Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R035XY022UT
Colorado Plateau Riparian Complex Perennial (Valley Type IV - C5/F5 Stream Types)
Last updated: 5/19/2025
Accessed: 06/15/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.
Classification relationships
Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report, Capitol Reef National Park (Clark et al. 2009)
Plant Associations:
Juncus balticus (PCC1)
Phragmites australis (PCC1)
Populus fremontii/Salix exigua (PCC2)
Populus fremontii/Ericameria nauseosa (PCC2)
Populus fremontii/mesic graminoids (PCC2)
Map Class:
Fremont Cottonwood Woodland Complex (PCC1 and PCC2)
Willow Shrubland Complex (PCC1)Ecological site concept
This site occurs in a natural gorge that is wide enough to allow the stream to meander in the valley bottom. The typical stream is typically a low gradient, meandering perennial channel with gravel substrates. High flows typically occur in two different seasons. Snow melt in the early spring can cause an extended high flow early to late spring and summer convective storms can cause high intensity, short duration flow events summer through fall. The dominant channel type is an E4, although no reference conditions were found for this site, only an E4 stable analogue.
The riparian complex is restricted laterally by canyon walls and/or old stream terraces. Three plant community components can be found within this site; common reed (Phragmites australis)/coyote willow (Salix exigua) occurring on streambanks and flood plains and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) occurs on the floodplain-step and basin big sagebrush can occur on stream terraces (Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata), see site R035XY011UT (Basin big sagebrush) for the details of the terrace community.Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Populus fremontii
Shrub (1) Salix exigua
Herbaceous (1) Phragmites australis
Physiographic features
This site is located in the Canyon Lands sections of the Colorado Plateau province of the Intermontane Plateaus. This site is characterized by narrow canyons and restricted riparian complex development. This site occurs on streambanks, flood plains, flood-plain steps and terraces.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Flood plain
(2) Flood-plain step
(3) Terrace
Flooding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) Flooding frequency Occasional to very rare Ponding frequency None Elevation 5000 – 5400 ft Slope 1 – 5 % Water table depth 20 – 60 in Climatic features
The climate is characterized by hot summers and cool to warm winters, which can be slightly modified by local topographic conditions, such as aspect. Large fluctuations in daily temperatures are common. Precipitation is variable from month to month and year to year, but averages between 7 and 10 inches. Most of the precipitation comes as rain march through October. On average, July through October are the wettest months. Much of the summer precipitation occurs as convective thunderstorms.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 190 days Freeze-free period (average) 220 days Precipitation total (average) 10 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 4 Annual average temperature pattern
">Influencing water features
The stream within this ecological site is typically an E4, which have low to moderate sinuosity and gentle channel gradients and low channel width/depth ratios. This ecological site can also experience high overland flow during summer convective storms. The water chemistry is neutral. Streams within this site are typically 2nd to 3rd order streams.<br />
<br />
Valley Type: Natural Gorge IV<br />
<br />
Reference Stream Type(s): E4 and C4<br />
<br />
Channel Material(s): Predominantly gravel with sand on streambanks and some cobble in the channel<br />
Stream Succession Scenario: E4>C4>G4c>F4>C4>E4<br />
Channel Evolution Stage: I>II>III>IV>V<br />
Delineative Criteria: Low, High<br />
Entrenchment Ratio (floodprone width / bankfull width): 2.2, 100<br />
Width/Depth Ratio (bankfull width / bankfull depth at riffle): 2.0, 10<br />
Sinuosity (stream length / valley length): 1.3, 2.6<br />
Slope Range: 0.004, 0.02<br />
Channel Materials D50 (particle size index, mm): 8, 12<br />
Channel Materials D84 (particle size index, mm): 32, 48Soil features
This site has potentially three fluvial surfaces, flood plain, floodplain step, and terrace. Each fluvial surface is correlated to a different soil component. Flood plains typically have a higher water table and are more influenced by the channel. This fluvial surface has been correlated to Bowington. Floodplain steps are typically drier and can have greater coarse fragment content. This fluvial surface has been correlated to Radnik, Kwakina, and Phearson components. Terraces within this site are typically old flood plains that were abandoned during a downcutting stage. Terraces can also occur naturally within this site and may not be associated with anthropogenic caused stream downcutting.
