Natural Resources Conservation Service

2018 Invasive Plant Species

Introduction | Regional Interpretation | Rangeland Health | Non-Native Plant Species | Invasive Plant Species | Bare Ground, Inter-Canopy Gaps, and Soil Aggregate Stability | About the Data | Index of Tables | Index of Maps

This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format
NRI Rangeland Resource Assessment - Invasive Plant Species (PDF; 7.1 MB)

Findings are presented here for groups of invasive grasses, forbs, and woody plant species selected because of their ubiquitous nature in rangeland plant communities. Some plant species in these groups were introduced from other countries and once established, have been very difficult to eradicate. Others are native, but have the potential to outcompete native plant species in communities where they typically would be only minor components or absent from the plant community. Loss of native herbaceous species negatively impacts forage and watershed functions and can lead to land degradation and erosion (Archer, et al., 2011). Land managers and policymakers need this information to support strategic decisions and to identify areas of risk and implement strategies to eradicate and control the spread of native invasive species.

This report focuses on invasive grass, forb, and woody species groups listed in Table 20.

Key Findings - Invasive Grasses

The invasive grasses included in this report are introduced species that in some regions are able to form dense stands and negatively change the native plant communities. Where these species replace significant proportions of native plant communities, they may modify vegetation structure, the fire regime, hydrology, soil erosion rates, and forage production. These changes in turn can have significant effects on both livestock production and wildlife populations.

While certain introduced species are considered as beneficial and are recommended for planting in some areas, in other areas they are considered invasive. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) are examples of plants in this category.

Annual bromes (Bromus spp.) – Annual brome grasses included in this group are highly invasive in shrub communities including sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper and often completely out-compete native grasses and forbs. Communities of annual bromes can be highly flammable in the late spring through early fall (DiTomaso, 2000).

Nationally, annual bromes were present on 30.0 (±1.4) percent of non-Federal rangelands during 2011-2015 (Table 21). Their presence was greatest in Washington (87.1 ±5.1 percent), Oregon (83.7 ±6.7 percent), California (73.2 ±8.4 percent), and Idaho (72.0 ±6.1 percent).

Although nationally there was no change in presence of annual brome grasses between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, an increase in annual brome presence was observed in Oklahoma (8.9 ±5.5 percent). During that same time, decreases in annual brome presence was observed in Arizona (6.2 ±4.3 percent), Kansas (6.1 ±5.6 percent), and South Dakota (7.5 ±6.1 percent) (Table 22, Table 23).

Figures 1-2. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Annual Bromes are Present (Source: Table 21, Table 22)

Figure 1. 2004-2010

Figure 2. 2011-2015

Once established, annual bromes can form dense stands. During 2011-2015, annual bromes covered at least 50 percent of the soil surface on 11.3 (±5.6), 10.8 (±5.0), and 9.7 (±3.5) percent of non-Federal rangelands in Idaho, Nevada, and Kansas, respectively (Table 21). Increases in non-Federal rangeland where annual bromes covered at least 50 percent of the soil surface were observed in Nevada (7.5 ±4.3 percent), Idaho (6.4 ±6.1 percent), and Oklahoma (3.0 ±2.2 percent), while a decrease was observed in South Dakota (4.4 ±3.1 percent) (Table 22, Table 23).

Figures 3-4. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Annual Brome Species Cover at Least 50% of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 21, Table 22)

Figure 3. 2004-2010

Figure 4. 2011-2015

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is one of the more prevalent types of annual brome grasses. It has the potential to dramatically alter the ecosystems it invades, and can completely replace native vegetation and can change fire regimes (DiTomaso, 2000; Chambers, et al., 2007).

Cheatgrass was present nationally on 18.6 (±1.0) percent of non-Federal rangeland during 2011-2015 (Table 24). In Washington (82.6 ±6.7 percent), Oregon (78.5 ±6.7 percent), Idaho (58.1 ±8.6 percent), and Nevada (52.4 ±12.3 percent), cheatgrass presence was greatest during this period.

Figures 5-6. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Cheatgrass is Present (Source: Table 24, Table 25)

Figure 5. 2004-2010

Figure 6. 2011-2015

Figures 7-8. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Cheatgrass Covers at Least 50% of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 24, Table 25)

Figure 7. 2004-2010

Figure 8. 2011-2015

Cheatgrass has the ability to create dense stands. During 2011-2015 cheatgrass covered at least 50 percent of the soil surface on 10.8 (±5.0), 7.7 (±3.8), 7.2 (±5.1), and 6.8 (±3.4) percent of non-Federal rangelands in Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and Kansas, respectively.

Nationally no change in cheatgrass presence was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, but increases were observed in Kansas (15.0 ±5.5 percent) and Nebraska (7.3 ±5.7) during this time (Table 25, Table 26).

Kentucky and Canada bluegrass (Poa pratensis and Poa compressa) – Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) has a complicated history in the U.S. Although Kentucky bluegrass is commonly planted on pasturelands especially in the north central and northeastern regions of the United States as important persistent perennial cool-season forage species (Hall, 1996), it is listed as an invasive weed in the Great Plains States and Wisconsin (Bush, 2002; Wennerberg, 2004; Toledo, et al., 2014). Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) may have spread to many areas by contaminated seed for other bluegrass species. Canada bluegrass is listed as potentially invasive and banned in Connecticut (St.John, et al., 2012). Both bluegrass species may become weedy or invasive in some regions or habitats and may displace desirable vegetation if not properly managed (St.John, et al., 2012; Toledo, et al., 2014).

Kentucky and Canada bluegrass was present on 14.5 (±0.8) percent of non-Federal rangeland nationally during 2011-2015 (Table 27). In the Great Plains their presence was greatest on non-Federal rangelands in North Dakota (86.0 ±3.7 percent), South Dakota (62.9 ±3.4 percent), Kansas (39.8 ±5.8 percent), Nebraska (37.8 ±4.8 percent), and Montana (32.1 ±5.6 percent).

Between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, Kentucky and Canada bluegrass presence increased nationally by 1.1 (±0.7) percent, but its presence increased most within Montana (8.4 ±5.2 percent) (a href="#table28">Table 28, Table 29).

Figures 9-10. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Kentucky and Canada bluegrass are Present (Source: Table 27, Table 28)

Figure 9. 2004-2010

Figure 10. 2011-2015

In North Dakota and South Dakota, Kentucky and Canada bluegrass covered at least 50 percent of the soil surface on 38.9 (±5.8) and 15.1 (±3.6) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangeland during 2011-2015 (Table 27).

Figures 11-12. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Kentucky and Canada bluegrass Cover at Least 50% of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 27, Table 28)

Figure 11. 2004-2010

Figure 12. 2011-2015

Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) has been widely a cultivated perennial forage grass and is distributed throughout most of the United States. However this plant may become weedy or invasive in some regions or habitats and may displace desirable vegetation if not properly managed (Bush, 2002; Hall, 2008). Smooth brome can alter the soil bacterial community by suppression of dominant bacterial species, allowing rarer bacteria to increase in relative abundance (Piper, et al., 2015).

Nationally smooth brome was present on 6.4 (±0.4) percent of non-Federal rangelands during 2011-2015, but in the Great Plains it was commonly present on non-Federal rangelands in North Dakota (47.0 ±7.0 percent), South Dakota (28.0 ±2.8 percent), Kansas (19.4 ±3.4 percent), and Nebraska (17.0 ±2.9 percent). In South Dakota and North Dakota, it covered at least 50 percent of the land on 7.9 (±2.1) and 5.6 (±2.6) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangelands (Table 30).

Nationally between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, smooth brome presence increased slightly (0.7 ±0.4), but in North Dakota its presence increased by 10.3 (±7.3) percent (Table 31, Table 32).

Figures 13-14. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Smooth Brome is Present (Source: Table 30, Table 31)

Figure 13. 2004-2010

Figure 14. 2011-2015

Figures 15-16. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Smooth Brome Covers at Least 50% of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 30, Table 31)

Figure 15. 2004-2010

Figure 16. 2011-2015

Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) typically invades rangeland communities, displacing desirable vegetation. Medusahead has a high silica content making it generally unpalatable to livestock and wildlife. Its seeds are avoided by most seed eating birds. Dense communities present risk of wildfire and alteration of the hydrologic cycle (Kyser, et al., 2014).

Medusahead is most common in the northwestern U.S. During 2011-2015 it was present in Idaho, Oregon, California, and Washington on 24.3 (±6.5), 22.6 (±9.3), 18.1 (±4.1), and 8.8 (±6.3) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangelands (Table 33).

No significant change in presence of medusahead on non-Federal rangelands was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 34, Table 35).

Figures 17-18. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Medusahead is Present (Source: Table 33, Table 34)

Figure 17. 2004-2010

Figure 18. 2011-2015

Ventenata (Ventenata dubia) is a winter annual grass that is beginning to replace perennial grasses and forbs along roadsides and in hay, pasture, range and CRP fields in the western U.S. It has minimal forage value for livestock and its shallow root system may cause soil to be more susceptible to erosion (Scheinost, et al., 2008).

Ventenata was observed on 8.1 (±4.4) percent of non-Federal rangelands in Oregon during 2011-2015. Trace amounts were also observed in Idaho and Washington (Table 36). No significant change in presence of ventenata was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 37, Table 38).

Figures 19-20. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Ventenata is Present (Source: Table 36, Table 37)

Figure 19. 2004-2010

Figure 20. 2011-2015

Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) is an invasive perennial grass that is immune highly resistant to drought events and can choke out native grasses. When dry, this tall grass burns rapidly if ignited, making it especially dangerous during wildfire season (Tellman, 2002; NPS, 2011).

Buffelgrass was present on 5.3 (±2.4) percent of non-Federal rangeland in Texas during 2011-2015 (Table 39). No significant change in presence of buffelgrass on non-Federal rangelands was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 40, Table 41).

Figures 21-22. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Buffelgrass is Present (Source: Table 39, Table 40)

Figure 21. 2004-2010

Figure 22. 2011-2015

Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) has both native and nonnative strains in the United States. European and Asian varieties have been introduced and cultivated for livestock forage and wastewater pollution control. The nonnative varieties and hybrids of nonnative and native varieties are aggressive in many environments and have the capacity to shade out and displace desirable vegetation. Once established, reed canarygrass is very competitive and will frequently develop a solid monoculture (Stannard & Crowder, 2002; Hall, 2008).

Reed canarygrass was present on 2.2 (±1.6) and 2.1 (±0.9) percent of non-Federal rangelands in North Dakota and South Dakota, respectively, during 2011-2015, while trace amounts were observed in a number of states (Table 42). No significant change in presence of reed canarygrass on non-Federal rangelands was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 43, Table 44).

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) is a tall, coarse, perennial grass that spreads aggressively via stout rhizomes. It grows in dense clumps or nearly solid stands that prevents growth of desirable vegetation. If Johnsongrass is stressed by cutting or frost, it can cause cyanide poisoning in livestock feeding (Byrd, et al., 2009).

Johnsongrass was observed on 3.7 (±1.8), 0.9 (±0.7), and 0.5 (±0.4) percent of non-Federal rangeland in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, respectively, during 2011-2015 (Table 45). In Texas, this was a slight decrease (0.9 ±0.7) from 2004-2010 (Table 46, Table 477).

Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) grows well in a wide range of ecosystems including pasturelands and can expand into dense stands that prevent desirable vegetation from growing. It grows well under a variety of light conditions and prefers damp locations (MDC, 2010). No Japanese stiltgrass was observed on non-Federal rangelands during 2004-2010 or 2011-2015 (Table 48, Table 49).

Key Findings - Invasive Forbs

Once established, the invasive forbs in this report are able to outcompete native species in certain areas. Some, such as leafy spurge and halogeton, are also toxic to grazing animals.

Cirsium spp. – Canada thistles and bull thistles in this group can form dense stands that can shade out native vegetation. The species are unpalatable to many livestock and wildlife (DiTomaso, 2000).

In North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, cirsium species were present on 7.7 (±2.6), 4.5 (±1.9), and 3.1 (±1.9) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangelands during 2011-2015 (Table 51). Very little change in presence of cirsium on non-Federal rangeland was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 52, Table 53).

Figures 23-24. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Cirsium species are Present (Source: Table 51, Table 52)

Figure 23. 2004-2010

Figure 24. 2011-2015

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) is a deep-rooted invasive plant that is highly competitive with native species causing degradation of grazing land and wildlife habitat. The plant produces milky latex that causes irritation to the skin and is poisonous to some animals (Wallace, et al., 1992; DiTomaso, 2000; St. John & Tilley, 2014).

Leafy spurge was present on 9.8 (±4.0) and 2.3 (±1.6) percent of non-Federal rangelands in North Dakota and Montana, respectively, during 2011-2015 (Table 54). No significant change in presence of leafy spurge on non-Federal rangelands was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 55, Table 56).

Figures 25-26. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Leafy spurge is Present (Source: Table 54, Table 55)

Figure 25. 2004-2010

Figure 26. 2011-2015

Centaurea spp. - The roots of species in this group produce toxins that stunt the growth of many native plant species. These nonnative centaurea species are inedible to most livestock and poisonous to some (DiTomaso, 2000).

Centaurea species were present on 16.6 (±6.2) and 4.1 (±3.4) percent of non-Federal rangelands in California and Washington, respectively, during 2011-2015 (Table 57). Very little change in presence of centaurea on non-Federal rangeland was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 58, Table 59).

