Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Rangeland Management

Area of Focus
Forest and Rangeland Assessments

This project is a joint effort of the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable and the Society for Range Management. During a series of meetings from 2001 to 2003, the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable (SRR) developed the five criteria and 64 indicators of sustainable rangeland management. The SRR is a collaborative, inclusive organization, comprised of participants representing universities, federal research agencies, federal, state and local land management agencies, tribal governments, scientific societies, and both environmental and commodity-oriented non-governmental organizations. To achieve its goal, the SRR dealt with multiple issues, including those of scale and definitions. The criteria used are based on those of the Montreal Process and the concept of sustainability used here originates from the internationally-accepted definition for sustainable development contained within the UN's Brundtland Report: “... development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” More specifically, the SRR defines sustainable rangeland management as involving "the kinds of management that consider all aspects of rangelands, including their environmental, economic, and social values and the attempts to integrate them to achieve a sustainable future.

Indicators

  • Income by work location versus residence
    This indicator is an indirect measure of income generated within workers’ areas of residence versus that from outside the area of residence. It indicates whether the residence community provides both economic and social benefits to the income earner. For rangeland communities, it indicates the extent to which rangelands provide the desirable rural setting where people want to live, but without the employment opportunities they require.
  • Income differentials from migration
    This indicator measures the differential between household income of existing residents in an area and that of in-migrants to the area. It addresses whether the people moving in are wealthier (or less wealthy) than those already there. Retirees or the wealthy may not rely on local natural resources for livelihoods in the same fashion as long-time residents or lower income in-migrants. Moreover, disparities in income are one indication of a lack of community cohesion that can be a barrier to local action on behalf of rangeland protection or sustainable management.
  • Income inequality
    This indicator addresses economic distribution and speaks to social equity. It indicates the general welfare of the community by looking at the distribution of people across a range of incomes and measuring the income disparity in the community. It is a direct measure of economic and social stratification that complements poverty statistics. Lower levels of income inequality are associated with higher cohesion or integration of the community, leading to a more stable and resilient community.
  • Index of social structure quality
    The quality of social structure might include such things as access to and quality of medical care (e.g., per-capita hospital beds, numbers of physicians and nurses), the presence and extent of cultural and community services, the extent and availability of public recreational facilities (expenditures per capita on parks, etc.), and crime rates, among other things. An alternative to the Index of Social Structure Quality discussed above might be a measure of community resilience. A resilient community actively develops and utilizes all of its capitals, includes all segments of the community in community endeavors, engages groups to work together, works strategically toward development of the community, and works to ensure equity across community members.
  • Institutions and organizations
    This indicator describes governmental agencies, educational institutions, and other for-profit and not-for-profit organizations that exist to promote the conservation and sustainable management of rangelands. This indicator is extremely broad in scope. In the United States, the list of institutions and organizations with an interest in rangelands and rangeland stewardship is exceedingly long. Included in this list are federal, state, and local governmental agencies (broadly defined), as well as educational institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
  • Integrity of natural fire regimes across rangeland
    This indicator, “Integrity of Natural Fire Regimes,” spatially and temporally quantifies acres of rangeland burned annually. Fire is a key ecological driver in many rangeland ecosystems, facilitating nutrient cycling, promoting recruitment of native grasses and forbs, and limiting encroachment of woody species. For many rangeland ecosystems, the introduction of domestic grazers, invasive species, conversion of rangeland to cropland, urbanization, fire suppression, and fragmentation of rangeland have significantly altered the natural fire regimes as well as landscape composition and structure. Because fire is such a dramatic disturbance, changes in its frequency or intensity results in significant changes in nutrient cycling, species richness, ecological integrity, and carbon stocks. Monitoring the integrity of fire regimes promises to significantly inform evaluations of rangeland health.
  • Intensity of Human Uses on Rangeland
    This indicator provides a surrogate measure of intensive human uses of rangeland through the use of road density measures and housing densities. Many intensive uses of rangeland are often not represented in land cover maps because of their small individual spatial extents. Examples of these types of land uses of rangeland include low-density rural housing developments, power lines, off-road vehicle (ORV) uses, mines, and oil and gas wells, along with their associated transportation infrastructure. The potential ecological impacts of intensive human uses of rangeland include loss and fragmentation of rangeland, rangeland plant communities, and open space, reduced primary and secondary productivity and biodiversity, increased soil disturbance and susceptibility to wind and water erosion, disruption of material flows and ecological processes in the landscape (e.g., groundwater flow), fire spread, and enhanced opportunities for successful establishment of invasive plants and animals.
  • Land law and property rights
    This indicator describes the extent to which laws, regulations, and guidelines clarify property rights and land tenure arrangements on rangelands. It also evaluates how these laws recognize customary and traditional rights of indigenous people on rangelands, and whether these laws provide means of resolving property disputes by due process. The “police power” of the government to regulate private property is exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws. Environmental and zoning regulations are two examples of police powers that limit the rights of landowners. Property owners also are not able to utilize property in a manner that endangers or damages the lives or property of others. As society’s values and norms slowly change over time, the balance of government power and private property rights is repeatedly subject to changing legal interpretation.
  • Land tenure, land use, and ownership patterns by land size classes
    This indicator measures changes in ownership, ownership stability, and how the land is being used (e.g., ranging from public to private ownership, production agriculture to residential lots). It will measure how quickly rangelands are turning over (i.e., converting from one owner to another or from one use to another). It is important to sustainability because conversion of open rangeland to housing developments, for example, have an effect on many aspects of rangelands (e.g., loss of open space, habitat fragmentation, noxious weeds) as well as diminishing future options for the land.
