Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F028BY049NV

Rocky Convex Mountain Slopes

Last updated: 2/19/2025
Accessed: 08/29/2026

Home / esd CATALOG / MLRA 028B / ecological site F028BY049NV

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): 028B–Central Nevada Basin and Range

MLRA 28B occurs entirely in Nevada and comprises about 23,555 square miles (61,035 square kilometers). More than nine-tenths of this MLRA is federally owned. This area is in the Great Basin Section of the Basin and Range Province of the Intermontane Plateaus. It is an area of nearly level, aggraded desert basins and valleys between a series of mountain ranges trending north to south. The basins are bordered by long, gently sloping to strongly sloping alluvial fans. The mountains are uplifted fault blocks with steep sideslopes. Many of the valleys are closed basins containing sinks or playas. Elevation ranges from 4,900 to 6,550 feet (1,495 to 1,995 meters) in the valleys and basins and from 6,550 to 11,900 feet (1,995 to 3,630 meters) in the mountains.
The mountains in the southern half are dominated by andesite and basalt rocks that were formed in the Miocene and Oligocene. Paleozoic and older carbonate rocks are prominent in the mountains to the north. Scattered outcrops of older Tertiary intrusives and very young tuffaceous sediments are throughout this area. The valleys consist mostly of alluvial fill, but lake deposits are at the lowest elevations in the closed basins. The alluvial valley fill consists of cobbles, gravel, and coarse sand near the mountains in the apex of the alluvial fans. Sands, silts, and clays are on the distal ends of the fans.
The average annual precipitation ranges from 4 to 12 inches (100 to 305 millimeters) in most areas on the valley floors. Average annual precipitation in the mountains ranges from 8 to 36 inches (205 to 915 millimeters) depending on elevation. The driest period is from midsummer to midautumn. The average annual temperature is 34 to 52 degrees F (1 to 11 degrees C). The freeze-free period averages 125 days and ranges from 80 to 170 days, decreasing in length with elevation.
The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Aridisols, Entisols, and Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aridic or xeric soil moisture regime, and mixed or carbonatic mineralogy. They generally are well drained, loamy or loamyskeletal, and shallow to very deep.
Nevada’s climate is predominantly arid, with large daily ranges of temperature, infrequent severe storms and heavy snowfall in the higher mountains. Three basic geographical factors largely influence Nevada’s climate: continentality, latitude, and elevation. The strong continental effect is expressed in the form of both dryness and large temperature variations. Nevada lies on the eastern, lee side of the Sierra Nevada Range, a massive mountain barrier that markedly influences the climate of the State. The prevailing winds are from the west, and as the warm moist air from the Pacific Ocean ascend the western slopes of the Sierra Range, the air cools, condensation occurs and most of the moisture falls as precipitation. As the air descends the eastern slope, it is warmed by compression, and very little precipitation occurs. The effects of this mountain barrier are felt not only in the West but throughout the state, as a result the lowlands of Nevada are largely desert or steppes.
The temperature regime is also affected by the blocking of the inland-moving maritime air. Nevada sheltered from maritime winds, has a continental climate with well-developed seasons and the terrain responds quickly to changes in solar heating. Nevada lies within the midlatitude belt of prevailing westerly winds which occur most of the year. These winds bring frequent changes in weather during the late fall, winter and spring months, when most of the precipitation occurs.
To the south of the mid-latitude westerlies, lies a zone of high pressure in subtropical latitudes, with a center over the Pacific Ocean. In the summer, this high-pressure belt shifts northward over the latitudes of Nevada, blocking storms from the ocean. The resulting weather is mostly clear and dry during the summer and early fall, with occasional thundershowers. The eastern portion of the state receives noteworthy summer thunderstorms generated from monsoonal moisture pushed up from the Gulf of California, known as the North American monsoon. The monsoon system peaks in August and by October the monsoon high over the Western U.S. begins to weaken and the precipitation retreats southward towards the tropics (NOAA 2004).

Ecological site concept

The Rocky Mountain Convex Slopes occurs on convex mountain sideslopes. Slope gradients typically range from 30 to 75 percent. Elevations range from 7800 to over 9500 feet. Soils are well drained, moderately deep to bedrock, and formed in residuum and colluvium derived from limestone and dolomite. This site is associated with areas of rock outcrop and soil have greater than 50 percent rock fragments on the surface.

The reference state is dominated by Rocky Mountain white fir. Bluebunch wheatgrass, muttongrass, goldenweed and mountain big sagebrush are common understory species.

Important abiotic factors associated with this site include soils between 30 and 40 inches deep, skeletal texture class and convex landform shape all of which lower the available water holding capacity thereby resulting in a white fir forest with a scabby appearance.

Rocky Convex Mountain Slopes was previously named ABCOC-PIFL2-PILO/ARTRV/PSSPS-POFE.

Associated sites

F028BY060NV	PIMO-JUOS/ARNO4/PSSPS-ACHY Occurs on shallow backslopes.

F028BY060NV

PIMO-JUOS/ARNO4/PSSPS-ACHY

Occurs on shallow backslopes.

Similar sites

F028BY063NV	ABCOC-PIFL2-PILO/ARTRV/LEKI2 Understory is more productive. Higher site index. Soils are deep to very deep and have an argillic horizon.