Figures 27-28. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Centaurea species are Present (Source: Table 57, Table 58)

Figure 27. 2004-2010

Figure 28. 2011-2015

Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) was introduced from Eurasia to the United States early in the 20th century. It is highly toxic to both sheep and cattle. Salt from the soil accumulates in the plant tissues and is also leached from roots back onto the soil surface increasing salinity and favoring establishment of halogeton over other species (Pavek, 1992).

During 2011-2015, halogeton was observed in Utah on 9.7 (±4.7) percent of non-Federal rangeland (Table 60). No significant change in presence of halogeton was observed between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 61, Table 62).

Figures 29-30. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Halogeton species are Present (Source: Table 60, Table 61)

Figure 29. 2004-2010

Figure 30. 2011-2015

Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is an invasive forb species found in the forest understory, at the edges of wooded areas, near trails, along roadsides and in areas where trees have been removed. It is difficult to control once it has reached a site and can quickly outcompete other plant species (Pratt, 2004). No garlic mustard was observed on non-Federal rangeland during 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 63, Table 64).

Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) is commonly found along roadsides, but is also found invading pastures, natural areas, forest harvest areas, idle lands and disturbed lands. Once established, it can spread into adjacent areas and form dense stands. The plant produces a compound in its leaves, stems, flowers and fruits that causes intense rash or blistering on contact with skin on sunny days (Averill, 2007). Trace amounts of wild parsnip were observed on non-Federal rangeland in North Dakota and South Dakota during 2011-2015 (Table 66) and no wild parsnip was observed on these lands during 2004-2010 (Table 67).

Dalmatian and yellow toadflax (Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica and Linaria vulgaris) Dalmatian toadflax can become extremely invasive, especially on dryland sites, disturbed areas, and roadsides. Yellow toadflax is found in pastures, meadows, and ditches on more moist sites than Dalmatian toadflax. Once an area becomes infested, both species can dramatically reduce forage production and decrease native plants and wildlife habitat (Lym, 2002). Trace amounts of Dalmatian and yellow toadflax are observed on non-Federal rangelands in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (Table 69/a>, Table 70).

Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) often invades disturbed areas, roadsides, and fence lines, but once established is considered highly invasive. This species can severely reduce desirable forage in pastures and degrade wildlife habitat. Tansy spreads both from seed and rhizomes that form dense stands (Gucker, 2009). Trace amounts of common tansy are observed on non-Federal rangeland in Colorado, Idaho, and Wyoming (Table 72, Table 73).

Key Findings - Invasive Woody Species

Some native woody shrubs such as juniper and mesquite can invade areas replacing native grasses and forbs. Dense stands can alter nutrient and energy cycles, affect hydrology, and reduce wildlife habitat and forage for domestic animals and wildlife. Deep root systems of woody species such as mesquite can reduce water availability to other native plants and eventually animals. Other invasive woody species, such as multiflora rose, were introduced, but have become invasive in certain areas. The invasive woody species groups in this report include:

Junipers (Juniperus spp.) SSome native invasive woody plant species such as junipers can invade areas replacing native grasses and forbs. Dense stands can alter nutrient and energy cycles, affect hydrology, and reduce wildlife habitat and forage for domestic animals and wildlife (DiTomaso, 2000; Chambers, et al., 2007; Miller, et al., 2008).

Nationally during 2011-2015, juniper species were present on 9.4 (±1.2) percent of non-Federal rangelands and their presence was greatest in Oklahoma (20.9 ±5.8 percent), Oregon (15.7 ±7.6 percent), New Mexico (14.8 ±3.9 percent), Texas (14.5 ±3.8 percent), Utah (14.2 ±4.9 percent), Arizona (11.4 ±5.4 percent), and Montana (8.4 ±4.0 percent) (Table 75). Between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, a small decrease was observed nationally (2.1 ±1.3 percent) on non-Federal rangelands. Decreases in presence of juniper were observed between those periods in Texas (6.4 ±4.3 percent) and Wyoming (2.5 ±2.3 percent), while an increase was observed in New Mexico (4.6 ±4.4 percent) (Table 76, Table 77).

Figures 31-32. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Juniper species are Present (Source: Table 75, Table 76)

Figure 31. 2004-2010

Figure 32. 2011-2015

Four juniper species groups are also examined separately:

Eastern juniper - Eastern redcedar (J. virginiana) was observed in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas on 20.0 (±5.8), 5.3 (±2.3) and 3.9 (±1.4) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangeland during 2011-2015 (Table 78). Between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, a decrease in eastern redcedar was observed in Texas (2.0 ±0.9) percent (Table 79, Table 80).

Figures 33-34. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Eastern Juniper Species are Present (Source: Table 78, Table 79)

Figure 33. 2004-2010

Figure 34. 2011-2015

Figures 35-36. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Eastern Juniper Species Cover at Least 50 Percent of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 78, Table 79)

Figure 35. 2004-2010

Figure 36. 2011-2015

Pacific junipers – Western juniper (J. occidentalis) and California juniper (J. californica) were observed in Oregon and California on 13.1 (±7.7) and 2.2 (±1.9) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangeland during 2011-2015 (Table 81). There was no significant change in presence of Pacific junipers on non-Federal rangeland between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 82, Table 83

Figures 37-38. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Pacific Juniper Species are Present (Source: Table 81, Table 82)

Figure 37. 2004-2010

Figure 38. 2011-2015

Figures 39-40. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Pacific Juniper Species Cover at Least 50 Percent of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 81, Table 82)

Figure 39. 2004-2010

Figure 40. 2011-2015

Montane/intermontane junipers - Utah juniper (J. osteosperma) and Rocky Mountain juniper (J. scopulorum) were present in Utah, Nevada, Montana, and Colorado on 13.4 (±5.0), 6.3 (±4.0), 3.7 (±2.3) and 3.2 (±2.0) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangeland during 2011-2015 (Table 84). Between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, a decrease in presence of these species was observed on non-Federal rangelands in Arizona (6.6 ±2.3 percent), while a slight increase was observed in New Mexico (1.1 ±1.0 percent) (Table 85, Table 86).

Figures 41-42. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Montane/Intermontane Juniper Species are Present (Source: Table 84, Table 85)

Figure 41. 2004-2010

Figure 42. 2011-2015

Figures 43-44. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Montane/Intermontane Juniper Species Cover at Least 50 Percent of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 84, Table 85)

Figure 43. 2004-2010

Figure 44. 2011-2015

Southern junipers - Ashe's juniper (J. ashei), redberry juniper (J. coahuilensis), alligator juniper (J. deppeana), oneseed juniper (J. monosperma), and Pinchot's juniper (J. pinchotii) were present in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona on 13.5 (±3.7), 13.4 (±3.6), and 11.0 (±5.3) percent, respectively, on non-Federal rangelands during 2011-2015 (Table 87). In New Mexico between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 there was an increase of 5.1 (±4.1) percent of non-Federal rangeland where Southern junipers were observed (Table 88, Table 89).

Figures 45-46. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Southern Juniper Species are Present (Source: Table 87, Table 88)

Figure 45. 2004-2010

Figure 46. 2011-2015

Figures 47-48. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Southern Juniper Species Cover at Least 50 Percent of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 87, Table 88)

Figure 47. 2004-2010

Figure 48. 2011-2015

Pinyon pine (Pinus spp.) has the ability to invade and dominate a wide range of plant communities. As tree crowns increase in size, danger of increased fire intensity increases and water availability for understory plants decreases (Miller, et al., 2008; Tausch & Hood, 2007).

Pinyon pines were present in Utah and New Mexico on 8.9 (±4.1) and 6.0 (±2.9) percent, respectively, of non-Federal rangelands during 2011- 2015 (Table 90). In Arizona between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, presence of pinyon pine on non-Federal rangelands decreased by 4.4 (±2.4) percent from a 2004-2010 level of 4.7 (±2.2) percent (Table 91, Table 92).

Figures 49-50. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Pinyon Pine Species are Present (Source: Table 90, Table 91)

Figure 49. 2004-2010

Figure 50. 2011-2015

Results for a subgroup of pinyon pine species, two-needle pinyon (P. edulis) and singleleaf pinyon (P. monophylla), were generally the same as that of the full group of pinyon pines, indicating that the two species were most common among the full group (Table 93, Table 94, Table 95).

Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) typically has a deep root system that enables it to withstand droughts and severe competition from grasses. Replacement of grasses by mesquite over time modifies the soils and microclimate, facilitating establishment of additional woody species (Archer, et al., 1995). Honey mesquite (P. glandulosa) and velvet mesquite (P. velutina) are the two most common species found in the southwestern U.S. (Ansley, et al., 1997).

Nationally during 2011-2015, mesquite species were present on 15.8 (±1.3) percent of non-Federal rangelands and they were observed most commonly on these lands in Texas (54.0 ±4.7 percent), Arizona (18.4 ±5.5 percent), New Mexico (15.7 ±3.8 percent) and Oklahoma (6.9 ±3.4 percent) (Table 96). While there was little change in presence of mesquite species on non-Federal rangelands in most states between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015, in Texas an increase of 6.3 (±5.0) percent was observed (Table 97, Table 98).

Figures 51-52. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Mesquite Species are Present (Source: Table 96, Table 97)

Figure 51. 2004-2010

Figure 52. 2011-2015

Figures 53-54. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Mesquite Species Cover at Least 50 Percent of the Soil Surface (Source: Table 96, Table 97)

Figure 53. 2004-2010

Figure 54. 2011-2015

Tamarix (Tamarix spp.) is a fast-growing, deep-rooted invasive shrub-tree that can colonize riparian wetlands and floodplains. It absorbs large amounts of water and secretes salt which is deposited on the soil surface increasing its advantage over other plants (Morissette, et al., 2006.; DiTomaso, 1998). Because these species are generally confined to waterways and their associated wetlands and floodplains, there dispersion across rangelands is somewhat confined. However, the impact on these vital areas can be great.

During 2011-2015 tamarix species were present on 1.0 (±0.8) and 0.2 (±0.1) percent of non-Federal rangelands in New Mexico and Texas, respectively, and on trace amounts of these lands in Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming (Table 99). No statistically significant changes in presence of tamarix species were observed on non-Federal rangelands between 2004-2010 and 2011- 2015 (Table 100, Table 101).

Figures 55-56. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Tamarix Species are Present (Source: Table 99, Table 100)

Figure 55. 2004-2010

Figure 56. 2011-2015

Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is a subshrub or vine introduced from Japan to cultivate rose rootstock, but later was used for erosion control and as a component of living fences. Multiflora rose rapidly outcompetes surrounding vegetation, takes over pastures, and lowers crop yields (Johnson, et al., 2007; Wenning, 2012).

During 2011-2015 multiflora rose was present on 2.7 (±2.2) percent of non-Federal rangelands in Oklahoma and on trace amounts of these lands in Kansas and Texas (Table 102). Very little change was observed in presence of multiflora rose on these lands between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 103, Table 104).

Figures 57-58. Non-Federal Rangeland Where Multiflora Rose is Present (Source: Table 102, Table 103)

Figure 57. 2004-2010

Figure 58. 2011-2015

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is an aggressive vine that seriously alters or destroys the understory and herbaceous layers of plant communities it invades. The shade tolerant vine often occurs along field edges, rights-of-way or in forested areas (Bravo, 2005). Japanese honeysuckle was observed on trace amounts of non-Federal rangeland during 2011-2015 in Oklahoma (Table 105) and also in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas during 2004-2010 (Table 106).

Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) outcompetes other plants for nutrients, light and moisture and serves as host to pests including crown rust fungus and soybean aphid. It contributes to erosion by shading out other plants (Archibold, et al., 1997; PCA, 2005; Klionsky, et al., 2011). No common buckthorn was observed on non-Federal rangeland during 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 (Table 108, Table 109).

Tables and Results

Estimates presented here are based upon rangeland data collected on-site as part of the National Resources Inventory (NRI), a sample survey using scientific statistical principles and procedures. These results, based upon NRI rangeland data collected in the field on rangeland during the periods 2004 to 2010 and 2011 to 2015, address status and change in conditions. These estimates cover non-Federal rangeland in 17 western states (extending from North Dakota south to Texas and west) and to a limited extent in Florida and Louisiana.

Margins of error are reported for each NRI estimate and must be considered at all scales of analysis. The margin of error is used to construct the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimate. The lower bound of the interval is obtained by subtracting the margin of error from the estimate; the upper bound is obtained by adding the margin of error to the estimate. A 95 percent confidence interval means that in repeated samples from the same population, 95 percent of the time the true underlying population parameter will be contained within the lower and upper bounds of the interval.

