Full text of "Linking the National Vegetation Classification System to NRCS ecological sites in southeastern Montana"

See other formats

Linking the National Vegetation

Classification System to NRCS Ecological

Sites in Southeastern Montana

Prepared for the
Bureau of Land Management

Greg Kudray and Steve Cooper

Montana Natural Heritage Program

Natural Resource Information System

Montana State Library

June 2005

MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Program

Linking the National Vegetation Classification

System to NRCS Ecological Sites in

Southeastern Montana

Prepared for the

Bureau of Land Management State Office

Billings, Montana

Under Challenge Cost Share Agreement #
1422E930A960015

By
Greg Kudray and Steve Cooper

Montana Natural Heritage Program

1515 East Sixth Avenue

Helena, Montana 59620- 1 800

MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Ptc^jram

4ife,State II jlSi Natural Resource

^^ Library V^jS! Monaal^m System

P.O. Box 201800 • 1515 East Sixth Avenue • Helena, MT 59620-1800 • 406-444-5354

Please cite this document as follows:

Kudray, G. and S. V. Cooper. 2005. Linking the National Vegetation Classification System to
NRCS Ecological Sites in Southeastern Montana. Report to the Bureau of Land Management.
Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 18 pp. plus appendices.

Executive Su m m a r y

The two vegetation/site classifications that are
widely used across the rangelands of the western
United States and adopted by federal agencies are
ecological sites (ecosites), developed by the
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
and plant associations of the National Vegetation
Classification System (NVCS), now maintained by
Natures erve.

Ecosites are delineations of unique combinations of
physical site variables within climatically/
geographically-defined ecoregions. A specific
ecosite support a unique historic climax plant
community (HCPC) with management/disturbance
driven composition changes predicted by a state -
and - transition model.

The National Vegetation Classification System is a
hierarchical system initially developed by The
Nature Conservancy but now managed by
NatureServe with continuing refinement guided by
the Vegetation Classification Panel of the
Ecological Society of America. Vegetation
structure defines the higher and more general
levels while the finer levels, alliance and plant
association (P.A.), are floristically defined.

One objective in this study was to associate NVCS
P.As. with ecosites in the 10" - 14" precipitation
zone of NRCS Major Land Resource Area 58A.
This links the rich management and ecological
information available for plant associations with
mapped ecosites. Another objective was the
establishment of permanent monitoring plots with
data on baseline vegetation and environmental
conditions for the major ecosites of the region

We assigned a PA. and ecosite type to field
collected plots and data from other studies in the
study area. The first year of field data collection
included mostly rapid assessment plots across the
entire range of ecosites present. Comprehensive
plots the next year focused on the major ecosite
groups of sandy, silty, and clayey. Analysis of the
combined data set included vegetation ordination,
classification, tabular summaries, multi-response
permutation procedure and indicator species

analysis. We separated and independently
analyzed data from the major ecosite groups. We
also combined field plot data with historical plot
data to construct ecosite - PA. relationship tables.

Ecosites at the ends of the textural spectrum
(sands and clays) have the least variable vegetation
communities due to a reduced ecological niche but
are still associated with several possible P.As.
Shallow ecosites and ecosites defined by gravel
tended to have especially variable vegetation
characteristics; these plant communities tended to
be more like those on ecosites with a similar
textural matrix, e.g. shallow sandy sites were more
like sandy ecosites than other shallow sites. We
also found that the soil mapping in the sampled area
tended to overestimate the acreage of shallow and
very shallow types. Even with rock outcrops
nearby, our soil pits were usually deeper than
maximum bedrock depths allowed for the type
definition.

Ecosites and P.As. are not simply associated, even
though some ecosites, especially sandy and clayey
ecosites, had strongly associated P.As. NVCS
P.As. are a narrower concept than ecosites, which
typically have several states (serai stages) in a
state - and - transition model. Our resultant
crosswalk reflected this with each major ecosite
type linked with several P.As. The interaction of
droughts, grazing (and associated water
developments), fire, sagebrush control, invasive
plants, small-scale topographic variations, plant
species dynamics, and land use history influences
vegetation patterns on any ecosite location. Some
of these influences are also at a scale too small to
be captured in typical soil mapping; a variety of
P.As may occur within an ecosite map unit.

Large scale influences on ecosites and their
vegetation communities are also important. The
study area encompasses over 26.7 million acres.
The roughly 30 common ecosites are
generalizations of the entire range of soil texture,
chemical, topography, and precipitation (within 10"
- 14"), so we expected that there would be
considerable variability in the vegetation
communities present.

The interaction of all these factors creates the
unique habitats and biodiversity that make prairie
ecosystems so biologically important. However,
knowing the characteristics of reference condition
vegetation communities in any area is difficult since
grazing can be a dominant influence and a well
distributed system of exclosures across major
ecosites is lacking. Having a network of

exclosures will help provide baseline data for
monitoring similar ecosite types.

We established 58 permanent monitoring points on
a variety of ecosites. A program of periodically
monitoring these and comparable exclosures every
5-10 years will help detect transitions in
vegetation response to climate and management.

Acknowledgments

Bill Volk from the Montana BLM State Office was
instrumental in initiating and supporting this project.
We are very grateful to Roxanne Falise and Teresa
Hanley, also at the State Office, for their support.
Robert Mitchell, Louise de Montigny, Dale Tribby,
and others at the BLM Miles City Field Office

helped us with logistics and their considerable local
knowledge. Bob Leinard and Sue Noggles from
the NRCS gave freely of their time to help us
better understand ecological sites. In our office,
we are grateful for the help Allan Cox gave us with
maps and Pam Chriske with production of the final
report.

Tableof Contents

Introduction 1

Ecological Sites and NVCS Plant Associations 2

Rangeland Vegetation Change 2

Development of the Montana NVCS 3

Methods 4

Data Analysis 4

Results 6

MainEcosite Types 6

Rapid Assessment Data 7

Discussion 8

Ecological Site Textural Groups 8

Ecological and Cultural Influences on Prairie Vegetation 13

State-and-Transition Models 14

Conclusion 14

Literature Cited 15

Appendix A. Global / State Rank Definitions
Appendix B. Photos

Appendix C. Plant Association and Ecological Site Correspondence Tables
Appendix D. State and Transition Models of Some Common Plant Associations

Appendix E. Relationship Diagrams of Plant Associations with Key Environmental Factors for Primary
Ecological Site Groups

LisTOF Figures

Figure 1. Map of study area and plot locations

List OF Tables

Table 1. Indicator species with p significance values <0.1 7

Table 2. Cluster analysis pf rapid assessment vegetation plots 7

Table 3. Indicator species associated with clusters of rapid assessment vegetation plots 9

Table 4. Results of NMS vegetation ordination of silty ecosites 9

Table 5. Results of NMS vegetation ordination of clay ecosites 10

Table 6. Results of NMS vegetation ordination of sand ecosites 10

Table 7. Plot distribution of common NVCS plant associations on ecological sites 10

Introduction

A site classification incorporating vegetation
characteristics is an essential tool for informed land
management. Vegetation-based site classifications
have been a staple of management since the late
1800's (Pfister 1989). There has been considerable
activity by public agencies within the US in the last
few decades to produce land classification systems
applicable regionally or across the nation.

Among the many vegetation and site classification
systems that developed over the years, two are
widely used across the rangelands of the western
United States and adopted by federal agencies.
The National Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) system is based on ecological sites
(ecosites, formerly range sites), which are
delineated by unique combinations of physical site
variables within ecoregions. These ecosites support
a unique historic climax plant community (HCPC).
The HCPC serves as a reference point to which
serai stages can be compared. This site
classification system incorporates the non-
equilibrium state-and-transition models developed
for arid and semi-arid rangelands with serai stages
incorporated in ecosite models.

The National Vegetation Classification System
(NVCS) (Grossman et al. 1998) represents another
approach adopted by many public agencies and is
applicable to any landscape/ecosystem within the
U.S. The Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) has accepted this framework as a
standard for all federal agencies (FGDC 1997).
The NVCS was originally developed by The Nature
Conservancy and now is primarily managed by
Natures erve with additional input from the
Ecological Society of America's Vegetation
Classification Panel (Jennings et al. 2003), Natural
Heritage programs and many others.

The NVCS is a hierarchical approach based on
existing vegetation with physiognomy more
important at broader levels and composition
emphasized at the finest levels of alliance and

association. Specific association types are primarily
based on vegetation plots from published studies
and other research work; thousands of associations
have been named and described, although a
reduced number of associations have been
described in a standardized manner as proposed by
the ESA Vegetation Panel (Jennings et al. 2003).
This system can be used for vegetation mapping
and inventory (Grossman et al. 1998); however,
difficulties remain, especially in classifying
successional vegetation (treating serai stages as
part of potential natural vegetation units versus
naming/describing each serai stage as a unique
association).

Ecological sites are essentially mapped by the
NRCS in county soil surveys through an association
of map units with one or more ecosites. Their
incorporation of the widely adopted state-and-
transition models along with detailed vegetation
composition and production data allows managers
to evaluate rangeland condition and restoration
potential. Ecosite descriptions offer considerable
information but are not linked to NVCS types,
which form a rich source of complementary
information. The mapped nature of ecological sites
would also allow a direct application of NVCS
types to land management if the systems were
associated. In the future, users of these respective
systems should be able to communicate about lands
under their jurisdiction and management. To do so,
a correspondence will have to be established
between the basic units of each system.

The purpose of this study is to relate the Montana
Natural Heritage Program NVCS plant associations
of NRCS Land Resource Area 58A (Sedimentary
Plains, East; 10" - 14" precipitation range) located
in southeastern Montana with ecosites. The
primary focus is on the dominant ecosites in the
regions, clayey, silty, sandy, and sands. Another
objective was to establish permanent monitoring
plots at sites with vegetation in good ecological
condition.

Ecological Sit e s and NVCS

Plant Associations

An ecosite is a distinctive kind of land with specific
physical characteristics that differs from other kinds
of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and
amount of vegetation (USDA NRCS 2003). It
possesses a set of key distinguishing features
including characteristic soils and vegetation, that are
a product of all the environmental factors
responsible for their development; the factors are
the same as described by Major (1959) and Jenny
(1961): parent material, climate, living organisms,
topography or landscape position and time. A
characteristic hydrology also develops over time,
influenced by the soil and plant community.

The plant community on a specific ecosite has an
association of species that differs from that of other
ecosites in the kind and/or proportion of species, or
in total production (USDA NRCS 2003). Ecosites
are derived and apply to a given land resource unit
(LRU) as delineated by the NRCS (comparable to
ecoregions as defined by the U. S. Forest Service
and others). These units are areas of similar
geology, landform, soil, vegetation, and climate.

At the time of European immigration and
settlement, there existed historic climax plant
communities (HCPC) (USDA NRCS 1997).
Essential to the development and maintenance of
these plant communities were natural disturbances
including fire, drought, native fauna grazing, and
insects. The effects of these disturbances are
apparent in the variable characteristics of a site and
establish the boundaries of its dynamic equilibrium.

The association is the finest level in the NVCS
hierarchy and is the basic unit for vegetation
classification in North America; it forms a plant
community type of definite floristic composition,
uniform habitat conditions, and uniform
physiognomy (Grossman et al. 1998). The NVCS
recognizes that plant associations (or communities)
can occur at multiple spatial scales depending on
the steepness of environmental gradients and the
patterning of disturbance processes across the
landscape. In addition, the same association can

occur at different scales under different
environmental and disturbance conditions
(Grossman et al. 1998). This means 1) that the
NVCS accepts compensating factors as explaining
why some plant associations can exhibit a broad
distribution across regions and 2) that the NVCS is
a classification of existing vegetation and two
stands could be placed in different associations
even though they could both belong to the same
potential natural vegetation association.

