.W. 2001. Biogeochemical changes 

accompanying woody plant encroachment in a subtropical savanna. Ecology 82: 

1999-2011.

Hobbs, N.T.; Galvin, K.A.; Stokes, C.J.; Lackett, J.M.; Ash, A.J.; Boone, R.B.; Reid, R.S.; 

Thornton, P.K. 2008. Fragmentation of rangelands: implications for humans, animals, and 

landscapes. Global Environmental Change 8: 776-785.

Holmgren, M.; Scheffer, M. 2001. El Niño as a window of opportunity for the restoration of 

degraded arid ecosystems. Ecosystems 4: 151-159.

Holmgren, M.; Stapp, P.; Dickman, C.R.;[and others]. 2006. A synthesis of ENSO effects 

on drylands in Australia, North America and South America. Advances in Geosciences 6: 

69-72.

Horncastle, V.J.; Hellgren, E.C.; Mayer, P.M.; Ganguli, A.C.; Engle, D.M.; Leslie, D.M. 2005. 

Implications of invasion by juniperus virginiana on small mammals in the southern great 

plains. Journal of Mammology 86: 1144-1155.

Hughes, F.R.; Archer, S.R.; Asner, G.P.; Wessmann, C.A.; McMurtry, C.; Nelson, J.; Ansley, 

J.R. 2006. Changes in aboveground primary production and carbon and nitrogen pools 

accompanying woody plant encroachment in a temperate savanna. Global Change Biology 

12: 1733-1747.

Hunt, E.R.J.; Kelly, R.D.; Smith, W.K.; Fahnestock, J.T.; Welker, J.M.; Reiners, W.A. 

2004. Estimation of carbon sequestration by combining remote sensing and net ecosystem exchange data for northern mixed-grass prairie and sagebrush-steppe ecosystems. 

Environmental Management 33: S432-S441.

Ielminin, M. 2011. Personal communication. Email communication.

International Energy Agency [IEA]. 2008. World energy outlook 2008. Paris, France: 

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development/IEA.

Jacobs, J.; Denny, K. 2006. Ecology and management of Russian knapweed [Acroptilon 

repens (L.) DC]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

9 p.

Jacobs, J.; Sing, S. 2006. Ecology and management of dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica

(L.) Mill.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 9 p.

Jacobs, J.S.; Sheley, R.L. 1999. Grass defoliation intensity, frequency, and season effects on 

spotted knapweed invasion. Journal of Range Management 52: 626-632.

Jinguo, Y.; Zheng, N.; Wang, C. 2006. Vegetation NPP distribution based on MODIS data and 

CASA model—a case study of northern Hebei Province. Chinese Geographical Science 16: 

334-341.
120

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Johnson, D.D.; Miller, R.F. 2008. Intermountain presettlement juniper: distribution, abundance, and influence on postsettlement expansion. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61.

Jones, K.G. 2004. Trends in the U.S. sheep industry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economics Research Service. 40 p.

Jordan, N.; Boody, G.; Broussard, W.;[and others]. 2007. Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316: 1570-1571.

Joyce, L.A. 1989. An analysis of the range forage situation in the United States: 1989-2040. A 

technical document supporting the 1989 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-GTR-180. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station.

Joyce, L.A.; Mitchell, J.E.; Loftin, S.R. 2000. The applicability of Montreal Process Criterion 

3—maintenance of ecosystem health—to rangelands. International Journal of Sustainable 

Development and World Ecology 7: 107-127.

Jurena, P.N.; Archer, S. 2003. Woody plant establishment and spatial heterogeneity in grasslands. Ecology 84: 907-919.

Karl, M. 2010. Personal communication. Bureau of Land Management BLM, National 

Operations Center. Numerous phone calls and emails. 

Knapp, A.K.; Briggs, J.M.; Collins, S.L.; [and others]. 2008. Shrub encroachment in North 

American grasslands: shifts in growth form dominance rapidly alters control of ecosystem 

carbon inputs. Global Change Biology 14: 615-623.