Soils within riparian sites can have a wide range in characteristics because of the influence from the stream channel. Parent material is alluvium derived from basalt or sandstone. The predominant soil texture is sandy loam with some fine sandy loam. The range in coarse fragments is from none to over 50%. The pH range is 7.4-8.4. The tables below represent the range in characteristics between the flood plains and flood-plain steps. See site R035XY011UT (basin big sagebrush) for a complete description of the terrace soil.
Correlated Soil:
Captiol Reef National Park
Flood plain: Bowington
Flood-plain step: MU520-Radnik, Kwakina, PhearsonTable 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium – basalt
Surface texture (1) Fine sand
(2) Sandy loam
(3) Fine sandy loam
Drainage class Well drained to somewhat excessively drained Soil depth 60 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 35 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 35 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)3.1 – 8.7 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)0 – 5 % Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)7.3 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 15 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 90 % Ecological dynamics
This riparian complex ecological site is characterized by a low gradient, narrow sinuous channel with a gravel stream bed. Cobble substrate can be found in riffles and sand can be found found on stream banks. This site is influenced by snowmelt in the spring and from summer convective storms that can produce localized flooding in a short period of time (Wooley 1946). This site is found within a natural gorge and can experience overland flow from runoff in the uplands during summer precipitation events.
Streams within this ecological site are susceptible to channel change through removal of bank stabilizing vegetation and high flow events. Streams in this area of MLRA 35 went through a cycle termed “arroyo cutting” in the late 19th century (Everitt 1995). Streams within this site were also subject to this occurrence. Streams within this site were narrow and meandered through the floodplain, much like they do presently only at a lower elevation. A series of late summer/early fall precipitation events that created high flow in the stream channel changed the channel geometry that led to a deeper and wider channel (Graf 1983; Hunt et al. 1953). The transition from a wide shallow channel to a narrow sinuous channel occurred over several decades on one stream within this site (Everitt 1995). This stream is believed to have been stabilized before tamarisk was established (Everitt 1995). The introduction of non-native trees and shrubs could have also aided in channel stabilization. A series of years with lower flow could have also allowed for stabilization, establishing riparian veg (native and non-native). Common reed, coyote willow, tamarisk are known for their bank stabilization capacity. Common reed (Phragmites australis) is believed to be the native form.
The cause of widespread arroyo cutting throughout the west has been debated since the early 1900s, with no definitive answer (Webb 1985). It has been attributed to the introduction of livestock throughout the west (Webb 1985). The method of change would have been the removal of riparian vegetation through trampling and consumption. It has also been attributed to natural climatic events that have happened in the past; alluviation and degradation has been found to occur before European settlement of the west U.S. (Bryan 1925, Wooley 1946). This region has had dry periods followed by wet period, some of which has been tied to aggradation and degradation in streams. It could be a combination of factors. Another disturbance that could cause channel change is agriculture. This site has been used for agriculture for over a century (Gilbert & McKoy 1997). Conversion from cottonwood and willow communities to orchards or other agricultural use could cause channel change through removal of bank stabilizing vegetation.
Plant Communities and Fluvial Surfaces: This system exhibits a complex of flood plains and flood-plain steps. The streambanks and flood plains are composed of alluvial sediment that is generally sandy or silt dominated. Vegetation composition is influenced by flood frequency, flow duration and length of inundation. The vegetation growing on the fluvial surface close to the channel has more access to ground water, allowing more obligate wetland species to dominate. The streambanks are well vegetated with common reed, Baltic rush or coyote willow. Fluvial surfaces further from the channel are inundated less frequently and have greater woody vegetation cover and also have less access to water except through deep roots. Dominant vegetation in this ecological site is adapted to yearly variations in flow and sediment deposition, cottonwoods and willows particular to this site are adapted to frequent disturbance and are known to be aggressive colonizers of disturbed sites (Richenbacher 1984). Willows and cottonwoods produce a large number of seeds, the seedlings have a high growth rate, stem fragments can regenerate, and willow root systems are extensive and allow the plant to anchor and bind the soil (Karrenberg et al. 2002). Willows and cottonwoods also require fresh wet sediment that is devoid of other vegetation to germinate (Braatne et al. 1996). Yearly variations in flow and large floods that scour vegetation and deposit sediment on floodplains are ideal microsites for willow and cottonwood seeds. Cottonwoods and willows produce large amounts of wind and water dispersed seeds that are only viable for a short period of time after the seeds come in contact with moist soil (Braatne et al. 1996). Germination can occur quickly, usually in a 24 hour period (Karrenberg et al. 2002) and they will remain viable for 2 to 3 days (Braatne et al. 1996). Mortality of cottonwood and willow seedlings is very high ranging from 77 to 100% in the first year (Karrenberg et al. 2002). Mortality is often attributed to desiccation of the seedling and seedlings are at a great risk of subsequent summer floods that may scour the recently deposited sediment (Braatne et al. 1996; Karrenberg et al. 2002).
