1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page a 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page b

ISBN: 0-9755552-1-9

Though this document was produced through an interagency effort, the following BLM number has been assigned for tracking and administrative purposes: BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05

Copies of TR 1734-6 are available from: BLM National Business Center Printed Materials Distribution Service, BC-652 P.O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado 80225-0047 Fax: 303-236-0845 E-Mail: [email protected]

This document is available online at www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page c

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health

Version 4

By Mike Pellant Patrick Shaver Rangeland Ecologist Rangeland Management Specialist Bureau of Land Management Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho Portland, Oregon

David A. Pyke Jeffrey E. Herrick Research Ecologist Research Scientist U.S. Geological Survey Agricultural Research Service Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Jornada Experimental Range Science Center Las Cruces, New Mexico Corvallis, Oregon

Produced By United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management National Science and Technology Center Division of Science Integration Branch of Publishing Services P. O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado

Technical Reference 1734-6 2005 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page d

Suggested citation: Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122 pp. 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPagei Natural (NRCS), Resources Service Conservation theAgricultural Research Service Interagency coordination between theBureau ofLandManagement (BLM),the Acknowledgments the finaldocument. and toBLM’s National Business Centerformanagingtheproduction aspectsof Technology Centerfortheediting,design,andlayout ofthistechnicalreference Thanks toKathyRohling andJanine Koselak ofBLM’s National Scienceand drafts ofthisdocumentandisrecognized forhercontribution. Arlene Tugel, andBobUnnasch. Cynthia Dalzell reviewed andeditedseveral McCarthy, Mark Miller, LauraBurkett, Peter Russell, George Ruyle, Pete Sundt, Brandon Bestelmeyer, Peter Dunwiddie, Kirk Gadzia, Sherm Karl,Patrick or contributedtosignificantmodificationsof Version 4includeJack Alexander, the feedbackusedtomove from Version 3to Version 4.Individuals whoreviewed fornumerous interagencytrainingsessionsthatprovidedsupport theauthorswith BLM’s National Training Center, undertheleadershipofJulie Decker, provided Foundation-funded Jornada Basin Long-Term Ecological Research Project. The The documentalsobenefitedfrom significantinputfrom theNational Science sions andevaluations andscientificreview through theUSGSpeer-review process. in theUnited States, Canada,andMexico, aswell asnumerous individualdiscus- The changesin Version 4reflect inputfrom several hundred workshop participants reflected infuture versions ofthedocument. and mature, theapplicationofthisconceptandprotocol willalsoevolve andbe of thistechnicalreference. Astheconceptofrangelandhealthcontinuestoevolve their valuable input,whichhascumulatively addedtothequalityandusefulness to Version 3andearlierversions of The authorswanttoagainacknowledge andthankalloftheprevious contributors author madetothescientificandprocedural contentofthistechnicalreference. and preparation for Version andequalcontributionthateach 4.0, not theimportant isareflection oftheamounttimespentondocumentorganization publication to successfullycompletingthisdocument. The order ofauthorscitedforthis (ARS), andtheUSGSForest andRangelandEcosystem ScienceCenterwasessential Interpreting Indicators Health ofRangeland for

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 i 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page ii 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPageiii the indicatorsanddonotchangetheirinterpretation. to thegenericdescriptors. These changesclarify nearly allcases.Only minorchangeswere made has beenretained as“generic descriptors” in observers. The wording ofthe“default descriptors” been designedtoimprove consistencyamong site berevised andmademore specific. This changehas Evaluation Matrix in Version 4,Appendix 4,foreachecological We strongly recommend thattheindicatordescriptorsin toExtreme to category Total in Version 4,Appendix 1. departure possible. This wasnotourintentionandwe have changedtheExtreme didnotincludearange,butwastheabsoluteworst believe thatthiscategory Moderate toExtreme), butthefifthcategory, Extreme, causedsomeusersto the othercategories(forexampleModerate wasbetween Slight toModerate and (for exampleNone toSlight departure) orfrom thepositionwithinrangeof includedarangeofvalues. category This implicationcameeitherfrom thetitle departure from theEcological Site Description/Reference Area” impliedthatthe In Version 3,Appendix 1,alloftheindicatorratingcategoriesexcept “Extreme Soil/Site Stability in Version 4,Appendix 1. assignment forthelittermovement indicatorfrom Hydrologic Function to Based onamore thorough review oftheliterature, we have switchedtheattribute collecting quantitative dataisdeferred tootherpublications. The Cover Sheet (Version 3,Appendix 3)hasbeendeletedandinformationon abun Appendix 3). This allows userstocontinuedocumentthepresence and and invasive plantsintheFunctional/Structuralweeds Groups Sheet (Version 4, the Functional/Structural Groups Sheet. We have includedcellsfornoxious since theinformationgainedfrom thisworksheet issimilartotheinformationin We have removed theSpecies Dominance Worksheet (Version 3,Appendix 4), range ofreference conditionsforeachindicator. site by integratingallavailable sources ofdataandknowledge togenerateasingle Reference Sheet facilitatesconsistentapplicationoftheprocess oneachecological Ecological Reference Area Worksheet withtheReference Sheet (Appendix 2). The tion oftheprocess. The mostsignificantmodificationisthereplacement ofthe The changesin Version 4are designedtoimprove theconsistencyinapplica- evaluation process hasalready begun. Version 3,allowing thisdocumenttoreplace Version 3even inareas where the mendations publishedinPyke etal.(2002). The indicatorsare unchangedfrom 1734-6, isthesecondpublishededitionofthistechnique.It follows therecom- Version 4ofInterpreting Indicators ofRangelandHealth, Technical Reference Preface dance ofinvasive speciesfortheirrecords.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 iii provided that the same reference information is used. that the same reference provided In other words, interpretations made with Version 3 will be consistent with those 3 will be consistent Version made with interpretations other words, In 4 Version made with Assessment Health the Rangeland chart Using for “Instructions under the A flow Assessment Protocol, Checklist for Rangeland Health section and the Protocol” that all the necessary completed. added to help ensure steps are 8, were Appendix for the 17 Measures added new have information, “Quantitative we Finally, to methods that can be used 6), that describes quantitative (Appendix Indicators” assessment process. this qualitative generate data to complement

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 iv 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page iv Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPagev ntutosfrUigteRneadHat sesetPooo ..17 Instructions forUsing theRangelandHealth AssessmentProtocol Concepts . . Concepts . Attributes ofRangelandHealth Relationship toSimilarity Index ..5 and Trend . Introduction . Intended Applications . Preface Acknowledgments . Table ofContents tp1 dniyteEauto ra eemn h oladEooia ie..17 Step 1.Identify theEvaluation Area, Determine theSoil andEcological Site tp2 bano eeo h eeec he n h orsodn vlainMti ..21 Step 2.Obtain orDevelop theReference Sheet andtheCorresponding Evaluation Matrix itcItgiy. Biotic Integrity . . Hydrologic Function . Soil/Site Stability tts rniin,adDsubne ..15 States, Transitions, andDisturbances niaos. Indicators . ..11 Resistance andResilience Natural Rangeof Variability ..10 . ..9 Landscape Context:Ecological Sites and Watersheds Determine the Soil and Ecological Site . ..18 Determine theSoil andEcological Site ..17 Describe theEvaluation Area Instructions forEvaluation Matrix Development ..25 Obtain theEvaluation Matrix ..24 fortheEcological Site ..21 Instructions forReference Sheet Development ..21 Obtain aReference Sheet eeainIdctrCnitny rdcin oirCvr n tnigBoas..14 Vegetation Indicator Consistency:Production, Foliar Cover, andStanding Biomass ..12 Qualitative vs.Quantitative Indicators Actions to Take ifSoil and/orEcological Site Information Are Not Available pta xrplto . . .10 Spatial Extrapolation ..10 Landscape Relationships ..9 Spatial Variability ..19 ..iii . .9 . .3 ..i . .11 ..7 ..1 . .7 .7 7

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 v . .43 . . .28 . . . . .47 . . . . .45 ...... 55 1. Rills ...... 28 ...... 2. Patterns Flow Water ...... 28 ...... 3.Terracettes and/or Pedestals ...... 29 ...... 4. Ground Bare ...... 29 ...... 5. Gullies ...... 30 ...... 6. Areas and/or Depositional Blowout, Scoured, Wind ...... 30 7. Litter Movement ...... 31 ...... 8. to Erosion Resistance Surface Soil ...... 31 ...... 9. Loss or Degradation Surface Soil ...... 33 . Spatial and Temporal Variability . .26 ...... Temporal and Spatial Areas Reference Ecological .26 ...... Sheet Groups Functional/Structural ...... 26 ...... DataQuantitative ...... 27 ...... 10. . . .34 and Runoff to Infiltration Relative and Distribution Community Composition Plant 11. Compaction Layer ...... 35 . . . 12. Groups Functional/Structural .35 ...... 13. Mortality/Decadence Plant ...... 37 ...... 14. Litter Amount ...... 37 ...... 15. Annual Production ...... 38 . 16. Plants Invasive ...... 38 17. Plants Capability of Perennial Reproductive ...... 39 18. Indicators Optional ...... 40 ...... Indicators ...... Step 5. Determine the Functional Status of the Three Rangeland Health Attributes Health Rangeland Three of the Status the Functional 5. Determine Step ...... 41 Step 3. Collect Supplementary Information Collect Supplementary 3...... 26 ...... Step Sheet on the Evaluation 17 Indicators 4. Rate the Step ...... 27 ...... Applications to Larger AreasApplications ...... Summary...... CitedLiterature ...... Glossary......

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 vi 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page vi Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPagevii Tables Figures Appendices Figure . . .17 3-Flow fortherangelandhealthassessmentprotocol chart ..16 Figure 2-Generic stateandtransitiondiagram Changesinecologicalprocesses over timefollowing disturbance Figure 1- al Optional indicatorandgenericdescriptorsfor Table 8- Selected groups speciesforninefunctional/structural Table 7- ..36 Functional/structural groups thataprairieecologicalsitemightinclude Table 6- ..27 Quantitative indicatorsforselected Table 5- ..25 Example ofarevised descriptorforthebare ground indicator Table 4- . Information sources usefulincompletingPart IoftheEvaluation Sheet Table 3- Key quantitative indicatorsandmeasurements relevant toeach Table 2- Thethree categoriesofrangelandhealthandtherating Table 1- . ..121 Appendix 8ChecklistforRangelandHealth AssessmentProtocol ..113 Appendix 7Soil Stability Kit ..111 Appendix 6Quantitative Measures forthe17Indicators ..89 Appendix 5Photographs ofthe17Indicators ..81 Appendix 4Evaluation Matrix ..77 Appendix 3Functional/Structural Groups Sheet ..71 Appendix 2Reference Sheet ..65 Appendix 1Evaluation Sheet ilgclcut n eeainsrcue..40 andvegetation structure biological crusts ..37 that aGreat Basin steppesitemightinclude shrub Desert ..20 (Appendix 1)anddevelopment ofReference Sheets (Appendix 2) ..13 of thethree attributes . . .7 for eachattribute for systems that vary in resistance and resilience ..11 inresistance andresilience for systemsthatvary

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 vii 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page viii 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage1 Qualitative assessmentsofrangelandhealthprovide landmanagersandtechnical Applications Intended is particularly criticalinthedevelopment of is particularly work together. The inputofmultipleindividuals individuals (e.g.,ecologistandsoilscientist) of evaluations isimproved whentwoormore Our research hasshown thatthequalityandconsistency vegetation, andsoilsforeachsitetowhichitisapplied. protocol requires agoodunderstandingofecologicalprocesses, knowledge oftherangelandecologicalsitestheyare evaluating. This protocol isnotintendedforuseby individualswhodonothave experienceor knowledgeable landmanagersortechnicalassistancespecialists. This assessment Interpreting Indicators Health forRangeland Independently generatenationalorregional assessmentsofrangelandhealth. • Monitor landordeterminetrend. • Independently makegrazingandothermanagementchanges. • Identify thecause(s)ofresource problems. • The protocol isNOT tobeusedto: Provide by earlywarningsofpotentialproblems helpingland andopportunities • Select monitoringsitesinthedevelopment ofmonitoringprograms. • Improve communicationamonginterest groups by focusingdiscussiononcritical • Be usedtocommunicatefundamentalecologicalconceptsawidevariety of • Provide evaluation ofsoil/sitestability, apreliminary hydrologic function,and • Be usedonlyby knowledgeable, experiencedpeople. • The protocol describedin thistechnicalreference ISdesignedto: pinyon-juniper woodlands. Range Managementfor 1999). Alsoincludedinthisdefinitionare oakand tundra,alpinecommunities,marshes,andwet meadows”many deserts, (Society managed similarly. Rangelandsincludenaturalgrasslands,savannas,shrublands, andismanagedasanaturalecosystem.If plantsareshrubs introduced, theyare (climax ornaturalpotential)ispredominantly grasses,grass-likeplants,forbs,or rangelands. Rangelandsare definedas“landonwhichtheindigenousvege mation, canbeusedtoprovide earlywarningsofresource problems onupland infor- This technique,inassociationwithquantitative monitoringandinventory of thesetoolshave beenusedsuccessfullyforthispurpose over thepast100years. assistance specialistswithagoodcommunicationtoolforusethepublic.Many resource problems currently exist. managers identifyareas thatare potentiallyatriskofdegradationorwhere andprocesses.ecosystem properties audiences. biotic integrity(attheecologicalsitelevel). has beendeveloped foruseby experienced, tation

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 1 reference sheets for each ecological site. Development of the reference sheets reference of the Development ecological site. sheets for each reference at a apparent variability spatial and temporal of the range of a knowledge requires particular ecological site.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 2 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 2 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage3 other casestheywere blendedwithquantitative assessments were usedindependently, whilein and monitoring.In somecases,qualitative ofuseinlandmanagementinventory history determine rangeandsoilconditionshasalong to qualitative information(e.g.,observations) plant andsoilcomponents(Morgan 1986). The useof technique toratesiteprotection indicators,includingboth The useofqualitative assessmentsissuggestedasafastsurvey the functionalstatusofeachindicator. relies ontheuseofaqualitative (non-measurement)protocol procedure toassess indicatorstointerpret andassessrangelandhealth. on usingobservable This This documentdescribesaprotocol toeducatethepublicandagencypersonnel identifying areas where ecologicalprocesses are orare notfunctioningproperly. that thepubliccancomprehend, andthatresource specialistscanusetoassistin The challengetoscientistsandmanagersistranslatethisconceptintoterms variability”of alocale,includingnormal (USDA1997). They definedintegritytomean inventories andassessments. This committeerefined theabove definitiontoread: integrate theconceptsofthesetwogroups intothevarious agencies’ rangeland Terminology 1995).AFederal interagencyadhoccommitteewasestablishedto on themaintenanceofsoilatsite(Task Group onUnity inConceptsand Concepts and Terminology In theSociety aparalleleffort, forRangeManagement’s committeeon Methods toClassify, Inventory, andMonitor Rangelands The National Research Council(NRC 1994)publication, Academy ofScience(National Research Council1994). and Smith 1999),thisdocumentfollows theleadprovided by theNational etal.1998, andDaviesnatural systems(Wicklum 1995,Lackey1998,Rapport Although theterm“health” hasbeencontroversial whenusedinassociationwith rently andassessment. usedby mostrangeprofessionals asthebasisforinventory condition (National Research Council1994). The ecologicalstatusconceptiscur- to evolve. The conceptofrangelandhealthwasadvanced asanalternative torange The scienceofassessingrangelandsischangingasconceptsandprotocols continue Introduction sustained.” well astheecologicalprocesses oftherangeland ecosystemare balancedand degree towhichtheintegrityofsoil,vegetation, water,“The andair, as rangeland ecosystemsare maintained.” degree towhichtheintegrityofsoilandecologicalprocesses of “The recommended thatrangeland assessmentsshouldfocus “maintenance ofthefunctionalattributes characteristic defined rangelandhealthas: Rangeland Health:Rangeland New Unity in

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 3 . This version will This version . incorporates concepts assessment. revised in the future as science and in the future revised be experience provide additional information experience provide Health – Version 4 Version – Health on indicators of rangeland health and their Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Indicators Interpreting This document refers to this procedure as to this procedure This document refers health,” and “visualization of rangeland health.” of rangeland health,” and “visualization s Task Group on Unity in Concepts and Terminology in Concepts and on Unity Group Task s ’ assessment,” “qualitative assessment of rangeland assessment,” “qualitative Along the way, this procedure has been termed “rapid this procedure Along the way, Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Indicators Interpreting (USDI 1993) included a qualitative checklist to assess the proper a qualitative (USDI 1993) included Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning for Assessing Proper Process Management: Riparian Area and usefulness of forage for livestock grazing (Wagner 1989). The Bureau of Bureau The 1989). grazing (Wagner of forage for livestock and usefulness (see ecological site definition in the Glossary). Condition for Range Management Society to assessing rangeland of a landscape ecology approach (1995). Development on soil processes also contributed to the understanding of function in Australia this protocol from derived American rangelands and to the interpretations North 1994). (Tongway An concurrently. developed were procedure of the current The earliest versions 1996). 1a (Pellant Version the BLM developed interagency technical team led by as 1b, Version developed Conservation Service Resources (NRCS) The Natural (USDA 1997). Another Handbook Range and Pasture published in the National from with the results and protocols interagency team melded these concepts 1999) and and Pyke 1a (Rasmussen, Pellant, Version field tests of numerous and peer review 2 received Version of 2. Modifications Version 1b into Version 3. Version described in at the process other comments to arrive numerous a large number of users of based on input from 4 were Version The changes in the the consistency of the application of designed to improve 3 and are Version of the Ecological was the replacement The most significant modification process. et al. 2002). 2) (Pyke (Appendix Sheet the Reference with Sheet Area Reference throughout facilitates consistent application of the process Sheet The Reference to of data and knowledge sources integrating all available the ecological site by if a generate a description of the range of expected conditions for each indicator This includes the associated spatial and temporal state. site is in the reference for existing ecological sites, but can also be is normally developed It variability. site potential applied to any soil/climate-based land classification system that reflects measurements. Early procedures that included indicator ratings (e.g., a scorecard included indicator that Early procedures measurements. Two-Phase of 1937, Deming Survey Range included the Interagency approach) things, site-soil among other that determined, Methods Three-Step and Parker stability (BLM) also used soil surface the erosional factors to determine Land Management Reference Technical in the 1970s (USDI 1973). Interagency status of public lands 1737-9, functioning of riparian areas. condition of This version as from as well inventory previous monitoring procedures, and and materials from 1994), and the (NRC on Rangeland Health book Council’s Research the National

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 4 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 4 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage5 Index andTrend Similarity to Relationship perspectives andare notnecessarilycorrelated (Pierson etal.2002). trend, andrangelandhealthassessment)evaluate therangelandsitefrom different processes onasiteare functioning. These three assessmenttools(similarityindex, This rangelandhealthassessmentisanattempttolookathow well ecological plant communityorsomeotherdesired plantcommunity. and tothecurrent communityalongacontinuummoving toward ahistoricclimax plant communityandsoilsinrelation tothecommunitythatexistedinpast Disturbances). Trend isadeterminationofthedirection ofchangeinthecurrent that ecologicalsite(seethesectiononConcepts:States,for Transitions, and desired plantcommunitythatisoneofthecommunitiesinreference state plant communityinrelation tothehistoricclimaxplantcommunity, ortoa rangeland assessments. The similarityindexcanbeusedasanofthecurrent The similarityindex(rangecondition)andtrend studieshave longbeenusedfor

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 5 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 6 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage7 Health ofRangeland Attributes and maybemodifiedwiththeinterpretation (Appendix 1). This assessmentispreliminary evidence approach usingtheapplicableindicators the Evaluation Sheet baseduponapreponderance of Each ofthesethree attributesissummarized attheendof both above andbelow ground. biotic communityincludesplants,animals,andmicroorganisms occurring theseprocesses, andtorecoversupport thiscapacitywhenlossesdooccur. The normal rangeofvariability expectedforthesite,toresist alossinthecapacityto ecologicalprocesses withinthe The capacityofthebioticcommunitytosupport Biotic Integrity to recover thiscapacitywhenareduction doesoccur. andsnowmeltrun-on, (where relevant), toresist areduction inthiscapacity, and The capacityofanarea tocapture, store, andsafelyrelease waterfrom rainfall, Hydrologic Function nutrients andorganicmatter)by windandwater. The capacityofanarea tolimitredistribution andlossofsoilresources (including Soil/Site Stability of precipitation), Ecological processes includethe Definitions ofthesethree interrelated attributesare: health, butanassessmentofthree componentscalledattributes(Table 1). The product ofthisqualitative assessmentis processes andsiteintegrity. components are oftenusedasindicatorsofthefunctionalstatusecological of theprocesses andtheirinterrelationships. Therefore, biologicalandphysical ecological processesof are difficultorexpensive tomeasure duetothecomplexity cific plantandanimalcommunities.Direct measures ofsiteintegrityandstatus Ecological processes spe- functioningwithinanormalrangeofvariation support components oftheenvironment). matter), and nutrient cycle energy flow (the cycle ofnutrientsthrough thephysicalandbiotic (conversion ofsunlighttoplantandthenanimal water cycle (the capture, storage,andsaferelease not a singleratingofrangeland

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 7 for each indicator per the Reference Sheet for each indicator The three attributes of rangeland health and the rating of rangeland health and the rating The three attributes to Total to Extreme Moderate Slight Extreme Moderate Moderate Slight to None to Soil/Site Stability Hydrologic Function Biotic Integrity Attribute ratings reflect the degree of departureAttribute ratings reflect from expected levels categories for each attribute. categories for each Table 1. Table of applicable quantitative monitoring and inventory data. Support or rationale or and inventory monitoring quantitative of applicable data. Support on them should be documented modification of rating and any for the original 1). (Appendix Sheet the Evaluation one for each ratings, three will produce described here the protocol reiterate, To attribute.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 8 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 8 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage9 An toapplythismethod. understandingofthefollowing five conceptsisnecessary Concepts long enough thatitsignificantly limitsthelength long typically free ofsnow, except where snow persists higher production potentialthansitesthatare wind-driven snow generallyhavecapture a it results ingreater erosion. Microsites that plant growth. Increased canbenegative if runoff water isretained onsiteandbecomesavailable for effect ofincreased canbepositive whentheadditional runoff receive waterduring intensestormsorsnowmelt. runoff The Sites thatare locatedlower onthelandscape(downslope) may potential forrillformation,even onsitesthatare atorneartheirpotential. depth result inlower soilmoisture availability, increasing bare ground andthe slopes.Bothhigherevaporation ratesandshallowersoils thannorth-facing soil facing slopesare subjecttohigherevaporation ratesandgenerallyhave shallower toapplythistechnique.Foramong ecologicalsitesisnecessary example,south- An understandingofthepotentialrangespatialvariability bothwithinand Variability Spatial areas intheEvaluation Sheet (Appendix 1)andintheReference Sheet (Appendix 2). provided informationaboutthesesurrounding ameansofdocumentingpertinent rounding areas onotherecologicalsitesmayinfluencetheevaluation area, we have surrounding areas) isrequired tointerpret evaluations. Since thestatusofsur- of spatialvariability andoflandscaperelationships (includingcharacteristicsof In additiontoecological siteidentification,someknowledge ofthepotentialrange climate, andtopography(USDA1997). are identifiedinthefieldusingfactorsthatdeterminesite’s potential:soils, made relative toanecologicalsiteorequivalent. Ecological sitesortheirequivalents able torecognize andcorrectly identifyecologicalsitesbecauseevaluations are locations, known asevaluation areas, inthelargerlandscape.Evaluators mustbe Interpreting Indicators Health ofRangeland This informationisdocumentedintheReference Sheet (Appendix 2). Mexico), themethodcanbelocallyappliedusingbestavailable information. classification systemscanalsobeused. Where nosuchsystemexists(e.g.,in the USDANRCS asonesuchlandclassificationsystem.Other sitepotential-based together determinethispotential. The ecologicalsiteconceptwasdeveloped by ofvegetation.kinds, amounts,andproportions Soils, climate,andtopography that divideslandscapesbasedonthepotentialoflandtoproduce distinctive Interpreting Indicators Health ofRangeland have beendevisedtoclassifylandscapesintosimilarunitsforcomparisons. orallofonemoreA landscapeiscomprisedofpart watersheds.Several systems Landscape Context:EcologicalSitesandWatersheds requires theuseofaclassificationsystem was designedtobeappliedatspecific

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 9 disturbance events, vegetation communities vegetation disturbance events, within the reference state (see States, state within the reference Transitions, and Disturbances), and and Disturbances), Transitions, topographic position. While all of these topographic position. are expected to be similar within an are variability include soils, climate, natural include soils, climate, variability Reference Sheet (Appendix 2). Sources of spatial 2). Sources (Appendix Sheet Reference should be described for each indicator on the the types and sources of spatial and temporal variability the types and sources space and time (Bestelmeyer et al. 2004). To the extent possible, To et al. 2004). space and time (Bestelmeyer The biological and physical potential of every unique in location is Natural Range of Variability Spatial Extrapolation used to watershed, sub-watershed, or sub-basin-scale analyses could be Qualitative evalu- attributes based on ecological, site-level generate a map for each of the three assessments qualitative to aggregate required sampling designs are ations. Appropriate on a soil or ecological site These maps can be overlaid to larger landscape units. management interventions likely to where are map and used to help identify areas concerns. Due other resource and water quality, effect on runoff, the greatest have of many landscapes, many parts complexity of the watershed may to the inherent several unit represents in which a single map need to be mapped as “complexes” in different site that is rated differently ecological sites and/or a single ecological watering points may be more near herbivore within the map unit (e.g., areas areas water). degraded than those far from of the growing season. Sometimes these microsite differences are reflected in different reflected are differences these microsite Sometimes season. of the growing with microsites range of a broad sites include sites, but most ecological ecological potential. variable Landscape Relationships an indi- interpret to is often required of landscape relationships knowledge Some and direct for a specific ecological site. Both that expected from departure cator’s include effects be important. effects of other landscape units can Direct indirect effects include Indirect areas. surrounding and seed dispersal from erosion, runoff, associated relationships or pathogen-host predator-prey, in herbivory, differences or degrada- example, recovery habitats. For to water or alternative with proximity of While effects downslope. can affect indicators evaluated tion at one location be gully might active location (e.g., an the downslope in reflected degradation are 2), (Appendix Sheet the Reference from departure to total” rated as an “extreme of recovery runoff another location. Conversely, from the cause might be increased in capacity in upslope locations can result and soil water infiltration plant cover examples excellent are These downslope. for plant growth water availability reduced be used alone to assign cause of that this approach of why it is not recommended production the cause of the gully and the increased Defining problems. resource the problem of that the source analysis and it is possible a landscape-level requires any off-site influences that Document manager. a different by is on land controlled 1). (Appendix Sheet of the Evaluation on the first page area affect the evaluation