Knapp, A.K., J.M. Briggs, and J.K. Koelliker. 2001. Frequency and extent of water limitation 

to primary production in a mesic grassland. Ecosystems 4:19-28. 

Krohn S.; Damborg, S. 1999. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 16: 

954-960.

Kucera, C.L.; Dahlman, R.C.; Koelling, M.R. 1967. Total net productivity and turnover on an 

energy basis for tallgrass prairie. Ecology 48: 536-541.

Kunz, T.H.; Arnett, E.B.; Erickson, W.P.; Hoar, A.R.; Johnson, G.D.; Larkin, R.P.; Strickland, 

M.D.; Thresher, R.W.; Tuttle, M.D. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 5: 315-324.

Kupfer, J.A.; Miller, J.D. 2005. Wildfire effects and post-fire responses of an invasive mesquite population: the interactive importance of grazing and non-native herbaceous species 

invasion. Journal of Biogeography: 453-466.

Kuuskraa, V.A.; Godec, M.L.; Reeves, S.R. 2007. Outlook for unconventional gas: the 

next decade. OGJ Unconventional Gas Article #6. Houston, TX: Advanced Resources 

International, Inc. Available: http://www.adv res.com/pdf/ARI%20OGJ%206%20

Unconventional%20Gas%20Next%20Decade%207_24_07.pdf.

Lacey, J.R.; Marlow, C.B.; Lane, J.R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technology 3: 627-631.

Langer, L. In review. Future scenarios and assumptions: a technical document supporting the 

Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Leinwand, I.F.; Theobald, D.M.; Mitchel, J.; Knight, R.L. 2010. Landscape dynamics at the 

public-private interface: a case study in Colorado. Landscape and Urban Planning. 12 p.

Leitch, J.A.; Leistritz, F.L.; Bangsund, D.A. 1994. Economic effect of leafy spurge in the 

upper Great Plains: Methods, models, and results. Fargo, ND: Department of Agricultural 

Economics. 10 p.
121

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Lepers, E.; Lambin, E.F.; Janetos, A.C.; DeFries, R.; Achard, F.; Ramankutty, N.; Scholes, 

R.J. 2005. A synthesis of information on rapid land-cover change for the period 1981-2000. 

BioScience 55: 115-124.

Luginbuhl, J.M.; Green, J.T.; Poore, M.H.; Conrad, A.P. 2000. Use of goats as biological agents for the control of unwanted vegetation. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 16: 

124-135.

Lund, G.H. 2007. Accounting for the worlds rangelands. Rangelands: 3-10.

Lyon, A.G.; Anderson, S.H. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491.

Masters, R.A.; Sheley, R.L. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Rangeland Management 54: 502-517.

Matheson, J. 2010. Personal communication. Assistant Director National Bison Association. 

Email to M. Reeves. 

Mathews, J.A. 2008. Carbon-negative biofuels. Energy Policy 36: 940-945.

McLaughlin, S.B.; Kszos, L.A. 2005. Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) as a 

bioenergy feedstock in the United States. Biomass and Bioenergy 28: 515-535.

McPeak, J.G. 2003. Analyzing and addressing localized degradation. Land Economics 79: 

515-536.

Meehl, G.A.; Stocker, T.F.; Collins, W.D.; [and others]. 2007. Global climate projections. In: 

Solomon, D., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. 

Miller (eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Milbrandt, A. 2005. A geographic perspective on the current biomass resource availability in the United States. Technical Report NREL/TP-560-39181. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. 62 p.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 

Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 155 p.

Miller, R.F.; Bates, J.D.; Svejcar, T.J.; Pierson, F.B.; Eddleman, L.E. 2005. Biology, ecology, 

and management of western juniper. Oregon State University: 1-82.

Miller, R.F.; Rose, J. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush 

steppe. Journal of Range Management 52: 550-559.

Miller, R.F.; Tausch, R.J. 2001. The role of fire in pinyon and juniper woodlands: a descriptive 

analysis. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, 

and Management: Tallahassee, FL: 15-30.