In the following tables, estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate. They are usually based on very few observations. The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 20. Invasive Plant Species Groups (source: USDA PLANTS Database accessed 2013)

Invasive Grass Species Groups

Annual Bromes

• BRTE - Bromus tectorum L., cheatgrass
• BRJA - Bromus japonicus Thunb. ex Murr., Bromus arvensis
• BRAR5 new symbol for BRJA
• BRST2 - Bromus sterilis L., poverty brome
• BRRU2 - Bromus rubens, red brome
• BRDI3 - Bromus diandrus ssp. diandrus, ripgut brome
• BRDIR - Bromus diandrus ssp. rigidus, ripgut brome
• BRRI8 2004 symbol fro BRDI3
• BRHO2 - Bromus hordeaceus, soft brome
• BRSE - Bromus secalius, rye brome

Cheatgrass

• BRTE - Bromus tectorum L., cheatgrass

Kentucky and Canada bluegrass

• POPR - Poa pratensis L., Kentucky bluegrass
• POCO - Poa compressa L., Canada bluegrass

Smooth brome

• BRIN2 - Bromus inermis Leyss., smooth brome

Medusahead

• TACA8 - Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski, medusahead
• TAENI2 - Taeniatherum Nevski, medusahead

Ventenata

• VENTE - Ventenata Koeler, North Africa grass
• VEDU - Ventenata dubia (Leers) Coss., North Africa grass

Buffelgrass

• PECI - Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link, buffelgrass
• CECI - Cenchrus ciliaris (L.), buffelgrass

Reed canarygrass

• PHAR3 - Phalaris arundinacea L., reed canarygrass
• PHARP - Phalaris arundinacea L. var. picta L., reed canarygrass
• PHAR15 - Phalaris arundinacea (L.) Raeusch.
• PHARP3 - Phalaris arundinacea (L.) Raeusch. var. picta (L.) Tzvelev

Johnsongrass

• SOHA - Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers., Johnsongrass

Japanese stiltgrass

• MIVI - Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus, Napalese browntop (aka Japanese stiltgrass)

Invasive Forb Species Groups

Cirsium

• CIAR4 - Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Canada thistle
• CIVU - Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., bull thistle

Leafy spurge

• EUES - Euphorbia esula L., leafy spurge

Centaurea

• * CENTA not included from AZ, KS, NM, OK, TX since in those states the genus Centaurea may include both native and introduced species.
• CENTA - Centaurea L., knapweed*
• CESO3 - Centaurea solstitialis L., yellow star-thistle
• CEDI3 - Centaurea diffusa Lam., diffuse knapweed
• CEME2 - Centaurea melitensis L., Maltese star-thistle
• ACRE3 - Acroptilon repens (L.) DC., hardheads
• CEBI2 - Centaurea biebersteinii DC.
• CEST8 new symbol for CEBI2

Halogeton

• HALOG - Halogeton C.A. Mey., saltlover
• HAGL - Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.) C.A. Mey., saltlover

Garlic mustard

• ALPE4 - Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande, garlic mustard

Wild parsnip

• PASA2 - Pastinaca sativa L., wild parsnip

Yellow and Dalmation toadflax (Linaria sp.)

• LIVU2 - Linaria vulgaris, Mill., butter and eggs (aka yellow toadflax)
• LIDA - Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill., Dalmatian toadflax
• LIDAD - Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. ssp. Dalmatica

Common tansy

• TAVU - Tanacetum vulgare L., common tansy

Woody Invasive Species Groups

Juniper

• JUCO6 - Juniperus communis L., common juniper
• JUHO2 - Juniperus horizontalis Moench, creeping juniper
• JUNIP - Juniperus L., juniper
• JUOC - Juniperus occidentalis Hook., western juniper
• JUCA7 - Juniperus californica Carrière, California juniper
• JUOS - Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little, Utah juniper
• JUSC2 - Juniperus scopulorum Sarg., Rocky Mountain juniper
• JUAS - Juniperus ashei J. Buchholz, Ashe's juniper
• JUCO11 - Juniperus coahuilensis (Martiñez) Gaussen ex R.P. Adams, redberry juniper
• JUDE2 - Juniperus deppeana Steud., alligator juniper
• JUMO - Juniperus monosperma (Engelm.) Sarg., oneseed juniper
• JUPI - Juniperus pinchotii Sudw., Pinchot's juniper
• JUVI - Juniperus virginiana L., Eastern redcedar

Eastern Juniper

• JUVI - Juniperus virginiana L., Eastern redcedar

Pacific Junipers

• JUOC - Juniperus occidentalis Hook., western juniper
• JUCA7 - Juniperus californica Carrière, California juniper

Montane/Intermontane junipers

• JUOS - Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little, Utah juniper
• JUSC2 - Juniperus scopulorum Sarg., Rocky Mountain juniper

Southern junipers

• JUAS - Juniperus ashei J. Buchholz, Ashe's juniper
• JUCO11 - Juniperus coahuilensis (Martiñez) Gaussen ex R.P. Adams, redberry juniper
• JUDE2 - Juniperus deppeana Steud., alligator juniper
• JUMO - Juniperus monosperma (Engelm.) Sarg., oneseed juniper
• JUPI - Juniperus pinchotii Sudw., Pinchot's juniper

Pinyon Pines (full list)

• PICE - Pinus cembroides Mexican pinyon
• PIDI3 - Pinus discolor border pinyon
• PIED - Pinus edulis two-needle pinyon
• PIQU - Pinus quadrifolia Parry pinyon
• PIRE5 - Pinus remota papershell pinyon
• PIMO - Pinus monophylla singleleaf pinyon
• PICA16 (synonym to PIMO)

Pinyon Pines (short list)

• PIED - Pinus edulis two-needle pinyon
• PIMO - Pinus monophylla singleleaf pinyon

Mesquite

• PROSO - Prosopis L., mesquite
• PRGL2 - Prosopis glandulosa Torr., honey mesquite
• PRJU3 - Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC., mesquite
• PRVE - Prosopis velutina Woot., velvet mesquite

Tamarix

• TAGA - Tamarix gallica L., French tamarisk
• TAMAR2 - Tamarix L., tamarisk
• TARA - Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb., saltcedar

Multiflora rose

• ROMU - Rosa multiflora Thunb.

Japanese honeysuckle

• LOJA - Lonicera japonica Thunb.