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 10 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 10 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage11 Reference Sheet. the descriptionof“Plant Functional/Structural Groups” indicatoronthe shifts alongpathwayswithinthereference state(Figure 2)shouldbereflected in reflected intheReference Sheet (Appendix 2).For example,plantcommunity The temporalrangeofvariability expectedwithinanecologicalsiteshouldalsobe water flow patternsare expectedfollowing intensestormsinmanyecosystems. species andlittercover willbelower following fire. More littermovement and bare ground willincrease duringextendedperiodsofdrought, andthatwoody naturallythrough time.ItPlant communitiesandsoilsalsovary isexpectedthat sources ofvariation mayinfluenceindividualindicatorsontheReference Sheet. docu ecological site,thequalityofevaluations canbeimproved by recognizing and complexity oftheecologicalprocesses. There is healthbecausetheydonotreflectrangeland the assessments are inadequatetodetermine capacity.livestock carrying Such singleattribute stability assurrogates forrangelandconditionor (e.g., production, composition,density)orsoil assistance agencies. These indicatorsfocusedonvegetation and resource inventories by landmanagementandtechnical Indicators have historicallybeenusedinrangelandmonitoring used togaugesoil/sitestability, hydrologic function,andbioticintegrity. ofthestockmarket, differentof aportion combinationsofthe17indicatorsare or expensive tomeasure. Just astheDow Jones Index isusedtogaugethestrength an indexofattribute(e.g.,hydrologic function)thatistoodifficult,inconvenient, whose characteristics(e.g.,presence orabsence,quantity, distribution)are usedas complexity ofmostrangelandecosystems.Indicators are componentsofasystem Ecological processes ormeasure are inthefielddueto difficulttoobserve Indicators likely toproceed through atransitiontoanotherstate. and/or resilient following disturbanceistheonethatmost aparticular state. Consequently, thespecificcommunitythatisleastresistant to The resistance withina andresilience ofindividualcommunitiesvary time, orboth(Figure 1). the rateofrecovery, theextentofrecovery periodof duringaparticular adisturbance(Figurefollowing 1).Resilience canbedefinedintermsof disturbance. Resilience isthecapacityoftheseprocesses torecover processes tocontinuefunctionwithminimalchangefollowing a and resilience oftheecosystem.Resistance isthecapacityofecological Staying withinthenaturalrangeofvariability dependsontheresistance Resistance andResilience menting theexpectedvariation inthesesources anddocumentinghow these from Seyboldetal.1999) inresistanceandresilience(adapted that vary over timefollowingdisturbanceforsystems 1. Figure ecological processes disturbance Changes inecologicalprocesses time (years) high resistance low resilience low resistance, high resilience low resistance,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 11 , rather than selecting an equivalent attributes values associated with each departure class vary associated with each departure values among ecological sites. significantly in badlands rating is much higher example, rill density for a “none–slight” For located on flat terrain in the central Great ecological sites than in ecological sites States. of the United Plains that is com- monitoring program to designing a quantitative The best approach is to select the best quantitative assessment protocol patible with this qualitative indicators for each of the three no one indicator of ecosystem health; instead, a suite of key indicators should be a suite of key indicators health; instead, of ecosystem no one indicator 1992). assessment (Karr used for an Qualitative vs. Quantitative Indicators indicators. is based on qualitative of Rangeland Health Indicators Interpreting described in the “Intended for the objectives appropriate These indicators are it is should be made where measurements Quantitative chapter. Applications” necessary comparisons with other locations, assessments for direct to document to determine trend. required data are monitoring or where indicators with many of the qualitative correlated indicators that are Quantitative 2). (Table measurements quantitative from can be calculated used in this protocol for Measures 6, Quantitative in Appendix detailed information is included More This indicator exists. quantitative some cases, no equivalent In the 17 Indicators. by accurately reflected more the fact that some ecosystem properties are reflects quantitatively measured effectively more indicators, while others are qualitative but the specific is similar, most cases, the general relationship (Rapport 1995). In indicators The best quantitative quantitative indicator. for each qualitative indicator with the ecosystem most consistently correlated are those that, as a group, are ground example, bare attributes. For three functions associated with each of the in to erosion with resistance both highly correlated are stability and soil aggregate stability” good indicators of the “soil/site therefore most ecological sites, and are et al. 2005). attribute (Herrick

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 12 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 12 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage13 References: (1)USDA1997;(2)Elzingaetal.1998;and(3)Herrick2005. indicators (qualitativeandquantitative)foreachattribute(forindicator-specific comparisons,pleaseseeAppendix6. quantitative indicatordoesnotexistforeachqualitativeindicator, werecommendfocusingonselectingthebestpossible Table 2. itc•Si ufc eitnet rso olmcoageaesaiiySoilstabilitykit(3) inwater Soilmacro-aggregatestability lossordegradation Soilsurface • resistancetoerosion Soilsurface • Integrity Biotic ucin•Wtrfo atrsPointframe(2) Linepointintercept(2,3) Bareground Pointframe(2) Linepointintercept(2,3) Water flowpatterns • Rills Bareground • Function Hydrologic Water flowpatterns • Rills • Stability Soil/Site Attribute Qualitative Assessment Key Quantitative Selected Measurements Selected Quantitative Key Assessment Qualitative Attribute Key quantitativeindicatorsandmeasurementsrelevanttoeachofthethreeattributes.Becauseanappropriate ule definedminimum Continuousline intercept(2) Continuouslineintercept(2) bycanopygapslongerthana Litteramount • Compactionlayer • definedminimum Basalgap intercept(3) bybasalgapslongerthana Canopygapintercept(3) covered ofsoilsurface Proportion Plantcommunitycompositionand • lossordegradation Soilsurface • covered ofsoilsurface Proportion resistancetoerosion Soilsurface • Gullies • Bareground • definedminimum definedminimum Continuousline intercept(2) Pedestalsand/orterracettes • Soilstabilitykit(3) Basalgapintercept(3) inwater bycanopygapslongerthana Soilmacro-aggregatestability Compactionlayer • covered ofsoilsurface Proportion lossordegradation Soilsurface • resistancetoerosion Soilsurface • Canopygapintercept(3) Littermovement • covered ofsoilsurface Proportion Wind-scoured, blowout, • Gullies • Bareground • Pedestalsand/orterracettes • naiepat Pointframe(2) Pointframe(2) Linepointintercept(1,3) (1) Harvest Pointframe(2) group Littercover Plantproductionbyfunctional Linepointintercept(2,3) Linepointintercept(2,3) Plantcanopy(foliar)coverby Plantbasalcoverbyfunctional Reproductivecapabilityof • Invasiveplants • functionalgroup Annualproduction • Litteramount • Plantmortality/decadence • Functional/structuralgroups • Compactionlayer • andReferences AssessmentIndicators Indicators n uofinwater Soilstabilitykit(3) Soilmacro-aggregatestability and runoff distribution relativetoinfiltration eena lnsgopDoublesampling(1) group perennial plants n/rdpstoa ra ybslgp ogrta Continuouslineintercept(2) bybasalgapslongerthana and/or depositionalareas naiepatdniyBelttransect(2,3) Linepointintercept(1,3) Invasive plantdensity Invasive plantcover Quadrats (2)

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 13 , the Reference cover methods and is the preferred cover method to collect foliar cover for new method to collect foliar cover the easiest to standardize of all vegetation the easiest to standardize ecological site descriptions. and to remote sensing. This method sensing. and to remote is among directly related to production, runoff, erosion, directly related to production, runoff, used to assess indicators that are generally more used to assess indicators that are actually covered by leaves, twigs, and stems, and can be leaves, by actually covered Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Indicators Interpreting Herrick et al. 2005) is recommended because it measures the area because it measures et al. 2005) is recommended Herrick line-point and visual estimates. The line-point method (Elzinga et al. 1998; The line-point method (Elzinga line-point and visual estimates. Sheet serves as the standard for the 17 indicators. The reference sheet includes sheet The reference for the 17 indicators. serves as the standard Sheet including but not indicators, for several composition information on vegetation of these indicators is The evaluation and structurallimited to, functional groups. of ecological availability of the widespread because production often based on annual data. include production site descriptions, which However, with production. correlated are and foliar cover Both standing biomass biomass, foliar cover, between relationships The vary species. these relationships by varyand production in a single among locations and both within and among years species or functional/structural rankings of may groups location. Dominance uniform is used. Consequently, measure change depending on which vegetation However, is not appropriate. biomass for production or substitution of foliar cover the where for production be used as surrogates and biomass can foliar cover relationships understood. well are used to quantify methods are different comparisons can also arise when Inconsistent estimates or biomass. Annual production foliar cover, or estimate production, at the time of the evalua- present growth year’s current components: include three and and/or wildlife, livestock by that has been removed growth year’s tion, current is growth Expected of the year. during the rest (production) the expected growth curves. includes all above- Annual production growth standard estimated from includes all of all species, including stem elongation. Biomass production ground it was produced. of the year regardless production ground above a vertical projection by is simply the proportion soil surface of covered cover Foliar and raindrops from that is protected the area This is effectively of a plant canopy. the definition used in This is overhead. the sun is directly in shade when the area canopy changes in the density of the plant reflects cover models. Foliar erosion and number as changes in the size as well associated with leaf and twig mortality, of individual plants in a defined area. including approaches or estimates may be based on several measurement cover Foliar Vegetation Indicator Consistency: Production, Foliar Cover, and Standing Biomass benchmark. to a consistent depends on comparisons of this method The application the is being evaluated, which indicator depending on varies This benchmark or biomass, and data relationship certain of cover, foliar to production, indicators For collection methods.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 14 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 14 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage15 based onfoliarcover. reflect foliarcover. Cover ecologicalsitedescriptionsare datacollectedfornew andtreesfor stoloniferous grassesandforshrubs withdiffusecanopiesanddidnot tected by aleafortwig. This resulted inahigherestimateof“cover” particularly canopy ofanindividualplantas“cover,” whetherornottheywere actuallypro- cover inthesesitedescriptions.Canopycover includesallspaceslocatedwithinthe 1997 whentheNRCS beganusingfoliarcover (USDA1997)insteadofcanopy Care mustbetakenininterpreting ecologicalsitedescriptionsdeveloped priorto other words, thereference stateusually, butnot forcommunitiesinanotherstate.Inmanage we recognize thatmanagersmaychooseto reference fortherangelandhealthevaluation, community within thestate)as particular reference usesthereference state(butnotany “potential naturalplantcommunity.” While thistechnical Vallentine 1990),recognize oneofthecommunitiesas ecology literature (Heady andChild1994,SRM1999, Reference State inFigure 2.Alternatively, somerangelandmanagementor community” andisdepictedasoneofthecommunities inthe (seeGlossary) more thanonecommunity, oneofwhichisknown asthe“historicclimaxplant optimum level underthenaturaldisturbanceregime. This stateusuallyincludes soil/site stability, hydrologic function,andbioticintegrityare atanear performing The reference stateisthewhere thefunctionalcapacitiesrepresented by reducing interspacesfurther soilresourcefrom shrub availability forgrasses. et al.1990).For replace anderosion increase example,asshrubs grasses,runoff feedback mechanismsthataltersoilandplantcommunitydynamics(e.g.,Schlesinger Transitions amongstatesinanecologicalsiteare oftencausedby acombinationof a return toapre-existing state(USDA1997),are oftenexpensive toapply. inputssuchasrevegetationnew removal. orshrub Practices suchasthese,enabling ofitsAsoilhorizon.eroded Alternatively, statethathaslostpart theymayrequire produced thechange.Instead, theymaycreate aphysically-altered state,suchasan tions are notreversible by simplyalteringtheintensityordirection offactorsthat Unlike communitypathways(dashedarrows inFigure 2),these“threshold” transi- Shifts between states(solidarrows inFigure 2)are referred toas“transitions.” 2002, Stringham etal.2001). pathways (See Figure 2,Generic stateandtransitiondiagram;Bestelmeyer etal. be includedinastate,andthecommunitiesare oftenconnectedby community by theirresponses todisturbance.Anumberofdifferent plantcommunitiesmay structure, biodiversity, andmanagementrequirements. They are alsodistinguished andecosystemprocesses,dynamic soilproperties, andconsequentlyinvegetation are generallydistinguishedby relatively largedifferences inplantfunctionalgroups, three attributes(soil/sitestability, hydrologic function, andbioticintegrity).States ecologicalsiteandthatarea particular functionallysimilarwithrespecton tothe A stateincludesoneormore biological(includingsoil)communitiesthatoccur States, Transitions, andDisturbances

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 15 always, includes the manager’s desired plant desired the manager’s always, includes is an if sustainability However, community. will plant community the desired objective, state reference be found in the nearly always 1994). (Borman and Pyke and type of disturbance is a natural Some necessary part of all ecosystems. Healthy to generally both resistant ecosystems are (able to and resilient external disturbances disturbances occur if external recover) ecosystems generally Healthy 1984). (Pimm over communities to fluctuate various allow occur rarely Transitions time within a state. disturbance to the natural in response and resilience resistance However, regime. for healthy insufficient criteria alone are often ecosystems; degraded systems are to change. highly resistant State B Community D exotic annual grass Community E – Shrub reduced diversity; fire increased Transition 1 Transition Community F Transition 2 Transition (relatively reversible) Pathways Community Community B State C plant community) State A (relatively non-reversible) increased fire Generic state and transition diagram. Dashed lines between native grass perennial Reference State – Exotic annual grass BCD Native perennial grasses are dominant; shrubs subdominant E dominate; perennial grasses subdominant Shrubs F dominate; exotic grasses subdominant Shrubs grasses dominate; shrubs subdominant Exotic Exotic annual grasses dominate 12 and introduction of exotic, invasive, annual grasses Wildfire Repeated wildfires that exceed natural fire-return interval A grasses co-dominate (historic climax Shrubs and native perennial Community C Community A Shrub Transitions Community Pathways Example Figure 2. communities within a state are community pathways; solid lines between states are transitions; and dotted lines between states indicate unlikely reverse transitions (see table with figure for further explanation).

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 16 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 16 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage17 Protocol Assessment Rangeland Health Usingthe for Instructions completed duringStep 5. (Appendix 1). The backofthissheetis foranevaluationinformation area assessment andbasicsitecharacteristic record informationonsitelocationforthe The front oftheEvaluation Sheet isusedto Area Describe theEvaluation (Appendix 1). Complete pageoneoftheEvaluation Sheet (REQUIRED) the SoilandEcologicalSite Evaluation Area,Determine Step 1.Identifythe required steps. to ensure thatyou have com Health AssessmentProtocol (Appendix 8) those steps.Use theChecklistforRangeland which stepstocompleteandthesequenceof entire process and canbeusedtohelpdecide The flow inFigure chart 3illustratesthe concept forthatstepisthenexplained. or required tocompleteeachstep. The action are identifiedalongwiththedocument(s) provide astep-by-step guideforusers.Steps The following are instructions intendedto or publicperceptions ofconditions. conditions, lackofinformationon area maybebasedonconcernaboutcurrent attributes occurs).Interest inanevaluation where theevaluation oftherangelandhealth health ofthe“evaluation area” (i.e.,thearea the three attributeschosentorepresent the available withothermethodsofevaluation. It gives anindicationofthestatus similar unitforthatlandarea. This assessmentprovides informationthatisnot processes relative tothereference statefortheecologicalsiteorotherfunctionally A rangelandhealthassessmentprovides informationonthefunctioningofecological pleted allthe Figure 3. Figure for theecologicalsiteavailable STRONGLY RECOMMENDED ratings withwrittencomments Detrmine soilandecological Detrmine Evaluation sheetandjustify site attheevaluationarea Rate the17indicatorson available andobtained? Collect supplementary Obtain ordevelop Evaluation matrix Reference sheet and obtained? reference sheet Flowchart fortherangelandhealthassessmentprotocol. Flowchart YES YES Information REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED Step 4. Step 3. Step 2. Step 1. NO NO of the17indicatorsandjustify Attributes basedontheratings Reference sheetdeveloped? STRONGLY RECOMMENDED ratings withwrittencomments adapt defaultdescriptorsor Evaluate 3rangelandhealth Develop evaluationmatrix DO NOTCONTINUE use referencesheetand YES REQUIRED STOP !!! use defaults REQUIRED Step 5. NO

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 17 should be completed even when a soil should be completed even map is available. Soil maps should only be Soil map is available. used to help predict soils (and therefore used to help predict ecological sites) that might be found in described in the ecological site description description and comparison with soils listed or the appropriate ecological site. On-site soil ecological site. On-site the appropriate Always use the Reference Sheet corresponding to corresponding Sheet Always use the Reference found on the evaluation area. found on the evaluation ecological site description for consistency with the soils and vegetation differences in aspect, or location at the top versus the bottom of a slope). location at the top versus in aspect, or differences Determine the Soil and Ecological Site matching the by should be verified area Each ecological site within the evaluation The best and soils. ecological site description to the appropriate area evaluation and thus the ecological site, is to dig several way to confirm the soil classification, consistent with those characteristics are that the soil profile pits to verify shallow surveys of the soils listed in the ecological site description. Soil (which include soil soil maps and other useful information) should also be consulted if the soils to information in the ecological site description is inadequate to correlate the should review The evaluator(s) ecological site description. the appropriate The evaluation area should be large enough to accurately evaluate all indicators all evaluate enough to accurately should be large area The evaluation of a the size is approximately An acre in size. 1 acre be at least 1/2 to and should evaluator(s) at the location, the arrival Upon zones. without the end football field and observe and walk area biological of the evaluation the boundaries should identify the evaluation of each ecological site in on up to 2 acres and physical characteristics familiar with the plant species, soil to become This enables the evaluator(s) area. A area. ecological site on an evaluation of each variability and the surface features, than one is more ecological site if there is completed for each separate evaluation site is of concern in unless only one ecological area evaluation ecological site in the the ecological site boundaries are that this case, ensure In area. the evaluation the evaluation. conducting or delineated before clearly understood evaluation within the processes that may affect ecological features Surrounding adjacent area, The topographic position of the evaluation should also be noted. area trails, watering points, gullies, timber harvests,roads, can and other disturbances described position should be carefully The topographic all affect on-site processes. is significant There area. on the evaluation with documentation of off-site influences This variability ecological sites. in the ecological potential of different variability in landscape position and soils minor differences is associated with relatively (e.g., 1 of the documented on Page are features Landscape position and surrounding 1). (Appendix Sheet Evaluation Two sheet. should be taken and included as an attachment to this Photographs (include some skyline for directions general view photographs taken in different illustrate should be taken along with photographs that point of reference) future of date, orientation, and location Time, important or anomalies. values indicator the photo should be recorded.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 18 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 18 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage19 with soilclassificationsinthisphaseoftheevaluation isrecommended. interpret theindicators.Including asoilscientistorresource specialistfamiliar tosoil/plant/air/waterrelationshipsimportant needtobeidentifiedinorder to or sodic)holdmore water(e.g.,argillic),andothersoilfeatures whichare depth tohorizons whichmayrestrict watermovement orroot growth (e.g.,calcic required forsoilidentification.Soil texture foreachhorizon, andsoildepth,or to soil/plant/air/waterrelationships are alsoincludedwhetherornottheyare front pageoftheEvaluation Sheet (Appendix 1).Soil features thatare important Document thesoilprofile informationinthesoil/siteidentificationsectionof are examplesoffunctionallysignificantproperties. significantlywithinthesame soil series.Surface vary properties texture andslope series canbelongtomore thanoneecologicalsiteifthefunctionallysignificant in amapunitmaybelongtodifferent ecologicalsite.Finally, even singlesoil the United States. Inclusions mayornotbelistedinthesoilsurvey. Eachsoil ofeachmapunitareproportion foundinthevast majorityofsoilmapunitsin than onesoil.In addition,soil“inclusions” orsoilsrepresenting arelatively small the evaluation area. This isbecausemanysoilmapunitsare comprisedofmore Sheet (Appendix 1). site informationshouldbeclearlydocumentedby theteamonEvaluation The process usedtoconducttheevaluation withouttherequired soilsandecological soil scientisttoassisttheevaluator(s) inmakingtheinitialsoil/sitecorrelations. ofa data.If possible,enlisttheservice monitoring studies,andotherinventory may beavailable from othersources, suchashabitat-typedescriptions,long-term that have beendeveloped forsimilarareas intheregion. Vegetation information resources cansometimesbeusedtoidentifyrelevant ecologicalsitedescriptions appropriate (see Table 3). Where ecologicalsitedescriptionsare unavailable, these areashelp decidewhichecologicalsitedescriptionfrom adjacentsurveyed ismost topographic maps,geologicandlocalweather records canoftenbeusedto In areas are where unavailable soilsurveys orinadequate,aerialphotographs, Not Available Are Information Take Soiland/orEcologicalSite to if Actions

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 19 or go to http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov). ” range site handbook “ STATSGO (State Soil Geographic Database) map coverage (1:250,000) is available for most areas. SSURGO (State Soil Geographic STATSGO digitized. Hard copies are available through local NRCS offices. (1:24,000) maps are in the process of being Visit the local USFS office to obtain a Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of interest. Some offices for the area the local USFS office to obtain a Terrestrial Visit form.may have this data available in digital Inventory These are maps of field-collected vegetation Method (SVIM) maps. BLM land: Soil Vegetation Resources InventoryPrivate land: NRCS status maps and Natural data are found at or http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/dataresources of Land Bureau BLM land status maps (look under United States Government, Department of the Interior, Management, in the blue pages of the phone book) USFS, BLM, and NRCS offices (especially old monitoring records) NRCS lists of plants: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/dataresources See ecological site descriptions (NRCS) below. Look up your local chapter of the Native Plant Society at http://www.nanps.org/about/frame.shtml Plants national database at http://plants.usda.gov Local NRCS office (ask for the Some revised descriptions may not yet be on the Web. USGS Geologic Maps at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov NRCS at http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=noxious.cgi USGS at http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer USGS at http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer photos at http://geography.usgs.gov/partners/viewonline.html Companies selling USGS or call http://ask.usgs.gov/sources.html, http://mapping.usgs.gov/esic/esic_index.html, Aerial can be obtained from the National Images newer than 1996 1-888-ASK-USGS (1-888-275-8747). on (NHAP), and are searchable (NAPP) and National High Altitude Photography Photography Program Earth at http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer Explorer or Utah, 84119-2020, Salt Lake City, 2300 South, USDA FSA APFO, 2222 West USDA Sales Branch, 801-975-3503, or http://www.apfo.usda.gov/Ordering%20Imagery.htm all the a computer) and georectified, giving it that has been digitized (scanned into An aerial photograph USGS or its business partners http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/acis-bin/querypartner.cgi at USDA NRCS at http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/index.html http://topomaps.usgs.gov 7.5 minute USGS topographic maps at in hard copy or CD from USGS or its business partnersOther topographic maps can be purchased at http://geography.usgs.gov/www/partners/bpprod.html has been digitized (scanned into a computer) and georectified, A scanned USGS topographic map that USGS or its business partners http://topomaps.usgs.gov/drg at Government, the local NRCS office (look under United States DepartmentVisit of Agriculture, USDA (http://soils.usda.gov/survey) to obtain a copy of a soil survey for the county of interest. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Information Part useful in completing sources 1) Sheet (Appendix I of the Evaluation site descriptions Vegetation inventory data inventory data. Some offices may have this data available in GIS form. General maps Species lists Ecological (range) Geologic maps Invasive species Table 3. Table form, version of this 2). For an updated Sheets (Appendix of Reference and development see http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/JER/Monit_Assess/monitoring.htm. ResourcesAerial photos Sources Aerial photos: Digital OrthophotoQuarter Quadrangle properties to stratify landscapes of a map. DOQQs are helpful when using GIS technology (DOQQ) maps Topographic Digital Raster Graphic (DRG)Soil surveys GIS applications ready for and maps Natural Resources Conservation Service in the blue pages of the phone book), or check the NRCS website

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 20 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 20 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage21 Matrix (STRONGLY RECOMMENDED) (REQUIRED) andtheCorrespondingEvaluation Step 2.ObtainorDeveloptheReferenceSheet ecological sitedescriptions. areas, the includingdatausedtosupport literature anddatafrom potentialreference Information should includerelevant scientific information. 2. Provide withallavailable sources thisgroup ofexperts of who understandgeneralsoil-climate-vegetation relationships. and dynamicsoftheecologicalsite,inadditiontorangelandprofessionals Individuals should be includedwhohave long-termknowledge of thevariability knowledge withextensive adiverse group1. Assemble oftheecologicalsite. ofexperts and sendittotheNRCS State RangelandManagement Specialist. Specialist. If noReference Sheet exists,develop oneusingthefollowing protocol ments orsuggestmodificationstotheNRCS State RangelandManagement a draftisavailable, buthasnotbeenfinalized, you mayuseitandprovide com- Management Specialist tofindoutifafinalordraftReference Sheet isavailable. If Before beginning development, besure tocheckwiththeNRCS State Rangeland Development Sheet Reference for Instructions Reference Sheet. However, alloftheseinformationsources canbeusedinthedevelopment ofthe sheets are notadequatesubstitutesforaproperly developed Reference Sheet. reviews ofoldrangeorecologicalsitedescriptionsthatdonotcontainreference site, professional opinionofwhatthesitecouldbe,visitstoreference areas, or more thanisrequired expertise toconducttheevaluation. Memory ofasimilar Reference Sheet. Development oftheReference Sheet willrequire asmuchor should notproceed. It isnotpossibletoproperly conductanevaluation withouta Development). ortimeislimited,therangelandhealthevaluation If expertise to develop theReference Sheet (seetheInstructions forReference Sheet willberequiredIf anecologicalsitedescriptiondoesnotexist,additionalexpertise NRCS State RangelandManagement Specialist) ifadraftisavailable. responsible formaintaining ecologicalsitedescriptionsinthestate(usually If theecologicalsitedescriptiondoesnotincludethisinformation,askperson Reference Sheets are currently beingincorporatedintoecologicalsitedescriptions. equivalent). based onexpectedspatialandtemporal variability withineachecologicalsite(or reference fortheevaluation. The reference sheetdescribesarange foreachindicator “States, Transitions, andDisturbances” intheConceptssection).It astheprimary serves The Reference Sheet describesthestatusofeachindicatorforreference state(see 2)(REQUIRED) (Appendix Sheet aReference Obtain

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 21 An plant logical processes are functioning within a are logical processes normal range of variability and the normal range of variability An ERA is a landscape unit in which eco- communities have adequate resistance to adequate resistance communities have and resiliency from most disturbances. from and resiliency descriptors developed in the office. descriptors developed the indicators in the field and to “field check” the check” the indicators in the field and to “field be used by evaluators to improve their ability to recognize to improve evaluators be used by source of additional information for the Reference Sheet. It can also It Sheet. of additional information for the Reference source 4. Visit one or more ecological reference areas (optional). areas ecological reference one or more 4. Visit (ERAs) can be a useful areas potential ecological reference A visit to one or more Use the Functional/Structural Groups Sheet (Appendix 3) to define the functional/ 3) to define (Appendix Sheet Groups the Functional/Structural Use to This sheet is used structural with each group. the species associated and groups into life form/functional/structural species group the categories, to determine column on this sheet) rating (complete the “potential” potential dominance state, and to aid in the rating the reference within groups expected among these is important a good to have It Groups. 12, Functional/Structural of Indicator These groups. characteristics that may define functional understanding of the sub-shrub, shrub, not limited to, lifeform (e.g., tree, but are characteristics include, fixation potential, rooting cyanobacteria), nitrogen moss, lichen, grass, forb, vs. cool season plants), and photosynthetic pathways (warm depth, morphology, of functional/ site. Examples to the ecological native plants are whether or not the may the determination of these groups, information on structural more and groups, 4. in Step Groups) 12 (Functional/Structural for Indicator be found in the narrative The dominance rating for each functional/structural included in the group based on a are Sheet and the Reference Sheet Groups Functional/Structural composition (relative based on percent description of dominant or subdominant Group Each Functional/Structural per unit area). biomass, or cover production, as either dominant, subdominant, or Sheet should be identified on the Reference Sheet, Groups Then on the optional Functional/Structural 12. other for Indicator (dominant, is placed into one of four categories Group each Functional/Structural column (indicating the expected Potential or trace) in the subdominant, minor, with This column should correspond state). dominance rating for the reference Later at an evaluation Sheet. 12 on the Reference on Indicator the ratings given the observersarea, can complete the actual dominance rating (complete the “Actual” sheet. the evaluation to aid in rating indicators on column on the worksheet) an interpretation of the 17 indicators require a site, several When evaluating Groups, in this dominance rating for the Functional/Structural changes regarding is It Groups. Functional/Structural or in the numbers of species within these as was used in of dominance in the evaluation important same measure to use the of composition based on production example, if percent For Sheet. the Reference of composition was used because the ecological site description used it, then percent the observer used by should be the variable when making the production by evaluation of these indicators. 3. Define the functional/structural groups for the ecological site (or equivalent). for the groups functional/structural the 3. Define

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 22 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 22 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage23 Concepts section). in States, Transitions, andDisturbances inthe variability inthereference stateshouldbevisited(seeFigure 2 Where possible,anumberofERAsthatrepresent therangeof “reference” areas, are evaluated. The Reference Sheet istheultimatestandard againstwhichallareas, including would beratedasNone toSlight basedonthefinalversion oftheReference Sheet. information). The area shouldbeusedasareference onlyforindicatorsthat not you believe thatitreflects reference conditions(basedonallotheravailable data (seeAppendix 6),describethestatusofeachindicator, andrecord whetheror At eachERA,theevaluator(s) shouldtakephotographs,collectrelevant quantitative site descriptions. concept ofERAsisalsoanintegralcomponentinthedevelopment ofecological appropriate relict areas asbenchmarks forassessments(West etal.1994). The Committee-40 onRangelandResearch forusingwell-managed rangelandsand This conceptissimilartothatproposed by the Western Regional Coordinating Sources include: toassistintheselectionofpotentialERAs select anduseappropriate ERAsfortrainingandevaluation purposes. should review appropriate rangelandecologicalsite(rangesite)descriptionsand reflect theeffectsofa recent burn. To obtainthisunderstanding,theevaluator(s) example, ifafire occurred 5years agointheevaluation area, theERAshould ical sitedescriptionorERAasareference whendisturbanceshave occurred. For depicted intheecologicalsitedescription.Care mustbetakeninusingtheecolog- However, groups mustcloselymatchthepotential thefunctionalandstructural Species compositiondoesnothave tomatchtheecologicalsitedescription. A numberofdifferent plantcommunitieshave thepotentialtomeetthesecriteria. pristine, historicallyunusedlands(e.g.,climaxplantcommunitiesorrelict areas). ponents foundintheecologicalsitedescription. These areas donotneedtobe ERA isthevisualrepresentation ofthecharacteristicsandvariability ofthecom- Records ofwell-managed rangelandswhere grazingusehasmaintained • Historical records andphotographs • Maps showing locationsofResearch Natural Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, • Vegetation inventories • Topographic maps • Soil surveys • Ecological sitedescriptions • grazing usepatternmapsare helpfulinidentifyingtheseareas. processes andtheplantcommunityinaproper functioningstate; ecological or otherprotected (largeexclosures)/special managementareas

