HU>tcs
■ lltU A TAXONOMIC

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

FOR MONTANA RIPARIAN

VEGETATION TYPES

An Interagency Approach to Classifying
Montana's Riparian Ecosystems

Sagebrush and grass-

PLEASE RETURN

Deciduous trees

STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTON

JUL 2 01983

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620

Shrubs

Sedges and rushes
Emergent s\

.jjf^ikiE^

Water _

Upland
Zone

Montana State Rural Areas Development Committee
Wildlife Subcommittee
Riparian Program Team
Bozeman, Montana

March, 1982

-u '■/

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

S 581.5264 M26tcs 1982 c.1 Hl"

A T/ilVmm if Ossification system for Mo

3 0864 00049028 7

*

ERRATA

The following line was omitted from the last paragraph on page 11,
"It is not to establish water or land use policy."

The paragraph should read: Riparian does not describe the purpose
'of this- report and study. RAD's endorsement is for standardizing the
vegetation classification in the state of Montana to facilitate meaningful
communication among all concerned. It is. not 'to establish water or land
use policy.

A TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

FOR
MONTANA RIPARIAN VEGETATION TYPES

An Interagency Approach to Classifying
Montana's Riparian Ecosystems

Ron Batchelor, Chairman
Soil Conservation Service

Mike Erwin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Robert Martinka
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Don Mcintosh
Bureau of Land Management

Robert Pfister

Forest and Conservation Experiment Station

University of Montana

Edward Schneegas
U.S. Forest Service

Jack Taylor
Range Management
Montana State University

Kit Walther
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences

Montana Rural Area Development Committee

Wildlife Subcommittee Bozeman, Montana

Riparian Program Team March 1982

A TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR
MONTANA RIPARIAN VEGETATION TYPES

A. INTRODUCTION

Riparian ecosystems are now recognized as being among the most productive
of all ecosystems and are vitally important to the maintenance, stability, and
productivity of their associated terrestrial and aquatic environments. These
areas are subjected to a broad range of uses: wildlife and fish, livestock
grazing, crop production, timber harvest, recreation, transportation
corridors, and mining. Their management is complex, and coordination of these
many uses is essential. Knowledge is limited.

A number of interesting and useful vegetation and ecological
classification systems have evolved in recent years. Some have not been
sufficiently developed to be applicable for western use; others are adaptable,
but do not encompass riparian vegetation sufficiently to warrant serious
consideration for "off-the-shelf" use. Virtually none of these classification
systems gives more than passing attention to riparian systems.

Most riparian systems are intensely linear and dendritic in pattern.
Standard polygonal or zonal systems with which we are accustomed are not
suitable for riparian classification. With respect to riparian systems, there
is still less uniformity of view and a considerably more restricted data base.

Resource managers in Montana do not presently have a riparian vegetation
classification system. This lack of an accepted system has resulted in
problems with communication of terms, condition assessment, planning, and
proper management. The purpose of this system is to provide a uniform
hierarchical sequence to the classification of Montana's riparian vegetation.

Descriptions of riparian vegetation and constituent elements are a basic
requirement. The data base is restricted. However, the quantification of
components and attributes in an orderly manner is dependent upon common
descriptive terms. This system is an orderly process which will demonstrate
ecological relationships, facilitate storage and retrievel of information in a
uniform manner, and assist in the definition of problems and solutions. The
system is designed to aggregate to the UNESCO, Cowardin, et al.
(Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States) and
the Interagency Component Land Classification for the United States (Driscoll,
et al, 1981)

B. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA AND APPROACHES

Efforts to build a working riparian classification for immediate
multiagency and multidiscipline needs should be guided by several principles:

1. Potential users of a classification system should develop and test it
cooperatively to insure common application upon completion.

2. The classification framework should be based on measurable or readily
inferable features so that identification of units is consistent and
repeatable (Driscoll, et al, 1981).

3. The classification system should have a formal taxonomy to allow
consistent naming, identification, and communication (Bailey, et al,
1978). Taxonomic rules should be specified to allow consistent
usage—both within and among users and geographic areas.

4. The classification should be hierarchical so that it can provide
decisionmaking information at several geographic or administrative levels
(Nelson, et al, 1978).