Miller, R.F.; Tausch, R.J.; McArthur, E.D.; Johnson, D.D.; Sanderson, S.C. 2008. Age structure and expansion of piñon-juniper woodlands: a regional perspective in the Intermountain 

West. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 15 p.

Minson, D.J.; McLeod, M.N. 1970. The digestibility of temperate and tropical grasses. 

Proceedings International Grassland Congress 11: 719-722. 

Mitchell, J.E. 2000. Rangeland resource trends in the United States. A technical document 

supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 84 p.
122

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Mitchell, J.E.; Joyce, L.A.; Bryant, L.D. 1999. Applicability of Montreal process criteria and 

indicators to rangelands. In: People and rangelands building the future: proceedings of the 

6th International Rangeland Congress; Townsville, Queensland, Australia: 183-185.

Morgan, J.A., A.R. Mosier, D.G. Milchunas, D.R. LeCain, J.A. Nelson, and W.J. Parton. 

2004. CO2 enhances productivity, alters species composition, and reduces digestibility of 

shortgrass steppe vegetation. Ecological Applications 14: 208-219. 

Morgan, J.A., D.G. Milchunas, D.R. LeCain, M. West, and A.R. Mosier. 2007. Carbon dioxide 

enrichment alters plant community structure and accelerates shrub growth in the shortgrass 

steppe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 104: 14724-14729. 

Nagel, J.M.; Huxman, T.E.; Griffin, K.L.; Smith, D. 2004. CO2 enrichment reduces the energetic cost of biomass construction in an invasive desert grass. Ecology 85: 100-106.

Nakićenović, N.A.; Davis, J.; de Vries, G.; [and others]. 2000. Emissions scenarios. A 

special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 599 p. Available:http://www.

grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm. 

National Invasive Species Council [NISC]. 2008. 2008-2012 National invasive species management plan. 35 p.

National Research Council [NRC]. 1994. Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, 

Inventory and Monitor Rangelands. National Academy Press. 180 p.

National Research Council [NRC]. 2007. Environmental impacts of wind-energy projects. 

Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, Board on Environmental 

Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of 

the National Academies. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

Norris, M.D.; Blair, J.M.; Johnson, L.C. 2007. Altered ecosystem nitrogen dynamics as 

a consequence of land cover change in tallgrass prairie. American Midland Naturalist 

158:432-445. 

Nusser, S.M.; Breidt, F.J.; Fuller, W.A. 1998. Design and estimation for investigating the 

dynamics of natural resources. Ecological Applications 8: 234-245.

Ortega, Y.K.; McKelvey, K.S.; Six, D.L. 2006. Invasion of an exotic forb impacts reproductive success and site fidelity of a migratory songbird. Oecologia 149: 340-351.

Owens, M.K.; Lyons, R.K.; Alejandro, C.J. 2006. Rainfall partitioning within semiarid 

juniper communities: effects of event size and canopy cover. Hydrological Processes 20: 

3179-3189.

Papanastasis, V.P. 2009. Restoration of degraded grazing lands through grazing management: 

can it work? Restoration Ecology 17: 441-445.

Paruelo, J.M., and W.K. Lauenroth. 1996. Relative abundance of plant functional types in 

grasslands and shrublands of North America. Ecological Applications 6: 1212-1224. 

Parikka, M. 2004. Global biomass fuel resources. Biomass and Bioenergy 27: 613-620.

Pellant, M. 1996. Cheatgrass: the invader that won the West. Boise, ID: Bureau of Land 

Management, Idaho State Office. 23 p.

Pellant, M.; Pyke, D.A.; Shaver, P.; Herrick, J.E. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland 

health. Technical Reference 1734-6. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. 119 p.
123

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Perlack, R.D.; Wright, L.L.; Turhollow, A.F.; Graham, R.L.; Stokes, B.J.; Erback, D.C. 2005. 

Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of 

a billion-ton annual supply. ORNL/TM-2005/66. Oakridge, TN. Available: http://www.osti.

gov/bridge.

Perrings, C.; Williamson, M.; Barbier, E.B.; Delfino, D.; Dalmazzone, S.; Shogren, J.; 

Simmons, P.; Watkinson, A. 2002. Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conservation Ecology 6: 7.