F028BY063NV

ABCOC-PIFL2-PILO/ARTRV/LEKI2

Understory is more productive. Higher site index. Soils are deep to very deep and have an argillic horizon.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Abies concolor (2) Pinus flexilis
Shrub	(1) Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana
Herbaceous	(1) Pseudoroegneria spicata (2) Poa fendleriana

Download full description

Physiographic features

The Rocky Convex Mountain Slopes site occurs on convex mountain sideslopes. Slopes range from 15 to 75 percent, but are typically 30 to 75 percent. Elevations are 7800 to over 9300 feet.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Mountain
Runoff class	High to very high
Elevation	7800 – 9300 ft
Slope	30 – 75 %
Water table depth	72 – 0 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Table 3. Representative physiographic features (actual ranges)

Runoff class	Not specified
Elevation	6200 – 10990 ft
Slope	15 – 75 %
Water table depth	0 in

Climatic features

This site’s climate is semi-arid; characterized by cold, wet winters and warm, dry summers.

Average annual precipitation is about 20 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 40 to 43 degrees F. The average growing season is 50 to 70 days. Weather stations with a long term data record are currently not available for this ecological site. Associated climate data will be updated when information becomes available.

Table 4 Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (average)
Freeze-free period (average)	60 days
Precipitation total (average)	20 in

Figure 1. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 2 Annual average temperature pattern

Soil features

Soils are generally moderately deep to bedrock, well drained and formed in residuum and colluvium derived from limestone and dolomite. Soils are characterized by a calcic horizon. This site is typically associated with areas of rock outcrop and have greater than 50 percent rock fragments on surface. Soils are slightly alkaline increasing with depth and non- effervescent in the upper profile. Runoff is high and available water holding capacity is very low.
The soil series correlated to this site is Eganroc, Guiser and Softscrabble.

Table 5. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Colluvium – limestone (2) Residuum – dolomite
Surface texture	(1) Very stony loam
Family particle size	(1) Loamy
Drainage class	Well drained
Permeability class	Moderate
Soil depth	30 – 40 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0 – 30 %
Surface fragment cover >3"	0 – 25 %
Available water capacity (0-40in)	1.3 – 2.2 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in)	1 – 2 %
Electrical conductivity (0-40in)	Not specified
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in)	Not specified
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	7.4 – 7.8
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	25 – 61 %
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	6 – 24 %

Table 6. Representative soil features (actual values)

Drainage class	Not specified
Permeability class	Not specified
Soil depth	0 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0 %
Surface fragment cover >3"	0 %
Available water capacity (0-40in)	1.3 – 6.1 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in)	0 %
Electrical conductivity (0-40in)	0 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in)	0
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	0
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	0 %
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	0 %

Ecological dynamics

An ecological site is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development and it has a set of key characteristics that influence a site’s resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasives. Key characteristics include 1) climate (precipitation, temperature), 2) topography (aspect, slope, elevation, and landform), 3) hydrology (infiltration, runoff), 4) soils (depth, texture, structure, organic matter), 5) plant communities (functional groups, productivity), and 6) natural disturbance regime (fire, herbivory, etc.) (Caudle et al. 2013). Biotic factors that influence resilience include site productivity, species composition and structure, and population regulation and regeneration (Chambers et al. 2013).

Rocky Mountain white fir occurs in 31 mountain ranges in Nevada, and in ten counties but it is relatively uncommon (Charlet 1996). It is considered fairly drought resistant and is a strong competitor with associated species (Maul 1958). It has good seed years at irregular intervals of two to four years. Seed bearing continues for many years but is more abundant during the period of rapid height growth (ages 50 to 100 years). Pole-size trees in dense stands usually bear seeds only when their leaders reach full sunlight (Maul, 1958). Any tree-top damage caused by insects, diseases, and mechanical agents such as ice, snow or wind reduces cone production. Crown decadence can be caused by fir mistletoe (Phoradendron pauciflorum), western dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum), and the fir engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis). Trees that lose their tops may develop new terminals and resume cone bearing (Maul 1958). Fir-cone moths (Barbara spp.) often seriously injure cones and seed chalcids (Megastigumus spp.) often damage Rocky Mountain white fir seeds (Maul 1958).

Rocky Mountain white fir reproduces solely by seed. Seeds are mostly disseminated by wind and to minor extent by rodents. Seed dissemination occurs from September through October or later depending on elevation. The greatest number of seeds fall close to the base of the tree with wind dissemination influenced by height of tree, surrounding forest canopy, terrain, updrafts, air turbulence and direction of prevailing winds (Maul 1958). Seed germination requires available surface soil moisture and suitable temperatures. White fir seedlings are shade tolerant but once established grow best in full sun. White fir is slow growing until about 30 years of age and then growth rapidly accelerates (Markstrom and McElderry 1984). This may be due to competition from other species; white fir can survive for long periods of time as a suppressed tree and still be able to respond to release by increasing growth rapidly (Laacke1990). The record white fir is 107 inches diameter and 192 feet tall (Marstrom and McElderry 1984), but tree heights rarely exceed 100 feet. These trees grow on a variety of soils developed from diverse parent materials. White fir may be more dependent on moisture availability and temperature than soil series. Growth and development are best on moderately deep and well-drained sandy-loam to clay-loam soils regardless of parent material.

Mountain big sagebrush is generally long-lived; therefore it is not necessary for new individuals to recruit every year for perpetuation of the stand. Infrequent large recruitment events and simultaneous low, continuous recruitment is the foundation of population maintenance (Noy-Meir 1973). Survival of the seedlings is dependent on adequate moisture conditions.
This is a very stable site. Fire is the main disturbance but will be rare and low severity due to low fuel loads. Common dandelion is the most common species to invade these sites, non-native species have only been found in trace amounts. This site has two stable states; the Reference State and Current Potential.