5. Maximum compatibility and consistency should be maintained with existing
classification systems (Witmer, 1978).

6. Open-endedness and flexibility should be retained so that additional
levels or taxonomic units can be added as knowledge accumulates (Witmer,
1978) .

7. The classification should be field tested to demonstrate its technical
soundness (Frayer, et al, 1978).

8. A clear distinction should be made between development of a taxonomic
classification and development of a mapping system. Mapping systems of
classification should be clearly tied to a taxonomic foundation (Bailev
et al, 1978). "

The ideal riparian classification would require detailed knowledge of
vegetation-site-management interactions. However, immediate management needs
for inventory, mapping, and management prescriptions are ongoing and cannot
wait until all the details are known. Recognizing this dilemma, the RAD
Riparian Program Team suggests a three-phase approach to riparian
classification needs:

Phase_I. Development of an interagency taxonomic classification for existing
vegetation types for immediate application to current management activities.
Include provision for refinement, testing, and accumulation of shared
knowledge.

Phase II. Carry out field investigations necessary to support and improve the
classification and to gather information necessary for management of
vegetation units identified.

Phase III. Encourage and actively support research essential to the
development of a riparian classification that reflects site potential.
Pioneering work in this area is being carried out by Tuhy and Jensen, Haglund

and Weaver, and Foot.

C. TERMINOLOGY

Part of the difficulty in communicating about riparian ecosystems is in
terminology and definitions. It must be recognized that no single descriptive
definition, no matter how elegant, can effectively encompass all conceptual
elements of riparian phenomena. Because of these problems, it is necessary to
go back to the basic dictionary definitions and then reach common agreement on
usage.

Riparian (adj.) - of or adjacent to water (dictionary). Since it is a
commonly used and accepted term, we feel that it should be used in this
taxonomic classification system. The word "riparian" is, however,
avoided in the publication, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al, 1979).

Because "riparian" is an adjective, it can usefully modify a multitude of
other accepted terms. Warner (1979) has prepared a functional and easily
understood riparian glossary. The following definitions are offered:

1. Riparian: pertaining to the banks and other adjacent terrestrial
environs of freshwater bodies, watercourses, and surface-emergent aquifers
whose transported waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that
otherwise available locally to support a mesic vegetation differentiated from
that of the contiguous, more xeric (arid) uplands.

2. Zone: an area delimited by determinable boundary lines; a region or
area set off as distinct from surrounding or adjoining parts.

3. Habitat: the ecological and/or physical place, determined and
delimited by the needs of a population or community, that contains a
particular combination of environmental conditions sufficient for its
survival. Perhaps equivalent to "niche."

4. Vegetation: the total plant cover of a zone or area.

5. Faunation: the total animal life in a zone or area; the assemblance
of animal individuals of all species occurring at a locality (the equivalent
form for animals as "vegetation" is for plants).

6. Community: an aggregation of living organisms having mutual
relationships among themselves and to their environment.

7. System: a group of related natural objects and/or forces; a
regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified
whole.

8. Environment: the complex of climatic, edaphic, and biotic factors
that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine
its form and survival.

9. Ecosystem: the complex of a community and its environment
functioning as an ecological unit in nature.

D. SCOPE OF APPLICATION

This classification has been developed to describe riparian vegetation
associated with ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams. Vegetation of
overland flow areas such as draws and coulees that have deep soils with high
available water capacity is included in this classification. Collectively,
such vegetation commonly has been referred to as streambank, stream corridor,
flood plain, and river island vegetation, wet mountain meadows, woody bottoms,
and hardwood draws .

This classification was not developed specifically to characterize
riparian vegetation associated with marshes, swamps, prairie potholes, bogs,
ponds, lakes, or reservoirs. However, it can be used to describe such
riparian vegetation should the need arise.

E. THE TAXONQMIC SYSTEM

In developing the classification we have attempted to emphasize a
hierarchical framework, objectivity, flexibility, utility, consistency,
credibility, and simple workability. We recognize that it is not an ideal
system because it does not incorporate all aspects of structure and function
necessary for many interpretations. Nevertheless, it can provide a common
foundation for immediate needs and a framework adaptable to future refinement.