Common buckthorn

• RHCA3 - Rhamnus cathartica L., common buckthorn

Table 21- 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where annual brome species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Annual Bromes Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	3.6	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.2	2.6	0.9	0.5	0.3
Arizona	MOE	(3.0)	(0.9)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(2.8)	(1.1)	(0.8)	(0.5)
California	Est	73.2	62.1	37.2	20.5	6.7	64.8	43.6	20.7	4.9
California	MOE	(8.4)	(7.5)	(7.5)	(6.3)	(3.5)	(7.8)	(7.1)	(5.1)	(2.3)
Colorado	Est	19.4	9.5	5.3	2.7	1.5	10.7	5.5	3.2	1.3
Colorado	MOE	(5.7)	(3.7)	(2.5)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(3.6)	(2.9)	(2.0)	(1.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	72.0	54.3	37.1	20.5	11.3	55.3	38.5	26.0	14.0
Idaho	MOE	(6.1)	(9.7)	(10.1)	(8.5)	(5.6)	(9.9)	(9.8)	(9.2)	(8.5)
Kansas	Est	57.7	37.6	27.6	15.9	9.7	36.8	21.6	12.1	3.3
Kansas	MOE	(5.1)	(5.2)	(5.9)	(4.2)	(3.5)	(5.3)	(4.4)	(3.7)	(2.1)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	48.9	25.7	10.9	5.4	2.9	25.8	9.8	3.5	0.3
Montana	MOE	(7.1)	(4.5)	(2.8)	(1.8)	(1.4)	(5.4)	(2.4)	(1.5)	(0.6)
Nebraska	Est	41.0	27.7	18.3	9.8	4.1	26.9	14.0	6.2	0.8
Nebraska	MOE	(5.8)	(5.6)	(3.5)	(2.4)	(1.8)	(5.3)	(3.1)	(1.9)	(0.7)
Nevada	Est	52.4	40.2	29.8	17.1	10.8	45.3	38.1	26.7	19.5
Nevada	MOE	(12.3)	(11.8)	(10.9)	(6.5)	(5.0)	(12.4)	(11.5)	(9.1)	(7.6)
New Mexico	Est	1.5	0.6	0.1	**	**	1.3	0.7	0.5	0.1
New Mexico	MOE	(0.9)	(0.6)	(0.3)			(0.8)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.3)
North Dakota	Est	9.1	3.8	1.7	1.1	0.5	2.6	0.9	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(3.4)	(1.9)	(1.4)	(1.3)	(0.7)	(1.7)	(1.2)
Oklahoma	Est	37.3	25.0	14.2	8.6	4.2	24.8	11.6	5.1	0.9
Oklahoma	MOE	(5.4)	(4.9)	(4.1)	(3.4)	(2.1)	(4.9)	(4.0)	(2.0)	(0.9)
Oregon	Est	83.7	63.4	41.4	21.4	7.8	69.7	51.0	33.4	15.5
Oregon	MOE	(6.7)	(9.6)	(9.9)	(6.8)	(3.8)	(10.1)	(9.8)	(8.8)	(5.4)
South Dakota	Est	54.0	36.9	22.0	14.7	6.8	33.7	18.1	4.7	0.2
South Dakota	MOE	(5.0)	(3.8)	(4.5)	(3.2)	(2.3)	(4.1)	(3.8)	(1.5)	(0.3)
Texas	Est	6.2	2.9	1.5	1.0	0.3	3.0	1.7	0.7	0.1
Texas	MOE	(1.8)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)
Utah	Est	53.1	33.8	19.9	10.2	2.5	43.6	29.6	18.3	8.5
Utah	MOE	(7.1)	(6.8)	(5.8)	(3.7)	(2.1)	(6.5)	(6.4)	(5.3)	(3.7)
Washington	Est	87.1	71.7	47.3	20.2	5.7	78.7	60.6	35.4	11.5
Washington	MOE	(5.1)	(8.3)	(10.8)	(8.2)	(4.1)	(7.0)	(10.2)	(9.1)	(7.2)
Wyoming	Est	47.2	30.9	19.6	9.0	3.0	33.1	18.1	6.7	1.3
Wyoming	MOE	(6.3)	(4.8)	(4.2)	(3.3)	(2.1)	(5.9)	(4.6)	(2.7)	(1.0)
National	Est	30.0	19.8	12.0	6.5	2.8	20.8	12.3	6.2	2.1
National	MOE	(1.4)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(1.1)	(0.9)	(0.6)	(0.3)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 22 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where annual brome species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Annual Bromes Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	9.7	4.2	1.8	0.8	0.3	7.2	3.5	1.3	0.6
Arizona	MOE	(2.7)	(2.0)	(1.4)	(0.8)	(0.4)	(2.5)	(2.0)	(1.0)	(0.7)
California	Est	77.3	60.3	44.6	26.3	11.0	63.3	44.2	22.9	4.6
California	MOE	(5.4)	(6.3)	(6.6)	(5.1)	(3.5)	(5.9)	(7.5)	(4.7)	(1.8)
Colorado	Est	18.4	8.6	3.9	1.9	0.6	10.2	4.5	2.3	0.7
Colorado	MOE	(3.2)	(2.3)	(1.1)	(0.8)	(0.3)	(2.5)	(1.5)	(1.0)	(0.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	67.1	48.0	30.7	17.1	4.9	51.6	32.0	15.3	5.4
Idaho	MOE	(4.6)	(6.4)	(4.9)	(4.7)	(2.2)	(5.9)	(5.9)	(4.8)	(2.3)
Kansas	Est	63.8	45.0	29.9	18.9	10.4	40.7	21.6	9.4	1.2
Kansas	MOE	(3.1)	(3.5)	(3.2)	(2.4)	(2.1)	(3.3)	(2.2)	(1.8)	(0.6)
Louisiana	Est	1.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE	(3.3)
Montana	Est	43.2	25.0	14.7	6.8	2.3	27.2	15.4	8.2	2.5
Montana	MOE	(3.8)	(3.4)	(3.0)	(1.7)	(0.8)	(3.4)	(2.9)	(2.0)	(1.1)
Nebraska	Est	42.0	27.0	17.4	11.3	5.2	24.6	13.2	6.0	1.2
Nebraska	MOE	(5.1)	(3.9)	(3.1)	(2.5)	(1.5)	(3.8)	(2.8)	(2.2)	(0.8)
Nevada	Est	44.9	32.0	20.0	9.0	3.3	38.4	31.4	22.5	8.6
Nevada	MOE	(6.9)	(7.0)	(5.3)	(3.9)	(2.4)	(6.7)	(7.6)	(5.5)	(3.3)
New Mexico	Est	2.7	1.4	1.0	0.4	0.2	1.8	1.2	0.8	0.4
New Mexico	MOE	(1.2)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.4)
North Dakota	Est	7.6	4.2	2.3	1.0	0.6	3.6	1.0	0.4	**
North Dakota	MOE	(2.1)	(1.4)	(1.2)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(1.3)	(0.6)	(0.4)
Oklahoma	Est	28.3	16.1	9.6	3.6	1.1	13.1	4.5	1.1	0.0
Oklahoma	MOE	(4.3)	(2.9)	(2.4)	(1.4)	(0.8)	(3.0)	(2.3)	(0.8)	(0.1)
Oregon	Est	81.8	65.0	37.9	20.0	6.7	70.1	49.4	21.8	6.9
Oregon	MOE	(4.6)	(5.6)	(5.5)	(4.0)	(4.0)	(5.5)	(5.7)	(4.5)	(3.5)
South Dakota	Est	61.5	47.2	33.9	21.6	11.2	44.7	28.0	13.6	2.1
South Dakota	MOE	(3.4)	(3.9)	(3.5)	(2.9)	(2.3)	(3.9)	(3.4)	(2.8)	(1.3)
Texas	Est	6.6	3.6	1.7	0.7	0.5	2.9	1.0	0.3	**
Texas	MOE	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.9)	(0.5)	(0.2)
Utah	Est	48.5	30.4	18.0	8.0	2.0	36.7	24.9	13.2	6.1
Utah	MOE	(6.8)	(5.5)	(4.1)	(3.4)	(1.8)	(5.8)	(3.9)	(4.0)	(2.9)
Washington	Est	91.3	70.7	49.1	26.2	7.6	79.6	61.3	35.8	15.4
Washington	MOE	(4.3)	(7.6)	(6.9)	(6.0)	(3.4)	(7.3)	(7.3)	(6.5)	(4.3)
Wyoming	Est	43.1	27.8	16.4	8.9	3.8	31.1	17.7	9.4	2.5
Wyoming	MOE	(6.5)	(4.3)	(3.3)	(2.9)	(1.9)	(5.0)	(3.3)	(2.8)	(1.3)
National	Est	29.9	19.9	12.6	7.0	3.0	20.7	12.6	6.4	1.8
National	MOE	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 23 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where annual brome species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Annual Bromes Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Annual Bromes
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	-6.2	-3.5	-1.3	-0.4	-0.1	-4.6	-2.6	-0.9	-0.3
Arizona	MOE	(4.3)	(2.1)	(1.7)	(1.1)	(0.6)	(3.8)	(2.3)	(1.4)	(0.9)
California	Est	-4.1	1.8	-7.4	-5.8	-4.2	1.5	-0.6	-2.2	0.3
California	MOE	(10.1)	(9.3)	(8.0)	(7.6)	(5.5)	(9.3)	(8.9)	(6.6)	(2.9)
Colorado	Est	1.0	0.9	1.5	0.7	0.9	0.6	1.0	0.9	0.6
Colorado	MOE	(6.8)	(4.3)	(2.9)	(1.9)	(1.3)	(4.0)	(3.3)	(2.4)	(1.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	5.0	6.3	6.4	3.3	6.4	3.6	6.5	10.7	8.6
Idaho	MOE	(7.1)	(9.6)	(9.5)	(8.0)	(6.1)	(9.8)	(9.5)	(7.6)	(8.4)
Kansas	Est	-6.1	-7.3	-2.2	-3.0	-0.7	-3.8	0.0	2.7	2.1
Kansas	MOE	(5.6)	(6.1)	(7.2)	(4.8)	(4.3)	(6.0)	(4.7)	(4.0)	(2.1)
Louisiana	Est	-1.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE	(3.3)
Montana	Est	5.8	0.7	-3.8	-1.4	0.6	-1.4	-5.6	-4.7	-2.1
Montana	MOE	(7.1)	(5.4)	(3.5)	(2.2)	(1.5)	(5.9)	(3.1)	(2.0)	(1.1)
Nebraska	Est	-1.0	0.7	0.9	-1.5	-1.1	2.3	0.8	0.2	-0.4
Nebraska	MOE	(6.5)	(6.5)	(4.5)	(3.1)	(2.2)	(6.0)	(3.5)	(2.4)	(1.1)
Nevada	Est	7.4	8.1	9.9	8.1	7.5	6.9	6.7	4.2	10.9
Nevada	MOE	(13.5)	(13.4)	(12.2)	(7.2)	(4.3)	(13.5)	(13.7)	(10.5)	(8.0)
New Mexico	Est	-1.2	-0.8	-0.9	-0.4	-0.2	-0.5	-0.5	-0.3	-0.3
New Mexico	MOE	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.5)
North Dakota	Est	1.4	-0.3	-0.7	0.0	-0.1	-1.0	-0.1	-0.4	**
North Dakota	MOE	(3.1)	(1.8)	(1.6)	(1.4)	(0.8)	(1.8)	(1.1)	(0.4)
Oklahoma	Est	8.9	9.0	4.6	5.0	3.0	11.7	7.1	4.0	0.9
Oklahoma	MOE	(5.5)	(5.3)	(4.7)	(3.5)	(2.2)	(5.6)	(4.4)	(2.3)	(0.9)
Oregon	Est	1.9	-1.6	3.6	1.4	1.0	-0.4	1.5	11.5	8.6
Oregon	MOE	(8.5)	(10.9)	(11.7)	(7.7)	(6.0)	(11.0)	(10.8)	(10.2)	(7.1)
South Dakota	Est	-7.5	-10.3	-11.8	-6.9	-4.4	-11.1	-9.8	-8.9	-1.9
South Dakota	MOE	(6.1)	(5.4)	(5.2)	(4.2)	(3.1)	(5.1)	(4.7)	(2.6)	(1.3)
Texas	Est	-0.5	-0.7	-0.2	0.3	-0.2	0.1	0.6	0.4	0.1
Texas	MOE	(2.3)	(1.3)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(1.2)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)
Utah	Est	4.5	3.4	1.9	2.3	0.5	6.9	4.8	5.1	2.5
Utah	MOE	(8.6)	(7.7)	(6.9)	(4.9)	(2.9)	(7.7)	(5.7)	(5.9)	(4.3)
Washington	Est	-4.2	0.9	-1.8	-6.0	-1.9	-0.9	-0.8	-0.5	-3.9
Washington	MOE	(6.0)	(11.5)	(13.7)	(10.9)	(5.7)	(9.6)	(12.8)	(11.9)	(8.8)
Wyoming	Est	4.0	3.0	3.2	0.1	-0.8	2.0	0.4	-2.7	-1.2
Wyoming	MOE	(7.8)	(5.5)	(4.4)	(3.7)	(2.5)	(6.5)	(4.5)	(3.2)	(1.8)
National	Est	0.2	-0.1	-0.6	-0.4	-0.1	0.0	-0.3	-0.2	0.3
National	MOE	(1.5)	(0.9)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(0.4)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 24 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where cheatgrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Cheatgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	1.5	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.8	0.2	**	**
Arizona	MOE	(1.9)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.0)	(1.4)	(0.5)
California	Est	9.3	5.0	1.7	1.1	0.3	6.8	4.0	2.6	0.5
California	MOE	(4.2)	(3.1)	(1.6)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(3.8)	(3.2)	(2.2)	(0.6)
Colorado	Est	14.5	7.0	4.1	2.1	1.0	7.9	4.2	2.5	1.1
Colorado	MOE	(4.3)	(3.3)	(2.3)	(1.4)	(1.0)	(3.2)	(2.7)	(1.9)	(1.3)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	58.1	40.3	24.6	14.5	7.2	42.2	27.7	19.5	11.1
Idaho	MOE	(8.6)	(10.8)	(9.7)	(8.5)	(5.1)	(11.0)	(9.5)	(10.2)	(8.5)
Kansas	Est	32.2	21.9	16.2	10.7	6.8	21.9	14.7	8.7	2.8
Kansas	MOE	(4.8)	(4.5)	(4.5)	(3.9)	(3.4)	(4.6)	(3.8)	(3.2)	(2.0)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	22.2	7.4	3.9	2.2	0.8	8.4	3.7	1.9	0.2
Montana	MOE	(4.3)	(2.8)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(0.8)	(2.5)	(1.5)	(1.3)	(0.5)
Nebraska	Est	27.7	18.9	12.8	7.4	3.1	18.5	10.4	4.5	0.7
Nebraska	MOE	(5.1)	(4.8)	(3.5)	(2.1)	(1.5)	(4.5)	(2.8)	(1.9)	(0.7)
Nevada	Est	52.4	40.2	29.8	17.1	10.8	45.3	38.1	26.7	19.5
Nevada	MOE	(12.3)	(11.8)	(10.9)	(6.5)	(5.0)	(12.4)	(11.5)	(9.1)	(7.6)
New Mexico	Est	1.5	0.6	0.1	0.0	0.0	1.3	0.7	0.5	0.1
New Mexico	MOE	(0.9)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.0)	(0.0)	(0.8)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.3)
North Dakota	Est	0.7	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(0.9)	(0.7)				(0.7)
Oklahoma	Est	24.2	14.9	7.8	4.5	1.9	14.8	6.9	3.3	0.9
Oklahoma	MOE	(5.9)	(4.6)	(3.0)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(4.4)	(2.3)	(1.5)	(0.9)
Oregon	Est	78.5	55.6	31.2	18.2	7.7	61.4	41.4	28.6	14.9
Oregon	MOE	(6.7)	(8.9)	(8.4)	(6.7)	(3.8)	(9.3)	(8.9)	(7.8)	(5.7)
South Dakota	Est	45.4	28.6	15.7	10.6	5.3	25.4	12.3	2.9	0.1
South Dakota	MOE	(4.9)	(3.9)	(4.1)	(3.3)	(2.4)	(4.3)	(3.6)	(1.5)	(0.3)
Texas	Est	1.3	0.5	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.1
Texas	MOE	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.1)	(0.1)
Utah	Est	51.0	32.8	19.5	9.7	2.4	42.3	29.0	17.9	8.1
Utah	MOE	(7.4)	(6.9)	(5.8)	(3.8)	(2.1)	(6.6)	(6.5)	(5.2)	(3.7)
Washington	Est	82.6	66.1	39.2	12.8	4.1	72.5	53.5	25.9	9.1
Washington	MOE	(6.7)	(8.5)	(9.1)	(5.4)	(3.6)	(7.7)	(9.4)	(7.7)	(5.5)
Wyoming	Est	31.8	18.3	9.4	4.6	1.4	19.9	9.6	4.3	0.9
Wyoming	MOE	(5.6)	(3.8)	(2.6)	(2.1)	(1.3)	(4.9)	(2.8)	(1.9)	(1.0)
National	Est	18.6	11.4	6.7	3.8	1.7	12.3	7.4	4.1	1.7
National	MOE	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 25 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where cheatgrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Cheatgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	4.0	1.2	0.1	**	**	2.4	1.1	0.4	0.2
Arizona	MOE	(1.8)	(1.0)	(0.3)			(1.4)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.4)
California	Est	15.6	8.3	5.5	3.0	0.4	10.7	7.0	4.5	0.8
California	MOE	(5.3)	(4.1)	(3.4)	(2.1)	(0.5)	(5.0)	(4.7)	(3.4)	(0.8)
Colorado	Est	14.5	6.9	3.0	1.4	0.4	8.1	3.6	2.1	0.7
Colorado	MOE	(3.3)	(2.2)	(1.2)	(0.7)	(0.3)	(2.5)	(1.5)	(1.0)	(0.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	61.1	37.9	23.8	14.1	4.2	41.6	25.7	13.0	4.9
Idaho	MOE	(4.7)	(6.8)	(5.6)	(4.7)	(2.2)	(6.2)	(6.0)	(4.8)	(2.4)
Kansas	Est	17.2	9.7	5.8	3.4	1.7	8.7	3.7	1.6	0.2
Kansas	MOE	(2.9)	(2.0)	(1.5)	(1.4)	(0.8)	(1.9)	(1.1)	(0.9)	(0.3)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	20.5	10.8	5.1	2.3	1.1	11.9	5.4	3.1	1.4
Montana	MOE	(3.8)	(2.6)	(1.5)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(2.6)	(1.9)	(1.4)	(1.0)
Nebraska	Est	20.3	12.8	8.2	5.1	2.0	12.3	6.8	2.6	0.5
Nebraska	MOE	(3.3)	(2.1)	(1.6)	(1.3)	(0.9)	(2.0)	(1.5)	(1.2)	(0.3)
Nevada	Est	44.5	31.6	19.6	9.0	3.3	38.0	30.8	22.4	8.5
Nevada	MOE	(7.2)	(7.6)	(5.8)	(3.9)	(2.4)	(6.9)	(7.4)	(5.5)	(3.2)
New Mexico	Est	2.5	1.4	1.0	0.4	0.2	1.7	1.2	0.8	0.4
New Mexico	MOE	(1.2)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.4)
North Dakota	Est	4.4	2.1	1.0	0.7	0.4	1.8	0.4	0.2	**
North Dakota	MOE	(1.7)	(1.2)	(1.1)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(1.2)	(0.5)	(0.3)
Oklahoma	Est	17.3	10.2	6.2	2.3	0.9	8.5	2.6	0.7	0.0
Oklahoma	MOE	(3.5)	(2.8)	(2.2)	(1.2)	(0.7)	(2.9)	(1.7)	(0.6)	(0.1)
Oregon	Est	75.4	55.8	30.1	15.0	4.0	60.0	41.1	17.0	4.6
Oregon	MOE	(6.6)	(6.7)	(4.9)	(4.4)	(2.9)	(7.1)	(6.2)	(4.8)	(3.0)
South Dakota	Est	47.8	35.5	25.2	15.8	8.5	34.1	21.0	10.2	1.6
South Dakota	MOE	(4.1)	(4.1)	(3.7)	(2.8)	(2.2)	(3.9)	(3.5)	(2.4)	(1.3)
Texas	Est	2.2	1.0	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.3	0.1	**
Texas	MOE	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)
Utah	Est	47.7	28.7	17.1	7.7	1.9	34.6	23.8	13.0	6.0
Utah	MOE	(6.7)	(4.9)	(4.2)	(3.5)	(1.8)	(5.3)	(4.3)	(4.0)	(3.0)
Washington	Est	88.9	66.4	44.0	23.3	7.3	75.7	54.1	31.8	14.3
Washington	MOE	(4.8)	(7.5)	(6.5)	(4.7)	(3.4)	(7.5)	(6.6)	(6.4)	(4.1)
Wyoming	Est	34.3	21.2	11.4	5.7	2.2	23.2	12.6	6.8	2.0
Wyoming	MOE	(6.1)	(4.1)	(2.6)	(1.7)	(1.3)	(4.3)	(2.5)	(2.1)	(1.1)
National	Est	18.2	11.4	6.7	3.6	1.4	12.3	7.3	3.9	1.3
National	MOE	(0.6)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.2)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 26 -Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where cheatgrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Cheatgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cheatgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	-2.5	-1.0	0.0	0.2	**	-1.5	-0.9	-0.4	-0.2
Arizona	MOE	(2.7)	(1.2)	(0.6)	(0.5)		(2.0)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.4)
California	Est	-6.3	-3.3	-3.9	-1.9	0.0	-3.8	-3.0	-1.9	-0.3
California	MOE	(6.9)	(4.9)	(3.5)	(2.1)	(0.6)	(5.7)	(5.2)	(3.9)	(0.8)
Colorado	Est	0.0	0.1	1.1	0.7	0.5	-0.2	0.5	0.4	0.5
Colorado	MOE	(5.5)	(4.1)	(2.9)	(1.7)	(1.1)	(3.8)	(3.2)	(2.3)	(1.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	-3.0	2.4	0.8	0.4	3.0	0.7	1.9	6.5	6.2
Idaho	MOE	(9.3)	(10.1)	(8.0)	(7.7)	(5.2)	(10.7)	(8.4)	(8.6)	(8.1)
Kansas	Est	15.0	12.2	10.4	7.3	5.2	13.2	11.0	7.1	2.6
Kansas	MOE	(5.5)	(4.9)	(4.6)	(3.8)	(3.4)	(4.8)	(3.7)	(3.1)	(2.0)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	1.7	-3.4	-1.1	-0.1	-0.3	-3.5	-1.8	-1.2	-1.2
Montana	MOE	(5.8)	(3.7)	(1.9)	(1.5)	(0.9)	(3.5)	(2.3)	(1.9)	(0.9)
Nebraska	Est	7.3	6.1	4.6	2.4	1.1	6.1	3.6	1.9	0.2
Nebraska	MOE	(5.7)	(5.2)	(3.8)	(2.1)	(1.7)	(4.9)	(2.8)	(1.8)	(0.7)
Nevada	Est	7.8	8.5	10.2	8.1	7.5	7.3	7.4	4.3	11.0
Nevada	MOE	(13.9)	(14.0)	(12.7)	(7.2)	(4.3)	(13.8)	(13.3)	(10.4)	(7.9)
New Mexico	Est	-1.0	-0.8	-0.9	-0.4	-0.2	-0.4	-0.5	-0.3	-0.3
New Mexico	MOE	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.5)
North Dakota	Est	-3.7	-1.8	-1.0	-0.7	-0.4	-1.5	-0.4	-0.2	**
North Dakota	MOE	(1.9)	(1.3)	(1.1)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(1.3)	(0.5)	(0.3)
Oklahoma	Est	7.0	4.8	1.6	2.1	0.9	6.4	4.3	2.5	0.9
Oklahoma	MOE	(5.6)	(4.6)	(3.6)	(2.2)	(1.4)	(4.6)	(2.6)	(1.6)	(0.9)
Oregon	Est	3.1	-0.2	1.1	3.2	3.7	1.3	0.2	11.5	10.3
Oregon	MOE	(9.0)	(11.8)	(10.0)	(7.7)	(4.8)	(11.6)	(10.8)	(9.6)	(6.8)
South Dakota	Est	-2.3	-6.9	-9.5	-5.2	-3.2	-8.7	-8.8	-7.3	-1.4
South Dakota	MOE	(6.6)	(6.1)	(5.9)	(4.7)	(3.5)	(6.1)	(5.3)	(2.9)	(1.3)
Texas	Est	-0.9	-0.5	-0.2	0.0	0.0	-0.3	0.0	0.0	0.1
Texas	MOE	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)
Utah	Est	3.3	4.1	2.4	2.0	0.5	7.7	5.2	4.9	2.1
Utah	MOE	(8.1)	(7.5)	(6.9)	(5.0)	(2.9)	(7.4)	(5.7)	(5.9)	(4.4)
Washington	Est	-6.4	-0.3	-4.8	-10.5	-3.2	-3.1	-0.6	-5.9	-5.3
Washington	MOE	(7.8)	(12.0)	(12.2)	(7.2)	(5.6)	(10.5)	(13.0)	(10.0)	(7.1)
Wyoming	Est	-2.5	-2.9	-2.0	-1.1	-0.8	-3.4	-3.0	-2.5	-1.0
Wyoming	MOE	(7.7)	(5.7)	(3.4)	(2.4)	(1.6)	(6.3)	(3.7)	(2.4)	(1.6)
National	Est	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.4
National	MOE	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.4)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 27- 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where Kentucky and Canada bluegrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	7.1	4.0	2.7	0.7	0.4	4.0	2.6	0.3	0
Colorado	MOE	(2.3)	(2.2)	(1.9)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(2.2)	(2.0)	(0.7)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	18.1	13.4	8.2	5.2	4.3	12.5	7.0	2.5	**
Idaho	MOE	(7.2)	(6.5)	(6.4)	(4.7)	(4.2)	(6.5)	(5.1)	(2.3)
Kansas	Est	39.8	19.1	9.7	3.4	1.0	15.7	5.0	0.6	**
Kansas	MOE	(5.8)	(4.2)	(2.9)	(1.6)	(0.9)	(3.9)	(1.7)	(0.7)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	32.1	21.4	12.4	7.4	2.7	20.6	10.4	4.3	1.0
Montana	MOE	(5.6)	(4.8)	(3.9)	(3.0)	(1.5)	(5.3)	(3.8)	(1.5)	(0.9)
Nebraska	Est	37.8	27.0	19.8	13.5	6.0	25.2	16.7	7.1	1.6
Nebraska	MOE	(4.8)	(4.5)	(4.2)	(3.4)	(2.2)	(4.5)	(3.9)	(2.6)	(1.1)
Nevada	Est	1.9	**	**	**	**	0.8	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(3.5)					(1.7)
New Mexico	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.4)					0.2
North Dakota	Est	86.0	75.1	62.4	51.5	38.9	69.6	55.5	38.7	15.1
North Dakota	MOE	(3.7)	(4.5)	(5.4)	(6.2)	(5.8)	(5.5)	(5.6)	(5.7)	(4.5)
Oklahoma	Est	0.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(1.1)
Oregon	Est	6.9	4.0	2.2	0.4	0.3	4.5	1.7	1.7	0.3
Oregon	MOE	(4.5)	(2.6)	(2.1)	(0.6)	(0.6)	(3.4)	(2.0)	(2.0)	(0.6)
South Dakota	Est	62.9	42.7	32.3	23.4	15.1	39.6	26.1	15.3	5.9
South Dakota	MOE	(3.4)	(3.8)	(3.8)	(4.1)	(3.6)	(3.6)	(4.0)	(3.0)	(2.5)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	9.6	4.2	3.9	2.1	0.8	5.8	3.4	2.4	0.9
Utah	MOE	(5.1)	(3.5)	(3.5)	(2.4)	(1.2)	(3.9)	(3.3)	(2.3)	(1.2)
Washington	Est	5.6	5.0	2.2	0.4	0.4	5.0	2.2	1.0	0.4
Washington	MOE	(3.8)	(3.6)	(2.7)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(3.6)	(2.7)	(1.5)	(0.9)
Wyoming	Est	12.2	6.6	3.7	1.3	0.7	6.6	2.7	0.9	**
Wyoming	MOE	(4.1)	(2.9)	(2.0)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(2.8)	(1.8)	(1.1)
National	Est	14.5	9.8	6.8	4.5	2.7	9.2	5.6	2.9	1.0