Disturbance Ecology:
A common insect pest of Rocky Mountain white fir is the fir engraver, a beetle that causes considerable damage and mortality (Markstrom and McElderry 1984). Defoliators including Douglas-fir tussock moth and wester spruce budworm, reduce growth and may kill some trees (Markstrom and McElderry 1984). White fir is subject to windthrow and is often intensified by root rot from Fomes annosus that becomes established through old fire wounds (Maul 1958). Windthrow may also be caused by partial cutting; which can leave this shallower rooted species unprotected (Markstrom and McElderry 1984).

Great Basin bristlecone pine is highly drought tolerant and can subsist throughout the successional process. While these trees have low requirements for nutrients and moisture they are intolerant of shady conditions and prefer exposed slopes and ridges. High light requirements preclude the establishment of bristlecone pine under dense canopies (Beasley 1972). Great Basin bristlecone pine has a highly branched, shallow root system. Few large branching roots provide structural support and maximize water absorption. Tolerance of dry conditions is increased by waxy needles and thick needle cuticles, which help regulate water loss (Fryer 2004). Bristlecone pine is also able to withstand relatively high internal water stress, plant-water potential values as low as -32 bars have been measured (Beasley 1972).

A common insect pest of the Great Basin bristlecone pine and limber pine is mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) (Lanner 2007). Heavy infestations are often fatal and affect many trees over large areas. White pine blister rust (WPBR) is of great concern to Great Basin bristlecone pines and also limber pine. It is caused by the fungus Cronartium ribicola and spreads to five-needled white pines from its host plant, Ribes. White pine blister rust has not yet been discovered in Great Basin bristlecone pine (Schoettle and Sniezko 2007). However, WPBR was not discovered in Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine until almost 100 years after its first detection in North America and there is no biological or environmental reason to expect Great Basin bristlecone pine is resistant to infection. Life history traits of Great Basin bristlecone pine promote susceptibility to WPBR. All North American five-needle pines have some resistance to WPBR, although frequency of resistance is low in all species. High elevation white pines have adaptive traits that allow them to persist for hundreds to thousands of years on harsh sites. This longevity is also contributed to a lack of stand-replacing disturbances. As a result, even where trees with rust-resistance are present, without regeneration opportunities the number of individuals with this resistance will not increase (Schottle and Sniezko 2007). Management options to protect uninfected populations or increase resistance may include managing forest composition, increasing host vigor, introduction of resistant container stock and diversifying age class structure.

At higher elevations and fire safe zones where these sites occur, the understory is scarce and fire is infrequent and of low intensity due to low fuel loads. Fires in these zones are more likely related to El Nino events and higher production years (Sherriff et al. 2001). In the more productive sites, white fir, bristlecone pine and limber pine may be dependent on infrequent stand replacing fires which reduce competition by other tree species and create open areas that promote regeneration (Coop and Schoettle 2009). Fire increases limber pine and bristlecone pine seedling establishment but the regeneration of these species is slow (Coop and Schoettle 2009).

Traits that allow coniferous species to persist in high fire frequency areas are 1) traits that allow species to survive fire such as thick bark, and high crowns, and 2) traits that allow species to repopulate an area rapidly after fire such as serotinous cones, persistent seed banks and increased flowering after fire. (Russell 1994). Prolonged absence of fire in fire-type communities can allow for an increase in fine fuels (Russell 1994). The development of shrubs and young trees in the understory can act as ladder fuels increasing the probability of crown fires. The number of fires was shown to be higher were fire was not suppressed but the average size of fires was significantly higher were fire was suppressed (Russell 1994).

Fire suppression has aided an increase in the population of the white fir. Where fires were more frequent young plants were killed in the understory, with fire suppression these shade tolerant species have been allowed to mature. They act as “fire ladders” which conduct flames into the canopies of other trees, chiefly pines. Pine trees are not tolerant of shade and do not become established under canopies of white fir, thus the transition of pine dominated forests to firs (Lanner 2002). Burning in areas where white fir is undesired may be the best management practice to control its populations (Laacke 1990).

Limber pine has been noted to be the first to colonize areas after burn. This is in part due to the seed dispersal mechanism; which is mainly by Clark’s nutcracker which prefers to cache in open burn sites (Lanner and Vander Wall 1980, Rebertus et al. 1991). Limber pine decreases in later succession with the increase in other more shade tolerant species (Donnegan and Rebertus 1999).

Mountain big sagebrush is killed by fire (Neuenschwander 1980, Blaisdell et al. 1982), and does not resprout (Blaisdell 1953). Post fire regeneration occurs from seed and will vary depending on site characteristics, seed source, and fire characteristics. Mountain big sagebrush seedlings can grow rapidly and may reach reproductive maturity within 3 to 5 years (Bunting et al. 1987).Mountain big sagebrush may return to pre-burn density and cover within 15-20 years following fire, but establishment after severe fires may proceed more slowly and can take up to 50 years (Bunting et al. 1987, Ziegenhagen 2003, Miller and Heyerdahl 2008, Ziegenhagen and Miller 2009).

Fire will remove aboveground biomass from bluebunch wheatgrass but plant mortality is generally low (Robberecht and Defossé 1995) because the buds are underground (Conrad and Poulton 1966) or protected by foliage. Uresk et al. (1976) reported burning increased vegetative and reproductive vigor of bluebunch wheatgrass. Thus, bluebunch wheatgrass is considered to experience slight damage to fire but is more susceptible in drought years (Young 1983). Plant response will vary depending on season, fire severity, fire intensity and post-fire soil moisture availability.