The classification is a three-level hierarchy:

I- Formation Class (dominant life form of existing vegetation)

A. Formation Subclass (secondary physiognomic feature)

1. Dominance Type (floristic species dominance)

The formation and subformation levels are:

I- Forest and Woodland (>16* tall, >25% canopy coverage)

A. Broad-leaved Deciduous

B. Needle-leaved Evergreen

C. Mixed Deciduous and Evergreen

II. Shrub-Scrubland (<16* tall, >25% canopy coverage)

A. Broad-leaved Deciduous

B. Needle-leaved Evergreen

III . Herbland

A. Forbs

B. Grasses

C. Sedges

D. Rushes

E. Mixed Forbs, Grasses, Sedges, or Rushes

a

IV. Altered Environments

A. Non-native Vegetation

B. Non-vegetated

All three levels of the taxonomy are illustrated in Table 1. Simple
plurality or dominance based on relative canopy coverage is the criterion for
describing vegetation. A "mixed" category should not be used unless no
individual species (or group) has greater than 25 percent canopy coverage.

Simple plurality affords a consistent base for aggregating data.
Codominance is not explicitly provided for, but can be adopted for local usage
or may be recorded routinely where a second species has greater than 25
percent canopy coverage. For example (refer to Table 1), a stand of willow 40
percent canopy coverage, mountain alder 30 percent, and hawthorn 20 percent
would be described:

Shrub-Scrubland Broad-leaved Deciduous

Formation Formation subclass

4- 4-

\, 4.

IIA 1/3 willow/mountain alder
t t

t t

Dominance Type(s) Common Name

Descriptor (optional)

Hawthorn would not be included in the naming of the type because it accounts
for less than 25 percent canopy coverage.

Successful use and refinement of this classification are completely
dependent on developing a minimal data base to document major composition and
distribution of these types.

Field personnel of cooperating agencies could collect a minimum of data
on the composition and distribution of riparian vegetation in Montana. These
data could be shared and accumulated at a central location and used to test,
improve, and formally document information for future use. Involved agencies
and other users should, therefore, designate and support a central data
accumulation and analysis arrangement. This could be accomplished through
establishment of a coordination committee consisting of representatives from
the cooperating state and federal agencies, the two state universities, and
other interested groups. Once designated, the committee could develop
standard forms for collection of sample reconnaissance data by field workers
and serve as a clearinghouse for implementing corrections, refinements, and
additions to the classification system.

F. USING THE SYSTEM

The Montana riparian classification system was developed to describe
vegetation from a broad perspective — from the extensive to the intensive.
There has been an attempt, in the design of the system, to define the limits

-5-

of its application. The system contains, however, sufficient latitude to
adequately describe vegetation units of a watershed, a stream reach, a coulee,
or a research study site. The use and application of this classification
system by cooperators will depend on their individual needs, goals, and
management requirements. The classification has been designed for multiple
resource use by a wide spectrum of resource disciplines (range, watershed,
forestry, fisheries, wildlife, etc.) concerned with riparian vegetatic

Lon.

Using the Montana riparian classification to describe vegetation units
provides several advantages heretofore not available to resource specialists.
Chief among these advantages are:

1- Quantifies vegetation components and attributes in an orderly manner,
using common descriptive terms.

2. Uses standard common names in describing vegetation units.

3. Provides a common system of classification acceptable for multiple
resource use by cooperating state and federal agencies and private
entities.

4. Provides a framework for analysis, description, and interpretation of
data .

5. Furnishes a facility for storage and retrieval of information in a
uniform manner.

6. Provides criteria and description for identifying mapping units.

TABLE 1--A Taxonomic Framework for Montana Riparian Vegetation

Based on Existing Dominance

I. Forest and Woodland (>16* tall, >25% canopy cover)
A. Broad-leaved Deciduous1

1. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)

2. Narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)

3. Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides)

4. Aspen (Populus tremuloides)

5. Birch (Betula papyrifera)

6- Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)

7. Elm (Ulmus americana)

8. Boxelder (Acer negundo)

9. Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)5
99. Mixed Broad-leaved2

-6-

TABLE 1 (continued)

