Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Technical ..., Slides of Public Health

Download Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Technical ... and more Slides Public Health in PDF only on Docsity!

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 5

August 2020

Suggested citation:

---

Pellant, M., P.L. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, J.E. Herrick, N. Lepak, G. Riegel, E. Kachergis, B.A. Newingham, D. Toledo, and F.E. Busby. 2020. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5. Tech Ref 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO.

Production services were provided by the BLM National Operations Center’s Information and Publishing Services Section in Denver, Colorado.

The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government.

BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734+REV

Natural

Resources

Conservation

 Service

     

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5 iii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the valuable contributions of those who helped make this publication

possible. We wish to thank the numerous professionals who use this information to perform their regular

duties and who have provided substantive feedback over the years to improve the protocol. Special

thanks to the U.S. Geological Survey and the Society for Range Management’s Rangeland Assessment

and Monitoring Committee for their peer reviews. We also wish to acknowledge and welcome two new

members to the Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health cadre: Jennifer Moffitt, resource soil scientist

for the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Redmond, Oregon, and Joshua Toshiro, rangeland

management specialist for the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Cañon City, Colorado. We look

forward to their future contributions to developing and teaching rangeland health protocols.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5 v

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5 ix

Figures

Figure 1. Visualization of the modal concept using a box and whisker diagram....................... 10

Figure 2. Examples of ephemeral and perennial systems............................................. 11

Figure 3. Box and whisker diagram of perennial bunchgrass species occurrence in 95 field plots across a precipitation gradient within a given ecological site..................................... 13

Figure 4. Conceptual example of a state-and-transition diagram for a hypothetical shrub-steppe ecological site, showing states, community phases, community pathways, and transitions......... 14

Figure 5. Example of quantitative data supporting assessment of the bare ground indicator.......... 17

Figure 6. Comparisons of foliar cover on the left and canopy cover on the right....................... 19

Figure 7. Examples of biological, physical, and chemical soil crusts................................... 21

Figure 8. Example in which assessment locations were randomly chosen within previously mapped and verified ecological sites, enabling median attribute ratings to be mapped by ecological site and management unit boundaries............................................. 23

Figure 9. Flowchart for completing an assessment of rangeland health using the IIRH protocol........ 30

Figure 10. Example of an evaluation area (black border) with two distinct ecological sites characterized by big sagebrush (outside of the yellow polygons) and low sagebrush (inside of the yellow polygons).................................................................. 31

Figure 11. Example of a landscape photo with documentation at an evaluation area.................. 36

Figure 12. Example of a Mancos shale landscape in the Western U.S. where rills are a component of the natural range of variability.................................................... 39

Figure 13. Overview of the soil stability test......................................................... 58

Figure 14. Root morphology of common plants in a sagebrush steppe ecosystem (adapted from Sage Grouse Initiative 2016)...................................................... 67

Figure 15. Juniper-dominated area in a sagebrush ecological site.................................... 83

Figure A4.1. Generic landscape units (mountain/hill, alluvial fan, terrace, floodplain/basin, flat/low rolling plain, playa, dunes) to describe topographic position............................ 132

Figure A4.2. Example of a completed page 1 of the evaluation sheet................................ 133

Figure A4.3. Example of a completed page 2 of the evaluation sheet................................ 135

Figure A4.4. Example of a completed functional/structural groups worksheet (sections 1-3)......... 137

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5 xi

Tables

Table 1. The three attributes of rangeland health (blue) and their associated indicators (gray boxes)........................................................................... 8

Table 2. The 5 departure categories used to rate the 17 indicators and 3 attributes of rangeland health.............................................................................. 8

Table 3. Key quantitative indicators and measurements relevant to each of the three attributes of rangeland health............................................................................. 18

Table 4. Example of an evaluation matrix with ecological site-specific and generic descriptors for bare ground in a New Mexico ecological site.................................................. 34

Table 5. Selected indicators of rangeland health and associated measurement methods that are commonly used to collect related quantitative indicator values........................... 37

Table 6. Example of a “moderate to extreme” rating for gullies for an evaluation area on a sandy ecological site....................................................................... 38

