TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6

2000

—VERSION 3—

INTERPRETING

INDICATORS OF

RANGELAND HEALTH

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Bureau of Land Management Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Geological Survey Agricultural Research Service
Though this document was produced through an interagency effort, the following BLM numbers have been

assigned for tracking and administrative purposes:

Technical Reference 1734-6

BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734

This document is also available on the NRCS web site at www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/glti
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health

Version 3

By

Mike Pellant Patrick Shaver

Rangeland Ecologist Rangeland Management Specialist

Bureau of Land Management Natural Resources Conservation Service

Boise, ID Corvallis, OR

David A. Pyke Jeffrey E. Herrick

Research Ecologist Research Scientist

USGS, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Agricultural Research Service

Science Center Jornada Experimental Range

Corvallis, OR Las Cruces, NM

Contributors

BLM NRCS 

Ned Habich Arnold Mendenhall

Tracey Wolfe George Chavez

Kris Eschelman Steve Barker

Al Amen Gary Brackley

Ken Spaeth

Produced By

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

National Science and Technology Center

Information and Communications Group

P. O. Box 25047

Denver, Colorado

Technical Reference 1734-6

2000
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

i

Acknowledgments

Interagency coordination between the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the

Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science

Center was essential to successfully completing

this document. The order of authors cited for

this publication reflects the time spent on document preparation and organization, not the

important and equal contribution that each

author made to the scientific and procedural

content of this technical reference.

The authors wish to thank Drs. J. Alexander, L.

Eddleman, W.C. Krueger, M. Kothmann, W.

Laycock, P. Sims, E.L. Smith, T. Stohlgren, S.

Swanson, G. Tanner, T. Thurow, J. Trlica, various

BLM and NRCS staff, Justin Van Zee (ARS),

the Association of Rangeland Consultants,

and the Western Coordinating Committee on

Rangeland Ecological Research & Assessment

for their helpful input that improved this

technique. The authors also wish to note the

passing of Kris Eschelman and the retirement

of Al Amen, both contributors to this document from BLM, and Arnold Mendenhal,

retired NRCS employee.

Thanks to Kathy Rohling and Janine Koselak

of BLM’s National Science and Technology

Center for the editing, design, and layout of this

technical reference and to BLM’s National

Business Center for managing the production

aspects of the final document.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 iii VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Intended Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Relationship to Similarity Index and Trend Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Attributes of Rangeland Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Soil/Site Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Hydrologic Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Integrity of the Biotic Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Transitions, Thresholds, and States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Instructions for Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Step 1. Identify the Evaluation Area, Verify Soil and Ecological Site Identification . . . . . . .11

Step 2. Visit an Ecological Reference Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Step 3. Review/Modify Descriptors of Indicators at the Ecological Reference Area . . . . . .15

Step 4. Return to the Area of Interest and Complete the Site Characterization

Worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Step 5. Rate the 17 Indicators on the Area of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

1. Rills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

2. Water Flow Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

4. Bare Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

5. Gullies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or Deposition Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

7. Litter Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

8. Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

10. Plant Community Composition and Distribution Relative

to Infiltration and Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

11. Compaction Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

12. Functional/Structural Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

13. Plant Mortality/Decadence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

14. Litter Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

15. Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

16. Invasive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

17. Reproductive Capability of Perennial Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

18. Optional Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Step 6. Determine the Functional Status of the Three Rangeland Health Attributes . . . . .38

Application to Larger Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

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

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 iv VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

Table of Contents

Appendix 1—Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Appendix 2—Ecological Reference Area Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Appendix 3—Cover Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Appendix 4—Species Dominance Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Appendix 5—Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Appendix 6—Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Appendix 7—Photographs of Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Appendix 8—Soil Stability Kit Diagram and Rating Categories

to Determine Surface Soil Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

1

Intended Applications

Qualitative assessments of rangeland health

provide land managers and technical assistance

specialists with a good communication tool for

use with the public. Many of these tools have

been used successfully for this purpose over the

past 100 years. This technique, in association

with quantitative monitoring and inventory

information, can be used to provide early warnings of resource problems on upland rangelands. Rangelands are defined as “land on which

the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural

potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like

plants, forbs, or shrubs and is managed as a

natural ecosystem. If plants are introduced,

they are managed similarly. Rangelands include

natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, many

deserts, tundra, alpine communities, marshes,

and wet meadows” (Society for Range

Management 1999). Included in this definition

are oak and pinyon-juniper woodlands.

The approach described in this technical reference

IS designed to:

• Be used only by knowledgeable, experienced

people.

• Provide a preliminary evaluation of soil/site

stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of

the biotic community (at the ecological site

level).

• Help land managers identify areas that are

potentially at risk of degradation.

• Provide early warnings of potential problems

and opportunities.

• Be used to communicate fundamental ecological concepts to a wide variety of audiences in

the field.

• Improve communication among interest groups

by focusing discussion on critical ecosystem

properties and processes.

• Select monitoring sites in the development of

monitoring programs.

• Help understand and communicate rangeland

health issues.

The approach is NOT to be used to:

• Identify the cause(s) of resource problems.

• Make grazing and other management decisions.

• Monitor land or determine trend.

• Independently generate national or regional

assessments of rangeland health.

This procedure has been developed for use by

experienced, knowledgeable land managers. It

is not intended that this assessment procedure

be used by individuals who do not have experience or knowledge of the rangeland ecological

sites they are evaluating. This approach requires

a good understanding of ecological processes,

vegetation, and soils for each of the sites to

which it is applied. Furthermore, as comprehensive ecological site descriptions (which are

used for reference) are not available for most

sites, the user is frequently required to generate

reference information based on their knowledge of the range of spatial and temporal variability apparent in a particular ecological site.

This will frequently require two or more

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

work together to make the evaluation.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

3

Introduction

The science of assessing rangelands is changing

as concepts and protocols continue to evolve.

Recently the concept of rangeland health was

advanced by a panel assembled by the National

Research Council as an alternative to range

condition. The ecological status concept is currently used by most range professionals as the

basis for inventory and assessment. Although

the term “health” has been controversial when

used in association with natural systems (Smith

1999, Wicklum and Davies 1995, Lackey 1998

and Rapport et al. 1998), the current document

follows the lead provided by the National

Academy of Science (National Research

Council 1994).

The National Research Council (1994) publication, Rangeland Health, New Methods to

Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands

defined rangeland health as:

"the degree to which the integrity of the soil

and ecological processes of rangeland

ecosystems are maintained."

In a parallel effort, the Society for Range

Management’s committee on Unity in

Concepts and Terminology recommended that

rangeland assessments should focus on the

maintenance of soil at the site (Task Group on

Unity in Concepts and Terminology 1995). A

federal interagency ad hoc committee was

established to integrate the concepts of these

two groups into the various agencies’ rangeland

inventories and assessments. This committee

refined the previous definition to read:

The degree to which the integrity of the

soil, vegetation, water, and air, as well as

the ecological processes of the rangeland

ecosystem, are balanced and sustained.

They defined integrity to mean: Maintenance

of the functional attributes characteristic of a

locale, including normal variability.

The challenge to scientists and managers is to

translate this concept involving complex ecological processes and components into terms

that the public can comprehend and that

resource specialists can use to assist in identifying

rangeland sites where ecological processes are

or are not functioning properly. This document

describes a process to educate the public and

agency personnel on using observable indicators

to interpret and assess rangeland health. This

process relies on the use of a qualitative (i.e.,

non-measurement) procedure to assess the

functional status of each indicator. The use of

qualitative assessments is suggested as a fast

survey technique to rate site protection indicators, including both plant and soil components

(Morgan 1986).

The use of qualitative information (e.g., observations) to determine range and soil conditions

has a long history of use in land management

inventory and monitoring. Early procedures

that made use of indicator ratings (i.e., a scorecard approach) included the Interagency Range

Survey of 1937, Deming Two-Phase, and Parker

Three-Step Method that determined, among

other things, site-soil stability and usefulness of

forage for livestock grazing (Wagner 1989). The

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also used

soil surface factors to determine the erosional

status of public lands in the 1970s (USDI

1973). Interagency Technical Reference 1737-9,

Riparian Area Management: Process for

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition (USDI

1993), included a qualitative checklist to assess

the proper functioning condition of riparian

areas.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

4

This interagency technical reference incorporates concepts and materials from previous

inventory and monitoring procedures, as well as

from the National Research Council’s book on

Rangeland Health (NRC 1994) and the Society

for Range Management's Task Group on Unity

in Concepts and Terminology (1995).

Earlier versions of the current procedure were

developed concurrently. An interagency technical team led by the BLM developed Version

1a (Pellant 1996). The Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) developed

Version 1b, as published in the National Range

and Pasture Handbook (USDA 1997). Another

interagency team melded these concepts and

protocols with the results from numerous field

tests of Version 1a (Rasmussen, Pellant, and

Pyke 1999) and Version 1b into Version 2.

Version 2 received peer review and numerous

other comments to arrive at the process

described herein, which is Version 3.

Along the way, this procedure has been termed

“rapid assessment,” “qualitative assessment of

rangeland health,” and “visualization of rangeland health.” This document refers to the

procedure as Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland

Health, Version 3. This version will be revised

in the future as science and experience provides additional information on indicators of

rangeland health and their assessment.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

5

Relationship to

Similarity Index and

Trend Studies

Similarity index (range condition) and trend

studies have long been used to assess the conditions of rangeland. The similarity index is an

index of where the current plant community is

in relation to the historic climax plant community, or to a desired plant community, that is

one of the site’s potential vegetation states.

Trend is a determination of the direction of

change in the current plant community and

associated soils in relation to the historic climax

plant community or some other desired plant

community.

This rangeland health assessment is an attempt

to look at how the ecological processes on a site

are functioning. These three assessment tools

(similarity index, trend, and rangeland health

assessment) evaluate the rangeland site from

different perspectives and are not necessarily

correlated.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

7

Ecological processes include the water cycle

(the capture, storage, and redistribution of precipitation), energy flow (conversion of sunlight

to plant and animal matter), and nutrient cycle

(the cycle of nutrients such as nitrogen and

phosphorus through the physical and biotic

components of the environment).

Ecological processes functioning within a normal

range of variation will support specific plant

and animal communities. Direct measures of

site integrity and status of ecological processes

are difficult or expensive to measure due to the

complexity of the processes and their interrelationships. Therefore, biological and physical

attributes are often used as indicators of the

functional status of ecological processes and

site integrity.

The product of this qualitative assessment is

not a single rating of rangeland health, but an

assessment of three components called attributes (Table 1).

Definitions of these three closely interrelated

attributes are:

Soil/Site Stability

The capacity of the site to limit redistribution

and loss of soil resources (including nutrients

and organic matter) by wind and water.

Attributes of

Rangeland Health

Hydrologic Function

The capacity of the site to capture, store, and

safely release water from rainfall, run-on, and

snowmelt (where relevant), to resist a reduction

in this capacity, and to recover this capacity

following degradation.

Integrity of the Biotic

Community

The capacity of the site to support characteristic

functional and structural communities in the

context of normal variability, to resist loss of

this function and structure due to disturbance,

and to recover following disturbance.

Based upon a preponderance of evidence

approach for the applicable indicators, each of

these three attributes of rangeland health are

summarized in Part 3 of the Rangeland Health

Evaluation Summary Worksheet (Appendix 1).

This assessment is preliminary and may be

modified with the interpretation of applicable

quantitative monitoring and inventory data.

Both the original rating and any modification of

it require a written explanation.

To reiterate, the process described here will not

produce just one rating of rangeland health,

but three attributes departure from the

ecological site description/ecological reference

area(s).

Table 1. Attributes of rangeland health and the rating categories.

Soil/Site Stability Hydrologic Function Integrity of the Biotic Community

Attribute ratings are based upon “departure from ecological site description/

ecological reference area(s)” in these categories.

Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

9

Concepts

A discussion of two concepts essential to

understanding and properly using this assessment procedure follow.

Transitions, Thresholds, and

States

Transitions are shifts in plant composition that

result in relatively stable states, as reflected in

composition and structure. These shifts can

occur by natural forces or as a result of human

actions. Disturbances are natural and necessary

parts of all ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems are

both resistant to external disturbance and

resilient or able to recover if external disturbances occur (Pimm 1984), thereby allowing

various combinations of plant species to

fluctuate over time.

A threshold is a transition boundary that an

ecosystem crosses resulting in a new stable state

that is not easily reversed without significant

inputs of resources (NRC 1994). Once an

ecosystem crosses a threshold, it may be very

difficult to restore the original plant community

and ecological processes by changes in management alone. Expensive restoration measures

(e.g., weed control, seeding, soil modifications

or additions) may be necessary to restore these

degraded ecosystems.

Indicators

Unfortunately, ecological processes are difficult

to observe or measure in the field due to the

complexity of most rangeland ecosystems.

Indicators are components of a system whose

characteristics (e.g., presence or absence, quantity, distribution) are used as an index of an

attribute (e.g., rangeland health) that is too difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure.

Just as the Dow Jones Index is used to gauge

the strength of the stock market, so different

combinations of the 17 indicators (Appendix

6) are used to gauge soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and the integrity of the biotic

community of selected rangeland ecological

sites. Each of the indicators is followed by five

descriptors with a narrative that the evaluator(s)

reviews prior to agreeing on an appropriate

category for each indicator.

Indicators have historically been used in rangeland monitoring and resource inventories by

land management and technical assistance

agencies. These indicators focused on vegetation

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

stability as indicators of rangeland condition or

livestock carrying capacity. Such single indicator assessments are inadequate to determine

rangeland health because they do not reflect

nor assess the complexity of the ecological

processes. There is no one indicator of ecosystem health; instead, a suite of key indicators

should be used for an assessment (Karr 1992).
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

11

Instructions for Use

A rangeland health assessment provides information on the functioning of the ecological site.

This assessment provides information that is

not available with other methods of evaluation.

It gives an indication of the status of the three

attributes chosen to represent the health of the

“area of interest” (i.e., the area where the evaluation of the rangeland health attributes takes

place). This interest may be due to concern

about current condition, lack of information

on condition, or public perceptions on the

condition of the area of interest.

The following instructions are intended to provide a step-by-step guide for the user. The steps

are identified along with the worksheet(s)

required to complete each step. The action or

concept for that step is then explained.

Step 1. Identify the

Evaluation Area, Verify Soil

and Ecological Site

Identification

Complete the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Summary Worksheet, Part 1 (Appendix 1).

Describe the area of interest (area where evaluation is conducted)

Part 1 of the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Summary Worksheet is used to record information on site location for the evaluation of an

area of interest and basic site characteristic

information (Appendix 1). Parts 2 and 3 of this

worksheet are completed during Steps 5 and 6.

Critical items that must be completed on this

form are shown in bold print.

The evaluation area (area of interest) should be

large enough to include the natural variability

associated with each ecological site being

assessed. Upon arrival at the location, the evaluator(s) should identify the boundaries of the

area of interest and walk 1 to 2 acres of each

ecological site (if more than one ecological site

is present in the area of interest). This enables

the evaluator(s) to become familiar with the

plant species, soil surface features, and the

variability of the area of interest.

Surrounding features which may affect ecological processes within the area of interest should

also be noted. The topographic position of the

area of interest, adjacent roads, trails, watering

points, gullies, timber harvests, and other disturbances can all affect onsite processes. The

topographic position should be carefully

described with documentation of offsite influences on the area of interest.There is significant

variability in the potential of different sites

associated with relatively minor differences in

landscape position and soils (e.g., differences in

aspect, or location at the top vs. bottom of a

slope). Landscape position and surrounding

features are documented in Part 1 of the

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary

Worksheet (Appendix 1).

Photographs, slides, or digital images should be

taken and included as an attachment to this

worksheet. Two general view photographs

taken in different directions (include some skyline for future point of reference) should be

taken along with photographs that illustrate

important indicator values or anomalies.

Verify the soil and ecological site

Each ecological site within the area of interest

should be verified by matching the site to the

appropriate ecological site description and soils.

The best way to confirm the soil classification,
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

12

and thus the ecological site, is for a soil scientist

to dig one or more shallow pits to verify that

the soil classification matches the soils at the

area of interest. The evaluator(s) should review

the ecological site description for consistency

with the soils and vegetation found on the area

of interest.

All soil map units have inclusions of soils other

than those in the map unit name; location of a

site on an inclusion is not recommended. If the

area of interest falls on an inclusion, special care

must be taken in comparing the sites with the

appropriate ecological reference area(s) (ERAs)

(see Step 2) and the ecological site description.

If the soil map unit is a soil association or soil

complex (i.e., includes more than one soil

series), the soil series that occurs within the area

of interest should be identified and recorded.

The rangeland ecological site description contains information in the soils sections to aid in

the verification of the site. Those soil features

that are important to the soil/plant/air/water

relationships are the items of interest. Soil

texture for each horizon, and soil depth, or

depth to horizons which may restrict water

movement or root growth (e.g., calcic or sodic)

or hold more water (e.g., argillic) and other

soil features which are important to

soil/plant/air/water relationships need to be

verified. Each rangeland ecological site will

have its own set of important soil features

that are identified in the site description and

will need to be considered in the correlation

process. The information needed in the

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary

Worksheet, Part 1 (Appendix 1), and in the

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet for the

Soil/Site Verification Section (Appendix 2) can

be found in the soils section of the rangeland

ecological site description.

Actions to take if soil and/or ecological site

information is not available

Comparisons between the ecological reference

area (see Step 2) and one or more areas of

interest are difficult in areas where a soil survey

has not been completed and/or ecological site

descriptions have not been developed or are not

adequate. Identification of ERAs is hindered

and correlation between ERAs and area(s) of

interest is difficult. Soil information in the

ecological site description and soil survey or soil

series descriptions are good sources of information to piece together the potential for erosion

on the site. Soil information, together with

information on the climate, including storm

types, intensities, and duration provides information necessary to conduct the assessment.

Vegetation information may be available in

other sources such as habitat type descriptions,

long-term monitoring studies, and other inventory data. If possible, obtain the assistance of a

qualified soil scientist to assist the evaluator(s)

in making the initial soil/site correlations.

The process used to conduct the evaluation

without the required soils and ecological site

information should be clearly documented by

the team on the Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet (Appendix 2).

Step 2. Visit an Ecological

Reference Area

Complete the Cover Worksheet (Appendix 3),

Species Dominance Worksheet (Appendix 4),

Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet (Appendix

5), and Ecological Reference Area Worksheet

(Appendix 2), in that order.

An ecological reference area (ERA) is a landscape unit in which ecological processes are

functioning within a normal range of variability

and the plant community has adequate resistance to and resilience from most disturbances.

