Physiographic features

The Stony Hills ecological site occurs on moderately steep to steeply sloping uplands.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Climatic features

The climate in MLRA 58D is typical of the drier portions of the Northern Great Plains where sagebrush steppes to the west yield to grassland to the east. Average annual precipitation ranges from 14 to 17 inches with most falling in the early growing season. Some high intensity, convective thunderstorms occur in the summer. Precipitation in winter occurs as snow. Temperatures show a wide range between summer and winter and between daily maximums and minimums. This wide range is due to the high elevation and dry air, which permit rapid incoming and outgoing radiation. Outbreaks of cold air from Canada in winter move rapidly from northwest to southeast and account for extreme minimum temperatures. Extreme storms may occur during the winter but have the most severe effect on ranching operations during late winter and in spring.

The normal average annual temperature is about 44 °F. January is the coldest month with average temperatures ranging from about 12 °F (Marmarth, North Dakota) to about 20 °F (Baker, Montana). July is the warmest month with temperatures averaging from about 70 °F (Marmarth, North Dakota) to about 76 °F (Baker, Montana). The range of normal average monthly temperatures between the coldest and warmest months is about 55 °F. Wind speeds are estimated to average about 11 miles per hour (mph) annually, ranging from about 13 mph during the spring to about 10 mph during the summer. Daytime winds are generally stronger than nighttime winds. Strong storms may bring brief periods of high winds with gusts of more than 50 mph.

Growth of cool-season plants begins in early to mid-March, slowing or ceasing in late June. Warm-season plants begin growth about mid-May and continue to early or mid-September. Cool-season plants may green-up in September and October if adequate soil moisture is present.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Climate stations used

• (1) BAKER 1 E [USC00240412], Baker, MT

• (2) LADNER 9SW [USC00394671], Camp Crook, SD

• (3) BUFFALO ASOS [USW00094037], Buffalo, SD

• (4) BUFFALO 13 ESE [USW00094081], Reva, SD

• (5) CAMP CROOK [USC00391294], Camp Crook, SD

• (6) REDIG 11 NE [USC00397062], Buffalo, SD

• (7) HOOVER [USC00393945], Newell, SD

Influencing water features

No significant water features influence the Stony Hills ecological site.

Soil features

Soils common to the Stony Hills ecological site have a very fine sandy loam textured surface layer. The surface layer is 3 to 5 inches thick. Slopes range from 9 to 40 percent. The soils in this site are formed in colluvium and residuum weathered from sandstone. They are well drained with moderately rapid infiltration rates. The soils on this site are modified by cobbles and stones that occur in the profile and at the surface. The texture of the subsurface layer’s ranges from loam to sandy loam and are gravelly, very gravelly, or very cobbly. Subsurface soil layers are non-restrictive to water movement and root penetration.

This site should show slight to no evidence of rills, or wind-scoured areas. Plant pedestalling occurs occasionally, but no exposed roots should occur. Water flow paths are typically not present but when visible, they are broken and irregular in appearance or discontinuous. The soil surface is stable and intact.

Major Soil correlated to the Stony Hills ecological site include, Rockoa, Slimbutte and Vanocker.

The Rockoa, Slimbutte, and Vanocker soils mapped in MLRA 58D, is found exclusively in the White River geological formation which makes up the Slim Buttes and other formations in the area. The Vanocker and Rockoa soils will likely have a Conifer State (3.0). The Slimbutte soil will typically have scattered ponderosa pine but is unlikely to develop a Conifer State.

The Vanocker soil mapped in MLRA 58D have significantly different soil characteristics than what is documented in the Official Series Descriptions (OSD). The OSD classifies Vanocker as a Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Hapludalfs with an “Oe” horizon and a “Bt” horizon as typical of an Alfisol which developed under a forest canopy. In the Harding County Soil Survey, Vanocker is described as being more similar to a loamy-skeletal Entisol with a thin “O” horizon but without a “Bt” horizon.

Rockoa is also listed as a Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Hapludalfs in the OSD but there are questions if a forest soil has actually developed in the geologic formation where it is mapped in MLRA 58D.

The map units in MLRA 58D with Rockoa or Vanocker components will require further soil investigations.

These soils are susceptible to water erosion. The hazard of water erosion increases on slopes greater than about 20 percent.