Muttongrass, a minor component on this site, is top killed by fire but will resprout after low to moderate severity fires. A study by Vose and White (1991) in an open sawtimber site, found minimal difference in overall effect of burning on mutton grass.

State and transition model

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text

State 1
Reference State

The Reference State 1.0 is representative of the natural range of variability under pristine conditions. This reference state has four general community phases. State dynamics are maintained by interactions between climatic patterns and disturbance regimes. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These include the presence of all structural and functional groups, low fine fuel loads, and retention of organic matter and nutrients. Plant community phase changes are primarily driven by fire, periodic drought and/or insect or disease attack.

Community 1.1
Rocky Mountain white fir/limber pine/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Figure 3. ABCOC-PIFL2-PILO (F028BY049NV) Phase 1.1 T. Stringham Aug 2014

Figure 4. ABCOC-PIFL2-PILO (F028BY049NV) Phase 1.1 T. Stringham Aug 2014

The plant community is dominated by Rocky Mountain white fir, Great Basin bristlecone pine, and limber pine. Bluebunch wheatgrass and muttongrass are the principal understory grasses. Mountain big sagebrush is the principal understory shrub. The most common understory forb is goldenweed. An overstory canopy of 25 to 35 percent is assumed to be representative of tree dominance on this site in the pristine environment. Overstory tree canopy is about 50 to 70 percent white fir, 20 to 40 percent limber pine and 10 to 20 percent bristlecone pine.

Forest overstory.The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by white fir, limber pine and bristlecone pine that have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Tree canopy cover ranges from 20 to 35 percent. Understory vegetation is strongly influenced by tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. Few seedlings and/or saplings of the major overstory tree species occur in the understory.

Forest understory. Understory vegetative composition is about 40 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs and 55 percent shrubs and young trees when the average overstory canopy is medium (20 to 35 percent). Average understory production ranges from 200 to 400 pounds per acre. Understory production includes the total annual production of all species less than or equal to 4.5 feet.

Figure 5. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 7. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	80	120	160
Shrub/Vine	68	102	136
Tree	42	63	84
Forb	10	15	20
Total	200	300	400

Community 1.2
Sprouting shrubs/perennial bunchgrasses

This community phase is representative of an early successional plant community. Sprouting shrubs and perennial grasses such as serviceberry and creeping barberry, bluebunch wheatgrass, spike fescue, muttongrass, and Letterman’s needlegrass increase due to reduced competition from the overstory for sunlight, nutrients and moisture. Conifers may be present in patches and fire safe zones. Remaining mature trees are important for the recovery of this ecological site and will provide seeds for regeneration.

Community 1.3
Immature Trees

Limber pine and Rocky Mountain white fir seedlings and saplings increase in size and density. The herbaceous understory decreases due to competition from maturing conifer seedlings and saplings. Mountain big sagebrush increases.

Community 1.4
Reduced trees in patches

This community phase is characterized by mosaic pattern with patches of mature trees and open patches of regeneration. Limber pine and Rocky Mountain white fir may be reduced but remain a major component of the overstory. Bristlecone pine trees may show some fire damage but will most likely survive a low intensity fire. Common juniper and mountain big sagebrush are killed by fire and may take many years to reestablish. Sprouting shrubs such as creeping barberry and Utah serviceberry are the first to dominate disturbed patches. Perennial bunchgrasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass may be reduced immediately after fire but will likely increase in cover and density due to the reduced competition from shrubs and trees.

Pathway 1.1a
Community 1.1 to 1.2

High severity, stand replacing fire would drastically reduce or eliminate tree cover and allowing herbaceous plants and sprouting shrubs to initially dominate. The chances of this happening are very low. The combination of low fine fuel loads, long lived trees and a short growing season result in a stable forest community that seldom experiences stand replacing disturbances.

Pathway 1.1b
Community 1.1 to 1.4

A lightning strike, low severity fire and/or disease and insects removes single trees or patches of trees releasing the understory and allowing for regeneration and seedling establishment.

Pathway 1.2a
Community 1.2 to 1.3

Absence from disturbance allows conifers and mountain big sagebrush to recover and mature.

Pathway 1.3a
Community 1.3 to 1.1

Absence from disturbance such as fire, drought or disease will allows trees to reach maturity.

Pathway 1.3b
Community 1.3 to 1.2

Fire removes young thin barked trees returning to a herbaceous dominated community phase.

Pathway 1.4a
Community 1.4 to 1.1

Absence of disturbance allows conifers to regenerate and dominate disturbed patches.

State 2
Current Potential State

This state is similar to the Reference State 1.0 and has four similar community phases. Ecological function has not changed in this state, but the resiliency of the state has been reduced by the presence of invasive weeds. These non-native species can be highly flammable, and promote fire where historically fire had been infrequent. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These include the presence of all structural and functional groups, low fine fuel loads and retention of organic matter and nutrients. Positive feedbacks decrease ecosystem resilience and stability of the state. These include the non-natives high seed output, persistent seed bank, rapid growth rate, ability to cross pollinate and adaptations for seed dispersal.

Community 2.1
Mature Trees

Figure 6. ABCOC-PIFL2-PILO (F028BY049NV) Phase 2.1 T. Stringham Aug 2014

This community phase is characterized by mature Rocky Mountain white fir, bristlecone pine, and limber pine. Mountain big sagebrush is the dominant understory shrub . Bluebunch wheatgrass is the dominant grass. Spike fescue, muttongrass, Letterman’s needlegrass and sedges are also common. Creeping barberry, common juniper and Utah serviceberry are common understory shrubs. Non-native species such as common dandelion are present.