TABLE

1--A Taxonomic Framework for Montana Riparian Vegetati
Based on Existing Dominance

on

B. Needle-leaved Evergreen1

1. Interior ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)

2. Interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

3. Western larch (Larix occidentalis)

4. Grand fir (Abies grandis)

5. Western white pine (Pinus monticola)

6. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)

7. Western redcedar (Thuja plicata)

8. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)

9. Spruce-subalpine fir (Picea spp. and/or Abies lasiocarpa)
10. Limber pine (Pinus flexilis)

99. Mixed needleleaf2

C . Mixed Deciduous and Evergreen1

1. Black cottonwood/ juniper (Populus trichocarpa/Juniperus scopulorum)

2. Narrowleaf cottonwood/ juniper (Populus angustifolia/Juniperus scopulo

3. Eastern cottonwood/ juniper (Populus deltoides/Juniperus scopulorum)

4. Black cottonwood/ponderosa pine (Populus trichocarpa/Pinus ponderosa)

II. Shrub-Scrubland (<16' >25% canopy cover)
A. Broad-leaved Deciduous1

1. Willow (Salix spp. or Bebb willow Salix bebbiana, etc.)

2. Redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)

3. Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata)

4. Mountain alder (Alnus tenuifolia)

5. Water birch (Betula occidentalis)

6. Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)

7. Cherry (Prunus spp. or bittercherry Prunus emarginata, etc.)

8. Elder (Sambucus spp. or black elder (Sambucus melanocarpa, etc.)
Hawthorn (Crataegus spp. or black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii, etc.)
Silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata)

11. Buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea)

12. Shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa)

13. Currant (Ribes spp. or golden currant Ribes aureum, etc.)

14. Rose (Rosa spp. or Nootka rose Rosa nutkana , etc.)

15. Snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp. or common snowberry Symphoricarpos
albus, etc.) * —

16. Silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana)

17. Alderleaf buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia)

18. Mountain maple (Acer glabrum)
99. Mixed broad-leaved2

9
10

TABLE 1 (continued)

TABLE 1 — A Taxonomic Framework for Montana Riparian Vegetation

Based on Existing Dominance

B. Needle-leaved Evergreen1

1. Common juniper (Juniperus communis)

III. Herbland

A. Forbs1

1. Cattail (Typha latifolia)

2. Horsetail (Equisetum spp.)

3. Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp. or silverweed cinquefoil Potentilla

anserina , etc.)

B. Grasses1

1 . Redtop (Agrostis alba)

2. Sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne)

3. Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa)

C. Sedges1

1. Nebraska sedge (Carex neb ras kens is)

2. Inland sedge (Carex interior)

D. Rushes1

1. Baltic rush (Juncus balticus)

E. Mixed Forbs, Grasses, Sedges, or Rushes2

IV. Altered Environments

A. Non-native Vegetation3

B. Non-vegetated4

Vegetation components possible in the Dominance Type are not complete and are
provided as examples only. Additional species can be added to the classifica-
tion as identified.

ZA plant community where no single species (or group, i.e., Forb or Grass) has
greater than 25 percent canopy coverage.

3For use in describing those sites where naturally occurring vegetation has
been removed or altered, and the site is devoted to crop production, hay,
and/or pasture for domestic livestock.

4For use in describing those sites in urban buildup, industrial facilities,
roads, railroads, livestock feedlots, farmsteads, etc.

aFor convenience, Russian-olive, an introduced but naturalized tree, is
considered a native species in this classification.

-8-

This classification system consists of four broad ecological
systems — Forest and Woodland, Shrub-Scrubland, Herbland, Altered
Environments—each of which contains a hierarchical structure that describes,
in progressively greater detail, the vegetation components of the riparian
environment.

In mapping, each element of the classification system is identified by
either a letter or a number. The composite code identifying a particular
riparian vegetation type consists of a series of numbers and letters and may
contain the entire common name of the dominant plant species if judged of
value to the user. The following is a typical illustration of how a riparian
vegetation type is classified (from Table 1):

Formation Class Forest and Woodland

•(•Formation Subclass Broad-leaved Deciduous

4-4-Dominance Type Eastern Cottonwood

-\r Ar y

IA3 (Eastern Cottonwood)

In central Montana, this particular code would be indicative of a
broad-leaved deciduous forest and woodland with eastern Cottonwood (plains
cottonwood subspecies) as the dominant species. Dominance types can be mixed
where a second species has greater than 25 percent canopy coverage as shown in
the following examples:

HA 1/3 (willow/Sitka alder) - This particular code would denote a
broad-leaved deciduous shrub- scrubland with willow and Sitka alder as
codominants .