More information can be found in the various soil survey reports. Contact the local USDA Service Center for soil survey reports that include more detail specific to your area of interest, or use the internet to access USDA’s Web Soil Survey.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Animal community

Wildlife Interpretations
MLRA 58D lies within the drier portion of the northern mixed-grass prairie ecosystem where sagebrush steppes to the west yield to grassland steppes to the east. Prior to European settlement, this area consisted of diverse grass- and shrubland habitats interspersed with varying densities of depressional instream wetlands and woody riparian corridors. These habitats provided critical life cycle components for many users. Many species of grassland birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and herds of roaming bison, elk, and pronghorn were among the inhabitants adapted to this semi-arid region. Roaming herbivores, as well as several small mammal and insect species, were the primary consumers linking the grassland resources to predators such as the gray wolf, mountain lion, and grizzly bear, and smaller carnivores such as the coyote, bobcat, fox, and raptors. The prairie dog was once abundant; however, the species remains a keystone species within its range. The black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, mountain plover, and swift fox were associated with prairie dog complexes.

Historically, the northern mixed-grass prairie was a disturbance-driven ecosystem with fire, herbivory, and climate functioning as the primary disturbance factors either singly or in combination. Following European settlement, livestock grazing, cropland conversion, elimination of fire, energy development, and other anthropogenic factors influenced species composition and abundance. Introduced and invasive species further impacted plant and animal communities. The bison was a historical keystone species, but had been extirpated in this area as a free-ranging herbivore. The loss of the bison and reduction of prairie dog populations and fire as ecological drivers greatly influenced the character of the remaining native plant communities and altered wildlife habitats. Human development has reduced habitat quality for area-sensitive species.

Within MLRA 58D, the Stony Hills ecological site provides upland grassland cover with an associated forb component. It was typically part of an expansive grassland landscape that included combinations of Loamy, Shallow Loamy, Shallow Clayey, Thin Loamy, Claypan, Sands,
Sandy, Sandy Claypan, Clayey, and Thin Claypan ecological sites.

This site provided habitat for species requiring unfragmented grassland. Important habitat features, and components found commonly or exclusively on this site may include sharp-tailed grouse leks; upland nesting habitat for grassland birds, forbs and insects for brood habitat; and a forage source for small and large herbivores. Many grassland and shrub steppe nesting bird populations are declining. Extirpated species include free-ranging American bison, grizzly bear, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, mountain plover, Rocky Mountain locust, and swift fox.

The majority of the Stony Hills ecological site remains intact and provides increasingly important habitat for conifer dwelling species, grassland and shrub steppe nesting birds, small rodents, coyotes, and a variety of reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Changes in historic fire regime and domestic grazing have impacted the forb/shrub/tree/grass percentages.

Bluestem-Needlegrass/Shrubs (1.1) and Western Wheatgrass-Little Bluestem-Grama/Shrubs (1.2): The predominance of grasses plus high diversity of forbs and high abundance of shrubs and increased presence of evergreen tree species in this community favors grazers and mixed-feeders, such as deer and pronghorn. Insects, such as pollinators, play a large role in maintaining the forb community and provide a forage base for grassland birds and other species. The complex plant structural diversity provides habitat for a wide array of migratory and resident birds. Grassland nesting birds and sharptailed grouse may be present. Woodland dwelling birds such as red-headed woodpecker, sapsuckers, phoebes, western wood-pewee, vireos, nuthatches, thrushes, and grosbeaks may be present in lesser numbers. Diverse prey populations are available for raptors such as ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and prairie falcon.

The diversity of grasses, forbs, and shrubs provide high nutrition levels for small and large herbivores including voles, mice, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, white-tailed jackrabbit, and deer. The higher stature of this plant community provides thermal, protective, and escape cover for herbivores and grassland birds. Mammals such as bobcats, porcupines, mountain lions, and various bat species may be present and benefit from the structure and composition this plant community provides. Other predators utilizing this plant community include coyote, American badger, red fox, and long-tailed weasel. This plant community provides habitat for herptiles such as the spade foot toad, bull snake, and western rattlesnake.

The plant community shifts to a western wheatgrass, little bluestem, and grama community under continuous seasonal grazing and a low fire frequency. However, there is no substantial shift in the wildlife community.

Blue Grama/Sedge/Shrubs Plant Community (2.1): This plant community results from heavy, continuous grazing later in the growing season and a low fire frequency. Grama species (e.g., blue and hairy) and various sedge species will dominate. Forb and shrub species diversity and abundance are substantially reduced. Species such as horned lark, long-billed curlew, upland sandpiper, and white-tailed jackrabbit may be present. The shorter stature of this plant community limits suitable thermal, protective, and escape cover. Other predators utilizing this plant community include the coyote, American badger, red fox, and long-tailed weasel.

Extreme impairment of the ecological processes impacts offsite aquatic habitats through excessive runoff, nutrient, and sediment loads. Elevated surface temperatures resulting from reduced cover and litter will greatly reduce habitat for most amphibian species, grassland birds, and mammals.