Forest understory. Understory vegetative composition is about 40 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs and 55 percent shrubs and young trees Average understory production ranges from 200 to 400 pounds per acre with a medium canopy cover. Understory production includes the total annual production of all species within 4½ feet of the ground surface.

Community 2.2
Sprouting shrubs/perennial bunchgrasses/non-native plants

The herbaceous understory increases. Sprouting shrubs such as serviceberry and creeping barberry initially increase. Perennial grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass, spike fescue, muttongrass, and Letterman’s needlegrass may increase due to reduced competition from the overstory and increased sunlight. Conifers may be present in patches and fire safe zones. Non-native species are present.

Community 2.3
Immature trees/mountain big sagebrush/non-native plants

The herbaceous understory decreases due to competition from maturing conifer seedlings and saplings. Mountain big sagebrush increases. Limber pine and Rocky Mountain white fir seedlings and saplings increase in size and density. Non-native species present.

Community 2.4
Mature tree in patches/non-native plants

Small fires or other disturbance removes individual trees or patches of trees. Limber pine and Rocky Mountain white fir are reduced but remain a major component of the overstory. Bristlecone pine trees may show some fire damage but will most likely survive a low intensity fire. Common juniper and mountain big sagebrush are killed by fire and may take many years to reestablish. Sprouting shrubs such as creeping barberry and serviceberry may increase. Perennial bunchgrasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass may be reduced the first season after fire but will likely increase in cover and density due to the reduced competition from shrubs and trees. Non-native species such as common dandelion may be present.

Pathway 2.1a
Community 2.1 to 2.2

High severity, stand replacing fire would reduce tree cover and allow for the herbaceous understory to increase.

Pathway 2.1b
Community 2.1 to 2.4

A lightning strike, low severity fire and/or disease and insects would eliminate individual trees or patches of trees allowing shrubs and perennial bunchgrasses to increase.

Pathway 2.2a
Community 2.2 to 2.3

Time without disturbance such as fire, drought or disease will allow for the trees and shrubs to increase in height and density.

Pathway 2.3a
Community 2.3 to 2.1

Time without disturbance such as fire, drought or disease will allow trees to mature.

Pathway 2.3b
Community 2.3 to 2.2

Fire removes young thin barked trees returning to a herbaceous dominated community phase.

Pathway 2.4a
Community 2.4 to 2.1

Time without disturbance such as fire, drought or disease will allow for the trees to mature in canopy openings.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Trigger: This transition is caused by the introduction of non-native plants, such as common dandelion, cheatgrass and mustards. Slow variables: Over time the annual non-native species will increase within the community. Threshold: Any amount of introduced non-native species causes an immediate decrease in the resilience of the site. Annual non-native species cannot be easily removed from the system and have the potential to significantly alter disturbance regimes from their historic range of variation.

Additional community tables

Table 8. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Primary Perennial Grasses			75–171
	muttongrass	POFE	Poa fendleriana	30–72	–
	bluebunch wheatgrass	PSSPS	Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata	30–72	–
	spike fescue	LEKI2	Leucopoa kingii	15–27	–
2	Secondary Perennial Grasses			2–3
	Letterman's needlegrass	ACLE9	Achnatherum lettermanii	2–3	–
Forb
3	Perennial			10–20
	goldenweed	PYRRO	Pyrrocoma	3–15	–
Shrub/Vine
4	Primary Shrubs			30–72
	mountain big sagebrush	ARTRV	Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana	30–72	–
5	Secondary Shrubs			6–30
	serviceberry	AMELA	Amelanchier	3–15	–
	creeping barberry	MARE11	Mahonia repens	3–15	–
Tree
6	Evergreen			45–81
	limber pine	PIFL2	Pinus flexilis	15–27	–
	Great Basin bristlecone pine	PILO	Pinus longaeva	15–27	–

Table 9. Community 1.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 10. Community 1.3 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 11. Community 1.4 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 12. Community 2.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 13. Community 2.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 14. Community 2.3 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 15. Community 2.4 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Interpretations

Animal community

Livestock Interpretations:
This site has limited value for livestock grazing due to steep slopes. Livestock will often concentrate on this site taking advantage of the shade and shelter offered by the tree overstory. Many areas are not used because of steep slopes or lack of adequate water. Attentive grazing management is required due to steep slopes and erosion hazards.
Bluebunch wheatgrass is moderately grazing tolerant and is very sensitive to defoliation during the active growth period (Blaisdell and Pechanec 1949, Laycock 1967, Anderson and Scherzinger 1975, Britton et al. 1990). Herbage and flower stalk production was reduced with clipping at all times during the growing season; however, clipping was most harmful during the boot stage (Blaisdell and Pechanec 1949). Tiller production and growth of bluebunch was greatly reduced when clipping was coupled with drought (Busso and Richards 1995). Mueggler (1975) estimated that low vigor bluebunch wheatgrass may need up to 8 years rest to recover. Although an important forage species, it is not always the preferred species by livestock and wildlife.

Muttongrass, a minor component on this ecological site, is relatively grazing tolerant. It is palatable and nutritional forage for livestock and wildlife when it is in the early stages of growth. It rates as excellent forage for cattle and horses, and good for sheep, elk and deer (Dayton 1937). Muttongrass persists well in open areas and under canopies of oak and other shrubs (Monsen et al. 2004). Muttongrass may be more shade tolerant than other perennial bunchgrasses and may persist in the understory as the canopy closes (Erdman 1970).