The HCPC as recognized by the NRCS is a more
broadly defined entity than a NVCS plant
association despite the similarity in their respective
definitions. The HCPC of an ecosite is not a
narrowly fixed assemblage of plant species for
which the species proportions are the same across
years or locations. Some have a large range of
variation, others a small range. Plant communities
subjected to abnormal disturbance (intensity,
duration or type) or shielded from natural
perturbations such as fire and grazing for extended
periods will diverge from the HCPC (USDA NRCS
1997).

Rangeland Vegetation Change:
Ecological Sites and the State and
Transition Model

Although range managers have long recognized that
rangelands can be transformed, e.g. from
grasslands to shrublands that cannot be returned to
grassland by grazing management (Laycock 1991),
the historic view has been the succession -
retrogression (range condition) model of
Dyksterhuis (1949) based on the successional
theory of Clements (1916) and polyclimax concepts
of Tansley (1935). This model suggests that a
competition-mediated climax state will result with
time, regardless of the disturbances (Westoby
1980).

The new paradigm for range management termed
the state-and-transition model (ST) recognizes 1)

mechanisms other than competition determine
community patterns and structure, 2) the multi-
equilibrial nature of many rangeland ecosystems
and 3) the rapid and unanticipated shifts among
these equilibria (Westoby et al. 1989). Practitioners
of the ST model anticipate departures from the
monoclimax model and incorporate this into
management plans. This model is the approach
used by the Society for Range Management (1995)
and USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (1997) The ST models are coupled to
ecosites and Land Resource Units (LRU) in that a
particular model applies to one ecosite within only
one LRU (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003).

Development of the Montana
NVCS

It is a goal that Natural Heritage programs have a
vegetation classification for their state and that a
national classification develops from these state
classifications (Grossman et al. 1998). States
develop these classifications in a variety of ways.
A typical beginning was a list of plant communities/
associations derived from literature sources. In
some cases, these compilations were published in
refereed journals (see Bourgeron et al. 1988), but
beyond compiling a list of types and supporting
(often annotated) literature, "working
classifications" were not immediately constructed.
By "working classification", we mean an effort to
produce a key and detailed descriptions of the
vegetation units.

A later development was the convening of Heritage
Program ecologists from throughout a region with
ecologists associating each putative plant
association with ecoregions (Bailey 1976, Avers et
al. 1994) where it occurred. Since ecologists had
only association names and not always descriptions
to base their assignment of types to ecoregions the
outcome of this process was approximate. A
database called EcoART (NatureServe 2003) was
populated with this distribution information along
with detailed floristic and ecological information.
Eventually managed by NatureServe, EcoART has

become the authority for relating the distribution of
plant associations to ecological as well as
administrative boundaries.

At the time of compiling Montana's list of plant
associations (late 1980's) there existed eight
working classifications in Montana all based on
Daubenmire's (1966) habitat type concept; Pfister
et al. (1977) for largely USES managed forested
lands, Mueggler and Stewart (1980) for rangelands
primarily west of the Continental Divide, Hansen
and Hoffman (1987) for southeastern Montana and
adjacent Eorest Service lands in North and South
Dakota, Cooper and Pfister (1981, 1985) for the
Blackfeet and Northern Cheyenne/Crow
Reservation forested lands respectively, and
Roberts et al. (1979) and Roberts (1980) for the
forested portion of the Bear's Paw Mountains,
Little Rocky Mountains and the Missouri River
Breaks. Since that time five more first
approximation working classifications have been
developed for Montana; Cooper et al. (1995) for all
vegetation types in a portion of southwestern MT,
Vanderhorst et al. (1998) for Carter County,
DeVelice et al. (1995) for the northeastern portion
of the state, and DeVelice and Lesica (1993) for
the Pyror Mountains and adjacent Wyoming Basins
Section.

All these works derived their classifications by
sampling relatively undisturbed, late serai to putative
climax vegetation; these basic units were termed
habitat types or potential natural vegetation (PNV)
plant associations. Only two Montana works have
approached the challenge of classifying serai and
disturbed vegetation types to produce an existing
vegetation type classification, which is the goal of
the NVCS (Hansen et al. 1995 for all of Montana's
wetland and riparian vegetation and a NatureServe
work in progress for Glacier- Waterton Lakes
International Peace Parks). Many relatively recent
reports (authored after most of the above-cited
references were published) describe new plant
communities/associations (see Cooper 2003, Heidel
et al. 2001, Cooper and Jean 2001, Cooper et al.
2001).

Methods

In 2003, we sampled a wide variety of ecosites on
BLM managed land throughout LRU 58A in the
10" - 14" precipitation zone (Figure 1). Some plots
were slightly outside of these areas. Plot selection
focused on sites with the vegetation in good
condition. We used soil survey maps to ensure that
most ecosite types were represented. We sampled
some plots using standard Montana Natural
Heritage community survey methods with detailed
vegetation and abiotic sampling. We also used a
rapid assessment sampling procedure to sample a
greater number of plots and ecosites across this
large region. The standard community methods are
detailed below; the rapid assessment method
included listing the top five plant species by cover
and verifying the ecosite with a soil pit.

The 2004 field sampling also occurred on BLM
managed land with vegetation communities in good
condition. There was an additional focus on the
most common ecosites: Silty (Si), Sandy (Sy),
Sands (Sa), Clayey (Cy). We selected plots from a
BLM effort at inventorying range site condition
during the late 1970's and early 1980's called the
Soil - Vegetation Inventory Method (SVIM). They
established sampling transects throughout Montana
and identified range condition (excellent through
poor) associated with each site. From archived
SVIM records we were able to determine, based
on both the judgment of the original sampling team
and our inspection of their vegetation data, what
sites were in excellent to good condition (at the date
of sampling). The SVIM sampling methodology
involved long transects with associated subplots;
transects often crossed more than one ecosite but
vegetation data and condition were not kept
separate by ecosite. This sampling methodology
and the time elapsed limited the usefulness of the
data since there could be significant differences in
vegetation condition across the several hundred
meter length of the transect and sites in good
condition 20-30 years ago were either no longer in
that condition or difficult to locate along the
transect.

While most revisited SVIM areas were not suitable
for our purposes, we did sample and permanently

mark 58 plots with vegetation in good to excellent
condition. We marked each of these plots with a
steel rerod driven into the ground at plot center,
approximately 20 - 30cm was left exposed, painted
fluorescent orange then topped with a plastic yellow
cap. Standard Montana Natural Heritage
Community survey methods were used to collect a
variety of abiotic and biotic data including vascular
plant species with cover values by classes in a
circular plot size of 400 m^ (11.28 m radius, about 1/
10 acre), ground cover by classes, slope, aspect and
other data. Plot area was scaled back or changed
in shape if sites were not homogenous abiotically;
never was the area less than 200 m^

A soil pit was dug to a depth of at least 20 inches to
determine ecosite and a composite soil sample was
extracted from the upper 10 cm of the profile from
4 representative locations in the plot. The Montana
State University Soils Laboratory analyzed each soil
sample for percent sand, silt and clay, as well as
pH, conductivity and organic matter. We identified
all plots to ecosite type by following the
dichotomous key "Montana, Key for Ecological
Sites" (USDA NRCS 2000). We determined the
NVCS plant association for each plot.

We also compiled a database of plots of sites in
good ecological condition. Plots collected by
previous studies in LRU 58A and adjacent areas
include those by Hansen and Hoffman (1987),
Heidel et al. (2001), and Vanderhorst et al. (1998).
Data entered included quantitative cover estimates
and abiotic site variables necessary to determine
ecosite.

DataAnaylsis

Two main data sets were developed based on the
different sampling intensities: comprehensive and
rapid assessment (RA). The comprehensive data
set focused on the major ecosite types (sands,
sandy, silty, and clayey). It included a complete list
of plant species and soil data. These 32 plots
containing 52 plant species were reduced to data
set of 29 plots with 49 species after an analysis
with the software program Pc-Ord (McCune and

Figure 1. Map of study area and plot locations.

I Major Land Resource Area 58A Boundary

f^^ MONTANA

S Natural

Heritage
Program

10 20 40

■ Miles
80

Grace 2002). Species that only occurred in one or
two plots were eliminated and three plots identified
as outliers were removed. A second data matrix
contained soil variables for each plot. The soil
electrical conductivity variable was highly skewed
so it was log-transformed before analysis.
Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) was the
ordination process used to assess the similarity of
vegetation plots (McCune and Grace 2002). This
technique orders plots (and species, if desired)
along axes that can be examined for any patterns.
Soil characteristics were associated with vegetation
patterns by correlating soil variables with the axes
of the ordination. A multi-response permutation
procedure (MRPP) tested for significant vegetation
differences among the four ecosite groups; this
analysis also indicates the within-group dispersion.

The RA data set included a wide range of ecosite
types. The comprehensive plots were recoded to
match the dominance rank system of the RA plots
and incorporated into the data set. Only one plot, a
saline upland with unique vegetation, was eliminated
as an outlier, 125 plots with 53 species remained.
We used NMS to ordinate this data and cluster
analysis to hierarchically split the vegetation data
into progressively finer groups of plots with similar
vegetation. Hierarchical clustering does not
automatically determine the number of clusters that
are interpretable. Indicator species analysis (ISA)
was used to provide an objective criterion for
making that determination. ISA identifies species
that are strongly associated with individual clusters.
Each species receives an indicator value based on
its abundance and frequency of occurrence within
clusters. Monte Carlo tests are then used to test
the strength of these associations. ISA was
repeated for each level of clustering. We
determined the most ecologically meaningful
number of clusters with a technique advocated by
McCune and Grace (2002) that chooses the
number of clusters with the most robust indicator
species indicates. We used this optimal grouping to
associate the primary indicator species for each of
the clusters to NVCS plant associations.

We separated silty ecosite plots from the RA data
set to explore vegetation patterns within that group.
We eliminated three outliers from the data set,
which then included 33 plots and 35 species.
Scores from a NMS ordination were correlated
with individual plant species to elucidate vegetation
patterns. We followed the same procedure with a
sand and sandy ecosite group (16 plots and 27
species) and a clay, dense clay, and claypan ecosite
group (30 plots and 23 species).

Results

Main Ecosite Types
(Comprehensive Data Set)

The four main ecosite types (sands, sandy, silty, and
clay) showed different patterns in the vegetation
ordination. Clay and sand ecosites have relatively
tight groups indicating lower variability in vegetation
composition/cover within groups. More vegetation
variation is apparent in the sandy and silty plots with
widely scattered plots across ordination space. The
MRPP also indicated a similar pattern with the
following average within group distances: sands
(47.7), clayey (48.2), sandy (62.4), and silty (64.3).
The MRPP results also verified significant
differences among the four groups tested (p =
.014).

Correlation values between the two primary
vegetation ordination axes show that the only strong
vegetation - environment relationship in this data
set was with sand and clay content. Axis 1
(40.4%) and axis 2 (30.2%) explained a total of
70.6% of the variation present in the vegetation
data set. Only sand and clay content were
correlated with Axis 1 at a minimum r level >.2.
No soil factors were even moderately correlated
with axis 2.

Indicator species analysis identified the affinity of
plant species for a particular ecosite type. The
small number of plots in some ecosites, four each in
sands and sandy ecosites, make strong conclusions
impossible but some species affinities are apparent.
Table 1 lists significant indicator species.