The stream banks/flood plains are narrow and are correlated to plant community component 1 (PCC1). They are close enough to the water table and water in the channel to support obligate wetland vegetation, like Baltic rush and facultative wet species such as common reed. Willows and mesic forbs often establish on the upper edge of the flood plain away from the channel because it is an intermediate location between high flows and access to the water table. Coyote willows found in this community have flexible stems and are able to bend with high flow (Karrenberg et al. 2002; McBride & Strahan 1984).
Flood-plain steps are not flooded as frequently and are dominated by a mix of facultative wet and upland vegetation (PCC2). The mesic species in these communities probably established when the water table was closer to the soil surface or established after a large flood in a wet year and the upland species establish between wet years or high flow events. The flood-plain steps support predominantly Fremont cottonwood. Cottonwood survival is based on the proximity to water in the channel and in the water table. The establishment of cottonwoods and coyote willow is cyclical, typically after a flood. These events deposit the needed wet sediment for germination. The likelihood of cottonwoods reaching maturity decreases if they germinate closer to the channel, because of the susceptibility of the streambank to high flow and scouring.
Terrace communities are dominated by basin big sagebrush and have been correlated to ecological site R035XY011UT.
Invasive Species: Tamarisk, Russian olive and Russian thistle are often found within this ecological site. Tamarisk is the most common invader and can readily replace the willows and cottonwoods. If the channel abandons floodplains and terraces, the groundwater influence decreases which can create a better environment for tamarisk to establish (Horton et al. 2001). Tamarisk is more tolerant of drought and salinity than native species (Horton et al. 2001). The timing of seed dispersal is also different for tamarisk than native shrubs. Tamarisk produces seed from April to October (Horton et al. 2001) and with high summer flows could be at a seed dispersal advantage over cottonwoods and willows, which produce seed from February to April (Braatne et al. 1996). Tamarisk seedlings can establish midsummer on fresh sediment deposits from runoff during summer rain storms, months after cottonwood and willows dispersed seed (Stromberg et al. 2007). Russian olive fruit is primarily transported during the fall and winter months by birds and by streams (Katz & Shafroth 2003). It can also establish under the canopy of cottonwood and willow (Katz & Shafroth 2003).
Fire: Fire can occur on this site, generally through lightning, although the fire frequency is unknown. There is little evidence for widespread burning in the riparian areas in the southwest (Busch 1995). Deciduous riparian communities often have low fire risk because of high moisture in the understory (Busch 1995). Tamarisk presence can increase fire hazard because of the dense growth and the increase in dead and old woody material as the shrub ages (Zouhar 2003). Tamarisk can also recover from fire through resprouting (Zouhar 2003).
A State and Transition Model (STM) for the Colorado Plateau Riparian Complex Perennial (IV-E4) lotic riparian complex ecological site (022) is depicted in Figure 1. Thorough descriptions of each state, transition, plant community, and pathway follow the model. This model is based on available experimental research, field observations, and interpretations by experts. It is likely to change as knowledge increases.
The plant communities will differ across the MLRA due to the naturally occurring variability in the extent of fluvial surfaces, soils, and influence of surface water and ground water in the hyporheic zone. The biological processes on this site are complex; therefore, representative values are presented in a land management context. The species lists are representative and are not botanical descriptions of all species occurring, or potentially occurring, on this site. They are not intended to cover every situation or the full range of conditions, species, and responses for the site.
Both percent species composition by weight and percent canopy or foliar cover are used in this ESD. Most observers find it easier to visualize or estimate percent canopy for woody species (trees and shrubs). Species composition by dry weight remains an important descriptor of the herbaceous community and of the community as a whole. Woody species are included in species composition for the site.