Stocking rates vary with such factors as kind and class of grazing animal, season of use and fluctuations in climate. Actual use records for individual sites, a determination of the degree to which the sites have been grazed, and an evaluation of trend in site condition offer the most reliable basis for developing initial stocking rates.

Selection of initial stocking rates for given grazing units is a planning decision. This decision should be made ONLY after careful consideration of the total resources available, evaluation of alternatives for use and treatment, and establishment of objectives by the decisionmaker.

Wildlife Interpretations:
This area has moderate value for mule deer and elk during the summer and fall. It is used by upland game species and various song birds, rodents and associated predators natural to the area.

This ecological site provides shelter and forage for numerous wildlife (Kris 2001). Mammals including, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), black bear (Ursus americanus), moose (Alces alces) and mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) use Rocky Mountain white fir habitats for cover and forage (Kris 2001 and references therein). Mule deer are especially fond of succulent, new white fir growth in the spring (Lanner 1983, Laacke 1990). Porcupines prefer the bark of white fir, and have been known to forage so enthusiastically that they destroy saplings (Hayward 1945).
Rocky Mountain white fir seeds are eaten by several species of small mammals. Indications of small rodents feeding on the cambial tissue of white fir were noticed in a study by Hayward (1945) Rodents trapped in the study area where white fir trees occur include: deer mouse (Peromvscus maniculatus), Meadow vole (Microtus mordax mordax), Montane vole (Microtus montanus nanus), Hidden forest chipmunk (Tamias umbrinus) yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus), jumping mouse (Zapus pinceps) and montane shrew, (Sorex monticolus). Pocket gophers (Thomomys monticola), flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), and Ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) also occur in subalpine habitat and are known to utilize white fir habitat (Lanner 1984, Laacke 1990, Waters and Zabel 1995). Browsing by big game may retard the height of white fir for many years (Markstrom and McElderry 1984).
Several other mammals, although do not actively use the trees for food or shelter, inhabit the same ecosystems (subalpine, montane, timberline and limberpine) in which white fir trees occur in Nevada. Yellow bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) found in meadows, valleys, and foothills, where forests and meadows form a mosaic will also inhabit subalpine communities above 6500 feet (Great Basin National Park, Listing Sensitive and Extirpated Species 2006, Linzey and Hammerson 2008). The water shrew (Sorex palustris) although restricted to riparian environments occurs in montane communities where white fir trees are known to grow (Great Basin National park, Listing Sensitive and Extirpated Species 2006). Inyo shrew (Sorex tennellus) is confirmed to occur in subalpine communities at 9900 feet. The ringtail (Bassaricus atutus), ermine (Mustela ermine), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) all have a wide ranging habitat including high-elevation, forested subalpine uplands and are documented as occurring above 9,000 feet (Goldberg 2003, Great Basin National Park, Listing Sensitive and Extirpated Species 2006, Zevit 2012, Kiiskila 2014).
Several bat species occur within subalpine habitat, adding to the community’s diversity. The fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), all are documented as occurring in coniferous, subalpine forests above 9000 feet (Keinath 2003, Arroyo-Calbrales and Alvares-Castneda 2008, Warner and Czaplewski 1984, Armstrong 2007, Sullivan 2009, Great Basin National Park, Listing Sensitive and Extirpated Species 2006).
Many species of birds also use the subalpine habitat for shelter and food. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) use mature trees for nesting and foraging (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). The burrowing owl will utilize surrounding meadows of subalpine habitat for burrowing (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Censuses determined the broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus platycereus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), mountain chickadee (Parus gambeli), White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides), Townsend’s solitaire (Myadestes townsendi), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii), pine siskin (Carduelis pinus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) and Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) use subalpine habitat for nesting (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012, Medin 1984, Fryer 2004).
Habitat distribution of reptiles and amphibians is not as widely studied as other animals and few reptiles and amphibians are found at such elevations where white fir trees occur. However; the Sonoran mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana), a highly secretive reptile, which prefers ponderosa pine habitat has been captured at elevations upwards of 9000 feet; suggesting that this snake could occur in habitats shared with Great Basin bristlecone pine (Brennan 2008, Great Basin National Park, Listing Sensitive and Extirpated Species 2006). Also, the western toad (Anaxyrus boreos) has a very wide ranging habitat throughout Nevada, and, if it is near vernal pools the western toad’s habitat could also overlap with Great Basin bristlecone pine habitat. In fact, it has been trapped at elevations of 9000 feet (Lindsdale 1940). The distribution of most of herpetafuana present in these high-elevation woodlands is poorly understood and more research and management are needed.

Hydrological functions

Runoff is medium. Permeability is slow to moderately rapid. Hydrologic Soil Group is B and C.

Recreational uses

This site has moderate aesthetic value and provides a variety of recreational opportunities, such as hiking and hunting. Steep slopes and the fragile soil-vegetation complex, however, inhibit many forms of recreation.

Wood products

Principle uses of white fir are poles, fuelwood, and some lumber. The wood produced from this site is generally of poor quality; however, this tree has a good potential for the production of pulp, possibly boxwood, and other manufactured wood items.

Limber pine has been used for mine props, railroad ties, and fuelwood. Since the limbs cling to the trunk for many years, the lumber cut from this tree is characteristically knotty. This tree has little commercial value at present. As demands increase for lumber, it may be used for knotty pine lumber and paneling.