Rapid Assessment Data

This vegetation data set included 14 different
ecosite types. The NMS ordination axes explained
80% of the variation in the data set; axis 1 (24.4%)
and axis 3 (39.1%) were most explanatory. The
ISA technique identified nine clusters as the most
ecologically optimal number. Some of the clusters
consisted of plots in the same or closely related
ecosite groups while other clusters were composed
of a wide variety of ecosites (Table 2). Similarly,
many ecosite plots were broadly distributed across
several vegetation clusters.

Vegetation plots did not cluster well into groups that
could be strongly associated with their respective
ecosites (Table 2). Only a few clusters of the
ecologically optimal nine clusters represent plots
unequivocally associated with ecosite groups. Eight
of the nine groups had at least five plots from
various ecosites. Plots of a certain ecosite were
similarly dispersed, for example, the 36 silty plots
were placed in eight different cluster groups. The
shallow and gravel ecosite groups had particularly
variable vegetation and cluster membership. These

Table 1. Indicator species with p significance values <0.1 and associated ecological site.

Indicator Species

Ecological Site Type

Significance value (p)

Pacific ^NorxnsNOoA Artemisia campestris

Sands

0.016

Sun Sedge Carex inops

Sands

0.027

Dragon ^NOvmsNOoA Artemisia dracunculus

Sands

0.032

Prickly pear Opuntia polycantha

Silty

0.044

Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii

Clayey

0.049

Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis

Sandy

0.06

Wavy- leaved thistle Cirsium undulatum

Sandy

0.085

Needle-and-thread Hesperostipa comata

Sandy

0.088

Table 2. Cluster analysis of rapid assessment vegetation plots by ecological site membership.

Thin Sandy

(Tsy)

^
^
K

Thin Silty

(Tsi)

Thin Clayey

(Tcy

Dense Clay
(Dc)

Very Shallow

(Vs)

ShaUow Clay

(Swc)

Total

125

plots tended to have vegetation that was more
similar to ecosite plots having similar textures, e.g. a
sandy loam textured shallow ecosite would group
with sandy ecosite plots not with other shallow
plots. The ends of the textural range, sand and
clayey ecosites, had more consistent plant species
groups within each ecosite. Table 3 lists indicator
species associated with the clusters. Ordination
and correlation results of ecosite groups are
summarized in Tables 4-6.

Database Analysis

A similar vegetation association - ecological site
relationship was evident in an analysis of past
MTNHP and USPS plots (Appendix C Tables 1 and
2). Generally, ecological sites with soils at textural
extremes (sand or the clay group of ecological
sites) had more consistent plant association groups
while there was greater variability with other
ecological sites. However, even the sand and clay
groups had numerous plant associations recorded as
occurring on each site type. Many plant
associations have not been sampled and correlated
to ecological site within the study area (Appendix C
Table 2), even though this table reflects a broader
area.

Some of these plots and associated types may
occur outside of the 10" - 14" range our study
focused on. The associations include forest (7),
woodlands (17), shrublands (19), shrub herbaceous
(17), dwarf- shrubland (7), herbaceous (51), and
sparse vegetation (3). Only a limited number of
these plant associations were actually encountered
and sampled by MTNHP or USPS ecologists; 3 of
7 forest types, 10 of 17 woodland types, 3 of 19
shrublands, 8 of 17 shrub herbaceous types, 2 of 7
dwarf- shrublands, 25 of 40 herbaceous types and 2
of 3 sparse vegetation types.

Based on fieldwork conducted by the MTNHP and
Jensen et al. (1992) a number of additional
vegetation types not listed in EcoART were
identified and sampled within the ecoregion (noted
in Appendix C Table 1); these additional vegetation
types included 3 forest, 3 shrub herbaceous, 10
herbaceous and 2 sparse vegetation types. In
addition, a survey of permitting reports by

consulting firms (e.g. Western Technology and
Engineering, Inc. 1991) indicated there were
additional unique types for this ecoregion not found
in EcoART or identified in MTNHP/USPS
sampling.

The correspondence between NVCS plant
association and their fidelity to ecological sites is
listed in Table 7 for the most common s
encountered. The most common PA., Wyoming
big sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata ssp.
wyomingensis)IWQSiQvn wheatgrass (Pascopyrum
smithii), occurred on 5 distinct Ecological Sites
although all of these sites were deep soils with finer
textures than those of Sandy or Sands ecosites.
The little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) -
grama (blue Bouteloua gracilis, sideoats
Bouteloua curtipendula) - threadleaf sedge
(Carex filifolia) P. A. occupies sites at the coarser
end of the soil textural range, but still overlaps
considerably with about a third of the samples
occurring on silty soils.

A similar lack of fidelity is apparent for all these
common types. Overall, while soil characteristics
and the corresponding ecological site type are
important in a general sense, it is also clear that soil
is not an absolute determinant of vegetation
composition, a result similar to the ordination and
classification data described in the preceding
section.

Discussion

Ecological Site Textural Groups

This analysis provides useful insight into the nature
of prairie vegetation communities and
environmental factors. Variability (diversity) is
common but strong associations are also apparent
in the linkage of NVCS plant communities with
ecological sites, especially at the textural extremes
(sands and clays) of site conditions. Less variability
at these extremes is attributable to the narrowed
ecological niche available to plant species. More
species can establish in the broader mid-range of
ecological sites, creating a diversity of plant
community types.

Table 3. Indicator species associated with clusters of rapid assessment vegetation plots. Value is % of perfect
indication, based on combining values for relative abundance and relative frequency.

Cluster #

Indicator Species (Value)*

Purple three-awn Aristida
purpurea (57%)

Prairie sandreed
Calamovilfa longifolia

(47%)

Needle-and-thread
Hesperostipa comata
(26%)

Fringed sagebrush
Artemisia frigida (27%)

Needle-and-thread (25%)

Threadleaf sedge Carex
filifolia (23%)

Western wheatgrass
Pascopyrum smithii (26%)

Kentucky blue grass Poa
pratensis (21%)

3 species (15%)

Needle-and-thread (26%)

Blue Grama Bouteloua
gracilis (25%)

Japanese brome Bromus
japonicus (16%)

Western wheatgrass (29%)

Curly bluegrass Poa
secunda (17%)

Prickly pear Opuntia
polyacantha (16%)
Japanese brome (16%)

Wyoming big sagebrush
Artemisia tridentata ssp.
wyomingensis (34%)

Blue Grama (22%)

Threadleaf sedge (17%)

Little bluestem
Schizachyrium scoparium
(34%)

Threadleaf sedge (27%)

Soap weed yucca Yucca
glauca{n%)

Wyoming big sagebrush

(35%)

Western wheatgrass (27%)

Blue Grama (14%)

Bluebunch wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria spicata

(58%)

Ill-scented sumac Rhus
trilobata (36%)

Little bluestem (26%)

Table 4. Results ofNMS vegetation ordination of silty ecosites and the strongest correlations of species with axes.

Ordination Axis
(r value)

Species Correlations (r value)

Axis 1 (17.7%)

Blue grama (-.728)

Wyoming big sagebrush
(-.602)

Prickly rose Rosa
acicularis (-.588)

Axis 2 (34.4%)

Western wheatgrass
(.793)

Blue grama (.542)

Dandelion Taraxacum
officinale (.496)

Axis 3 (15.8%)

Threadleaf sedge (.763)

Blue grama (-.729)

Western wheatgrass
(-.652)

Total Variation
Explained (67.9%)

Table 5. Results ofNMS vegetation ordination of clay, dense clay, and clay pan ecosites and the strongest
correlations of species with axes.

Ordination Axis
(r value)

Species Correlations (r value)

Axis 1 (41.0%)

Wyoming big sagebrush

(-.734)

Western wheatgrass

(.717)

Silver sagebrush
Artemisia cana ssp.
cana (.608)

Axis 2 (33.4%)

Blue grama (-.707)

Cheatgrass (.595)

Wyoming big sagebrush
(-.545)

Axis 3 (8.2%)

Axis variation is too low to allow for meaningful interpretation

Total Variation
Explained (82.6%)

Table 6. Results ofNMS vegetation ordination of sand and sandy ecosites and the strongest correlations of
species with axes.

Ordination Axis
(r value)

Species Correlations (r value)

Axis 1 (43.3%)

Threadleaf sedge (-.732)

Soapweed yucca (-.680)

Prairie sandreed (.600)

Axis 2 (17.0%)

Needle-and-thread

(-.777)

Soapweed yucca (.737)

Purple three-awn (-.593)

Axis 3 (27.7%)

Blue grama (.702)

Western wheatgrass
(.584)

Little bluestem (-.485)

Total Variation
Explained (87.9%)

Table 7. Plot distribution of common NVCS plant associations on ecological sites.

NVCS Plant Association

Number
of plots

Number

ecological

sites

Wyoming big sagebrushAVestern wheatgrass shrub herbaceous
vegetation

Silver sageAVestern wheatgrass shrub herbaceous vegetation

Western wheatgrass/Needle-and-thread central mixedgrass herbaceous
vegetation

Little bluestem - grama (blue, sideoats) - threadleaf sedge herbaceous
vegetation

Western wheatgrass - green needlegrass herbaceous vegetation

Needle-and-thread -blue grama - threadleaf sedge herbaceous vegetation

While some of the lack of plant association fidelity
to soil texture and ecosite may be attributed to
differential disturbance impacts, there is also
evidence of a generally wide range of ecological
amplitude in these mixed-grass vegetation
associations. The western wheatgrass - green
needlegrass {Nassella viridula) P. A. very likely
occurs on sites with low grazing impact (both
dominant/indicator species being highly preferred
forage) and could therefore be considered as close
to HCPC as any community in our matrix.
However, it also spans a wide textural range from
soils high in clay (clayey ecosite) to those with low
clay and moderately high in sand (sandy ecosite),
although nearly half the samples came from Silty
ecosites.

The most common clayey, sandy, and silty
ecological site types targeted for more intensive
sampling contained a wide variety of plant
associations (21, 14 and 21 plant associations each,
respectively). Part of this variety is due to
productivity and succession/disturbance influences
that result in a variety of physiognomic classes.
Clayey ecosites range from forests and woodlands
to shrublands, dwarf- shrublands, herbaceous, and
even sparse vegetation plant associations. Silty
ecosites are almost as diverse with woodlands,
shrublands, shrub herbaceous, and herbaceous
(with both cool-season and warm-season
graminoids dominant) represented. Even for
ecosites with a relatively narrow range of abiotic
site parameters, e.g. Sands, the range included 8
plant associations and 3 structural types. Part of
this variability is inherent in the hierarchical nature
of the NVCS where a physiognomic level in the
classification structure means that succession by
woody species can result in an entirely new P.A..
Variability is also due to the somewhat broader
range of ecological conditions represented in our
database analysis.

Silty Ecosites

Components

Silty, thin (or steep) silty (types sampled are in
bold)

Landscape setting

There are large expanses of this most common type
found on sedimentary plains and other landforms
throughout the region.

Vegetation Analysis and Interpretation

Species correlations with ordination axes for silty
ecosites (Table 4) show patterns related to
ecological site factors, grazing regimes, and other
disturbances. Overall, there is considerable
unexplained variability with the ordination only
accounting for about 68% of the overall vegetation
pattern. The abundance or lack of blue grama and
threadleaf sedge, considered grazing increaser
species, and their strong correlations with
vegetation patterns suggest that grazing is a major
determinant of vegetation composition and
abundance. The total lack of more palatable
grazing species in this table (e.g. green
needlegrass) also supports grazing as an
overwhelming influence on vegetation. Grassland
vegetation responds to grazing in several ways.
Some palatable species decrease in cover or
virtually disappear while other less-palatable
species increase. Bare ground establishment sites
can increase with hoof disturbance or erosion
allowing more resistant species to reproduce and
succeed.

