Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F046XP911MT

Upland Warm Woodland Group

Last updated: 9/07/2023
Accessed: 11/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 046X / Ecological site F046XP911MT

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): 046X–Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Foothills

The Provisional ESD Initiative was established to expedite the development of ecological site descriptions through the development of provisional ESDs. While Provisional ESDs are not complete, the intent is to produce an ESD complete enough for land managers to use while approved ESDs are being developed. This project area has mixed ownership falling primarily under private ownership or lands managed by the Blackfeet Nation. This PES project is contained within MLRA 46.
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 46, Rocky Mountain Foothills, is approximately 11.6 million acres. MLRA 46’s extent has changed over recent years and is now primarily located in Montana and Wyoming with limited acres in Utah and Colorado. It spans from the Canadian border south to the Uinta Mountains of Northwest Colorado. MLRA 46 is a transitional MLRA between the plains and mountains of primarily non-forested rangeland. In Montana, 3 LRUs exist based on differences in geology, landscape, soils, water resources, and plant communities. Elevations for this MLRA in Montana vary from a low of 3200 to 6500 feet (975 to 1981 m) however the elevations on the fringes of this MLRA may fall outside of that range in extremely small isolated areas where the boundaries between LRU C and MLRA 43B are not easily defined. Annual precipitation ranges from 8 inches (254mm) to, in very isolated areas, 42 inches (1083 mm). In general precipitation rarely exceeds 24 inches (610 mm). Frost-free days are variable from 50 days near the Crazy and Beartooth Mountains to 130 days in the foothills south of the Bear’s Paw Mountains of Central Montana. The geology of MLRA 46 is generally Cretaceous and Jurassic marine sediments.
MLRA 46’s plant communities are dominated by cool-season bunchgrasses with mixed shrubs. This MLRA is rarely forested; however, ponderosa and limber pine do occupy areas. Portions of this MRLA may have a subdominance of warm-season mid-statured bunchgrasses like little bluestem, however the general concept of the MLRA does not have a large component of warm-season species. Silver sagebrush and shrubby cinquefoil tend to be the dominant shrub component. The kind and presences of shrubs tends to be driven by a combination of soils and climate. Due to the variable nature of the Land Resources Units, Climatic subsets will be necessary to describe the ecological sites and the variation of plant communities for this MLRA.

Ecological site concept

• Site does not receive any additional water
• Dominant Cover: Ponderosa Pine Forest
• Soils are
o Generally not saline or saline-sodic (limited extent)
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 tertiary valley fill and recent alluvium
• Transitional area of foothills separating plains and mountains
• Site Landforms: hillslopes, fan remnants, escarpments
• Moisture Regime: ustic
• Temperature Regime: frigid
• Elevation Range: 3500-5000
• Slope: 0-60% (typically less than 25%)

Associated sites

F046XP904MT	Shallow Warm Woodland Group The Shallow Warm Woodland is typically located nearby and often slightly higher on the landscape on the shoulder of the landform.

F046XP904MT

Shallow Warm Woodland Group

The Shallow Warm Woodland is typically located nearby and often slightly higher on the landscape on the shoulder of the landform.

Similar sites

F046XP904MT	Shallow Warm Woodland Group The Shallow Warm Woodland is typically located nearby and often slightly higher on the landscape on the shoulder of the landform. The Shallow Warm Woodland expresses a similar plant community with a similar STM

F046XP904MT

Shallow Warm Woodland Group

The Shallow Warm Woodland is typically located nearby and often slightly higher on the landscape on the shoulder of the landform. The Shallow Warm Woodland expresses a similar plant community with a similar STM

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Pinus ponderosa (2) Pinus flexilis
Shrub	(1) Purshia tridentata (2) Artemisia tridentata
Herbaceous	(1) Festuca campestris (2) Pseudoroegneria spicata

Download full description

Physiographic features

The Upland Warm Woodland is an upland site that occupies steeper buttes and escarpments on igneous or sedimentary parent materials. Slopes are variable from nearly level to over 45 percent.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Hillslope profile	(1) Shoulder (2) Summit
Landforms	(1) Foothills > Butte (2) Foothills > Escarpment (3) Foothills > Hill
Elevation	3,000 – 4,800 ft
Slope	45%
Aspect	NW, N, NE, E

Climatic features

The climate in the cold woodland designation averages 14 to 19 inches of precipitation with approximately 70 to 100 frost-free days. These averages are amongst the warmest and driest forested areas within this MLRA

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	39-96 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	93-122 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	14-15 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	20-100 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	70-123 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	14-19 in
Frost-free period (average)	73 days
Freeze-free period (average)	110 days
Precipitation total (average)	15 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) COLUMBUS [USC00241938], Columbus, MT
(2) JOLIET [USC00244506], Joliet, MT
(3) ROY 8 NE [USC00247228], Roy, MT
(4) CASCADE 5 S [USC00241552], Cascade, MT
(5) CASCADE 20 SSE [USC00241557], Cascade, MT
(6) JUDITH GAP 13 E [USC00244545], Judith Gap, MT

Soil features

Soils of the Upland Warm Woodland are moderately deep to deep with a minimum of 20 inches to lithic or paralithic root restrictive layer. Soils will often have high amounts of rock fragments throughout the profile, generally increasing with depth. Soils are well drained with often less than 20 percent clay in the surface 4 inches.

Common soil series include Babb, Elve, and Whitore

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Residuum – volcanic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Cobbly loam (2) Gravelly loam (3) Stony loam
Drainage class	Well drained
Permeability class	Slow to moderately rapid
Depth to restrictive layer	20 – 100 in
Soil depth	20 – 100 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	10%
Surface fragment cover >3"	5%
Available water capacity (0-40in)	3.1 – 6.5 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-10in)	6.1 – 7.3
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-20in)	65%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-20in)	15%

Ecological dynamics

1 Reference State
1.1 Reference Community: ponderosa pine dominant overstory; mix of grasses and shrubs understory
1.1A low intensity understory fire
1.2A Time allowing understory recovery

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

2.1 Dog hair PIPOS dominant with degraded understory
T1A Fire suppression causing a decrease in ponderosa pine and increase density of dog hair douglas fir
R2A Forest thinning and prescribed fire to thin out the doghair douglas fir

3.1 Ponderosa pine dominant with heavily reduced cool season bunchgrasses.
T1B Improper grazing management
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

Site is suitable for grazing livestock. Wildlife readily utilize site throughout all life stages.

Recreational uses

Site suitable for many recreational uses such as hunting, hiking, landscape viewing, photography, camping, winter sports

Wood products

Limited timber products available however smaller stands may exist that are suitable for commercial operations.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Information presented was derived from NRCS inventory data, National Resources Inventory (NRI) 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, 9/07/2023

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	09/12/2023
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 F046XP911MT

Upland Warm Woodland Group

Last updated: 9/07/2023 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: 9/07/2023
Accessed: 11/21/2024