National	MOE	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.2)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 28 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where Kentucky and Canada bluegrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	**	**
California	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.0)	(0.1)	(0.1)
Colorado	Est	9.1	5.8	3.4	1.7	0.6	6.1	3.4	0.8	0.0
Colorado	MOE	(2.1)	(1.6)	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(1.8)	(1.3)	(0.5)	(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	12.7	8.0	3.8	0.7	0.4	8.2	3.9	1.0	**
Idaho	MOE	(3.7)	(2.6)	(2.4)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(2.7)	(2.3)	(1.0)
Kansas	Est	41.8	23.5	14.1	5.4	1.7	18.5	6.2	0.8	**
Kansas	MOE	(4.2)	(3.2)	(2.1)	(1.3)	(0.8)	(2.5)	(1.7)	(0.6)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	23.7	11.7	6.1	2.9	1.0	12.2	4.8	1.6	0.3
Montana	MOE	(2.8)	(2.0)	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(2.1)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.3)
Nebraska	Est	40.4	29.5	22.3	15.3	8.8	28.5	18.4	9.2	0.9
Nebraska	MOE	(3.4)	(2.6)	(2.7)	(2.0)	(1.9)	(2.7)	(2.1)	(2.0)	(0.6)
Nevada	Est	2.0	**	**	**	**	0.6	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(1.7)					(1.2)
New Mexico	Est	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.4)	(0.1)	(0.1)
North Dakota	Est	80.8	67.1	54.0	43.0	30.9	64.1	47.0	32.4	11.3
North Dakota	MOE	(2.9)	(4.4)	(4.8)	(5.0)	(4.4)	(4.3)	(4.9)	(5.2)	(2.5)
Oklahoma	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(0.4)
Oregon	Est	9.7	5.6	3.2	1.3	0.2	5.5	2.9	1.4	0.2
Oregon	MOE	(4.3)	(3.6)	(3.5)	(1.9)	(0.4)	(4.0)	(3.3)	(1.9)	(0.4)
South Dakota	Est	59.9	44.8	33.7	25.0	18.8	42.6	28.4	20.5	8.7
South Dakota	MOE	(4.3)	(3.6)	(3.5)	(2.8)	(2.3)	(3.5)	(3.3)	(2.4)	(1.7)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	6.8	2.7	1.1	0.4	0.0	3.0	1.2	0.2	**
Utah	MOE	(3.3)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(0.6)	(0.0)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(0.3)
Washington	Est	4.8	1.6	0.8	0.7	0.1	1.8	1.0	0.6	0.2
Washington	MOE	(2.6)	(1.5)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.3)	(1.5)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.3)
Wyoming	Est	9.2	5.4	2.9	2.0	0.6	5.5	2.8	0.9	0.1
Wyoming	MOE	(2.5)	(1.6)	(1.3)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(0.5)	(0.2)
National	Est	13.4	9.0	6.2	4.1	2.6	8.6	5.1	2.9	0.9
National	MOE	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 29 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where Kentucky and Canada bluegrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Kentucky And Canada Bluegrasses
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	**	**	-0.1	-0.1	**	**
California	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.1)	(0.1)
Colorado	Est	-2.0	-1.8	-0.7	-1.0	-0.2	-2.1	-0.9	-0.5	0.0
Colorado	MOE	(2.9)	(2.1)	(1.8)	(1.0)	(0.8)	(2.1)	(1.9)	(0.7)	(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	5.4	5.4	4.4	4.6	3.9	4.3	3.0	1.5	**
Idaho	MOE	(7.4)	(7.2)	(7.3)	(4.8)	(4.2)	(6.7)	(6.0)	(2.5)
Kansas	Est	-2.0	-4.4	-4.4	-1.9	-0.7	-2.7	-1.3	-0.2	**
Kansas	MOE	(6.0)	(4.9)	(3.3)	(1.5)	(1.1)	(4.2)	(2.0)	(0.9)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	8.4	9.7	6.3	4.5	1.8	8.4	5.6	2.8	0.8
Montana	MOE	(5.2)	(4.3)	(3.4)	(3.1)	(1.6)	(4.9)	(3.6)	(1.5)	(0.8)
Nebraska	Est	-2.6	-2.5	-2.6	-1.8	-2.8	-3.3	-1.7	-2.2	0.7
Nebraska	MOE	(4.1)	(4.8)	(4.3)	(3.7)	(2.3)	(4.6)	(4.1)	(2.8)	(1.2)
Nevada	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(4.0)					(2.1)
New Mexico	Est	0.0	-0.2	0.0	0.0	**	-0.1	0.0	0.0	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.6)	(0.4)	(0.1)	(0.1)		(0.5)	(0.1)	(0.1)
North Dakota	Est	5.3	8.1	8.4	8.5	7.9	5.5	8.5	6.3	3.9
North Dakota	MOE	(5.1)	(6.2)	(6.5)	(7.1)	(6.1)	(6.8)	(6.8)	(7.1)	(5.2)
Oklahoma	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(1.2)
Oregon	Est	-2.8	-1.7	-1.0	-0.9	0.1	-1.1	-1.3	0.3	0.1
Oregon	MOE	(4.9)	(3.7)	(2.9)	(1.5)	(0.7)	(3.5)	(2.6)	(1.6)	(0.7)
South Dakota	Est	3.0	-2.2	-1.4	-1.6	-3.8	-3.0	-2.3	-5.2	-2.8
South Dakota	MOE	(5.8)	(4.9)	(4.3)	(4.1)	(3.6)	(4.3)	(3.9)	(3.8)	(2.4)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	2.8	1.5	2.7	1.7	0.8	2.8	2.2	2.2	0.9
Utah	MOE	(6.1)	(3.6)	(3.7)	(2.3)	(1.2)	(4.2)	(3.5)	(2.2)	(1.2)
Washington	Est	0.8	3.3	1.4	-0.3	0.2	3.2	1.2	0.4	0.2
Washington	MOE	(4.4)	(3.6)	(2.7)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(3.6)	(2.8)	(1.6)	(1.0)
Wyoming	Est	3.0	1.2	0.8	-0.7	0.1	1.2	0.0	0.0	-0.1
Wyoming	MOE	(4.4)	(3.1)	(2.0)	(1.1)	(0.7)	(3.1)	(1.9)	(1.2)	(0.2)
National	Est	1.1	0.8	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.6	0.5	0.1	0.1
National	MOE	(0.7)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.3)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 30 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where smooth brome is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Smooth Brome Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	0.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE	(1.1)
Colorado	Est	5.1	3.6	1.8	0.7	0.0	3.7	1.4	1.0	**
Colorado	MOE	(2.4)	(1.7)	(1.7)	(1.5)	(0.0)	(1.7)	(1.6)	(1.6)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	2.7	1.5	1.0	1.0	0.4	1.5	1.0	1.0	0.4
Idaho	MOE	(1.9)	(1.6)	(1.1)	(1.1)	(0.8)	(1.6)	(1.1)	(1.1)	(0.8)
Kansas	Est	19.4	9.1	5.0	2.8	1.1	7.1	3.6	1.5	0.4
Kansas	MOE	(3.4)	(2.3)	(2.0)	(1.4)	(0.7)	(2.4)	(1.5)	(1.2)	(0.5)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	7.8	4.2	1.8	1.1	0.8	3.9	2.2	0.8	0.3
Montana	MOE	(2.7)	(1.8)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(1.8)	(1.2)	(0.6)	(0.4)
Nebraska	Est	17.0	12.4	10.4	7.4	4.3	12.0	8.8	5.6	1.7
Nebraska	MOE	(2.9)	(3.1)	(3.2)	(3.0)	(2.1)	(3.1)	(3.3)	(2.6)	(1.2)
Nevada	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(0.6)
New Mexico	Est	0.5	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	0.1	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.5)	(0.4)				(0.4)	(0.1)
North Dakota	Est	47.0	31.3	16.4	9.5	5.6	25.7	11.5	5.7	1.8
North Dakota	MOE	(7.0)	(5.6)	(4.0)	(3.3)	(2.6)	(4.6)	(3.2)	(2.2)	(1.4)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	3.7	2.6	2.2	1.7	0.3	2.6	2.3	1.2	0.8
Oregon	MOE	(3.1)	(2.4)	(2.2)	(1.5)	(0.6)	(2.4)	(2.2)	(1.2)	(0.9)
South Dakota	Est	28.0	21.6	16.3	12.3	7.9	20.9	14.6	9.2	3.0
South Dakota	MOE	(2.8)	(2.6)	(2.6)	(2.3)	(2.1)	(2.5)	(2.4)	(2.3)	(1.4)
Texas	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.2)
Utah	Est	7.2	3.4	2.4	1.1	**	3.4	2.1	2.1	2.1
Utah	MOE	(6.2)	(4.6)	(4.6)	(2.3)		(4.6)	(4.6)	(4.6)	(4.6)
Washington	Est	2.1	1.3	0.6	0.6	0.3	1.3	0.6	0.6	0.3
Washington	MOE	(3.0)	(2.1)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(0.8)	(2.1)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(0.8)
Wyoming	Est	6.1	3.2	2.0	1.3	0.7	3.1	2.2	0.8	0.2
Wyoming	MOE	(2.3)	(1.7)	(1.3)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(1.7)	(1.3)	(0.7)	(0.5)
National	Est	6.4	4.1	2.7	1.8	1.0	3.8	2.3	1.3	0.5
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 31 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where smooth brome is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Smooth Brome Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE	(0.8)	��
Colorado	Est	4.9	2.3	1.0	0.5	0.4	2.3	1.1	0.4	0.3
Colorado	MOE	(1.3)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.9)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.3)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	3.3	1.3	1.0	0.4	0.1	1.6	1.0	0.8	0.3
Idaho	MOE	(2.2)	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(0.2)	(1.3)	(1.2)	(1.1)	(0.4)
Kansas	Est	17.4	9.0	5.3	3.3	1.9	7.1	3.5	1.8	0.7
Kansas	MOE	(2.2)	(2.0)	(1.4)	(1.3)	(0.9)	(1.4)	(1.2)	(0.8)	(0.6)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	7.0	2.8	1.8	1.1	0.6	3.0	1.7	1.0	0.4
Montana	MOE	(1.9)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.4)
Nebraska	Est	16.2	11.3	8.9	5.7	3.3	10.1	6.9	3.6	1.5
Nebraska	MOE	(2.3)	(2.1)	(1.7)	(1.3)	(1.1)	(1.9)	(1.5)	(1.1)	(0.7)
Nevada	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(1.2)
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	36.7	21.7	11.7	6.6	4.0	17.7	8.6	3.8	1.0
North Dakota	MOE	(5.2)	(4.2)	(2.9)	(2.8)	(1.9)	(3.9)	(2.7)	(1.9)	(0.9)
Oklahoma	Est	0.6	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(0.7)	(0.2)				(0.2)
Oregon	Est	3.4	1.5	1.3	0.3	0.0	1.6	1.3	0.7	0.2
Oregon	MOE	(1.9)	(1.3)	(1.1)	(0.5)	(0.1)	(1.3)	(1.1)	(0.7)	(0.4)
South Dakota	Est	27.5	19.8	12.3	8.3	4.8	17.8	10.2	5.6	1.6
South Dakota	MOE	(3.6)	(2.5)	(2.0)	(1.6)	(1.3)	(2.5)	(1.8)	(1.5)	(0.7)
Texas	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.1)
Utah	Est	4.0	1.9	0.7	0.2	0.1	2.0	1.1	1.0	0.2
Utah	MOE	(2.1)	(1.5)	(0.8)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(1.5)	(1.1)	(1.1)	(0.3)
Washington	Est	1.6	1.0	0.7	0.5	0.2	1.2	0.7	0.3	0.2
Washington	MOE	(1.7)	(1.1)	(0.6)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(1.4)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.4)
Wyoming	Est	5.3	1.6	0.9	0.5	0.1	1.9	0.9	0.3	0.1
Wyoming	MOE	(1.6)	(0.8)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.1)
National	Est	5.7	3.3	2.1	1.3	0.7	3.0	1.7	0.9	0.3
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 32 -Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where smooth brome is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Smooth Brome Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Smooth Brome
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE	(1.4)
Colorado	Est	0.1	1.3	0.8	0.2	-0.4	1.4	0.3	0.6	-0.3
Colorado	MOE	(2.3)	(2.0)	(2.0)	(1.7)	(0.3)	(2.0)	(1.9)	(1.7)	(0.3)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	-0.6	0.2	0.0	0.6	0.3	-0.1	-0.1	0.2	0.1
Idaho	MOE	(2.5)	(1.8)	(1.6)	(1.3)	(0.9)	(1.9)	(1.7)	(1.6)	(1.0)
Kansas	Est	2.0	0.1	-0.3	-0.5	-0.8	0.1	0.1	-0.3	-0.2
Kansas	MOE	(3.3)	(2.4)	(2.0)	(1.5)	(1.1)	(2.6)	(1.7)	(1.1)	(0.7)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.8	1.4	-0.1	0.0	0.2	0.9	0.5	-0.2	-0.1
Montana	MOE	(2.7)	(1.8)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.7)	(1.9)	(1.1)	(0.6)	(0.5)
Nebraska	Est	0.8	1.1	1.6	1.7	1.0	1.9	1.9	2.0	0.2
Nebraska	MOE	(3.1)	(3.2)	(3.3)	(2.9)	(2.2)	(3.1)	(3.3)	(2.7)	(1.2)
Nevada	Est	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(1.3)
New Mexico	Est	0.5	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	0.1	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.5)	(0.4)				(0.4)	(0.1)
North Dakota	Est	10.3	9.5	4.8	2.9	1.6	8.0	2.8	1.9	0.8
North Dakota	MOE	(7.3)	(6.3)	(3.5)	(3.7)	(3.4)	(5.1)	(3.6)	(2.8)	(1.7)
Oklahoma	Est	-0.6	-0.1	**	**	**	-0.1	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(0.7)	(0.2)				(0.2)
Oregon	Est	0.3	1.1	0.8	1.4	0.2	1.0	0.9	0.6	0.6
Oregon	MOE	(3.9)	(2.6)	(2.5)	(1.6)	(0.6)	(2.6)	(2.5)	(1.1)	(0.9)
South Dakota	Est	0.5	1.9	4.0	4.0	3.2	3.1	4.3	3.6	1.4
South Dakota	MOE	(4.1)	(3.2)	(2.7)	(2.6)	(2.3)	(3.2)	(2.6)	(2.5)	(1.5)
Texas	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.2)
Utah	Est	3.2	1.6	1.7	0.8	-0.1	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.9
Utah	MOE	(6.7)	(5.2)	(4.9)	(2.3)	(0.2)	(5.2)	(5.0)	(5.0)	(4.6)
Washington	Est	0.5	0.3	-0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	-0.1	0.3	0.1
Washington	MOE	(3.0)	(2.0)	(1.2)	(1.1)	(0.5)	(2.1)	(1.2)	(1.1)	(0.5)
Wyoming	Est	0.8	1.6	1.1	0.8	0.6	1.2	1.3	0.6	0.2
Wyoming	MOE	(2.7)	(1.7)	(1.4)	(1.0)	(0.7)	(1.7)	(1.4)	(0.7)	(0.5)
National	Est	0.7	0.9	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.2
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 33 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where medusahead species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Medusahead Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	18.1	11.8	9.2	5.5	2.1	13.0	8.1	4.3	0.6
California	MOE	(4.1)	(3.9)	(3.3)	(2.7)	(1.7)	(3.8)	(3.5)	(2.8)	(0.7)
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	24.3	19.6	16.0	7.9	4.0	20.6	17.8	11.5	6.1
Idaho	MOE	(6.5)	(6.4)	(4.9)	(5.3)	(4.1)	(7.1)	(5.4)	(5.2)	(5.1)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(0.4)					(0.4)
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	22.6	14.9	9.3	5.3	2.3	15.1	10.6	7.1	2.8
Oregon	MOE	(9.3)	(8.0)	(7.0)	(4.9)	(3.2)	(8.3)	(7.0)	(5.1)	(3.4)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.2)
Washington	Est	8.8	8.0	5.9	2.4	0.0	8.0	6.2	2.4	0.7
Washington	MOE	(6.3)	(6.3)	(5.7)	(4.0)	(0.0)	(6.3)	(5.3)	(3.4)	(1.7)
Wyoming	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.8)
National	Est	1.9	1.3	1.0	0.5	0.2	1.4	1.0	0.6	0.2
National	MOE	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 34 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where medusahead species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Medusahead Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	20.8	15.6	10.9	5.0	2.3	16.1	10.6	5.4	1.8
California	MOE	(5.3)	(5.0)	(4.0)	(2.3)	(1.8)	(5.2)	(4.6)	(2.5)	(1.8)
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	17.9	14.4	12.1	10.3	5.8	14.6	12.4	9.0	4.5
Idaho	MOE	(5.1)	(4.6)	(4.3)	(3.9)	(2.6)	(4.5)	(4.4)	(3.6)	(2.6)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	15.9	9.4	6.1	2.4	0.8	9.9	6.3	3.1	0.2
Oregon	MOE	(4.8)	(2.9)	(2.3)	(1.5)	(0.6)	(2.9)	(2.3)	(1.5)	(0.2)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.1	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)				(0.1)
Washington	Est	8.0	5.7	2.8	1.2	0.5	6.4	3.2	1.4	0.3
Washington	MOE	(4.0)	(3.2)	(2.2)	(1.1)	(0.6)	(4.0)	(2.1)	(1.1)	(0.4)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	1.7	1.2	0.9	0.5	0.2	1.3	0.9	0.5	0.2
National	MOE	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 35 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where medusahead species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Medusahead Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Medusahead
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	-2.7	-3.9	-1.7	0.5	-0.1	-3.1	-2.4	-1.0	-1.2
California	MOE	(5.7)	(5.7)	(5.0)	(3.1)	(2.1)	(5.5)	(5.8)	(3.4)	(2.0)
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	6.4	5.3	3.9	-2.4	-1.8	6.0	5.4	2.5	1.6
Idaho	MOE	(6.4)	(6.4)	(6.1)	(6.1)	(4.8)	(7.0)	(5.8)	(5.0)	(5.2)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(0.4)					(0.4)
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	6.7	5.5	3.2	2.9	1.4	5.3	4.3	3.9	2.6
Oregon	MOE	(9.6)	(7.5)	(6.6)	(4.9)	(3.3)	(8.1)	(6.7)	(5.1)	(3.5)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.1	-0.1	**	**	**	-0.1	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)				(0.1)
Washington	Est	0.8	2.3	3.1	1.2	-0.5	1.6	3.0	1.1	0.4
Washington	MOE	(6.4)	(6.5)	(6.3)	(3.6)	(0.6)	(6.9)	(5.2)	(3.3)	(1.8)
Wyoming	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.8)
National	Est	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 36 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where ventenata species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Ventenata Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	1.6	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(2.3)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	8.1	5.0	3.3	0.7	0.5	4.8	1.6	0.7	0.7
Oregon	MOE	(4.4)	(4.5)	(3.2)	(1.1)	(1.0)	(3.9)	(1.8)	(1.1)	(1.1)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	3.9	2.4	1.1	1.1	0.3	2.7	1.4	0.3	**
Washington	MOE	(4.5)	(3.0)	(2.3)	(2.3)	(0.7)	(3.2)	(2.4)	(0.7)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.3	0.1	0.1	**	**	0.1	0.1	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 37 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where ventenata species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Ventenata Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	1.1	0.8	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.8	0.6	0.6	**
Idaho	MOE	(1.3)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.3)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.9)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	7.8	4.1	2.5	1.2	0.6	4.3	2.6	1.0	0.4
Oregon	MOE	(3.7)	(2.1)	(1.6)	(1.1)	(0.9)	(2.3)	(1.5)	(1.0)	(0.8)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	6.8	1.9	0.5	0.4	0.2	2.6	0.8	0.4	**
Washington	MOE	(3.1)	(1.7)	(0.9)	(0.8)	(0.4)	(1.8)	(1.0)	(0.8)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.3	0.1	0.1	**	**	0.1	0.1	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)			(0.1)	(0.0)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 38 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where ventenata species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Ventenata Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Ventenata
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.6	-0.8	-0.6	-0.6	-0.1	-0.8	-0.6	-0.6	**
Idaho	MOE	(2.7)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.3)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.9)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	0.3	1.0	0.8	-0.5	-0.1	0.5	-1.1	-0.3	0.3
Oregon	MOE	(6.1)	(5.2)	(3.6)	(1.5)	(1.4)	(4.7)	(2.5)	(1.5)	(1.4)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	-2.9	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.1	0.5	-0.1	**
Washington	MOE	(4.8)	(2.6)	(2.3)	(2.5)	(0.8)	(3.0)	(2.5)	(1.1)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	**	**
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.0)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 39 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where buffelgrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Buffelgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	0.7	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE	(1.7)
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	5.3	3.6	2.9	1.9	1.1	3.6	2.9	1.8	1.3
Texas	MOE	(2.4)	(2.0)	(1.8)	(1.7)	(1.0)	(1.8)	(2.0)	(1.3)	(1.4)
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	1.2	0.8	0.7	0.4	0.3	0.8	0.7	0.4	0.3
National	MOE	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.4)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.3)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