Wyoming big sage also strongly correlates with
vegetation patterns. While sometimes considered
an increasing species under heavy grazing, it has
also been actively controlled in the past because of
a belief that grass production will increase with
sagebrush eradication. Wyoming big sage is slow to
respond to wild or prescribed burns and may take
decades to reoccupy a site.

Slope, aspect and topographic position are strong
determinants of moisture status; these
environmental attributes have long been associated
with vegetation patterns in grasslands. Although
sites with slopes >15% fall into a different ecosite,
there is a continuous relationship operating
throughout the range of possible slopes. Threadleaf
sedge is more resistant to erosion than some other
species, which will help it succeed even on these

flatter sites. Positions high on the landscape, even
if flat, often have a vegetation community different
from sites lower with similar soils. Aspect relates
to insolation and moisture relations; there is a
corresponding change of vegetation communities
with aspect and landscape position.

Clay Ecosites

Components

Clayey, steep (or thin) clayey, dense clay,
shallow clay, clay pan, shale, badlands and coarse
clay (types sampled are in bold)

Landscape setting

Clayey ecological sites are common and widely
distributed throughout the study area. There are
two general landscape settings, lower sedimentary
formations (typically) and small and relatively
uncommon eroded shale highlands.

Vegetation Analysis and Interpretation

The ordination of clayey plots explains almost 75%
of the variation in the data set with only two axes
(Table 5). The lack or abundance of silver sage
and Wyoming big sage dominate the first axis. In
the study area, silver sage was generally in a lower
landscape position with more moisture availability
than Wyoming big sage sites. Some of these sites
are probably similar to overflow sites although they
lack enough overflow characteristics to be mapped
as such in the soil surveys. Overall, this pattern
probably reflects a moisture gradient in addition to
the same factors discussed above regarding
sagebrush establishment, presence, and site
disturbance. Disturbance and subsequent non-
native weed invasion are also reflected in the
presence of cheatgrass as a strong correlate with
axis 2.

The relationship of plant associations to ecological
sites can similarly be viewed as two groups defined
by the dominance of sage. There were six sage
P. As. sampled that, if without sage, would be

similar to corresponding, mostly western
wheatgrass, herbaceous types. The absence of
sage can be due to human control, wildfire
(Wyoming big sage recovers slowly after fire), or
other factors but site factors are not typically
determinant. Western wheatgrass, threadleaf
sedge, and blue grama are the most common
herbaceous species on these sites. Their relative
dominance is often grazing related. Threadleaf
sedge and blue grama tend to increase with more
grazing pressure. Western wheatgrass will
increase with less grazing and on more mesic sites.
The western wheatgrass association represents the
mesic extreme of these sites, which often have
supplemental moisture. One plant association,
western wheatgrass - green needlegrass, was
recorded for these ecological sites in the database
but never sampled. Green needlegrass is very
palatable and not a codominant on any sites where
widespread grazing is permitted.

Few steep clay or shallow clay types were sampled
but tended to have vegetation that reflected the
topographic position more than the clay texture.
Species that never occurred in typical lower
landscape clayey sites like little bluestem became
common and the vegetation was generally much
sparser. The influence of landscape position on the
moisture regime is probably an important vegetation
determinant along with the greater erosion and
higher shale fragment content present at these
sites.

Sandy Ecosites

Components

Sands, sandy, steep (or thin) sandy (types
sampled are in bold)

Landscape setting

Sandy ecosites are relatively common throughout
the study area but less common than the clay or silt
groups. There are two general landscape settings;
sedimentary plains and highlands with resistant
sandstone outcrops and their adjacent depositional
areas.

Vegetation Analysis and Interpretation

Vegetation patterns of sand and sandy ecosite plots
were explained better in the ordination than any
other ecosite group (Table 6). Axis 1 reflects sites
dominated either by prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa
longifolia) or by threadleaf sedge (and soapweed
yucca Yucca glaucd). Both of these rhizomatous
graminoids are strong competitors that, once
established, can largely exclude many other
species. Soapweed yucca and threadleaf sedge are
also typically dominant on steeper eroded sites.
The vegetation pattern corresponds to the two quite
different landscape settings for sandy ecosites.

The species strongly correlated with axis 3 may
relate to the range of soil textures found. The
textural differences between sands and sandy
ecosites was often minimal with correspondingly
close vegetation associations, but other non-
characteristic species did occur on some sites. For
example. Western wheatgrass and blue grama are
more characteristic of finer soils and likely
represent the extreme end of textures that
constitute sandy ecosites, possibly in combination
with other site factors related to moisture regimes.
This axis may also relate to landscape position since
little bluestem occurs on slopes or higher on the
landscape.

The influence of grazing on vegetation composition
did not generally seem as important as landscape
position and plant species dynamics. Higher
landscape positions have several factors that likely
play a role in structuring plant communities
including a poorly developed soil with more soil
fragments and coarser textures, quicker
precipitation run-off, and often less grazing due to
water availability. Patchy vegetation patterns were
especially apparent on these sites, possibly due to
the loose soil and subsequent ease of dominance by
rhizomatous graminoids.

Plant associations corresponded to these influences.
Prairie sandreed associations reflected areas with a
rhizomatous species dominance. Soapweed yucca
and little bluestem association are strongly
associated with higher landscape positions. Needle
and thread {Hesperostipa comata) dominated

associations represent the finer end of the sandy
soil spectrum.

Ecological and Cultural Influences
on Prairie Vegetation

The study area encompassed over 26.7 million
acres, classified into only about 30 ecological sites,
many of which are relatively minor. There are
numerous environmental and cultural factors
influencing vegetation across such a vast area. A
precipitation range of 10" - 14" is considerable and
topographic considerations magnify this difference.
Aspect, slope, and small-scale topographic patterns
resulting in concentrated or diffused runoff all
interact to create a considerable moisture gradient.
Equally critical are cultural influences. Grazing is
extremely temporally and spatially variable with
considerable long-term effects on vegetation. Past
grazing regimes have lasting legacies if state and
transition boundaries are breeched and the
vegetation undergoes a transition that creates a
near permanent disclimax community. The BLM
lands sampled also have a unique land use history
that may not be totally reflective of the vegetation -
ecological site relationship across all ownerships in
the ecoregion

Prairie ecosystems evolved with drought and
disturbance from wildfire and wildlife. The nature
of wild ungulate grazing is fundamentally different
from domestic stock impacts - typically more
concentrated but with longer rest periods. Water
locations are critical; the vegetation in upland areas
far from water likely had a considerably different
disturbance regime than locations near permanent
streams. Water developments have undoubtedly
affected historic plant community dynamics. Many
sites evaluated as good to excellent in the SVIM
assessment were revisited and found in poorer
condition due to water developments and
subsequent concentrations of stock. Wildfire or
prescribed burns have considerable impacts on
vegetation communities. The historic fire regime
has been altered with largely unknown affects.
Woody species have expanded along with
correspondent vegetation community change. We
have had a multi-year drought in this area; these

periodic droughts are normal but can have
considerable vegetation impacts, e.g. forcing a
vegetation change from a mixed - grass prairie to a
short - grass prairie if the drought is severe.

Plant species dynamics are also critical. Climate
interacts with species life history strategies to
create a range of successes for individual plant
species at a site. Plant species prosper if their
reproductive strategy is successful. An annual
species, like cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) , will
thrive if a disturbance regime creates a myriad of
reproductive sites for its numerous seeds to
colonize. Plants with other strategies, like
colonizing a site through rhizomatous spread, can
become dominant after establishment. A period of
drought or abundant rainfall will influence the
success of individual species on specific ecological
sites with considerable long-term consequences.
Shrub establishment, or removal - which has been a
common management technique in the past, also is
important in the dynamics of grass and forb
vegetation. Under certain grazing regimes, shrub
cover provides a refuge for palatable species, but
also create a different environment for herbaceous
species to either prosper or diminish.

In summary, vegetation communities have changed
with the landscape in a myriad of ways. Historical
and cultural influences combine with the inherent
generalization and ecological variability of
ecological sites to allow a wide range of vegetation
communities to occur on a given ecological site.
The considerable variability that we have recorded
on ecological sites that, at least in a general way,
represent uniform abiotic conditions should not be
unexpected. Vegetation communities themselves
are not static entities but represent states that tend
to persist on the landscape until disturbances and
vegetation dynamics push the community to another
state.

State-and'Transition Models

The state-and-transition model, now adopted by the
NRCS and BLM, recognizes that alterations in
plant community composition usually occur in a
gradational and directional manner and may reach a

point, termed a threshold, beyond which significant
amounts of energy are required to return the
composition to some previous point, which may not
be the initial starting point. This model of
community change can be conceptualized with a
box-and-arrow model to represent the various serai
stages and pathways possible under different
disturbance types and intensities.

A recent revision and expansion (DiBenedetto et al.
2003) of an earlier draft version (Jensen et al.
1992) of a Little Missouri National Grasslands
classification employs habitat types (named for
climax plant association) as the primary
classification unit and defines ecological types
within habitat types based on abiotic modifiers,
usually relating to soils but incorporating landscape
variables as well. It also identifies dominance
types, in effect serai stages, which are then
incorporated into box-and-arrow state-and-
transition models. These serai stages are based on
quantitative assessment of empirical data, as
recommended by Allen-Diaz and Bartolome 1998.
We have modified three of the ST models of
DiBenedetto et al. (2003) to accommodate our data
in southeastern Montana (Appendix D).

Conclusion

A specific ecological site can host numerous NVCS
plant associations depending on many ecological
and cultural factors interacting with periodic
precipitation cycles. Grazing, fire, plant species
dynamics, shrub establishment or control, and weed
invasion influence site conditions and the vegetation
community. Additionally, the broad concept of an
ecosite encompasses variation in soil texture,
aspect, slope, and small-scale topography, - all of
which have considerable effects on the vegetation
community. In an arid region the precipitation
differences inherent to our 10" - 14" study area
also encompasses a range that significantly affects
vegetation. We documented this ecological and
cultural variability within ecosites and linked it to
the rich information content of NVCS plant
associations to form a template that managers can
use to evaluate and predict changes in site
conditions.

We found that ecosites at the extremes of the
textural spectrum exhibit less variability due to the
limited ecological niche for plant species. Shallow,
very shallow, and gravelly ecosites were not
accurately mapped in soil surveys and had
vegetation more similar to plant communities found
on the matrix soil texture. Landscape position
within ecosite types also affected vegetation
communities; strongest differences were in the
sand or sandy ecosites occurring at topographic
highs or lower sedimentary plains.

It is impossible to separate cultural effects (e.g.
grazing) from ecological factors like climatic
fluctuations or site variability without a baseline
provided by well-maintained exclosures. Allen-Diaz
and Bartolome (1998) state that we have good
information about the process of rangeland
deterioration, not recovery; what are needed are
more and longer-term studies of community
response. Exclosures inventoried on a 5 to 10 year
cycle and located on the most common ecological
sites replicated across an ecoregion would be
appropriate to detect transitions (West et al. 1979,
Allen-Diaz and Bartolome 1998). More exclosures
are recommended to provide a monitoring baseline
that can be related with the many permanent plots
we established in the major ecosites.