Tables 7 through 20 and 22 , 23 , and 24 provide generic descriptors of the five departure categories in the evaluation matrix for each of the indicators..... 40, 42, 44, 46, 49, 52, 54, 57, 60, 63, 65, 71, 75, 77, 80, 84, 87

Table 21. Example of values from an ecological site description used to determine the departure rating for annual production.......................................................... 80

Table 25. Generic descriptors of the five departure categories for the optional indicator of biological soil crusts.......................................................................... 89

Table 26. Interrelationships of the indicators associated with the soil/site stability attribute rating..... 91

Table 27. Interrelationships of the indicators associated with the hydrologic function attribute rating.. 92

Table 28. Interrelationships of the indicators associated with the biotic integrity attribute rating...... 93

Table A6.1. Summary of common soil descriptors.................................................. 152

Table A7.1. Determination of when to use the describing indicators of rangeland health protocol instead of the IIRH protocol to collect information............................................... 153

Table A7.2. DIRH matrix based on indicators included in this technical reference.................... 154

Table A8.1. Generic dry weight conversion factors of different plant types (NRCS 2006).............. 163

Table A9.1. Scale to compare bottle cap test ratings to the relative scale of 1-6 for the soil stability test................................................................................ 169

2 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5

structural groups table defines the relative dominance of functional/structural groups within each community phase in the reference state. Reference sheets providing the information identified in the reference sheet checklist, including the functional/structural groups table, will provide evaluators with the appropriate information to make consistent evaluations. Existing reference sheets can continue to be used while updates and revisions are occurring, as long as they are supplemented with completed functional/structural groups tables (Appendix 1b).

This version also reflects revisions to the evaluation matrix (Appendix 2) descriptors to increase consistency of indicator ratings. As stated in Version 4, the development and use of ecological site-specific evaluation matrices are strongly recommended. In addition, a functional/ structural groups worksheet (Appendix 4) is provided to document observations at each evaluation area and facilitate consistent rating of the functional/structural groups indicator.

In this version, ephemeral systems (areas that receive more water than typical upland sites) can now be evaluated using the IIRH protocol when appropriate reference information is available (see Section 5.3).

In addition to these key changes and clarifications, Version 5 provides further instructions and resources for completing an assessment, including appendices describing the steps for identifying

ecological sites, describing soils, and estimating annual production.

Supporting assessments of rangeland health with quantitative measurements is recommended when possible. Those working in the United States are particularly encouraged to apply the standardized core methods as described in the “Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland, and Savanna Ecosystems,” Volume I (Herrick et al. 2017). The use of these quantitative methods allows data to be combined and compared across ownership and jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of two applications of IIRH and the standardized core methods to national assessment and monitoring are provided in Herrick et al. (2010), the “RCA Appraisal: Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act” (USDA 2011; NRCS 2015), and the “Bureau of Land Management Rangeland Resource Assessment—2011” (Karl et al. 2016).

The authors acknowledge and support that IIRH is being used with modifications for various applications and for different objectives than those described under “Intended Applications of Version 5” (Section 3). However, completion of all protocol steps described herein is required in order to assess the status of the three attributes of rangeland health (Section 4).

In conclusion, interpretations made with Version 5 should be consistent with those made with Version 4 at the attribute level, provided that similar reference information is used.

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5 3

2. Introduction

The science of assessing rangelands changes as concepts and protocols evolve (Briske et al. 2005). In 1994, the National Research Council presented the concept of rangeland health as an alternative to range condition (NRC 1994). Although the word “health” was initially controversial when used in association with natural systems (Wicklum and Davies 1995; Lackey 1998; Rapport et al. 1998; Smith 1999), such as rangelands, this technical reference follows the National Academy of Sciences suggestion (NRC 1994) and reflects the increasing acceptance of the term for condition of rangeland and agricultural soils (Brown and Herrick 2016).

A National Research Council publication, “Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands” (NRC 1994), defines rangeland health as:

“The degree to which the integrity of the soil and ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems are maintained.”

In a parallel effort, a Society for Range Management committee recommended that rangeland assessments should focus on the maintenance of soil at the site (Task Group on Unity in Concepts and Terminology 1995). Subsequently, a federal interagency committee was established to integrate concepts of these two groups into their agencies’ rangeland inventories and assessments. This committee refined the National Research Council’s definition to read:

“The degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and air, as well as the ecological

processes of the rangeland ecosystem are balanced and sustained.”