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 23 and any same ecological site should be used for subsequent evaluations on the changes should be forwarded person to the This Evaluation Matrix (Appendix 4) (Appendix Matrix This Evaluation responsible for maintaining ecological site responsible Development). the following instructions for Evaluation Matrix instructions for Evaluation the following • (see Matrix an ecological site-specific Evaluation Create OR is interpreted for the site. is interpreted • each descriptor 4) to clarify how notes to the generic descriptors (Appendix Add Obtain the Evaluation Matrix (Appendix 4) for the Ecological Site (or Equivalent Unit) RECOMMENDED) (STRONGLY departure includes detailed descriptions for each of the five Matrix The Evaluation categories for each indicator. descriptors for each indicator which reflect includes five Matrix The Evaluation to Slight to Slight, what is expected for the site: None from the range of departure The descriptor Total. to and Extreme to Extreme, Moderate Moderate, Moderate, 2) and (Appendix Sheet the Reference from comes directly to Slight” for “None The descrip- state. of the indicator in the reference the range of variation reflects and the generic Sheet the Reference from derived tors for the other four classes are Matrix. the Evaluation the team developing 4 by descriptors included in Appendix be included in each ecological site will eventually Matrix A unique Evaluation generic descriptors may be used or this information is available, description. Until assessments maintain consistency of To knowledge. current adapted to better reflect options MUST be applied: on specific ecological sites, one of the following These descriptors should be quantitative whenever possible and must include possible and must whenever quantitative should be These descriptors outbreaks, (e.g., insect regimes disturbance ranges based on natural expected for all plant and spatial variability influence), weather, herbivore native wildfires, 2, communities site (see Appendix state for the ecological in the reference included of soils with sites include a range Ecological Example). Standard Sheet, Reference the effects of within-site many cases, characteristics. In but not identical, similar, of slope depth, aspect, slope, and shape factors such as soil texture, in variability within an ecological areas concave example, be described. For on the indicator must is potential production run-on water and therefore likely to receive more site are Range Context and Natural guidance, please see Landscape additional For higher. in the Concepts section. Variability of used to support data or other information available, the descriptor should Where specify whether to sure the ecological site description). Be be cited (e.g., from produced cover production, year’s based on current composition estimates are at top of sheet). box (check appropriate or biomass year, during the current 5. Describe the status of each indicator in the reference state (Corresponds to the to state (Corresponds in the reference of each indicator the status 5. Describe Matrix). the expected from the Evaluation for the site in departure None-to-Slight

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 24 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 24 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage25 Instructions for Evaluation Matrix Development Matrix Evaluation for Instructions revisions ofecologicalsitedescriptions. Specialist). This willensure thatthesemodificationswillbeconsidered inongoing descriptions intheState (usuallytheNRCS State RangelandManagement New Mexico). Similar changesshouldbemadeforotherindicators. ground descriptornarrative fortheLimyecologicalsiteinMLRA42(south-central Matrix (Appendix 4)examplefollows (Table 4)ofamodifiedandexpandedbare the inherently ecologicalsites.AnEvaluation highererosion potentialoncertain Indicators ofsoil/site stabilityare likelytorequire particularly thesechangesdueto Write ormodifydescriptorsforSlight toModerate, Moderate, andModerate 3. For eachindicator, ofthereference copyasummary sheetdescriptionintothe 1. .Write adescriptorfor“Extreme” ormodifythegenericdescriptor. Extreme is 2. Table 4. Descriptor Generic ground 4. Bare niao xrm oeaeMdrt lgtt Noneto Slightto Moderate Moderate Extreme Indicator accounts forthespatialandtemporalvariability expectedwithinanecologicalsite. ground. AsfortheNone-to-Slight descriptor, thiswillincludearangeofvalues that precipitation), Extreme to Total departure mightrangefrom 95–100percent bare to Extreme. for thespatialandtem None-to-Slight box. willincludearangeofvaluesthataccounts This summary fire oranextendeddrought. In anon-gravelly Mojave site(lessthan6 Desert ground mightinclude30–100percent bare ground except immediatelyfollowing example, inatallgrassprairiesite(40 varies amongecologicalsitesandisrelativecategory todisturbanceevents. For narrative foundintheNone-to-Slight box. The rangeincludedinthisdeparture defined asExtreme to Total (e.g.,100percent orcomplete)departure from the Example ofareviseddescriptorforthebaregroundindicator. is contiguous, connected. large andgenerally site. Bareareasare expected forthe Much higherthan patchy andsparse. where ground occasional areas Only connected. entire area barewith ground Greater than75% oTtlt xrm oeaeSlight Moderate Extreme to Total to mostly cover poral variability expectedwithinanecologicalsite. becoming occasionally occasionally connected. Bare areasarelargeand than expectedforthesite. Moderate tomuchhigher ground cover. Surface Surface diameter) andconnected. patches arelarge(>24 60-75% bareground.Bare bare another. Connectivityof ground broken disturbance areas ” connected toone precipitation), Extreme departure forbare by contiguous ” Departure from Reference Sheet Reference from Departure 45-60% bareground the area. large anddominate bare spacesare disturbance.Individual with surface especially associated with muchconnectivity connected. and of moderatesize site. Bareareasare than expectedforthe Moderately higher sporadically areas associated Bare rarely connected. larger than 12 Bare spacesgreater 30-45% bareground. connected. are smallandrarely for thesite.Bareareas higher thanexpected Slightly tomoderately surface surface other barepatches. may beconnectedto ” (> 15 ” disturbance are diameter ” ) and with and associated 12 occasional bare ground; diameter andnot should belessthan8-10 mammal disturbances. with antmoundsandsmall bare patchesalsoassociated for thesite. areas matchthatexpected Amount andsizeofbare Reference Sheet: Reference w/shrubs. Larger ” patches connected; patches 20- 30% ”

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 25 position) of the functional/ (com structural groups. Groups Sheet) relative dominance relative Sheet) Groups “Actual” column of the Functional/Structural column “Actual” compare potential (Step 2) and actual (fill in the potential (Step compare was developed as part of Step 2) can be used to directly as partwas developed of Step The Functional/Structural Groups Sheet (part of which Sheet Groups The Functional/Structural Functional/Structural Groups Sheet Ecological Reference Areas a providing can help by available, 2), where (see Step areas reference Ecological of the expected status of each indicator at the time of the visual representation be used to supplement the 5) can also Table data (see Quantitative evaluation. should be functioning areas reference Ecological Sheet. information in the Reference to soil/site stability, with respect Sheet as described in the Reference at least as well function, and biotic integrity. hydrologic and season in the same year areas to examine ecological reference need Evaluators may affect the rating of during that year since weather area, as the evaluation water- may be located in different areas ecological reference indicators. However, has been weather year’s as long as the current sheds within the geographic region section in Development” Sheet the “Reference locations. See similar between areas. on ecological reference information 2 for more Step Spatial and Temporal Variability describe the range of variability Matrix and Evaluation Sheet The Reference is There geographic unit). in an ecological site (or equivalent expected to occur on within ecological sites depending in site potential significant spatial variability for an ecological site that example, and landscape position. For soils, slope, aspect, expected to be patterns are water flow 5-15 percent, includes slopes ranging from static properties these relatively on steeper slopes. Documenting pronounced more the 1) can help increase (Appendix Sheet on the first page of the Evaluation accuracy of the evaluation. most ecological sites. in spatial variability than greater is even variability Temporal just a are precipitation and recent or fire, The season, time since the last storm can also be These factors few site potential. of the factors that can affect current accuracy. evaluation and used to increase Sheet documented on the Evaluation Step 3. Collect SupplementaryStep 3. Information RECOMMENDED) (STRONGLY make ability to evaluators’ the to improve information is collected Supplementary four general types of supplementary are information: There an accurate evaluation. factors affecting the variability; including variability, (1) spatial and temporal (3) functional/ structural areas; ecological reference relevant (2) information from site. data for the evaluation and composition cover and (4) quantitative groups;

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 26 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:42 AM Page 26 Page AM 9:42 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:42AMPage27 Describedinthe * Table 5.

of Arizona Press in pdf format athttp://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/JER/Monit_Assess/monitoring.htm of ArizonaPressinpdfformat Recommended Information Indicator indicators, see Table 2intheConceptssection. indicators. For otherrelevant quantitative (Appendix 3)isalsousefulinevaluating several state. The Functional/Structural Groups worksheet expected forsoilsandplantcommunitiesinthereference Step 2). The Reference Sheet reflects therangeofvariability reference areas andotherareas withintheecologicalsite(see knowledgeexpert ofstructure, function,anddynamicsofecological This isbasedontheecologicalsitedescriptionandotherinformation,including based onthatindicator’s degree ofdeparture from theReference Sheet (Appendix 2). Evaluation Sheet, Page 2. The ratingforeachindicatorintheevaluation area is (Appendix 4)thatmostcloselydescribeseachindicatorandrecords itonthe Evaluators descriptor(i.e.,narrative) ontheEvaluation selectthecategory Matrix (Appendix 4). Complete theEvaluation Sheet (Appendix 1,backpage)usingtheEvaluation Matrix Sheet (REQUIRED) Step 4.Ratethe17IndicatorsonEvaluation

methods* Appendix 6. the indicatorevaluation. For additionalquantitative indicators,see Table 2and Table 5shows how quantitative vegetation andsoildatacanbeusedtosupport Data Quantitative Gap intercept Line point canopy gaps Size ofinter- Bare ground% ground 4. Bare Quantitative indicatorsforselected “ Monitoring ManualforGrassland,ShrublandandSavannaEcosystems Stability kit in water soil surface Stability of erosion resistance to 8. Soilsurface Line point OR Production tive dominance) composition (rela- Functional group runoff infiltration and relative to and distribution nity composition 10. Plantcommu- Line point OR Production dominance) (relative composition Functional group structural groups 12. Functional/ Line point are dead intercepts that point species Percentage of decadence and mortality 13.Plant ” (printedcopiesavailablefromUniversity cover) (for litter Line point collected) are rarely amount but to calculate also required and density (litter depth Litter cover amount 14. Litter . Production production Total annual production 15. Annual cover) (for low Belt transect Line point OR Production dominance Relative plants 16. Invasive

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 27 and current) community are tration, or the infiltration capacity is occur during rainstorms or snowmelt when a surface crust impedes water infil exceeded. These patterns are generally These patterns are exceeded. during overland flow. Overland flow will flow Overland flow. during overland accumulates) as it moves across the soil surface across accumulates) as it moves Flow patterns are the path that water takes (i.e., the path that water takes patterns are Flow 2. Water Flow Patterns v/sqi/soil_quality/land_management/range.html). Be sure to specify whether composition estimates are based on current are to specify whether composition estimates sure Be 1986, Bryan 1987). Indicators sections. Color in the following provided of each indicator are Descriptions information photographs 5. Additional located in Appendix of the indicators are Quality indicators can be found in the Rangeland Soil on many of the soil-related et al.2002; Institute Quality Soil (NRCS Sheets Information http://soils.usda.go 1. Rills the linear and do not necessarily follow generally rivulets) are Rills (small erosional complex inter- formed through They are patterns do. that flow microtopography and the characteristics of the soil surface flow, overland raindrops, actions between of disturbance (loss of as the degree The potential for rills increases (Bryan 1987). for rill formation potential a greater soils have Some and slope increases. cover) it is important to establish Therefore, than others (Bryan 1985). 1987, Quansah made from interpretations accelerated rill formation by of natural versus the degree and the ecological reference rangeland ecological site description, the soil survey, accelerated when the are processes erosional concentrated flow Generally, area. (Morgan width of rills increase and the depth and rills decreases distance between Narrative descriptions in the Evaluation Matrix are intended to aid in the determi- intended to are Matrix in the Evaluation descriptions Narrative for each indicator descriptors The narrative of departure. the degree nation of all indicator Not to Slight.” “None to Total” to “Extreme scale from form a relative when making approach is observed, will match what descriptors a “best fit” requiring for each indicator should be supportedThe rating in the space comments by ratings. may be no evidence of some instances, there In each indicator rating. by provided to Slight.” rated “None are Those indicators area. evaluation the indicator on the (e.g., drought, assessment, the effects of natural disturbances When making an ago in the area 5 years occurred example, if a fire For should be considered. fire) an indication is not necessarily shrub (e.g., sagebrush)being assessed, reduced cover recovery to allow sufficient alone are if natural processes of lack of biotic integrity plant and post-fire Both the pre- community. of the original plant must be documented in the comments section on this sheet. must be documented in the comments Important: year’s production, cover produced during the current year, or biomass, and check year, during the current produced cover production, year’s at top of the sheet). box the appropriate in the same reference state (see Figure 2, generic state and transition Figure state (see in the same reference in the diagram, intervals return (expected Concepts section). Comments on wildfire

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 28 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 28 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage29 number ofnaturalflow patterns. (Morgan 1986).Soils withinherently low infiltrationcapacitymayhave alarge Generally, asslopeincreases andground cover decreases, flow patternsincrease water tosoakintothesoil. by helpingtopondwaterindepositionalareas, thereby increasing thetimefor microtopography oftheslopechanges.Shorter flow patternsfacilitateinfiltration or rocks. They are rarely continuous,andappeardisappearastheslope vided by persistentlitter, basalintercepts oflivingordeadplants,biologicalcrust, length andcoverage towaterflow by thenumberandkindsofobstructions pro- on rangelands(Tiscareno-Lopez etal.1993). Water flow patternsare controlled in overland flow mechanism hasbeenidentifiedasthedominantsedimenttransport stones thatbreak theflow ofwater(Morgan 1986).Interrill erosion causedby by litter,evidenced soilorgravel redistribution, orpedestallingofvegetation or in a few largepatches will belessstablethana in afew 1999). In general,asitewithbare soilpresent 1994, Gutierrez andHernandez 1996,Cerda Blackburn andPierson 1994,Pierson etal. 1962, Morgan 1986,Benkobi, etal.1993, accelerated windorwatererosion (Smith and Wischmeier tial; therefore, itisadirect indicationofsitesusceptibilityto contributorstositestabilityrelativeimportant tothesitepoten- The amountanddistributionofbare ground isoneofthemost (e.g.,lichen,mosses,algae)(Weltz,visible biologicalcrust etal.1998). (basal andcanopy(foliar)cover), litter, standingdeadvegetation, gravel/rock, and remaining ground cover covered afteraccountingforground surface by vegetation erosion, theinitialformofmostwater-related erosion (Morgan 1986).It isthe Bare ground isexposedmineralororganicsoilthatsusceptibletoraindrop splash 4. BareGround compaction layer, lossanddegradation). andsoilsurface These effectsare recorded withtheappropriate indicators(e.g.,waterflow patterns, terracettes canaffecterosion by concentratingwaterflow and/orchanginginfiltration. erosional terracettes,thustheyare notassessedinthisprotocol. However, these Terracettes causedby livestock orwildlifemovements onhillsidesare notconsidered become higherandmore numerous andthearea ofsoildepositionbecomeslarger. ment (notwind).Asthedegree ofsoilmovement by waterincreases, terracettes Terracettes are benchesofsoildepositionbehindobstaclescausedby watermove- type ofpedestallingasanindicationerosional processes. plants (Hudson 1993). todistinguishandnotincludethis Thus, itisimportant processes, suchasfrost heavingorthrough soilorlitterdepositiononandaround loss by windorwatererosion. Pedestals canalsobecausedby non-erosional Hudson 1993).Pedestals are rocks orplantsthatappearelevated asaresult ofsoil and/or by wind(Anderson1974,Morgan 1986,Satterlund andAdams 1992, Pedestals andterracettesare indicatorsofthemovement important ofsoilby water and/orTerracettes 3. Pedestals

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 29 (Anderson 1974). They are generally They are (Anderson 1974). found in interspace areas with a close found in interspace areas correlation between soil cover/bare patch soil cover/bare between correlation size, soil texture, and degree of accelerated and degree soil texture, size, erosion (Morgan 1986). (Morgan erosion rock, or exposed roots on the soil surface or exposed roots rock, blown away, sometimes leaving residual gravel, sometimes leaving residual away, blown areas where the finer particles of the topsoil have where areas Wind erosion is reflected by wind-scoured or blowout wind-scoured by is reflected erosion Wind Gillette and Walker 1977, Hagen 1984). 1977, Hagen Walker and Gillette 6. Wind-Scoured, Blowout, and/or Depositional Areas on an otherwise wind erosion, as the surface stable soil, increases Accelerated crust physical, chemical, or biological crust)(i.e., either or disturbance is worn by important the soil surface in protecting extremely crustsabrasion. Physical are The exposed canopy (foliar) cover. on many rangelands with low wind erosion from soil beneath these surface crusts and vulnerable to consolidated weakly is often soil increases, 1963). As wind velocity Woodruff via wind (Chepil and movement This abrasion particles process. begin bouncing against each other in the saltation they may be where leads to suspension of fine particles into the wind stream et al. 1974, et al. 1972, Gillette, transported the site (Chepil 1945, Gillette, off 5. Gullies Gullies water. moving that has been cut into the soil by A gully is a channel and accelerated water flow caused by are natural drainages and generally follow of some landscapes a natural feature are of soil. Gullies downcutting the resulting grazing, management actions (e.g., excessive and ecological sites, while on others expand drainages) may cause gullies to form or or road vehicles, recreation is concentrated but intermittent. Gullies gullies, water flow 1986). In (Morgan offsite (document this on the Evaluation problems resource can be caused by area. on the evaluation 2), but still affect the site function Appendix Sheet, observing may be assessed by and/or Gullies the numbers of gullies in an area ero- signs of active on individual gullies. General of erosion assessing the severity problem, erosional of a current indicative are sion, (e.g., incised sides along a gully) in the growing banks, vegetation rounded by while a healing gully is characterized in gully depth (Martin and a reduction bottom and on the sides (Anderson 1974), a gully in erosion headcuts may be a sign of accelerated 1993). Active and Morton 1986). signs of healing (Morgan of the gully is showing if the rest even site with the same ground cover percentage in which the bare soil is distributed in in which the bare percentage cover the same ground site with 1982, unconnected (Gould are if these patches patches, especially many small 1996). Sanchez and et al. 1994, Puigdefabregas Spaeth on vegeta- depending on impacts can vary ground seasonally, The amount of bare and litter amount (e.g., utilization), (e.g., herbivore cover tion canopy (foliar) above (e.g., drought, weather to can varytrampling loss), and relative annually 1996, Anderson 1974). Current and Hernandez (Gutierrez precipitation) average cover the adequacy of current in determining be considered and past climate must for accelerated erosion. the site against the potential in protecting

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 30 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 30 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage31 have detrimentaleffectsonplantsatthedepositionalsite. site’s hydrologic function.Even originatefrom offsite,theycan whensoilparticles 1986, Morin and Van Winkel 1996). The changesintexture willinfluencethe textureaffect thefunctionofsiteby modifyingsoilsurface (Hennessey etal. canoriginatefromLike watererosion, offsitebut winddepositedsoilparticles increases (Anderson1974). deposits), whichincrease insize andarea ofcoverage asthedegree ofwinderosion from wind-scoured depressions isredistributed toaccumulationareas (e.g.,eolian mesquite dunes,Gibbens etal.1983,Hennessey etal.1983). The soilremoved andtreesthus shrubs inrangelandecosystemsare likelysinksfordeposition(e.g., wind stream. The tallerthevegetation, thegreater thedepositionrate(Pye 1987); vides roughness toslow thewindvelocity andallow tosettlefrom the soilparticles isoftenassociatedwithvegetationDeposition thatpro- ofsuspendedsoilparticles (Blackburn etal.1992,Pierson etal.1994). indi one ormore ofthesefactorsisagood andbiologicalcrusts. surface, The presence of adhesion ofdecomposingorganicmattertothesoil been fullyincorporatedintoaggregates atthesoilsurface, maybestabilized bysurfaces soilorganicmatterwhichhas iskeytothisindicator(Morganthe soilsurface 1986).Soil relative tovegetation andmicrotopographic features. The stabilityof Resistance dependsonsoilstabilityandthespatialvariability insoilstability This indicatorassessestheresistance ofthesoiltoerosion. ofthesurface Erosion to Resistance 8. SoilSurface being influencedby erosional processes. origin andthelargersize and/oramountoflittermoved, themore thesiteis redistribution. In general,thegreater distancethatlitterismoved from itspointof The size oflittermoved by windorwaterisalsoanindicatorofthedegree oflitter bare spacetypicaloftheplantcommunityandintensitystorm. amount oflittermovement varies from largetosmalldependingontheamountof over which waterandsedimentsare moved inresponse tomajorstormevents. The geomorphic stability. For example,alluvialfansandfloodplainsare active surfaces The inherent capacityforlittermovement onasoilisfunctionofitsslopeand sediment tobedeposited(Thurow, etal.1988a). thereby capacitytobereduced ofthe causing sediment transport andaportion showed thatlitterofbunchgrassesrepresented torunoff, significantobstructions to bethevariable mostcloselycorrelated withinterrillerosion. The samestudy erosion. In astudyintheEdwards Plateau in Texas, litteraccumulationwasshown less erosion, whereas themovement oflitteroffsiteisanindicationmore severe erosion. The redistribution oflitterwithinasmallarea onasiteisindicative of movementthe soilsurface) isanindicatorofthedegree ofwindand/or water The degree andamountoflitter(i.e.,deadplantmaterialthatisincontactwith Movement 7. Litter cator of soil surface resistancecator ofsoilsurface toerosion

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 31 acting as living mulch). In general, the acting as living mulch). In relative importance of biological crustsrelative increases as annual precipitation and as annual precipitation increases potential vascular plant cover decreases. If decreases. plant cover potential vascular enhance the retention of soil water (i.e., enhance the retention tration of water through the soil surfacetration of water through or characteristics, they may increase or reduce the infil- the or reduce characteristics, they may increase and Greene 1994). In some areas, depending on soil some areas, 1994). In and Greene (Bond and Harris 1964, Belnap and Gardner 1993, Eldridge and Gardner 1964, Belnap (Bond and Harris Biological crusts are important as cover and in stabilizing soil surfaces important crusts as cover are Biological tant than stability under plants. Similarly, where pedestals have formed along have pedestals where under plants. Similarly, tant than stability Soil surface resistance to erosion in arid and semi-arid ecosystems is often higher ecosystems is in arid and semi-arid to erosion surface resistance Soil potential is different the site Where interspaces. canopies than in under plant on be reported should values canopy and interspace canopies, both under plant 2). (Appendix Sheet the Reference under rain- may be minimal even is high, soil erosion When soil surface resistance of the presence Conversely, et al. 1993). 5 inches/hour (Goff, fall intensities of over soil erosion materials at the soil surfacehighly erodible increase can dramatically by wind al. 1997), and by et (Morgan cover high vegetative is when there even water, 1998). Gillette and al.1994, Belnap et (Fryrear is removed cover when vegetative is more soil stability in plant interspaces cover, vegetative with low areas In impor intense be subjected to more soil at the edge of the pedestal will paths, the flow path. the flow is topographically above than soil which flow during overland forces of soil surface fragments to breakdown Another good indicator is the resistance several test, use the tip of a knife to remove a simple For when placed in water. inch deep) soil surface 1/8 fragments from small (maximum 1/4 inch diameter, which might differ in soil stability. other areas beneath plants, interspaces, and any stability low with Fragments each in a separate bottlecap filled with water. Place with within 30 seconds. Fragments or “melt” will appear to lose their structure upon contact with the water and immediately will “melt” stability low extremely with moderate particlesthe water will become cloudy as the soil disperse. Fragments their integrity until the water in the bottlecap is stability will appear to retain their shape, even agitated will retain aggregates stable swirled. Highly or gently is desired, precision more samples, or where multiple For when agitated indefinitely. one (unstable) to to generate a rating from a simple soil stability kit can be used highly cor- This indicator is more 7). et al. 2001) (Appendix six (stable) (Herrick et al. 1994) than 1994; Pierson and Pierson (Blackburn with water erosion related also declines with an susceptibility to wind erosion However, with wind erosion. et al. 1994) and biological crust cover matter (Fryrear in soil organic increase with soil stability in water. correlated 1998). Both are and Gillette, (Belnap crusts and non- (e.g. algae, cyanobacteria) consist of microorganisms Biological the soil surface. on or just below lichens) that grow plants (e.g. mosses and vascular patterns, physical and chemical characteristics, along with seasonal precipitation Soil largely determine the dominant organisms comprising the crust.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 32 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 32 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage33 water (e.g.,marshesintheSoutheast) shouldberatedas“None toSlight.” cover cover (nearly100percent surface by stones)orthere iscontinuousopen Areas inwhichthere islittletonosoilpresent duetothepresence ofnaturalrock white coloronthesoilsurface. overland water flow similartophysicalcrusts. They are usuallyidentifiedby a agricultural fields. Where theydooccur, theycanreduce infiltrationandincrease the evaluation area and/ortheecologicalreference area) andinabandoned,irrigated thatcovers communities;seethesoilsurvey parent shrub materials(e.g.,saltdesert rarelyChemical crusts forminrangelandsexcept onsoilsformedfrom particular still resistant toinfiltration. contain numerous smallairpocketsorspacessimilartoasponge,thesesoilsare which alsoincludevesiculargenerally negative. crusts, Althoughphysicalcrusts However, againstwatererosion is theirfunctioninstabilizingthesoilsurface inIndicator 6, Wind Scoured,discussion Blowouts, and/orDeposition Areas). mayexertPhysical apositive crusts influenceonreducing winderosion (see strandsoforganicmaterial,suchascyanobacteria. visible by poresperforated orfissures andinwhichthere isnoapparent bindingby sharp objectandlookingforcohesive whichare layers atthesoilsurface not arePhysical withapenorother soilcrusts identifiedby liftingthesoilsurface areas andwillbemore likelytoevaporate thaninfiltrateintothesoil. are reduced andoverland waterflow increases. Also,watercanpondinflatcrusted biological activity. becomesmore Asthisphysicalcrust extensive, infiltrationrates content, orcontainonlyrelatively organicmatterthatisassociatedwithlow inert low tendtohavesandy soils.Physical organicmatter very andchemicalcrusts common onsilt,clay, andloamsoils. When present, theyare relatively thinin tosealandabsorblesswater.soil causingthesurface are Physical crusts more are layersPhysical inducedby crusts thinsurface the impactofraindrops onbare to ERAs,ifavailable, forbaselineinformationpriortoconducting theevaluation. islackingintheecologicalsitedescriptions,referinformation onbiologicalcrusts that distinguishthesurf characteristics soil mayremainall inplace,but slope, where winderosion doesnotoccur, the 1992, O’Hara etal.1993).In areas withlimited complete lossofthislayer (Satterlund andAdams dation ofsoilstructure. Historic soilerosion mayresult in organicmatterincreases,soil surface resulting degra- infurther (Wood etal.1997).Aserosion increases, thepotentialforlossof into thesoilandisessentialforsuccessfulseedlingestablishment and nutrientcontent. This generallycontrols themaximumrateofwaterinfiltration 1998). In hasthehighestorganicmatter mostsites,thesoilatandnearsurface indication ofalossinsitepotential(Dormaar and Willms 1998,Davenport etal. layer orhorizon orallofthesoilsurface isan The lossordegradationofpart orDegradation Loss 9. SoilSurface ace from thesubsurface