Literature Cited

Allen-Diaz, B. and J. W. Bartolome. 1998.
Sagebrush-grass vegetation dynamics: Comparing
Classical and Stat-Transition models. Ecological
Applications 8(3): 795-804.

Avers, P. E., D. T. Cleland, W. H. McNab, M. E.
Jensen, R. G. Bailey, T. King, C. B. Goudey, and W.
E.Russell. 1994. National hierarchical framework
of ecological units. U. S. Forest Service,
Washington, D.C. USA.

Development and use of state-and-transition models
for rangelands. Journal of Range Management
56(2): 114-126.

Bourgeron, R S., A. M. Kratz, T. Weaver and N.
Weidman. 1988. Bibliography of Montana
vegetation description. The Great Basin Naturalist
48(3): 301-323.

Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant succession: An
analysis of the development of vegetation.
Carnegie Institute of Washington Pub. 242: 1-512.

Cooper, S.V. 2003. Assessment of Kootenai
National Forest Vegetation Types with Potential for
Silene spaldingii in the Tobacco Plains, Rexford
Bench and Salish Range Foothills. Unpublished
report to Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor's
Office. Montana Natural Heritage Program,
Helena, MT. 33pp. plus appendices.

Cooper, S. v., P. Lesica, R. L. DeVelice and J. T.
McGarvey. 1995. Classification of southwestern
Montana plant communities with emphasis on those
of the Dillon Resource Area, Bureau of Land
Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program,
Helena, MT. 152 pp.

Cooper, S.V. and C.Jean. 2001. Wildfire
succession in plant communities natural to the Alkali
Creek vicinity, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife
Refuge, Montana. Unpublished report to the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 32 pp. plus
appendices.

Cooper, S. V, C. Jean and B. L. Heidel. 1999.
Plant associations and related botanical inventory of
the Beaverhead Mountains Section, Montana.
Unpublished report to the Bureau of Land
Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program,
Helena, MT. 235 pp.

Bailey, R. G 1976. Ecoregions of the United
States (map). U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain
Region, Ogden, UT, USA. Scale 1: 7,500,000.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad,
R. Alexander, G Chevez and J. E. Herrick. 2003.

Cooper, S. V, C. Jean and P Hendricks. 2001.
Biological survey of a prairie landscape in
Montana's Glaciated Plains. Unpublished report to
the Bureau of Land Management. Montana
Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 24 pp.
plus appendices.

Cooper, S. V. and B. L. Heidel. 1999. Biodiversity
and representativeness of Research Natural Areas
in Montana. Unpublished report to the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Montana Natural Heritage
Program, Helena, MT. 63 pp. plus appendices.

Cooper, S. and R. Pfister. 1981. Forest habitat
types of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. Review
Draft, 5/21/81, for Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wind
River Agency, Fort Washakie, WY.

Cooper, S. V. and R. D. Pfister. 1985. Forest
habitat types of the Crow and Northern Cheyenne
Indian Reservations. Unpublished termination report
prepared for Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings Area
Office by USDA Forest Service Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
118 pp.

Daubenmire, R. 1966. Vegetation: Identification of
typal communities. Science 151: 291-298.

DiBenedetto, J., F. Heisner, M. Jensen, J. Barber,
T. McGarvey, and L. Spencer. 2003. Mixed grass
prairie ecosystems of the Little Missouri National
Grassland and southwestern North Dakota.
USDA- Forest Service, Custer National Forest and
Dakota Prairie Grasslands, Billings, MT. 250 pp.

DeVelice, R. L., S. V. Cooper, J. T. McGarvey, J.
Lichthardt and P. S. Bourgeron. 1995. Plant
communities of northeastern Montana: A first
approximation. Montana Natural Heritage
Program, Helena, MT. 113 pp.

Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Condition and
management of rangeland based on quantitative
ecology. Journal of Range Management 2:104-105.

FGDC. 1997. National vegetation classification
standard, FGDC-STD-005. USGS Federal
Geographic Data Committee, Reston, VA.

Grossman D.H., Faber-Langendoen D., Weakley
A.S., Anderson M., Bourgeron P., Crawford R.,
Goodin K., Landaal S., Metzler K., Patterson K.D.,
Pyne M., Reid M., and Sneddon L. 1998.
International classification of ecological
communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United
States. Volume I, The National Vegetation
Classification System: development, status, and
applications. The Nature Conservancy: Arlington,
VA.

Hansen, P L. and G R. Hoffman. 1987. The
vegetation of the Grand River/Cedar River, Sioux,
and Ashland Districts of the Custer National Forest:
A habitat type classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-
157. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 68 pp.

Hansen, P L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook,
J. Joy and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification
and management of Montana's riparian and
wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54.
Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of
Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Station.
646 pp.

Heidel, B.L., C.Jean and S.Crispin. 2001. Plant
species of concern and plant associations of
Powder River County, Montana. Report to the
Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 23 pp. plus
appendices.

DeVelice, R. L. and P Lesica. 1993. Plant
community classification for vegetation on BLM
lands , Pry or Mountains, Carbon County, Montana.
Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT.
78 pp.

Jennings, M., O. Loucks, D. Glenn-Lewin, R. Peet,
D. Faber-Langendoen, D. Grossman, A. Damman,
M. Barbour, R. Pfister, M. Walker, S. Talbot, J.
Walker, G Hartshorn, G Waggoner, M. Abrams, A.
Hill, D. Roberts, and D. Tart. 2003. Guidelines for
describing associations and alliances of the U.S.
National Vegetation Classification. The Ecological

Society of America, Vegetation Classification Panel,
Version 3.0 November 2003. 100 pp.
(+Appendices)

Jenny, H. 1961. Derivation of state factor
equations of soils and ecosystems. Proceedings of
the Soil Science Society of America 25: 385-388.

Jensen, M., F. Heisner, J. DiBenedetto, L.
Wessman, G. Phillipe. 1992. Ecological sites and
habitat types of the Little Missouri National
Grasslands and western North Dakota. Custer
National Forest, Billings, MT and USDA-Forest
Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
Unpublished manuscript, not paginated.

Laycock, W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds
of range condition on North American rangelands:
A viewpoint. Journal of Range Management 44:

427-433.

Major, J. 1959. Afunctional, factorial approach to
plant ecology. Ecology 32: 392-412.

McCune, B. & Grace, J.B. 2002. Analysis of
ecological communities. MjM Software Design,
Gleneden Beach, OR, US.

34. Intermountain Forest and Range Station,
Ogden, UT, USA. 175 pp.

Roberts, D. W. 1980. Forest habitat types of the
Bear's Paw Mountains and Little Rocky
Mountains, Montana. Unpublished thesis.
Department of Forestry, University of Montana,
Missoula. 116 pp.

Roberts, D. W., J. L Sibbernsen, and R. D. Pfister.
1979. Forest and woodland habitat types of
northcentral Montana. Volume 2: The Missouri
River Breaks. Unpublished report prepared by
University of Montana, School of Forestry. IFRES
YA-512-CT6-B4. Prepared for the Bureau of Land
Management State Office, Research Division,
Billings, MT. 24 pp.

Society for Range Management, Task Group on
Unity in Concepts and Terminology. 1995. New
concepts for assessment of rangeland condition.
Journal of Range Management 48(3): 271-282.

Tansley, A. J. 1935. The use and abuse of
vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16: 284-
307.

Mueggler, W.F. and W.L Stewart. 1980. Grassland
and shrubland habitat types of western Montana.
USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-66, Int.
For. Range Exp. Sta.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook.
USDA, NRCS, Grazing Lands Technology Institute,
Ft. Worth, TX.

NatureServe. 2003. Ecology ACCESS Reporting
Tool (EcoART), Version 2.7, May 2003.

Pfister, R. D. 1989. Basic concepts of using
vegetation to build a site classification system, pp.
22-28 in: D. E. Ferguson, P. Morgan and F. D.
Johnson, compilers. Proceedings; Land
Classifications Based on Vegetation: Applications
for Resource Management. November 17-19, 1987,
Moscow, ID. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-257. Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Amo, and R.
C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana.
U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.
2000. Montana Key for Ecological Sites. Draft. 7
pp. plus map.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2003. Ecological Site Information System. July 28,
2003. http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/About.aspx

Vanderhorst, J., S. V. Cooper and B. L. Heidel.
1998. Botanical and vegetation survey of Carter
County, Montana. Unpublished report to the
Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 116 pp. plus
appendices.

West, N., K. H. Rea, and R. O. Harniss. 1979.
Plant demographic studies in sagebrush-grass
communities of southeastern Idaho. Ecology 60:
376-388.

Westoby, M. 1980. Elements of a theory of
vegetation dynamics in arid rangelands. Israel
Journal Botany 28: 169-194.

Western Technology and Engineering, Inc. 1 99 1 .
Supplemental vegetation information Bull Mountains
Mine No. 1, 1991. Prepared for: Meridian Mineral
Co., 5613 DTC Parkway, Engelwood, CO.

Westoby, M. 1980. Elements of a theory of
vegetation dynamics in arid rangelands. Israel
Journal of Botany 28: 169-194.

Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989.
Opportunistic management for rangelands not at
equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42(5):
266-274.

AppendixA. Global/State Rank Definitions

Appendix A - 1

Appendix A - 2

Heritage Pro GRAM Ranks

The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote
global (range-wide) and state status. Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 to 5, reflecting
the relative degree to which they are "at-risk". Rank definitions are given below. A number of factors are
considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and distribution of known "occurrences" or populations,
population trends (if known), habitat sensitivity, and threat. Factors in a species' life history that make it
especially vulnerable are also considered (e.g., dependence on a specific pollinator).

Global Rank Definitions (NatureServe 2003)

Gl Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity and/or other factors making it highly

vulnerable to extinction
G2 Imperiled because of rarity and/or other factors making it vulnerable to extinction

G3 Vulnerable because of rarity or restricted range and/or other factors, even though it may

be abundant at some of its locations
G4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery
G5 Demonstrably secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery
Tl-5 Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) — The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or

varieties) are indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' global rank

State Rank Definitions

51 At high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers,
extent and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to extirpation in the state

52 At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or
habitat, making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state

53 Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent
and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas

54 Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually
widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for
long-term concern

55 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its
range). Not vulnerable in most of its range

Combination Ra n k s

G#G# or S#S# Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) used to indicate uncertainty about
the exact status of a taxon

Qualifiers

NR Not ranked

Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority — Distinctiveness of

this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may
result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in
another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher)
conservation status rank

Appendix A - 3

X Presumed Extinct — Species believed to be extinct throughout its range. Not located

despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no
likelihood that it will be rediscovered

H Possibly Extinct — Species known from only historical occurrences, but may never-the-

less still be extant; further searching needed

U Unrankable — Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substan-

tially conflicting information about status or trends

HYB Hybrid — Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species

? Inexact Numeric Rank — Denotes inexact numeric rank

C Captive or Cultivated Only — Species at present is extant only in captivity or cultivation,

or as a reintroduced population not yet established

A Accidental — Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and

outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a
few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the one or two occa-
sions they were recorded

Z Zero Occurrences — Species is present but lacking practical conservation concern in

Montana because there are no definable occurrences, although the taxon is native and
appears regularly in Montana

P Potential — Potential that species occurs in Montana but no extant or historic occurrences

are accepted

R Reported — Species reported in Montana but without a basis for either accepting or

rejecting the report, or the report not yet reviewed locally. Some of these are very recent
discoveries for which the program has not yet received first-hand information; others are
old, obscure reports

SYN Synonym — Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage

Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank

* A rank has been assigned and is under review. Contact the Montana Natural Heritage

Program for assigned rank

B Breeding — Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana

N Nonbreeding — Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana

Appendix A - 4

Appendix B. Photos

Appendix B - 1

Appendix B - 2

1. Clayey ecological site.

4. Clayey ecological site incorrectly
mapped as a shallow.

Appendix B - 3

6. Shallow ecological site.

-il*>

W^. ^^

*<^^^

---^- -^.T^^

^^^iBja^i^

8. Overflow ecological site.

5. Clayey ecological site incorrectly mapped
as a shallow.

7. Very shallow ecological site.

Appendix B - 4

9. Sandy ecological site.

12. Thin (or steep) silty ecological site,

Appendix B - 5

Appendix C. Pl a n t Association and Ec o l o g ic a l Sit e
Correspondence Tables

Appendix C - 1

Appendix C - 2

Appendix C Table 1. Plant associations and corresponding ecological sites listed by Nature Serve for study
ecoregion. Plots are from MTNHP and USFS studies of southeastern MT - Heidel (2001), Vanderhorst et al.
(1997), Hansen and Hoffman (1988). Types with an asterisk were not listed in the study ecoregion but have
been observed.