An ERA is the visual representation of the

characteristics and variability of the components found in the ecological site description.

These areas do not need to be pristine, historically unused lands (e.g., climax plant communities or relict areas). This concept is similar to

that proposed by the Western Regional
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

13

Coordinating Committee-40 on Rangeland

Research of using well-managed rangelands and

appropriate relict areas as benchmarks for

assessments (West et al.1994). The concept of

ERAs is an integral component in the

development of ecological site descriptions.

Information obtained from the Cover, Species

Dominance, and Functional/Structural Groups

Worksheets provides useful information in

completing the Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet. The influences of wildland fire on

the ERA should also be documented on the

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet.

Completing the Cover Worksheet (Appendix 3)

The Cover Worksheet is divided into two sections: The Life Forms section, where canopy

cover is estimated for important life forms (e.g.,

grass, forb, shrub, tree, succulents, and biological

crusts) and the Ground Cover section, where

the amount (cover) of bare ground, litter,

standing dead vegetation, rock/gravel, biological

crust, and plants are estimated.

Canopy cover is the percentage of the ground

covered by plant foliage. When estimating

canopy cover, small openings (less than 2 inches in diameter) within the canopy are included

as cover. Canopy cover of plants removed by

grazing is not reconstructed to pregrazing

canopy for this estimate. Estimate only the

canopy cover present at the time the evaluation

is conducted. This ensures an accurate picture

of the actual site protection from raindrop

impacts at the time that the assessment is

conducted.

The cover in the Life Forms section includes

cover estimates of the overlapping canopies of

different life forms. For example, the cover of

both a grass beneath a shrub canopy and the

canopy cover of the shrub are estimated and

recorded on the worksheet in the appropriate

categories. The subdivisions of life forms for

each life form class (e.g., annuals, native perennial, exotic perennial under the Grass category)

may be deleted and other categories added to

better represent local vegetation. The cover

ranges may also be changed to better fit natural

or ecologically relevant breaks in cover for

different areas.

The Ground Cover section represents the proportion of the soil that is protected from being

hit directly by a raindrop. Ground cover is the

percentage of material (e.g., litter, standing

dead vegetation, gravel/rocks, vascular plants,

and biological crust), covering the land surface.

In contrast with the Life Forms section, overlapping cover classes are not estimated.

Ground cover is estimated by recording cover

estimates of the first contact (i.e., highest

contact above soil surface) with live vascular

plants, standing dead vegetation, litter, biological crust, rock/gravel, and bare ground.The sum

of these six cover categories should roughly

total 100 percent, given the use of ranges of

cover instead of discrete cover values on the

form. If cover measurements are taken, they

may be inserted into the Cover Worksheet in

lieu of a checkmark for the appropriate cover

category.

The total cover of the vegetation Life Forms

will not necessarily equal the Vascular Plants

cover value in the Ground Cover section since

the former contains cover estimates for overlapping canopies while the latter does not.

The litter category in the Ground Cover section includes both persistent and non-persistent

litter. Litter includes all dead organic matter in

contact with the soil surface.

Standing dead vegetation includes all plants

that have been dead more than one growing

season that are not in direct contact with the

soil surface. Standing dead vegetation is

important in protecting the site from raindrop

contact, while litter provides the same site

protection and is an important source of organic

matter via decomposition in many areas.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

14

The rock/gravel category includes all material

with a diameter greater than 0.2 inch. Any

gravel less than this diameter is recorded as bare

ground.

Biological crust includes lichens, mosses,

cyanobacteria, and algae that grow on the soil

surface. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate

biological crust from bare soil or dead organic

matter during the dry portion of summer.

Spraying questionable areas with water and

waiting a minute will often give live lichens

or mosses a greenish tinge indicating live

tissue. Conversely, cyanobacteria crusts are

often very difficult to identify, especially when

weakly developed, without a careful examination of the internal structure of the crust.

Cyanobacteria crusts are generally not included

when estimating cover.

Training is required to estimate cover in the

classes shown on the form. A quick procedure

to train inexperienced personnel in estimating

cover or to collect quantitative data is the

Step-Point Method described in the

Interagency Technical Reference, Sampling

Vegetation Attributes (NARSC 1996). The information on the Cover Worksheet is useful in verifying consistency with cover information in the

ecological site description.

Completing the Species Dominance Worksheet

(Appendix 4)

The Species Dominance Worksheet is used to

identify the dominant species based upon

either production or cover. State or federally

listed noxious weeds and invasive plants are

also recorded. The evaluator(s) should be

trained in the identification of all state or federally listed noxious weeds prior to conducting

any evaluations. New noxious weed locations

should be reported immediately to the appropriate person or office.

Part 1 is required, while Part 2 (Dominant

Species by Life Form) is recommended but not

required. Do not reconstruct canopy cover or

production when determining species dominance if utilization of plants has occurred. It is

not necessary to fill each blank in the list with

a plant name if additional dominant species in

that life form are not present or are rare.

Completing the Functional/Structural Groups

Worksheet (Appendix 5)

This worksheet is used to group species into

life form/functional/structural categories to

aid in the rating of Indicator 12, Functional/

Structural Groups. It is important for the evaluator(s) to have a good understanding of plant

function, including but not limited to, nitrogen

fixers, deep versus shallow rooted plants, warm

versus cool season plants, and native versus

invasive plants. Examples of functional/structural groups and more information on the

determination of these groups may be found in

the narrative for Indicator 12 (Functional/

Structural Groups) in Step 5.

Completing the Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet (Appendix 2)

Once the rangeland ecological site description

and potential ERAs are identified, the evaluator(s) should visit the potential ERAs and

determine (using the Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet) if the ERAs are functioning at least

as well as described in the ecological site

description with respect to soil and site stability,

hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. A

number of different plant communities have

the potential to meet these criteria. Species

composition does not have to match the ecological site description; however, the functional

and structural groups must closely match the

potential depicted in the ecological site

description.

Before assessing the health of an area of interest, some understanding of the structure, function, and dynamics of the local landscape is

required. The evaluator needs to develop a

benchmark. This is a combination of the ecological site description and an ERA, to which
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

15

the area of interest will be compared.

Evaluators must identify the soils (see Steps 1

and 2 for instructions on the soil/site verification process) and climate, while considering the

geomorphology and the geographic location of

the area of interest. Ecological site descriptions

and soil surveys provide much of this needed

information, but many past ecological site

descriptions only describe a single plant community, the historic climax. It is also important

to remember that healthy rangelands are variable and that a number of stable states representing a suite of species and compositions

(stable vegetation communities e.g., Westoby et

al. 1989) may exist for each ecological site.

Care must be taken in using the ecological site

description or ERA as the benchmark when

disturbances have occurred. For example, if a

fire occurred 5 years ago in the area of interest,

the ERA should reflect the effects of a recent

burn. To obtain this understanding, the evaluator(s) reviews appropriate rangeland ecological

site (range site) descriptions and selects and uses

appropriate ERAs for training and evaluation.

Sources to assist in the selection of potential

ERAs include:

• Ecological site descriptions

• Soil surveys

• Topographic maps

• Vegetation inventories

• Research Natural Areas, Wilderness Study

Areas, or other protected (large exclosures)/

special management areas

• Historical records and photographs

• Well-managed rangelands (grazing use is

appropriate to maintain ecological processes

and the plant community in a proper functioning state); grazing use pattern maps are

helpful in identifying these areas.

Evaluators need to examine ERAs in the same

year and season as the area of interest since

weather during that year may affect the rating

of indicators. However, ERAs may be located in

different watersheds within the geographic

region. At each ERA, the evaluator(s) should

take photographs and record baseline information on indicator status by completing the

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet and

conducting quantitative cover studies.

There are instances when ERAs are not available for selected ecological sites due to past disturbance. In these cases, rangeland ecological

site descriptions should be used along with the

best available field sites to reconstruct the ERA

on the Ecological Reference Area Worksheet.

Historical journals, photographs, similar ecological sites, and scientific literature along with

knowledge of the area (including the interdisciplinary team and users of the land) are other

useful tools in the reconstruction process.

Document the reconstruction process and

rationale on the Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet or on an attachment to it.

Step 3. Review/Modify

Descriptors of Indicators at

the Ecological Reference

Area

Complete the Rangeland Health Indicator

Evaluation Matrix Worksheet (Appendix 6).

Ideally, each ecological site would have a

unique set of descriptors (i.e., narrative under

the five categories) for each indicator. In lieu of

this, a set of standard or generic descriptors

(called default descriptors) have been developed for each indicator and are listed in the

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(Appendix 6). These descriptors are used in the

evaluation of areas of interest if they “fit” the

observations on the indicators found on the

ecological reference area. If the default descriptor does not fit an indicator, the evaluator(s)

should modify the descriptor in the “revised

descriptor” space found below the “default

descriptor.”
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

16

This Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation

Matrix, with the revised descriptors, should

be used on subsequent evaluations on that

same ecological site. Therefore, it is important to fill out the site documentation information at the top of this Matrix if any of the

descriptors are revised. These modifications

in the descriptors will aid in the ongoing

development of ecological site specific

indicators and descriptors. Copies of the

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation

Matrix with the modified descriptors should

be forwarded to the person responsible for

maintaining ecological site descriptions in

the state (usually the NRCS State

Rangeland Management Specialist).

Indicators of soil/site stability are more likely to

require these changes due to the inherently

higher erosion potential on certain ecological

sites. An example follows (Table 2) of possible

changes in the descriptor narrative for the

bare ground indicator for a badlands site

(Appendix 6). Similar changes could be made

for other indicators.

Table 2. Example of a revised descriptor for the bare ground indicatior.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

4. Bare Much higher Moderate to Moderately Slightly to Amount and

Ground than expected much higher higher than moderately size of bare

(Default for the site. than expected expected for higher than areas nearly

Descriptor) Bare areas are for the site. the site. Bare expected for to totally

large and Bare areas are areas are of the site. Bare matches that

generally large and moderate size areas are expected for

connected. occasionally and small and the site.

connected. sporadically rarely

connected. connected.

4. Bare Much higher Moderately Moderately to Slightly Same as

Ground than expected higher than slightly higher higher than default

(Revised for the site. expected for than expected expected for descriptor.

Descriptor) Bare areas are the site. Bare for the site. the site. Bare

extensive with areas are very Bare areas are areas are of

little ground large and large and moderate size

cover. usually usually and usually

connected. connected. connected.

Badlands site where descriptors on the Rangeland Health Indicator

Evaluation Matrix (Appendix 6) should be modified in the

“revised descriptor” space to reflect naturally high erosion.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

17

Step 4. Return to the Area of

Interest and Complete the

Site Characterization

Worksheets (Repeat Step 2,

Numbers 1-3)

Complete the Cover Worksheet (Appendix 3),

Species Dominance Worksheet (Appendix 4), and

Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet–the

“Actual” column (Appendix 5).

Refer to Step 2, Numbers 1-3, for instructions

on completing the Cover, Species Dominance,

and Functional/Structural Groups Worksheets.

These three worksheets provide background

information that is used in Step 5 to rate the

individual indicators.

Step 5. Rate the 17 Indicators

on the Area of Interest

Complete the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Summary Worksheet, Part 2 (Appendix 1), using

the Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation

Matrix (Appendix 6).

The evaluator(s) selects the category descriptor

(i.e., narrative) that most closely describes the

site for each indicator on the Rangeland Health

Indicator Evaluation Matrix (Appendix 6) and

records it on the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Summary Worksheet, Part 2. The rating for

each indicator in the area of interest is based on

that indicator’s degree of departure from the

ecological site description and/or ecological

reference area(s) (ERAs). Comparisons of

cover (Cover Worksheet), species dominance

(Species Dominance Worksheet), and functional/

structural plant groups (Functional/ Structural

Groups Worksheet) on the area of interest

relative to their proper functioning condition

on the ERA and/or as described in the ecological site description are valuable sources of

information when evaluating indicators.

For each area of interest that is assessed, the

appropriate Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet (if an ERA is used or if the site

potential is reconstructed from an ecological

site description) should be reviewed and used

in conducting field evaluations on areas of

interest.

Narrative descriptors in the Rangeland Health

Indicator Evaluation Matrix are intended to aid

in the determination of the degree of departure.

The narrative descriptors for each indicator

form a relative scale from “Extreme” to “None

to Slight.” Not all indicator descriptors will

match what is observed requiring a “best fit”

approach in making the ratings. The rating for

each indicator should be supported by comments in the space provided under each indicator rating. In some instances there may be no

evidence of the indicator on the area of interest.

However, it is still rated “None to Slight.”

The “revised descriptors for an indicator is used

to rate indicators if the “default descriptor” on

the Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation

Matrix did not adequately represent the range

and status of an indicator found in the ecological site description and/or at the ERA. Revised

descriptors for indicators are developed and

recorded in Step 3.

When making an assessment, the history of disturbances (e.g., drought, fire) should be considered. For example, if a fire occurred 5 years ago

in the area being assessed, reduced shrub (e.g.,

sagebrush) cover is not an indication of lack of

biotic integrity if the natural successional

process for shrub reestablishment is occurring.

Comments on wildfire return intervals (expected

and current) may also be documented in the

comments section on this worksheet.

Descriptions of each indicator are provided

in the following sections. Photographs of the

indicators are located in Appendix 7.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

18

1. Rills

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

microtopography as flow patterns do. They are

formed through complex interactions between

raindrops, overland flow, and the characteristics

of the soil surface (Bryan 1987). The potential

for rills increases as the degree of disturbance

(loss of cover) and slope increases. Some soils

have a greater potential for rill formation than

others (Bryan 1987, Quansah 1985). Therefore,

it is important to establish the degree of

natural versus accelerated rill formation by

interpretations made from the soil survey,

rangeland ecological site description, and the

ecological reference area. Generally, concentrated flow erosional processes are accelerated

when the distance between rills decreases and

the depth and width of rills increase (Morgan

1986, Bryan 1987).

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological

Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

1. Rills Rill formation is Rill formation is Active rill No recent Current or past

severe and well moderately formation is formation of formation of

defined active and well slight at rills; old rills rills as expected

throughout most defined infrequent have blunted or for the site.

of the area. throughout most intervals, muted features.

of the area. mostly in

exposed areas.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

19

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

2. Water Extensive and More numerous Nearly matches Matches what is Matches what is

Flow numerous; than expected; what is expected for the expected for the

Patterns unstable with deposition and expected for the site; some site; minimal

active erosion; cut areas site; erosion is evidence of evidence of past

usually common; minor with minor erosion. or current soil

connected. occasionally some instability Flow patterns deposition or

connected. and deposition. are stable and erosion.

short.

2. Water Flow Patterns

Flow patterns are the path that water takes

(i.e., accumulates) as it moves across the soil

surface during overland flow. Overland flow will

occur during rainstorms or snowmelt when a

surface crust impedes water infiltration, or the

infiltration capacity is exceeded. These patterns

are generally evidenced by litter, soil or gravel

redistribution, or pedestalling of vegetation or

stones that break the flow of water (Morgan

1986). Interrill erosion caused by overland flow

has been identified as the dominant sediment

transport mechanism on rangelands (TiscareñoLopez et al., 1993). Water flow patterns are

controlled in length and coverage by the number and kinds of obstructions to water flow

provided by basal intercepts of living or dead

plants, biological crust, persistent litter, or

rocks. They are rarely continuous, and appear

and disappear as the slope and microtopography

of the slope changes.

Generally, as slope increases and ground cover

decreases, flow patterns increase (Morgan

1986). Soils with inherently low infiltration

capacity may have a large number of natural

flow patterns.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

20

3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes

Pedestals and terracettes are important indicators

of the movement of soil by water and/or by wind

(Anderson 1974, Morgan 1986, Satterlund and

Adams 1992, Hudson 1993). Pedestals are

rocks or plants that appear elevated as a result

of soil loss by wind or water erosion. Pedestals

can also be caused by non-erosional processes

such as frost heaving or through soil or litter

deposition on and around plants (Hudson

1993), thus it is important to distinguish and

not include this type of pedestalling as an

indication of erosional processes.

Terracettes are benches of soil deposition

behind obstacles caused by water movement

(not wind). As the degree of soil movement by

water increases, terracettes become higher and

more numerous and the area of soil deposition

becomes larger. Terracettes caused by livestock

or wildlife movements on hillsides are not

considered erosional terracettes, thus they are

not assessed in this process. However, these terracettes can increase erosion by concentrating

water flow and/or reducing infiltration. These

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

layer, and soil surface loss and degradation).

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

3. Pedestals Abundant active Moderate active Slight active Active Current or past

and/or pedestalling pedestalling; pedestalling; pedestalling evidence of

Terracettes and numerous terracettes most pedestals or terracette pedestalled

terracettes. common. Some are in flow formation is plants or rocks

Many rocks rocks and plants paths and rare; some as expected for

and plants are are pedestalled interspaces evidence of the site.

pedestalled; with occasional and/or on past pedestal Terracettes

exposed plant exposed roots. exposed slopes. formation, absent or

roots are Occasional especially in uncommon.

common. terracettes water flow

present. patterns and/or

on exposed

slopes.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

21

4. Bare Ground

Bare ground is exposed mineral or organic soil

that is susceptible to raindrop splash erosion,

the initial form of most water-related erosion

(Morgan 1986). It is the opposite of ground

cover, which is the percentage of ground surface covered by vegetation, litter, standing dead

vegetation, gravel/rock, and visible biological

crust (e.g., lichen, mosses, algae), meaning

everything except bare ground (Weltz et al.

1998).

The amount and distribution of bare ground is

one of the most important contributors to site

stability relative to the site potential; therefore,

it is a direct indication of site susceptibility to

accelerated wind or water erosion (Smith and

Wischmeier 1962, Morgan 1986, Benkobi et al.

1993, Blackburn et al. 1994, Pierson et al. 1994,

Gutierrez and Hernandez 1996, Cerda 1999).

In general, a site with bare soil present in a few

large patches will be less stable than a site

with the same ground cover percentage in

which the bare soil is distributed in many small

patches, especially if these patches are

unconnected (Gould 1982, Spaeth et al. 1994,

Puigdefabregas and Sanchez 1996).

The determination of adequacy of ground

cover at the area of interest is made in a comparison with the ground cover information in

the rangeland ecological site description (if it

contains ground cover information) and/or at

the ecological reference area(s) (ERAs). The

Cover Worksheet (Appendix 3) is a good

source of information to compare bare ground

amounts between the site potential via the

ERA and the site being assessed.