There are few records that indicate extensive use of bristlecone pine by man. It probably has been used locally for fuel-wood and mine props. This tree is most important today for its longevity and growth characteristics. Bristlecone pine is very slow growing and long lived and considered to be one of the oldest living things on earth.

PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY

This is a low quality site for tree production. Site index for white fir ranges from about 30 to 40 (Schumacher, F.X. 1926). Traditional products are fuelwood and low yields of saw wood.
Productivity Class: 4
CMAI*: <51 to 64 cu ft/ac/yr; <3.6 to 4.5 cu m/hr/yr.
Culmination is estimated to be at 100 years.

*CMAI: is the culmination of mean annual increment or highest average growth rate of the stand in the units specified.

Fuelwood Production: 20 to 40 cords per acre for stands averaging 30 to 40 feet in height and 70 years of age. There are about 210,000 gross British Thermal Units (BTUs) heat content per cubic foot of mixed white fir, limber pine, and bristlecone pine wood. Firewood is commonly measured in cords, or a stacked unit equivalent to 128 cubic feet. Assuming an average of 75 cubic feet of solid volume wood per cord, there are about 16 million (BTUs) of heat value in a cord of mixed fir and pine wood from this site.

Tree volume per acre: < 2100 to 2700 ft3/ac for stands averaging 30 to 40 feet in height and 70 years of age.

MANAGEMENT GUIDES AND INTERPRETATIONS

1. LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
a. Potential for sheet and rill erosion is severe.
b. Severe equipment limitations due to steep slopes.
c. Proper spacing is the key to a well managed, multiple use and multi-product woodland.

2. ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Adequately protect from uncontrolled burning.
b. Protect soils from accelerated erosion.
c. Apply proper grazing management.

3. SILVICULTURAL PRACTICES
Silvicultural treatments are not feasible on this site due to poor site quality and severe limitations for equipment and tree harvest.

Other products

White fir is a valuable ornamental tree. It is often used for ornamental plantings in rural and urban landscapes in northern US cities, because it is attractive and frost-hardy. White fir is used extensively in the Christmas tree industry. White fir needles were used to make tea by Native Americans. Native Americans used big sagebrush leaves and branches for medicinal teas, and the leaves as a fumigant. Bark was woven into mats, bags and clothing.

Table 16. Representative site productivity

Common name	Symbol	Site index low	Site index high	CMAI low	CMAI high	Age of CMAI	Site index curve code	Site index curve basis	Citation
	ABCOC	30	40	51	64	–	–	–

Supporting information

Inventory data references

NASIS soil component data

Type locality

Location 1: White Pine County, NV
Township/Range/Section	T24N R62E S12
Latitude	39° 57′ 56″
Longitude	114° 54′ 42″
General legal description	SE¼, Approximately 4 miles north of Cherry Creek, White Pine County, Nevada.

Other references

Anderson, E. W. and R. J. Scherzinger. 1975. Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management:120-125.

Arroyo-Cabrales, J. & Álvarez-Castañeda, S.T. 2008. Myotis evotis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 23 January 2015.

Blaisdell, J. P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the upper Snake River Plains. US Dept. of Agriculture.

Blaisdell, J. P., R. B. Murray, and E. D. McArthur. 1982. Managing intermountain rangelands-sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Blaisdell, J. P. and J. F. Pechanec. 1949. Effects of Herbage Removal at Various Dates on Vigor of Bluebunch Wheatgrass and Arrowleaf Balsamroot. Ecology 30:298-305.

Brennan, T. 2008. Online field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Arizona. Available at: http://www.reptilesofaz.org/index.html. Accessed 23 January 2015.

Britton, C. M., G. R. McPherson, and F. A. Sneva. 1990. Effects of burning and clipping on five bunchgrasses in eastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 50:115-120.

Bunting, S. C., B. M. Kilgore, and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass rangelands in the northern Great Basin. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station Ogden, UT, USA.

Busso, C. A. and J. H. Richards. 1995. Drought and clipping effects on tiller demography andgrowth of two tussock grasses in Utah. Journal of Arid Environments 29:239-251.

Caudle, D., J. DiBenedetto, M. Karl, H. Sanchez, and C. Talbot. 2013. Interagency ecological site handbook for rangelands. Available at: http://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/jornada.nmsu.edu/files/InteragencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2013.

Chambers, J., B. Bradley, C. Brown, C. D’Antonio, M. Germino, J. Grace, S. Hardegree, R. Miller, and D. Pyke. 2013. Resilience to Stress and Disturbance, and Resistance to Bromus tectorum L. Invasion in Cold Desert Shrublands of Western North America. Ecosystems:1-16.

Charlet, D. A. 1996. Atlas of Nevada Conifers. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV, USA.

Cochran, P.H. 1979. Gross Yields for Even-Aged Stands of Douglas Fir and White Fir East of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. USDA-Forest Service Research Paper PNW-263, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Conrad, C. E. and C. E. Poulton. 1966. Effect of a wildfire on Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management:138-141.

Coop, J. D. and A. W. Schoettle. 2009. Regeneration of Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis) three decades after stand-replacing fires. Forest Ecology and Management 257:893-903.

Donnegan, J. A. and A. J. Rebertus. 1999. Rates and mechanisms of subalpine forest succession along an environmental gradient. Ecology 80:1370-1384.

Erdman, J. A. 1970. Pinyon-juniper succession after natural fires on residual soils of Mesa Verde, Colorado. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin-Biological Series 11:1-26.

Eyre, F.H., editor. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C.