Plant Association

Element
Code

Ecological Site

Forest Vegetation

Acer negundo / Prunus virginiana Forest

CEGL000628

Fraxinus pennsylvanica / Prunus virginiana Forest

CEGL000642

Insufficient Information to Determine

Pinus ponderosa /Mahonia repens Forest

CEGL000187

Pinus ponderosa /Prunus virginiana Forest

CEGL000192

(Sy, 1); (TSy, 3); (TSi, 1)

Populus deltoides / Cornus sericea Forest

CEGL000657

Populus tremuloides / Mahonia repens Forest

CEGL000594

(Sb, 3); (TSy, 1)

Populus tremuloides 1 Tall Forbs Forest

CEGL000618

Woodland Vegetation

Juniperus scopulorum / Piptatherum micranthum Woodland

CEGL000747

(TSi, 2); (TCy, 1): (Sw) to (St) 3

Juniperus scopulorum / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

CEGL000748

(SwC) to (Si-St) 4

Pinus ponderosa / (Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium
scoparium) Woodland

CEGL000641

Pinus ponderosa / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Woodland

CEGL000849

(Sa, 1); (Sy, 1); (TSy, 1)

Pinus ponderosa / Cornus sericea Woodland

CEGL000955

Pinus ponderosa / Crataegus douglasii Woodland

CEGL000855

Pinus ponderosa / Festuca idahoensis Woodland

CEGL000857

(Sy, 1); (Si, 1)

Pinus ponderosa /Juniperus communis Woodland

CEGL000859

(TSy,3): (TSi, 1)

Pinus ponderosa /Juniperus horizontalis Woodland

CEGL000860

(TSy, 1)

Pinus ponderosa /Juniperus scopulorum Woodland

CEGL000861

Pinus ponderosa / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

CEGL000865

(Sw) to (St) & (Gr) 3:(Sw, 1); (TSy, 2);
(SiCl, 1)

Pinus ponderosa / Schizachyrium scoparium Woodland

CEGL000201

Populus angustifolia / Cornus sericea Woodland

CEGL002664

Salix amygdaloides Woodland

CEGL000947

Populus deltoides / Symphoricarpos occidentalis Woodland*

CEGL000660

(RSb, 2)

Quercus macro carpa / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Woodland*

CEGL000554

(Cy, 1)

Quercus macrocarpa / Prunus virginiana - Symphoricarpos
occidentalis Woodland*

CEGL002138

(Cy, 1)

Shrubland Vegetation

Artemisia cana / Pascopyrum smithii Shrubland

CEGL001072

Artemisia tridentata (wyomingensis?) - Atrip lex confertifolian
Shrubland

CEGL000993

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana / Pseudoroegneria spicata
Shrubland

CEGL001030

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Bouteloua gracilis
Shrubland

CEGL001041

(Cy, 1)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Carex filifolia Shrubland

CEGL001042

(Cy, 1); (Si, 2)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pseudoroegneria spicata
Shrubland

CEGL001009

Crataegus douglasii - (Crataegus chrysocarpa) Shrubland

CEGL001093

Appendix C - 3

Table 1 - Continued

Plant Association

Element
Code

Ecological Site

Shrubland Vegetation (Continued)

Crataegus succulenta Shrubland

CEGL001097

Elaeagnus commutata / Pascopyrum smithii Shrubland

CEGL001099

Prunus virginiana - (Prunus americana) Shrubland

CEGL001108

Rosa woodsii Shrubland

CEGL001126

(RM, 1)

Salix bebbiana Shrubland

CEGL001173

Salix exigua Temporarily Flooded Shrubland

CEGL001197

Sarcobatus vermiculatus - Artemisia tridentata Shrubland

CEGL001359

Sarcobatus vermiculatus / Atriplex gardneri Shrubland

CEGL001360

Sarcobatus vermiculatus / Leymus cinereus Shrubland

CEGL001361

Sarcobatus vermiculatus / Pseudoroegneria spicata Shrubland

CEGL001367

Shepherdia argentea Shrubland

CEGL001128

Symphoricarpos occidentalis Shrubland

CEGL001131

Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Artemisia cana ssp. cana / Hesperostipa comata Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001553

Artemisia cana ssp. cana / Pascopyrum smithii Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001556

(Si, 7);(Cy,4);(TCy, 1)

Artemisia tridentata (ssp. tridentatata, ssp. xericensis) /
Pseudoroegneria spicata Shrub Herbaceous

CEGL001018

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pascopyrum smithii Shrub
Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001047

(Cy, 9); (Si,15); (TSi, 2):(SiCl, 1);(CP, 1)

Artemisia tridentata ssp.wyomingensis / Pseudoroegneria spicata
Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001535

(Si, 1); (TSy, 1); (TSi, 1)

Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda / Festuca idahoensis Shrub
Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001502

Rhus trilobata / Carex filifolia Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001504

(Sw to St, 4)

Rhus trilobata / Festuca idahoensis Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001505

(St, 2)

Rhus trilobata / Pseudoroegneria spicata Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001120

(SiSt, 3); (St, 2)

Rhus trilobata / Schizachyrium scoparium Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001506

Sarcobatus vermiculatus / Pascopyrum smithii - (Elymus lanceolatus)
Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001508

(Si, 2); (Cy, 4)

Yucca glauca / Calamovilfa longifolia Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL002675

(Sa, 1); (TSy, 1)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Opuntia polyacantha
Shrubland*

(Cy, 2)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Hesperostipa comata
Shrubland*

CEGL001051

(Si, 1)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua curtipendula -Bouteloua
hirsuta {Yucca glauca) Herbaceous Veg.*

CEGL002035

(St, l);(Sy, l);(SwG, 1)

Rhus trilobata / Muhlenbergia cuspidata Shrub Herbaceous*

Dasiphora fruticosa ss^p. floribunda / Schizachyrium scoparium
Shrub Herbaceous*

CEGL002198

Dwarf-Shrubland Vegetation

Artemisia pedatifida - Atriplex gardneri Dwarf-Shrubland

CEGL001525

Atriplex gardneri - Artemisia tridentata Dwarf-shrubland

CEGL001440

Atriplex gardneri / Pascopyrum smithii Dwarf-shrubland

CEGL001445

(Cy, 3)

Appendix C - 4

Table 1 - Continued

Plant Association

Element
Code

Ecological Site

Dwarf-Shrubland Vegetation (Continued)

Juniperus horizontalis / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Dwarf-shrubland

CEGL001393

(TSy,7)

Juniperus horizontalis / Schizachyrium scoparium Dwarf-shrubland

CEGL001394

Krascheninnikovia lanata / Hesperostipa comata Dwarf-shrubland

CEGL001327

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba / Pascopyrum smithiiDwarf-
shrubland*

CEGL001415

Herbaceous Vegetation

Agrostis stolonifera Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001558

Andropogon gerardii - Schizachyrium scoparium Western Great
Plains Herbaceous Veg.

CEGL001463

Andropogon hallii - Calamovilfa longifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001467

(Sy, 1)

Andropogon hallii - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001466

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001471

(Sa, 1); (Sy,2); (TSy, 2)

Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001813

Carex utriculata Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001562

Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001599

Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001770

Eleocharis palustris Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001833

(OV, 1)

Festuca idahoensis - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001610

(Sy, 4);(Si, 4)

Festuca idahoensis - Pascopyrum smithii Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001621

Glyceria borealis Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001569

Hesperostipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia
Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL002037

(Cy, 1); (Sa, 5); (Sy, 9); (SwG, 1); (Si,8)

Hesperostipa comata - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001700

Hesperostipa comata - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001701

(Sa, 1), (Sy, 5),(Si, 1)

Hordeum jubatum Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001798

Juncus balticus Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001838

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001579

(OV, l);(Si, 4);(Cy, 1)

Pascopyrum smithii - Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001580

Pascopyrum smithii - Eleocharis spp. Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001581

(Cy, 2)

Pascopyrum smithii - Hordeum jubatum Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001582

Pascopyrum smithii - Nasella viridula Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001583

(Cy, 3);(OV, 1); (Sy, 2); (Si, 6)

Pascopyrum smithii Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001577

(Cy, 4);(Si, 1)

Phalaris arundinacea Western Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001474

Phragmites australis Western North America Semi-natural
Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001475

Poa palustris Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001659

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Bouteloua curtipendula Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001663

(Tsi, 2); (SySt, 1)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001665

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Pascopyrum smihtii Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001675

(Tsi, 1)

Appendix C - 5

Table 1 - Continued

Plant Association

Element
Code

Ecological Site

Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Poa secunda Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001677

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) -
Carex filifolia Herbaceous Veg.

CEGL001581

(Sa 2); (Sy, 9); (Si, 4); (SiCl, 2); (TSy, 4);
(TSi, 1)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001682

(Si, l);(TSy, 1)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Muhlenbergia cuspidata Herbaceous
Vegetation

CEGL001683

Schoenoplectus maritimus Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001843

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Temperate Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL002623

Spartina pectinata - Carex spp. \lerbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001477

Spartina pectinata - Schoenoplectus Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001478

Spartina pectinata Western Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001476

(RM, 1)

Sporobolus cryptandrus Herbaceous Vegetation

CEGL001514

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL001470

(Sa, 1); (Si, 1)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Stipa comata Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL001473

(Sy,2);(Sa,4)

Eleocharis acicularis Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL001832

(WM, 1)

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL001578

(Cy, l);(Si, 1)

Pascopyrum smithii - Buchloe dactyloides - {Phyla cuneifolia,
Oenothera canescens) Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL002038

(Cy, 2); (Si, 10)

Pascopyrum smithii - Poa secunda Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGLMTHP62

(Si, 1)

Pascopyrum smithii - Hesperostipa comata Central Mixedgrass
Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL002034

(Cy, l);(Sy,6);(Si, 8)

Pascopyrum smithii - {Carex stenophylla) Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGLMTHP61

(Si, 1)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous
Vegetation*

CEGL001664

(Si, 2)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Stipa comata Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL001679

(Sy, 2)

Puccinellia nuttalliana Herbaceous Vegetation*

CEGL001799

Sparse Vegetation

Artemisia longifolia - Calamovilfa longifolia Sparse Vegetation

CEGL001521

Artemisia longifolia Sparse Vegetation*

CEGL001520

(SwC, 1)

Eriogonum pauciflorum - Gutierrezia sarothrae Badlands Sparse
Vegetation*

CEGL005270

(SwC, 2); (Cy, 4)

Appendix C - 6

Appendix C Table 2. Plant associations occurring on ecological site in the study area. Plots are from MTNHP and
USFS studies of southeastern MT - Heidel (2001), Vanderhorst et al. (1997), Hansen and Hoffman (1988).
Lifeform codes: FW = Forest or woodland; H = Herbaceous Vegetation; SV = Sparse vegetation; S = Shrubland;
SH = Shrub Herbaceous; SD = Dwarf- shrubland

Ecological Site Types

Life-
form

Plant Associations

Clay, Coarse (CC)

None clearly identified

Clay, Dense (DC)

None clearly identified

Clay Pan (CP)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pascopyrum smithii Shrubland

Clay, Shallow (SwC)

Juniperus scopulorum / Oryzopsis micrantha Woodland

Clay, Shallow (SwC)

Juniperus scopulorum / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

Clay, Shallow (SwC)

Artemisia longifolia Sparse Vegetation

Clay, Shallow (SwC)

Eriogonum pauciflorum - Gutierrezia sarothrae Badlands Sparse
Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Quercus macrocarpa / Prunus virginiana - Symphoricarpos occidentalis
Woodland

Clayey (Cy)

Quercus macrocarpa / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Woodland

Clayey (Cy)

Artemisia cana/NO FIT W/ EXISTING NVCS: Highly dist.