The amount of bare ground can vary seasonally

depending on impacts on vegetation canopy

cover (e.g., herbivore utilization), and litter

amount (e.g., trampling loss), and annually relative to weather (e.g., drought, above average

precipitation) (Gutierrez and Hernandez 1996,

Anderson 1974). Current and past climate must

be considered in determining the adequacy of

current cover in protecting the site against the

potential for accelerated erosion.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

4. Bare Much higher Moderately to Moderately Slightly to Amount and

Ground than expected much higher higher than moderately size of bare

for the site. than expected expected for the higher than areas nearly to

Bare areas are for the site. site. Bare areas expected for totally match

large and Bare areas are are of moderate the site. Bare that expected

generally large and size and areas are small for the site.

connected. occasionally sporadically and rarely

connected. connected. connected.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

22

5. Gullies

A gully is a channel that has been cut into the

soil by moving water. Gullies generally follow

the natural drainages and are caused by accelerated water flow and the resulting downcutting

of soil. Gullies are a natural feature of some

landscapes, while on others management

actions (e.g., excessive grazing, recreation vehicles, or road drainages) may cause gullies to

form or expand (Morgan 1986). Water flow is

concentrated but intermittent, with gully depth

1

/2 meter or more in depth. Gullies can be

caused by resource problems offsite (document

this on the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Worksheet), but still affect the site function on

the area of interest.

Gullies may be assessed by observing the numbers of gullies in an area and/or assessing the

severity of erosion on individual gullies.

General signs of active erosion, (e.g., incised

sides along a gully) are indicative of a current

erosional problem, while a healing gully is characterized by rounded banks, vegetation growing

in the bottom and on the sides (Anderson 1974),

and a reduction in gully depth (Martin and

Morton 1993). Active headcuts may be a sign of

accelerated erosion in a gully even if the rest of the

gully is showing signs of healing (Morgan 1986).

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

5. Gullies Common with Moderate to Moderate in Uncommon Drainages are

indications of common with number with with vegetation represented as

active erosion indications of indications of stabilizing the natural stable

and down- active erosion; active erosion; bed and slopes; channels; no

cutting; vegetation is vegetation is no signs of signs of erosion

vegetation is intermittent on intermittent active headcuts, with vegetation

infrequent on slopes and/or on slopes nickpoints, or common.

slopes and/or bed. Headcuts and/or bed. bed erosion.

bed. Nickpoints are active; Occasional

and headcuts downcutting is headcuts may

are numerous not apparent. be present.

and active.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

23

6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or

Deposition Areas

Accelerated wind erosion on an otherwise

stable soil increases as the surface crust (i.e.,

either physical, chemical, or biological crust) is

worn by disturbance or abrasion. Physical crusts

are extremely important on many rangelands

with low canopy cover in protecting the soil

surface from wind erosion. The exposed soil

beneath these surface crusts are often weakly

consolidated and vulnerable to movement via

wind (Chepil and Woodruff 1963). As wind

velocity increases, soil particles begin bouncing

against each other in the saltation process. This

abrasion leads to suspension of fine particles

into the wind stream where they may be transported off the site (Chepil 1945, Gillette,

Blifford and Fenster 1972, Gillette, Blifford and

Fryrear 1974, Gillette and Walker 1977, Hagen

1984).

Areas of wind erosion within a vegetation

community are represented by wind-scoured or

blowout areas where the finer particles of the

topsoil have blown away, sometimes leaving

residual gravel, rock, or exposed roots on the

soil surface (Anderson 1974). They are generally

found in interspace areas, with a close correlation between soil cover/bare patch size, soil

texture, and degree of accelerated erosion

(Morgan 1986).

Deposition of suspended soil particles is often

associated with vegetation that provides roughness to slow the wind velocity and allow soil

particles to settle from the wind stream. The

taller the vegetation, the greater the deposition

rate (Pye 1987); thus, shrubs and trees in rangeland ecosystems are likely sinks for deposition

(e.g., mesquite dunes, Gibbens et al. 1983,

Hennessy 1983). The soil removed from

wind-scoured depressions is redistributed to

accumulation areas (e.g., eolian deposits) which

increase in size and area of coverage as the

degree of wind erosion increases (Anderson

1974).

Like water erosion, wind deposited soil particles can originate from offsite, but affect the

function of the site by modifying soil surface

texture (Hennessey et al. 1986, Morin and Van

Winkel 1996). The changes in texture will

influence the site’s hydrologic function. Even

when soil particles originate from offsite, they

can have detrimental effects on plants at the

deposition site.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

6. Wind- Extensive. Common. Occasionally Infrequent Matches what

Scoured, present. and few. is expected

Blowouts and/ for the site.

or Deposition

Areas
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

24

7. Litter Movement

The degree and amount of litter (i.e., dead

plant material that is in contact with the soil

surface) movement (e.g., redistribution) is an

indicator of the degree of wind and/or water

erosion. The redistribution of litter within a

small area on a site is indicative of less erosion,

whereas the movement of litter offsite due to

wind or water is indicative of more severe erosion. In a study in the Edwards Plateau in Texas,

litter accumulation was shown to be the

variable most closely correlated with interrill

erosion. The same study showed that litter of

bunchgrasses represented significant obstructions to runoff, thereby causing sediment transport capacity to be reduced and a portion of the

sediment to be deposited (Thurow et al. 1988a).

The inherent capacity for litter movement on a

soil is a function of its slope and geomorphic

stability. For example, alluvial fans and floodplains are active surfaces over which water and

sediments are moved in response to major

storm events. The amount of litter movement

varies from large to small depending on the

amount of bare space typical of the plant

community and the intensity of the storm.

The size of litter moved by wind or water is also

an indicator of degree of litter redistribution. In

general, the greater distance that litter is moved

from its point of origin and the larger the size

and/or amount of litter moved, the more the

site is being influenced by erosional processes.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

7. Litter Extreme; Moderate to Moderate Slightly to Matches that

Movement concentrated extreme; loosely movement of moderately expected for

(wind or water) around concentrated smaller size more than the site with a

obstructions. near obstructions. classes in expected for the fairly uniform

Most size Moderate to scattered site with only distribution

classes of litter small size concentrations small size of litter.

have been classes of litter around classes of litter

displaced. have been obstructions and being displaced.

displaced. in depressions.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

25

8. Soil Surface Resistance to

Erosion

This indicator assesses the resistance of the

surface of the soil to erosion. Resistance

depends on soil stability, microtopography, and

on the spatial variability in soil stability relative

to vegetation and microtopographic features.

The stability of the soil surface is key to this

indicator (Morgan 1986). Soil surfaces may be

stabilized by soil organic matter which has been

fully incorporated into aggregates at the soil

surface, adhesion of decomposing organic

matter to the soil surface, and biological crusts.

The presence of one or more of these factors is

a good indicator of soil surface resistance to

erosion (Blackburn et al. 1992; Pierson et al.

1994).

Where soil surface resistance is high, soil erosion may be minimal even under rainfall

intensities of over 5 inches/hour, generating

high runoff rates on plots from which all

cover has been removed (Goff et al. 1993).

Conversely, the presence of highly erodible

materials at the soil surface can dramatically

increase soil erosion by water even when there

is high vegetative cover (Morgan et al. 1997)

and by wind when vegetative cover is removed

(Fryrear et al. 1994, Belnap and Gillette 1998).

In areas with low vegetative cover, the stability

of soil in the plant interspaces is more important than stability under plants. Similarly,

where pedestals have formed along flow paths,

the soil at the edge of the pedestal will be

subjected to more intense forces during overland flow than soil which is topographically

above the flow path.

Another good indicator is the resistance of soil

surface fragments to breakdown when placed in

water. For a simple test, use the tip of a knife to

remove several small (maximum 1/4 inch diameter x 1/8 inch deep) fragments from the soil

surface, from beneath plants, from interspaces,

and from any other areas which might differ in

soil stability. Place each in a separate bottlecap

filled with water. Fragments with low stability

will appear to lose their structure or “melt”

within 30 seconds. Fragments with extremely

low stability will “melt” immediately upon contact with the water and the water will become

cloudy as the soil particles disperse. Fragments

with moderate stability will appear to retain

their integrity until the water in the bottlecap

is agitated or gently swirled. Highly stable

aggregates will retain their shape, even when

agitated indefinitely. For multiple samples, or

where more precision is desired, a simple soil

stability kit can be used to generate a rating

from one (unstable) to six (stable) (Herrick et

al. In Press) (Appendix 8). This indicator is

most highly correlated with water erosion

(Blackburn et al. 1994; Pierson et al. 1994).

Susceptibility to wind erosion also declines

with an increases in soil organic matter (Fryrear

et al. 1994).

Biological crusts consist of microorganisms

(e.g., lichens, algae, cyanobacteria, microfungi)

and non-vascular plants (e.g., mosses, lichens)

that grow on or just below the soil surface. Soil 

physical and chemical characteristics, along

with seasonal precipitation patterns, largely

determine the dominant organisms comprising

the crust.

Biological crusts are primarily important as

cover and in stabilizing soil surfaces (Bond and

Harris 1964; Belnap and Gardner 1993). In

some areas, depending on soil characteristics,

they may increase or reduce the infiltration of

water through the soil surface or enhance the

retention of soil water (i.e., acting as living

mulch). In general, the relative importance of

biological crusts increases as annual precipitation and potential vascular plant cover decreases. If information on biological crusts is lacking

in the ecological site descriptions, refer to the

ecological reference area (ERA) for baseline

information prior to conducting the evaluation.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

26

Physical crusts are thin surface layers induced

by the impact of raindrops on bare soil causing

the soil surface to seal and absorb less water.

Physical crusts are more common on silty,

clayey, and loamy soils and relatively thin, if at

all present, in sandy soils. Physical and chemical

crusts tend to have very low organic matter

content, or contain only relatively inert organic

matter that is associated with relatively little

biological activity. As this physical crust

becomes more extensive, infiltration rates are

reduced and overland water flow increases.

Also, water can pond in flat crusted areas and is

more likely to evaporate than infiltrate into the

soil.

Physical soil crusts are identified by lifting the

soil surface with a pen or other sharp object

and looking for cohesive layers at the soil

surface which are not perforated by pores or

fissures and in which there is no apparent binding by visible strands of organic material, such

as cyanobacteria.

Physical crusts may exert a positive influence

on reducing wind erosion (see discussion in

Indicator 6, Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or

Deposition Areas). However, their function in

stabilizing the soil surface against water erosion

is generally negative. Physical crusts also

include vesicular crusts which contain numerous small air pockets or spaces similar to a

sponge; however, these soils are still resistant to

infiltration.

Chemical crusts rarely form in rangelands

except on soils formed from particular parent

materials (e.g., salt desert shrub communities–

see the soil survey that covers the area of

interest and/or the ERA) and in abandoned,

irrigated agricultural fields. Where they do

occur, they can reduce infiltration and increase

overland water flow similar to physical crusts.

They are usually identified by a white color on

the soil surface.

This indicator is not applicable to areas in

which there is no soil present at the surface

due to the presence of an extensive erosion

pavement (nearly 100 percent surface cover by

stones) or there is continuous open water (e.g.

marshes in the Southeast).

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

8. Soil Surface Extremely Significantly Significantly Some reduction Matches that

Resistance to reduced reduced in most reduced in at in soil surface expected for

Erosion throughout the plant canopy least half of the stability in plant the site.

site. Biological interspaces and plant canopy interspaces or Surface soil is

stabilization moderately interspaces, or slight reduction stabilized by

agents including reduced beneath moderately throughout the organic matter

organic matter plant canopies. reduced site. Stabilizing decomposition

and biological Stabilizing throughout agents reduced products and/or

crusts virtually agents present the site. below expected. a biological

absent. only in isolated crust.

patches.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

27

9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation

The loss or degradation of part or all of the soil

surface layer or horizon is an indicator of a loss

in site potential (Dormaar and Willms 1998,

Davenport et al. 1998). In most sites, the soil at

and near the surface has the highest organic

matter and nutrient content.This generally controls

the maximum rate of water infiltration into the

soil and is essential for successful seedling

establishment (Wood et al. 1997). As erosion

increases, the potential for loss of soil surface

organic matter increases, resulting in further

degradation of soil structure. Historic soil erosion may result in a complete loss of this layer

(Satterlund and Adams 1992, O’Hara et al. 1993).

In areas with limited slope, where wind erosion

does not occur, the soil may remain in place, but

all characteristics that distinguish the surface

from the subsurface layers are lost. Except in

soils with a clearly defined horizon immediately

below the surface (e.g., argillic), it is often

difficult to distinguish between the loss and

degradation of the soil surface. For the purposes

of this indicator, this distinction is unnecessary–

the objective is to determine to what extent the

functional characteristics of the surface layer

have been degraded. Note also that visible soil

erosion is covered in discussions of Indicator 3,

Pedestals and Terracettes, and subsurface

degradation in Indicator 11, Compaction Layer.

The two primary indicators used to make this

evaluation are the organic matter content

(Dormaar and Willms 1998) and structure

(Karlen and Stott 1994) of the surface layer

or horizon. Soil organic matter content is

frequently reflected in a darker color of the

soil, although high amounts of oxidized iron

(common in humid climates) can obscure the

organic matter. In arid soils where organic matter contents are low, this accumulation can be

quite faint. The use of a mister to wet the soil

profile can help make these layers more visible.

Soil structural degradation is reflected in the loss

of clearly defined structural units or aggregates at

one or more scales from <1/8 inch to 3-4 inches.

In soils with good structure, pores of various

sizes are visible within the aggregates.

Structural degradation is reflected in a more

massive, homogeneous surface horizon and is

associated with a reduction in infiltration rates

(Warren et al. 1986). Comparisons to intact soil

profiles at reference sites can also be used,

although in cases of severe degradation the

removal of part or all of the A horizon, or of

one or more textural components (e.g.,

Hennessey et al. 1986) may make identification

of appropriate reference areas difficult.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

9. Soil Surface Soil surface Soil loss or Moderate soil loss Some soil loss Soil surface

Loss or horizon absent. degradation or degradation has occurred horizon intact.

Degradation Soil structure near severe in interspaces and/or soil Soil structure

surface is similar throughout with some structure shows and organic

to, or more site. Minimal degradation signs of matter content

degraded than, differences in beneath plant degradation, match that

that in subsurface soil organic canopies. Soil especially expected for

horizons. No matter content structure is in plant the site.

distinguishable and structure of degraded and interspaces.

difference in surface and soil organic

subsurface subsurface matter content

organic matter layers. is significantly

content. reduced.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

28

10. Plant Community Composition

and Distribution Relative to

Infiltration and Runoff

Vegetation growth form is an important determinant of infiltration rate and interrill erosion

(Thurow et al. 1986, 1988a). The distribution

of the amount and type of vegetation has been

found to be an important factor controlling spatial and temporal variations in infiltration and

interrill erosion rates on rangelands in Nevada

(Blackburn 1975, Blackburn and Wood 1990),

Idaho (Johnson and Gordon 1988, Blackburn et

al. 1990), and Texas (Wood and Blackburn

1984, Thurow at al. 1986, 1988a).

Changes in plant community composition and

the distribution of species can influence (positively or negatively) the ability of a site to

capture and store precipitation. Plant rooting

patterns, litter production and associated

decomposition processes, basal area and spatial

distribution can all affect infiltration and/or

runoff. In the Edwards Plateau in Texas, shifts in

plant composition between bunchgrass and

short grasses over time have the greatest

potential to influence infiltration and soil erosion

(Thurow et al. 1986, 1988a, b). An example of

a composition change that reduces infiltration

and increases water runoff is the conversion of

desert grasslands to shrub-dominated communities (Schlesinger et al. 1990). However,

infiltration and runoff are also affected when

sagebrush steppe rangeland is converted to a

monoculture of annual grasses. These annual

grasses provide excellent watershed protection

although snow entrapment and soil water

storage may be reduced by this vegetation type

conversion. Care must be exercised in interpreting this indicator in different ecosystems as

the same species may have different effects.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

10. Plant Infiltration is Infiltration is Infiltration is Infiltration is Infiltration and

Community severely greatly moderately slightly to runoff are equal

Composition decreased due decreased due reduced due to moderately to that expected

and to adverse to adverse adverse changes affected by for the site.

Distribution changes in plant changes in plant in plant minor changes Plant cover

Relative to community community community in plant (distribution

Infiltration composition composition composition community and amount)

and Runoff and/or and/or and/or composition adequate for

distribution. distribution. distribution. and/or site protection.

Adverse plant Detrimental Plant cover distribution.

cover changes plant cover changes Plant cover

have occurred. changes have negatively changes have

occurred. affect only a minor

infiltration. effect on

infiltration.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

29

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

11. Extensive; Widespread; Moderately Rarely present None to

Compaction severely greatly restricts widespread; or is thin and minimal; not

Layer (below restricts water water moderately weakly restrictive restrictive to

soil surface) movement and movement and restricts water to water water

root penetration. root penetration. movement and movement and movement and

root penetration. root penetration. root penetration.

11. Compaction Layer

A compaction layer is a near surface layer of

dense soil caused by the repeated impact on or

disturbance of the soil surface. Compaction

becomes a problem when it begins to limit

plant growth (Wallace 1987), water infiltration

(Willat and Pullar 1983, Thurow et al. 1988a)

or nutrient cycling processes (Hassink et al.

1993). Farm machinery, herbivore trampling

(Willat and Pullar 1983, Warren et al. 1986,

Chanysk and Naeth 1995), recreational and

military vehicles (Webb and Wilshire 1983,

Thurow et al. 1988a), foot traffic (Cole 1985),

or any other activity that repeatedly causes an

impact on the soil surface can cause a compaction layer. Moist soil is more easily compacted than dry or saturated soil (Hillel 1998).

Recovery processes (e.g., earthworm activity

and frost heaving) are generally sufficient to

limit compaction by livestock in many upland

systems (Thurow et al. 1988a).

A compaction layer is a structural change, not a

textural change, as described in a soil survey or

observed at an ecological reference area.

Compacted layers in rangelands are usually less

than 6 inches below the soil surface. They are

detected by digging a small hole (generally less

than 1-foot deep) with the determination of a

compaction layer (i.e., a soil structure change)

done by a person with soils experience. These

layers may be detected in some soils with the

use of a penetrometer (Larson and Pierce 1993)

or by simply probing the soil with a sharp rod

or shovel and “feeling” for the compaction layer

(Barnes et al. 1971). However, any potential

compaction layer should be confirmed using

multiple indicators, including direct observation

of physical features. Those physical features

include such things as platy or blocky, dense

soil structure over less dense soil layers and

horizontal root growth, and increased density

(measured by weighing a known volume of

oven-dry soil) (Blake and Hartge 1986).