Ponderosa Pine/Shrubs/Herbaceous Understory (3.1): Resulting from no fire for multiple years, the plant community is dominated by ponderosa pine with lesser amounts of Rocky Mountain juniper species. The buildup of pine and juniper needles and closing of the forest canopy, can impact the understory vegetation. Grassland nesting birds and their associated predators are substantially reduced. Woodland dwelling birds such as red-headed woodpecker, sapsuckers, phoebes, western wood-pewee, vireos, nuthatches, thrushes, and grosbeaks may be present in lesser numbers. Mammals such as bobcats, porcupines, mountain lions, and various bat species may be common and benefit from the structure and composition this plant community provides. Other predators utilizing this plant community include coyote, red fox, and long-tailed weasel.

Grazing Interpretations
The following list suggests annual, initial stocking rates for average growing conditions. These estimates are conservative and should be used only as guidelines in the initial stages of conservation planning. Commonly, the current plant composition does not entirely match any particular plant community (as described in this ecological site description). Therefore, a resource inventory is necessary to document plant composition and production. More accurate estimates of carrying capacity should eventually be calculated using the following stocking rate information along with animal preference data and actual stocking records, particularly when grazers other than cattle are involved. In consultation with the land manager, a more intensive grazing management program that results in improved harvest efficiencies and increased carrying capacity may be developed.

The following suggested initial stocking rates are based on 912 lb/acre (air-dry weight) per animal-unit-month (AUM) with a 25 percent harvest efficiency of preferred and desirable forage species (refer to USDA-NRCS, National Range and Pasture Handbook). An AUM is defined as the equivalent amount of forage required by a 1,000-pound cow, with or without calf, for one month.

Plant Community: Bluestem-Needlegrass/Shrubs (1.1)
Average Production (lb/acre, air-dry): 1,800
Stocking Rate (AUM/acre): 0.49

Plant Community: Western Wheatgrass-Little Bluestem-Grama/Shrubs (1.2)
Average Production (lb/acre, air-dry): 1,400
Stocking Rate (AUM/acre): 0.38

Plant Community: Blue Grama/Sedge/Shrubs (2.1)
Average Production (lb/acre, air-dry): 1,000
Stocking Rate (AUM/acre): 0.27

Plant Community: All other plant communities identified in this document have variable annual production values and require onsite sampling to determine initial stocking rates.

* Total annual production and stocking rates are highly variable and require onsite sampling.

Total onsite annual production may contain vegetation deemed undesirable or untargeted by the grazing animal. Therefore, AUM values should be reduced to reflect only preferred or desirable forage species.

Grazing by domestic livestock is one of the major income-producing industries in the area. Rangeland in this area may provide yearlong forage for livestock. During the dormant period, the forage for livestock likely has insufficient protein to meet livestock requirements. Added protein allows ruminants to better utilize the energy stored in grazed plant materials. A forage quality test (either directly or through fecal sampling) should be used to determine the level of supplementation needed.

Grazing by domestic livestock is one of the major income-producing industries in the area. Rangeland in this area may provide yearlong forage. During the dormant period, the forage for livestock will likely be lacking protein to meet livestock requirements and added protein will allow ruminants to better utilize the energy stored in grazed plant materials. A forage quality test (either directly or through fecal sampling) should be used to determine the level of supplementation needed.

Hydrological functions

Water is the principal factor limiting forage production on this site. This site is dominated by soils in hydrologic groups B. Infiltration and runoff potential for this site varies from moderate to high depending on soil hydrologic group, slope, and ground cover. In many cases, areas with greater than 75 percent ground cover have the greatest potential for high infiltration and lower runoff. An example of an exception would be where shortgrasses form a strong sod and dominate the site. Normally areas where ground cover is less than 50 percent have the greatest potential to have reduced infiltration and higher runoff. Refer to the USDA-NRCS National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, for hydrologic soil groups, runoff quantities, and hydrologic curves.

Recreational uses

This site provides opportunities for hunting upland game species. The wide variety of plants that bloom from spring until fall have aesthetic value that appeals to visitors.

Wood products

Ponderosa pine typically does not occupy this site in amounts extensive enough to make timber harvest practical. It does provide aesthetic values and wildlife habitat.

Other products

Harvesting the seeds of native plants can provide additional income on this site.

Other information

Revision Notes: “Previously Approved” Provisional
This provisional ecological site description (ESD) has passed quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) to ensure it meets the 2014 NESH standards for a “Provisional” ecological site description.