Farjon, A. 2013. Abies concolor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org Downloaded on 27 January 2015.

Fire Effects Information System (Online; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/).

Fryer, Janet L. 2004. Pinus longaeva. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed: 2015, January 22

Johnson, K. A. 2001. Pinus flexilis. Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Science Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed: 2015, January 22

Houghton, J.G., C.M. Sakamoto, and R.O. Gifford. 1975. Nevada’s Weather and Climate, Special Publication 2. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.

Hayward, C.L. 1945. Biotic communities of the southern Wasatch and Unita mountains, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 6:1-40

Laacke, Robert J. 1990. Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. white fir. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 36-46. 0 p.

Langor, D. W. 1989. Host effects on the phenology, development, and motality of field populations of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist 121:149-157.

Lanner, R. M. 1988. Dependence of Great Basin Bristlecone Pine on Clark's Nutcracker for Regeneration at High Elevations. Arctic and Alpine Research 20:358-362.
Lanner, R. M. 2002. Conifers of California. Cachuma Press, Los Olivos, CA, USA.

Lanner, R.M. 1984. Trees of the Great Basin: A Natural History. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Lanner, R. M. and S. B. Vander Wall. 1980. Dispersal of Limber Pine Seed by Clark's Nutcracker. Journal of Forestry 78:637-639.

Laycock, W. A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management:206-213.

Lindsdale, J.M. 1940. Amphibians and Reptiles in Nevada. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 73:197-257

Markstrom, D.C. and S. E. McElderry. 1984. White fir, an American wood. FS-237. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. p. 11.

Maul, D.C. 1958. Silvical Characteristics of White Fir. Technical Paper No. 25. California Forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Berkeley, CA. 21pp.

Miller, R. F. and E. K. Heyerdahl. 2008. Fine-scale variation of historical fire regimes in sagebrush-steppe and juniper woodland: an example from California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17:245-254.

Monsen, S. B., R. Stevens, and N. L. Shaw. 2004. Grasses. Pages 295-424 In: S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens [eds.]. Restoring western ranges and wildlands, vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Mueggler, W. F. 1975. Rate and Pattern of Vigor Recovery in Idaho Fescue and Bluebunch Wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 28:198-204.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. The North American Monsoon. Reports to the Nation. National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center. Available online: http://www.weather.gov/.

Neuenschwander, L. 1980. Broadcast burning of sagebrush in the winter. Journal of Range Management:233-236.

Nevada Division of Forestry. Fir Engraver Beetle (Scolytus vetralis). Available at: http://forestry.nv.gov /forestry-resources/forest-health/fir-engraver-beetle/. Accessed 27 January 2015.

Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert Ecosystems: Environment and Producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:25-51.

Rebertus, A. J., B. R. Burns, and T. T. Veblen. 1991. Stand dynamics of Pinus flexilis-dominated subalpine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Journal of Vegetation Science 2:445-458.

Robberecht, R. and G. Defossé. 1995. The relative sensitivity of two bunchgrass species to fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 5:127-134.

Schumacher, F.X. 1926. Normal Yield Tables for White Fir. California Ag Ext Sta Bulletin No. 407, Berkeley, CA.

Sherriff, R. L., T. T. Veblen, and J. S. Sibold. 2001. Fire history in high elevation subalpine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Ecoscience 8:369-380.

Stringham, T.K., P. Novak-Echenique, P. Blackburn, C. Coombs, D. Snyder and A. Wartgow. 2015. Final Report for USDA Ecological Site Description State-and-Transition Models, Major Land Resource Area 28A and 28B Nevada. University of Nevada Reno, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 2015-01. p. 1524.

Stuever, Mary C.; Hayden, John S. 1996. Plant associations (habitat types) of the forests and woodlands of Arizona and New Mexico. Final report: Contract R3-95-27. Placitas, NM: Seldom Seen Expeditions, Inc. p. 52
Tappeiner, J. C., II and J. A. Helms. 1971. Natural Regeneration of Douglas Fir and White Fir on Exposed Sites in the Sierra Nevada of California. American Midland Naturalist 86:358-370.

Uresk, D. W., J. F. Cline, and W. H. Rickard. 1976. Impact of wildfire on three perennial grasses in south-central Washington. Journal of Range Management 29:309-310.

USDA-NRCS. National Forestry Manual - Part 537. Washington, D.C.

USDA-NRCS Plants Database (Online; http://www.plants.usda.gov).

Vose, J. M. and A. S. White. 1991. Biomass response mechanisms of understory species the first year after prescribed burning in an Arizona ponderosa-pine community. Forest Ecology and Management 40:175-187.

Waters, J.R. and C.J. Zabel. 1995. Northern flying squirrel densities in fir forests of northeastern California. Journal of Range Management. 59:858-866.

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV.

Young, R. P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the intermountain region. Pages 18-31 In: S. B. Monsen, N. Shaw [eds.] Managing intermountain rangelands - improvement of range and wildlife habitats INT-GTR-157. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Ziegenhagen, L. L. 2003. Shrub reestablishment following fire in the mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle) alliance. M.s. Oregon State University.

Ziegenhagen, L. L. and R. F. Miller. 2009. Postfire Recovery of Two Shrubs in the Interiors of Large Burns in the Intermountain West, USA. Western North American Naturalist 69:195-205.

Contributors

RK
T. Stringham/P.Novak-Echenique
E. Hourihan

Approval

Kendra Moseley, 2/19/2025

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	08/29/2026
Approved by
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

Natural ResourcesConservation Service