This STM includes only native communities and states. The converted communities are described in the Ecological Dynamics section above.
Plant Community Components
These plant communities exist on specific fluvial surfaces (PCC1 on stream banks/flood plains, PCC2 on flood plain step and PCC3 on terraces). These communities may exist over the entire length of the site and vary slightly to moderately in plant community composition.
Plant Community Component 1
This community is frequently disturbed by flooding. Common reed (Phragmites australis) and coyote willow (Salix exigua) are dominant in this plant community component. Common reed is a sod forming, rhizomatous perennial grass that forms a dense root system that can bind non-cohesive stream bank sediment. Coyote willow is often found on the upper edge within this community because it is able to expand through rhizomes and grow under conditions that it would not normally be capable of germination (Anderson 2006). Roots of graminoids and coyote willow hold the stream banks during typical flood events, but may be scoured during large floods. Willows have flexible branches that are able to bend with the force of water without much damage to the plant (Karrenberg et al. 2002; McBride & Stahan 1984). Coyote willow (Salix exigua) is drought resistant and very tolerant of flooding (Anderson 2006) an essential characteristic in the dry environment of southern Utah. Willow seeds are non-dormant and quickly loose viability. Seedlings generally establish close enough to a water supply and far enough from the channel to be protected from scouring during floods (Anderson 2006). Once established, vegetative clones can expand perpendicular to the stream channel, developing closer to the water source (Anderson 2006). Branches can resprout if buried by sediment and they may also regenerate vegetatively from broken stems and roots (Anderson 2006). Coyote willow is shade intolerant and is shaded out once cottonwoods grow tall enough to dominate the overstory (Karrenberg et al. 2002). Seedlings of willow and cottonwood require the same germination conditions, bare, moist soil so they often germinate together. Initially, willows grow faster than cottonwood, but given time cottonwood overtops the willows. The reason cottonwood is not the dominant overstory plant in this plant community is because it is too close to the channel and is scoured before it can grow to maturity. Young cottonwood can be found scattered on this fluvial surface but is not dominant. Baltic rush and common threesquare are also found in this component. Baltic rush can tolerate fluctuating hydrology. It is adapted to flooding and drought. It is also tolerant of a range of soil conditions, including mild to moderate salinity and alkaline to calcareous soils. Common threesquare is similar to Baltic rush, it is also rhizomatous and it tolerant of alkaline conditions.
This community initially develops on streambanks and may become established on exposed depositional sand bars. Establishment of this community depends on periodic flooding for maintenance and growth. As sediment and debris become trapped among woody stems, the bar becomes more stable. This community occurs on flood plains with sufficient sediment deposition. Downed wood is sparse. Forbs are not common in this community and it is typically dominated by graminoids.
Plant Community Component 2
Fremont cottonwood is the dominant overstory plant in this community. The vegetation is sparse within this plant community. It is dominated by a cottonwood overstory with various shrubs in the understory. Grasses and forbs are scattered, but not as dominant understory plants. Intermittent flooding maintains this flood-plain step. Due to the deep water table on the flood-plain step, understory species are not riparian obligates and only those species that are deep rooted, such as cottonwood, can access the water table.
Flooding generally reaches this terrace during high flows that occur in the summer monsoon season. Channels that are close to the canyon walls can receive large amounts of runoff from the surrounding uplands during flash flood conditions. This occurrence may scour the flood-plain step more than spring flood events. Fluvial disturbance is essential in maintaining cottonwood communities. Fremont cottonwoods generally establish from seed and not asexual reproduction, and because of this they are generally found on channels that are affected by moderate flows (Rood et al. 2007). Seedlings and saplings have been observed in this plant community indicating that depositional events occur frequently. Fremont cottonwood flowers from February to early April allowing the seed to be dispersed late spring (May), optimally on the receding limb of the spring flood stage. Seeds established during this stage of flooding are not typically susceptible to subsequent flooding and the soil is generally moist enough to allow germination (Braatne et al. 1996, Rood et al. 2007). Germination may occur more often, but establishment and survival past seeding stage in to young stage is unlikely to occur every year. Cottonwoods generally only germinate on freshly deposited sediment and will generally not germinate in an area already covered by vegetation (Rood et al 2007).State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 5. State and Transition Model for R035XY022UT
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference ChannelThe reference channels are E4 or C4. There are two community phases in this state, an E4 channel and C4 channel phase. E4 channel has well vegetated stream banks with plant roots that hold the stream bank together. The C4 channel can occur where flooding has deposited sediment and the channel has widened. The same plant community components are present in both community phases.