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 33 have the greatest potential to influence the greatest have infiltration and soil erosion (Thurow et al. (Thurow infiltration and soil erosion 1986, 1988a, b). An example of a composition change that reduces infiltration composition change that reduces bunchgrass and short grasses over time bunchgrass and short grasses over Texas, shifts in plant composition between Texas, infiltration and/or runoff. In the Edwards Plateau in Plateau the Edwards In infiltration and/or runoff. processes, basal area and spatial distribution can all affect basal area processes, patterns, litter production and associated decomposition patterns, production litter the ability of a site to capture and store precipitation. Plant rooting Plant precipitation. and store the ability of a site to capture teristics of the surface layer have been degraded. Note also that visible soil also degraded. Note been teristics of the surface have layer 10. Plant Community10. Composition and Distribution Relative to Infiltration and Runoff form is an important of infiltration rate and determinant growth Vegetation amount and type The distribution of the interrill et al 1988a, b). (Thurow erosion has been found to be an important spatial and of vegetation factor controlling in rates on rangelands in infiltration and interrill erosion temporal variations (Johnson and 1990), Idaho Wood and 1975; Blackburn (Blackburn Nevada and Blackburn (Wood Texas 1990) and Wood and 1988, Blackburn Gordon et al. 1988a, b). Thurow 1984, 3, Functional/Structural Changes in plant community composition (see Appendix or negatively) and the distribution of species can influence (positively Sheet) Groups erosion is covered in discussions of Indicator 3, Pedestals and/or Terracettes, and Terracettes, and/or 3, Pedestals of Indicator in discussions is covered erosion 11, Compaction Layer. subsurface degradation in Indicator The two primary the organic matter are used to make this evaluation indicators 1994) and Stott (Karlen the structure 1998) and Willms and content (Dormaar reflected frequently organic matter content is of Soil the surface or horizon. layer (common in iron high amounts of oxidized color of the soil, although in a darker matter organic arid soils, where In organic matter. the obscure humid climates) can to wet The use of a mister faint. this accumulation can be quite low, contents are visible. more can help make these layers the soil profile the loss of clearly defined structural by structural units degradation is reflected Soil soils with <1/8 inch to 3 to 4 inches. In scales from more at one or or aggregates Structural visible within the aggregates. are sizes of various pores good structure, homogeneous surface and is massive, horizon in a more degradation is reflected heavier et al. 1986). In in infiltration rates (Warren associated with a reduction angular structural units. more by soils, degradation may also be reflected sites can also be used, although in at reference Comparisons to intact soil profiles of part of one or or or all of the A horizon, degradation, the removal cases of severe et al. 1986) may make identification textural components (e.g., Hennessey more of difficult. areas reference appropriate layers are lost. Except in soils with a clearly defined horizon immediately below defined horizon in soils with a clearly Except lost. are layers the surface the loss and distinguish between is often difficult to (e.g., argillic), it this distinction of this indicator, the purposes of the soil surface.degradation For is unnecessary—the functional to what extent the is to determine objective charac

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 34 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 34 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage35 ecosystems asthesamespeciesmayhave different effects. conversion. Care mustbeexercised ininterpreting thisindicatorindifferent snow entrapmentandsoilwaterstoragemaybereduced by thisvegetation type grasses. These annualgrassesprovide excellent watershedprotection, although toamonoculture stepperangelandisconverted ofannual affected whensagebrush communities (Schlesingeretal.1990).However, are infiltrationandrunoff also grasslandstoshrub-dominated and increases istheconversion ofdesert waterrunoff nitro explaining plantproductivity, plantpercent and functionaldiversity are theprincipalfactors Solbrig etal.1996).Functional composition cycle (Chapin1993,Dawson andChapin1993, synthetic pathways,nitrogen fixingability, orlife (height andvolume) orroot (fibrous vs.tap)structure, photo- together, onanecologicalsitebasis,becauseofsimilarshoot Functional/structural groups are asuiteofspeciesthatare grouped Groups 12. Functional/Structural lower soilmoisture orhigherclaycontent. and Hartge(Blake 1986).Increased resistance toaprobe canbesimplydueto increased density(measured by weighing aknown volume ofoven-dry soil) dense soilstructure over lessdensesoillayers, horizontal root growth, and of physicalfeatures. Those physicalfeatures includesuchthingsasplatyorblocky, layer shouldbeconfirmedusingmultipleindicators,includingdirect observation for thecompactionlayer (Barnes etal.1971).However, anypotentialcompaction Pierce 1993)orby simplyprobing thesoilwithasharprod orshovel and“feeling” layers maybedetectedinsomesoilswiththeuseofapenetrometer (Larsonand ture androot morphology; thisisdoneby apersonwithsoilsexperience. These digging asmallhole(generallylessthan1-footdeep)anddescribingthesoilstruc- lands are usuallylessthan6inchesbelow thesoilsurface. They are detectedby atanecologicalreference orobserved area.soil survey Compactedlayers inrange- change,notatexturalasdescribedin A compactionlayer isastructural (e.g., Thurow etal1988a). generally sufficienttolimitcompactionby livestock inmanyuplandsystems (Hillel 1998).Recovery activityandfrost processes heaving)are (e.g.,earthworm compaction layer. Moist orsaturatedsoil soilismore easilycompactedthandry any otheractivitythatrepeatedly cancausea causesanimpacttothesoilsurface removal,et al.1988a),foottraffic(Cole1985),brush andseedingequipment,or Naeth 1995),recreational vehicles (Webb andmilitary and Wilshire 1983, Thurow andPullar trampling(Willat herbivore 1983, Warren etal.1986,Chanyskand 1988a), ornutrientcycling processes (Hassink etal.1993).Farm machinery, growth (Wallace andPullar 1987),waterinfiltration(Willat 1983, Thurow etal agricultural fields.Compactionbecomesaproblem whenitbeginstolimitplant face atthebottomofatillagelayer. These plow pansare oftenfoundinabandoned Compactioncanalsooccurbelowon ordisturbancesofthesoilsurface. thesur- layerA compactionlayer ofdensesoilcausedby isanear-surface repeated impacts 11. Layer Compaction gen, planttotalnitrogen, andlightpenetration

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 35 appropriate. be included in this evaluation when be included in this evaluation components of many ecosystems and should this Great Basin ecological site. Biological crusts are ecological site. Biological Basin this Great this example since they are an important component of this example since they are Non-vascular plants (e.g., biological crusts) are included in plants (e.g., biological crusts) are Non-vascular of the plant (including biological crust) communities in the reference all (Tilman et al. 1997). The study by Tilman et al. (1997) showed that functional that showed et al. (1997) Tilman by The study et al. 1997). (Tilman studies This and related processes. on ecosystem has a large impact composition such as invasion composition, that change ecosystem that factors demonstrated have fragmentation, disturbance frequency, deposition, organisms, nitrogen novel by can management practices and alternative decimation, species removal, predator on ecosystem processes. effect a strong have Worksheet Groups should use the Functional/Structural The evaluator(s) 2) and in the (Appendix Sheet of the Reference the development 3) in (Appendix area. assessment of the evaluation biomass, or annual production, upon the relative dominance is based Relative contributes to the relative that each functional/structural collectively group cover composition by species is to use for grouping protocol The recommended total. experience in estimating have doesn’t the evaluator(s) If annual production. composition may be used if cover then composition by annual production, by The potential for functional/structural available. data are reference appropriate information from groups placing species into the appropriate by is derived groups the Functional/Structural from that has been developed Sheet found in the Reference ranking of functional/structuralThe list and should groups Worksheet. Groups reflect state, under the natural disturbance regime, and in the context of normal climatic state, under the natural disturbance regime, with the historic climax com- should not be limited to a comparison It variability. Descriptions. Range Site included in the old NRCS which is the reference munity, state (in the in the reference the comparison should be to communities Instead, information, please more site). For state and transition model for the ecological see the Concepts section. can accommodate changing or Worksheet Groups The Functional/Structural 6 and 7). Tables ecological sites (see categories for different adding functional group original components of the not but were present, now that are groups Functional plants), need to be identified on this sheet. introduced site (e.g., weeds, when selecting is also considered The number of species in each functional group the numbers of species If Sheet. rating categorythe appropriate on the Evaluation this reduced, been greatly in many of the functional/structural have plant groups of functional Both the presence may be an indication of loss of biotic integrity. a significant effect on have and the number of species within the groups groups et al. 1997). (Tilman ecosystem processes Six functional/

Leadplant Dottedgayfeather coneflower Prairie Buffalograss Blue grama Westernwheatgrass Green needlegrass Sideoatsgrama Little bluestem Big bluestem Indiangrass

Shrubs Forbs Shortgrass Midgrasses Midgrasses Tall Grasses Tall Midgrasses Midgrasses Shortgrass Forbs Shrubs Leguminous Perennial Warm Season Cool Season Warm Season Warm Season Warm Season Warm Season Cool Season Warm Perennial Leguminous Table 6. Table groups and examples structural a species that of representative site might prairie ecological include.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 36 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 36 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage37 addressed intheReference Sheet (Appendix 2). considered ofthisindicator, aspart itshouldbe and ismore resistant torunoff. If littersize is larger littertendstodecomposemore slowly because amount, littersize maybeimportant an indicationoffungalgrowth). In additionto (darker color)oroxidation (whitishcolorwhichmayalsobe for thisindicatorifthelitterisundergoingdecomposition the site.Note intheCommentssectiononEvaluation Sheet excess oftheexpectedamountresults inadowngraded ratingfor pared steppeplantcommunities.In tonative shrub thiscase,thelitterin accumulation oflitterinexotic grasscommunities(e.g.,cheatgrass)com- site potentialandcurrent weather conditions.Anexampleistheincreased Some plantcommunitieshave increased litterquantitiesrelative tothe and isstillstanding)withlitterduringthisevaluation. standing-dead plants(plantmaterialthatisnotdetachedfrom theplant determining theratingforamountoflitter. Be careful nottoconfuse matic influences(e.g.,drought, wet years) mustbecarefully considered in weather andthedegree ofbiomassutilizationeachyear. Therefore, cli- in thereference statepertheReference Sheet. Litterisdirectly related to amount thatwouldbeexpectedforthesametypeofgrowing conditions The amountoflitter(herbaceousandwoody)present iscompared tothe (Thurow etal.1988aorb). torunoff obstruction significant ofsoil(Hesterand transport etal.1997).Litterbiomassrepresents a raindrops andoverland flow, thereby reducing thepotentialdetachment ability ofthesitetoresist erosion. Litterhelpstodissipatetheenergyof 1997). Also,theamountoflitterpresent canplayarole inenhancingthe soil microclimate andprovides foodformicroorganisms (Hester etal. nutrient cycling (Whitford 1988,1996).Alllitterhelpstomoderatethe provides asource ofsoilorganicmaterialandrawmaterialsforon-site (asopposedtostandingdeadvegetation) contact withthesoilsurface in that isdetachedfrom thebaseofplant. oflitterthatis The portion Litter isanydeadplantmaterial(from bothnative andexotic plants) Amount 14. Litter natural disturbanceevents (e.g.,fire, drought, insectinfestation,disease). for plantmortality. considerablydependingon mayvary Plant mortality Only plantsnative tothesite(orseededplantsifinaseeding)are assessed relative tositepotentialandclimaticconditions(Stoddard etal.1975). (Pyke 1995).Ahealthyrangehasamixture ofmanyageclassesplants decline andundesirableplants(e.g.,weeds orinvasives) mayincrease are eitherdyingordead,theintegrityofstandwouldbeexpectedto dynamics ofthestand.If recruitment isnotoccurringandexistingplants under normaldisturbanceregimes, isanindicatorofthepopulation mature plantsinthecommunity, relative tothatexpectedforthesite ofdeadordecadent(e.g.,moribund,dying)toyoungThe proportion or 13. PlantMortality/Decadence shrub steppesitemightinclude. structural groupsthataGreatBasinDesert Table 7. Biological Annual Perennial Perennial Cool Season Cool Season Warm Half Tall Shrubs Crust Grass Forbs–Not Forbs–N Mid Short Season Shrub (Deep N fixers Fixers Bunchgrass Bunchgrass Bunchgrass Rooted) osLichens Moss Biscuitroot Cheatgrass Arrowleaf Phlox Lupine Astragalus Indian Thurbers Squirreltail bluegrass Sandberg Red Threeawn Dropseed Sand Snake-weed Broom sagebrush Wyo. Big Selected speciesforninefunctional/ Balsamroot Ricegrass needlegrass

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 37 native, and native plants. Native invasive plants. Native and native native, plants (e.g., pinyon pine or juniper into plants (e.g., pinyon sagebrush steppe) must be assessed by comparing current status with potential comparing current economic or ecological impacts), non- are listed by a State because of their unfavorable a State listed by are Invasives can include noxious plants (i.e., plants that can include noxious Invasives noxious not be exotic. and may or may are invasive to the evaluation area. These plants may or may not be area. to the evaluation invasive are 16. Invasive Plants 16. a minor component part not or are of (if exotic), plants that are plants are Invasive the potential the original plant community or communities that have of (if native), establish- to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the site if their future management interventions. by controlled Species is not actively ment and growth to (e.g. short-term years response that become dominant for only one to several This indicator deals with plants that plants. not invasive are or wildfire) drought 15. Annual Production Annual 15. through to chemical energy of solar energy is the conversion production Primary document, is the as used in this Annual production, of photosynthesis. the process is It within a year. material produced plant vascular of above-ground net quantity for secondary plants and its availability by energy captured an indicator of the potential conditions. Production weather current given consumers in an ecosystem or ecological sites (Whittakerwill change with communities 1975), biological and latitude (Cooper 1975). Annual 1994), and Downing (Tilman diversity potential (total annual to the site production is compared area of the evaluation Sheet. as described in the Reference production) standing ground based on peak above are Sheet Reference Comparisons to the has occurred vegetation utilization of If no matter when the site is assessed. crop, to estimate the is required the evaluator(s) in early stages of growth, or plants are and include this amount when making or expected removed annual production include standing dead vegetation not estimate. Do the total site production in the tissue (woody stems) not produced or live years) in previous (produced current as annual production. year only) in the (annual production alive seeded, and weeds) All species (e.g., native, aboveground included in the determination of total are of the evaluation, year is not an issue. or introduced) native (e.g., type of vegetation Therefore, production. of a sagebrush (1988) found that conversion and Rogers example, Rickard For affected vegetation annual grassland greatly steppe plant community to an exotic biomass production. and function, but not above-ground structure As with the other indicators, it is important to consider all possible local and runoff/run-on (e.g., in production explanations for differences landscape level soils within an location, or different regional due position, weather, to landscape in other site to differences differences production attributing ecological site) before characteristics.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 38 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 38 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage39 an episodicevent inmanyrangelandecological indicator sinceplantrecruitment from seedis ofthis Recruitment isnotassessedasapart the Reference Sheet. production ofthesereproductive structures asdocumentedin tion oftillersorrhizomes isassessedrelative totheexpected For plantsthatreproduce vegetatively, thenumberanddistribu- that are stressed ordecadent(Hanson andStoddart 1940). plants are betterabletoproduce adequatequantitiesofviableseedthanare plants recruitment potential.Seed production isrelated toplantvigorsincehealthy length ongrazed andungrazed bluebunchwheatgrassplantsasameasure ofplant Sheet. Mueggler (1975)recommended comparisonofseedstalknumbersorculm in theevaluation area withwhatisexpectedasdocumentedontheReference number ofseedsperseedstalknative orseededplants(notincludinginvasives) Seed production canbeassessedby comparingthenumberofseedstalksand/or this indicator.on provide agoodbenchmark toseparateweather versus managementinfluences by evaluating managementeffectsonthisindicator. Ecological reference areas todeterminedeparture from theexpectedvalueimportant intheReference Sheet reproductive capabilityofperennial plantsisgreatly influenced by weather, itis and clonalproduction (e.g.,tillers)forvegetatively reproducing plants.Since becomes abasicmeasure ofreproductive potentialforsexuallyreproducing plants, 1979),inflorescencethe remainder production oftheplant(White (e.g.,seedstalks) (Harper 1977).Since reproductive growth occursinamodularfashionsimilarto a site.However, annualseedproduction ofperennial plantsishighlyvariable mechanismofindividualplantreplacement reproduction at sexual istheprimary Adequate seedproduction isessentialtomaintainpopulationsofplantswhen ofPerennialPlants Capability 17. Reproductive are susceptibletoexotic speciesinvasion (Stohlgrencommunities etal.1999). ecosystemstress.an indicatorofnew Even highlydiverse, speciesrichplant emphasizingtheiruseas bunchgrass communities(Laceyetal.1990),further Some invasive plants(e.g.,knapweeds) are capableofinvading undisturbed,climax use by cheatgrass). (tamarisk) inriparianareas) orrapidnutrientdepletion(e.g.,highnitrogen cedar Invasive speciesmayadversely affectasiteby increased waterusage(e.g.,salt catastr ofthesite(Olsonproperties 1999). These impactsmayrangefrom slightto the ecosystem. These impactscaninfluencebothbiologicalorganismsandphysical interrelationships, andtheprocesses by whichenergyandnutrientsmove through Invasive plantsmayimpactanecosystem’s typeandabundanceofspecies,their invasive native plants. areas, andphotographsalsoprovide informationonthehistoricaldistributionof status describedintheReference Sheet. Historical accounts,ecologicalreference ophic dependingonthespeciesinvolved andtheirdegree ofdominance.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 39 ndicator 12 Largely intact and nearly matches site capability. Number and type of height classes and the number and density of individuals in each height class closely match that expected for the site. find that this indicator often structure. position. Both optional indicators Evident throughout the site but continuity is broken. in the number or density of individuals across several height classes. Number of height classes slightly reduced and/or slight reduction component for livestock, wildlife, or special status species are not wildlife, or special status species are for livestock, Number of height classes moderately reduced and/ or one height class lost and/or addition of height class not expected for site and/or moderate reduction in the number or density of individuals across several height classes. In protected areas and with a minor in interspaces. Departure from Reference Sheet tor of suitability ence state. Evaluation areas that have no perennial plants would be rated plants would no perennial that have areas ence state. Evaluation descriptors for biological crusts and vegetation descriptors for biological crusts and 18. Optional Indicators18. indicators that the baseline must represent The 17 indicators described previously to developed and descriptors may be be assessed on all sites. Other indicators of optional indicators on the development only restriction The meet local needs. They not management, related. and their use is that they must be ecologically, example, an For the quality of evaluation. should also significantly increase indica They may be important indicators to determine the health of a land unit. appropriate not included in the determination but are in the allotment or ranch evaluation, integrity. hydrologic function, or biotic of the status of soil/site stability, Vegetation Vertical Crusts and Biological Examples of two optional indicators, partially addressed are 8. Both Table included in are Structure, by I sites. Therefore, evidence of recruitment (seedlings or vegetative spread) of spread) (seedlings or vegetative evidence of recruitment Therefore, sites. perennial, the section on in the comment seeded plants is recorded or native, of capabilities rating the reproductive in is not considered but Sheet, Evaluation plants. perennial of hyperarid the exception With plants. only perennial This indicator considers peninsula and northernecosystems (e.g., Arabian desert), Atacama all nearly 2002). A plants (Whitford the potential to supportrangelands have perennial included in the ever, if is rarely, plants that lacks perennial plant community refer to the capacity have this indicator because they no longer for Total” to “Extreme plants. perennial (re)produce (Functional/Structural Groups); however, many users however, Groups); (Functional/Structural becomes heavily focused on plant community com are also partially reflected by Indicator 4 (Bare Ground). Soil stabilized by visible by stabilized Soil Ground). 4 (Bare Indicator by also partially reflected are ground. bare biological crust lichens, mosses, and algae) is not considered (e.g., Number of height classes significantly reduced and/or more than one height class lost and/or addition of more than one height class not expected for site and/or significant reduction in the number or density of individuals across several height classes. Largely absent, occurring mostly in protected areas. to Total to Extreme Moderate Slight or dramatic increase / and in number of height classes expected for site and/or dramatic reduction in the number or density of individuals across several height classes. Number of height classes greatly reduced and/or most height classes lost Found only in protected areas, very limited suite of functional groups. Optional indicator and generic Indicator Extreme Moderate Moderate Slight to None to Biological Crusts Vertical Vegetation Structure Table 8. Table

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 40 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 40 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage41 consistent protocol oftenexceeds thebenefitofincludingoptionalindicators wanted tomaintainconsistencyacross evaluations. indicatorsbedropped fromthat particular becauseusers theprotocol, inpart that are notappropriate forthisprotocol. There were alsorelatively requests few cators, except where individualswantedtoincludemanagement-basedindicators previous editionsofthisprotocol includedrelatively indi- suggestionsfornew few The extensive commentsreceived bothpriortoandfollowing thepublicationof in detectingchangessoil/sitestability, hydrologic function,andbioticintegrity. rangelands. Additional indicatorsmaybeaddedtothesheetsimprove sensitivity The indicatorsincludedinthesesheetsare notintendedtobeallinclusive forall disturbances such asfire andgrazingthataffectgrowth form. differences groups, inageclassdistributions,orto withinfunctional/structural sion ortheintegrityofanimalpopulations. This variability maybeduetospecies vegetation groups structure affectswindero- withinfunctional/structural vertical stabilization). The vegetation structure indicatorisusefulwhere variability in particularly i indicatormightbeappliedwhere playa The biologicalcrusts thesecrusts it alsoprovides someindicationofthehorizontal vegetation dis Because theBare Ground indicatorincludesthespatialdistributionofbare ar this rating.However, ifoneofthefour and localecologicalknowledge supported uator(s) interpretation ofotherinformation as “slight to moderate” assumingthattheeval- soil/site stabilityattributedeparture wouldberated ture from theecological sitedescription/ERAcategories,the in the“moderate” andsixare inthe“slight tomoderate” depar- gories. For example,iffourofthesoil/sitestabilityindicatorsare majority oftheindicatorsforeachattributefallunderfive cate- foreachattribute. ture category onwhereThis decisionisbased,inpart, the A “preponderance ofevidence” approach isusedtoselecttheappropriate depar- the Reference Sheet foreachattribute. and commentsfrom allofthesheets,toarrive atasingledegree ofdeparture from Evaluation Sheet. ratingismadeby reviewing theindicatorratings This summary hydrologic function,andbioticintegrity)are madeatthebottomofPage 2ofthe tion ofthedegree ofdeparture oftherangelandhealthattributes(soil/sitestability, attribute inanevaluation area. The interpretation oftheindicatorsandselec- and determiningthedegree ofdeparture from theReference Sheet foreachhealth The interpretation ofindicators process isthecriticallinkbetween observations Complete theEvaluation Sheet (Appendix 1,backpage). Rangeland HealthAttributes(REQUIRED) theFunctionalStatusof the Three Step 5.Determine mportant biologicalorphysicalrole (e.g.,fornitrogenmportant fixationorsoil The value ofmaintaining a tribution. eas, .

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 41 indicators in the “moderate” category for the site (e.g., important is particularly indicators in the “moderate” can be supported. a rating of “moderate” ground), bare the attribute managers may use for each attribute, is made an evaluation Once (monitoring and/or inventory information more data) to identify where evaluation or if not available, if available, information should be reviewed This is required. depar- (i.e., moderate areas these Therefore, be collected. the information should since they implementation of monitoring studies often ideal for the are ture) additional to management activities. However, responsive should be the most dependent upon rating, of the departure useful regardless monitoring may be an area. changes in uses or management of future of the evalua- experience and knowledge upon the collective relies This procedure rating for the the collective indicator and then to interpret tor(s) to classify each The rating of indicators into one summary for each attribute. rating of departure rating for each attribute is not into a collective each indicator and the interpretation experienced, for use by has been developed This procedure work. apprentice-level be assessment procedure is not intended that this It evaluator(s). knowledgeable without training and assistance by newused by inexperienced employees, and/or employees. knowledgeable experienced and more

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 42 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 42 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage43 per theprocedures inthisdocument. management are notappropriate basedsolelyontheevaluation ofrange health often loweris thaninareas thathave notyet crossed a threshold. Changesin ecological threshold. The costeffectiveness ofmanagementactionsintheseareas have easilyidentifiedsevere resourceusually problems andhave oftencrossed an one ormore attributesisrated“Extreme to Total” or“Moderate toExtreme” under existingmanagement.Areasor determineifthetrend inwhich issatisfactory interested inthemanagementofarea) todeterminethereason fortheseratings tory, monitoring,ordifferent assessments;communicationwithvarious groups actions(e.g.,reviewAttribute orinitiationofinven- ratingsmaystimulatefurther rangeland health. tool todeterminethefinal“health” orfunctionalstatusofthethree attributesof protocol describedinthisdocumentisnotintendedtobeusedasa“stand-alone” Additional studiesorinformationmayberequired toconfirmtheseratings. The siteinacomplexare includedinthemaplegend“ecologicalecological sites.” complex includestwoormore ecologicalsites. The attributeratingsforeach units are toosmalltobemapped,a“complex” mapunitcanbeapplied.Each a pasture ormanagementunit(e.g.,ranchallotment). Where ecologicalsite for thethree rangelandhealthattributes,maybemappedandconsolidatedwithin ecological sites.Areas inthesamerangelandecologicalsite,withratings local knowledge.and Individual siteevaluations are madeonselectedrangeland geographicalinformationsystem(GIS)technology,information, soilsurveys, ormonitoring graphic maps,waterlocations,grazing-usepatterninventory with theproper studydesign. Tools tohelpapplythislargerareas includetopo- evaluation area, itcanbeappliedatawatershed,pasture, allotment,orranchlevel Although theprocedure describedinthisdocumentisbaseduponasite-specific Areas Larger to Applications

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 43 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 44 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage45 this conceptandprotocol willalsoevolve. concept ofrangelandhealthcontinuestoevolve andmature, theapplicationof (e.g., asdescribedinstateandtransitiondiagrams)continuestogrow. Asthe indicators willcontinuetoevolve asourunderstandingofecologicaldynamics site-specific indicatorsanddescriptorswillbedeveloped. The interpretation ofthe of continuedresearch andapplicationofthisprocedure. Where possible,ecological assessment oftheindicators. This documentwillcontinuetoberevised asaresult of rangelandhealthwillbecomemore quantitative andlessreliant onqualitative thresholds forrangelandhealth.Once thisinformationisavailable, theassessment However, more research isneededtoquantifyindicatorattributesandidentify or provide datathatcanbeaggregated foranationalreport on rangelandhealth. intended nordesignedtoreplace asatrend quantitative study, monitoring,serve problems; itsimplyidentifieswhere aproblem exists. This procedure isnot resource problems. This procedure doesnotestablishthecauseofrangelandhealth (e.g., Table 2inConceptssection),canbeusedtoprovide earlywarningsof information technique, inassociationwithquantitative monitoringand inventory assistance specialistswithagoodcommunicationtoolforusethepublic. This Qualitative assessmentsofrangelandhealthprovide landmanagersandtechnical Summary

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 45 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 46 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage47 Bond, R.D.andJ.R.Harris. 1964. The influence Blake, 1986.Bulk G.R.andK.H.Hartge. density. Blackburn, W.H., F.B. Pierson, C.L.Hanson, T.L. Thurow, andA.L.Hanson. 1992. The spatialand Blackburn, W.H. andF.B. Pierson Jr. 1994.Sources ofvariation ininterrillerosion onrangelands. Blackburn,W.H. andM.K. Wood. 1990.Influence coppicedune ofsoilfrost oninfiltrationofshrub Blackburn, W.H. 1975.Factors influencinginfiltrationandsedimentproduction ofsemiaridrangelands. Bestelmeyer, B.T., J.E.Herrick, J.R.Brown, D.A. Trujillo, andK.M.Havstad. 2004.Landmanagement Bestelmeyer, B.T., J.R.Brown, K.M.Havstad, R.Alexander, G.Chavez, andJ.E.Herrick. 2002. Benkobi, L.,M.J. Trlica, andJ.L.Smith. 1993.Soil lossasaffectedby different combinationsofsurface Belnap, J.andD.A.Gillette. 1998. Vulnerability towinderosion: theinfluences biologicalcrusts ofdesert Belnap, J.andS.Gardner. 1993.Soil microstructure insoiloftheColoradoPlateau: The role ofthe Barnes, K.K., W.M. Carleton,H.M. Taylor, R.I. andG.E. Throckmorton, Vanden Berg (organizers). Anderson, E.W. 1974.Indicators ofsoilmovement onrangewatersheds.Journal ofRangeManagement Cited Literature Research 2:111–122. algae andfungi.Australian Journal ofSoil soils. I.Effects associatedwithfilamentous of themircoflora of onthephysicalproperties Agron. Monogr. 9.Madison, Wisconsin: ASAandSSSA. Methods ofsoilanalysis.Part I.Second Edition, Pages 363-75. ASAE 35:479–486. soilfactorsinsemiaridrangelands. temporal influencesofvegetation onsurface Transactions ofthe erosion processes, Pages 1-10.Madison, Wisconsin: Soil ScienceSociety ofAmerica. W.H. Blackburn, F.B. Pierson Jr., (eds). G.E.Schuman,andR.Zartman Variability inrangelandwater and duneinterspacesoilsinsouthernNevada. Great Basin Naturalist. 50:41–46. Nevada Water Resources Res. 11:929–937. models. Environmental Management. 34:38–51. in theAmericanSouthwest: approaching ecosystemcomplexitywithconceptualstate-and-transition Journal ofRangeManagement 56:114–126. Viewpoint: issuesinthedevelopment anduseofstatetransitionmodelsforrangelandmanagement. litter androck. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 22:657–61. development, soiltextureof crust anddisturbance.Journal ofAridEnvironments 39:133–42. cyanobacterium Michigan. 1971. Compactionofagriculturalsoils.AmericanSociety ofAgriculturalEngineers. St. Joseph, 27:244–247. Microcoleus vaginatus . Great Basin Naturalist 53:40–47. In A. Klute(ed). In