Increased resistance to a probe can be simply

due to lower soil moisture or higher clay

content.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

30

12. Functional/Structural Groups

This indicator addresses the various roles that

different species fulfill in energy flow and nutrient cycles. Functional/structural groups are a

suite of species that because of similar shoot

(height and volume) or root (fibrous vs. tap)

structure, photosynthetic pathways, nitrogen

fixing ability, or life cycle are grouped together

on an ecological site basis (Chapin 1993,

Dawson and Chapin 1993, Solbrig et al. 1996).

Functional composition and functional diversity

are the principal factors explaining plant productivity, plant percent nitrogen, plant total

nitrogen, and light penetration (Tilman et al.

1997). The study by Tilman et al. (1997)

showed that functional composition has a large

impact on ecosystem processes. This and related

studies have demonstrated that factors that

change ecosystem composition, such as invasion by novel organisms, nitrogen deposition,

disturbance frequency, fragmentation, predator

decimation, species removal, and alternative

management practices can have a strong effect

on ecosystem processes.

The evaluator(s) must specify these groupings

on the Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet

(Appendix 5) after reviewing the ecological site

description and/or ecological reference area(s)

(ERAs). Each functional/structural group is

classified as:

• Dominant (roughly 41 -100% composition)

• Subdominant (roughly 11 - 40% composition)

• Minor component (roughly 3-10% composition)

• Trace component (<3% composition)

This is based upon the relative weight or

relative cover that each structural/functional

group collectively contributes to the total.

Composition by weight is the recommended

protocol to use for grouping species. If the evaluator(s) doesn’t have experience in estimating

composition by weight, then composition by

cover may be substituted. The potential for

functional/structural groups is derived by

placing species into the appropriate groups from

information found in the ecological site/

description, and/or at the ERA. This worksheet

can be modified by changing or adding functional group categories at the top of the

form for different ecological sites (see Tables 3

and 4). Functional groups that are now present,

but were not original components of the site

(e.g., weeds, introduced plants), need to be

identified on the worksheet.

The number of species in each functional group

is also considered when selecting the appropriate rating category on the Rangeland Health

Evaluation Summary Worksheet. If the number

of species in many of the functional/structural

plant groups have been greatly reduced, this

may be an indication of loss of biotic integrity.

Both the presence of functional groups and the

number of species within the groups have a

significant effect on ecosystem processes

(Tilman et al. 1997)

Table 3. Functional/structural groups that a prairie ecological site might include.

Warm Season Warm Season Cool Season Warm Season Perennial Leguminous

Tall Grasses Midgrasses Midgrasses Shortgrass Forbs Shrubs

Big bluestem Sideoats grama Western Buffalograss Dotted Leadplant

wheatgrass gayfeather

Indiangrass Little bluestem Green Blue grama Prairie

needlegrass coneflower

Phlox
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

31

Table 4. Functional/structural groups that a Great Basin Desert site might include.

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

included in this example since they are an

important component of this Great Basin

Tall Shrubs Half Shrub Warm Cool Cool Perennial Perennial Biological

(Deep Season Season Season Forbs-N Forbs-Not Crust

Rooted) Bunchgrass Short Mid Fixers N Fixers

Bunchgrass Bunchgrass Grasses

Wyo. Big Broom Sand Sandberg Squirreltail Astragalus Phlox Moss

sagebrush snakeweed dropseed bluegrass

Bitterbrush Red Thurbers Lupine Arrowleaf Lichens

threeawn needlegrass balsamroot

Indian Bisquitroot

ricegrass

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

12. Functional/ Number of F/S Number of F/S Number of F/S Number of F/S F/S groups and

Structural groups greatly groups reduced; groups groups slightly number of

Groups (F/S reduced; and/or one moderately reduced; and/or species in each

Groups) and/or relative dominant group reduced; and/or relative group closely

dominance of and/or one or one or more dominance of match that

See Appendix 5 F/S groups has more sub- sub-dominant F/S groups has expected for

(Functional/ been dramatically dominate groups F/S groups been modified the site.

Structural altered; and/or replaced by F/S replaced by F/S from that

Groups number of groups not groups not expected for

Worksheet) species within expected for expected for the the site; and/or

F/S groups the site; and/or site; and/or number of

dramatically number of number of species within

reduced. species within species within F/S groups

F/S groups F/S groups slightly reduced.

significantly moderately

reduced. reduced.

ecological site. Biological crusts are components

of many ecosystems and should be included in

this evaluation when appropriate.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

32

13. Plant Mortality/Decadence

The proportion of dead or decadent (e.g., moribund, dying) to young or mature plants in the

community relative to that expected for the

site, under normal disturbance regimes, is an

indicator of the population dynamics of the

stand. If recruitment is not occurring and existing plants are either dying or dead, the integrity

of the stand would be expected to decline and

other undesirable plants (e.g., weeds or invasives) may increase (Pyke 1995). A healthy

range has a mixture of many age classes of

plants relative to site potential and climatic

conditions (Stoddard, Smith, and Box 1975)

Only plants native to the site (or seeded plants

if in a seeding) are assessed for plant mortality.

Plant mortality may vary considerably on the

landscape depending on disturbance events

(e.g., fire, drought, insect infestation, disease).

The cover of standing dead vegetation from

the Cover Worksheet may be compared to

values found in the ecological site description

or on the ecological reference area to assist

in assessing the expected to actual plant

mortality.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

13. Plant Dead and/or Dead and/or Some dead Slight plant Plant mortality

Mortality/ decadent plants decadent plants and/or mortality and decadence

Decadence are common. are somewhat decadent plants and/or matches that

common. are present. decadence. expected for

the site.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

33

14. Litter Amount

Litter is any dead plant material that is in contact with the soil surface. That portion of the

litter component that is in contact with the soil

surface (as opposed to standing dead vegetation

which is not) provides a major source of the soil

organic material and the raw materials for

onsite nutrient cycling (Whitford 1988, 1996).

Litter also helps moderate the soil microclimate

and provides food for microorganisms (Hester

et al. 1997). The amount of litter present is also

a factor in enhancing the ability of the site to

resist erosion. Litter helps to dissipate the

energy of raindrops and overland flow, thereby

reducing the potential detachment and transport of soil (Hester et al. 1997). Litter biomass

represents a significant obstruction to runoff

(Thurow et al. 1988a).

The amount of litter present is compared to the

amount that would be expected for the same

type of growing conditions under the historic

climax plant community or to that observed on

the ecological reference area. Litter is directly

related to weather and to the degree of utilization of biomass each year. Therefore, climatic

influences (e.g., drought, wet years) must be

carefully considered in determining the rating

for the litter amount.

Some plant communities have increased litter

quantities relative to the site potential and

current weather conditions. In this case, litter

amount above what is expected results in

downgrading the rating for the site. Note in

the Comments Section for this indicator in

the Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary

Worksheet if the litter is undergoing decomposition (darker color) or oxidation (whitish

color which may also be an indication of fungal

growth).

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

14. Litter Largely absent Greatly reduced Moderately Slightly more or Amount is what

Amount or dominant or increased more or less less relative to is expected for

relative to site relative to site relative to site site potential the site potential

potential and potential and potential and and weather. and weather.

weather. weather. weather.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

34

15. Annual Production

Aboveground biomass (i.e., annual production)

is an indicator of the energy captured by plants

and its availability for secondary consumers in

an ecosystem given current weather conditions.

Production potential will change with communities or ecological sites (Whittaker 1975),

biological diversity (Tilman and Downing

1994), and with latitude (Cooper 1975).

Annual production of the area of interest is

compared to the site potential from the rangeland ecological site description and/or the

ecological reference area(s).

Comparisons to the ecological site description

are based on peak above ground standing crop,

no matter when the site is assessed. If utilization of vegetation has occurred, or plants are in

early stages of growth, the evaluator(s) should

estimate the production of the annual biomass

removed or expected and include this amount

when making the total site biomass estimate.

Do not include standing dead vegetation

(i.e., produced in previous years) as annual

production.

All species (e.g., native, seeded, and weeds) are

included in the determination of total aboveground biomass if they were alive in the year

that the evaluation takes place. This indicator is

simply a measure of the total amount of vegetation available to harvest the sun’s energy at a

given point in time, therefore type of vegetation

(e.g., native or introduced) is not the issue. For

example, Rickard and Vaughan (1988) found

that conversion of a sagebrush steppe plant

community to an exotic annual grassland greatly affected vegetation structure and function

but not above-ground biomass production.

As with the other indicators, it is important to

consider all other local and landscape level

explanations for differences in production (e.g.,

runoff/run-on due to landscape position,

weather, regional location, or different soils

within an ecological site) before attributing

production differences to differences in other

site characteristics.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

15. Annual Less than 20% 20-40% of 40-60% of 60-80% of Exceeds 80%

Production of potential potential potential potential of potential

production. production. production. production. production.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

35

16. Invasive Plants

This indicator deals with plants that are invasive to the area of interest. These plants may or

may not be noxious and may or may not be

exotic. Generally they are invaders or increasers

to the site that can, and often do, continue to

increase regardless of the management of the

site and may eventually dominate the site.

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

that are listed by a state because of their

unfavorable economic or ecological impacts),

non-native, and native plants. Native invasive

plants (e.g., pinyon pine or juniper) must be

assessed by comparing current status with their

potential status described in the rangeland

ecological site description and/or observed in

the ecological reference area(s). Historical

accounts and photographs also provide information on the historical distribution of invasive

native plants.

Invasive plants may impact an ecosystem’s type

and abundance of species, their interrelationships, and the processes by which energy and

nutrients move through the ecosystem. These

impacts can influence both biological organisms

and physical properties of the site (Olson

1999). These impacts may range from slight to

catastrophic depending on the species involved

and their degree of dominance. Invasive species

may adversely affect a site by increased water

usage (e.g., salt cedar (tamarisk) in riparian

areas) or rapid nutrient depletion (e.g., high

nitrogen use by cheatgrass).

Some invasive plants (e.g., knapweeds) are

capable of invading undisturbed climax bunchgrass communities (Lacey et al. 1990) further

emphasizing their use as an indicator of new

ecosystem stress. Even highly diverse, speciesrich plant communities are susceptible to exotic

species invasion (Stohlgren et al. 1999).

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

16. Invasive Dominate the Common Scattered Present Rarely present

Plants site. throughout the throughout the primarily on on the site.

site. site. disturbed sites.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

36

17. Reproductive Capability of

Perennial Plants

Adequate seed production is essential to maintain populations of plants when sexual reproduction is the primary mechanism of individual

plant replacement at a site; however, annual

seed production of perennial plants is highly

variable (Harper 1977). Since reproductive

growth occurs in a modular fashion similar to

the remainder of the plant (White 1979),

inflorescence production (e.g., seedstalks)

becomes a basic measure of reproductive

potential for sexually reproducing plants and

clonal production (e.g., tillers) for vegetatively

reproducing plants.

Comparing number of seedstalks and/or number of seeds per seedstalk of native or seeded

plants (not weeds or invasives) in the evaluation

area with that produced on the associated

ecological reference area (ERA) can be used to

assess seed production. Mueggler (1975) recommended comparison of seedstalk numbers

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

recruitment potential. Seed production is

related to plant vigor since healthy plants are

better able to produce adequate quantities of

viable seed than are plants that are stressed or

decadent (Hanson and Stoddart 1940).

For plants that reproduce vegetatively, the

number and distribution of tillers or rhizomes

is assessed relative to the production of these

reproductive structures on perennial plants in

the ERA. Only native or seeded plants are evaluated with this indicator; invasive plants are not

included in the evaluation.

Recruitment is not assessed as a part of this

indicator since plant recruitment from seed is

an episodic event in many rangeland ecological

sites. Therefore, evidence of recruitment

(seedlings or vegetative spread) of perennial,

native, or seeded plants is recorded in the comment section of Indicator 17 on the Rangeland

Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet, but is

not considered in rating the reproductive

capabilities of perennial plants.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

17.

Reproductive Capability to Capability to Capability to Capability to Capability to

Capability of produce seed produce seed produce seed produce seed produce seed

Perennial or vegetative or vegetative or vegetative or vegetative or vegetative

Plants (native tillers is severely tillers is greatly tillers is some- tillers is only tillers is not

or seeded) reduced relative reduced relative what limited slightly limited limited relative

to recent climatic to recent climatic relative to relative to to recent

conditions. conditions. recent climatic recent climatic climatic

conditions. conditions. conditions.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

37

18. Optional Indicators

The 17 indicators described previously represent the baseline indicators that must be

assessed on all sites. Other indicators and

descriptors may be developed to meet local

needs. The only restriction on the development

of optional indicators and their use is that they

must be ecologically, not management related.

For example, an indicator of “Suitability for

Livestock Use” is not an appropriate indicator

to determine the health of a land unit. It may

be important in the allotment or ranch evaluation, but it is not a part of the determination of

the status of soil/site stability, hydrologic

function, or integrity of the biotic community.

An example of an optional indicator and

descriptors for biological crust is provided in

Table 5.

The indicators included in the worksheets are

not intended to be all inclusive for all rangelands. It is not expected that many of the

indicators would be eliminated given the

extensive field testing results; however, additional indicators may be added to the worksheets to improve the sensitivity of worksheets

in detecting changes in soil/site stability,

hydrologic function, and integrity of the biotic

community.

Table 5. Optional indicator and descriptors for biological crust.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

Biological Found only in Largely absent, In protected Evident Largely intact

Crusts protected areas, occurring mostly areas and with throughout the and nearly

very limited suite in protected a minor site but continuity matches site

of functional areas. component in is broken. capability.

groups. interspaces.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

38

Step 6. Determine the

Functional Status of the

Three Rangeland Health

Attributes

Complete the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Summary Worksheet (Appendix 1).

The critical link between observations of indicators and determining the degree of departure

from the ecological site description and/or

ecological reference area (ERA) for each health

attribute of an area of interest is the interpretation process. The interpretation of the

indicators and the selection of the degree of

departure of the rangeland health attributes of:

soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and

integrity of the biotic community are made in

Part 3 of the Rangeland Health Evaluation

Summary Worksheet. This summary rating is

made by reviewing the indicator ratings and

comments on all of the worksheets to arrive at

a single degree of departure from the ecological

site description and/or ERA rating of each

attribute.

A “preponderance of evidence” approach is

used to determine which of the five departure

categories are selected as best fits by the evaluator(s) for each attribute. This decision is based

in part on where the majority of the indicators

for each attribute fall under the five categories

at the top of the worksheet. For example, if

four of the soil/site stability indicators are in

the “extreme” and six are in the “moderate to

extreme” departure from the ecological site

description/ERA categories, the soil/site stability attribute departure would be rated as “moderate to extreme assuming that the evaluator(s)

interpretation of other information and local

ecological knowledge supported this rating.

More information (inventory and/or monitoring)

will generally be required if the preponderance

of evidence indicates that an attribute falls in

the “moderate departure” category. This information should be reviewed if available or if not

available, it should be collected. The moderate

rating is somewhat analogous to an “at risk”

rating (NRC 1994). Therefore, these areas (i.e.,

moderate departure) are often good areas to

implement monitoring studies on since they

should be the most responsive to management

activities. However, additional monitoring may

be useful regardless of the departure rating,

dependent upon future changes in uses or

management of an area.

This procedure relies upon the collective experience and knowledge of the evaluator(s) to

classify each indicator and then to interpret the

collective rating for the indicators into one

summary rating of departure for each attribute.

The rating of each indicator and the interpretation into a collective rating for each attribute is

not apprentice level work. This procedure has

been developed for use by experienced, knowledgeable evaluator(s). It is not intended that

this assessment procedure be used by new

and/or inexperienced or temporary type

employees without training and assistance by

more experienced and knowledgeable employees.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

39

Application to Larger

Areas

Although the procedure described in this

document is based upon a site-specific area of

interest evaluation, it can be applied at a pasture, allotment, or ranch level with the proper

study design. Tools to help with this application

to larger areas include topographic maps, water

locations, grazing use pattern maps, inventory

or monitoring information, soil surveys,

Geographical Information System (GIS) technology, and local knowledge. Individual site

evaluations are made on selected rangeland

ecological sites, exercising caution that different

sites with different potentials are not assessed

using the same rangeland ecological site

description and/or ecological reference area.

Areas in the same rangeland ecological site with

the same ratings for the three rangeland health

attributes may be mapped and consolidated

within a pasture or management unit (e.g.,

ranch or allotment).

Additional studies or information may be

required to confirm these ratings or to categorize the rangeland health attributes into

healthy, at risk, or unhealthy recommended by

the National Research Council (NRC 1994).

The protocol described in this document is not

intended to be used as a “stand-alone” tool to

determine the final “health” or functional status

of the three attributes of rangeland health.

Areas of interest with “moderate” to “extreme”

ratings may stimulate other actions (e.g., review

or initiation of inventory, monitoring, or different

assessments; communication with various groups

interested in the management of the area) to

then determine the cause of the problems or if

trend is satisfactory under existing management.

Changes in management are not appropriate

based solely on the evaluation of range health

per the procedures in this document.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

41

Summary

Qualitative assessments of rangeland health

provide land managers and technical assistance

specialists with a good communication tool for

use with the public. This technique, in association with quantitative monitoring and inventory

information, can be used to provide early

warnings of resource problems. This procedure

does not establish the cause of rangeland health

problems; it simply identifies where a problem

exists. This procedure is not intended nor

designed to replace quantitative monitoring,

serve as a trend study, or provide data that can

alone be aggregated for a national report on

rangeland health.

However, more research is needed to quantify

indicator attributes and identify thresholds for

rangeland health. Once this information is

available, the assessment of rangeland health

will become more quantitative and less reliant

on qualitative assessment of the indicators. As a

result of continued research and application of

this procedure, this document will continue to

be revised. Where possible, ecological sitespecific indicators and descriptors will be

developed. The interpretation of the indicators

will continue to evolve as our understanding of

ecological dynamics (e.g., as described in state

and transition diagrams) continues to grow. As

the concept of rangeland health continues to

evolve and mature, the application of this

concept and protocol will also evolve.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

43

Literature Cited

Anderson, E.W. 1974. Indicators of soil movement on range watersheds. Journal of Range

Management 27:244-247.

Barnes, K.K., W.M. Carleton, H.M. Taylor, R.I.