Table 40 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where buffelgrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Buffelgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	3.0	2.0	1.4	0.9	0.4	2.3	1.6	0.9	0.5
Texas	MOE	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.3)
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.7	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.1
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 41 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where buffelgrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Buffelgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Buffelgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	0.7	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE	(1.7)
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	2.3	1.6	1.5	1.0	0.7	1.3	1.4	0.9	0.8
Texas	MOE	(2.5)	(2.1)	(1.9)	(1.8)	(1.0)	(2.1)	(2.1)	(1.4)	(1.4)
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2
National	MOE	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.3)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 42 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where reed canarygrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Reed Canarygrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(1.0)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	1.2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2
Idaho	MOE	(1.9)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Kansas	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.5)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.1	0.1	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)				(0.1)
Nebraska	Est	0.9	0.6	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.2
Nebraska	MOE	(1.1)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	2.2	1.1	0.3	**	**	0.7	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(1.6)	(1.0)	(0.7)			(0.9)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	0.1	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.3)	(0.3)				(0.3)
South Dakota	Est	2.1	1.4	1.1	0.7	0.6	1.4	0.8	0.6	0.3
South Dakota	MOE	(0.9)	(1.0)	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.5)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.8)
Washington	Est	0.6	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(1.2)
Wyoming	Est	0.5	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.7)	(0.2)
National	Est	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.1	**	0.1	0.1	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)		(0.1)	(0.0)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 43 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where reed canarygrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Reed Canarygrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Idaho	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)
Kansas	Est	0.1	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.1)
Nebraska	Est	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	**	0.0	0.0	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(0.3)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)		(0.1)	(0.1)
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	2.5	0.8	0.5	0.4	0.3	1.0	0.5	0.4	0.3
North Dakota	MOE	(1.0)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	0.1	0.0	0.0	**	**	0.1	0.0	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.1)	(0.1)
South Dakota	Est	2.4	1.0	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.8	0.4	0.2	0.1
South Dakota	MOE	(0.6)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.3	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	0.2	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.4)	(0.4)				(0.4)	(0.4)
Washington	Est	0.3	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(0.5)	(0.3)				(0.3)
Wyoming	Est	0.1	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)				(0.2)
National	Est	0.3	0.1	0.1	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.0)			(0.0)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 44 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where reed canarygrass species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Reed Canarygrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Reed Canarygrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(1.0)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	1.1	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.1
Idaho	MOE	(1.9)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)
Kansas	Est	0.1	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.5)	(0.2)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.0	0.1	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)				(0.1)
Nebraska	Est	0.6	0.6	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2
Nebraska	MOE	(1.1)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	-0.4	0.2	-0.2	-0.4	-0.3	-0.3	-0.5	-0.4	-0.3
North Dakota	MOE	(1.5)	(1.1)	(0.8)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(1.1)	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	0.0	0.1	0.0	**	**	0.0	0.0	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.1)			(0.3)	(0.1)
South Dakota	Est	-0.3	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.2
South Dakota	MOE	(1.1)	(1.1)	(1.1)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(1.1)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.5)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.0	-0.3	**	**	**	-0.3	-0.2	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.9)	(0.4)				(0.4)	(0.4)
Washington	Est	0.3	-0.1	**	**	**	-0.1	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(1.1)	(0.3)				(0.3)
Wyoming	Est	0.4	0.0	**	**	**	-0.1	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.7)	(0.3)				(0.2)
National	Est	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 45 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where Johnsongrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Johnsongrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.2)	(0.1)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.1)
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	3.7	2.3	1.2	1.0	0.8	2.3	1.0	0.1	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(1.8)	(1.5)	(1.1)	(1.1)	(1.2)	(1.5)	(1.3)	(0.2)
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	0.5	0.2	0.2	**	**	0.2	0.2	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)			(0.3)	(0.2)
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	0.8	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(1.6)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.3	0.1	0.1	**	**	0.1	0.1	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 46 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where Johnsongrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Johnsongrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE		��
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	1.3	0.8	0.3	0.1	**	0.5	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.2)		(0.4)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	5.6	1.7	0.8	0.4	0.3	1.0	0.6	0.3	0.3
Oklahoma	MOE	(1.5)	(0.9)	(0.9)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.8)
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	1.4	0.3	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.1	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.3)	(0.1)
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.6	0.2	0.1	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 47 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where Johnsongrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Johnsongrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Johnsongrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	-0.4	-0.4	-0.2	0.0	0.0	-0.4	0.1	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.0)	(0.3)	(0.1)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.1)
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	-1.9	0.6	0.4	0.7	0.5	1.3	0.4	-0.2	-0.3
Oklahoma	MOE	(2.2)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(1.3)	(1.4)	(1.6)	(1.5)	(0.8)	(0.8)
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	-0.9	-0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.1)	(0.0)	(0.4)	(0.3)
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	0.8	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(1.6)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	-0.3	0.0	0.0	**	**	0.0	0.0	**	**
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 48 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where Japanese stiltgrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Japanese Stiltgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 49 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where Japanese stiltgrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Japanese Stiltgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 50 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where Japanese stiltgrass is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Japanese Stiltgrass Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Japanese Stiltgrass
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE									��
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE		��
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 51 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where Cirsium species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Cirsium Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	1.0	**	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
California	MOE	(1.1)					(0.2)
Colorado	Est	0.8	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.7)	(0.3)				(0.3)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.9	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(1.5)
Kansas	Est	1.0	0.2	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(1.3)	(0.5)				(0.5)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	3.1	0.6	**	**	**	0.6	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(1.9)	(0.4)				(0.5)
Nebraska	Est	0.3	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(0.4)	(0.2)
Nevada	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(0.4)
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	7.7	1.3	0.6	**	**	1.0	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(2.6)	(1.3)	(0.9)			(1.1)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	1.8	0.4	**	**	**	0.9	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(1.8)	(0.6)				(1.1)
South Dakota	Est	4.5	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(1.9)	(0.3)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.3)
Washington	Est	1.4	0.5	0.1	0.1	**	0.5	0.1	0.1	**
Washington	MOE	(2.0)	(0.9)	(0.3)	(0.3)		(0.9)	(0.3)	(0.3)
Wyoming	Est	1.2	0.4	0.2	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(1.0)	(0.4)	(0.3)			(0.4)
National	Est	1.1	0.2	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.3)	(0.1)				(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 52 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where Cirsium species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Cirsium Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	0.6	0.6	0.2	**	**	0.6	0.1	**	**
California	MOE	(0.8)	(0.8)	(0.3)			(0.8)	(0.1)
Colorado	Est	0.9	0.2	**	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.5)	(0.3)				(0.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	4.2	1.0	0.3	**	**	0.6	0.3	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(2.5)	(0.9)	(0.5)			(0.7)	(0.5)
Kansas	Est	1.1	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.6)	(0.2)				(0.2)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	2.2	0.2	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.9)	(0.3)				(0.3)
Nebraska	Est	0.9	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(1.0)
Nevada	Est	1.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(1.8)
New Mexico	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.4)
North Dakota	Est	6.9	1.4	0.3	**	**	0.9	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(1.7)	(0.8)	(0.4)			(0.6)
Oklahoma	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(0.3)
Oregon	Est	0.9	0.3	0.1	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.9)	(0.4)	(0.2)			(0.4)
South Dakota	Est	4.7	1.0	0.3	0.2	**	0.8	0.2	0.1	**
South Dakota	MOE	(1.3)	(0.7)	(0.3)	(0.2)		(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.2)
Texas	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.2)
Utah	Est	1.1	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(1.0)	(0.6)				(0.6)
Washington	Est	1.6	0.6	**	**	**	0.5	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(1.1)	(0.7)				(0.7)
Wyoming	Est	1.5	0.5	0.3	**	**	0.4	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.5)			(0.5)
National	Est	1.2	0.2	0.1	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.0)			(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 53 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where Cirsium species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Cirsium Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Cirsium
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	0.4	-0.6	-0.2	**	**	-0.5	-0.1	**	**
California	MOE	(1.3)	(0.8)	(0.3)			(0.8)	(0.1)
Colorado	Est	-0.1	-0.1	**	**	**	-0.2	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.9)	(0.4)				(0.5)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	-3.3	-1.0	-0.3	**	**	-0.6	-0.3	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(2.8)	(0.9)	(0.5)			(0.7)	(0.5)
Kansas	Est	-0.1	0.2	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(1.6)	(0.6)				(0.6)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.9	0.4	**	**	**	0.5	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(2.0)	(0.5)				(0.6)
Nebraska	Est	-0.6	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(1.1)	(0.2)
Nevada	Est	-0.8	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(1.8)
New Mexico	Est	-0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.4)
North Dakota	Est	0.8	0.0	0.3	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(3.0)	(1.5)	(1.0)			(1.3)
Oklahoma	Est	-0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE	(0.3)
Oregon	Est	0.9	0.1	-0.1	**	**	0.6	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(2.1)	(0.8)	(0.2)			(1.3)
South Dakota	Est	-0.1	-0.6	-0.3	-0.2	**	-0.8	-0.2	-0.1	**
South Dakota	MOE	(2.3)	(0.8)	(0.3)	(0.2)		(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.2)
Texas	Est	-0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.2)
Utah	Est	-0.9	-0.3	**	**	**	-0.3	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(1.0)	(0.6)				(0.6)
Washington	Est	-0.1	-0.1	0.1	0.1	**	0.0	0.1	0.1	**
Washington	MOE	(2.3)	(1.0)	(0.3)	(0.3)		(1.2)	(0.3)	(0.3)
Wyoming	Est	-0.3	-0.2	-0.1	**	**	-0.1	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(1.1)	(0.7)	(0.6)			(0.6)
National	Est	-0.1	-0.1	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.1)				(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 54 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where leafy spurge is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Leafy Spurge Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.2	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)				(0.2)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	2.3	0.8	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.9	0.3	**	**
Montana	MOE	(1.6)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.8)	(0.6)
Nebraska	Est	0.7	0.6	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.4	0.2	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.0)	(0.6)	(0.5)
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	9.8	4.8	1.7	0.4	0.0	3.5	0.5	0.3	**
North Dakota	MOE	(4.0)	(2.7)	(1.5)	(0.7)	(0.0)	(2.1)	(0.7)	(0.7)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(0.5)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	0.3	0.2	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.5)	(0.5)				(0.5)
National	Est	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.0	**	0.2	0.1	**	**
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)		(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 55 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where leafy spurge is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Leafy Spurge Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(0.6)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	1.5	0.9	0.3	0.2	0.1	1.1	0.3	0.2	0.1
Montana	MOE	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.7)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)
Nebraska	Est	0.5	0.3	0.1	**	**	0.1	0.1	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.1)			(0.1)	(0.1)
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	6.1	2.3	1.1	0.5	0.2	1.7	0.6	0.2	0.2
North Dakota	MOE	(1.9)	(1.2)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(1.0)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.3)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	1.1	0.6	0.2	**	**	0.5	0.1	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.3)			(0.7)	(0.1)
Texas	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.2)
Utah	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.4)
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0	**	0.1	0.0	0.0	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.5)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)		(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)
National	Est	0.5	0.2	0.1	**	**	0.2	0.1	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)			(0.1)	(0.0)	��

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 56 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where leafy spurge is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Leafy Spurge Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Leafy Spurge
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	-0.1	0.1	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.5)	(0.2)				(0.2)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	-0.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(0.6)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.8	-0.1	0.0	0.1	0.2	-0.2	0.0	-0.2	-0.1
Montana	MOE	(1.6)	(0.9)	(0.6)	(0.6)	(0.6)	(0.9)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.2)
Nebraska	Est	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.3	0.1	**	**
Nebraska	MOE	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.4)	(0.5)	(0.0)	(0.5)	(0.4)
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	3.7	2.6	0.6	-0.1	-0.2	1.7	-0.1	0.2	-0.2
North Dakota	MOE	(4.0)	(2.7)	(1.6)	(0.8)	(0.3)	(2.1)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.3)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	-0.7	-0.6	-0.2	**	**	-0.5	-0.1	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(1.0)	(0.7)	(0.3)			(0.7)	(0.1)
Texas	Est	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.2)
Utah	Est	-0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.4)
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	-0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0	0.1	0.0	0.0	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.7)	(0.5)	(0.1)	(0.1)		(0.5)	(0.1)	(0.1)
National	Est	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	**	**
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 57 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where nonnative Centaurea species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Centaurea Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	16.6	8.4	3.6	1.0	**	8.5	3.4	0.5	0.5
California	MOE	(6.2)	(4.4)	(4.1)	(2.1)		(4.5)	(4.2)	(1.0)	(1.0)
Colorado	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.6)					(0.6)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	1.8	0.5	**	**	**	0.5	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(2.2)	(1.2)				(1.2)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	1.4	0.8	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.8	0.5	0.2	**
Montana	MOE	(1.1)	(0.7)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.1)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.3)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	2.1	1.4	0.6	0.3	0	1.4	0.8	0.7	0.3
Nevada	MOE	(3.2)	(2.1)	(1.0)	(0.7)		(2.1)	(1.3)	(1.2)	(0.7)
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	2.1	0.6	0.1	**	**	0.6	0.1	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(2.4)	(1.0)	(0.3)			(1.0)	(0.3)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.6	0.1	0.1	0.1	**	0.1	0.1	0.1	**
Utah	MOE	(1.1)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.1)		(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.1)
Washington	Est	4.1	2.0	0.7	0.2	**	2.0	1.1	0.4	**
Washington	MOE	(3.4)	(2.0)	(2.0)	(0.9)		(2.0)	(1.4)	(1.1)
Wyoming	Est	0.2	0.2	**	**	**	0.2	0.2	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.5)	(0.5)				(0.5)	(0.5)
National	Est	1.1	0.6	0.2	0.1	**	0.6	0.3	0.1	**
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)		(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 58 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where nonnative Centaurea species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Centaurea Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	10.9	4.9	2.8	0.5	0.1	5.1	1.8	0.3	0.3
California	MOE	(3.6)	(2.7)	(2.4)	(0.6)	(0.1)	(2.7)	(1.9)	(0.6)	(0.6)
Colorado	Est	1.3	0.4	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.6	0.3	0.1	0.1
Colorado	MOE	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.4)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	1.8	1.3	1.3	0.5	0.2	1.3	1.1	0.6	0
Idaho	MOE	(1.5)	(1.3)	(1.3)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(1.3)	(1.2)	(0.8)
Kansas	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.2)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	1.7	0.9	0.3	**	**	0.8	0.5	0.1	**
Montana	MOE	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.4)			(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.2)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE	(0.4)
New Mexico	Est	0.1	0.1	0.1	**	**	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
New Mexico	MOE	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)			(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	2.8	1.0	0.4	0.3	0.1	1.4	0.7	0.3	0.1
Oregon	MOE	(2.0)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(0.5)	(0.2)	(1.3)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(0.2)
South Dakota	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(0.1)
Texas	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.1)
Utah	Est	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	**
Utah	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)
Washington	Est	7.7	3.1	1.5	1.0	0.4	3.0	1.5	0.8	0.3
Washington	MOE	(4.0)	(2.1)	(1.2)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(2.0)	(1.1)	(0.9)	(0.5)
Wyoming	Est	1.0	0.5	0.2	0.0	**	0.5	0.1	0.1	**
Wyoming	MOE	(1.0)	(0.6)	(0.3)	(0.0)		(0.6)	(0.1)	(0.1)
National	Est	1.0	0.5	0.2	0.1	**	0.5	0.2	0.1	**
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.0)		(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 59 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where nonnative Centaurea species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Centaurea Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Centaurea
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	5.7	3.5	0.8	0.5	-0.1	3.5	1.6	0.2	0.2
California	MOE	(7.1)	(4.9)	(4.7)	(2.2)	(0.1)	(5.3)	(4.6)	(1.2)	(1.2)
Colorado	Est	-1.0	-0.4	-0.2	-0.1	0.0	-0.3	-0.3	-0.1	-0.1
Colorado	MOE	(1.0)	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.8)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.0	-0.8	-1.3	-0.5	-0.2	-0.8	-1.1	-0.6	**
Idaho	MOE	(2.6)	(1.7)	(1.3)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(1.7)	(1.2)	(0.8)
Kansas	Est	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE	(0.2)
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	-0.3	-0.1	-0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	**
Montana	MOE	(1.0)	(0.8)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.1)	(0.8)	(0.6)	(0.3)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	2.0	1.4	0.6	0.3	**	1.4	0.8	0.7	0.3
Nevada	MOE	(3.2)	(2.1)	(1.0)	(0.7)		(2.1)	(1.3)	(1.2)	(0.7)
New Mexico	Est	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	**	**	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1
New Mexico	MOE	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)			(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.3)
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	-0.7	-0.4	-0.3	-0.3	-0.1	-0.8	-0.6	-0.3	-0.1
Oregon	MOE	(2.5)	(1.5)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.2)	(1.7)	(1.0)	(0.5)	(0.2)
South Dakota	Est	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(0.1)
Texas	Est	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.1)
Utah	Est	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.0	-0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	**
Utah	MOE	(1.1)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)
Washington	Est	-3.6	-1.1	-0.9	-0.7	-0.4	-1.0	-0.3	-0.4	-0.3
Washington	MOE	(5.0)	(2.8)	(2.1)	(1.2)	(0.5)	(2.8)	(1.8)	(1.3)	(0.5)
Wyoming	Est	-0.7	-0.2	-0.2	**	**	-0.2	0.2	-0.1	**
Wyoming	MOE	(1.1)	(0.8)	(0.3)			(0.8)	(0.5)	(0.1)
National	Est	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	**	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0
National	MOE	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)		(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 60 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where Halogeton species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Halogeton Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	1.7	1.3	0.8	0.3	0	1.5	1.5	1.2	0.8
Colorado	MOE	(1.7)	(1.6)	(1.5)	(0.7)		(1.7)	(1.7)	(1.6)	(1.5)
Florida	Est	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.3	0.1	0.1	0	0	0.3	0.1	0.1	0
Idaho	MOE	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.3)			(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.3)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	4.9	2.1	1.1	**	**	4.3	2.4	2.1	1.4
Nevada	MOE	(4.9)	(3.1)	(1.7)			(4.7)	(3.4)	(3.0)	(2.3)
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE	(0.1)
Utah	Est	9.7	3.7	2.1	0.5	**	7.5	5.2	3.2	1.9
Utah	MOE	(4.7)	(2.8)	(2.5)	(1.0)		(4.2)	(3.3)	(2.6)	(2.4)
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	0.7	0.1	**	**	**	0.2	0.1	0.1	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.9)	(0.2)				(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.2)
National	Est	0.5	0.2	0.1	**	**	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.1
National	MOE	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 61 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where Halogeton species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins or error.