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 47 Bryan, (ed.), Rill R.B. In Journal of Soil Research 32:389–415. Research of Soil Journal processes in rangelands of Australia. Australian in rangelands of Australia. processes crusts: a review of their roles in soil and ecological in crusts: of their roles a review Eldridge, D.J. and S.B. Greene. 1994. Microbiotic soil 1994. Microbiotic D.J. and S.B. Greene. Eldridge, on fescue grassland soils. Journal of Range Management 51:122–26. of Range Management on fescue grassland soils. Journal Dormar, J.F. and W.D. Willms. 1998. Effect of forty-four of grazing years 1998. Effect Willms. W.D. and J.F. Dormar, avenue for simplification in scaling between leaves. Pages 313-322, In: Ehleringer, J.R. and Field, C.B. J.R. and Field, Ehleringer, 313-322, In: Pages leaves. for simplification in scaling between avenue California. Diego, San Press, leaf to globe. Academic (eds.), Scaling physiological processes: New York. piñon-juniper ecosystems—a unifying perspective of soil erosion thresholds. Journal of Range Journal thresholds. erosion of soil perspective piñon-juniper ecosystems—a unifying 51:231–240. Management University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Cambridge, Press, University Paper INT-350. USDA-USFS Intermountain Research Station: Ogden, Utah. Ogden, Station: Research USDA-USFS Intermountain INT-350. Paper Agronomy 15:211–302. Agronomy Soil Science 61:167–171. Soil IN: Ehleringer, J.R. and Field, C.B. (eds.), Scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. Academic physiological processes: C.B. (eds.), Scaling J.R. and Field, IN: Ehleringer, California. Diego, San Press, foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. of Soil of Alberta,foothills fescue grasslands Canada. Canadian Journal of America Journal 63:362–68. of America Journal erosion: processes and significance. Catena Supplement, 8, Catena Verlag, Germany. Verlag, Catena 8, significance. Catena Supplement, and processes erosion: Rangelands 16:82–85. Rangelands Dawson, T.E. and F.S. Chapin, III. 1993. Grouping plants by their form-function characteristics as an plants by Chapin, III. 1993. Grouping and F.S. T.E. Dawson, Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of plant Synecology. Harper & Row, New York, New & Row, Harper communities: a textbook of plant Synecology. R. 1968. Plant Daubenmire, Davenport, D.W., D.D. Breshears, B.P. Wilcox, and C.D. Allen. 1998. Viewpoint: sustainability of Viewpoint: and C.D. Allen. 1998. Wilcox, B.P. D.D. Breshears, D.W., Davenport, Cooper, J.P. (ed.) 1975. Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments. Cambridge environments. in different and productivity (ed.) 1975. Photosynthesis J.P. Cooper, Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research Montana. trampling effects on six habitat types in western Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational Chepil, W.S. and N.P Woodruff. 1963. The physics of wind erosion and its control. Advances in Advances and its control. The physics of wind erosion 1963. Woodruff. and N.P W.S. Chepil, Chepil, W.S. 1945. Dynamics of wind erosion IV. The translocating and abrasive action of the wind. and abrasive The translocating IV. 1945. Dynamics of wind erosion W.S. Chepil, Chapin, F.S., III. 1993. Functional role of growth forms in ecosystem and global processes. Pages 287-312 Pages processes. forms in ecosystem and global of growth role III. 1993. Functional Chapin, F.S., Chanasyk, D.S. and M.A. Naeth. 1995. Grazing impacts on bulk density and soil strength in the soil strength impacts on bulk density and Grazing 1995. M.A. Naeth. Chanasyk, D.S. and Cerda, A. 1999. Parent material and vegetation affect soil erosion in eastern Spain. Soil Science Society Science Soil in eastern Spain. affect soil erosion material and vegetation A. 1999. Parent Cerda, Bryan, R.B. 1987. Processes and significance of rill development. Pages 1-16 Pages development. significance of rill and Bryan, 1987. Processes R.B. Borman, M.M. and D.A. Pyke. 1994. Successional theory approach. plant community and the desired 1994. Successional M.M. and D.A. Pyke. Borman,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 48 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 48 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage49 Hennessy, J.T., R.P. Gibbens, J.M. Tromble, Hennessy, J.T., B.Kies,R.P. Gibbens, andJ.M. Tromble. 1986. Heady, H.F. andR.D.Child.1994.Rangelandecologymanagement. Westview Press, San Hassink, J.,L.A.Bouwman,K.B.Zwart, andL.Brussaard. 1993.Relationships between habitablepore Harper, J.L.1977.Population biology ofplants.Academic Press, New York. Hansen, W.R. and L.A.Stoddart. 1940.Effects ofgrazinguponbunchwheatgrass.Amer. Soc. Agron. J. Hagen, L.J.1984.Soil aggregate abrasionby impactingsandandsoilparticles. Transactions ofthe Gutierrez, J.andI.Hernandez. 1996.Runoff andinterrillerosion asaffectedby grasscover ina Gould, W.L. 1982. Wind control. by erosion Journal shrub curtailed ofRangeManagement 35:563–66. Goff, B.F., G.C.Bent, 1993.Erosion andG.E.Hart. response steppehillslope. ofadisturbedsagebrush Gillette, D.A.,I.H. Blifford, Jr., andI.H.Fenster. 1972.Measurements ofaerosol-size distributionand Gillette, D.A.,I.H. Blifford, Jr., andD.W. Fryrear. 1974. The influenceofwindvelocity onthesize distribu- Gillette, D.A.and T.R. Walker. produced by 1977.Characteristicsofairborneparticles winderosion of Gibbens, R.P., J.M. Tromble, J.T. Hennessy, andM.Cardenas. 1983.Soil movement inmesquite Fryrear, D.W., C.A.Krammes,D.L. Williamson, and T.M. Zobeck. 1994.Computingthewinderodible Elzinga, C.L.,D.W. Salzer, andJ.W. Willoughby. 1998.Measuring andmonitoringplantpopulations, from 1935to1980inmesquitedunelands and M.Cardenas. 1983. Vegetation changes 50:391–394. New Mexico range.Soil ScienceSociety ofAmericaJournal Soil by years forty-five sorting ofwinderosion onasouthern Francisco, California. space, soilbiota,andmineralizationratesingrasslandsoils.Soil Biology 25:47–55. andBiochemistry 32:278–289. American Society ofAgriculturalEngineering 27:805–808. Mexico. rangelandofnorthern Journalsemi-arid ofAridEnvironments 34:287–295. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 22:698–709. fluxesvertical ofaerosols onlandsubjecttowinderosion. Journal ofApplied Meteorology 11:977–987. tions ofaerosols generatedby thewinderosion ofsoils.Journal ofGeophysical Research 79:4068–4075. sandy soil,High Plains of West Texas. Soil Science123:97–110. Management 36:145–148. duneland andformergrasslandsofsouthernNew Mexico from 1933to1980.Journal ofRange fraction ofsoils.Journal ofSoil and Water 49:183–88. Conservation Journal ofRangeManagement 36:370–374. and formergrasslandsofsouthernNew Mexico. Technical Reference 1730-1.477pp. (Available onlineathttp://www .blm.go v/nstc/librar y/techr ef .htm ).

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 49 R. In Vickers, J.N. Quinton, and R.J. J.N. Quinton, Vickers, Rickson. 1997. A rainfall simulation on rangeland in study of soil erosion 11:291–99. Technology Soil Swaziland. Morgan, R.P.C., K. McIntyre, A.W. K. McIntyre, R.P.C., Morgan, Technical, Wiley, New York. New Wiley, Technical, Davidson, D.A. (ed.), Longman Scientific and Davidson, Morgan, R.P.C. 1986. Soil erosion and conservation. erosion 1986. Soil R.P.C. Morgan, J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart (eds). Defining soil quality (eds). Defining and B.A. Stewart Bezdicek, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Doran, J.W. J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart (eds). Defining soil quality for (eds). Defining and B.A. Stewart Bezdicek, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Doran, J.W. In In southern Arizona. Journal of Range Management 46:170–175. of Range Management Journal southern Arizona. a sustainable environment, SSSA Special Publication Number 35. Pages 27-51. Pages 35. Number Publication SSSA Special a sustainable environment, ment. Resources Journal 16:8–13. Journal Resources ungrazed bunchgrass communities in western Montana. Rangelands 12:30–32. Montana. bunchgrass communities in western ungrazed Costanza, B. G. Norton, and B. D. Haskell (eds.), Ecosystem health—new (eds.), Ecosystem goals for environmental and B. D. Haskell Costanza, B. G. Norton, DC. Washington, Press, management, Island for a sustainable environment, SSSA Special Publication Number 35. Pages 53-72. Soil Science 53-72. Soil 35. Pages Number Publication SSSA Special for a sustainable environment, of America. Society shrubland and savanna ecosystems. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Cruces, Range, Las New Experimental shrubland Jornada USDA-ARS ecosystems. and savanna quality. quality. rangelands. Transactions of the ASAE. 31(2):421–427. Transactions rangelands. the United Nations (FAO), Rome. (FAO), Nations the United affected by prescribed burning. Journal of Range Management 50:199–204. Management of Range Journal burning. prescribed affected by Walton. 2001. Soil aggregate stability kit for field-based soil quality and rangeland health evaluations. for field-based soil quality and rangeland stability kit aggregate 2001. Soil Walton. 44:27–35. CATENA Martin, S.C. and H.L. Morton. 1993. Mesquite control increases grass density and reduces soil loss in grass density and reduces increases control 1993. Mesquite S.C. and H.L. Morton. Martin, Larson, W.E. and F.J. Pierce. 1993. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable manage- The dynamics of soil quality as a measure 1993. Pierce. and F.J. W.E. Larson, Lackey, R. T. 1998. Ecosystem management: paradigms and prattle, people and prizes. Renewable and prizes. management: paradigms and prattle, people 1998. Ecosystem T. R. Lackey, Lacey J., P. Husby, and G. Handle. 1990. Observations on spotted and diffuse knapweek invasion into invasion 1990. Observations and G. Handle. on spotted and diffuse knapweek Husby, Lacey J., P. Karr, J. R. 1992. Ecological integrity: Protecting earth’s life support systems. p. 223-238. life support systems. p. earth’s integrity: Protecting J. R. 1992. Ecological Karr, Karlen, D.L. and D.E. Stott. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil 1994. A framework for evaluating Karlen, D.L. and D.E. Stott. Johnson, C.W. and N.E. Gordon. 1988. Runoff and erosion from rainfall simulator plots on sagebrush rainfall simulator plots from and erosion 1988. Runoff and N.E. Gordon. C.W. Johnson, Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental soil physics. San Diego: Academic Press. Academic Diego: San soil physics. D. 1998. Environmental Hillel, of Organization and Agriculture Food and runoff. erosion of soil measurement N. 1993. Field Hudson, Hester, J.W., T.L. Thurow, and C.A. Taylor Jr., 1997. Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as characteristics of vegetation 1997. Hydrologic Jr., Taylor and C.A. Thurow, T.L. J.W., Hester, Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring manual for grassland, manual Monitoring 2005. Whitford. W.G. and Havstad, K.M. Zee, Van J.E., J.W. Herrick, and M. C.A. Seybold, K.M. Havstad, Zee, Van J.W. de Soyza, A.G. Whitford, W.G. J.E., Herrick,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 50 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 50 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage51 Pyke, D.A.1995.Population diversity withspecialreference torangelandplants.Pages 21-32, Pye, K.1987.Aeolian dustanddeposits.Academic Press. San Diego, California. Puigdefábregas, J.andG.Sánchez.1996.Geomorphological implicationsofvegetation patchinesson Pimm, S.L.1984. The complexityandstabilityofecosystems.Nature. 307:321–326. Pierson, F.B., K.E.Spaeth, M.A. Weltz, andD.H.Carlson.2002.Hydrologic response ofdiverse western Pierson, F.B., W. H.Blackburn, S.S. Van Vactor, andJ.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning smallscalespatial Pellant, M.1996.Use ofindicatorstoqualitatively assessrangelandhealth. Olson, B.E.1999.Impacts ofnoxious weeds onecologicalandeconomicsystems.Pages 4-18, O’Hara, S.L.,F.A. Street, and T.P. Burt. 1993.Accelerated soilerosion around aMexican highlandlake NRCS Soil Quality Institute, NRCS Grazing Lands Technology Institute, NRCS National Soil Survey National Research methodstoclassify, Council.1994.Rangelandhealth:new inventory, andmonitor Mueggler, W.F. 1975.Rateandpatternofvigorrecovery inIdaho fescueandbulebunchwheatgrass. Morin, J.and Van Winkel. 1996. The effectofraindrop impactandsheeterosion oninfiltrationrate Quansah, C.1985. The effectofsoiltype,slope, Pyke, D.A.,J.E.Herrick, P. Shaver, andM.Pellant. 2002. Pages 1029-1060. Vol. 2.London:John Wiley &Sons Ltd. semi-arid slopes. rangelands. Journal ofRangeManagement 55:558–570. rangeland. anderosionvariability onsagebrush ofrunoff Water Resources Bulletin 30:1081–1089. Range Management. Denver, Colorado. Biosphere State University Press, Oregon. Corvallis, Sheley,R.L. andPetroff, J.K.(ed.),Biology andmanagementofnoxious rangelandweeds. Oregon caused by pre-hispanic agriculture. Nature 362:48–51. Rangeland soilqualityinformationsheets(http://soils.usda.go Center, USDA-ARSJornada Experimental Range,USDIBureau ofLandManagement. 2002. rangelands. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.National Research Council.180p. Journal ofRangeManagement 28:198–204. formation.Soiland crust ScienceSociety ofAmericaJournal 60:1223–1227. Catena Verlag,Germany. geomorphology. Catena Supplement, 6, 19-28 by overland flow withandwithoutrain.Pages flow rateandtheirinteractionsondetachment assessment. Journal ofRangeManagement 55:584–297. Rangeland healthattributesandindicatorsforqualitative of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan. N.E. (ed.),Biodiversity ofrangelands.Natural Resources andEnvironmental Issues, Vol. IV, College In . (Ed. N.E. West), pp434-435.Proc. Vth International RangelandCongress. Society for Jungerius, P.D. (ed.),Soils and In Anderson, M.G.,andS.M.Brooks. Advances inHillslope Processes. v/sqi/sqipr oductlist.html Rangelands inaSustainableRangelands ). In In West,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 51 1996. processes: a global processes: management. Society for Range management. Society R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff (eds). and J.K. Petroff R.L. Sheley Riparian and watershed management In In perspective. Springer, New York. New Springer, perspective. Biodiversity and savanna ecosystem and savanna Biodiversity Solbrig, O.T., E. Medina, and J.F. Silva. Silva. and J.F. E. Medina, O.T., Solbrig, Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 138p. Wisconsin. of America. Madison, Society Soil Science Society of America. 1997. Glossary Science Science Society Soil of soil science terms. Soil Rickard, W.H., L.E. Rogers, B.E. Vaughn, and S.F. Liebetrau (eds). Shrub-steppe: balance and (eds). Shrub-steppe: Liebetrau and S.F. Vaughn, B.E. L.E. Rogers, W.H., Rickard, in the interior northwest: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oregon State University Extension Service Extension University State in the interior northwest: Oregon an interdisciplinary perspective. 1001, Corvallis, Report Oregon. Special Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Pages 1-3. Oregon State University Press, University State 1-3. Oregon Pages rangeland weeds. and management of noxious Biology Corvallis, Oregon. Soil Science 164:224–234. Soil W.G. Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247:1043–1048. 1990. Biological Whitford. W.G. Wiley & Sons, Inc. & Sons, Wiley In ecology, in agricultural and managed-forest Developments ecosystems. terrestrial change in a semiarid York. New Elsevier, rangeland ecosystems. People and rangelands, building the future. (Eds. D. Eldridge and D. D. Eldridge (Eds. building the future. and rangelands, People rangeland ecosystems. VI International 1999 Congress. Rangeland International VIth pp 781-782. Proc. Freudenberger), Inc. Rangeland Congress, Norton, and M.M. Pollock. 1998. Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical integrating societal landscape health: Evaluating 1998. Pollock. and M.M. Norton, 53:1–15. Management of Environmental Journal process. Management. Denver, Colorado. 20p. Colorado. Denver, Management. Society for Range Management. 1999. A glossary for Range Management. of terms used in range Society Smith, D.D. and W.H. Wischmeier. 1962. Rainfall erosion. Advances in Agronomy 14:109-148. Agronomy in Advances 1962. Rainfall erosion. Wischmeier. W.H. D.D. and Smith, 6-11, health. Pp. The myth of range/watershed E. L. 1999. Smith, Sheley, R.L., J.K. Petroff, and M.M. Borman. 1999. Introduction. and M.M. Borman. 1999. Introduction. R.L., J.K. Petroff, Sheley, Seybold, C.A., J.E. Herrick, and J.J. Brejda. 1999. Soil resilience: a fundamental component of soil quality. a fundamental resilience: 1999. Soil and J.J. Brejda. C.A., J.E. Herrick, Seybold, Schlesinger, W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, W.M. Jarrell, R.A. Virginia, and Virginia, R.A. Jarrell, W.M. Huenneke, L.F. G.L. Cunningham, Reynolds, J.F. W.H., Schlesinger, Satterlund, D.R. and P.W. Adams. 1992. Wildland Watershed Management, 2nd ed. New York: John York: 2nd ed. New Management, Watershed Wildland 1992. Adams. D.R. and P.W. Satterlund, Rickard, W.H. and L.E. Rogers. 1988. Plant community characteristics and responses. Pages 109-179. Pages characteristics and responses. community Plant 1988. and L.E. Rogers. W.H. Rickard, Rasmussen, G.A., M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 1999. Reliability of a qualitative assessment process on assessment process of a qualitative 1999. Reliability Pyke. and D. M. Pellant, Rasmussen, G.A., Rapport, D.J. 1995. Ecosystem health: exploring the territory. Ecosystem Health 1:5–13. Health Ecosystem Rapport, the territory. health: exploring D.J. 1995. Ecosystem B. Naiman, R.J. B. Jones, Jackson, W C. Bohlen, J.S. Baron, Rapport, Karr, J.R. D.J., C. Gaudet,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 52 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 52 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage53 Stohlgren, T.J., D.Binkley, G.W. Chong,M.A.Kalkhan,L.D.Schell,K.A.Bull, Y. Otsuki, G.Newman, Stoddard, L.A.,A.D.Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975.Rangemanagement.McGraw-Hill BookCompany. Spaeth, K.E.,M.A. Weltz, H.D.Fox, andF.B. Pierson. 1994.Spatial patternanalysisofsagebrush U.S. Department oftheInterior,U.S. Department Bureau of oftheInterior,U.S. Department Bureau ofLandManagement. ofAgriculture,U.S. Department Natural 1997.National Resources Service. Conservation range Tongway, D.J.1994.Rangelandsoilconditionassessmentmanual.CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Tiscareño-Lopez, M., V.L. Lopes,J.J.Stone andL.J.Lane.1993.Sensitivity analysisofthe WEPP water- Tilman, D.,J.Knops,D. Wedin, P. Reich, M.Ritchie,andE.Siemann 1997. The influenceoffunctional Tilman, D.andJ.A.Downing. 1994.Biodiversity andstabilityingrasslands.Nature. 367:363–367. Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, andC.A. Taylor, Jr. 1988b. Some vegetation responses toselectedlive- Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, andC.A. Taylor, Jr. 1988a.Infiltration andinterrillerosion responses to Thurow, T.L., W.H. Blackburn, andC.A. Taylor, Jr. 1986.Hydrologic characteristicsofvegetation types Task Group onUnity inConceptsand Terminology. 1995.New conceptsforassessmentofrangeland Stringham, T. K., W. C.Krueger, andP. L.Shaver. 2001.States, transitionsandthresholds: Further Madison, Wisconsin: Soil ScienceSociety ofAmerica. (eds). G.E. Schuman,andR.Zartman Variability inrangelandwatererosion processes. Pages 35-50. andpotentialinfluencesonhydrology anderosion. vegetation 1737-9. Service Center,1737-9. Service Denver, Colorado. functioning condition. Technical Reference management: process forassessingproper Land Management. 1993.Riparianarea 7310-12. Washington,DC. 1973. Determination oferosion conditionclass,Form and pasture handbook. Washington, ofAgriculture. DC.U.S.Department Australia. shed modelforrangelandapplications.1.Hillslope Processes. Transactions oftheASAE36:1659–72. diversity andcompositiononecosystemprocesses. Science Vol. 277:1300–1302. stock grazingstrategies,Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal ofRangeManagement 41:108–114. selected livestock grazingstrategies,Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal ofRangeManagement 41:296–302. 39:505–509. as affectedby livestock grazingsystems,Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal ofRangeManagement condition. Journal ofRangeManagement 48:271–282. Experiment Station. Oregon,refinement forrangeland applications.Corvallis, Oregon State University Agricultural Ecological Monograph 69:25–46. M. Bashkin, and Y. Son. 1999.Exotic plantspeciesinvade hotspotsofnative plantdiversity. In W.H. Blackburn, F.B. Pierson Jr.,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 53 crusting soil surfaces and on emergence establishment of crested wheatgrass, establishment of crested squirreltail, Thurber needlegrass and squirreltail, fourwing saltbush. Journal of Range fourwing saltbush. Journal Management 35:282–87. Management and F.F. Peterson. 1997. Influence of 1997. Influence Peterson. and F.F. Wood, M.K. E. Eckert Jr., W.H. Blackburn, W.H. M.K. E. Eckert Jr., Wood, Range Management. 37:303–308. Range Management. a C4 bunchgrass. Oecologia 72:423–428. a C4 bunchgrass. Oecologia cattle grazing systems in the Texas Rolling Plains. Journal of Journal Plains. Rolling Texas cattle grazing systems in the Wood, M.K. and W.H. Blackburn. 1984. Vegetation and soil responses to and soil responses Vegetation 1984. Blackburn. W.H. M.K. and Wood, W.K. Lauenroth and W.A. Laycock (eds.), Secondary (eds.), and the succession Laycock W.A. and Lauenroth W.K. In Schizachyrium scoparium Allen, E.B. (ed.) The reconstruction of disturbed arid lands. American Association for the of disturbed arid lands. American reconstruction The Allen, E.B. (ed.) colonization of evaluation of rangeland condition, Westview, Boulder, Colorado. Colorado. Boulder, Westview, of rangeland condition, evaluation Australian Journal of Soil Research 22:343–348. Research of Soil Journal Australian 73:997–1000. and Conservation 5:185–195. In Colorado. Boulder, Press, Westview of Science, Advancement ecological integrity on arid and semi-arid lands of the western United States. Report 37. New Mexico 37. New Report States. United lands of the western ecological integrity on arid and semi-arid Force. Task Range Improvement Mexico New University, State and modeling soil erosion on rangelands: state of knowledge. Journal of Range Management 51:482–95. of Range Management Journal on rangelands: state of knowledge. and modeling soil erosion management in arid regions. New York: Springer-Verlag. York: New management in arid regions. under intensive rotation grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. Journal of Range Management of Range Journal characteristics. grazing on soil hydrologic rotation under intensive 39:491–95. Management. p. 35-48. 35-48. p. Management. Wallace, L.L. 1987. Effects of clipping and soil compaction on growth, morphology and mycorrhizal morphology on growth, of clipping and soil compaction Effects L.L. 1987. Wallace, Willat, S.T. and D.M. Pullar. 1983. Changes in soil physical properties under grazed pastures. 1983. Changes in soil physical properties under grazed and D.M. Pullar. S.T. Willat, Whitford, W. G. 2002. Ecology of Desert Systems. San Diego: Academic Press. Academic Diego: San of Desert Systems. G. 2002. Ecology W. Whitford, York. New and ecosystems, 2nd edition. Macmillan, R.H. 1975. Communities Whittaker, of Botany Canadian Journal health and integrity. 1995. Ecosystem Davies. W. D. and R. Wicklum, Whitford, W.G. 1996. The importance of soil biota in arid ecosystems. Biodiversity of the biodiversity 1996. W.G. Whitford, White, J. 1979. The plant as a metapopulation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10:109–145. and Systematics of Ecology as a metapopulation. Annual Review The plant White, J. 1979. 136-161, in disturbed arid ecosystems. Pages and nutrient cycling 1988. Decomposition W.G. Whitford, West, N.E., K. McDaniel, E.L. Smith, P.T. Tuellerand, and S. Leonard. 1994. Monitoring and interpreting 1994. Monitoring and S. Leonard. Tuellerand, P.T. E.L. Smith, N.E., K. McDaniel, West, Weltz, M.A., M.R. Kidwell, and H.D. Fox. 1998. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors in measuring of abiotic 1998. Influence and H.D. Fox. M.A., M.R. Kidwell, Weltz, Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: Impacts and Impacts vehicles: effects of off-road 1983. Environmental Wilshire. R.H. and H.G. Webb, Warren, S.D., T.L. Thurow, W.H. Blackburn, and N.E. Garza. 1986. The influence of livestock trampling of livestock The influence 1986. and N.E. Garza. Blackburn, W.H. Thurow, T.L. S.D., Warren, Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, Berkeley, California. Berkeley, Press, Academic management. Grazing 1990. J.F. Vallentine, of Land in the Bureau condition criteria of site and 1989. History R.E. and development Wagner,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 54 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 54 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage55 the roots. standing livingplantsabove ground, andnot used inthisdocument,biomassrefers of onlytoparts and below ground inanarea atagiven time(SRM1999).As Biomass (plants): Synonym: plants (e.g.,mosses,lichens)thatgrow onorjustbelow thesoil surface. Biological crust: estimates ormeasurementsestimates andther andstandingdeadvegetation areused inthisdocument,visiblebiologicalcrusts includedincover Bare ground (bare soil): (SRM 1999). of narrow ravines,sharpcrests, andpinnaclesresulting from seriouserosion ofsoftgeologicmaterials Badland: collectively definerangelandhealth. Attribute: better quantifythefunctionalstatusofanattribute. processes (NRC 1994).At riskdesignationmaypointouttheneedforadditionalinformationneededto irreversible degradation baseduponanevaluation ofcurrent conditionsofthesoilandecological At risk: (e.g., rangelandhealth)inalocationatmomenttime. Assessment: Synonym: Annual production: Annual plant: classes: Age (SSSA 1997). Accelerated erosion: Abundance: Glossary Basal cover (plants): measured atbreast orotherdesignatedheight. Herbaceous andsmallwoodyplantsare measured atorneartheground level; largerwoodyplantsare Basal area (plants): Rangelands thathave areversible lossinproductive capabilityandincreased vulnerabilityto microbiotic crust and cryptogamic crust. andcryptogamic microbiotic crust net aboveground production. primary A land type consisting of steep or very steepbarren land,usuallybrokenA landtypeconsistingofsteeporvery by anintricatemaze One ofthethree components,soil/sitestability, hydrologic function,andbioticintegritythat The totalnumberofindividualsaspeciesinanarea, population,orcommunity(SRM1999). The distributionofdifferent agesofthesamespeciesorgroup ofspeciesonasite. The process ofestimatingorjudgingthevalue orfunctionalstatusofecologicalprocesses A plantthatcompletesitslifecycle anddiesin1year orless(SRM1999). Microorganisms (e.g.,lichens,algae,cyanobacteria,microfungi) andnon-vascular The totalamountoflivingplantsabove The cross-sectional area ofthestemorstemsaplantallplantsinstand. The percent of soil surface coveredThe percent ofsoilsurface by plantbases. The netquantityofaboveground vascular plantmaterialproduced withinayear. Erosion inexcess ofnaturalrates,usuallyasaresult ofanthropogenic activities All land surface notcoveredAll landsurface by vegetation, rock, orlitter(SRM1999).As efore are not Synonym: bare ground (e.g., mineralsoil). basal cover (SRM1999). Synonym: basal area (SRM1999).