Throckmorton, and G.E. Vanden Berg (organizers). 1971. Compaction of agricultural soils.

American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

St. Joseph, Michigan.

Belnap, J. and J.S. Gardner. 1993. Soil

microstructure in soil of the Colorado

Plateau: The role of the cyanobacterium

Microcoleus vaginatus. Great Basin Naturalist

53: 40-47.

Belnap, J. and D.A. Gillette. 1998. Vulnerability

of desert biological crusts to wind erosion: the

influences of crust development, soil texture

and disturbance. Journal of Arid Environments

39: 133-42.

Benkobi, L., M.J.Trlica, and J.L. Smith. 1993. Soil

loss as affected by different combinations of

surface litter and rock. Journal of Environmental

Quality 22: 657-61.

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

rangelands. Nevada Water Resources Res.

11:929-937.

Blackburn,W.H. and M.K.Wood. 1990. Influence

of soil frost on infiltration of shrub coppice

dune and dune interspace soils in southern

Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 50:41-46.

Blackburn, W.H., and F.B. Pierson Jr. 1994.

Sources of variation in interrill erosion on

rangelands. IN: W.H. Blackburn, F.B. Pierson

Jr., G.E. Schuman, and R. Zartman (eds).

Variability in rangeland water erosion

processes, Pages 1-10. Madison, Wisconsin:

Soil Science Society of America.

Blackburn,W.H., F.B. Pierson, C.L. Hanson,T.L.

Thurow, and A.L. Hanson. 1992. The spatial

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

Transactions of the ASAE 35:479-486.

Blake, G.R. and K.H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk density.

IN: A. Klute (ed). Methods of soil analysis.

Part I. Second Edition, Pages 363-75. Agron.

Monogr. 9. Madison, WI: ASA and SSSA.

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

of the mircoflora on the physical properties

of soils. I. Effects associated with filamentous

algae and fungi. Australian Journal of Soil

Research 2:111-122.

Bryan, R.B. 1987. Processes and significance of

rill development. Pages 1-16 IN: Bryan, R.B.

(ed). Rill erosion: processes and significance.

Catena Supplement, 8, Catena Verlag, Germany.

Cerda, A. 1999. Parent material and vegetation

affect soil erosion in eastern Spain. Soil Science

Society of America Journal 63: 362-68.

Chanasyk, D.S. and M.A. Naeth. 1995. Grazing

impacts on bulk density and soil strength in

the foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta,

Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science.

Chapin, F.S., III. 1993. Functional role of growth

forms in ecosystem and global processes.

Pages 287-312. IN: Ehleringer, J.R. and C.B.

Field (eds). Scaling physiological processes:

leaf to globe. Academic Press, San Diego.

Chepil, W.S. 1945. Dynamics of wind erosion

IV. The translocating and abrasive action of

the wind. Soil Science 61:167-171.

Chepil, W.S. and N.P Woodruff. 1963. The

physics of wind erosion and its control.

Advances in Agronomy 15:211-302.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

44

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects

on six habitat types in western Montana.

Research Paper INT-350. USDA-USFS

Intermountain Research Station: Ogden, Utah.

Cooper, J.P. (ed.) 1975. Photosynthesis and

productivity in different environments.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Davenport, D.W., D.D. Breshears, B.P. Wilcox,

and C.D. Allen. 1998. Viewpoint: sustainability of piñon-juniper ecosystems–a unifying

perspective of soil erosion thresholds. Journal

of Range Management, No. 231-240.

Dawson, T.E. and F.S. Chapin, III. 1993.

Grouping plants by their form-function characteristics as an avenue for simplification in

scaling between leaves. Pages 313-322, IN:

Ehleringer, J.R. and C.B. Field (eds). Scaling

physiological processes: leaf to globe.

Academic Press, San Diego.

Dormaar, J.F. and W.D. Willms. 1998. Effect of

forty-four years of grazing on fescue grassland

soils. Journal of Range Management 51: 122-26.

Fryrear, D.W., C.A. Krammes, D.L. Williamson,

and T.M. Zobeck. 1994. Computing the wind

erodible fraction of soils. Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation 49:183-88.

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

M. Cardenas. 1983. Soil movement in

mesquite duneland and former grasslands of

southern New Mexico from 1933 to 1980.

Journal of Range Management 36:145-148.

Gillette, D.A. and T.R. Walker. 1977.

Characteristics of airborne particles produced

by wind erosion of sandy soil, High Plains of

West Texas. Soil Science 123:97-110.

Gillette, D.A., Blifford, and I.H. Fenster. 1972.

Measurements of aerosol-size distribution and

vertical fluxes of aerosols on land subject to

wind erosion. Journal of Applied Meteorology

11:977-987.

Gillette, D.A., Blifford, and D.W. Fryrear. 1974.

The influence of wind velocity on the size

distributions of aerosols generated by the

wind erosion of soils. Journal of Geophysical

Research 79:4068-4075.

Goff, B.F., G.C. Bent, and G.E. Hart. 1993.

Erosion response of a disturbed sagebrush

steppe hillslope. Journal of Environmental

Quality 22:698-709.

Gould, W.L. 1982. Wind erosion curtailed by

shrub control. Journal of Range Management

35: 563-66.

Gutierrez, J. and I.I. Hernandez. 1996. Runoff

and interrill erosion as affected by grass cover

in a semi-arid rangeland of northern Mexico.

Journal of Arid Environments 34:287-95.

Hagen, L.J. 1984. Soil aggregate abrasion by

impacting sand and soil particles. Transactions

of the American Society of Agricultural

Engineering 27:805-808.

Hanson, W.R. and L.A. Stoddard. 1940. Effects

of grazing upon bunch wheatgrass. Amer. Soc.

Agron. J. 32:278-289.

Harper, J.L. 1977. Population biology of plants.

Academic Press, New York.

Hassink, J., L.A. Bouwman, K.B. Zwart, and L.

Brussaard. 1993. Relationships between habitable pore space, soil biota, and mineralization rates in grassland soils. Soil Biology and

Biochemistry 25:47-55.

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

M. Cardenas. 1983. Vegetation changes from

1935 to 1980 in mesquite dunelands and former grasslands of southern New Mexico.

Journal of Range Management 36:370-374.

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

Tromble. 1986. Soil sorting by forty-five years

of wind erosion on a southern New Mexico

range. Soil Science Society of America

Journal 50: 391-394.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

45

Herrick, J.E., W.G. Whitford, A.G. de Soyza,

J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, C.A. Seybold,

and M. Walton. 2001. Field soil aggregate stability kit for soil quality and rangeland health

evaluations. CATENA (In Press).

Hester, J.W., T.L. Thurow, and C.A. Taylor Jr.

1997. Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as affected by prescribed burning.

Journal of Range Management 50:199-204.

Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Hudson,N.1993.Field measurement of soil erosion

and runoff. Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Johnson, C.W. and N.E. Gordon. 1988. Runoff

and erosion from rainfall simulator plots on

sagebrush rangelands. Transactions of the

ASAE 31(2):421-427.

Karlen, D.L. and D.E. Stott. 1994. A framework

for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil quality. IN: J.W. Doran, D.C.

Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart

(eds). Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable

Environment, SSSA Special Publication

Number 35. Pages 53-72. Soil Science Society

of America.

Karr, J.R. 1992. Ecological integrity: Protecting

earth's life support systems. Pages 223-238.

IN: R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D.

Haskell (eds), Ecosystem Health-New Goals

for Environmental Management, Island Press,

Washington, DC.

Lacey J., P. Husby, and G. Handl. 1990.

Observations on spotted and diffuse knapweek

invasion into ungrazed bunchgrass communities

in western Montana. Rangelands 12:30-32.

Lackey, R.T. 1998. Ecosystem management:

paradigms and prattle, people and prizes.

Renewable Resources Journal 16:8-13.

Larson, W.E. and F.J. Pierce. 1993. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable

management. IN: J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman,

D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart (eds).

Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable

Environment, SSSA Special Publication

Number 35. Pages 27-51. Soil Science Society

of America.

Martin, S.C. and H.L. Morton. 1993. Mesquite

control increases grass density and reduces

soil loss in southern Arizona. Journal of Range

Management 46:170-175.

Morgan, R.P.C. 1986. Soil erosion and conservation. D.A. Davidson (ed). Longman

Scientific & Technical, Wiley, New York.

Morgan, R.P.C., K. McIntyre, A.W. Vickers, J.N.

Quinton, and R.J. Rickson. 1997. A rainfall

simulation study of soil erosion on rangeland

in Swaziland. Soil Technology 11:291-99.

Morin, J. and J. Van Winkel. 1996. The effect of

raindrop impact and sheet erosion on infiltration rate and crust formation. Soil Science

Society of America Journal 60:1223-27.

Mueggler, W.F. 1975. Rate and pattern of vigor

recovery in Idaho fescue and bulebunch

wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management

28:198-204.

NARSC. 1996. Sampling Vegetation Attributes.

Bureau of Land Management, National

Applied Resource Sciences Center. Report

No. BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730. 163p.

National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland

health: new methods to classify, inventory,

and monitor rangelands. National Academy

Press, Washington DC. National Research

Council. 180p.

O ́Hara, S.L., F.A. Street, and T.P. Burt. 1993.

Accelerated soil erosion around a Mexican

highland lake caused by pre-hispanic agriculture. Nature 362:48-51.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

46

Olson, B.E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on

ecological and economic systems. Pages 4-18,

IN: Sheley, R.L. and J.K. Petroff (ed). Biology

and management of noxious rangeland weeds.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Pellant, M. 1996. Use of indicators to qualitatively assess rangeland health. Rangelands in a

Sustainable Biosphere. (Ed. N.E. West), pp

434-435. Proc. Vth International Rangeland

Congress. Society for Range Management.

Denver, CO.

Pierson, F.B., W.H. Blackburn, S.S. Van Vactor,

and J.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning small scale

spatial variability of runoff and erosion on

sagebrush rangeland. Water Resources

Bulletin 30:1081-1089.

Pimm, S.L. 1984. The complexity and stability

of ecosystems. Nature 307:321-326.

Puigdefábregas, J. and G. Sánchez. 1996.

Geomorphological implications of vegetation

patchiness on semi-arid slopes. IN: Anderson,

M.G., and S.M. Brooks. Advances in Hillslope

Processes. Pages 1029-60. Vol. 2. London:

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pye, K. 1987. Aeolian dust and dust deposits.

Academic Press. San Diego, CA.

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

32. IN: West, N.E. (ed). Biodiversity of rangelands. Natural Resources and Environmental

Issues, Vol. IV, College of Natural Resources,

Utah State University, Logan.

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

flow rate and their interactions on detachment by overland flow with and without rain.

Pages 19-28 IN: Jungerius, P.D. (ed). Soils and

geomorphology. Catena Supplement, 6,

Catena Verlag, Germany.

Rapport, D.J., C. Gaudet, J.R. Karr, J.S. Baron,

C. Bohlen, W. Jackson, B. Jones, R.J. Naiman,

B. Norton, and M.M. Pollock. 1998.

Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical process. Journal of

Environmental Management 53:1-15.

Rasmussen, G.A., M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 1999.

Reliability of a qualitative assessment process

on rangeland ecosystems. People and

Rangelands, Building the Future. (Eds. D.

Eldridge and D. Freudenberger), pp 781-782.

Proc. VIth International Rangeland Congress.

1999 VI International Rangeland Congress, Inc.

Rickard, W.H. and L.E. Rogers. 1988. Plant

Community Characteristics and Responses.

Pages 109-179. IN: Rickard, W.H., L.E.

Rogers, B.E. Vaughn, and S.F. Liebetrau (eds).

Shrub-steppe: balance and change in a semiarid terrestrial ecosystems. Developments in

agricultural and managed-forest ecology,

Elsevier, New York.

Satterlund, D.R., and P.W. Adams. 1992.

Wildland Watershed Management, 2d ed.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schlesinger, W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L.

Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, W.M. Jarrell,

R.A. Virginia, and W.G. Whitford. 1990.

Biological feedbacks in global desertification.

Science 247: 1043-1048.

Smith, D.D. and W.H. Wischmeier. 1962.

Rainfall erosion. Advances in Agronomy

14:109-148.

Smith, E.L. 1999.The myth of range/watershed

health. Pages 6-11. IN: Riparian and watershed management in the interior northwest:

an interdisciplinary perspective. Oregon State

University Extension Service Special Report

1001, Corvallis, OR.

Society for Range Management. 1999.A glossary

of terms used in range management. Society

for Range Management. Denver, CO. 20p.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

47

Soil Science Society of America. 1997. Glossary

of soil science terms. Soil Science Society of

America. Madison, WI. 138p.

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

Biodiversity and savanna ecosystem processes: a global perspective. Springer, New York.

Stoddard, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W. Box.

1975. Range Management. McGraw-Hill

Book Company.

Stohlgren, T.J., D. Binkley, G.W. Chong, M.A.

Kalkhan, L.D. Schell, K.A. Bull, Y. Otsuki, G.

Newman, M. Bashkin, and Y. Son. 1999.

Exotic plant species invade hot spots of

native plant diversity. Ecological Monograph

69:25-46.

Spaeth, K.E., M.A. Weltz, H.D. Fox, and F.B.

Pierson. 1994. Spatial pattern analysis of

sagebrush vegetation and potential influences

on hydrology and erosion. IN: W.H.

Blackburn, F.B. Pierson Jr., G.E. Schuman, and

R. Zartman (eds). Variability in rangeland

water erosion processes. Pages 35-50. Madison,

Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America.

Task Group on Unity in Concepts and

Terminology. 1995. New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition. Journal of

Range Management 48:271-282.

Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, and C.A. Taylor,

Jr. 1986. Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as affected by livestock grazing systems, Edwards Plateau, TX. Journal of Range

Management 39:505-509.

Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, and C.A. Taylor,

Jr. 1988a. Infiltration and interrill erosion

responses to selected livestock grazing strategies, Edwards Plateau, TX. Journal of Range

Management 41:296-302.

Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, and C.A. Taylor,

Jr. 1988b. Some vegetation responses to

selected livestock grazing strategies, Edwards

Plateau, TX. Journal of Range Management

41:108-114.

Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity

and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363-367.

Tilman, D., J. Knops, D. Wedin, P. Reich, M.

Ritchie, and E. Siemann 1997. The influence

of functional diversity and composition on

ecosystem processes. Science Vol. 277:1300-

1302.

Tiscareño-Lopez, M., V.L. Lopes, J.J. Stone, and

L.J. Lane. 1993. Sensitivity analysis of the

WEPP watershed model for rangeland applications. 1. Hillslope processes. Transactions of

the ASAE 36:1659-72.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service. 1997.

National Range and Pasture Handbook.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

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

Management. 1973. Determination of Erosion

Condition Class, Form 7310-12. Washington

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. 1993. Riparian Area

Management: Process for Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition. Technical Reference

1737-9. Service Center, Denver, CO: U.S.

Department of the Interior.

Wagner, R.E. 1989. History and development

of site and condition criteria in the Bureau of

Land Management. p. 35-48. IN: Lauenroth,

W.K., and W.A. Laycock (eds). Secondary

Succession and the Evaluation of Rangeland

Condition, Westview, Boulder, CO.

Wallace, L.L. 1987. Effects of clipping and soil

compaction on growth, morphology and

mycorrhizal colonization of Schizachyrium

scoparium a C4 bunchgrass. Oecologia

72:423-428.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

48

Warren, S.D.,T.L.Thurow,W.H. Blackburn, and

N.E. Garza. 1986. The influence of livestock

trampling under intensive rotation grazing on

soil hydrologic characteristics. Journal of

Range Management 39:491-95.

Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983.

Environmental effects of off-road vehicles:

impacts and management in arid regions.

New York: Springer-Verlag.

Weltz, M.A., M.R. Kidwell, and H.D. Fox.

1998. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors

in measuring and modeling soil erosion on

rangelands: state of knowledge. Journal of

Range Management 51:482-95.

West, N.E., K. McDaniel, E.L. Smith, P.T.

Tueller, and S. Leonard. 1994. Monitoring and

interpreting ecological integrity on arid and

semi-arid lands of the western United States.

Report 37. New Mexico State University,

New Mexico Range Improvement Task Force.

White, J. 1979. The plant as a metapopulation.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

10:109-145.

Whitford, W.G. 1988. Decomposition and

nutrient cycling in disturbed arid ecosystems.

Pages 136-161, IN: Allen, E.B. (ed). The

reconstruction of disturbed arid lands.

American Association for the Advancement

of Science, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Whitford, W.G. 1996. The importance of the

biodiversity of soil biota in arid ecosystems.

Biodiversity and Conservation 5:185-195.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and

ecosystems, 2nd edition. Macmillan, New York.

Wicklum, D. and R.W. Davies. 1995. Ecosystem

health and integrity, Canadian Journal of

Botany 73:997-1000.

Willat, S.T. and D.M. Pullar. 1983. Changes in

soil physical properties under grazed pastures. Australian Journal of Soil Research

22:343-348.

Wood, M.K. and W.H. Blackburn. 1984.

Vegetation and soil responses to cattle grazing

systems in the Texas Rolling Plains. Journal of

Range Management. 37:303-308.

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

F.F. Peterson. 1997. Influence of crusting soil

surfaces on emergence and establishment of

crested wheatgrass, squirreltail, Thurber

needlegrass and fourwing saltbush. Journal of

Range Management 35:282-87.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

49

Glossary

Abundance: The total number of individuals of

a species in an area, population, or community

(SRM 1999).

Accelerated erosion: Erosion in excess of natural rates, usually as a result of anthropogenic

activities (SSSA 1997).

Age classes: The distribution of different ages

of the same species or group of species on a site.

Annual plant: A plant that completes its life

cycle and dies in one year or less (SRM 1999).

Annual production (syn. primary production):

The conversion of solar energy to chemical

energy through the process of photosynthesis. It

is represented by the total quantity of organic

material produced within a given period of

time (SRM 1999).

Area of interest: The area where the evaluation

of rangeland health attributes takes place.

Assessment: The process of estimating or judging the value or functional status of ecological

processes (e.g., rangeland health).

At risk: Rangelands that have a reversible loss

in productive capability and increased vulnerability to irreversible degradation based upon an

evaluation of current conditions of the soil and

ecological processes (NRC 1994). At risk designation may point out the need for additional

information to better quantify the functional

status of an attribute.

Attribute: One of the three components,

soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and

integrity of the biotic community that collectively define rangeland health.