Pimentel, D.; Rodrigues, G.; Wang, T.; [and others]. 1994. Renewable energy: economic and 

environmental issues. BioScience 44: 536-547.

Poling, M. 1991. Legal milestones in range movement. Renewable Resources Journal 

Summer 1991 9: 7-10.

Polley, H.W., H.B. Johnson, and J.D. Derner. 2003. Increasing CO2 from 4 subambient 

to superambient concentrations alters species composition and increases above-ground 

biomass in a C3/C4 grassland. New Phytologist 160:319-327. 

Polley, H.W., C.R. Tischler, and H.B. Johnson. 2006. Elevated atmospheric CO2 magnifies 

intra-specific variation in seedling growth of honey mesquite: an assessment of relative 

growth rates. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58: 128-134.

Prince, S.D.; Becker-Reshef, I.; Rishmawi, K. 2009. Detection and mapping of long-term land 

degradation using local net production scaling: application to Zimbabwe. Remote Sensing 

of Environment 113: 1046-1057.

Rafferty, D.L.; Young, J.A. 2002. Cheatgrass competition and establishment of desert needlegrass seedlings. Journal of Range Management 55: 70-72.

Ragauskas, A.J.; Williams, C.K.; Davison, B.H.;[and others]. 2006. The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311: 484-489.

Rahman, S. 2003. Green power: what is it and where can we find it? IEEE, Power and Energy 

1: 30-37.

Rapport, D.J.; Regier, H.A.; Hutchinson, T.C. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. 

American Naturalist 125:617-640.

Rau, B.M.; Tausch, R.; Reiner, A.; Johnson, D.W.; Chambers, J.C.; Blank, R.R.; Lucchesi, A. 

2010. Influence of prescribed fire on ecosystem biomass, carbon, and nitrogen in a pinyon 

juniper woodland. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63: 197-202.

Reeves, M.C.; Zhao, M.; Running, S.W. 2006. Applying improved estimates of MODIS productivity to characterize grassland vegetation dynamics. Journal of Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 59: 1-10.

Reeves, M.; Ryan, K.C.; Rollins, M.G.; Thompson, T. 2009. Spatial fuel data products of the 

LANDFIRE project. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18: 250-267.

Reeves, M.R.; Mitchell, J.E. 2011. Extent of coterminous US rangelands: quantifying implications of differing agency perspectives. Accepted for publication in Rangeland Ecology and 

Management. 

Reich, P.F.; Numbem, S.T.; Almaraz, R.A.; Eswaran, H. 2001. Land resource stresses and 

desertification in Africa. In: Bridges, E.M.; Hannam, I.D.; Oldeman, L.R.; Pening de Vries, 

F.W.T.; Scherr, S.J.; Sompatpanit, S. (eds.). Responses to Land Degradation. New Delhi, 

India: Oxford Press.

Reid, C.R.; Goodrich, S.; Bowns, J.E. 2008. Cheatgrass and red brome: history and biology of 

two invaders. In: U.S. Forest Service (eds.): 27-32.
124

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Resources for the Future. 2005. Energy policy in the 21st Century. Resources, Issue 156. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Rice, C.A.; Bullock, J.H., Jr. 2000. Water co-produced with coalbed methane in the Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming: preliminary compositional data. Open-File Report 00-372. Denver, 

CO: U.S. Geological Survey.

Riitters, K.H. 2010. Spatial patterns of land-cover in the United States: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Rollins, M. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire and fuel 

assessment. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18: 235-249.

Running, S.W.; Nemani, R.R.; Heinsch, F.A.; Zhao, M.; Reeves, M.; Hashimoto, H. 2004. A 

continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 

54: 547-560.

Salo, L.F.; McPherson, G.R.; Williams, D.G. 2005. Sonoran Desert winter annuals affected by 

density of red brome and soil nitrogen. American Midland Naturalist 153: 95-109.

Sandell, L.D.; Knezevic, S. 2010. Leafy spurge: noxious weeds of Nebraska. Lincoln 

Extension. University of Nebraska: Nebraska Department of Agriculture. 12 p.