Community 1.1
E4 ChannelThis phase represents a stable combination of stream morphology and potential natural vegetation. The E4 stream type have moderate sinuosity, low channel gradient, and very low channel width/depth ratio. This phase provides instream habitat for aquatic species because it has a combination of stream habitat, including riffles, pools and undercut banks. There are generally two major fluvial surfaces associated with this site with distinct plant community components. Flood plains have predominantly herbaceous vegetation with some willows (PCC1). This vegetation holds the fine sediment on the streambanks together. Flood-plain step is dominated by Fremont cottonwood and a mix of shrubs with much less herbaceous material (PCC2). A third fluvial surface can also occur on this site further away from the stream. The terrace community is predominated by basin big sagebrush and is correlated to site R035XY011UT.
Community 1.2
C4 ChannelThis phase represents a stable combination of stream morphology and potential natural vegetation. The C4 stream type is a slightly entrenched, meandering, gravel dominated, riffle/pool channel with a well-developed flood plain. This phase can have all the plant community components. Although PCC1 may be smaller because of channel dynamics and sediment deposition on the banks.
Pathway 1
Community 1.1 to 1.2Seasonal flooding, scouring of vegetation and/or sediment from the streambank
Pathway 2
Community 1.2 to 1.1Vegetation regrowth
State 2
Entrenched/Degraded ChannelThis state occurs when disturbances in state 1 or 3 remove bank stabilizing vegetation, or there is above normal flooding. Vegetation removal can cause the fine sediment on the banks to lose cohesion, making it easier for sediment to be eroded on the banks. Above normal flooding can also cause channel degradation. Scour of the channel bed typically lead to a “G” type channel that is disconnected from the flood plain. When flood water is unable to disperse over a flood plain is contained within the channel, more erosion on the banks may occur because of greater shear stress. Increased erosion of banks and bed may result in vertical and lateral instability. PCC1 is typically absent from this state, or may be patchy. PCC2 and PCC3 may increase in this state.
Community 2.1
G4c ChannelThis channel type may occur when either the sediment supply or water amount is altered (decrease sediment and higher flow) which can cause degradation and downcutting. The channel is typically less sinuous than the reference channel. This phase is dominated by PCC2 and PCC3.
Community 2.2
F4 ChannelThis phase represents the channel after sediment has been scoured from banks, creating a wider, shallower channel. The flood-plain step (PCC2) is the predominant fluvial surface in this state; however PCC1 may be present in narrow and/or short sections where sediment has been deposited. Stream banks/floodplains have some herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, but generally not enough for stabilizing fine sediment soils on the stream banks. Above the flood prone area are wider, flatter terraces with scattered cottonwood and shrubs with few grasses (PCC2) and terraces with basin big sagebrush (PCC3, R035XY011UT).
Pathway 1
Community 2.1 to 2.2Flooding
Pathway 2
Community 2.2 to 2.1Downcutting
State 3
Entrenched Re-established Flood plainThe channels in this state are stable analogues (stable channels that have similar morphology as state 1 channels) that have re-established some floodplain connection during bankfull flows. These channels also have the potential to express all plant community components. The lower channel may have established after several incremental entrenchment and widening events, as evidenced by floodplains and terraces.
Stable analogue E4 channel. This channel succession within state 3 is similar to state 1, but at a lower elevation. These stable analogue channel types are at risk of crossing a threshold back to state 2 if sediment and flow do not remain in balance.Community 3.1
C4 ChannelThis phase represents the re-establishment of stream connectivity to its floodplain. Wider, more efficient floodplains are established with depositional features that PCC1 can establish and develop. Local water tables are raised creating better conditions for terrace vegetation as well. The entire system is constrained by moderate entrenchment so lateral development of floodplains is limited to previous widening (phase 2.1) provides the room necessary for floodplain establishment.