Badland: A land type consisting of steep or very

steep barren land, usually broken by an intricate maze of narrow ravines, sharp crests, and

pinnacles resulting from serious erosion of soft

geologic materials (SRM 1999).

Bare ground (bare soil): All land surface not

covered by vegetation, rock or litter (SRM

1999). As used in this document, visible

biological crusts and standing dead vegetation

are included in cover estimates as a type of

vegetation and therefore are not bare ground.

Basal area (plants): The cross-sectional area of

the stem or stems of a plant or of all plants in a

stand. Herbaceous and small woody plants are

measured at or near ground level; larger woody

plants are measured at breast or other designated

height. Syn. basal area. (SRM 1999).

Benchmark: A standard for an ecological site

that is used to compare functional status of

areas on the same ecological site.

Biological crust: Microorganisms (e.g., lichens,

algae, cyanobacteria, microfungi) and nonvascular plants (e.g., mosses, lichens) that grow

on or just below the soil surface.

Biomass (plants): The total amount of living

plants above and below ground in an area at a

given time (SRM 1999).

Biotic integrity: Synonymous with “integrity of

the biotic community” (see definition).

Blowout: An excavation in areas of loose soil,

usually sand, produced by wind; a breakthrough or rupture of a soil surface attributable

to hydraulic pressure, usually associated with

sand boils (SRM 1999).
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

50

Bunchgrass: A grass having the characteristic

growth habit of forming a bunch; lacking

stolons or rhizomes (SRM 1999).

Canopy cover: The percentage of the ground

covered by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the natural spread of foliage

of plants. Small openings within the canopy are

included. It may exceed 100 percent. Syn.

crown cover. (SRM 1999).

Chemical soil crust: A soil-surface layer, ranging in thickness from a few millimeters to a few

centimeters, that is formed when chemical

compounds become concentrated on the soil

surface. They can reduce infiltration and

increase overland water flow similar to physical

crusts. They are usually identified by a white

color on the soil surface.

Climate: The average or prevailing weather

conditions of a place over a period of years

(SRM 1999).

Climax plant community (e.g., climax): The

final or stable biotic community in a successional series; it is self-perpetuating and in

equilibrium with the physical habitat (SRM

1999).

Compaction layer: A near surface layer of

dense soil caused by the repeated impact on or

disturbance of the soil surface. When soil is

compacted, soil grains are rearranged to

decrease the void space and bring them into

closer contact with one another, thereby

increasing the bulk density (SSSA 1997).

Composition: The proportions of various plant

species in relation to the total on a given area;

it may be expressed in terms of cover, density,

weight, etc. Syn. species composition. (SRM

1999).

Cool-season plant: A plant which generally makes

the major portion of its growth during the late

fall, winter, and early spring. Cool season grasses

generally exhibit the C-3 photosynthetic

pathway. cf. warm-season plants (SRM 1999).

Cover: The plant or plant parts, living or dead,

on the surface of the ground. Vegetative cover

or herbage cover is composed of living plants

(including biological crusts), and the litter

cover of dead parts of plants (SRM 1999).

Decomposition: The biochemical breakdown

of organic matter into its original compounds

and nutrients.

Deposition area: An area offsite from where the

original soil erosion occurred that now has the

soil deposits from the original soil erosion area.

Descriptor: The narrative that describes the

indicator characteristics under each of the five

rating categories (Extreme, Moderate to

Extreme, Moderate, Slight to Moderate, and

None to Slight) in the Rangeland Health

Indicator Evaluation Matrix. The “default

descriptor” is printed in the Matrix, while the

“revised descriptor” is completed by the evaluators if the default descriptor does not fit the

characteristics of a particular indicator for a

particular ecological site.

Desired plant community: Of the several plant

communities that may occupy a site, the one

that has been identified through a management

plan to best meet the plan’s objectives for the

site. It must protect the site as a minimum

(SRM 1999).

Dominant species: Plant species or species

groups, which by means of their number, coverage, or size, have considerable influence or

control upon the conditions of existence of

associated species (SRM 1999).

Ecological processes: Ecological processes

include the water cycle (the capture, storage,

and redistribution of precipitation), energy flow

(conversion of sunlight to plant and animal

matter), and nutrient cycle (the cycle of nutrients

such as nitrogen and phosphorus through the

physical and biotic components of the environment). Ecological processes functioning within

a normal range of variation will support

specific plant and animal communities.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

51

Ecological reference area: A landscape unit in

which ecological processes are functioning

within a normal range of variability and the

plant community has adequate resistance to

and resiliency from most disturbances. These

areas do not need to be pristine, historically

unused lands (e.g., climax plant communities or

relict areas).

Ecological site: A kind of land with specific

physical characteristics which differs from

other kinds of land in its ability to produce

distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and

in its response to management. Apparently synonymous with ecological type used by USDA

Forest Service. Syn. rangeland ecological site.

(SRM 1999).

Ecological site description: Description of the

soils, uses, and potential of a kind of land with

specific physical characteristics to produce

distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation.

Ecosystem: Organisms together with their

abiotic environment, forming an interacting

system, inhabiting an identifiable space (SRM

1999).

Energy flow: Conversion of sunlight to plant

and animal matter; one of the ecological

processes.

Erodibility: The degree or intensity of a soils

state or condition of, or susceptibility to, being

erodible (SSSA 1997).

Erosion: Detachment and movement of soil or

rock fragments by water, wind, ice, gravity; the

land surface worn away by running water, wind,

ice, or other geological agents, including such

processes as gravitational creep (SRM 1999).

Evaluation area: See definition of “area of

interest.”

Evaluator(s): The person or persons conducting

the evaluation of rangeland health on an area of

interest.

Exclosure: An area fenced to exclude animals

(SRM 1999).

Exotic plant: A plant that is not born, growing,

or produced naturally (native) in an area,

region, or country. Syn. non-indigenous plant.

(SRM 1999).

Flow pattern: The path that water takes (i.e.,

accumulates) as it moves across the soil surface

during overland flow.

Forb: Any broad-leafed, herbaceous plant other

than those in the Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and

Juncaceae families (SRM 1999).

Functional/structural groups: A suite or group

of species that because of similar shoot or root

structure, photosynthetic pathways, nitrogen

fixing ability, life cycle, etc. are grouped together on an ecological site basis.

Functioning: Refers to the rangeland health

attributes where the majority (see definition of

“preponderance of evidence”) of the associated

indicators are functioning properly relative to

the ecological site description and/or ecological

reference area given the normal range of

variability associated with the site and climate.

Geomorphology: The science that studies the

evolution of the earth’s surface. The science of

landforms (SSSA 1997).

Grass: Members of the plant family Poaceae

(SRM 1999).

Ground cover: The percentage of material (e.g.,

litter, standing dead vegetation, gravel/rocks,

vegetation, and biological crust), excluding bare

soil, covering the land surface.

Gully: A furrow, channel, or miniature valley,

usually with steep sides through which water

commonly flows during and immediately after

rains or snow melt (SRM 1999). Small channels

eroded by concentrated water flow.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

52

Headcut: Abrupt elevation drops in the channel

of a gully that accelerate erosion as it undercuts

the gully floor and migrates upstream.

Half-shrub: A perennial plant with a woody

base whose annually produced stems die each

year (SRM 1999).

Healthy rangelands: See definition of “rangeland health.”

Hydrologic function: The capacity of the site to

capture, store, and safely release water from

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

to recover this capacity following degradation

(one of the three attributes of rangeland

health).

Increaser: For a given plant community, those

species that increase in amount as a result of a

specific abiotic/biotic influence or management

practice (SRM 1999).

Indicator: Components of a system whose

characteristics (e.g., presence or absence, quantity, distribution) are used as an index of an

attribute (e.g., rangeland health) that are too

difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure.

Infiltration: The entry of water into the soil

(SSSA 1997).

Integrity of the Biotic Community: 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 due to a disturbance, and to recover

following such disturbance.

Interrill erosion: The removal of a fairly uniform layer of soil on a multitude of relatively

small areas by splash due to raindrop impact

and by sheet flow (SSSA 1997).

Invader: Plant species that were absent in

undisturbed portions of the original vegetation

of a specific range site and that will invade or

increase following disturbance or continued

heavy grazing (SRM 1999).

Invasive plant: Plants that are not part of

(exotic) or a minor component of (native) the

original plant community or communities that

increase above what’s expected given the

normal range of variability of a site.

Inventory (rangeland inventory): The systematic acquisition and analysis of resource information needed for planning and management

of rangeland (SRM 1999).

Life form: Characteristic form or appearance of

a species at maturity (e.g., tree, shrub, herb)

(SRM 1999).

Litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris

on the soil surface, essentially the freshly fallen

or slightly decomposed vegetal material (SRM

1999). In this document, it includes persistent

and non-persistent organic matter that is in

contact with the soil surface.

Monitoring: The orderly collection, analysis,

and interpretation of resource data to evaluate

progress toward meeting management objectives. The process must be conducted over time

in order to determine whether or not management objectives are being met (SRM 1999).

Native invasive: A native plant that has

migrated to a site where it was not a part of the

original plant community, or a native plant that

because of management or other changes is

now increasing beyond its original composition

on the site.

Nitrogen fixation (fixers): The biological

reduction of molecular nitrogen to chemical

forms that can be used by organisms in the

synthesis of organic molecules.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

53

Normal variability or normal range of variability:

The deviation of characteristics of biotic communities and their environment that can be

expected given natural variability in climate

and disturbance regimes.

Noxious weed: Plant species declared noxious

by laws concerned with plants that are weedy

in cultivated crops and on the range.

Nutrient cycle: The cycle of nutrients such as

nitrogen and phosphorus through the physical

and biotic components of the environment; one

of the ecological processes.

Organic matter: Living plant tissue, and

decomposed or partially decomposed material

from living organisms.

Oxidation: The loss of one or more electrons by

an ion or molecule (SSSA 1997). Oxidation is

a chemical process of decomposition whereby

nutrients are released into the atmosphere

instead of into the soil. Oxidation commonly

increases as aridity increases.

Pedestal (erosional): Plants or rocks that

appear elevated as a result of soil loss by wind

or water erosion (does not include plant or rock

elevation as a result of non-erosional processes

such as frost heaving).

Perennial plant: A plant that has a life span of

3 or more years (USDA 1997).

Physical crust: Thin surface layers induced by

impact of raindrops on bare soil causing the soil

surface to seal and absorb less water.

Plant decadence: Plants that are old or deteriorating. In a plant community, decadence refers

to an overabundance of dead or dying plants

relative to what is expected for a site given the

natural range of variability in disease, climate,

and management influences.

Plant mortality: The death of a plant or in a

plant community the death of a number of

plants in the community.

Preponderance of evidence: The rating of an

attribute of rangeland health by observing

where the majority of indicators fall in respect

to the five categories that are used to rate each

indicator (SRM 1999).

Qualitative: Observational type data that is

recorded but not measured.

Quantitative: Collection of data by measuring

vegetation or soil characteristics.

Range condition: The present status of vegetation of a range site in relation to the climax

(natural potential) plant community for that

site. It is an expression of the relative degree to

which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of

plants in a plant community resemble that of

the climax plant community for the site (SRM

1999).

Rangeland: Land on which the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs

and is managed as a natural ecosystem. If plants

are introduced, they are managed similarly.

Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas,

shrublands, many deserts, tundra, alpine

communities, marshes, and wet meadows (SRM

1999). The authors also include oak and

pinyon-juniper woodlands in this definition.

Rangeland health: The degree to which the

integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and air, as

well as the ecological processes of the rangeland

ecosystem, are balanced and sustained. Integrity

is defined as maintenance of the structure and

functional attributes characteristic of a locale,

including normal variability (SRM 1999).

Recruitment: The successful entry of new

individuals into the breeding population.

Relict (area): A remnant or fragment of the

climax plant community that remains from

a former period when it was more widely

distributed. Syn. pristine. (SRM 1999).
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

54

Rhizomatous plant: A plant that reproduces by

rhizomes. Rhizomes are a horizontal underground stem, usually sending out roots and

aboveground shoots from the nodes (SRM

1999).

Rill: A small, intermittent water course with

steep sides, usually only several centimeters

deep (SSSA 1997). Rills generally are linear

erosion features.

Runoff: The portion of precipitation or irrigation on an area which does not infiltrate, but

instead is discharged by the area (SSSA 1997).

Saltation: A particular type of momentumdependent transport involving the rolling,

bouncing, or jumping action of soil particles 0.1

to 0.5 mm in diameter by wind, usually at a

height of <15 cm above the soil surface, for

relatively short distances; the rolling, bouncing

or jumping action of mineral grains, gravel,

stones, or soil aggregates affected by the energy

of following water; the bouncing or jumping

movement of material downslope in response

to gravity (SSSA 1997).

Shrub: A plant that has persistent, woody stems

and a relatively low-growth habit, and that generally produces several basal shoots instead of a

single bole. It differs from a tree by its low

stature (generally less than 5 meters, or 16 feet)

and non-arborescent form (SRM 1999).

Similarity index (rangeland): The present state

of vegetation and soil protection on an ecological site in relation to the historic climax plant

community. Syn. range condition. (SRM 1999).

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

than to other surrounding particles (SSSA

1997).

Soil association: A kind of map unit used in soil

surveys comprised of delineations, each of

which shows the size, shape, and location of a

landscape unit composed of two or more kinds

of component soils or component soils and miscellaneous areas, plus allowable inclusions in

either case.The individual bodies of component

soils and miscellaneous areas are large enough

to be delineated at the scale of 1:24,000.

Several to numerous bodies of each kind of

component soil or miscellaneous area are apt to

occur in each delineation, and they occur in a

fairly repetitive and describable pattern (SSSA

1997).

Soil classification: The systematic arrangement

of soil units into groups or categories on the

basis of their characteristics. Broad groupings

are made on the basis of general characteristics

and subdiviions on the basis of more detailed

differences in specific properties (SSSA 1997).

Soil complex: A kind of map unit used in soil

surveys comprised of delineations, each of

which shows the size, shape, and location of a

landscape unit composed of two or more kinds

of component soils or component soils and a

miscellaneous area, plus allowable inclusions in

either case.The individual bodies of component

soils and miscellaneous areas are too small to be

delineated at the scale of 1:24,000. Several to

numerous bodies of each kind of component

soil or miscellaneous area are apt to occur in

each delineation (SSSA 1997).

Soil inclusions: One or more polypedons or

parts of polypedons within a delineation of a

map unit, not identified by the map unit name

(i.e., is not one of the named component soils

or named miscellaneous area components).

Such soils or areas are either too small to be

delineated separately without creating excessive map or legend detail, occur too erratically

to be considered a component, or are not

identified by practical mapping methods

(SSSA 1997).
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

55

Soil/site stability: The capacity of a site to limit

redistribution and loss of soil resources (including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and

water (one of the three attributes of rangeland

health).

Soil structure: The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary

units or peds. The secondary units are characterized on the basis of size, shape, and grade

(degree of distinctiveness) (SSSA 1997).

Soil survey: The systematic examination,

description, classification, and mapping of soils

in an area. Soil surveys are classified according

to the kind and intensity of field examination

(SSSA 1997).

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

given area. It may be expressed in terms of

cover, density, weight, etc. (SRM 1999).

Stable state: A condition of an ecological site’s

characteristics; as characteristics change, there

is a transition to a new state (USDA 1997).

Standing dead vegetation: The total amount of

dead plant material, in aboveground parts, per

unit of space at a given time (USDA 1997).

This component includes all standing dead

vegetation produced in previous (not the

current) growing seasons not in contact with

the soil surface.

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

units or peds. The secondary units are characterized on the basis of size, shape, and grade

(degree of distinctness) (SSSA 1997).

Structure (vegetation): The height and area

occupied by different plants or life forms in a

community.

Succulent: Generally a type of cactus.

Terracette: “Benches” of soil deposition behind

obstacles caused by water not wind erosion.

Threshold: A transition boundary that an

ecosystem crosses resulting in a new stable state

that is not easily reversed without significant

inputs of resources.

Tiller: A plant shoot that arises from the root or

base of a plant.

Transition: A shift in plant composition that

results in relatively stable states, as reflected in

composition and structure. These shifts can

occur by natural forces or as a result of human

actions.

Tree: A woody perennial, usually singlestemmed plant that has a definite crown shape

and reaches a mature height of at least 4

meters. The distinction between woody plants

known as trees and those called shrubs is gradual. Some plants, such as oaks (Quercus spp.),

may grow as either trees or shrubs (SRM 1999).

Trend: The direction of change in ecological

status or resource value rating observed over

time (SRM 1999).

Unhealthy rangelands: Rangelands on which

degradation has resulted in the loss of ecological processes which function properly and the

capacity to provide values and commodities to

a degree that external inputs are required to

restore the health of the land (NRC 1994).

Vascular plants: Higher plants with vessels that

conduct sap throughout the plant.

Vesicular crust: A type of physical crust which

contains numerous small air pockets or spaces

similar to a sponge causing a reduction in

infiltration.

Viable seed: Wildland plant seed that is capable

of germination given appropriate environmental

conditions.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

56

Warm season plant: A plant which makes most

or all its growth during the spring, summer, and

fall and is usually dormant in winter; a plant

that exhibits the C-4 photosynthetic pathway

(SRM 1999).

Water cycle (e.g., hydrologic cycle): The capture, storage, and redistribution of precipitation.

Weather: The current state of the atmosphere

with regards to wind, temperature, cloudiness,

moisture, pressure, etc.

Well-managed rangelands: Rangelands that

have properly functioning ecological processes,

biotic integrity, and soil stability associated with

human uses of the land.