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 55 Synonym: ground cover. ground An area offsite from where the where offsite from An area erosion area. Synonym: the soil deposits from the original soil the soil deposits from original soil erosion occurred that now has that now occurred original soil erosion Species composition (SRM 1999). Species The biochemical breakdown of organic matter into The biochemical breakdown Deposition area: Deposition Synonym: its original compounds and nutrients. The final or stable biotic community in a successional series; it is The final or stable biotic community Decomposition: Shifts in plant species compositions among biological communities within a in plant species compositions among biological Shifts A soil-surface layer, ranging in thickness from a few from millimeters to a few ranging in thickness centimeters, A soil-surface layer, A plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth during the late fall, portionA plant which generally makes the major of its growth A near surface layer of dense soil caused by the repeated impact on or disturbance of the repeated A near surface by of dense soil caused layer plus bare ground would total 100 percent. would total 100 percent. ground plus bare Capacity of a site to supportCapacity and structural characteristic functional in communities The percentage of the ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter a vertical projection by covered of the ground The percentage The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area; it may be area; to the total on a given plant species in relation The proportions of various A grass having the characteristic growth habit of forming a bunch; lacking stolons or habit of forming a bunch; lacking characteristic growth A grass having the An excavation in areas of loose soil, usually sand, produced by wind; a breakthrough or rupture wind; a breakthrough by of loose soil, usually sand, produced in areas An excavation The average or prevailing weather conditions of a place over a period of years (SRM 1999). years a period of conditions of a place over weather or prevailing The average Percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include live the land surface. It covering ground, of material, other than bare Percentage the context of normal variability, to resist loss of this function and structure due to a disturbance, and to disturbance, and due to a and structure of this function loss to resist of normal variability, the context health.) of rangeland attributes of the three (One such disturbance. following recover Blowout: with sand boils (SRM 1999). usually associated of a soil surface pressure, attributable to hydraulic grass: Bunch rhizomes (SRM 1999). Cover: Canopy included. openings within the canopy are Small of foliage of plants. of the natural spread (USDA 1997). cover crown Chemical soil crust: They can reduce become concentrated on the soil surface.that is formed when chemical compounds a usually identified by They are similar to physical crusts. water flow overland infiltration and increase white color on the soil surface. Climate: Climax plant community (climax): single state. Compaction layer: space and bring the void decrease to rearranged is compacted, soil grains are When soil the soil surface. the bulk density (SSSA 1997). increasing thereby them into closer contact with one another, Composition: etc. weight, density, in terms of cover, expressed Cool-season plant: cf. pathway. and early spring. Cool season grasses generally exhibit the C-3 photosynthetic winter, warm-season plants (SRM 1999). Cover: cover Ground biological crust, stones, and bedrock. cobble, gravel, litter, and standing dead vegetation, Biotic integrity: Biotic with the physical habitat (SRM 1999). self-perpetuating and in equilibrium Community pathway:

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 56 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 56 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage57 numbers ofindividuals.”For purposesofthisdocument, the tallestplants” and“where there islittledifference insize, dominanceisdeterminedprimarilyby the greatest readjustments intheedaphic,aerial,andbioticcharacteroftheirecosystem. They are often 1999). Daubenmire (1968)definesdominantspeciesas“those specieswhoseremoval wouldbringabout have considerableinfluenceorcontrol upontheconditionsofexistenceassociatedspecies(SRM Dominant species: tect thesiteasaminimum(SRM1999). been identifiedthrough amanagementplantobestmeettheplan’s objectives forthesite.It mustpro- Desired plantcommunity: ecologicalsite. indicatorforaparticular characteristics ofaparticular while the“revised descriptor” iscompletedby theevaluators ifthedefaultdescriptordoesnotfit the RangelandHealth Indicator Evaluation Matrix. The “default descriptor” isprintedintheMatrix, gories (Extreme to Total, Moderate toExtreme, Moderate, Slight toModerate, andNone toSlight) in Descriptor: health attributestakesplace. acre insize) where theevaluation ofrangeland Evaluation area: such processes asgravitationalcreep (SRM1999). water,running wind,ice,orothergeologicalagents,including by water, wornawayby wind,ice,gravity;thelandsurface Erosion: processes. Energy flow: an identifiablespace(SRM1999). Ecosystem: physical characteristicstoproduce distinctive kindsandamountsofvegetation. Ecological sitedescription: Ecological Site (SRM1999). ment. Apparently synonymouswithecologicaltypeusedby USDAForest Synonym: Service. Rangeland land initsabilitytoproduce distinctive kindsandamountsofvegetation andinitsresponse tomanage- Ecological site: (e.g., climaxplantcommunitiesorrelict areas). and resistance from mostdisturbances. These areas donotneedtobepristine,historicallyunusedlands functioning withinanormalrangeofvariability andtheplantcommunityhasadequateresistance to Ecological reference area: specificplantandanimalcommunities. port nents oftheenvironment). Ecological processes functioningwithinanormalrangeofvariation willsup- cycle (thecycle through ofnutrientssuchasnitrogen thephysicalandbioticcompo- andphosphorus tion ofprecipitation), energyflow (conversion ofsunlighttoplantandanimalmatter),nutrient Ecological processes: dominant plantsare thoseofthegreatest size perunitarea asmeasured by biomass,production, orcover. Detachment andmovement ofsoilorrock fragments Organisms togetherwiththeirabioticenvironment, forminganinteractingsystem,inhabiting The narrative thatdescribestheindicatorcharacteristicsunder eachofthefive ratingcate- Conversion ofsunlighttoplantandanimalmatter;onetheecological A kindoflandwithspecificphysicalcharacteristicswhichdiffersfrom otherkindsof The area (generally1/2to1 Plant speciesorgroups, whichby meansoftheirnumber, coverage, orsize, Ecological processes includethewatercycle (thecapture, storage, andredistribu- An area representing asingleecologicalsiteinwhichprocesses are Of theseveral plantcommunitiesthatmayoccupyasite,theonehas Description ofthesoils,uses,andpotentialakindlandwithspecific Interpreting Indicators Health ofRangeland ,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 57 , litter, cobble, , litter, A perennial plant with a A perennial biological soil crusts Half-shrub: woody base whose annually produced stems die each year (SRM 1999). stems die each year floor and migrates upstream. floor and migrates upstream. Abrupt elevation drops in the channel of a drops elevation Abrupt gully that accelerate erosion as it undercuts the gully as it undercuts gully that accelerate erosion Headcut: Percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering ground, of material, other than bare Percentage eroded by concentrated water flow. by eroded A suite or group of species that because of similar shoot or root structure, shoot or root of species that because of similar A suite or group The science that studies the evolution of the earth’s surface. The science of landforms surface. of the earth’s The science that studies the evolution flows during and immediately after rains or snowmelt (SRM 1999). Small channels Small (SRM 1999). during and immediately after rains or snowmelt flows Percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include the land surface. It covering ground, of material, other than bare Percentage The path that water takes (i.e., accumulates) as it moves across the soil surface the across during takes (i.e., accumulates) as it moves The path that water The percentage of ground covered by the vertical projection of the aerial portion of the aerial the verticalprojection of by covered of ground The percentage (1) Refers to the rangeland health attributes where the majority (see definition of “prepon- attributes where to the rangeland health (1) Refers A plant growing on or occurring in an ecosystem beyond its natural range of existence or its natural beyond on or occurring in an ecosystem A plant growing The person or persons conducting the evaluation of rangeland health on an evaluation area. an evaluation health on of rangeland the evaluation or persons conducting The person An area fenced to exclude animals (SRM 1999). animals to exclude fenced An area A furrow, channel, or miniature valley, usually with steep sides through which water commonly usually with steep sides through valley, channel, or miniature A furrow, Members of the plant family Poaceae (SRM 1999). of the plant family Poaceae Members Any broad-leafed, herbaceous plant other than those in the Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and Juncaceae Cyperaceae, than those in the Poaceae, herbaceous plant other Any broad-leafed, Evaluator(s): Exclosure: Exotic plant: Exotic of potential dispersal. natural zone pattern: Flow flow. overland Cover: Foliar less is always cover Foliar excluded. are in the canopy and intraspecific overlap openings plants. Small (USDA 1997). 100 percent either may exceed than canopy cover; Forb: families (SRM 1999). groups: Functional/structural photosynthetic pathways, nitrogen fixing ability, life cycle, etc., are grouped together on an ecological grouped etc., are life cycle, fixing ability, photosynthetic pathways, nitrogen site basis. Functioning: that rated as having little or no deviation from of the associated indicators are derance of evidence”) and to the presence 2) for the ecological site; (2) Refers (Appendix Sheet described in the Reference the range being within and nutrient cycling) water cycling, (energy flow, integrity of ecological processes of expectations for the ecological site. Geomorphology: (SSSA 1997). Grass: cover: Ground Ground biological crust, and bedrock. stones, cobble, gravel, litter, and standing dead vegetation, live 100 percent. would total ground plus bare cover this document): (as used in cover Ground the land surface. It may include live and standing dead vegetation, and standing dead vegetation, may include live the land surface. It would total 100 percent. ground plus bare cover Ground stones, and bedrock. gravel, Gully:

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 58 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 58 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage59 splash duetoraindrop impactandby sheetflow (SSSA1997). under plants). spaces between plantsrelative tothespaces soil from thesurrounding units(e.g.,the logical individualsthathasadistinctclimateor Microsite: matter thatisincontactwiththesoilsurface. this document,itincludespersistentandnon-persistentorganic freshly fallenorslightlydecomposedvegetal material(SRM1999).In Litter: Life form: inventory. (SRM1999). needed forplanningandmanagementofrangeland;(2)theinformationacquired through rangeland Inventory (rangelandinventory): drought orwildfire) are notinvasive plants. Speciesinterventions. thatbecomedominantforonlyonetoseveral response years (e.g.short-term to species onthesiteiftheirfuture establishmentandgrowth isnotactively controlled by management nal plantcommunityorcommunitiesthathave thepotentialtobecomeadominantorco-dominant Invasive plants: range siteandwillinvade orincrease following disturbanceorcontinuedheavygrazing(SRM1999). Invader: Interrill erosion: Infiltration: expensive tomeasure. are usedasanindexofattribute(e.g.,rangelandhealth)thatare toodifficult,inconvenient, or Indicator: abiotic/biotic influenceormanagementpractice(SRM1999). Increaser: following degradation(oneofthethree attributesofrangelandhealth). andsnowmeltrun-on, (where relevant), toresist areduction inthiscapacity, andto recover thiscapacity Hydrologic function: immigration andsettlement(USDA1997). biotic,abiotic,climaticfactorsonitsecologicalsiteinNorthhistoric America atthetimeofEuropean nation offactorsassociatedwiththeecologicalsite.It wasinanaturaldynamicequilibriumwiththe Historic climaxplantcommunity: (SRM 1999). maintenance ofthestructure andfunctionalattributescharacteristicofalocale,includingnormalvariability the ecologicalprocesses oftherangelandecosystem,are balancedandsustained.Integrity isdefinedas Healthy rangelands: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, essentiallythe The uppermostlayer oforganicdebrisonthesoilsurface, Plant speciesthatwere oftheoriginalvegetation ofaspecific absentinundisturbedportions Components ofasystemwhosecharacteristics(e.g.,presence orabsence,quantity, distribution) For agiven plantcommunity, thosespeciesthatincrease inamountasaresult ofaspecific Characteristic formorappearanceofaspeciesatmaturity(e.g.,tree, shrub, herb)(SRM1999). A spatial unit that contains only a few bio- A spatialunitthatcontainsonlyafew The entry ofwaterintothesoil(SSSA1997). The entry Synonym: Plants thatare of(ifexotic), orare notpart aminorcomponentof(ifnative), theorigi- The removal ofafairlyuniformlayer ofsoilonamultitude The degree towhichtheintegrityofsoil,vegetation, water, andair, aswell as The capacityofthesitetocapture, store, andsafelyrelease waterfrom rainfall, rangeland health. (1) The systematicacquisitionandanalysisofresource information The plantcommunitythatwasbestadaptedtotheuniquecombi- relatively smallareas by

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 59 The established on an ecological site if all successional completed sequences were without interferences by man under the by without interferences biotic community that would become The death of a plant, or in a plant community, Potential natural community (PNC): Potential The deviation of characteristics of biotic communities The deviation of characteristics of biotic the death of a number of plants in the community. the death of a number of plants in the community. Plant mortality:Plant The frequency and intensity of events that occur because of climate or that occur because of and intensity of events The frequency The biological reduction of molecular nitrogen to chemical forms that can to chemical of molecular nitrogen The biological reduction Plants or rocks that appear elevated as a result of soil loss by wind or water erosion of soil loss by as a result that appear elevated or rocks Plants In a plant community, decadence refers to an overabundance of dead or dying plants to an overabundance decadence refers community, a plant In Living plant tissue and decomposed or partiallyLiving plant tissue and decomposed living decomposed material from A plant that has a life span of three or more years (USDA 1997). years or more A plant that has a life span of three A native plant that has migrated to a site where it was not a part it was not a plant of the original site where plant that has migrated to a A native Any plant designated by a Federal, State, or county government to be injurious to public or county government State, a Federal, Any plant designated by The cycle of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and the physical and biotic of nutrients, such as nitrogen through The cycle Thin surface layers induced by impact of raindrops on bare soil causing the soil surface on bare impact of raindrops Thin surface induced by layers The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data to evaluate progress to evaluate data of resource analysis, and interpretation collection, The orderly The loss of one or more electrons by an ion or molecule (SSSA 1997). Oxidation is a chemical an ion or molecule (SSSA 1997). Oxidation by electrons The loss of one or more animals (e.g., flood, fire, frost heave, drought, animal burrowing, or defoliation) that alter the structure or defoliation) that alter animal burrowing, drought, heave, frost fire, animals (e.g., flood, that maintain ecological systems. or the processes of ecological systems fixation (fixers): Nitrogen Monitoring: to determine order time in be conducted over must The process management objectives. meeting toward (SRM 1999). being met are objectives not management whether or invasive: Native its beyond increasing changes is now that because of management or other plant or a native community, on the site. original composition disturbance regime: Natural of organic molecules. organisms in the synthesis be used by of variability: range or normal variability Normal regimes. in climate and disturbance natural variability that can be expected given and their environment weed: Noxious 1999). et al. property (Sheley wildlife, or any public or private recreation, health, agriculture, cycle: Nutrient one of the ecological processes. components of the environment; matter: Organic organisms. Oxidation: the soil. instead of into into the atmosphere released nutrients are of decomposition whereby process as aridity increases. Oxidation commonly increases (erosional): Pedestal heaving). such as frost processes of non-erosional as a result elevation (does not include plant or rock plant: Perennial crust: Physical to seal and absorb less water. decadence: Plant in disease, climate, and natural range of variability the to what is expected for a site given relative management influences.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 60 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 60 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage61 natural disturbanceregime. This stateusually atanoptimumlevel underthe performing hydrologic function,andbioticintegrityare functional capacitiesrepresented by soil/sitestability, Reference state: population. Recruitment: (SRM1999). variability maintenance ofthestructure andfunctionalattributescharacteristicofalocale,including normal ecological processesthe oftherangelandecosystem,are balancedandsustained.Integrity isdefinedas health: Rangeland also includeoakandpinyon-juniper woodlandsinthisdefinition. tundra, alpinecommunities,marshes,andwet meadows (SRM1999). The authorsofthisdocument they are managedsimilarly. manydeserts, Rangelandsincludenaturalgrasslands,savannas, shrublands, andismanagedasanaturalecosystem.If plantsaregrasses, grass-likeplants,forbs,orshrubs introduced, Rangeland: for thesite(SRM1999). andamountsofplantsinaplantcommunityresembleproportions, thatoftheclimaxplantcommunity potential) plantcommunityforthatsite.It isanexpression oftherelative degree towhichthekinds, condition: Range and require aquantitative reference. can beusedtoderive indicators.Quantitative assessmentshave aknown level ofprecision andaccuracy, attribute(s) through measurement ofvegetation, soil,orlandscapecharacteristics thatare indicatorsor Quantitative rangelandhealthassessment: cover andproduction estimates,are oftenreferred toas“semi-quantitative.” recorded numerically;mayincluderatiosorothervalues. Qualitative numericalestimates,suchasocular Quantitative data: of indicators.Qualitativethrough assessmentshave non-numericalobservations anelementofsubjectivity. Qualitative rangelandhealthassessment: not measured (e.g.,descriptive ornon-numericaldata). Qualitative data: attribute. tribution ofindicatorsisinrespect tothefive categoriesusedtorateeachindicatorassociatedwiththat Preponderance ofevidence: by people.Often usedinterchangeably with“potential naturalcommunity” (SRM1999). tion communitywhichcouldoccupyasiteundercurrent influence climaticconditionswithoutfurther Potential naturalvegetation: include acclimatized ornaturalized nonnative species(USDA1997). conditions.Natural environmental disturbancesareinherentinitsdevelopment. The PNCmay present Land onwhichtheindigenousvegetation (climaxornaturalpotential)ispredominantly The successful entry of new individualsintothebreeding ofnew The successfulentry The reference stateisthewhere the Observational data derived from visual observations andrecorded dataderived fromObservational visualobservations descriptively but The present statusofvegetation ofarangesiteinrelation totheclimax(natural Data derived from measurements, suchascounts,dimensions,weights, etc.,and The degree towhichtheintegrityofsoil,vegetation, water, andair, aswell as The rating of an attribute of rangeland health by observing where thedis- The ratingofanattributerangelandhealthby observing A historicaltermoriginallydefinedby A.W. Kuchler asthestablevegeta- The determinationofthefunctionalstatusattributes The determinationofthefunctionalstatusan

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 61 occur in a fairly repetitive and describable occur in a fairly repetitive pattern (SSSA 1997). to occur in each delineation, and they range condition. (SRM 1999). component soil or miscellaneous area are apt are component soil or miscellaneous area the scale of 1:24,000. Several bodies of each kind of the scale of 1:24,000. Several Synonym: miscellaneous areas are large enough to be delineated at large enough to be delineated are miscellaneous areas pristine (SRM 1999). in either case. The individual bodies of component soils and in either case. The percent of cover or production represented by a species or by represented or production of cover The percent Synonym: soils or component soils and miscellaneous areas, plus allowable inclusions plus allowable soils or component soils and miscellaneous areas, The present state of vegetation and soil protection on an ecological site in on an ecological and soil protection state of vegetation The present A plant that develops clonal shoots by producing rhizomes. Rhizomes are horizontal are Rhizomes rhizomes. producing clonal shoots by A plant that develops A kind of map unit used in soil surveys comprised of delineations, each of which A group of primary than to other A group strongly to each other more soil particlescohere that A remnant or fragment of the climax plant community that remains from a former period a former from community that remains or fragment of the climax plant A remnant The capacity of ecological processes to continue to function without change following a following continue to function without change to processes The capacity of ecological The capacity of ecological processes to recover following a disturbance. Resilience can be a disturbance. Resilience following recover to processes The capacity of ecological A particular bouncing, or momentum-dependent transport type of the rolling, involving The portion of precipitation or irrigation on an area which does not infiltrate, but instead is which does or irrigation on an area The portion of precipitation A plant that has persistent, woody stems and a relatively low growth habit, and that generally growth low and a relatively A plant that has persistent, woody stems A small, intermittent water course with steep sides, usually only several centimeters deep (SSSA steep sides, usually only several A small, intermittent water course with includes, but is not limited to, what is often referred to as the potential natural plant community natural plant to as the potential to, what is often referred but is not limited includes, 2. Figure section and in Concepts “State” definition of (PNC). See (composition): dominance Relative lifeform expressed relative to the total cover or production. It can also be based on biomass. can also be based It or production. total cover to the relative lifeform expressed (area): Relict widely distributed. when it was more Resilience: during a particular period of time, or both. the extent of recovery the rate of recovery, defined in terms of Resistance: disturbance. plant: Rhizomatous nodes (SRM 1999). and shoots from roots stems that usually produce underground Rill: features. linear erosion 1997). Rills generally are Runoff: (SSSA 1997). the area discharged by Saltation: jumping action of soil particles wind, usually at a height of <15 cm above 0.1 to 0.5 mm in diameter by short bouncing or jumping action of mineral grains, the soil surface, distances; the rolling, relatively for water; the bouncing or jumping the energy of following affected by stones, or soil aggregates gravel, to gravity (SSSA 1997). in response of material downslope movement Shrub: (generally stature its low by a tree differs from basal shoots instead of a single bole. It several produces form (SRM 1999). less than 5 meters, or 16 feet) and non-arborescent index (rangeland): Similarity to the historic climax plant community. relation aggregates: Soil particlessurrounding (SSSA 1997). association: Soil kinds of component shape, and location of a landscape unit composed of two or more the size, shows

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 62 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 62 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage63 as “those species,whichifremoved singly, would Daubenmire (1968)definessubordinate species Subdominant (subordinate) species: ferent plantsorlifeformsinacommunity. Structure (vegetation): of size, shape,andgrade(degree ofdistinctiveness) (SSSA1997). unitsorpeds. secondary unitsare characterized onthebasis The secondary Structure (soils): regimes. See Conceptssection. three attributes(soil/sitestability, hydrologic function, andbioticintegrity)undernaturaldisturbance ecologicalsiteandthataremunities thatoccuronaparticular functionallysimilarwithrespect tothe State: in theprevious (notthecurrent) growing seasonthatisnotdetachedfrom theplantandisstillstanding. space, atagiven time.(USDA1997). This componentincludesallstandingdeadvegetation produced Standing deadvegetation: may beexpressed intermsofcover, density, weight, etc.(SRM1999). Species composition: Soil texture: are classifiedaccordingsurveys tothekindandintensityoffieldexamination(SSSA 1997). Soil survey: (SSSA 1997). unitsare characterized onthebasisofsize,The secondary shape,andgrade(degree ofdistinctiveness) Soil structure: nutrients andorganicmatter)by windandwater(oneofthethree attributesofrangelandhealth). Soil/site stability: identified by practicalmappingmethods(SSSA1997). excessive maporlegenddetail,occurtooerraticallytobeconsideredcreating acomponent,orare not neous area components).Such soilsorareas are eithertoosmalltobedelineatedseparatelywithout not identifiedby themapunitname(i.e.,isnotoneofnamedcomponentsoilsormiscella- Soil inclusions: each delineation(SSSA1997). Several tonumerous bodiesofeachkindcomponentsoilormiscellaneousarea are apttooccurin of componentsoilsandmiscellaneousareas are toosmalltobedelineatedatthescaleof1:24,000. component soilsandamiscellaneousarea, plusallowable inclusionsineithercase. The individualbodies the size, shape,andlocationofalandscapeunitcomposed oftwoormore kindsofcomponentsoilsor Soil complex: the basisofmore detaileddifferences (SSSA1997). inspecificproperties their characteristics.Broad groupings are madeonthebasisofgeneralcharacteristicsandsubdivisions Soil classification: A stateiscomprisedofanintegratedsoilandvegetation unithavingoneormore biologicalcom- The systematicexamination,description,classification,andmappingofsoilsinanarea. Soil The relative ofthevarious proportions soilseparates(sand,silt,andclay)ina(SSSA1997). A kind of map unit used in soil surveys comprisedofdelineations,eachwhichshows A kindofmapunitusedinsoilsurveys The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary unitsorpeds. intosecondary soilparticles The combinationorarrangementofprimary One ormore ofpolypedonswithinadelineationmapunit, polypedons orparts The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into soilparticles The combinationorarrangementofprimary The capacityofasitetolimitredistribution andlossofsoilresources (including The systematicarrangementofsoilunitsintogroups orcategories onthebasisof The proportions ofvariousThe proportions plantspeciesinrelation tothetotalonagiven area. It The heightandarea occupiedby dif- The totalamountofdeadplantmaterial,inaboveground perunitof parts,

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 63 hydrologic cycle. hydrologic Areas, generally in inter- Areas, Synonym: Rangelands that have properly func- properly Rangelands that have spaces, where the finer soil particles have spaces, where blown away sometimes leaving residual blown spp.), may grow as either trees or shrubs trees as either may grow spp.), gravel, rock, or exposed roots on the soil sur- or exposed roots rock, gravel, face. Wind-scoured area: Wind-scoured Quercus associated with human uses of the land. tioning ecological processes, biotic integrity, and soil stability biotic integrity, tioning ecological processes, , subdominant plants are those within a community with less a community those within plants are , subdominant Well-managed rangelands: Well-managed Rangelands on which degradation has resulted in the loss of ecological processes resulted Rangelands on which degradation has A plant which makes most or all its growth during the spring, summer, and fall, during the spring, summer, A plant which makes most or all its growth Higher plants with vessels that conduct sap throughout the plant. that conduct sap throughout plants with vessels Higher A type of physical crust small air pockets or spaces similar to a that contains numerous The capture, storage, and redistribution of precipitation. of precipitation. storage, and redistribution The capture, Wildland plant seed that is capable of germination given appropriate environmental conditions. environmental appropriate is capable of germination given plant seed that Wildland A shift between two states. Transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or simply by not reversible are Transitions two states. A shift between A transition boundarya new in state that is not stable resulting that an ecosystem crosses “Benches” of soil deposition behind obstacles caused by water erosion. erosion. water caused by of soil deposition behind obstacles “Benches” Generally a type of cactus. a Generally The current state of the atmosphere with regard to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, to wind, temperature, with regard state of the atmosphere The current A plant shoot that arises from the root or base of a plant. the root arises from A plant shoot that The direction of change in ecological status or resource value rating observed over time (SRM 1999). rating observed value over in ecological status or resource of change The direction A woody, usually single-stemmed, perennial plant that has a definite crown shape and reaches a shape and reaches plant that has a definite crown perennial usually single-stemmed, A woody, Weather: etc. pressure, Viable seed: season plant: Warm pathway (SRM 1999). and is usually dormant in winter; a plant that exhibits the C-4 photosynthetic cycle: Water not occasion much rearrangement with their ecosystem.” For the purposes of this document, the purposes For with their ecosystem.” much rearrangement not occasion of Rangeland Health Indicators Interpreting cover. or production, biomass, by as measured area size-per-unit Succulent: Terracette: Threshold: inputs of resources. without significant easily reversed Tiller: Transition: or shrub new such as revegetation inputs require they the change. Instead, of factors that produced direction to apply. often expensive (USDA 1997) are such as these, that accelerate succession Practices, removal. Tree: and those as trees, woody plants, known The distinction between 4 meters. height of at least mature plants, such as oaks ( called shrubs Some is gradual. (SRM 1999). Trend: rangelands: Unhealthy that external commodities to a degree and values and the capacity to provide that function properly, 1994). the land (NRC the health of to restore required inputs are plants: Vascular crust: Vesicular in infiltration. sponge causing a reduction

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 64 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 64 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage65 Evaluation Sheet 1 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 65 ) ” ______Datum ______representativeness ______, “ __, violent ______UTM Zone ______(Front) ______(specific info. and factors considered; degree of ______Date: ______Evaluation Sheet Sheet Evaluation ______(Allotment or pasture) (Allotment or ______Other remarks (continue on back if necessary) ______Creation Date:_ Reference: (1) Reference Sheet:______; Author:______; Parent material ______Slope _____% Elevation ______ft. Parent material ______Slope _____% Aspect ______position ______Topographic annual precipitation _____inchesAverage _____, (2) normalRecent weather (last 2 years) (1) drought _____, or (3) wet _____. of allotted use), and recent disturbances: use, livestock use (intensity and season Wildlife ______Seasonal distribution ______Off-site influences on evaluation area: ______Criteria used to select this particular evaluation area as REPRESENTATIVE Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on:__Annual Production, __Cover Produced During Current Year or __Biomass Year __Cover Produced During Current 10 and 12) based on:__Annual Production, Composition (Indicators Soil/site verification: and/or Ecol. Ref. Area: Soil Surv., Range/Ecol. Site Descr., Surface texture ______Evaluation Area: Depth: very shallow __, moderate __, deep __ shallow __, and depth of diagnostic horizons: Type Surface ______texture Depth: very shallow __, shallow __, moderate __, deep __ 1. ______3. ______2. ______4. ______slight __, slight __, strong __, violent __ none __, v. Surf. Efferv.: strong slight __, slight __, 1. ______, v. none Surf. Efferv.: 3. ______2. ______4. ______horizons: and depth of diagnostic Type reference area(s))____ or (2) Other (e.g., name and date of ecological site description; locations of ecological Aerial Photo:______Site Name:______Ecological Name:______Map Unit/Component Soil Management Unit:______Unit:______Management State:______Office:______Site Code: Range/Ecol. Y / N Photos taken? Long. N______m ______W. Sec. _____, ______Size of evaluation area:______Observers:______Location (description):______T. ____ R. _____ T. Position by GPS? Y / N Lat. Or UTM E______m or ______N.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 66 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 66 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage67 Rating: Soil &SiteStability S (10indicators): E-T Departure from Expected from Departure perennial 17. Reproductive capabilityof plants plants 16. Invasive production 15. Annual amount 14. Litter mortality/decadence 13. Plant groups 12. Functional/structional layer 11. Compaction anddistributionrelativetoinfiltration 10. Plant communitycomposition lossordegradation Soilsurface 9. resistancetoerosion Soilsurface 8. 7. Litter movement and/ordepositionareas 6. Wind-scoured, blowouts, 5. Gullies Bareground______% 4. Pedestalsand/orterracettes 3. 2. Water-flow Patterns 1. Rills Idctr aig Comments Rating Indicator Extreme toTotal Moderate toExtreme Moderate Slight toModerate None toSlight - S-M M M-E N-S Stability: Soil &Site Justification Attribute Rating S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Code S-M M-E N-S E-T M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Rating: Hydrologic Function H (10indicators): E-T Evaluation Sheet B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B - S-M M M-E Instructions for Evaluation Sheet, Page2 Sheet, Evaluation for Instructions (4) Justifyeachattributeratinginwriting. (3) Assignoverallratingforeachattributebasedonpreponderanceofevidence. each indicatorthatisapplicabletotheattribute. (2) Inthethreegridsbelow, writetheindicatornumberinappropriatecolumnfor (1) Assign17indicatorratings.Ifnotpresent,rateNonetoSlight. N-S Function: Hydrologic Justification Attribute Rating (Back) Rating: Biotic Integrity B (9indicators): E-T - S-M M M-E N-S Integrity: Biotic Justification Attribute Rating