  • Length of residence
    This indicator measures individuals’ longevity of residence in a particular community and relates to social cohesion and integration, as well as a willingness to interact with others for a common good. It is also a measure of community stability. A large proportion of new residents could point toward social dysfunction or low community cohesion that might have implications for rangeland sustainability.
  • Microbial Activity in Rangeland Soils
    Soil microbial organisms are important contributors to decomposition and nutrient cycling. They are crucial in the incorporation of organic material into soil, which aids soil infiltration and improves productivity. Productive soils provide nutrients and water to maintain primary production and biodiversity of plants and animals. This indicator assesses microbial activity in rangeland soils through the measurement of microbial respiration.
  • Number and Distribution of Species and Communities of Concern
    This indicator measures the numbers and geographic ranges of rare or “at-risk” species that occupy rangeland habitats for a significant portion of their life cycle, as well as the presence and extent of rangeland plant communities of concern. Trends in the number of at-risk species and communities help identify potential loss of historical and natural rangeland ecological functioning, as well as the loss of associated values and benefits. There are several metrics that could be used to describe the indicator. For species, metrics include the number of species, the number of populations per species, the abundance (number of individuals) per population, and the geographic range. For communities, metrics include the presence and number of at-risk communities, the number of stands of each community, the size of the stands, and the geographic range of the community.
  • Number and extent of wetlands
    The indicator relates to abundance of wetlands in the rangeland landscape. Wetlands for this indicator include depression (e.g., vernal pools) and slope wetlands but do not include riverine or floodplain wetlands that are covered under the “Extent and Condition of Riparian Systems” indicator. This indicator measures the number and total area of wetlands within all or portions of the rangeland system. The metric may be either a) numbers of individually identifiable wetlands and acreage for a particular region, or for the entire rangeland region, or b) numbers and percent of landscape occupied by wetlands.
  • Number of Livestock on Rangeland
    This indicator measures the quantity of livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and goats) that spend part or all of the year on rangeland. It is an index of secondary productive capacity by a major category of primary consumer. The indicator, linked with other indicators, represents rangeland grazing and browsing use by domestic animals. It accounts for short-term management strategies by individual graziers, as well as more long-term strategies followed by land management agencies.
  • Number of visitor days by activity and recreational land class
    This is a measure of the quantity of recreation use on rangelands and where it occurs. It has relevance to sustainability as a measure of benefits derived from recreation on rangelands and intensity of use. Different types of recreation affect land differently in relation to rangeland health and sustainability. Classifying recreational land as primitive areas, roadless areas, open public lands, private lands, or other types provides a basis to compare the intensities of recreation use across rangelands and how use changes through time.
  • Percent of available rangeland grazed by livestock
    This indicator is a measure of the availability of suitable rangeland that is grazed annually by domestic livestock, such as cattle, sheep, goats, and horses. This indicator does not intrinsically represent a biological capacity. Rather, it is an administrative and economic capacity, limited by the definition of rangelands, market forces, management decisions, laws, regulations, and planning documents. The area of rangeland grazed by livestock provides information on rangeland use patterns and is influenced by wildlife and other non-livestock commodity demands, as well as changing social and economic values.
  • Percent of stream miles in rangeland catchments in which stream channel geometry significantly deviates from the natural channel geometry
    This indicator tracks changes in stream channel geometry (that is, in cross section, in profile, and in channel bed materials) from a baseline condition. Changes in cross section are defined by the width/depth ratio at “bankfull” stage. Changes in profile are defined by sinuosity and channel slope. Changes in bed material are defined by the particle-size distribution of materials comprising the streambed. Baseline conditions can be defined by natural, historic, or reference channels located in the same hydro-physiographic position on the landscape. Changes in channel conditions in a rangeland watershed correspond to changes in streamflow and sediment supply in the basin, as well as human manipulation of the channels, and therefore are a good indicator of sustainable rangeland management.
  • Percent of surface water on rangeland areas with unacceptable levels of chemical, physical, and biological properties
    This indicator measures the percent of surface water with impaired water quality, when compared with beneficial uses defined under the Clean Water Act. Surface water includes the length of small, medium, and large streams and rivers, and the area of lakes and reservoirs. Water quality criteria are defined that protect beneficial uses and include ambient concentration of an important parameter such as dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, or heavy metals. An LD50 or other metric of these parameters is used to ensure that the designated use or uses for a given water segment are not impaired. Impaired water quality means that one or more of the criteria adopted to protect the designated use or uses of an individual water body segment are not being met. Leading causes of water quality impairment in our nation are excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), sediment/siltation, pathogens, and metals.
  • Percent of water bodies in rangeland areas with significant changes in aquatic biota assemblage composition
    The importance of this indicator lies in its relation to watershed conditions and natural biological diversity. To estimate rangeland condition and trend in condition, plant composition existing at a given moment in time is compared with the plant composition that the given area is capable of supporting at its potential. Downward trends in rangeland condition can also be associated with declines in water quality, aquatic and riparian habitats, and the ability of aquatic habitats to support native biota. These changes can cause aquatic native biota assemblages to shift away from that which would be expected to occur under natural, unimpaired hydrologic conditions.
  • Population pyramids and population change
    Population pyramids are commonly used to describe a population’s basic structure. They require data on gender and age. Data are organized into 5-year age cohorts; male and female. Each population pyramid provides a snapshot of the distribution of age groups and gender. This measure provides evidence of community sustainability by indicating key characteristics of social organization as they relate to providing social and economic services within a community. A population pyramid that varies little from the youngest to the oldest cohorts is considered to be sustainable.