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

away sometimes leaving residual gravel, rock, or

exposed roots on the soil surface.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

57

Appendix 1

Rangeland Health

Evaluation Summary

Worksheet
Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet

Part 1. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold items require completion, other information is optional)

State Office Management Unit

Pasture/Watershed ID# Major Land Resource Area

Location (description)

Legal T ,R ,Sec , 1/4, 1/4 or Lat ,Long or UTM Coord

Size of Evaluation Area Photo(s) Taken Yes No

Observer(s) Date

Ecological Site Soil Map Unit Name

Rangeland Ecological Site Description and/or Soil Survey

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Area of Interest Determination

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Parent Material Slope % Elevation ft Topographic Position Aspect

Avg Annual Precip Recent Weather (last 2 years) Drought Normal Wet

Describe wildlife and livestock use and recent disturbances

Describe offsite influences on area of interest

Part 2. Indicator Rating

Departure from Ecological Site Description/

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Attribute Indicators Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight

S,H 1. Rills

Comments:

S,H 2. Water Flow Patterns

Comments:

S,H 3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes

Comments:

S,H 4. Bare Ground

Comments:

S,H 5. Gullies

Comments:

S 6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or Deposition Areas

Comments:

Soil/Site Verification

59
60

Soil/Site Stability Rationale:

Hydrologic Function Rationale:

Biotic Integrity Rationale:

Part 2. Indicator Rating (continued)

Departure from Ecological Site Description/

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Attribute Indicators Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight

H 7. Litter Movement

Comments:

S,H,B 8. Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion

Comments:

S,H,B 9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation

Comments:

H 10. Plant Community Composition and

Distribution Relative to Infiltration and Runoff

Comments:

S,H,B 11. Compaction Layer

Comments:

B 13. Plant Mortality/Decadence

Comments:

H,B 14. Litter Amount

Comments:

B 15. Annual Production

Comments:

B 16. Invasive Plants

Comments:

B 17. Reproductive Capability of Perennial Plants

Comments:

B 12. Functional/Structural Groups

Comments:

Rangeland Health Attributes Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight ∑

S

H

9

11

B 9

Part 3. Summary

A. Indicator Summary

Departure from Ecological Site Description/

Ecological Reference Area(s)

B. Attribute Summary - Check the category that best fits the “preponderance of evidence” for each of the three

attributes relative to the distribution of indicator ratings in the preceding Indicator Summary table.

Soil/Site Stability (Indicators 1-6, 8, 9 &11)

Hydrologic Function (Indicators 1-5, 7-11 & 14)

Biotic Integrity (Indicators 8-9 & 11-17)

Attribute Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight
EXAMPLE

61

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet

Part 1. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold items require completion, other information is optional)

State Office Management Unit

Pasture/Watershed ID# Major Land Resource Area

Location (description)

Legal T ,R ,Sec , 1/4, 1/4 or Lat ,Long or UTM Coord

Size of Evaluation Area Photo(s) Taken Yes No

Observer(s) Date

Ecological Site Soil Map Unit Name

Rangeland Ecological Site Description and/or Soil Survey

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Area of Interest Determination

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Parent Material Slope % Elevation ft Topographic Position Aspect

Avg Annual Precip Recent Weather (last 2 years) Drought Normal Wet

Describe wildlife and livestock use and recent disturbances

Describe offsite influences on area of interest

Part 2. Indicator Rating

Departure from Ecological Site Description/

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Attribute Indicators Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight

S,H 1. Rills

Comments:

S,H 2. Water Flow Patterns

Comments:

S,H 3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes

Comments:

S,H 4. Bare Ground

Comments:

S,H 5. Gullies

Comments:

S 6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or Deposition Areas

Comments:

Soil/Site Verification

ID Big Butte West Valley

Grass Hollow S-1

Wright Mesa

9S 6E 9 SW NE

10Acres X

J. Long, P. Wide, M. High 8/5/00

Loamy “10-14 P.Z.” (Artr/Stth) Garbutt silt loam

X X

Calcic at 18-24” Calcic at 20”

4 3,200 Plains SE

12” X

Sheep in area in spring (May)

One road with drainage culverts affects a small area

within evaluation area, not significant

X

X

X

X

X

X

Few, mostly old.

Bare ground slightly higher than expected due to loss of some biological crust.

No wind erosion on this site.

silt loam silt loam
EXAMPLE

62

Soil/Site Stability Rationale:

Hydrologic Function Rationale:

Biotic Integrity Rationale:

Part 2. Indicator Rating (continued)

Departure from Ecological Site Description/

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Attribute Indicators Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight

H 7. Litter Movement

Comments:

S,H,B 8. Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion

Comments:

S,H,B 9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation

Comments:

H 10. Plant Community Composition and

Distribution Relative to Infiltration and Runoff

Comments:

S,H,B 11. Compaction Layer

Comments:

B 13. Plant Mortality/Decadence

Comments:

H,B 14. Litter Amount

Comments:

B 15. Annual Production

Comments:

B 16. Invasive Plants

Comments:

B 17. Reproductive Capability of Perennial Plants

Comments:

B 12. Functional/Structural Groups

Comments:

Rangeland Health Attributes Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight ∑

S

H

9

11

B 9

Part 3. Summary

A. Indicator Summary

Departure from Ecological Site Description/

Ecological Reference Area(s)

B. Attribute Summary - Check the category that best fits the “preponderance of evidence” for each of the three

attributes relative to the distribution of indicator ratings in the preceding Indicator Summary table.

Soil/Site Stability (Indicators 1-6, 8, 9 &11)

Hydrologic Function (Indicators 1-5, 7-11 & 14)

Biotic Integrity (Indicators 8-9 & 11-17)

Attribute Extreme

Moderate

to Extreme Moderate

Slight to

Moderate

None to

Slight

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXX XXX XXX

XXXXXXX

XXXX XXXXX XX

XX

X

X

X

Interspaces are showing loss of stability.

Signs of past losses, minimal signs of current losses.

Less sagebrush than expected for site which would slightly reduce snow accumulation and therefore soil water recharge.

Compaction layer common in shrub interspaces.

Cheatgrass is the dominant understory species with expected native herbaceous species considerably reduced.

Native perennial herbaceous plants are dead or decadent with little reproduction occurring due to cheatgrass competition.

Above what is expected due to cheatgrass dominance in the understory.

Cheatgrass production is poor due to dry spring.

Cheatgrass is a dominant with rush skeletonweed and halogeton locally common.

Perennial plants (except sagebrush) have very few seedheads. Rhizomatous grasses (western wheatgrass) have moderate rhizome.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

63

Appendix 2

Ecological Reference Area

Worksheet
65

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet

(Bold items require completion, other information is optional)

Source of Information (√): Actual Site Or from site/soils description and/or experience

State Office Management Unit

Pasture/Watershed ID# Major Land Resource Area

Location (description)

Legal T ,R ,Sec , 1/4, 1/4 or Lat ,Long or UTM Coord

Size/Type of Reference Area Photo(s) Taken Yes No

Observer(s) Date

Ecological Site Soil Map Unit/Component Name

Rangeland Ecological Site Description and/or Soil Survey

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Ecological Reference Area Determination

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Parent Material Slope % Elevation ft Topographic Position Aspect

Avg Annual Precip Recent Weather (last 2 years) Drought Normal Wet

Describe wildlife and livestock use and recent disturbances

Describe offsite influences on area of interest

Indicators

Extremely

High

High or

Abundant

Moderate

or Common

Slight or

Low None

1. Number and extent of rills

Comments:

2. Presence of water flow patterns

Comments:

3. Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes

Comments:

4. Bare ground from Cover Worksheet or other studies: %

Comments:

5. Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies

Comments:

6. Extent of wind-scoured, blowouts, and/or deposition areas

Comments:

Soil/Site Verification
66

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet

(continued)

Indicators

Extremely

High

High or

Abundant

Moderate

or Common

Slight or

Low None

7. Amount of litter movement

Comments:

8. Reduction in soil surface resistance to erosion

Comments:

9. Amount of soil surface loss or degradation

Comments:

10. Problems resulting from plant community composition

and distribution relative to infiltration and runoff

Comments:

11. Presence and thickness of compaction layer

Comments:

This site can function as an Ecological Reference Area with

No Limitations (√)

Or the following limitations

12. Departure of functional/structural groups from site

description or appropriate historical plant community

(See Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet)

Comments:

13. Amount of plant mortality and decadence

Comments:

14. Deviation of litter amount from expected

Comments:

15. Deviation from expected annual production

Comments:

16. Presence of invasive (including noxious) plants

Comments:

17. Reduction in perennial plant reproductive capability

Comments:

Degree of Agreement Comments

Ecological Site Description 

Soil Series Description

Other Sources/Knowledge

Poor Marginal Adequate Good NA
EXAMPLE

67

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet

(Bold items require completion, other information is optional)

Source of Information (√): Actual Site Or from site/soils description and/or experience

State Office Management Unit

Pasture/Watershed ID# Major Land Resource Area

Location (description)

Legal T ,R ,Sec , 1/4, 1/4 or Lat ,Long or UTM Coord

Size/Type of Reference Area Photo(s) Taken Yes No

Observer(s) Date

Ecological Site Soil Map Unit/Component Name

Rangeland Ecological Site Description and/or Soil Survey

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Ecological Reference Area Determination

Surface Texture

Depth: Very Shallow Shallow Moderate Deep

(<10") (10"-20") (20"-40") (>40")

List diagnostic horizons in profile and depth

1 3

2 4

Parent Material Slope % Elevation ft Topographic Position Aspect

Avg Annual Precip Recent Weather (last 2 years) Drought Normal Wet

Describe wildlife and livestock use and recent disturbances

Describe offsite influences on area of interest

Indicators

Extremely

High

High or

Abundant

Moderate

or Common

Slight or

Low None

1. Number and extent of rills

Comments:

2. Presence of water flow patterns

Comments:

3. Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes

Comments:

4. Bare ground from Cover Worksheet or other studies: %

Comments:

5. Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies

Comments:

6. Extent of wind-scoured, blowouts, and/or deposition areas

Comments:

Soil/Site Verification

ID Big Butte Copper Butte Mesa

Juniper Point

West end of Juniper Point

10S 7E 12 SE

Lightly grazed mesa top X

J. Long, P. Wide, M. High 8/1/00

Loamy “10-14 P.Z.” (Artr/Stth) Tindahay silt loam

silt loam silt loam

Calcic at 18-24” Calcic at 18”

6 2,900 Plains SW

12 X

Some deer use in spring, little livestock use

None

X

X

X

X

X

X

Signs of a few old flow patterns.

15

√

X X
EXAMPLE

68

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet

(continued)

Indicators

Extremely

High

High or

Abundant

Moderate

or Common

Slight or

Low None

7. Amount of litter movement

Comments:

8. Reduction in soil surface resistance to erosion

Comments:

9. Amount of soil surface loss or degradation

Comments:

10. Problems resulting from plant community composition

and distribution relative to infiltration and runoff

Comments:

11. Presence and thickness of compaction layer

Comments:

This site can function as an Ecological Reference Area with

No Limitations (√)

Or the following limitations

12. Departure of functional/structural groups from site

description or appropriate historical plant community

(See Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet)

Comments:

13. Amount of plant mortality and decadence

Comments:

14. Deviation of litter amount from expected

Comments:

15. Deviation from expected annual production

Comments:

16. Presence of invasive (including noxious) plants

Comments:

17. Reduction in perennial plant reproductive capability

Comments:

Degree of Agreement Comments

Ecological Site Description 

Soil Series Description

Other Sources/Knowledge

Poor Marginal Adequate Good NA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Slight loss of stability of soil surface in interspaces.

Occurs only in interspace.

Cheatgrass is present on disturbed areas such as badger mounds.

Some cheatgrass on the site and signs of past erosion but not enough to

limit this areas value as an ERA for a loamy 10-14” PZ ecological site.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

69

Appendix 3

Cover Worksheet
71

Cover Worksheet

State Office Ecological Site

Observer(s) Date Site ID

LIFE FORMS1 0 0-1 2-5 6-15 16-30

COVER CLASSES (% Canopy)

31-50 51-75 76-100

1 Life Forms Cover - Record multiple canopy cover classes; total plant canopy may exceed 100%. Small

openings (less than 2" in diameter) are included as cover.

2 Ground Cover - Category I is an estimate of total vascular plant cover; overlapping canopies are counted as

only one canopy (record life form with first point of contact). Total vascular plant cover (I) together with the sum of 

cover in Categories II-VI should total to approximately 100%.

Notes: Include source of cover data (e.g., estimates or measurements)

% GROUND COVER2 0 0-1 2-5 6-15 16-30 31-50 51-75 76-100

I - Grass

Annual

Native Perennial

Exotic Perennial

II - Forb

Annual

Perennial

III - Shrub

IV - Tree

V - Succulent

VI - Biological Crust

I - Vascular Plants

II - Standing Dead Vegetation

III - Litter (in contact with the soil surface)

IV - Biological Crust

V - Rock/Gravel

VI - Bare Ground
EXAMPLE

72

Cover Worksheet

State Office Ecological Site

Observer(s) Date Site ID

LIFE FORMS1 0 0-1 2-5 6-15 16-30

COVER CLASSES (% Canopy)

31-50 51-75 76-100

1 Life Forms Cover - Record multiple canopy cover classes; total plant canopy may exceed 100%. Small

openings (less than 2" in diameter) are included as cover.

2 Ground Cover - Category I is an estimate of total vascular plant cover; overlapping canopies are counted as

only one canopy (record life form with first point of contact). Total vascular plant cover (I) together with the sum of 

cover in Categories II-VI should total to approximately 100%.

Notes: Include source of cover data (e.g., estimates or measurements)

% GROUND COVER2 0 0-1 2-5 6-15 16-30 31-50 51-75 76-100

I - Grass

Annual

Native Perennial

Exotic Perennial

II - Forb

Annual

Perennial

III - Shrub

IV - Tree

V - Succulent

VI - Biological Crust

I - Vascular Plants

II - Standing Dead Vegetation

III - Litter (in contact with the soil surface)

IV - Biological Crust

V - Rock/Gravel

VI - Bare Ground

ID Big Butte Loamy 10-14” P.Z.

Long, Wide, High 8/5/00 S-1

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

73

Appendix 4

Species Dominance

Worksheet
75

Species Dominance Worksheet

Part 1 (Required)

The most common species, noxious weeds (state-listed plants), invasive natives, invasive exotics

(non-noxious) are ranked according to dominance using cover or weight .

Dominant Species on Site Noxious Weeds

1 1

2 2

3 3

4

Invasive Natives Invasive Exotics

1 1

2 2

3 3

Annual Grasses Annual Forbs

1 1

2 2

3 3

Perennial Grasses Perennial Forbs

1 1

2 2

3 3

Shrubs and Trees Succulents

1 1

2 2

3 3

Biological Crust (rate by component not species, e.g., lichen, moss, or algae)

1

2

3

Part 2 (Optional) Dominant Species by Life Form

The most common species are ranked according to dominance using cover or weight by life form.
EXAMPLE

76

Species Dominance Worksheet

Part 1 (Required)

The most common species, noxious weeds (state-listed plants), invasive natives, invasive exotics

(non-noxious) are ranked according to dominance using cover or weight .

Dominant Species on Site Noxious Weeds

1 1

2 2

3 3

4

Invasive Natives Invasive Exotics

1 1

2 2

3 3

Annual Grasses Annual Forbs

1 1

2 2

3 3

Perennial Grasses Perennial Forbs

1 1

2 2

3 3

Shrubs and Trees Succulents

1 1

2 2

3 3

Biological Crust (rate by component not species, e.g., lichen, moss, or algae)

1

2

3

Part 2 (Optional) Dominant Species by Life Form

The most common species are ranked according to dominance using cover or weight by life form.

Wyoming big sagebrush

Cheatgrass

Sandbergs Bluegrass

Bottlebrush Squirreltail

Rush Skeletonweed

Cheatgrass

Bur buttercup

Mustard spp.

X

Cheatgrass

Six weeks fescue

Bur buttercup

Mustard spp.

Sandbergs Bluegrass

Bottlebrush Squirreltail

Basin Wildrye

Astragalus spp.

Lomatium

Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Green rabbitbrush

Prickly Pear Cactus

Moss

Lichen

X
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

77

Appendix 5

Functional/Structural

Groups Worksheet
79

Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet

State Office Ecological Site Site ID

Observer(s) Date

Functional/Structural Groups Species List for Functional/Structural Groups

Name Potential1 Actual2 Plant Names

Indicate whether each “structural/functional group” is a Dominant (D) (roughly 41-100% composition), a

Subdominant (S) (roughly 11-40% composition), a Minor Component (M) (roughly 3-10% composition), or a

Trace Component (T) (<3 % composition) based on weight or cover composition in the area of interest

(e.g., “Actual2" column) relative to the “Potential1" column derived from information found in the ecological site

description and/or at the ecological reference area.

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

Biological Crust3
EXAMPLE

80

Functional/Structural Groups Worksheet

State Office Ecological Site Site ID

Observer(s) Date

Functional/Structural Groups Species List for Functional/Structural Groups

Name Potential1 Actual2 Plant Names

Indicate whether each “structural/functional group” is a Dominant (D) (roughly 41-100% composition), a

Subdominant (S) (roughly 11-40% composition), a Minor Component (M) (roughly 3-10% composition), or a

Trace Component (T) (<3 % composition) based on weight or cover composition in the area of interest

(e.g., “Actual2" column) relative to the “Potential1" column derived from information found in the ecological site

description and/or at the ecological reference area.

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

Biological Crust3

ID Big Butte Loamy 10-14” PZ S-1

Long, Wide, High 8/5/00

Annual Grasses T S Cheatgrass, six weeks fescue

Short Pern. bunchgrasses M M Sandberg bluegrass

Mid Pern. bunchgrasses D M Thurbers Needlegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail

Tall Pern. bunchgrass M T Basin wildrye

N fixing forb M T Astragalus spp., Lupine

Deep tap rooted forb M T Hookers balsamroot, Lomatium

Non resprouting shrub D D Big sagebrush

Resprouting Shrubs M T Green rabbitbrush, Gray Horsebush

Succulents T T Prickly pear cactus

S M Lichen & Mosses
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

81

Appendix 6

Rangeland Health Indicator

Evaluation Matrix
Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

State Office Ecological Site Site ID

If indicator(s) revised - Observer(s) Date

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

1. Rills 

(Default

Descriptor)

Rill formation is

severe and well

defined throughout most of the

area. 

Rill formation is

moderately active

and well defined

throughout most

of the area.

Active rill

formation is

slight at infrequent

intervals, mostly

in exposed areas.

No recent

formation of rills;

old rills have

blunted or muted

features.

Current or past

formation of rills

as expected for

the site.

1. Rills 

(Revised

Descriptor)

2. Water Flow

Patterns 

(Default

Descriptor)

Extensive and

numerous;

unstable with

active erosion;

usually connected.

More numerous

than expected;

deposition and

cut areas common;

occasionally

connected.

Nearly matches

what is expected

for the site;

erosion is minor

with some

instability and

deposition. 

Matches what is

expected for the

site; some evidence

of minor erosion.

Flow patterns are

stable and short. 

Matches what is

expected for the

site; minimal

evidence of past

or current soil

deposition or

erosion.

2. Water Flow

Patterns 

(Revised

Descriptor)

3. Pedestals

and/or

Terracettes

(Default

Descriptor)

3. Pedestals

and/or

Terracettes

(Revised

Descriptor)

Abundant active

pedestalling

and numerous

terracettes. Many

rocks and plants

are pedestalled;

exposed plant

roots are common.