HIE - This code would indicate a herbland dominated by a mix of forbs,
grasses, sedges, or rushes.

For those sites where natural vegetation exists, but has been
substantially altered (reduced canopy cover and/or plant vigor) by forces such
as grazing, fire, or herbicide application, modifiers describing the
alteration can be included in the naming of the type. A modifier to describe
altered vegetation resulting from heavy grazing could be used as follows:

IIIA 1/2 (willow/ redosier dogwood) heavily grazed

A vegetation type that has been visibly altered by fire could be named
thus :

IA4 (aspen) recently burned

A stream corridor within an industrial site, urban residential
development, livestock feedlot, etc., where the natural or native riparian
vegetation has been removed, would be described as follows: IVB

For those sites where naturally occurring vegetation has been removed and
replaced by introduced plant species, and the site is devoted to crop
production, hay and/or pasture for domestic livestock, the following
description would be used: IVA

-9-

G- RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS

Forest Cover Types (Society of American Foresters 1980)

The proposed taxonomy is parallel in concept with the SAF cover types,
although we are proposing consistent usage of canopy coverage rather than
basal area. The conifer types are identical in either system. The SAF groups
all cottonwoods in one type. This is not adequate for Montana riparian
ecosystems; therefore, we are operating at the species level.

National Interagency Land (site) Classification System (Driscoll and
Merkle 1981)

The proposed national land classification system is based on climax
vegetation; we are using existing vegetation. For their upper hierarchy,
however, Driscoll and Merkle are using the UNESCO classification. Our four
levels are represented therein as five levels: |

UNESCO MONTANA RIPARIAN WETLAND

Closed Forest (>60% cover) }

Woodland (Open Forest) }■»-»-»•-» Forest
(25-60% cover) }

■*■ ■* ■+ + Scrub-Shrub

Shrub }

Dwarf Shrub }

Herbaceous Herbaceous

Altered Environments

Our classification system is compatible with that being developed by
Driscoll and Merkle and will complement their system in describing riparian
ecosystems in Montana.

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
(Cowardin, et al, 1979)

This Wetlands classification has five organizational levels:

System (Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, Palustrine)
Sub-system (e.g., Intermittent Perennial, Upper Perennial, Lower Perennial)
Class (1-Forested, 2-Scrub-Shrub, 3-Emergent, 4-Moss-Lichen, i.e., "Formation")
Sub-class (Life-form, e.g., deciduous vs. coniferous)
Dominance Type (Open-ended for species dominants)

The first two levels are place-proximity terms, useful for geographic
perspective, but not essential for lower levels of taxonomic classification.
The third level is similar to "Formation-Type" as used by Brown, Lowe, and
Pase (1980). The fourth level is a useful subdivision of "Formation." The
fifth level is a simple, dominance-by-species system for existing plant
communities .

Our system generally follows the wetlands approach, recognizing that all
persistent, emergent vegetation types will fall in Cowardin' s "Palustrine"
system. Some of Cowardin's categories (e.g., Broad-leaved Evergreen) are not

-10-

found in Montana. His "emergent, persistent class" is elevated to
"Herbaceous" in our system to allow parallel subdivision to forest and shrub

classes .

Brown, Lowe, and Pase (1980)

This seven-level hierarchical taxonomy is more complicated than
necessary. We can relate to their second level (Formation-Type) and
approximately to their fifth level (Series), although they use generic
dominants where we prefer to use species dominants where feasible Other
levels in their system are based on climatic, geographic, and other features
that unduly complicate a simple taxonomy at this stage of development. Their
lower levels are inadequately defined and have internal contradiction between
definitions and examples; therefore, we cannot clearly compare the two
approaches .