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 67 ) ” ____ X ______south Datum ______No ____ Yes X representativeness ______, “ __, violent ______t 50 years, livestock use Limy Ecological Site 042XB999NM, June 2001 ______f livestock, wildlife and ource. ______UTM Zone June 10, 2002 ______Nickel gravelly fine sandy loam toeslope Summer thunderstorms dominate (Front) gfsl ______(specific info. and factors considered; degree of X ______Calcic horizon at 15” X ______Date: ______X X ______NM Las Cruces 042XB999NM Evaluation Sheet (Example) (Example) Sheet Evaluation 0-5 4100 Limy SD—42B J. Christensen 03/23/2002 8-12 Evaluation area is approximately 3 ac. and represents entire ecological site in this pasture Limy Limy site two miles north of windmill in S.E. pasture (Allotment or pasture) (Allotment or Allotment Allotment 1, pasture 1 grfsl, grlfs, gl Alluvium NE 1/4 Joe Smith, Jose Garcia, and Thaddeus Jones 23 W 12 Calcic horizon w/in 20” 11 S or (2) Other (e.g., name and date of ecological site description; locations of ecological reference area(s))____ or (2) Other (e.g., name and date of ecological site description; locations of ecological ______Other remarks (continue on back if necessary) ______Creation Date:_ Reference: (1) Reference Sheet:______; Author:______; Parent material ______Slope _____% Elevation ______ft. Parent material ______Slope _____% Aspect ______position ______Topographic annual precipitation _____inchesAverage _____, (2) normalRecent weather (last 2 years) (1) drought _____, or (3) wet _____. of allotted use), and recent disturbances: use, livestock use (intensity and season Wildlife ______Seasonal distribution ______Off-site influences on evaluation area: ______Criteria used to select this particular evaluation area as REPRESENTATIVE Surf. Efferv.: none __, v. slight __, slight __, strong __, violent __ none __, v. Surf. Efferv.: strong slight __, slight __, __, v. none Surf. Efferv.: Aerial Photo:______Site Name:______Ecological Name:______Map Unit/Component Soil Management Unit:______Unit:______Management State:______Office:______Site Code: Range/Ecol. Observers:______Location (description):______Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on:__Annual Production, __Cover Produced During Current Year or __Biomass Year __Cover Produced During Current 10 and 12) based on:__Annual Production, Composition (Indicators Soil/site verification: and/or Ecol. Ref. Area: Soil Surv., Range/Ecol. Site Descr., Surface texture ______Evaluation Area: Depth: very shallow __, moderate __, deep __ shallow __, and depth of diagnostic horizons: Type Surface ______texture Depth: very shallow __, shallow __, moderate __, deep __ 1. ______3. ______2. ______4. ______1. ______3. ______2. ______4. ______horizons: and depth of diagnostic Type T. ____ R. _____ T. Y / N Photos taken? Long. N______m ______W. Sec. _____, ______Position by GPS? Y / N Or UTM E______m or ______N. Lat. Size of evaluation area:______Wildlife use is dominated by pronghorn antelope in Livestock the use winter. was extremely heavy yearlong during 1900-1930. Las Area is located near a pasture key area. It is located in the center of the ecological site and represents the typical amount o None has been cow/calf moderate yearlong use. recreational uses on this area. This ecological site dominates this pasture. The area is 3/4 of a mile from the closest water s

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 68 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 68 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage69 Rating: Soil &SiteStability S (10indicators): E-T Departure from Expected from Departure perennial 17. Reproductive capabilityof plants plants 16. Invasive production 15. Annual amount 14. Litter mortality/decadence 13. Plant groups 12. Functional/structional layer 11. Compaction anddistributionrelativetoinfiltration 10. Plant communitycomposition lossordegradation Soilsurface 9. resistancetoerosion Soilsurface 8. 7. Litter movement and/ordepositionareas 6. Wind-scoured, blowouts, 5. Gullies Bareground______% 4. Pedestalsand/orterracettes 3. 2. Water-flow Patterns 1. Rills Idctr aig Comments Rating Indicator Extreme toTotal Moderate toExtreme Moderate Slight toModerate None toSlight - S-M M M-E 46 84 2135 711 9 M N-S 48 trated flow. trated concen- as occuring erosion All erosion. much not but site, the leaving water of Lots healing. and old is most patterns, flow in erosion active some is there Although Stability: Soil &Site Justification Attribute Rating Evaluation Sheet(Example) N-S M S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S M-E S-M N-S Code M M S-M M-E M-E N-S M-E N-S E-T M M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H M-E Rating: Hydrologic Function H (10indicators): E-T S-M S-M S-M N-S M B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B - S-M M M-E 09 10 14 411 84 2135 this year this production stolon and production seed reduce will that stress of signs some show Plants expected of 70% about is Production year the for rainfall and year of time the for site the on is Verylitterlittle have subshrub) (Evergreen group Minor and bunchgrass) leaf narrow season (warm group Subdominate and grass) stoloniferous season (warm gone basically group Subdominate Severe past erosion has left much of the site without much surface horizon surface much withoutsite the of much left has erosion past Severe interspaces in 1-2 and canopy vegetation under surfaces on 3-4 from average values Stability movement slight - litter larger movement, moderate of sign shows litter Small connected rarely ground Bare common not only patterns flow Pedestallingin connectivity some and deposition and cutting show patterns Flow has increased run-off increased has ground bare and infiltration decreased has dominated shrub to dominated grass from Change Active rill formation evident at infrequent intervals infrequent at evident formation rill Active Instructions for Evaluation Sheet, Page2 Sheet, Evaluation for Instructions (4) Justifyeachattributeratinginwriting. (3) Assignoverallratingforeachattributebasedonpreponderanceofevidence. each indicatorthatisapplicabletotheattribute. (2) Inthethreegridsbelow, writetheindicatornumberinappropriatecolumnfor (1) Assign17indicatorratings.Ifnotpresent,rateNonetoSlight. M-E N-S Function: Hydrologic Justification Attribute Rating being washed away.washed being is litter all and increasing is Runoff site. the leaving water of Lots (Back) Rating: Biotic Integrity B (9indicators): E-T - S-M M M-E 41 516 15 12 14 311 13 9 8 M 17 N-S Integrity: Biotic Justification Attribute Rating moderate rating. moderate justifying significant, is groups structural functional in Shift

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 69 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 70 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage71 Reference Sheet 2 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 71 n ” ) g others tration “ bare ground): not be verified based on soils be verified must This community within the reference state, when community within the most sites will show a range of values): – each be used to identify the ecological site. identify the ecological be used to cannot Reference Sheet Reference __Annual Production, __Foliar Cover, __Biomass Cover, Production, __Foliar __Annual For each indicator, describe the potential for the site. Where possible, (1) use numbers, (2) include expected range of the site. Where possible, (1) use numbers, describe the potential for For each indicator, Dominants: Sub-dominants: Other: and runoff: on this site): on separate lines): site if their future establishment and and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describin using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to; place dominants, subdominants and using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site.: 11. none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compactio Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually 9. Soil surface A-horizon color and thickness): structure and SOM content (include type of structure and 10. Effect of plant community composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infil 12. dominance by above-ground production or live foliar cover (specify Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending 13. Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence): 14. percent litter cover ( ______%) and depth ( ______inches). Average 15. above-ground production, not just forage production): Expected annual production (this is TOTAL ______- ______lbs./acre or kg/ha (choose one) 16. characterize degraded states Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH 17. Perennial plant reproductive capability: Indicators. regimes for below-average years and natural disturbance values for above- and and climate (see Ecological Site Description). Current plant community community plant Current Description). (see Ecological Site and climate based on: Composition 12) and (Indicators 10 Author(s)/participant(s): Contact for lead author: Date: MLRA: Sub-MLRA: Ecological Site: appropriate and (3) cite data. Continue descriptions on separate sheet. cite data. Continue descriptions on separate appropriate and (3) 1. of rills: Number and extent 2. flow patterns: Presence of water 3. of erosional pedestals or terracettes: Number and height 4. are lichen, moss, plant canopy Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, 5. Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies: 6. Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas: 7. Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel): 8. Soil surface averages (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 72 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 72 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage73 values forabove-andbelow-averageyearsnaturaldisturbanceregimes Indicators. 10 (Indicators and12)Composition basedon: and climate(seeEcologicalSiteDescription).Currentplantcommunity .Numberandextentofrills: 1. appropriate and(3)citedata.Continuedescriptionsonseparatesheet. Date: leadauthor: for Contact Author(s)/participant(s): *This exampleincludestheabsoluteminimuminformationrequired.Ideally,ReferenceSheetsshouldincludeatleastasmuchinf 17. Perennialplantreproductivecapability: Potentialinvasive(includingnoxious)species(nativeandnon-native).ListwhichBOTHcharacterizedegradedstates 16. ______-#/acreorkg/ha(chooseone) Expectedannualproduction(thisisTOTAL above-groundproduction,notjustforageproduction): 15. Average percentlittercover(______%)anddepth______inches). 14. ordecadence): anddecadence(includewhichfunctionalgroupsareexpectedtoshowmortality Amountofplantmortality 13. Functional/StructuralGroups(listinorderofdescendingdominancebyabove-groundproductionorlivecover(specify)using 12. Presenceandthicknessofcompactionlayer(usuallynone;describesoilprofilefeatureswhichmaybemistakenforcompactio 11. ofdifferentfunctionalgroups)andspatialdistributiononinfil Effectofplantcommunitycomposition(relativeproportion 10. structureandSOMcontent(includetypeA-horizoncolorthickness): Soilsurface 9. (topfewmm)resistancetoerosion(stabilityvaluesareaverages Soilsurface 8. Amountoflittermovement(describesizeanddistanceexpectedtotravel): 7. Extentofwindscoured,blowoutsand/ordepositionalareas: 6. Numberofgulliesanderosionassociatedwithgullies: 5. BaregroundfromEcologicalSiteDescriptionorotherstudies(rock,litter, lichen,moss,plantcanopyare 4. Numberandheightoferosionalpedestalsorterracettes: 3. Presenceofwaterflowpatterns: 2. granular structure (Otero County Armesa series description refers to platy structure; probably not from a true reference site). reference true a from not probably structure; platy to refers description series Armesa County (Otero structure granular less rain necessary to sustain this site because more water is retained. is water more because site this sustain to necessary rain less on vegetation herbaceous High infiltration. limit can grama blue occur.of densityrootto High infiltration for time increased following extremely high intensity storms. Litter also may be moved during intense wind storms. wind intense during moved be may also Litter storms. intensity high extremely following what isNOTexpectedinthereferencestateforecologicalsite.: responsetodroughtorwildfire)arenotinvasiveplants.Notethatunlikeotherindicators, wearedescribin (e.g., short-term Species thatbecomedominantforonlyonetoseveralyears growth isnotactivelycontrolledbymanagementinterventions. and havethepotentialtobecomeadominantorco-dominantspeciesonecologicalsiteiftheirfutureestablishment and decadence and mortality some show always nearly will Grasses separate lines): symbols: >>,>,=toindicatemuchgreaterthan,andequalto;placedominants,subdominants on thissite): and runoff: sites. reference at verification need values These subsurface and surface at 4-5 and vegetation under subsurface and surface at 5-6 be to anticipated 2001) al. et (Herrick class disturbances rodent and mounds ant with associated also patches shrubs. with associated patches inch 12 occasional diameter; inch 8-10 than less be should patches bare ground; bare % 30 – 20 minimal evidence of past or current soil deposition or erosion. or deposition soil current or past of evidence minimal particularly good years. good particularly sites; snakeweed is cyclical, so not regarded as an invasive plant on this ecological site. ecological this on plant invasive an as regarded not so cyclical, is snakeweed sites; 03/23/2002 Other: Sub-dominants: Dominants: For eachindicator, describethepotentialforsite.Wherepossible,(1)usenumbers,(2)includeexpectedrangeof sub-shrubs = succulents; Forbs 0 – 8 % depending on the year.the on depending % 8 – 0 Forbs succulents; = sub-shrubs High grass canopy and basal cover and small gaps between plants should reduce raindrop impact and slow overland flow, providing flow, overland slow and impact raindrop reduce should plants between gaps small and cover basal and canopy grass High None MLRA Blue grama > Black grama > grama Black > grama Blue warm season bunchgrasses > Yucca = shrubs >> shrubs Yucca= > bunchgrasses season warm : 42 J. Christensen, B. Call, B. Bestelmeyer, R. Placker, D. Trujillo, L. Hauser, D. Coalson, P. Smith, & J. Herrick J. & Bestelmeyer,Smith, Placker,B. P. Hauser,Trujillo,R. Call, Coalson, L. D. B. D. Christensen, J. [email protected]/334-556-7890 None None, except following extremely high intensity storms, when short (less than 1 m) flow patterns may appear; may patterns flow m) 1 than (less short when storms, intensity high extremely following except None, Reference Sheet(BasicExample*) u-LA EcologicalSite: Sub-MLRA: all species should be capable of reproducing of capable be should species all X AnnualProduction,__FoliarCover, __Biomass 650 to 1200 pounds/acre based on ecological site description. Could be even higher on higher even be Could description.site ecological on based pounds/acre 1200 to 650 None None None cannot Possibly creosote bush which is an invader on similar ecological similar on invader an is which bush creosotePossibly 20 – 25 % litter cover and 0.25 inch depth inch 0.25 and cover litter % 25 – 20 Limy be usedtoidentifytheecologicalsite. Minimal and short, associated with water flow patterns flow water with associated short, and Minimal each – mostsiteswillshowarangeofvalues): ormation asisincludedinthe community withinthereferencestate,when This 2-4 inch dark brown A horizon with medium with horizon A brown dark inch 2-4 must be verifiedbasedonsoils “ Standard Example not this site will result in result will site this bare ground): in the interspaces. the in Larger bare Larger ” “ onthenextpage. others tration Stability ” on g n

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 73 t Values of Values Surface tration and runoff: fter wildfires, ing, not erosion. 0”) will also have are not bare duced soil water iately after a high s occur. s occur. re ground would be t, or combinations of ss plant community. ing on climate and se disturbances, rills –10 feet on 30–50% the winter, reducing the winter, hunderstorms. ty increases infiltration events, exposed soil ope). Yes ter and distance litter be verified based on soils and climate based on soils and be verified must This most sites will show a range of values): – Litter Litter movement consists primarily of redistribution of fine Wind erosion is minimal. Moderate wind erosion can occur when disturbances Plant or rock pedestals and terracettes are almost always in flow patterns. Gullies are rare and would only be present when a high intensity summer thunder- Loamy 8-10” PZ, 024XY005NV. Annual Production, __Foliar Cover, __Biomass __Foliar Cover, Annual Production, community and natural disturbance regimes within the reference state, when disturbance regimes within the reference community and natural X each Ecological Site:Ecological Generally up to 20 feet apart and short (less than 10 feet long) with numerous obstructions that alter the Reference Sheet (Standard Example) (Standard Sheet Reference Minimal on slopes less than 10% and increasing slightly as slopes increase up to 50%. Rills spaced 15–50 feet apart Winnemucca Winnemucca Class Participants (May 12-15, 2005) 024XY 10-20% or less bare ground with bare patches less than 10% of the evaluation area occurring as intercanopy patches larger than MLRA: For each indicator, describe the potential for the site. Where possible, (1) use numbers, (2) include expected range of the site. Where possible, (1) use numbers, describe the potential for For each indicator, 5/11/05 high levels of natural extended herbivory, drought, or combinations of these disturbances if high intensity summer thunderstorm ground. Within this range, lower slopes are expected to have less bare ground than steeper slopes. Upper end of precip range (1 less bare ground. Canopy gaps generally less than 12 inches in diameter in the intervals between natural disturbance events. Ba expected to increase to 80% or more the first year following wildfire but to decrease to prefire levels within 2–5 years depend other disturbances. Multi-year droughts can also cause bare ground to increase to 30%. 2 feet in diameter (intercanopy patches can include areas that are not bare ground). Most large patches can include areas that water flow path. On slopes of 10–50%, flow patterns increase in number and length. Flow pattern length and numbers may double a by improving soil structure and Loss slowing of runoff. sagebrush after a high intensity wildfire reduces snow accumulation in the depth of soil water recharge negatively affecting growth and production of deep rooted forbs and perennial grasses. This re Perennial plants Perennial and especially sagebrush capture snow, increasing soil water availability in the spring. High bunchgrass densi may double in numbers on slopes from 10–50% after high intensity summer thunderstorms. 4.5–5.5 under canopies and in intercanopy spaces. recharge is part of the site dynamics if exotics or other management actions don’t delay the succession back to a sagebrush-gra when present on slopes of 10–50%. After wildfires, high levels of natural herbivory or extended drought, or combinations of the these disturbances. of Pedestals Sandberg bluegrass on pedestals outside water flow patterns are generally caused by frost heav bare ground): Wind caused pedestals are rare and only would be on the site after wildfires, high levels of natural extended herbivory, drough Pedestals and Pedestals terracettes would be particularly apparent on 10–50% slopes, especially immediately after high intensity summer t surfaces form a physical crust that tends to reduce wind erosion. litter (herbaceous plant material) in flow patterns for distances of 1–3 feet on 2–15% slopes, 4–6 feet on 15–30% slopes, and 7 slopes. After wildfires, high levels of natural extended herbivory, drought, or combinations of these disturbances, size of lit moves can increase with coarse woody litter and fine litter moving up to 10' (2–15% slope); 25' (15–30% slope); 100' (30–50% sl such as severe wildfires, high levels of natural extended herbivory, drought, or combinations of these disturbances. After rain layer is light brown and 6–7 inches thick with moderate granular structure. Loss of several millimeters of soil may occur immed intensity wildfire, high levels of natural extended herbivory, drought, or combinations of these disturbances. storm occurs after wildfires, with high levels of natural extended herbivory, drought, or combinations of these disturbances. (see Ecological Site Description). Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site. used to identify the cannot be Current plant community Site Description). (see Ecological based on: Composition and 12) (indicators 10 10. Effect of plant community composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infil 9. Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type and strength of structure, and A-horizon color and thickness): 7. Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel): 8. Soil surface to erosion (stability values are averages (top few mm) resistance 5. Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies: 6. Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas: 3. Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes: 4. moss, plant canopy are no standing dead, lichen, Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, 2. Presence of water flow patterns: Author(s)/participant(s): Contact for lead author:Date: Reference site used? appropriate and (3) cite data. Continue descriptions on separate sheet. cite data. Continue descriptions on separate appropriate and (3) 1. of rills: Number and extent Indicators. below-average years for values for above- and

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 74 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 74 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage75 1 Presenceandthicknessofcompaction layer(usuallynone;describesoilprofilefeatureswhichmaybemistakenforcompactio 11. 7 Perennialplantreproductivecapability: 17. Potentialinvasive(includingnoxious)species(nativeandnon-native).ListwhichBOTHcharacterizedegradedstates 16. Expectedannualproduction(thisisTOTAL above-groundproduction,notjustforageproduction): 15. Average percentlittercover( 14. ordecadence): anddecadence(includewhichfunctionalgroupsareexpectedtoshowmortality Amountofplantmortality 13. Functional/StructuralGroups(listinorderofdescendingdominancebyabove-groundweightusing symbols:>>,>,=toindica 12. following a wildfire) and recover slowly under below average precipitation regimes. precipitation average below under slowly recover and wildfire) a following firs the ac. per lbs 100–200 ( reduced significantly be to production cause can disturbances, these of combinations or drought, natural of levels high wildfires, After #/acre. years precip average above in lbs/ac 800 and years precip average in lbs/ac 600 climate and plant production increases to post-disturbance levels in one to five growing seasons. growing five to one in levels post-disturbance to increases production plant and climate and fire) (e.g., disturbance the after immediately none to decreases depth and cover litter disturbances, these of combinations either disturbance functioning by itself. Up to 20% dead branches on sagebrush following drought alone. alone. drought following sagebrush on branches dead 20% itself.to by Up functioning disturbance either follo years several for mortality more even cause would droughts extended and wildfires of Combinations droughts. year multiple would mortality Shrub bluegrass. Sandberg and squirreltail bottlebrush as such species lived short in mortality high relatively would droughts Extended species. understory herbaceous the of percentage small a would as die would shrubs non-resprouting the int high to moderate After shrubs. and forbs perennial the especially lived, long are community this in plants perennial the of reduces reproductive capability.reproductive reduces macropores. of loss and structure soil of degradation as detected be and occur still can t of hardness the increase will accumulations silica These horizon. “shiny”the and brittlenessin their material by compaction d be can horizons these however horizons; denser cause can layer.accumulations compaction Silica soil induced management a for on thissite): what isNOTexpectedinthereferencestateforecologicalsite.: responsetodroughtorwildfire)arenotinvasiveplants.Notethatunlikeotherindicators,wedescribin (e.g., short-term Speciesthatbecomedominantforonlyonetoseveralyears growth isnotactivelycontrolledbymanagementinterventions. and havethepotentialtobecomeadominantorco-dominantspeciesonecologicalsiteiftheirfutureestablishment much greaterthan,andequalto)withdominantssub-dominants a threat to dominate the site after the disturbance. the after site the dominate to threat a me currently not do but future, the in site this for species invasive an of definition the meetwhitetop may tall and buttercup Russia cress, Hoary cheatgrass. by dominants as replaced eventually are but disturbance after soon dominate may thistle Russian Exotidrought). extended and/or herbivory natural of levels high include also disturbances but wildfires (primarily disturbance Other: Sub-dominant: Dominant: at the expense of the herbaceous groups and biological crust. biological and groups herbaceous the of expense the at functional/s shrub increase can factors these of combinations or drought,herbivory, extended natural of levels High component. reduces increase and reestablishment sagebrush the until increase to tend Resproutingshrubs sagebrush). big (e.g., shrubs ing the of recovery year 10–20 slow a with components herbaceous the to changes dominance functional/structural the wildfires After 10–15% of cover moss + lichen with present be will crust Biological annual forbs, perennial forbs perennial forbs, annual Compaction layers should not be present. There are soil profile features in the top 8 inches of the soil profile that would be would that profile soil the of inches 8 top the in features profile soil are There present. be not should layers Compaction mid+tall grasses > non-sprouting shrubs (except following fire, when non-resprouting shrubs become rare on the site) the on rare become shrubs non-resprouting when fire, following (except shrubs non-sprouting > grasses mid+tall shortgrasses > sprouting shrubs sprouting > shortgrasses 20% ) anddepth( Only limitations to reproductive capability are weather-related and natural disease or herbivory that herbivory or disease natural and weather-related are capability reproductive to limitations Only 1/4” inches ) After wildfires, high levels of natural herbivory, extended drought, or drought,herbivory, extended natural of levels high wildfires, After Cheatgrass is the greatest threat to dominate this site after site this dominate to threat greatest the is Cheatgrass “ others ” onseparatelines: 400 lbs/ac in low precip years, precip low in lbs/ac 400 he soil, but compaction but soil, he et the criteria of being of criteria the et c mustards and mustards c be limited to severe, to limited be ensity wildfires, all of all wildfires, ensity dependent on dependent herbivory,extended t growing season growing t wing the fire than fire the wing istinguished from istinguished tructural groups tructural n knapweed, bur knapweed, n the resprouting the tend to cause to tend non resprout- non mistaken g Most te n

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 75 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 76 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage77 Functional/Structural GroupsSheet 3 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 77 (roughly 10-40% Date a Sub-dominant (S) (<2% composition) based on weight or cover Plant Names column derived from information found in the ecological ” 1 (roughly 40-100 % composition), a Trace Component (T) Potential “ 2 is a Dominant (D) ” Actual column) relative to the ” 1 2 Actual Functional/Structural Groups Sheet Groups Functional/Structural (roughly 2-10% composition), or “ structural/functional group “ 3 dominance is evaluated solely on cover, not composition by weight. dominance is evaluated solely on cover, 3 Name Potential a Minor Component (M) Functional/Structural Groups Species List for Functional/Structural Groups site/description and/or at the ecological reference area. Biological Crust Noxious Weeds Invasive Plants Biological Crust Indicate whether each composition) composition in the area of interest (e.g., StateObservers Office Ecological Site Site ID

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 78 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 78 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage79 Biological Crust Invasive Plants Noxious Weeds grama sixweeks grass, fluff lambsquarter buckwheat, T T spp. yucca croton marigold, desert globemallow, T snakeweed broom M T M D M M M grasses Annual forbs Annual forbs Perennialtaprooted sub-shrub Evergreen Yucca Observers State composition) each whether Indicate bunchgrasses leaf narrow Warmseason Warm season bruchgrasses D S blue grama, plains bristlegrass, cane bluestem cane bristlegrass, plains grama, blue grama black S T D S grasses stoloniferous Warmseason bruchgrasses Warmseason Biological Crust site/description and/orattheecologicalreferencearea. composition intheareaofinterest(e.g., composition NM a MinorComponent(M) Functional/Structural Groups Species List for Functional/Structural Groups Functional/Structural for SpeciesList Groups Functional/Structural aePotential Name Smith, Garcia, and Jones and Garcia, Smith, 3 dominance isevaluatedsolelyoncover, notcompositionbyweight. 3 Office TT “ structural/functional group structural/functional Las Cruces Las Functional/Structural GroupsSheet(Example) (roughly 2-5%composition),or “ Actual S D dropseeds spp, threeawn spp. threeawn spp, dropseeds D S 2 1 ” Ecological Site column)relativetothe Actual ” isaDominant(D) 2 Limy a Trace Component(T) a Trace “ Potential (roughly 40-100%composition), 1 ” column derived from information foundintheecological columnderivedfrominformation (<2% composition)basedonweightorcover Plant Names a Sub-dominant(S) Date Site ID Site (roughly 10-40% 6/10/2002 042XB999NM

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 79 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 80 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage81 Evaluation Matrix 4 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 81 o the criteria included Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: exposed slopes. Revision DateRevision deposition. Departure from Reference Sheet Evaluation Matrix Evaluation areas common; occasionally site; erosion isconnected. minor with some of minor erosion. Flow patterns are instability and deposition or erosion. stable and short. the site. areas. exposed Extreme pedestalling and numerous pedestalling;terracettes. Many rocks and plants and Some rocks are pedestaled; pedestalling; most plants are terracettes common.exposed plant roots flow paths and occasional exposed pedestals are in terracette or pedestaled withare common. Occasional formation is rare; some evidence of on exposed slopes. interspaces and/or formation, pedestaled plants or rocks as expected roots. evidence of past pedestal in water especially or uncommon. for the site. absent Terracettes terracettes present. flow patterns on extensive and numerous; unstable and extensive with active erosion; more numerous than expected; usually connected. patterns nearly deposition and cut of water flow is match what expected for the patterns match what site; some evidence site; minimal flow of water is expected for the soil current evidence of past or expected for the severe and well defined throughout and well defined moderately activemost of the site. formation is slight at infrequent throughout most of of rills; old rills intervals; mostly in muted features. have blunted or formation of rills as site. expected for the in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1). Generic Descriptor active Abundant Moderate active Slight active pedestalling Active Current or past Terracettes 3. Pedestals and/or Generic Descriptor flow patterns Water patterns flow Water Number and length and length Number Matches what is 2. Water Flow Flow Water 2. Patterns Indicator*1. Rills Extreme to Total Moderate to ModerateGeneric Descriptor Rill formation is Slight to Moderate Rill formation is None to Slight Active rill No recent formation Current or past * listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer t Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those StateAuthors Office Ecological Site Site ID

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 82 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 82 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage83 DescriptionsforeachindicatorshouldbemorespecificthanthoselistedintheGenericDescriptors,ifpossible, andrefert * niao*Eteet oa oeaet oeaeSih oMdrt NonetoSlight SlighttoModerate Moderate Moderateto ExtremetoTotal 4. BareGround Indicator* eei ecitrEtnie omn Ocsoal nrqetadfw Matchwhatis Infrequent andfew. Occasionally Common. Extensive. Generic Descriptor Depositional Areas Blowout, and/or 6. Wind Scoured, eei ecitrCommonwith Generic Descriptor Amountandsizeof 5. Gullies Slightlyto Moderatelyhigher Moderatetomuch Muchhigherthan Generic Descriptor in theNonetoSlightdescription,whichisbasedonReferenceSheet(Appendix1). edusae utn sntmyb rsn.erosion. andnosigns of erosion. maybepresent. vegetationcommon naturalstable channels; nickpoints,orbed headcuts representedas apparent. signsofactive cutting isnot active. expectedforthe andslopes;no Occasional headcuts, active;down- numerous and on intermittent slopesand/orbed. headcuts are slopes and/orbed. Nickpoints and site;drainagesare on isintermittent Headcutsare vegetationis vegetationis slopes and/orbed. stabilizingthebed erosion;vegetation withindicationsof infrequent on vegetation is tocommonwith activeerosion; downcutting; indicationsofactive active erosionand indications of once.aelread iead aresmalland sizeand bareareasmatch arelargeand thesite. moderatelyhigher thesite.Bareareas thatexpectedfor thanexpectedfor areofmoderate thanexpectedfor thesite.Bareareas connected. site.Bareareas large andgenerally higherthan expectedforthe site. Bareareasare expected forthe once.connected. connected. occasionally sporadically rarely connected. Extreme oeaei ubrModerateinnumber Moderate innumber Departure from Reference Sheet Reference from Departure rsn. expectedforthesite. present. nomn Matchwhatis Uncommon, Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: o thecriteriaincluded