Sankey, T.T.; Germino, M.J. 2008. Assessment of juniper encroachment with the use of 

Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Data. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61: 412-418.

Sanderson, M.A.; Adler, P.R.; Boateng, A.A.; Casler, M.D.; Sarath, G. 2006. Switchgrass as a 

biofuels feedstock in the USA. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 86: 1315-1325.

Sawyer, H.; Nielson, R.M.; Lindzey, F.; McDonald, L.L. 2006. Winter habitat selection 

of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70: 396-403.

Scarnecchia, D.L. 1985. The animal-unit and animal-unit-equivalent concepts in range 

science. Journal of Range Management 38: 346-349.

Schlesinger, W.H.; Reynolds, J.F.; Cunningham, G.L.; Huenneke, L.F.; Jarrell, W.M.; Virginia, 

R.A.; Whitford, W.G. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification: explains why 

nutrient cycling is so slow in desert. Science 247: 1043-1048.

Schmidt, T.L.; Leatherberry, E.C. 1995. Expansion of eastern red cedar in the lower Midwest. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 12: 180-183.

Schroeder, M. A.; Matthew, W.; Haegen, V. 2006. Use of conservation reserve program fields 

by greater sage-grouse and other shrubsteppe-associated wildlife in Washington state. Final 

report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington Department of 

Fish and Game: Olympia, WA: 4-39.

Schuman, G.E.; Janzen, H.H.; Herrick, J.E. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon 

sequestration by rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116: 391-396.

Scoones, I. 1994. New directions in pastoral development in Africa. In: Scoones, I. (ed.). 

Living with Uncertainty. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications: 1-36.

Serageldin, I. 1999. Biotechnology and food security in the 21st Century. Science 285: 

387-389.

Sere, C.; Steinfeld, H. 1996. World livestock production systems: current status, issues and 

trends. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 89 p.

Sheley, R.L.; Olson, B.E.; Larson, L.L. 1997. Effect of weed seed rate and grass defoliation 

level on diffuse knapweed. Journal of Range Management 50: 39-43.
125

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

Skaggs, R.K.; Kirksey, R.E.; Harper, W.M. 1994. Determinants and implications of post-CRP 

land use decisions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19: 299-312.

Smil, V. 2000. Energy in the Twentieth Century: resources, conversions, costs, uses, and consequences. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25: 21-51.

Smith, H.A.; Johnson, W.S.; Shonkwiler, J.S.; Swanson, S.R. 1999. The implications of variable or constant expansion rates in invasive weed infestations. Weed Science 47: 62-66.

Society for Range Management [SRM], Glossary Update Task Group. 1998. Glossary of 

terms used in range management. 4th ed. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 

32 p.

Solaiman, S.G. 2007. Assessment of the meat goat industry and future outlook for U.S. small 

farms. Tuskegee, AL: Animal and Poultry Sciences Tuskegee University. 29 p.

Spottiswoode, C.N.; Wondafrash, M.; Gabremichael, M.N.; Dellelegn, Y.; Mwangi, M.A.K.; 

Collar, N.J.; Dolman, P.M. 2009. Rangeland degradation is poised to cause Africa’s first 

recorded avian extinction. Animal Conservation: 1-9.

Stitt, S.; Root, R.; Brown, K.; Hager, S.; Mladinich, C.; Anderson, C.L.; Dudek, K.; Bustos, 

M.R.; Kokaly, R. 2006. Classification of leafy spurge with earth observing-1 advanced land 

imager. Rangelands Ecology and Management 59: 507-511.

Stoddart, L.A.; Smith, A.D. 1943. Range Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 

547 p.

Stokes, C.J.; McAllister, R.R.J.; Ash, A.J. 2006. Fragmentation of Australian rangelands: 

processes, benefits and risks of changing patterns of land use. The Rangeland Journal 28: 

83-96.

