Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F043BP903MT

Shallow Cool Woodland Group

Last updated: 3/01/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 043B / Ecological site F043BP903MT

USC

Metric

General information

Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.

MLRA notes

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 043B–Central Rocky Mountains

The Central Rocky Mountains (MLRA 43B) of Montana occupy some 28,850 square miles and exist primarily in Central and SW portions of the state. The climate is extremely variable with precipitation lows of 9 to 100 inches per year and frost-free days of less than 30 to over 110 days. The geology of the region is also highly variable. The combination of variable climate and geology create a complex relationship of plant communities. MLRA 43B elevations typically exist between 6000 and 12,799 at Granite Peak (the highest point in Montana).

The Continental Divide runs through this MLRA effectively splitting its watershed to contribute to either the Missouri River to the East and the Columbia River to the West.

Ecological site concept

• Dominant Cover: Forest (both conifer and deciduous)
• Site does not receive any additional water
• Soils are
o Not saline or saline-sodic
o Not strongly or violently effervescent within surface mineral 4”
o Soil is shallow (less than 20in (50cm) to bedrock, lithic, or paralithic root restriction)
o Soil is not ashy or medial textural family
o Stones and boulders cover <15% surface area
• Soil surface texture variable from loam to sandy loam (often cobbly or gravelly)
• Site Landforms: Mountain slopes, escarpments, ridges
• Area of rugged mountain, hills, plateaus, and valleys of the Central Rocky Mountains in Southwest Montana
• Parent material is colluvium, colluvium over residuum, residuum
• Moisture Regime: ustic to udic
• Temperature Regime: cryic and frigid, cool
• Elevation Range: 3800-9050 ft
• Slope: 2-30% (typically less than 15%)

Associated sites

F043BP910MT	Upland Cool Woodland Group The Upland Cool Woodland site is adjacent to the Shallow Cool Woodland however tending to be lower on the landscape where soils tend to be deeper. These two sites share similar plant communities and state and transition models.

F043BP910MT

Upland Cool Woodland Group

The Upland Cool Woodland site is adjacent to the Shallow Cool Woodland however tending to be lower on the landscape where soils tend to be deeper. These two sites share similar plant communities and state and transition models.

Similar sites

F043BP910MT	Upland Cool Woodland Group The Upland Cool Woodland site is adjacent to the Shallow Cool Woodland however tending to be lower on the landscape where soils tend to be deeper. These two sites share similar plant communities and state and transition models.

F043BP910MT

Upland Cool Woodland Group

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Pseudotsuga menziesii (2) Abies lasiocarpa
Shrub	(1) Vaccinium membranaceum (2) Symphoricarpos oreophilus
Herbaceous	(1) Calamagrostis rubescens (2) Carex geyeri

Download full description

Physiographic features

Site is shallow to bedrock that exists on mountain slopes, ridges, and escarpments. Typically site exists on the upper third of the landform. Site is quite variable in slope from 2 to 30 percent; however, slope is rarely greater than 15 percent. The site has a root restrictive layer within 20 inches of the soil surface. Geology is mixed.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Mountains > Mountain slope (2) Mountains > Escarpment (3) Mountains > Ridge
Runoff class	Medium to low
Elevation	3,800 – 7,500 ft
Slope	2 – 30%
Water table depth	150 in
Aspect	W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW

Climatic features

The site is located within frigid, cool to cryic temperature regime in the typic ustic to udic moisture regime with Relative Effective Annual Precipitation quite variable from 17 to 40 inches. Frost-free days range from 50 to 90. This site exists across a large area with a majority existing outside of the climate station coverage however multiple sites exist nearby.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	8-56 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	42-103 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	18-26 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	3-78 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	40-109 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	12-30 in
Frost-free period (average)	50 days
Freeze-free period (average)	90 days
Precipitation total (average)	26 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) MYSTIC LAKE [USC00245961], Fishtail, MT
(2) RED LODGE [USC00246918], Red Lodge, MT
(3) DIVIDE [USC00242421], Wise River, MT
(4) WISE RIVER 3 WNW [USC00249082], Wise River, MT
(5) LAKEVIEW [USC00244820], Lima, MT
(6) HEBGEN DAM [USC00244038], West Yellowstone, MT
(7) ISLAND PARK [USC00104598], Island Park, ID
(8) WEST YELLOWSTONE [USC00248857], West Yellowstone, MT
(9) WILSALL 8 ENE [USC00249023], Wilsall, MT
(10) BOZEMAN 12 NE [USC00241050], Bozeman, MT
(11) MILLEGAN 14 SE [USC00245712], White Sulphur Springs, MT
(12) NEIHART 8 NNW [USC00246008], Monarch, MT

Soil features

Soil textures are variable based on local geology; however, textures trend loamy, often with gravelly, cobbly or stony modifiers. Parent material is colluvium, colluvium over residuum, and residuum.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Colluvium – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock (2) Residuum – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Cobbly, gravelly loam (2) Gravelly sandy loam
Drainage class	Moderately well drained to well drained
Permeability class	Moderate to moderately rapid
Depth to restrictive layer	10 – 20 in
Soil depth	10 – 20 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	30%
Surface fragment cover >3"	22%
Available water capacity (0-20in)	1.1 – 3.8 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-20in)	4.8 – 7.8
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-20in)	50%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-20in)	45%

Ecological dynamics

1 - Reference State
1.1 Douglas fir dominated forest with lodgepole pine and minor components of subalpine fir and Englemann’s spruce. Grasses and sedges tend to be limited. Forbs and shrubs dominate understory canopy.