Moderate active

pedestalling;

terracettes

common. Some

rocks and plants

are pedestalled

with occasional

exposed roots. 

Slight active

pedestalling; most

pedestals are in

flow paths and

interspaces and/

or on exposed

slopes. Occasional

terracettes present.

Active

pedestalling

or terracette

formation is rare;

some evidence

of past pedestal

formation,

especially in

water flow patterns

and/or on

exposed slopes. 

Current or past

evidence of

pedestalled plants

or rocks as

expected for the

site. Terracettes

absent or

uncommon.

83
Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(continued)

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

4. Bare

Ground 

(Default

Descriptor)

Much higher

than expected for

the site. Bare

areas are large

and generally

connected. 

Moderately higher

than expected

for the site. Bare

areas are of

moderate size

and sporadically

connected. 

Slightly to

moderately higher

than expected for

the site. Bare areas

are small and

rarely connected.

Amount and size

of bare areas

nearly to totally

match that

expected for

the site. 

Moderately to

much higher than

expected for the

site. Bare areas

are large and

occasionally

connected. 

4. Bare

Ground 

(Revised

Descriptor)

5. Gullies 

(Default

Descriptor)

Common with

indications of

active erosion

and downcutting;

vegetation is

infrequent on

slopes and/or

bed. Nickpoints

and headcuts

are numerous

and active.

Moderate to

common with

indications of

active erosion;

vegetation is

intermittent on

slopes and/or

bed. Headcuts

are active;

downcutting is

not apparent.

Moderate in

number with

indications of

active erosion;

vegetation is

intermittent on

slopes and/or

bed. Occasional

headcuts may

be present. 

Uncommon with

vegetation

stabilizing the

bed and slopes;

no signs of

active headcuts,

nickpoints, or

bed erosion. 

Drainages are

represented as

natural stable

channels; no

signs of erosion

with vegetation

common. 

5. Gullies 

(Revised

Descriptor)

6. Wind-Scoured,

Blowouts,

and/or

Deposition

Areas (Default

Descriptor)

6. Wind-Scoured,

Blowouts,

and/or

Deposition

Areas (Revised

Descriptor)

Extensive. Common. Occasionally

present.

Infrequent

and few.

Matches what is

expected for the

site.

84
85

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(continued)

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

7. Litter

Movement

(wind or water) 

(Default

Descriptor)

7. Litter

Movement

(wind or water) 

(Revised

Descriptor)

Extreme;

concentrated

around

obstructions.

Most size classes

of litter have

been displaced.

Moderate to

extreme; loosely

concentrated

near obstructions.

Moderate to small

size classes of

litter have been

displaced. 

Moderate

movement of

smaller size

classes in scattered

concentrations

around

obstructions and

in depressions.

Slightly to

moderately more

than expected for

the site with only

small size classes

of litter being

displaced.

Matches that

expected for

the site with a

fairly uniform

distribution of

litter.

8. Soil Surface

Resistance to

Erosion

(Default

Descriptor)

8. Soil Surface

Resistance to

Erosion

(Revised

Descriptor)

Extremely

reduced

throughout the

site. Biological

stabilization

agents including

organic matter

and biological

crusts virtually

absent.

Significantly

reduced in most

plant canopy

interspaces and

moderately

reduced beneath

plant canopies.

Stabilizing agents

present only in

isolated patches.

Significantly

reduced in at

least half of the

plant canopy

interspaces, or

moderately

reduced

throughout the

site.

Some reduction

in soil surface

stability in plant

interspaces or

slight reduction

throughout the

site. Stabilizing

agents reduced

below expected.

Matches that

expected for the

site. Surface soil

is stabilized by

organic matter

decomposition

products and/or

a biological

crust.
Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(continued)

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

9. Soil Surface

Loss or

Degradation 

(Default

Descriptor)

9. Soil Surface

Loss or

Degradation 

(Revised

Descriptor)

Soil surface

horizon absent.

Soil structure

near surface is

similar to, or more

degraded than,

that in subsurface

horizons. No

distinguishable

difference in

subsurface organic

matter content.

Soil loss or

degradation

severe throughout

site. Minimal

differences in soil

organic matter

content and

structure of

surface and

subsurface layers. 

Moderate soil loss

or degradation

in plant interspaces

with some

degradation

beneath plant

canopies. Soil

structure is

degraded and

soil organic

matter content is

significantly

reduced.

Some soil loss has

occurred and/or

soil structure

shows signs of

degradation,

especially in

plant interspaces. 

Soil surface

horizon intact.

Soil structure and

organic matter

content match

that expected for

the site. 

10. Plant

Community

Composition

and

Distribution

Relative to

Infiltration

and Runoff

(Default

Descriptor) 

10. Plant

Community

Composition

and

Distribution

Relative to

Infiltration

and Runoff

(Revised

Descriptor) 

Infiltration is

severely decreased

due to adverse

changes in plant

community

composition and/

or distribution.

Adverse plant

cover changes

have occurred. 

Infiltration is

greatly decreased

due to adverse

changes in plant

community

composition and/

or distribution.

Detrimental plant

cover changes

have occurred.

Infiltration is

moderately

reduced due to

adverse changes

in plant community

composition and/

or distribution.

Plant cover

changes negatively

affect infiltration.

Infiltration is

slightly to

moderately

affected by minor

changes in plant

community

composition and/

or distribution.

Plant cover

changes have only

a minor effect on

infiltration.

Infiltration and

runoff are equal

to that expected

for the site. Plant

cover (distribution

and amount)

adequate for

site protection.

86
87

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(continued)

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

11. Compaction

Layer (below

soil surface) 

(Default

Descriptor)

11. Compaction

Layer (below

soil surface) 

(Revised

Descriptor)

Extensive;

severely restricts

water movement

and root

penetration.

Widespread;

greatly restricts

water movement

and root

penetration.

Moderately

widespread;

moderately

restricts water

movement and

root penetration.

Rarely present or

is thin and weakly

restrictive to

water movement

and root

penetration.

None to

minimal; not

restrictive to

water movement

and root

penetration.

12. Functional/

Structural

Groups

(F/S Groups)

(Default

Descriptor)

(See Appendix

5 - Functional/

Structural

Groups

Worksheet)

12. Functional/

Structural

Groups

(F/S Groups)

(Revised

Descriptor)

(See Appendix

5 - Functional/

Structural

Groups

Worksheet)

Number of F/S

groups greatly

reduced; and/

or relative

dominance of

F/S groups has

been dramatically

altered; and/or

number of

species within

F/S groups

dramatically

reduced.

Number of F/S

groups reduced;

and/or one

dominant group

and/or one or

more subdominant

groups replaced

by F/S groups

not expected for

the site; and/or

number of species

within F/S groups

significantly

reduced. 

Number of F/S

groups moderately

reduced; and/

or one or more

subdominant F/S

groups replaced

by F/S groups

not expected for

the site; and/or

number of species

within F/S groups

moderately

reduced. 

Number of F/S

groups slightly

reduced; and/or

relative dominance

of F/S groups

has been modified

from that expected

for the site; and/

or number of

species within

F/S groups

slightly reduced. 

F/S groups and

number of

species in each

group closely

match that

expected for the

site. 
88

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(continued)

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

13. Plant

Mortality/

Decadence 

(Default

Descriptor)

13. Plant

Mortality/

Decadence 

(Revised

Descriptor)

Dead and/or

decadent plants

are common.

Dead and/or

decadent plants

are somewhat

common.

Some dead and/

or decadent

plants are

present.

Slight plant

mortality and/

or decadence.

Plant mortality

and decadence

matches that

expected for the

site.

14. Litter

Amount

(Default

Descriptor)

14. Litter

Amount

(Revised

Descriptor)

Largely absent

or dominant

relative to site

potential and

weather.

Greatly reduced

or increased

relative to site

potential and

weather.

Moderately more

or less relative

to site potential

and weather.

Slightly more or

less relative to

site potential

and weather.

Amount is what

is expected for

the site potential

and weather.

15.Annual

Production

(Default

Descriptor)

15.Annual

Production

(Revised

Descriptor)

Less than 20%

of potential

production.

20-40% of

potential

production.

40-60% of

potential

production.

60-80% of

potential

production. 

Exceeds 80%

of potential

production.

16. Invasive

Plants

(Default

Descriptor)

16. Invasive

Plants

(Revised

Descriptor)

Dominate

the site.

Common

throughout

the site.

Scattered

throughout

the site.

Present primarily

on disturbed

sites.

Rarely present

on the site.
89

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

(concluded)

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight

17. Reproductive

Capability

of Perennial

Plants

(native or

seeded) 

(Default

Descriptor)

17. Reproductive

Capability

of Perennial

Plants

(native or

seeded) 

(Revised

Descriptor)

Capability to

produce seed or

vegetative tillers

is severely

reduced relative

to recent climatic

conditions.

Capability to

produce seed or

vegetative tillers

is greatly reduced

relative to recent

climatic conditions.

Capability to

produce seed or

vegetative tillers

is somewhat

limited relative to

recent climatic

conditions. 

Capability to

produce seed or

vegetative tillers

is only slightly

limited relative to

recent climatic

conditions. 

Capability to

produce seed or

vegetative tillers

is not limited

relative to recent

climatic

conditions. 
EXAMPLE

90

Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrix

Table 2 from page 16 of the text provides an example of how a revised descriptor narrative could read

for the bare ground indicator. Similar changes can be made when appropriate for other indicators.

Degree of Departure from Ecological Site Description and/or

Ecological Reference Area(s)

Indicator Extreme Moderate to Moderate Slight to None to

Extreme Moderate Slight

4. Bare Much higher Moderate to Moderately Slightly to Amount and

Ground than expected much higher higher than moderately size of bare

(Default for the site. than expected expected for higher than areas nearly

Descriptor) Bare areas are for the site. the site. Bare expected for to totally

large and Bare areas are areas are of the site. Bare matches that

generally large and moderate size areas are expected for

connected. occasionally and small and the site.

connected. sporadically rarely

connected. connected.

4. Bare Much higher Moderately Moderately to Slightly Same as

Ground than expected higher than slightly higher higher than default

(Revised for the site. expected for than expected expected for descriptor.

Descriptor) Bare areas are the site. Bare for the site. the site. Bare

extensive with areas are very Bare areas are areas are of

little ground large and large and moderate size

cover. usually usually and usually

connected. connected. connected.
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

91

Appendix 7

Photographs of Indicators
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

93

1a - Rills are a natural component of this site due to erodible soils.

1b - Short linear rill caused by accelerated water flow.

1. Rills
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

94

2a - Extensive water flow pattern in plant interspace indicative of high overland water flow.

2b - Short water flow pattern (white dotted line) in plant interspaces.

2. Water Flow Patterns
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

95

3a - Plant pedestal caused by wind erosion. Note the exposed roots (arrow).

3b - Terracette (arrow) caused by litter obstruction in water flow pattern.

3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

96

3c - Terraces formed by ungulate grazing on hillsides are not evaluated

with this indicator. Other indicators that may be applicable in this

situation include numbers 4, 8, 9, and 11.

3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes (continued)
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

97

4a - Amount of bare ground is slight relative to site potential and recent weather.

4b - Amount of bare ground is excessive relative to site potential and recent weather.

4. Bare Ground
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

98

5a - Gully that shows signs of active erosion (nickpoints - see arrows) and downcutting.

5b - Relatively stable gully with few signs of active erosion with good vegetation recovery occurring.

5. Gullies
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

99

6a - Wind-scoured areas in plant interspaces (star) with soil and litter deposition occurring at plant bases

(arrows).

6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or Deposition Areas
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

100

7a - Litter movement and accumulation in a water flow pattern.

7b - Litter redistributed by wind under shrub canopy and around obstructions in the interspaces.

7. Litter Movement
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

101

8a - Surface physical crusts in plant interspaces can increase overland flow of water while providing some

protection against wind erosion.

8b - Soil surface fragment on right is resistant to breakdown in water indicating presence of soil-binding

organic matter. Soil surface fragment on left is “melting” indicating less organic matter and stability.

8. Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

102

9a - Evidence of soil surface loss (foreground) is evident when compared to the cover of the plant and

biological crust in the background.

9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

103

10a - Desert grassland site where grasses promote infiltration and minimize runoff.

10b - Degraded desert grassland site where runoff has dramatically increased due to conversion from grass

to shrubs.

10. Plant Community Composition and Distribution Relative to Infiltration and Runoff
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

104

11a - An example of a restrictive compaction layer that reduces root penetration and water percolation.

11. Compaction Layer
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

105

12a - Nitrogen-fixing forb (Astragalus spp.) that is included in a different functional group than non-nitrogenfixing forbs.

12b - Biological crusts (foreground) are an important functional/structural component in many plant communities.

12. Functional/Structural Groups
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

106

12c - Sagebrush-perennial bunchgrass site near potential. Native annual grasses are a minor component of

the vegetation mix.

12d - Perennial bunchgrasses have been replaced with cheatgrass, an exotic annual grass. Accelerated

erosion is also evident.

12. Functional/Structural Groups (continued)
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

107

13a - Dead and decadent sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) plants.

13b - Decadent shrub with dead branches and “hedged” look.

13. Plant Mortality/Decadence
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

108

14a - Amount of litter is in balance with site potential and recent weather.

14b - Litter is uncommon compared to what is expected given the site potential and recent weather.

14. Litter Amount
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

109

14c - Amount of litter and standing dead vegetation is well above what is expected due to the presence of

an exotic annual grass.

14. Litter Amount (continued)
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

110

15a - Production of current year’s aboveground biomass is consistent with site potential and recent weather.

15b - Production of current year’s aboveground biomass is well below site potential relative to recent weather.

15. Annual Production
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

111

16a - Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is an exotic invasive annual grass that can dominate the understory in

disturbed shrublands.

16b - State-listed noxious weeds, such as this knapweed in Idaho, are another category of invasive plants.

16. Invasive Plants
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

112

16c - Juniper, a native tree, is invasive when it invades rangeland sites where the potential is for shrubs and

herbaceous plants.

16. Invasive Plants (continued)
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

113

17a - Perennial forbs and grasses show good potential for reproduction as evidenced by flowers and seedstalk production.

17b - Reproduction potential of this shrub is low due to lack of seed production.

17. Reproductive Capability of Perennial Plants
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

115

Appendix 8

Soil Stability Kit Diagram

and Rating Categories to

Determine Surface Soil

Stability
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

117

Soil stability kit diagram and rating categories

to determine surface soil stability. Protocol is

described in detail in Herrick, J.E., W.G.

Whitford, A.G. de Soyza, J.W. Van Zee, K.M.

Table 1. Soil Stability Evaluation for 1/4”-diameter Air-Dry Samples

ALWAYS Sieve Soils (even if rated ≤ 3) to Verify Class

Stability class Criteria for assignment to stability class (for Standard Characterization)a

0 Soil too unstable to sample (falls through sieve)*.

1 50 % of structural integrity lost within 5 seconds of insertion in water.

2 50 % of structural integrity lost 5—30 seconds after insertion.

3 50 % of structural integrity lost 30—300 seconds after insertion or <10%

of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles.

4 10 - 25% of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles.

5 25 - 75% of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles.

6 75 - 100% of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles.

* If too unstable to sample, try gently wetting with a mister (perfume bottle available at drug stores),

remove sample, and allow to air-dry before testing.

Havstad, C.A. Seybold, M. Walton. In Press.

Field soil aggregate stability kit for soil quality

and rangeland health evaluations. Catena.

1cm

3cm

5cm

3.5cm

21cm

10.5cm

drawn by:

Tye Lightfoot

3cm

0.5cm

2cm

1.65mm mesh

Stability class table

(see table 1)

2.5cm diameter pvc

(C)

(a)

(b)
TECHNICAL REFERENCE 1734-6 VERSION 3

INTERPRETING INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

118

Surface

Loc Time

0:00 5:00 0:45 5:45 1:30 6:30 2:15 7:15 3:00 8:00 3:45 8:45

0:15 5:15 1:00 6:00 1:45 6:45 2:30 7:30 3:15 8:15 4:00 9:00

0:30 5:30 1:15 6:15 2:00 7:00 2:45 7:45 3:30 8:30 4:15 9:15

In

Record rating (1-6) in shaded cells. Cells are arranged in 3 x 6 pattern of typical kit (see diagram)

"Loc" is location (e.g., location along a line transect if used). It is optional.

Samples should be less than 1/4" in diameter and less than 1/8" thick.

"Surface" is soil surface sample. "1 inch" is removed from soil 3/4 - 1" below surface.

Dip In Dip In Dip In Dip In Dip In Dip

Time # # # # # # Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Loc Loc

1 inch Surface 1 inch Surface 1 inch
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

296-102

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing

and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of infromation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate

for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a.DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b.DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Nov. 2000 Final

TR-1734-6 - Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health - Version 3

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

National Science and Technology Center

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225-0047

BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734

This technical reference describes a new qualitative assessment protocol to be used for interpreting indicators of rangeland health. Use of the reference will allow for more consistent interpretations of rangeland health indicators, thus

making assessment results more comparable. The procedure has been developed for use by experienced, knowledgeable

land managers as it requires a good understanding of ecological processes, vegetation, and soils for each of the sites to

which it is applied. If used by knowledgeable and experienced people, they will be able to make rapid and preliminary

evaluations of soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity on rangelands. Land managers should not

use this technique for monitoring.

The procedure requires that evaluators rate 17 indicators to assess three attributes (soil/site stability, hydrologic function,

and biotic integrity) for a given location. The six steps to complete the procedure are as follows: 1) determine the soil

series and ecological site for the evaluation area, 2) visit ecological reference areas, verify soil series, characterize canopy

cover, ground cover, dominance and soil surface characteristics, and rate the status of the indicators, 3) accept or modify

rating criteria for each indicator, 4) return to the evaluation area and characterize the site using estimates of canopy

cover, ground cover, and dominance, 5) rate each indicator relative to its degree of departure from the ecological site

description or the reference area, and 6) rate the site for the three attributes based on the preponderance of evidence

from the relevant indicators.

Rangeland Health Indicators, Rangeland Health Attributes, Soil/Site Stability, Hydrologic

Function, Biotic Integrity, Ecological Site Description, Ecological Reference Area

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL

130 including covers

6. AUTHOR(S)

Mike Pellant, Patrick Shaver, David A. Pyke, Jeffrey E. Herrick

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)