Clayey (Cy)

Artemisia carta ssp. cana / Pascopyrum smithii Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Bouteloua gracilis Shrubland

Clayey (Cy)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Carex filifolia Shrubland

Clayey (Cy)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Opuntia polyacantha Shrubland

Clayey (Cy)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pascopyrum smithii Shrubland

Clayey (Cy)

Sarcobatus vermiculatus / Pascopyrum smithii - (Elymus lanceolatus)
Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Atriplex gardneri / Pascopyrum smithii Dwarf-shrubland

Clayey (Cy)

Agropyron cristatum - {Pascopyrum smithii, Stipa comata) Semi-natural
Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous
Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Buchloe dactyloides - {Phyla cuneifolia, Oenothera
canescens) Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Eleocharis spp. Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Nassella viridula Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Stipa comata Central Mixedgrass Herbaceous
Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Pascopyrum smithii Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Stipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Clayey (Cy)

Eriogonum pauciflorum - Gutierrezia sarothrae Badlands Sparse
Vegetation

Clayey, Thin (TCy) = Clayey Steep
(CyStp)

Clayey, Thin (TCy)

Artemisia cana ssp. cana / Pascopyrum smithii Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

Appendix C - 7

Table 2 - Continued

Ecological Site Types

Life-
form

Plant Associations

Gravel (Gr)

Pinus ponderosa / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

Meadow, Riparian (RM)

Rosa woodsii Shrubland

Meadow, Riparian (RM):

Spartina pectinata Western Herbaceous Vegetation

Meadow, Wet (WM)

Eleocharis acicularis Herbaceous Vegetation

Overflow (OV)

Eleocharis palustris Herbaceous Vegetation

Overflow (OV)

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous
Vegetation

Overflow (OV)

Pascopyrum smithii - Nassella viridula Herbaceous Vegetation

Riparian Subirrigated (RSb)

Populus deltoides / Symphoricarpos occidentalis Woodland

Saline, Lowland (SL)

None clearly identified

Saline, Upland (SU)

None clearly identified

Sands (Sa)

Pinus ponderosa / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Woodland

Sands (Sa)

Yucca glauca / Calamovilfa longifolia Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Sands (Sa)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sands (Sa)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

Sands (Sa)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Stipa comata Herbaceous Vegetation

Sands (Sa)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) - Carex
filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sands (Sa)

Stipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sands (Sa)

Stipa comata - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Pinus ponderosa / Prunus virginiana Forest

Sandy (Sy)

Pinus ponderosa / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Woodland

Sandy (Sy)

Pinus ponderosa / Festuca idahoensis Woodland

Sandy (Sy)

Andropogon hallii - Calamovilfa longifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Stipa comata Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Festuca idahoensis - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Nassella viridula Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Pascopyrum smithii - Stipa comata Central Mixedgrass Herbaceous
Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Stipa comata Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) - Carex
filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua curtipendula -Bouteloua hirsuta
(Yucca glauca) Herbaceous Veg.

Appendix C - 8

Table 2 - Continued

Ecological Site Types

Life-
form

Plant Associations

Sandy (Sy) continued

Sandy (Sy)

Stipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy (Sy)

Stipa comata - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy, Thin (TSa) = Sandy, Steep
(SyStp)

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Pinus ponderosa / Prunus virginiana Forest

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Populus tremuloides / Mahonia repens Forest

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Pinus ponderosa / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Woodland

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Pinus ponderosa / Juniperus communis Woodland

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Pinus ponderosa /Juniperus horizontalis Woodland

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Pinus ponderosa / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pseudoroegneria spicata
Shrubland

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Juniperus horizontalis / Carex inops ssp. heliophila Dwarf-shrubland

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Yucca glauca / Calamovilfa longifolia Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) - Carex
filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Sandy, Thin (TSa)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

Shallow (Sw)

Juniperus scopulorum / Oryzopsis micrantha Woodland

Shale (SH)

None clearly identified

Shallow (Sw)

Pinus ponderosa /Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

Shallow (Sw)

Rhus trilobata / Carex filifolia Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Shallow to Gravel (SwG)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua curtipendula -Bouteloua hirsuta
(Yucca glauca) Herbaceous Veg.

Shallow to Gravel (SwG)

Stipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Shallow, Very (VS)

None clearly identified

Silty (Si)

Pinus ponderosa / Festuca idahoensis Woodland

Silty (Si)

Artemisia cana ssp. cana / Pascopyrum smithii Shrub Herbaceous
Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Carex filifolia Shrubland

Silty (Si)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pascopyrum smithii S\\v\xh\2in&

Silty (Si)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pseudoroegneria spicata
Shrubland

Silty (Si)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Stipa comata Shrubland

Silty (Si)

Calamovilfa longifolia - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Festuca idahoensis - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - {Carex stenophylla) Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous
Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation

Appendix C - 9

Table 2 - Continued

Ecological Site Types

Life-
form

Plant Associations

Silty (Si) continued

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - Buchloe dactyloides - {Phyla cuneifolia, Oenothera
canescens) Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - Nassella viridula Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - Poa secunda Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii - Stipa comata Central Mixedgrass Herbaceous
Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pascopyrum smithii Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) - Carex
filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous
Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Stipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty (Si)

Stipa comata - Carex inops ssp. heliophila Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty, Coarse (SiCo)

Pinus ponderosa / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

Silty, Coarse (SiCo)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pascopyrum smithii Shvubland

Silty, Coarse (SiCo)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) - Carex
filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty, Saline (SiSal)

None clearly identified

Silty, Stony (SiSt)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Bouteloua curtipendula Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty, Stony (SiSt)

Rhus trilobata / Pseudoroegneria spicata Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty, Thin (TSi) = Silty Steep (SyStp)

Silty, Thin (TSi)

P inus ponderosa / Prunus virginiana Forest

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Juniperus scopulorum / Oryzopsis micrantha Woodland

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Pinus ponderosa / Juniperus communis Woodland

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pascopyrum smithii Shruhland

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis / Pseudoroegneria spicata
Shrubland

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Bouteloua curtipendula Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Pseudoroegneria spicata - Pascopyrum smithii Herbaceous Vegetation

Silty, Thin (TSi)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis) - Carex
filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation

Stony (St)

Rhus trilobata / Pseudoroegneria spicata Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Stony (St)

Rhus trilobata / Carex filifolia Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Stony (St)

Juniperus scopulorum /Oryzopsis micrantha Woodland

Stony (St)

Pinus ponderosa / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland

Stony (St)

Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua curtipendula -Bouteloua hirsuta
(Yucca glauca) Herbaceous Veg.

Stony (St)

Rhus trilobata / Festuca idahoensis Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Stream Terrace (ST)

None clearly identified

Subirrigated (Sb)

Populus tremuloides / Mahonia repens Forest

Appendix C - 10

Appendix C Table 3. Species of Concern that occur within MLRA 58A.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Global
Rank

State
Rank

BLM Status

Baird's Sparrow

Ammodramus bairdii

S2B

SENSITIVE

Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

SPECIAL STATUS

Barr's Milkvetch

Astragalus barrii

S2S3

WATCH

Beaked Spikerush

Eleocharis rostellata

WATCH

Beautiful Fleabane

Erigeron formosissimus

WATCH

Birchleaf Mountain-mahogany

Cercocarpus montanus var. glaber

G5T3T5

S1S2

WATCH

Bird Rookery

Bird rookery

SNR

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Cynomys ludovicianus

SENSITIVE

Blue Sucker

Cycleptus elongatus

G3G4

S2S3

SENSITIVE

Bractless Mentzelia

Mentzelia nuda

WATCH

Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia

S2B

SENSITIVE

Common Tern

Sterna hirundo

S3B

Crawe's Sedge

Carex crawei

SENSITIVE

Double Bladderpod

Physaria brassicoides

Drummond's Hemicarpha

Hemicarpha drummondii

G4G5

Dwarf Woolly-heads

Psilocarphus brevissimus

WATCH

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis

S2B

SENSITIVE

Forster's Tern

Sterna forsteri

S2B

Giant Helleborine

Epipactis gigantea

G3G4

WATCH

Gray's Milkvetch

Astragalus grayi

G4?

Greater Sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus

SENSITIVE

Interior Least Tern

Sterna antillarum athalassos

G4T2Q

SIB

SPECIAL STATUS

Joe-pye Weed

Eupatorium maculatum

WATCH

Large Flowered Beardtongue

Penstemon grandiflorus

G5?

Lead Plant

Amorpha canescens

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

S3B

SENSITIVE

Longleaf Dropseed

Sporobolus asper

WATCH

Meadow Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius

Merriam's Shrew

So rex merriami

Milk Snake

Lampropeltis triangulum

SENSITIVE

Mountain Plover

Charadrius montanus

S2B

SENSITIVE

Musk-root

Adoxa moschatellina

WATCH

Nannyberry

Viburnum lentago

Narrowleaf Milkweed

Asclepias stenophylla

G4G5

WATCH

Narrowleaf Penstemon

Penstemon angustifolius

WATCH

New Jersey Tea

Ceanothus herbaceus

WATCH

Nine-anther Dalea

Dalea enneandra

WATCH

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

SENSITIVE

Northern Redbelly X Finescale Dace

Phoxinus eos x phoxinus neogaeus

GNA

SENSITIVE

Nuttall Desert-parsley

Lomatium nuttallii

WATCH

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus

S2B

SENSITIVE

Persistent-sepal Yellow-cress

Rorippa calycina

WATCH

Appendix C - 11

Table 3 - Continued

Common Name

Scientific Name

Global
Rank

State
Rank

BLM Status

Plains Phlox

Phlox andicola

WATCH

Plains Phlox

Phlox andicola

WATCH

Preble's Shrew

Sorex preblei

Pregnant Sedge

Car ex gravida

WATCH

Raceme Milkvetch

Astragalus racemosus

Roundleaf Water-hyssop

Bacopa rotundifolia

WATCH

Sand Cherry

Prunus pumila

Schweinitz' Flatsedge

Cyperus schweinitzii

WATCH

Scribner's Panic Grass

Dichanthelium oligosanthes var. scribnerianum

G5T5

WATCH

Silky Prairie Clover

Dalea villosa

WATCH

Slender-branched Popcorn-flower

Plagiobothrys leptocladus

WATCH

Small Dropseed

Sporobolus neglectus

WATCH

Smooth Goosefoot

Chenopodium subglabrum

G3G4

WATCH

Snapping Turtle

Chelydra serpentina

SENSITIVE

Spiny Softshell

Apalone spinifera

SENSITIVE

Spotted Bat

Euderma maculatum

SENSITIVE

Sturgeon Chub

Macrhybopsis gelida

SENSITIVE

Swamp Milkweed

Asclepias incarnata

Swift Fox

Vulpes velox

SENSITIVE

Townsend's Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

SENSITIVE

Western Hognose Snake

Heterodon nasicus

SENSITIVE

White-bract Stickleaf

Mentzelia montana

White-tailed Prairie Dog

Cynomys leucurus

SENSITIVE

Woolly Twinpod

Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata

G5T2

Appendix C - 12

State & Transition Diagram:
Pascopyrum smithii {PASSM\) -Nasella wr/c/i//a(NASVIR) Herbaceous Vegetation Plant Association

LTPG

STATE 1: IVIid-Grass w/ reduced intensity/
duration perturbations

PASSMI - NASVIR

^ pn

LTCG

' t '

CG 1 LTD,
PG DR

i 1 i

PASSMI -BOUGRA

k i

PASSMI -CSMG

LTCG

LTD DR

LTCC

. '? /

LTD, DR

PASSMI -CSSG

C, E

i
D

RSN

HGG, ED

LTCG

PG —

STATE 2: Drier Ecological Sites
w/in association

HESCOM w/CSSG

(e.g. HESCOM - CARFIL - BOUGRA C.T.)