Strand, E.K.; Vierling, L.A.; Smith, A.M.S.; Bunting, S.C. 2008. Net changes in aboveground 

woody carbon stock in western juniper woodlands, 1946-1998. Journal of Geophysical 

Research- Biogeosciences 113: 13.

Streeks, T.J.; Owens, K.M.; Whisenant, S.G. 2005. Examining for behavior in mesquite-acacia shrublands. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14: 131-140.

Stubbs, M. 2007. Land conversion in the northern Plains. Congressional Research Service: 

Washington D.C. 16 p. Available: http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/ag/12.pdf. 

Sullivan, J. 1993. Juniperus ashei. In: Fire Effects Information System. [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2010, October 20].

Sullivan, P.; Daniel, H.; Hansen, L.; Johansson, R.; Koenig, S.; Lubowski, R.; McBride, W.; 

McGranahan, D.; Roberts, M.; Vogel, S.; Bucholtz, S. 2004. The Conservation Reserve 

Program: Economic Implications for Rural America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economics Research Service.

Teague, W.R.; Ansley, J.R.; Pinchak, W.E.; Dowhower, S.L.; Gerrard, S.A.; Waggoner, J.A. 

2008. Interannual herbaceous biomass response to increasing honey mesquite cover on two 

soils. Rangeland Ecological Management 61: 496-508.

Tilman, D.; Hill, J.; Lehman, C. 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314: 1598-1600.

Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. 

Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. Available: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/

art32/ [2012, February 2].
126

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Wear, David N. 2011. Forecasts of county-level land uses under three future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS141. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 41 p. 

Wilson, J.R., and R.H. Brown. 1983. Influence of leaf anatomy on the dry matter digestibility 

of C4, C3 and C3/C4 intermediate types of Panicum species. Crop Science 23: 141-146. 

Winslow, J.C., E.R. Hunt, and S.C. Piper. 2003. The influence of seasonal water 1 availability 

on global C3 versus C4 grassland biomass and its implications for climate change research. 

Ecological Modelling 163: 153-173. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2009. Summary report: 2007 national resources 

inventory. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Center for Survey 

Statistics and Methodology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 123 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. 2008. 2008 Farm 

bill side-by-side: Title II: conservation (November 14, 2008). Available: http://www.ers.

usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Titles/TitleIIConservation.htm#conservation [2011, May 25].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service [USDA ERS]. 2009. 

International agricultural baseline projections to 2007: beef. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture: 151-160. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

aer767/aer767g.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1980. An assessment of the forest 

and rangeland situation in the United States. Washington, DC. 631 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008. Field instructions for the 

annual inventory of California, Oregon and Washington. Field Instructions. FIA Program, 

PNW Research Station, USDA Forest Service 348 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

fia/publications/fieldmanuals.shtml. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2000 to 2008. Grazing statistical summaries. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/reports/index.shtml [2010, 

September 28].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. Future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010. Interior West Forest 

Inventory & Analysis P2 field procedures. Washington, DC, USA: USDA Forest 

Service.370 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency [USDA FSA]. 2011. Conservation programs: conservation reserve program (Updated April 1, 2011). Available: http://www.fsa.

usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp [2008, November 30].

U.S Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Survey [USDA NASS]. 2009. 

2007 Census of agriculture: United States summary and state data. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 739 p.

U.S Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Survey [USDA NASS]. 2010. 

National Agricultural Statictics Survey and census. Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/

Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp [2010, September 27].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 

2009. The Conservation Reserve Program Enhances Landscape-level Grassland Bird 

Species Richness. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, D.C.: 1-4.
127

A Synoptic Review of U.S. Rangelands: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 

2011. Conservation Reserve Program (updated March 9, 2011). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. [Online]. Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CRP/ [October 23, 

2008].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 

2007. National Range and Pasture Handbook. Revised December 2003. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture: Washington, DC. Eleven Chapters and appendices (individually numbered). 

Available: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/nrph.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service [USDA SCS]. 1988. Forage 

utilization by game species. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service. 4 p.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts 

industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oakridge, TN: Office of 

Science and Technical Information. Available: http://www.osti.gov/bridge.

United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. 1991. Status of desertification and implementation of the United Nations plan of action to combat desertification United Nations 

Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya.