All plant community components are found in this phase.Community 3.2
E4 ChannelThis phase represents a stable combination of stream morphology and potential natural vegetation at a lower elevation than phase 1.1. The E4 stream type has moderate sinuosity, low channel gradient and very low channel width/depth ratio. There are three fluvial surfaces in this site, flood plains, flood-plain steps and terraces. Flood plains have predominantly herbaceous vegetation with some willows (PCC1). This vegetation holds the fine sediment on the streambanks together. Flood-plain step is dominated by Fremont cottonwood and a mix of shrubs with much less herbaceous material (PCC2). The terrace community is predominated by basin big sagebrush and is correlated to site R035XY011UT.
The tables below represent both plant community component one and two. Species list are separated by fluvial surface, the other tables represent a range of characteristics between the two PCC.Figure 6. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 5. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 100 1000 2000 Shrub/Vine 50 500 1000 Forb 25 100 150 Total 175 1600 3150 Table 6. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0% Grass/grasslike basal cover 0% Forb basal cover 0% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0-10% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0-0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0-80% Table 7. Woody ground cover
Downed wood, fine-small (<0.40" diameter; 1-hour fuels) 0-5% N* Downed wood, fine-medium (0.40-0.99" diameter; 10-hour fuels) 0-1% N* Downed wood, fine-large (1.00-2.99" diameter; 100-hour fuels) 0-1% N* Downed wood, coarse-small (3.00-8.99" diameter; 1,000-hour fuels) 0-1% N* Downed wood, coarse-large (>9.00" diameter; 10,000-hour fuels) 0-1% N* Tree snags** (hard***) – Tree snags** (soft***) – Tree snag count** (hard***) 0-10 per acre Tree snag count** (hard***) 0-10 per acre * Decomposition Classes: N - no or little integration with the soil surface; I - partial to nearly full integration with the soil surface.
** >10.16cm diameter at 1.3716m above ground and >1.8288m height--if less diameter OR height use applicable down wood type; for pinyon and juniper, use 0.3048m above ground.
*** Hard - tree is dead with most or all of bark intact; Soft - most of bark has sloughed off.
Table 8. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – 0-15% 0-5% >0.5 <= 1 – – 0-20% 0-5% >1 <= 2 – – 5-10% – >2 <= 4.5 – 0-10% 30-60% – >4.5 <= 13 0-5% 5-10% 0-10% – >13 <= 40 5-25% – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Pathway 1
Community 3.1 to 3.2Seasonal flooding, scouring of vegetation and/or sediment
Pathway 2
Community 3.2 to 3.1Vegetation regrowth
Transition 1
State 1 to 2Catastrophic flooding, vegetation removal on floodplain followed by flooding
Transition 2
State 2 to 3Vegetation establishment and stream stabilization
Transition 3
State 3 to 2Catastrophic flooding, vegetation removal on floodplain followed by flooding.
Additional community tables
Table 9. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 PCC1 grasses 250–2000 common reed PHAU7 Phragmites australis 200–1500 15–40 common threesquare SCPU10 Schoenoplectus pungens 0–350 0–35 mountain rush JUARL Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis 0–300 0–20 saltgrass DISP Distichlis spicata 0–50 0–15 common spikerush ELPA3 Eleocharis palustris 0–50 0–10 rush JUNCU Juncus 0–50 0–5 sedge CAREX Carex 0–50 0–5 Grass, perennial 2GP Grass, perennial 0–50 0–5 Nebraska sedge CANE2 Carex nebrascensis 0–50 0–2 scratchgrass MUAS Muhlenbergia asperifolia 0–25 0–5 spikerush ELEOC Eleocharis 0–25 0–5 Graminoid (grass or grass-like) 2GRAM Graminoid (grass or grass-like) 0–15 0–1 Grass, annual 2GA Grass, annual 0–15 0–1 Canada wildrye ELCA4 Elymus canadensis 0–10 0–2 4 PCC2 Grasses 50–500 Indian ricegrass ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides 50–250 2–15 saltgrass DISP Distichlis spicata 10–200 1–5 scratchgrass MUAS Muhlenbergia asperifolia 50–150 1–10 common reed PHAU7 Phragmites australis 0–150 0–10 alkali sacaton SPAI Sporobolus airoides 0–75 0–1 sand dropseed SPCR Sporobolus cryptandrus 0–75 0–1 western wheatgrass PASM Pascopyrum smithii 0–50 0–2 Grass, perennial 2GP Grass, perennial 0–50 0–2 mountain rush