T1A Post-disturbance includes stand replacement fire, insect pestilence and disease. Fire frequency is long but fire is intense.

2 - Post-disturbance State
2.1 Shrub dominant condition post disturbance. Saplings of multiple trees present. Forbs increase in composition particularly colonizing species like fireweed and coneflower

2.1A Time where trees start to re-establish

2.2 Lodgepole pine dominant community with saplings of Douglas fir and minor subalpine fir component

2.2A Community phase shift is due to fire, insect pestilence and disease. Fire frequency is long but fire is intense.

R2A Restoration pathway where the site, over time, without fire, insect pestilence, or disease moves back to the reference state. Douglas fir with some subalpine fir comes back in and shades out the other tree species. This process can take over 150 years.

State and transition model

Custom diagram

Standard diagram

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models

Interpretations

Animal community

This ecological site is considered important habitat for large wild game such as deer, elk, and moose as well as upland birds such as ruffed, dusky, and spruce grouse.

Typically this site is considered good for livestock grazing. If the tree canopy is open it will often contain grazeable forage.

Recreational uses

Site frequently used by many outdoor recreationists such as bird watchers, campers, hikers, bikers, and hunters.

Wood products

The dominant forest type is typically suited to forest products of different types. Harvest of this site may prove challenging due to slope and remote location.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Information presented was derived from NRCS inventory data, literature, field observations, and personal contacts with range-trained personnel (i.e., used professional opinion of agency specialists, observations of land managers, and outside scientists).

Other references

• Barrett, H. 2007. Western Juniper Management: A Field Guide.
• Bestelmeyer, B., J.R. Brown, J.E. Herrick, D.A. Trujillo, and K.M. Havstad. 2004. Land Management in the American Southwest: a state-and-transition approach to ecosystem complexity. Environmental Management 34:38–51.
• Bestelmeyer, B. and J. Brown. 2005. State-and-Transition Models 101: A Fresh look at vegetation change.
• Blaisdell, J.P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of native plants on the Upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climate factors.
• Colberg, T.J. and J.T. Romo. 2003. Clubmoss effects on plant water status and standing crop. Journal of Range Management 56:489–495.
• DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in Rangelands: Species, Impacts, and Management. Weed Science 48:255–265.
• Dormaar, J.F., B.W. Adams, and W.D. Willms. 1997. Impacts of rotational grazing on mixed prairie soils and vegetation. Journal of Range Management 50:647–651.
• Hobbs, J.R. and S.E. Humphries. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9:761–770.
• Humphrey, L. David. 1984. Patterns and mechanisms of plant succession after fire on Artemisia-grass sites in southeastern Idaho Vegetation. 57: 91-101.
• Masters, R. and R. Sheley. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 38:21–26.
• McLean, A. and S. Wikeem. 1985. Influence of season and intensity of defoliation on bluebunch wheatgrass survival and vigor in southern British Columbia. Journal of Range Management 38:21–26.
• Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and J.A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range Management 53:574–585.
• Ross, R.L., E.P. Murray, and J.G. Haigh. July 1973. Soil and Vegetation of Near-pristine sites in Montana.
• Smoliak, S., R.L. Ditterlin, J.D. Scheetz, L.K. Holzworth, J.R. Sims, L.E. Wiesner, D.E. Baldridge, and G.L. Tibke. 2006. Montana Interagency Plant Materials Handbook.
• Stavi, I. 2012. The potential use of biochar in reclaiming degraded rangelands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55:1–9.
• Stringham, T.K., W.C. Kreuger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and Transition Modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106–113.
• Stringham, T.K. and W.C. Krueger. 2001. States, Transitions, and Thresholds: Further refinement for rangeland applications.
• Tirmenstein, D. 1999. Gutierrezia sarothrae. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/gutsar/all.html [2022, March 30].
• Walker, L.R. and S.D. Smith. 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 69–86 in Assessment and management of plant invasions. Springer, New York, NY.
• Whitford, W.G., E.F. Aldon, D.W. Freckman, Y. Steinberger, and L.W. Parker. 1989. Effects of Organic Amendments on Soil Biota on a Degraded Rangeland. Journal of Range Management 41:56–60.
• Wilson, A.M., G.A. Harris, and D.H. Gates. 1966. Cumulative Effects of Clipping on Yield of Bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 19:90–91.

Contributors

Petersen, Grant

Approval

Kirt Walstad, 3/01/2024

Rangeland health reference sheet

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.

Author(s)/participant(s)
Contact for lead author
Date	03/02/2024
Approved by	Kirt Walstad
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
Presence of water flow patterns:
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):

Dominant:

Sub-dominant:

Other:

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
Perennial plant reproductive capability:

Download reference sheet

Search

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F043BP903MT

Shallow Cool Woodland Group

Last updated: 3/01/2024 Accessed: 11/21/2024

General information

MLRA notes

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 3/01/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024