Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F043BP913MT

Limy Warm Woodland Group

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

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 043B / Ecological site F043BP913MT

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 12,799ft 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

• Site does not receive any additional water
• Dominant Cover: Ponderosa Pine Forest
• Soils are
o Generally not saline or saline-sodic
o Strongly or violently effervescent (CaCO3 >15%) in surface mineral 18cm
o Moderately deep, deep, or very deep
o Typically less than 5% stone and boulder cover (<15% max)
• Soil surface texture ranges from sandy loam to clay loam in surface mineral 4”
• Parent material is colluvium and residuum
• Site Landform: mountain slope, ridges, cirques, escarpments
• Area of rugged mountain, hills, plateaus, and valleys of the Central Rocky Mountains in Southwest Montana.
• Moisture Regime: ustic (rarely udic)
• Temperature Regime: frigid
• Elevation Range: 3600-5500ft
• Slope: 0-60% (typically less than 35%)

Site Development and Testing Plan
This Provisional Ecological Site Description was developed to meet the criteria as defined in Soil Survey National Instruction part 306 (430-306-NI, April 2015) as interpreted by Regional Ecological Site Specialist. Information in this description are first approximations based on broad groupings of soil properties and vegetation characteristics associated with those groupings. Although this description has been through the quality control and quality assurance review process it has not been certified for use in conservation planning.

Associated sites

F043BP904MT	Shallow Warm Woodland Group Shallow Warm Woodland and the Limy Warm Woodland are neighboring sites with the Shallow Warm Woodland being higher on the landscape. They share a similar plant species presence however the state and transition models and overall production are different

F043BP904MT

Shallow Warm Woodland Group

Shallow Warm Woodland and the Limy Warm Woodland are neighboring sites with the Shallow Warm Woodland being higher on the landscape. They share a similar plant species presence however the state and transition models and overall production are different

Similar sites

F043BP911MT	Upland Warm Woodland Group The Upland Warm Woodland and the Limy Warm Woodland have plant species overlap and have similar state and transition models however their overall site production are different.

F043BP911MT

Upland Warm Woodland Group

The Upland Warm Woodland and the Limy Warm Woodland have plant species overlap and have similar state and transition models however their overall site production are different.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Pinus ponderosa (2) Pseudotsuga menziesii
Shrub	(1) Juniperus scopulorum (2) Artemisia tridentata
Herbaceous	(1) Pseudoroegneria spicata (2) Festuca campestris

Download full description

Physiographic features

Site exists on mountain slopes, ridges, and escarpments. Slopes vary from nearly level up to 60 percent with dominant slopes rarely exceeding 35 percent. Local geology is calcareous sedimentary or metasedimentary rock.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Mountains > Hillside or mountainside (2) Mountains > Ridge (3) Mountains > Escarpment
Runoff class	Negligible to low
Flooding frequency	None
Elevation	3,600 – 5,550 ft
Slope	60%
Aspect	NW, N, NE, E, SE

Climatic features

This site exists in the frigid, cool soil temperature regime in the typic ustic moisture regime. Relatively Effective Annual Precipitation varies from 12 to 24 inches. Frost-free days are 90 to 110 days.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	56-106 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	104-140 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	13-19 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	46-114 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	102-144 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	12-20 in
Frost-free period (average)	78 days
Freeze-free period (average)	121 days
Precipitation total (average)	16 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) CANYON FERRY DAM [USC00241470], Helena, MT
(2) HOLTER DAM [USC00244241], Wolf Creek, MT
(3) MILLEGAN 14 SE [USC00245712], White Sulphur Springs, MT
(4) PONY [USC00246655], Cardwell, MT
(5) NORRIS MADISON PH [USC00246157], Ennis, MT
(6) WILSALL 8 ENE [USC00249023], Wilsall, MT
(7) WHITE SULPHUR SPRNGS 2 [USC00248930], White Sulphur Springs, MT

Soil features

Soils are moderately deep to very deep with less than 15 percent stone and boulder cover. Soils are formed from residuum, colluvium over residuum, colluvium. Geology is calcareous, sedimentary rock (calcium carbonates greater than 15 percent).

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Colluvium – sedimentary rock (2) Residuum – sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Gravelly, channery loam
Drainage class	Well drained
Permeability class	Moderately slow to moderately rapid
Depth to restrictive layer	20 – 100 in
Soil depth	20 – 100 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	20%
Surface fragment cover >3"	6%
Available water capacity (0-40in)	2.9 – 5.4 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-10in)	15%
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-10in)	7.4 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (10-20in)	40%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (10-20in)	22%

Ecological dynamics

1 - Reference State
1.1 Reference Community Phase: ponderosa pine dominant overstory; mix of grasses and shrubs understory

1.1A low intensity understory fire

1.2 Recent low-intensity fire phase: ponderosa pine dominant overstory; grass and forb understory

1.2A Time allowing understory recovery
T1A Fire suppression causing a decrease in ponderosa pine and increase density of doghair stand of Douglas fir

2 - Degraded Overstory State
2.1 Doghair stand of Douglas fir dominant with degraded understory

T1B Improper grazing management
R2A Forest thinning and prescribed fire to thin out the doghair stand of Douglas fir

3 - Degraded Understory State
3.1 Ponderosa pine dominant with heavily reduced cool-season bunchgrasses.

R3A Prescribed grazing management, time, integrated pest management

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 game animals 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 not suited for forest products. Small post and pole operations may exist along with firewood harvest. 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 F043BP913MT

Limy Warm 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