The interagency committee defined integrity as “maintenance of the functional attributes characteristic of a locale, including normal variability” (NRCS 2006).

Scientists and managers face continuing challenges to translate rangeland health into terms that the public can comprehend and that resource specialists can use to assist in identifying areas where ecological processes are or are not functioning properly.

Qualitative assessments provide relatively rapid techniques to rate site protection indicators, including both plant and soil components (Morgan 1986). The use of qualitative information to determine vegetation and soil conditions has a long history in land management inventory and monitoring. In some cases, qualitative assessments have been used independently. However, in other cases, they were used in conjunction with quantitative measurements (Wagner 1989).

Early procedures that used indicator ratings (e.g., a scorecard approach) included instructions for range surveys by the Interagency Range Survey Committee of 1937, the Deming two-phase method, and the Parker three-step method, which used indicators to assess soil and site stability and usefulness of forage for livestock grazing (Wagner 1989). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also used soil surface factors to determine the erosional status of public lands in the 1970s (BLM 1973). Interagency Technical Reference

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5 5

3. Intended Applications of Version 5

“Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” is intended to be used at the ecological site scale or equivalent landscape unit (see Sections 5.2 Ecological Sites and 5.7 Other Landscape Classification Systems), using ecological site descriptions, including site-specific state-and- transition models and reference sheets (Appendix 1a), and ecological reference areas (when available) to conduct assessments of rangeland health. The protocol is intended for use on the following types of land.

Rangelands are “lands on which the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs and is managed as a natural ecosystem. If plants are introduced, they are managed similarly” (SRM 1999). Rangeland vegetation types appropriate for IIRH assessments include grasslands, savannas, shrublands, desert, tundra, and alpine communities.

Woodlands are areas with a low density of trees forming open plant communities that support an understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants. When appropriate reference information is available, the IIRH protocol can be applied in open and drier forest systems and woodlands (e.g., oak^2 , pinyon- juniper).

Ephemeral systems in rangelands and woodlands are areas that receive more water than typical upland ecological sites, but the water remains for short periods of time (generally less than 1 month

at a time in most years). If they are of sufficient size, ephemeral water systems can be evaluated using the IIRH protocol when appropriate reference information is available (see Section 5. for a complete description of ephemeral water systems).

Appropriate applications and limitations in the use of IIRH follow.

The protocol described in this technical reference is designed to:

• Be used within the context of a landscape classification system, such as ecological sites or equivalent units.
• Be used with an appropriate reference sheet describing the natural disturbance regime within the natural range of variability for the 17 indicators at a given site.
• Be used only by people who are knowledgeable and experienced with the protocol and the ecological system being evaluated (including formal training or working closely with others who have training and experience).
• Provide a preliminary evaluation of the three attributes of rangeland health (soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) at an evaluation area by rating all 17 indicators and considering them in the attribute rating step of the assessment.
• Be used to communicate fundamental ecological concepts to a wide variety of audiences.

---

(^2) The common names of plants are used in this technical reference. Refer to Appendix 11 for a list of common plant names and associated scientific names used in this technical reference.

6 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5

• Improve communication by focusing discussion on critical ecosystem properties and processes.
• Assist in identifying monitoring priorities and selecting monitoring sites.
• Assist land managers in identifying areas that are at risk of degradation and where resource problems or management opportunities currently exist.
• Be used as a tool for prioritizing landscapes for potential types of restoration (Pyke 2011; Pyke et al. 2018).

The protocol is not to be used to:

• Identify the cause(s) of resource problems.
• Independently make grazing and other management changes. - Independently monitor land or determine trend (repeated evaluations may be used to help interpret quantitative monitoring data collected at the same times). - Independently generate national or regional assessments of rangeland health.

This protocol requires a sufficient understanding of ecological processes, vegetation, and soils for each evaluation area. Experience in IIRH trainings and field application has shown that the quality and consistency of assessments are improved when two or more individuals with collective knowledge of soils, vegetation, and disturbance relationships (e.g., rangeland ecologist, soil scientist, hydrologist) work together to apply this protocol and rate the indicators and attributes using a consensus approach.