H. COOPERATIVE OPPORTUNITIES

Because of joint responsibilities and expressed concerns relative to
riparian zone management among the resource agencies, a cooperative approach
would be the most cost-effective procedure. This will require a formalized
structure with a definitive framework for cooperation. The need to integrate
the classification system among agencies and other users is necessary and
desirable. In addition, the cooperative approach provides ready access to new
knowledge for refining procedures and applying them uniformly. Uniform
application is essential if this classification is to function as a
multiagency system.

The cooperative program committee should be chosen from the following
organizations: Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana Department of State Lands,
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, University of
Montana, Montana State University, utilities, water development associations,
and agricultural interests.

A strong and active technical committee should be appointed from
cooperators to furnish overall leadership and recommendations for shared
funding, identification of research needs and necessary studies, application
and dissemination of new knowledge, and program recommendations.

A research institution or organization should be designated to provide
technical leadership and coordination for the purpose of sharing and
accumulating data, evaluation, and publications. The first priority task
could be coordination of a simple, efficient, rapid data collection effort to
complete and document the taxonomic classification.

This document has been prepared by an ad hoc Riparian Program Team for
the Wildlife Subcommittee of the Montana Rural Area Development Committee
(RAD), Bozeman, Montana.

The paragraph should read: Riparian does not describe the purpose
t of this report and study. RAD's endorsement is for standardizing the f

I vegetation classification in the state of _ Montana to facilitate meaningful
communication among all concerned. It is not ' to establish" water'' or land
use policy. -ii-

REFERENCES

Bailey, Robert G. , Robert D. Pfister, and Jan A. Henderson. 1978. Nature of
land and resource classification - A review. J. of Forestry. October
1978, Vol. 76, No. 10, pp. 650-655.

Brown D. E., C. H. Lowe, and C. P. Pase. 1980. A digitized systematic

classification for ecosystems with an illustrated summary of the natural
vegetation of North America. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report RM-73, 93 pp. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Fort Collins, CO. '

Cowardin, L. M. , V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.

Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS 10BS
79/31, 103 pp.

Driscoll, R. S., and D. L. Merkel. 1981. A component land classification
system for the United States: Status and Plans. USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.'
(in process)

Driscoll, R. S., D. R. Betters, and H. D. Parker. 1978. Land classification
through remote sensing—techniques and tools. J. of Forestry. October
1978, Vol. 76, No. 10, pp. 656-661.

Foote, G. G. 1965. Phytosociology of the bottomland hardwood forests in
Western Montana, University of Montana, M. S. Thesis (Botany), 140 pp.

Frayer, W. E. , L. S. Davis, and Paul G. Risser. 1978. Uses of land
classification. J. of Forestry. October 1978, Vol 76 No 10
pp. 647-649. '

Haglund and Weaver. Manuscript in preparation.

McCormick, J. F. 1978. Iniative for preservation and management of wetland
habitat: a position paper in support of a proposal for a national
program for the protection and management of riparian ecosystems. USDI.

Nelson, Devan, Grant A. Harris, and Thomas E. Hamilton. 1978. Land and
resource classification - who cares? J. of Forestry. October 1978
Volume 76, No. 10, pp. 644-646.

Society of American Foresters. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States
and Canada. Soc. of Amer. Foresters, Washington, DC, 148 pp.

Swenson, Jon E. 1981. The hardwood draws of southeastern Montana: their

importance to wildlife and vulnerability to man's activities. Management
of riparian ecosystems, proceedings of the annual meeting of the Montana
Chapter, The Wildlife Society.

■12-

Teskdy, R. 0. and T. M. Hinckley. 1977. Impact of water level changes on
woody rxparian and wetland communities. Vol. Ill, the central forest
region, FWS/OBS 77/60. USDI .

Tuhy, J. S. and S. Jensen. 1981. Riparian community classification for the
Greys River, Wyoming, Department of Range Science, Utah State Universitv
Logan, UT, 190 pp. y'

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Yellowstone River erosion control

demonstration program, background study and figures for background study.

Warner, Richard E. 1979. California riparian study program-background

information and proposed study design, State of California, The Resources
Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

Witmer, Richard E. 1978. U.S. Geological Survey land-use and land-cover

classification system. J. of Forestry. October 1978, Volume 76, No 10
pp. 661-666. '

13-