JUARL Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis 0–50 0–2 Grass, annual 2GA Grass, annual 0–25 0–1 hairy woollygrass ERPI5 Erioneuron pilosum 0–10 0–1 alkali cordgrass SPGR Spartina gracilis 0–10 0–1 Forb2 PCC1 Forbs 50–250 smooth horsetail EQLA Equisetum laevigatum 0–150 0–25 field horsetail EQAR Equisetum arvense 0–150 0–10 scouringrush horsetail EQHY Equisetum hyemale 0–100 0–25 horsetail EQUIS Equisetum 50–100 5–10 variegated scouringrush EQVA Equisetum variegatum 0–75 0–10 flatspine bur ragweed AMAC2 Ambrosia acanthicarpa 0–50 0–10 Forb, perennial 2FP Forb, perennial 0–50 0–5 Canada goldenrod SOCA6 Solidago canadensis 0–25 0–5 showy milkweed ASSP Asclepias speciosa 0–20 0–5 Forb, annual 2FA Forb, annual 0–20 0–1 5 PCC2 Forbs 5–100 Canadian horseweed COCA5 Conyza canadensis 0–50 0–10 white sagebrush ARLU Artemisia ludoviciana 0–50 0–2 Canada goldenrod SOCA6 Solidago canadensis 0–50 0–2 Forb, annual 2FA Forb, annual 0–50 0–1 Forb, perennial 2FP Forb, perennial 0–50 0–1 pricklypear OPUNT Opuntia 0–20 0–1 copperweed OXAC4 Oxytenia acerosa 0–10 0–2 yellow spiderflower CLLU2 Cleome lutea 0–10 0–2 Wyoming Indian paintbrush CALI4 Castilleja linariifolia 0–10 0–1 hoary tansyaster MACA2 Machaeranthera canescens 0–10 0–1 flatspine bur ragweed AMAC2 Ambrosia acanthicarpa 0–10 0–1 bastard toadflax COUM Comandra umbellata 0–10 0–1 western blanketflower GASP Gaillardia spathulata 0–10 0–1 woolly plantain PLPA2 Plantago patagonica 0–5 0–10 lemon scurfpea PSLA3 Psoralidium lanceolatum 0–5 0–1 stiff blue-eyed grass SIDE4 Sisyrinchium demissum 0–5 0–1 small-leaf globemallow SPPA2 Sphaeralcea parvifolia 0–5 0–1 flatspine stickseed LAOC3 Lappula occidentalis 0–5 0–1 showy milkweed ASSP Asclepias speciosa 0–5 0–1 Shrub/Vine3 PCC1 Shrubs 200–1000 narrowleaf willow SAEX Salix exigua 200–800 2–65 yellow willow SALU2 Salix lutea 0–200 0–10 Shrub (>.5m) 2SHRUB Shrub (>.5m) 0–50 0–2 gray alder ALIN2 Alnus incana 0–50 0–1 6 PCC2 Shrub 50–250 rubber rabbitbrush ERNA10 Ericameria nauseosa 50–200 2–20 narrowleaf willow SAEX Salix exigua 0–100 0–15 Shrub (>.5m) 2SHRUB Shrub (>.5m) 0–50 0–5 fourwing saltbush ATCA2 Atriplex canescens 0–50 0–5 broom snakeweed GUSA2 Gutierrezia sarothrae 0–50 0–2 western white clematis CLLI2 Clematis ligusticifolia 0–50 0–1 silver buffaloberry SHAR Shepherdia argentea 0–50 0–1 Table 15. Community 3.2 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) TreeFremont cottonwood POFR2 Populus fremontii Native 7-28 10-50 2.6-40 0 Goodding's willow SAGO Salix gooddingii Native – 0-2 – 0 Interpretations
Animal community
Fish and Wildlife:
This site provides habitat for all types of wildlife, including birds, large mammals, small mammals, fish, salamanders, reptiles, and both terrestrial and aquatic insects, because of the surface and groundwater present. Native fish species are adapted to these seasonally flooded streams, finding refuge in deep pools and slower water habitat adjacent to wood jams and boulders. Turbid water provides hiding cover for native fish species. Non-native fish compete for food and habitat with native species in addition to using them as a food source. Reference conditions were not available due to extensive recreational use and long term manipulation of streams in this MLRA for irrigation and road construction. Riparian vegetation provides structure for cover, nesting and breeding habitat, and a corridor for movement for wildlife that is not be available in the surrounding uplands (Levick et al. 2008). The plant communities help moderate soil and air temperatures and reinforce stream banks. Cottonwood specifically can provide habitat for avian and insect fauna as well as bats. Birds can nest in the crown, or create nests in the cavities and in the dead trunks and limbs (Taylor 2000). This site also provides some thermal cover and forage opportunities for mule deer and elk. Birds, bats, lizards, snakes and rodents are very common. Birds from several families are typically present, from hawks to sparrows. Several species of mammals forage and occupy this site, including desert cottontail, black tailed jack rabbit, Colorado chipmunk, white-tailed antelope squirrel, Apache pocket mouse, and several species of Peromyscus (deer mice). Coyotes and kit foxes will also forage in the area. Bats (Myotis, Pipisturellus, and others) can be observed in this ecological site.