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management [DOI BLM]. 2000 to 2009. Public 

land statistics (PLSS). Washington, DC. 122 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [DOI BLM]. 2001. Rangeland 

health standards. Washington, DC: Healthy Rangeland Initiative, BLM Manual H-4180-1. 

51 p. Available: http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/index.htm.

Van Auken, O.W. 2000. Shrub invasions of North American semiarid grasslands. Annual 

Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 31: 197-215.

Van Tassell, L.W.; Phillips, C.; Hepworth, W.G. 1995. Livestock to wildlife is not a simple 

conversion. Rangelands 17: 191-193.

Vasquez, E.A.; James, J.J.; Monaco, T.A.; Cummings, D.C. 2010. Invasive plants on rangelands: a global threat. Rangelands 2: 3-5.

Vogelmann, J.E.; Howard, S.M.; Yang, L.; Larson, C.R.; Wylie, B.K.; Driel, J.N.V. 2001. 

Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States. 

Photogrammetry Engineering and Remote Sensing 67: 650-662.

Wall, T.G.; Miller, R.F.; Svejcar, T.J. 2001. Juniper encroachment into aspen in the Northwest 

Great Basin. Journal of Range Management 54: 691-698.

Walsh, M.E.; De La Torre Ugarte, D.G.; Shapouri, H.; Slinsky, S.P. 2003. Bioenergy crop production in the United States. Environmental and Resource Economics 24: 313-333.

Washington-Allen, R.A.; Ramsey, R.D.; West, N.E.; Efroymson, R.A. 2006. A remote 

sensing- based protocol for assessing rangeland condition and trend. Rangeland Ecology 

and Management 59: 19-29.

Wear, D.N. 2011. Forecasts of county-level land uses under three future scenarios: a technical 

document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-141. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

41 p.

Wessels, K.J.; Prince, S.D.; Carroll, M.; Malherbe, J. 2007. Relevance of rangeland degradation in semiarid northeastern South Africa to the nonequilibrium theory. Ecological 

Applications 17: 815-827.
128

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-288. 2012

Westoby, M.; Walker, B.; Noy-Meir, I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at 

equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42: 266-274.

Williams, A.P.; Hunt, E.R, Jr. 2002. Estimation of leafy spurge cover from hyperspectral 

imagery using mixture tuned matched filtering. Remote Sensing of Environment 82: 

446-456.

Wilson, L.M.; Randall, C.B. 2005. Biology and biological control of knapweed. In: U.S. 

Forest.

Service (eds.), Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho: 

1-89.

Wilson, J.R., and R.H. Brown. 1983. Influence of leaf anatomy on the dry matter digestibility 

of C4, C3 and C3/C4 intermediate types of Panicum species. Crop Science 23:141-146. 

Wilson, L.M.; Sing, S.E.; Piper, G.L.; Hansen, R.W.; Clerck-Floate, R.D.; MacKinnon, D.K.; 

Randall, C. 2005. Biology and biological control of dalmation and yellow toadflax. In: U.S. 

Forest Service (eds.): 1-116.

World Wind Energy Association [WWEA]. 2011. World Wind Energy report 2010: 10th 

World Wind Energy conference and renewable energy exhibition. Greening energy: converting deserts to power houses. Cairo, Egypt. 23 p. Available: http://www.wwindea.org/

home/images/stories/pdfs/worldwindenergyreport2010_s.pdf.

Zhao, M.; Running, S.W. 2010. Drought induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary 

production from 2000 to 2009. Science: 1-3.

Zhu, Z.; Ohlen, D.; Kost, J.; Chen, X.; Tolk, B. 2006. Mapping existing vegetation composition and structure for the LANDFIRE Prototype project. In: The LANDFIRE Prototype 

Project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data and tools for wildland fire 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. Missoula, MT: Missoula Fire Sciences 

Laboratory: 197-215.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

age, disability, and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and 

expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all 

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to: USDA, Assistant Secretary 

for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) 

or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish 

Federal-relay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-288

December 2012