State	Type	Halogeton Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	0.2	0.2	**	**
Arizona	MOE	(0.4)					(0.4)	(0.4)
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	1.0	0.5	0.4	0.0	0	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.4
Colorado	MOE	(1.0)	(0.5)	(0.3)	(0.1)		(0.6)	(0.6)	(0.5)	(0.3)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.7	0.2	0.1	0.1	0	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1
Idaho	MOE	(0.8)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)		(0.3)	(0.3)	(0.2)	(0.2)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.3	0.2	0.1	**	**	0.2	0.1	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)			(0.2)	(0.1)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	5.5	2.2	0.4	**	**	3.9	2.3	2.0	1.5
Nevada	MOE	(2.7)	(2.3)	(1.2)			(2.8)	(2.5)	(2.3)	(2.0)
New Mexico	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	0.2	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.3)					(0.3)
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.6)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	6.9	3.6	0.6	**	**	4.8	4.0	2.9	0.9
Utah	MOE	(2.8)	(2.4)	(0.8)			(2.4)	(2.5)	(2.0)	(0.9)
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	2.0	0.4	**	**	**	1.3	0.2	0.1	**
Wyoming	MOE	(1.0)	(0.3)				(0.9)	(0.2)	(0.2)
National	Est	0.6	0.2	0.1	**	**	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.1
National	MOE	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)			(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 62 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where Halogeton species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Halogeton Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Halogeton
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	-0.2	**	**	**	**	-0.2	-0.2	**	**
Arizona	MOE	(0.4)					(0.4)	(0.4)
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.7	0.7	0.5	0.2	**	0.9	0.9	0.6	0.5
Colorado	MOE	(1.7)	(1.5)	(1.4)	(0.6)		(1.6)	(1.6)	(1.5)	(1.4)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	-0.5	-0.1	0.0	-0.1	**	0.0	-0.1	0.0	-0.1
Idaho	MOE	(0.9)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.2)		(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.2)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	-0.3	-0.2	-0.1	**	**	-0.2	-0.1	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)			(0.2)	(0.1)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	-0.6	-0.1	0.7	**	**	0.4	0.1	0.1	-0.1
Nevada	MOE	(6.1)	(4.0)	(2.1)			(5.8)	(4.3)	(3.9)	(3.1)
New Mexico	Est	-0.2	**	**	**	**	-0.2	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE	(0.3)					(0.3)
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	-0.3	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.6)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	2.8	0.1	1.5	0.5	**	2.7	1.1	0.3	1.0
Utah	MOE	(5.4)	(3.3)	(2.6)	(1.0)		(4.9)	(3.7)	(3.0)	(2.6)
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	-1.3	-0.3	**	**	**	-1.1	-0.1	0.0	**
Wyoming	MOE	(1.3)	(0.3)				(0.8)	(0.3)	(0.3)
National	Est	-0.1	0.0	0.1	**	**	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
National	MOE	(0.3)	(0.1)	(0.1)			(0.2)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 63 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where garlic mustard is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Garlic Mustard Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 64 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where garlic mustard is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Garlic Mustard Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 65 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where garlic mustard is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Garlic Mustard Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Garlic Mustard
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	0
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 66 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where wild parsnip is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Wild Parsnip Is Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(0.3)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(0.4)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 67 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where wild parsnip is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Wild Parsnip Is Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 68 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where wild parsnip is present and where it covers at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or makes up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Wild Parsnip Is Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Wild Parsnip
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(0.3)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE	(0.4)
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 69 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where yellow and Dalmatian toadflax are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.) Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.2)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(0.8)								��
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.4)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	1.5	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(3.2)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.5	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.8)	(0.8)
Washington	Est	2.1	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(2.7)	(0.8)				(0.8)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 70 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where yellow and Dalmatian toadflax are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.) Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.5	0.0	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.5)	(0.1)				(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.4)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(0.4)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	0.5	**	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(0.8)					(0.1)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.3	0.2	**	**	**	0.1	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.3)	(0.2)				(0.2)
Washington	Est	0.7	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(1.0)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.0)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.�� They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 71 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where yellow and Dalmatian toadflax are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.) Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Yellow And Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria Sp.)
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	-0.4	0.0	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.5)	(0.1)				(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.4	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(0.8)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	-0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE	(0.4)
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE							��
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	-0.2	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE	(0.4)
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	1.0	**	**	**	**	0.0	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE	(3.4)					(0.1)
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	0.2	0.2	**	**	**	-0.1	**	**	**
Utah	MOE	(0.8)	(0.8)				(0.2)
Washington	Est	1.4	0.3	**	**	**	0.3	**	**	**
Washington	MOE	(2.5)	(0.8)				(0.8)
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE	(0.1)

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 72 - 2011-2015 non-Federal rangeland where common tansy species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Common Tansy Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 73 - 2004-2010 non-Federal rangeland where common tansy species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Common Tansy Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(0.1)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE
Oregon	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oregon	MOE
South Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
South Dakota	MOE
Texas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Texas	MOE
Utah	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Utah	MOE
Washington	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Washington	MOE
Wyoming	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Wyoming	MOE	(0.1)
National	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
National	MOE

• Estimates with a double asterisk denote that the attribute or indicator was not detected on non-Federal rangelands within the ecoregion.
• Estimates in red have a large margin of error in relation to the estimate.  They are usually based on very few observations.  The lower bound of the confidence interval may also be inappropriately negative.

 

Table 74 - Change between 2004-2010 and 2011-2015 in non-Federal rangeland where common tansy species are present and where they cover at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the soil surface or make up at least 5%, 15%, 30%, or 50% of the relative plant canopy cover (composition), by state, with margins of error.

State	Type	Common Tansy Are Present	At Least 5% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 15% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 30% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 50% Foliar Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 5% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 15% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 30% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy	At Least 50% Relative Plant Canopy Cover Of Common Tansy
		Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent	Percent
Arizona	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Arizona	MOE
California	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
California	MOE
Colorado	Est	0.0	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Colorado	MOE	(0.1)
Florida	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Florida	MOE
Idaho	Est	-0.1	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Idaho	MOE	(0.1)
Kansas	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Kansas	MOE
Louisiana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Louisiana	MOE
Montana	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Montana	MOE
Nebraska	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nebraska	MOE
Nevada	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Nevada	MOE
New Mexico	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
New Mexico	MOE
North Dakota	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
North Dakota	MOE
Oklahoma	Est	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Oklahoma	MOE						</