This ecological site description (ESD) is an updated “Previously Approved” ESD that represented a first-generation tier of documentation that met all requirements as an “Approved” ESD as laid out in the 1997 National Range and Pasture Handbook (NRPH). The requirements for approved status changed with the release of the 2014 National Ecological Site Handbook (NESH). The previously approved document fully described the reference state and community phase in the state-and-transition model. All other alternative states were at least described in narrative form. The “Previously Approved” ESD has been field-tested for a minimum of five years and is a proven functional document for conservation planning. The “Previously Approved” ESD may not contain all tabular and narrative entries as required in the current “Approved” level of documentation, but it is expected this ESD will continue refinement toward the current “Approved” status.

Site Development and Testing Plan
Future work, as described in an official project plan, is necessary to validate the information in this provisional ecological site description. The plan will include field activities for low-, medium-, and high-intensity sampling, soil correlations, and analysis of the data. Annual field reviews should be done by soil scientists and vegetation specialists. Final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews are required to produce the final document.

Inventory data references

Information presented here has been derived from NRCS clipping data and other inventory data. Field observations from range-trained personnel were also used. Those involved in developing this site description include: Ryan Beer, Range Management Specialist (RMS), NRCS; Stan Boltz, RMS, NRCS; Kent Cooley, Soil Scientist (SS), NRCS; Mitch Faulkner, RMS, NRCS; Cheryl Nielsen, RMS, NRCS; Rick Peterson, RMS, NRCS; Jeff Printz, RMS, NRCS; and Mike Stirling, RMS, NRCS.

Other references

Beck, J.L., J.W. Connelly, C.L. Wambolt. 2010. Consequences of treating Wyoming big sagebrush to enhance wildlife habitats; Rangeland Ecology and Management 65:444–455, September 2012

Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H McNab. 2007. Ecological subregions: Sections and subsections of the conterminous United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-76D. https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/73326-wo-gtr-76d-cleland2007.pdf (accessed 31 January 2019).

Cooper, S.V., P. Lesica, G.M. Kudray. 2001. Post-fire recovery of Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in central and southeastern Montana; Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, Volume 16; Shrublands: Wildlands and Wildlife Habitats, Article 12.

Innes, Robin J. 2019. Artemisia tridentata subsp. wyomingensis, Wyoming big sagebrush. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/arttriw/all.html (accessed 9 December 2019).

Kaye, M.W., C.A. Woodhouse, and S.T. Jackson. 2010. Persistence and expansion of ponderosa pine woodlands in the west-central Great Plains during the past two centuries. Journal of Biogeography 37:1668–1683.

Larson, G.E. and J.R. Johnson. 1999. Plants of the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains. South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station, Bulletin 732, Brookings, SD.

Savage, M., P.M. Brown, and J. Feddema. 1996. The role of climate in a pine forest regeneration pulse in the Southwestern United States. Ecoscience 3(3):310–318.

Toledo, D., M. Sanderson, K. Spaeth, J. Hendrickson, and J. Printz. 2014. Extent of Kentucky bluegrass and its effect on native plant species diversity and ecosystem services in the Northern Great Plains of the United States. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 7(4):543–522. Weed Science Society of America.

Soil Survey Staff. 2020. Official soil series descriptions. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587 (accessed 22 January 2020).

Soil Survey Staff. 2018. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed 22 January 2020).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. National range and pasture handbook, rev. 1, 2003. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043055.pdf (accessed 7 January 2018).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agriculture Handbook 296. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf (accessed 17 January 2018).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. National engineering handbook, part 654. Rosgen Stream Classification Technique – Supplemental Materials, Technical Supplement 3E. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17833.wba (accessed 4 March 2019).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. National engineering handbook, part 630. Hydrology chapters from e-Directives. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=21422 (accessed 17 January 2018).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. National ecological site handbook, 1st ed. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcseprd1291232 (accessed 27 January 2018).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Climate data. National Water and Climate Center. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed 2 December 2019).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Electronic field office technical guide. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov (accessed 22 January 2020).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. National Soil Information System, Information Technology Center. http://nasis.nrcs.usda.gov (accessed 25 May 2018.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. PLANTS database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. http://plants.usda.gov (accessed 22 January 2020).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. EPA level III and level IV ecoregions of the conterminous United States. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions- conterminous-united-states (accessed 26 April 2018).

Contributors

Stan C. Boltz
Travis Patient
Rick L. Peterson
Kent E. Cooley

Approval

Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 7/18/2024

Acknowledgments

This ecological site description was updated by Rick L. Peterson on January 23, 2020.

The ESDs were available for QC review by Mark Hayek, Emily Helms, Ryan Beer, and Mitch Faulkner.

All ecological sites were then reviewed and approved at the Provisional Level by David Kraft, Regional ESS, Salina, KS in September 2020.

Non-Discrimination Statement
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, available online at https://www.ascr.usda.gov/filing-program-discrimination-complaint-usda-customer and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;
(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or
(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.