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 83 o the criteria included Reference Sheet: Reference Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: degradation, content match that significantly reduced. degradation beneath Departure fromReference Sheet degradation severe or degradation in occurred and/or horizon intact. Soil Extreme litter have been displaced. in depressions. and displaced. present only in isolated patches. near surface is similar to, or more differences Minimal degraded, than throughout site. some with in soil organic plant interspaces soil structure shows signs of structure and organic matter absent. Soil structure that in subsurface horizons. No matter content anddistinguishable plant canopies. difference in structure of surfacesubsurface organic especially in plant and subsurface Soil structure is matter content. expected for site. layers. degraded and soil interspaces. organic matter content is concentrated around obstructions. near concentrated Most size classes extreme; loosely size classes smaller of litter have been than expected for obstructions.displaced. Moderate to small movement of site with a fairly concentrations in scattered moderately more size classes of small size classes expected for the litter. of obstructions around only the site with of litter being uniform distribution throughout the site. reduced in mostBiological stabilization agents interspaces and reduced in at leastincluding organic soil surface stabilitymatter and moderately reduced expected for the canopy interspaces, plant canopy or moderatelybiological crusts or slight reductionvirtually absent. stabilized by canopies. throughout the site. beneath plant the plant half of Stabilizing agents organic matter in plant interspaces reduced throughout site. Surface soil is the site. agents Stabilizing decomposition reduced below expected. products and/or a biological crust. in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1). Generic Descriptor Soil surface horizon Soil loss or Moderate soil loss Some soil loss has surface Soil Indicator* Extreme to Total to Moderate Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight 7. Litter Movement Generic Descriptor Extreme; Moderate to Moderate Slightly to that Matches (wind or water) 8. Soil Surface Generic Descriptor Extremely reduced Significantly Significantly Some reduction in Matches that Resistance to Erosion 9. Soil Surface Loss or Degradation * Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer t

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 84 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 84 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage85 DescriptionsforeachindicatorshouldbemorespecificthanthoselistedintheGenericDescriptors,ifpossible,andrefert * eei ecitrEtnie eeey ieped Mdrtl ie aeypeeto sMatchesthat Rarelypresentoris Moderatelywide- Widespread; Extensive;severely Generic Descriptor surface) Layer (belowsoil 11. Compaction Infiltrationand Infiltrationisslightly Infiltrationis Infiltrationisgreatly Infiltrationis Generic Descriptor NonetoSlight SlighttoModerate Moderate Runoff Moderateto to Infiltrationand Distribution Relative ExtremetoTotal Composition and 10. PlantCommunity Indicator* in the NonetoSlightdescription,whichisbasedonReferenceSheet(Appendix1). in eerto.adro mvmn n ot oeetadro minimal,not movementandroot movementandroot expectedforthe site;noneto restrictivetowater androot thinandweakly spread,moderately restrictswater greatlyrestricts penetration. watermovement movement androot restricts water runoffcanbe effectoninfiltration. infiltration. changesin infiltrationand haveonlyaminor coverchanges community distribution.Any negativelyaffect coverchanges distribution.Plant haveoccurred. compositionand community distribution.Plant arenot runoff coverchanges compositionand/or affectedbyany have occurred. inplantcommunity changesinplant compositionand/or Detrimentalplant cover changes affectedbyminor compositionand/ Adverse plant changesinplant tomoderately ordistribution. or distribution. adversechanges reduceddueto composition and/ inplantcommunity adversechanges community moderately changes inplant due toadverse decreaseddueto severely decreased eerto.pntain eerto.restrictivetowater penetration. penetration. penetration. Extreme Departure from Reference Sheet Reference from Departure penetration. movement androot Reference Sheet: compaction). factors (e.g. attributed toother Reference Sheet: o thecriteriaincluded

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 85 Reference Sheet: Reference Reference Sheet: site. Reference Sheet: in each group o the criteria included and/or and/or of F/S groups has for the expected the site reduced and/or Number of of species number replaced been modified from site. dominant F/S groups expected for the site and/or Departure from Reference Sheet One reduced Number of species within F/S within F/S slightly expected for the site Extreme and/or groups significantly reduced. reduced. group replaced by by F/S groups not that expected for and/or and/or and/or been dramatically sub-dominate more within F/S groups groups greatly reduced groups reduced groups moderately groups slightly number of species reduced. species within F/S groups moderately reduced. dramatically altered Number of species groups not F/S decadent plants are decadent plants are are decadent plants common. mortality and/or decadence match somewhat common. present. decadence. that expected for the dominant relative to site potential and increased relative to site potential and less relative to siteweather. potential and less relative to site expected for the site potential and weather. weather. weather. and potential weather. Relative dominance dominant groupof F/S groups has and/or one or One or more sub- dominance Relative match that closely in the None to Slight description, which is based on the Reference Sheet (Appendix 1). Generic Descriptor Dead and/or Dead plants and/or Some dead and/or Slight plant Plant mortality and 14. Litter Amount Generic Descriptor Largely absent or Greatly reduced or Moderately more or Slightly more or Amount is what is 12. Functional/ Indicator* to Total Extreme to Moderate Moderate Slight to Moderate None to Slight Structural Groups Structural (F/S Groups) See Functional/ Structural Groups Worksheet * Descriptions for each indicator should be more specific than those listed in the Generic Descriptors, if possible, and refer t Generic Descriptor Number of F/S F/S Number of Number of F/S Number of F/S and F/S groups 13. Plant Mortality/ Decadence

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 86 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 86 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage87 DescriptionsforeachindicatorshouldbemorespecificthanthoselistedintheGenericDescriptors, ifpossible,andrefert * eei ecitrDmnt h ie omntruhu ctee hogotPeetpiaiyi Ifpresent, Presentprimarilyin Scatteredthroughout Commonthroughout Dominatethesite. Generic Descriptor eei ecitrCpblt o aaiiyt aaiiyt aaiiyt Capabilityto Capabilityto Capabilityto Capabilityto Capabilityto Generic Descriptor (native orseeded) Perennial Plants Capability of 17.Reproductive 16. InvasivePlants Exceeds80%of 60-80%ofpotential NonetoSlight 40-60%ofpotential 20-40%ofpotential SlighttoModerate Lessthan20%of Generic Descriptor Moderate Moderateto ExtremetoTotal Production 15. Annual Indicator* in theNonetoSlightdescription,whichisbasedonReferenceSheet(Appendix1). nrcn ete.wahr ete.wahr onrecentweather. weather. weather. potentialproduction forthesitebased sitebasedonrecent weather. productionforthe sitebasedonrecent sitebasedonrecent on recentweather. productionforthe for thesitebased productionforthe potential production eaiet eet eaiet eetrltv orcn eaiet eetrelativetorecent notreduced relativetorecent climaticconditions. produceseedor climaticconditions. relativetorecent slightlyreduced climaticconditions. vegetativetillersis moderatelyreduced produceseedor climaticconditions relativetorecent vegetativetillersis climatic conditions. greatlyreduced produceseedor vegetativetillersis relative torecent severely reduced vegetativetillersis produceseedor vegetative tillersis produce seedor Extreme h ie h ie itre ra compositionof disturbedareas thesite. the site. Departure from Reference Sheet Reference from Departure ihntest.invasivespecies, within thesite. Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: Reference Sheet: expected forthesite. matches that o thecriteriaincluded

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 87 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 88 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:43AMPage89 Photographs ofthe17Indicators 5 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 89 1a - Rills are a natural component of this site due to erodible soils. 1a - Rills are a natural component of this 1. Rills 1b - Short linear rill caused by accelerated water flow.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 90 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:43 AM Page 90 Page AM 9:43 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage91 2. Water FlowPatterns 2. Water 2b - Short water flow pattern (whitedottedline)inplantinterspaces. waterflowpattern 2b -Short inplantinterspaceindicativeofhighoverlandwaterflow.2a -Extensivewaterflowpattern

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 91 3a - Plant pedestal caused by wind erosion. Note the exposed roots (arrow). 3a - Plant pedestal caused by wind erosion. 3b - Terracette (arrow) caused by litter obstruction in water flow pattern. (arrow) caused by litter obstruction 3b - Terracette 3. Pedestals Terracettes and/or

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 92 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 92 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage93 situation includenumbers4,8,9,and11. with thisindicator. Otherindicatorsthatmaybeapplicableinthis 3c -Terraces byungulategrazingonhillsidesarenotevaluated formed 3. Pedestals and/or Terracettes (continued) and/orTerracettes 3. Pedestals

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 93 4b - Amount of bare ground is excessive relative to site potential and recent weather. 4a - Amount of bare ground is slight relative to site potential and recent weather. 4a - Amount of bare ground is slight relative 4. Bare Ground

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 94 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 94 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage95 5. Gullies 5b - Relatively stable gully with few signs of active erosion with good vegetation recovery occurring. 5b -Relativelystablegullywithfewsignsofactiveerosiongoodvegetationrecovery 5a -Gullythatshowssignsofactiveerosion(nickpointsseearrows)anddowncutting.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 95 6. Wind-Scoured, Blowouts, and/or Deposition Areas 6a - Wind-scoured areas in plant interspaces (star) with soil and litter deposition occurring at plant bases areas in plant interspaces 6a - Wind-scoured (arrows).

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 96 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 96 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage97 7. Litter Movement 7. Litter 7a -Littermovementandaccumulationinawaterflowpattern. 7b -Litterredistributedbywindundershrubcanopyandaroundobstructionsintheinterspaces.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 97 indicating less organic matter and stability. ” melting “ 8a - Surface interspaces can increase overland flow of water. physical crusts in plant 8b - Soil surface fragment on right is resistant to breakdown in water indicating presence of soil-binding Soil surface fragment on left is organic matter. 8. Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 98 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 98 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage99 biological cr - loss(foreground)isevidentwhencomparedtothecoverofplantand Evidence ofsoilsurface 9a orDegradation Loss 9. SoilSurface ust inthebackground.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 99 10b - Degraded desert grassland site where runoff has dramatically increased due to conversion from grass to shrubs. 10a - Desert grasses promote infiltration and minimize runoff. grassland site where 10. Plant Community Plant 10. Composition and Distribution Relative to Infiltration and Runoff

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 100 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 100 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage101 11. Layer Compaction 11a -Anexampleofarestrictivecompactionlayerthatreducesrootpenetrationandwaterpercolation.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 101 spp.) that is included in a different functional group than non- spp.) that is included in a different functional Astragalus nitrogen-fixing forbs. 12a - Nitrogen-fixing forb ( 12b - Biological crusts (foreground) are an important functional/structural component in many plant communities. 12. Functional/Structural12. Groups

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 102 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 102 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage103 erosion isalsoevident. 12d -Perennialbunchgrasseshavebeenreplacedwithcheatgrass,anexoticannualgrass.Accelerated the vegetationmix. 12c -Sagebrush-perennialbunchgrasssitenearpotential.Nativeannualgrassesareaminorcomponentof (continued) Groups 12. Functional/Structural

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 103 spp.) plants. Artemisia 13b - Decadent shrub with dead branches. 13a - Dead and decadent sagebrush ( 13. Plant Mortality/Decadence13.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 104 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 104 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage105 14b -Litterisuncommoncomparedtowhatexpectedgiventhesitepotentialandrecentweather. 14a -Amountoflitterisinbalancewithsitepotentialandrecentweather. 14. Litter Amount 14. Litter

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 105 14c - Amount of litter and standing dead vegetation is well above what is expected due to the presence of 14c - Amount of litter and standing dead an exotic annual grass. 14. Litter14. (continued) Amount

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 106 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 106 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage107 15b -Productionofcurrentyear 15. AnnualProduction 15a -Productionofcurrentyear ’ ’ s abovegroundbiomassiswellbelowsitepotentialrelativetorecentweather. s abovegroundbiomassisconsistentwithsitepotentialandrecentweather.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 107 ) is an exotic invasive annual grass that can dominate the understory) is an exotic invasive annual grass that in Bromus tectorum 16. Invasive Plants 16. 16b - State-listed noxious weeds, such as this knapweed in Idaho, are another category16b - State-listed noxious weeds, such as this knapweed in Idaho, are another of invasive plants. 16a - Cheatgrass ( disturbed shrublands.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 108 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 108 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage109 herbaceous plants. 16c -Juniper, anativetree,isinvasivewhenitinvadesrangelandsites wherethepotentialisforshrubsand 16. (continued) Plants Invasive

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 109 17. Reproductive17. Capability of Perennial Plants 17a - Perennial forbs and grasses show good potential for reproduction as evidenced by flowers and seed- 17a - Perennial forbs and grasses show stalk production. 17b - Reproduction potential of this shrub is low due to lack of seed production.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 110 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 110 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage111 Quantitative Measuresforthe17Indicators 6 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 111 s al related ndicate e and nes as ndicators. relate to the sometimes section. correlated with s resistance to ’ positively groups are e positively correlated with pin height correlated with pin height related to soil related to the plant mortality or related to redistribution or loss of litter. positively positively correlated with water flow patternscorrelated with water flow because correlated with water flow patternscorrelated with water flow because correlated with runoff and erosion. correlated with runoff and can be positively positively positively positively negatively related to plant functional or structural groups qualitative positively production plant bases slow water movement. the presence of a compaction layer. The live-to-dead proportion is related to soil surface loss or degradation. stoloniferous plants. wind and water erosion. due to pedestals and terracettes. effect on many functions than bare ground in small gaps. effect on many functions than bare ground in small cover (1,2) Quantitative Measures for the 17 Indicators the 17 for Measures Quantitative and group richness indicator resistance in the upper 15 cm evaluation and reference area of Ratio of mass-per-volume soil in the upper 15 cm Bulk density between the evaluation and reference area canopy Litter cover Line-point intercept (2,3) amount. decadence qualitative indicator Proportion of basal gaps > 25, 50, 100, 200 cm Basal gap intercept (3)heights are Basal gaps (3) (microtopography) gaps. water gains energy as it moves unobstructed across larger standard deviation because increased microtopography is Percent foliar cover ofinvasive species Line-point intercept (2,3), qualitative indicator (1,2), or quadrat Production (6 inches) between the 25, 50, 100, 200 cm relate to infiltration and runoff. that 25, 50, 100, 200 cm interspaces vs. under canopies Proportion of basal gaps > Basal gap intercept (3) can be Basal gaps movement. to litter Proportion of line in canopy Canopy gap intercept (3) The bare ground qualitative indicator is also gaps > 25, 50, 100, 200 cmgaps > 25, 50, 100, 200 side slope angleHeadcut movement Headcut location (3) canopy gaps because bare ground in large gaps usually has a larger Higher rates of headcut movement reflect greater gully erosion. or active gully erosion. more severe 13. Plant mortality/decadence Proportion of live-to-dead Line-point intercept (2,3) 12. Functional/structural Percent composition by intercept (2,3) Line-point 14. Litter amount Composition and richness of functional or structural 15. Annual production Litter mass production annual Total Production (1,2) Litter mass relates directly with the qualitative indicator of annu Productions unit area is related to litter The amount of litter mass and cover per quantitative indicators (from Pyke et al., 2002). Also see table relating quantitative indicators to attributes in the Concepts to attributes in quantitative indicators see table relating et al., 2002). Also indicators (from Pyke quantitative et al., 2002. al., 2001, 3 - Herrick 1997, 2 - Elzinga et 1 - USDA NRCS, References: groups functional or structural group Production (1,2) 16. Invasive plants17. Reproductive capability species Density of invasive of perennial plants None Belt transect (1,2,3) Number of species and their densities or cover will directly Potential quantitative measurements and indicators that we believe specifically relate to the 17 rangeland health qualitative i 17 rangeland health relate to the that we believe specifically and indicators measurements Potential quantitative Qualitative Indicator1. Rills flow patterns2. Water Quantitative Indicator Measurement (References) Percent basal cover Interpretation None Line-point intercept (2,3) Basal cover is For each quantitative indicator, we provide a potential explanation (interpretation) of the relationship between the qualitativ between the of the relationship explanation (interpretation) provide a potential we indicator, For each quantitative 3. Pedestals and/or terracettes of pin Standard deviation Erosion bridge Pedestals and terracettes degradation10. Plant community composition and distribution relative to infiltration and runoff. Percent composition stability11. Compaction layer Line-point intercept (2,3) or Ratio of penetration Changes in species composition can be related to changes in Proportion of basal gaps > Basal gap intercept (3) (sub-surface)(3) production (1,2) Impact penetrometer (3) Changes in basal gaps can be related to changes plant distribution 1 can i Ratios of penetration resistance or bulk density above surface soil is lost, thus sub-surface stability is negatively aggregate infiltration. For example, root and shoot morphology of tussock vs. 8. Soil surface resistance to erosion soil surface stability Average 9. Soil surface loss or Soil stability kit (surface)(3) Surface aggregate stability is soil sub-surface Average Soil stability kit Sub-surface soil structure degrades and organic matter decli 4. Bare ground Percent bare ground Line-point intercept (2,3) Bare ground is 5. Gullies blowout, 6. Wind-scoured, and/or depositional areas None 7. Litter movement ratio and Width-to-depth Channel profiles (3) Proportion of litter cover in Line-point intercept (2,3) Lower width-to-depth ratios and higher side slope angles both reflect Higher proportions litter in the interspaces can b of

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 112 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 112 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage113 Soil StabilityKit 7 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 113 3cm w to air-dry a 0.5cm drawn by: Lightfoot Tye 1.65mm mesh 2cm 3.5cm 10.5cm (b) after insertion on or <10% of soil remains 3) to Verify Class of insertion in water OR too unstable to ≤ after insertion. 2.5cm diameter pvc 5 seconds 300 seconds – (see table 1) 30 seconds – 5 30 Stability class table -diameter Air-Dry-diameter Samples ” 21cm of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles. of soil remains on of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles. of soil remains on of soil remains on sieve after 5 dipping cycles. of soil remains on ALWAYS Sieve Soils (even if rated (even Soils Sieve ALWAYS of structural integrity lost of structural integrity of structural integrity lost within of structural integrity lost of structural integrity 1cm sample (falls through sieve)*. sample (falls through 50% 50% 50% cycles. sieve after 5 dipping 10 - 25% 25 - 75% - 100% 75 2004. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. 2004. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. (a) 3cm Adapted from Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett and W.G. Whitford. Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett and W.G. Van Adapted from Herrick, J.E., J.W. Soil Stability Evaluation for 1/4 Evaluation for Soil Stability 2 1 3 4 5 6 USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM. Distributed by University of Arizona Press. 5cm (c) before testing. * If too unstable to sample, try gently wetting with a mister (perfume and allo bottle available at drug stores), remove sample, Table 1. Table Stability class Criteria for assignment to stability class (for Standard Characterization)

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 114 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 114 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage115 • Materials Soil StabilityTest • face samples only (1 box), or surface and subsurface samples(2boxes). andsubsurface face samplesonly(1box),orsurface 1. Randomlyselect18samplingpointsanddecidewhetheryouwillcollectsur- 10 minutestotest18samples. With alittlepractice,it takesabout10to15minutessample.It Standard Methods(ruleset) • • “ thedominantcoverclassoverrandompointandenterinto 2. Determine 3. Collect a surface sample. 3. Collectasurface Veg www Complete soilstabilitykits(availablefromSynergyResourceSolutionsat 1 liter(32oz.)Deionizedwater(oranynoncarbonatedbottled Herrick etal.2005) .Recordsamplinglocations(points)under b. Use18randomlyselectedpointsalongthetransectsusedforline-pointand a. RULES: Stopwatch Clipboard, SoilStabilityTest andpencil DataForm, mineral water) d. Include subsurface sampleifyouareinterestedinsoilerodibilityafterdis- Includesubsurface d. Alwayssampleatleast5cm(2inches)fromanyvegetationmeasurement c. .Recordthedominantcoverclassin b. Theareatobeclassifiedisaslargethesample(68mmor a. RULES: .Ifthesoil istooweaklystructuredtosample(fallsthroughthesieve),mistit f. Minimizeshatteringby: e. Collectsamplesattheexactpoint.Movesamplepointonlyifithas d. Thesoilfragmentshouldbe2to3mmindiameter(theofa c. tothecorrectsize. Liftoutasoilfragmentandtrimit(ifnecessary) b. Excavateasmalltrenchinfrontoftheareatobesampled(Figure1). a. h. Gently place the sample in a dry sieve(Figure4);placeinthe Gentlyplacethesampleinadry h. iscoveredbyalichenorcyanobacterialcrust,include Ifthesoilsurface g. ” gap interceptmeasurements. turbance. line. 1/4 inchindiameter. sample stillwillnotholdtogether, recorda andplastichairspraybottlesworkwellforthis.Ifthe a sample.Perfume lightly withdeionizedwater(useanatomizerorequivalent)andthentake • • • (1m)andnotethischangeonthedataform. distance protected byarockorembeddedlitter. Movethepointastandard is been disturbedduringpreviousmeasurementsorthesoilsurface wood pencileraser)(Figures2and3). appro ple fromunderthemoss. the crustinsample.Ifsampleiscoveredbymoss,collectsam- columnonthedataform. .countgrass.com misting thesampleareabeforecollection. the palmofyourhand;or lifting outalargersamplethanrequired,andtrimmingittothesizeof slicing thesoilaroundsamplebeforelifting; NC C priate cell of a dry box.Leavetheboxlidopen(Figure5). priate cellofadry noperennialgrass,shrubortreecanopycover = perennialgrass,shrubortreecanopycover = or constructusinginstructionsinHerricketal.2001 “ Veg “ Pos “ ” 1 column. ” ” onthedataform. onthedataform. — except Figure 2. Figure water andsamples. 5. Figure Figure 4. Figure Figure 1. Figure Figure 3. Figure Collect surface sample. Collect surface Complete soilstabilitykitwith Place sampleinsieve. Excavate smalltrench. Ensure correctsamplesize.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 115 Some of Sample in The photos illustrate Figure 7. sieve, drawn to scale. Figure 8. the key steps of testing a soil sample for four different stability rankings. Important Note: the fragments shown in these samples may appear large. They are for illustration only. Be sure to follow the size guidelines. Place first sample in water. Place first sample in Figure 6. s surface and one second to return ’ = Stable (even after swirling) After 5 Dips After 5 Seconds S sample every This allows nine sam- 30 seconds. Figure 8D. Figure 8B. box. utes (18 samples in 20 minutes). After 5 Minutes Original Sample = (but does not melt) Disintegrates when swirls = (without swirling) Melts in first 30 seconds ples to be run in ten min the of bottom to near the record a stability class based on the table below. record a stability class based on the table if you have already Repeat this immersion a total of five times. Do this even bottom of the tray. than 10 percent can change your rating, if after sieving, less rated the sample a 1, 2, or 3. You of the soil remains on the sieve. compartment left corner (the upper of the water box) (Figure 6). box, one second should elapse. on the bottom of the to stability classes. below to assign samples a15 seconds. Beginners may want to immerse or decrease stability. or decrease D M a. Fill each compartment to the top. b. the same temperature as the soil. The water should be approximately a. dry Samples must be samples are not dry before testing. If to air dry collecting, allow after off. with the lid b. can artificially days. Excessive heat on hot/sunny for more than one minute closed on samples Do not leave lid increase e. Observe minutes (300 seconds) and the fragments from the time the sample hits the water to five f. of the water and then lower it to the bottom without touching the Raise the sieve completely out g. It should take one second for each sieve to clear the water h. that float in water after being pushed under) are rated 6. Hydrophobic samples (samples a. the respective water-filled the first sieve with the sample into Lower b. sieve screen touches the water surface From the time the to the time it rests c. Use the table Start when the first sample touches the water. the stopwatch d. After five minutes, follow the sequence of immersions on the data form, one sample every adding Sequence for stability class = 1 Figure 8C . Figure 8A. Bottlecap test (Semiquantitative alternative) water for five it for 30 seconds. Gently swirl the Watch with water. Place a soil fragment in a bottle cap filled ratings: seconds. Assign one of the following three 5. Fill the empty (no sieves) box with deionized or distilled water (Figure 5). sieves) box with deionized or distilled 5. Fill the empty (no the samples. 6. Test 4. Make sure the surface4. Make sure and subsurfacedry. samples are

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 116 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 116 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage117 Figure 8I. Figure Figure 8K. Figure Figure 8E. Figure Figure 8G. Figure Sequence forstabilityclass=5 Sequence forstabilityclass=4 Original Sample Original Sample After 5Minutes After 5Minutes Figure 8J. Figure Figure 8L. Figure Figure 8F. Figure Figure 8H. Figure After 5Seconds After 5Dips After 5Seconds After 5Dips

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 117 After 5 Seconds After 5 Dips Figure 8P. Figure 8P. Figure 8N . Original Sample After 5 Minutes Sequence for stability class = 6 for stability class = Sequence Figure 8O. Figure 8M.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 118 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 118 Page AM 9:44 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:44AMPage119

Monitoring plot: Observer: Date: Recorder: Page of Veg = NC (no perennial canopy), C (plant canopy cover). # = Stability value (1-6). Circle value if samples are hydrophobic. Rate samples beginning in upper left corner and working left to right. 15 Seconds Between Samples

Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time #

0:00 5:00 0:15 5:15 0:30 5:30 0:45 5:45 1:00 6:00 1:15 6:15

1:30 6:30 1:45 6:45 2:00 7:00 2:15 7:15 2:30 7:30 2:45 7:45 Soil StabilityTestDataForm 3:00 8:00 3:15 8:15 3:30 8:30 3:45 8:45 4:00 9:00 4:15 9:15

Notes:

30 Seconds Between Samples

Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Line____ In Dip Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time # Pos Veg time time #

0:00 5:00 0:30 5:30 1:00 6:00 1:30 6:30 2:00 7:00 2:30 7:30

3:00 8:00 3:30 8:30 4:00 9:00 4:30 9:30 0:00 5:00 0:30 5:30

1:00 6:00 1:30 6:30 2:00 7:00 2:30 7:30 3:00 8:00 3:30 8:30

Notes:

Avg. Stability = Sum of Stability Rankings (i.e., #) / Total No. Samples Taken

Protected samples Unprotected samples All samples (Samples w/Veg = G, Sh, or T) (Samples w/ Veg = NC) Line Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface

Plot Avg.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 119 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:44 AM Page 120 1734-6rev05 8/3/059:45AMPage121 Checklist forRangelandHealthAssessmentProtocol 8 Appendix

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 121 Responsible and Date column of the ” Actual “ Obtain or Develop (REQUIRED) Obtain or Develop — column ” potential “ mation from it in the development of the Reference Sheet. mation from it in the development of Obtain reference sheet if available sheet is developed If not available STOP until reference development or revision, If reference sheet is draft, undergoes Management Specialist send copy to NRCS State Rangeland Sheet (species list and Develop Functional/Structural Groups complete the ecological reference area if available and incorporate Visit infor Matrix Obtain or develop Ecological Site Evaluation (Information from reference sheet becomes none to slight values in evaluation matrix). Step 3. Collect Supplementary Information RECOMMENDED) (OPTIONAL BUT HIGHLY Collect quantitative data and spatial and temporal information at the evaluation area. Complete the Individual/team organized or designated Individual/team organized Soil survey information or soil assembled obtained Ecological site description GPS unit, (shovel, soil stability kit, camera, Equipment gathered data forms, technical reference, maps, etc.) areas, if desired Identify potential reference for checked and obtain copies Reference Sheet availability ecological areas sites in potential evaluation Step 1. Visit Evaluation Verify Area and Soil and Ecological Site Information Soil and ecological site verification Complete first page of Evaluation Sheet Step 2. ReferenceSheet Functional/Structural Sheet Step Indicators 4. Rate 17 Include written comments to explain/justify all ratings Step 5. Evaluate 3 Rangeland Health Attributes Include written comments to explain/justify preponderance of evidence ratings for each attribute. Checklist for Rangeland Health Assessment Protocol Assessment Health for Rangeland Checklist Pre-Field Tasks is Who Initial

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health — Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 122 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:45 AM Page 122 Page AM 9:45 8/3/05 1734-6rev05 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:45 AM Page 123

The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. 1734-6rev05 8/3/05 9:45 AM Page 124