1 r

CEG

J L

HESCOM -BOUGRA C.T.

STATE 3: Short graminoid dominance/structure

BOUGRA D.T

HCD,
CEG, ED

CSSG

HCG, ED

SELDEN D.T.

BROJAP D.T.

STATE 4: Crested wheatgrass
(AGRCRI)

PG, PMNGT

AGRCRI

(MONOSPECIFIC
DOMINANCE)

AGRCRI

(W/ MIDGRASSSPP.)

(

:eg

AGRCRI

(W/SHORT-
GRAMINOID SPP.)

broined.t.

Key to abbreviations in diagram (alphabetically arranged).

CEG: Continuous early season grazing ED: Excessive defoliation PG: Prescribed grazing w/ adequate recovery

CG: Continuous grazing w/o adequate recovery HCG: Heavy continuous grazing PMMGT: Pasture management

CSMG: Cool season, mid-grasses (graminoids) LTCG: Long term continuous grazing RS: Range seeding, drilling

CSSG: Cool season, short graminoids LTD: Long term drought RSN: Range seeding w/ native graminoids

DR: Drought recovery

LTPG: Long term PG (> 20 yrs.]

VLTPG: Very long term PG (> 40 yrs.]

Appendix D-2

State & Transition Diagram:
Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis (ARTTSW) / Pascopyrum smitliii (PASSMI)

Shrubland Plant Association

Note: In any State diagram below ELYLAN can substitute for PASSMI, though
they are not necessarily presumed to be ecological analogues.

State 1 : Slirub- lUlid-grass w/ reduced intensity/ duration
perturbations

ARTCSC / PASSMI

HCPC w/NASVIR &
mesic graminoids as
important components

1 f

CG,ED

1 L

ARTCSC / HESCOM

CG, ED, HOG

ARTCSC /CSMG

e.g. POAPRA, KOEMAC

ARTCSC/ PASSMI w/

loss of mesic graminoids
and short graminoids, esp.
BOUGRA ascendent:

FiR

PASSMI -NASVIR(w/ no or

reduced grazing)

w/ moderate to intensive grazing
PASSMI -HESCOM or
PASSMI - BOUGRA - CARFIL
or PASSMI -BUGDAG or
CSMS or replace/add ELYLAN
for/to PASSMI

FiR

CHRNAU /BOUGRA or any

combination of CSSG & CSMG

HCG, ED

HCG,

CEG,

LTPG

State 2: Slirub w/
short graminoids

ARTCSC / BOUGRA

C. T. w/ or w/o annual -
perennial weeds, esp.
BROJAP

HCG, ED

ARTCSC / BROJAP or

other annual/perennial
weeds

VLTPG

State 3: Short Grass w/ & w/o Invasives

BOUGRA D. T.

(poss. Including annual,
esp. BROJAP &
perennial weeds)l

BOUGRA w/ CSSG

(including BUCDAC,
CARFIL, CARINO,

HCG, ED

State 3: Non-Native
Undergrowth,

ARTCSS/w/AGRCRI,
BROINE, POAPRA

State 4: Fire Exclusion on
most mesic sites:

ARTCSC - SYMOCC w/

mesic araminoids

Key to abbreviations in diagram (alphabetically arranged).

CEG: Continuous early season grazing

CG: Continuous grazing w/o adequate recovery

CSMG: Cool season, mid-grasses (graminoids)

CSSG: Cool season, short graminoids

DR: Drought recovery

ED: Excessive defoliation

Fi: Fire (wildfire & prescribed)

FE: Fire exclusion

HCG: Heavy continuous grazing

LTCG: Long term continuous grazinng

LTD: Long term drought

LTPG: Long term PG (> 20 yrs.)

PG: Prescribed grazing w/ adequate recovery

PMMGT: Pasture management

PFiR: Post fire recovery

RS: Range seeding, drilling

RSN: Range seeding w/ native graminoids

VLTPG: Very long term PG (> 40 yrs.)

Appendix D-5

Appendix E. Relationship Diagrams of Plant Associations with
Key Environmental Factors for Primary Ecological Site Groups

Boxes with bold lines indicate that slope is a primary determinant for these plant associations. Plant associations within
one box occur in similar environmental settings. All plant association locations within a diagram are approximate.

Appendix E - 1

Appendix E - 2

Sands Ecological Site

Ponderosa Pine / Sun Sedge Woodland

C/5

O
Oh

o
>

o
o

^— >

Bluebunch Wheatgrass / Needle and Thread Grassland

Little Bluestem / Grama / Threadleaf Sedge Grassland

Prairie sandreed / Needle and Thread
Grassland

Needle and Thread / Blue Grama /
Threadleaf Sedge Grassland

Needle and Thread / Sun Sedge
Grassland

Soap weed Yucca / Prairie Sandreed Shrubland

Prairie Sandreed / Sun sedge / Threadleaf
Sedge Grassland

Finer Soil Texture

Appendix E - 3

Sandy Ecological Site

c/5
O

§^

o
>

o
o

Ponderosa Pine / Chokecherry Forest

Ponderosa Pine / Sun Sedge Woodland

Ponderosa Pine / Idaho Fescue Woodland

Idaho Fescue / Sun Sedge Grassland

Western Wheatgrass
/ Green Needlegrass
Grassland

Bluebunch Wheatgrass / Needle and Thread Grassland

Little Bluestem / Grama / Threadlear Sedge Grassland

Western Wheatgrass
/ Needle and Thread
Grassland

Needle and Thread / Blue Grama /
Threadleaf Sedge Grassland

Needle and Thread / Sun Sedge
Grassland

Prairie Sandreed / Needle and Thread
Grassland

Little Bluestem / Sideoats Grama / Hairy
Grama / Soapweed Yucca Grassland

Prairie sandreed / Sun sedge / Threadleaf Sedge
Grassland

Sand bluestem / Prairie
Sandreed Grassland

Finer Soil Texture

Appendix E - 4

Thin Sandy Ecological Site

Trembling Aspen / Creeping Barberry Forest

Ponderosa Pine / Chokecherry Forest

Ponderosa Pine / Sun Sedge Woodland

c/5
O
Oh
CJ
Oh

O
>

o
o

2i
3

c/5

Ponderosa Pine / Common Juniper Woodland

Ponderosa Pine / Horizontal Juniper Woodland
Ponderosa Pine / Bluebunch Wheatgrass Woodland

Rocky Mountain Juniper / Little-seed Mountain Ricegrass Woodland

Wyoming Big Sage / Bluebunch Wheatgrass Shrubland

Horizontal Juniper / Sun Sedge Dwarf Shrubland

Little Bluestem / Grama / Threadleaf Sedge Grassland

Prairie Sandreed / Sun Sedge Grassland

Soapweed Yucca / Prairie Sandreed Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Finer Soil Texture

Appendix E - 5

Silty Ecological Site

Western Wheatgrass Grassland

c/3
O
Oh

O
>

o
o

Oh
O

^
^

Ponderosa Pine / Idaho Fescue Woodland

Western Wheatgrass - Green
Needlegrass Grassland

Idaho Fescue - Sun Sedge Grassland

Silver Sage / Western Wheatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

Western Wheatgrass / Needle and Thread Grassland
Wyoming Big Sage / Needle and Thread Grassland
Shrubland

Western Wheatgrass /
Sandberg Bluegrass
Grassland

Western Wheatgrass / Blue Grama / Threadleaf Sedge Grassland
Wyoming Big Sage / Western Wheatgrass Shrubland
Western Wheatgrass / Blue Grama Grassland
Western Wheatgrass / Buffalo Grass Grassland
Western Wheatgrass / Needleleaf Sedge Grassland

Little Bluestem / Grama / Threadleaf Sedge Grassland
Little Bluestem / Sun Sedge Grassland
Wyoming Big Sage / Little Bluestem Shrubland
Wyoming Big Sage / Threadleaf Sedge Shrubland

Bluebunch Wheatgrass / Blue Grama Grassland

Needle and Thread / Blue Grama / Threadleaf Sedge Grassland

Needle and Thread / Sun Sedge Grassland

Prairie Sandreed / Threadleaf Sedge
Grassland

Finer Soil Texture

Appendix E - 6

Thin Silty Ecological Site

Ponderosa Pine / Chokecherry Woodland

Ponderosa Pine / Common Juniper Woodland

C/5

O
Oh

O
>

o
o

Rocky Mountain Juniper / Littleseed Ricegrass

Wyoming Big Sage / Western Wheatgrass Shrubland
Little Bluestem - Grama - Threadleaf Sedge Grassland
Bluebunch Wheatgrass - Western Wheatgrass Grassland

Bluebunch Wheatgrass - Sideoats Grama Grassland
Wyoming Big Sage / Bluebunch Wheatgrass Shrubland
Wyoming Big Sage / Needle and Thread Grassland Shrubland

Finer Soil Texture

Appendix E - 7

Clayey Ecological Site

Western Wheatgrass / Spikerush Grassland

Western Wheatgrass Grassland

Western Wheatgrass / Green Needlegrass Grassland

Silver Sage / Western Wheatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation

c/5
O
Oh

o
o

Western Wheatgrass / Needle and Thread Grassland

Needle and Thread / Blue Grama / Threadleaf
Sedge Grassland

Greasewood /Western W heatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation (Saline Soils)
Saltbush / Western Wheatgrass Dwarf Shrubland (Saline Soils)

Western Wheatgrass / Blue Grama / Threadleaf Sedge Grassland

Wyoming Big Sage / Western Wheatgrass Shrubland

Western Wheatgrass / Blue Grama Grassland

Wyoming Big Sage / Threadleaf Sedge Shrubland

Western Wheatgrass / Buffalo Grass Grassland

Blue Grama Grassland (Grazing Disclimax)

Wyoming Big Sage / Prickly Pear Shrubland (Grazing Disclimax)

Wyoming Big Sage / Blue Grama Shrubland (Grazing Disclimax)

Few flowered buckwheat / Broom
Snakeweed Badlands Sparse
Vegetation

Finer Soil Texture

Appendix E - 8

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Linking the National Vegetation Classification System to NRCS ecological sites in southeastern Montana"

See other formats