Birds present, one day observation 5/25/2011: (see park website for a more extensive species list http://www.nps.gov/care/naturescience/birdchecklist.htm)
Western wood peewee
Black-headed grosbeak
Canyon Wren
Aquatic community:
Under reference conditions, MLRA 35 perennial stream have the potential of supporting native fishes of the Colorado River Basin. There are non-native and native fish present within MLRA 35. The list below is from the Capitol Reef National Park website (http://www.nps.gov/care/naturescience/fish.htm)
Trout & Charr
• brown trout (Salmo trutta) - native to Europe but introduced into the West before 1900; thrives in the Fremont River because of tolerance to warm water.
• rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerii) - introduced from the Pacific Coast of the United States; lives well in both cold and warm water.
• cutthroat trout (Salmo clarkii) - native to Utah and the Intermountain Region; hybridizes with Rainbow trout, also requires cooler water temperatures.
• Eastern brook trout (charr)(Salvelinus fontinalis) - introduced to the West from the Northeastern part of the United States; found in some cold water streams that flow into the Fremont River.
Suckers
• flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) - native to the Colorado River system; herbivorous; ascends tributary streams in the spring to spawn.
• bluehead sucker (Pantosteus delphinus) - native to the Colorado River system; usually found in riffles of the streams; feeds on algae, slime, aquatic insect larvae.
Chubs, Dance, Minnows & Shiners
• speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) - native to the Fremont River where it is the most abundant fish; prefers rubble-strewn riffle areas; feeds on algae and other plant materials as well as small crustaceans, insect larvae, and small snails.
• Utah chub (Gila atraria) - introduced into the Fremont River as bait by fishermen; native habitat is the Bonneville Basin; generalized feeder, consuming higher plants, algae, terrestrial and aquatic insects, snails, crustaceans, and small fish; spawns during July.
• Leatherside chub (Gila copei) - found in the Fremont River; feeding and habits probably similar to the Utah chub.
• Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) - introduced into the Fremont River, native to Bonneville and Columbia River basins; feeds on small aquatic insect larvae, crustaceans, and some plant debris; spawns in late June.
North American Catfishes
• black bullhead (Ictalurus melas) – (non-native) occasionally found in Halls Creek near the southern park boundary where it undoubtedly migrates from Lake Powell; black bullhead is adaptable to a wide range of aquatic conditions but shows preference for more quiet and muddier parts of a stream.
Sunfishes
• bluegill (Lepomis machrochirus) – (non-native) occasionally found in Halls Creek where it may migrate from Lake Powell; feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, insect larvae, and occasionally on small fish and aquatic plants.
Sculpins
• mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) - probably introduced into the Fremont River from the Bonneville system; carnivorous, a bottom feeder utilizing insect larvae, crustaceans, small fish and snails
Grazing:
This site provides good to excellent grazing conditions for livestock and wildlife during spring, summer and fall when in good ecological condition. This site also may provide water sources to livestock for some of the year. Care and close management should be focused to maintain native perennial grasses and shrubs because they are difficult to reestablish, especially willow and cottonwood seedlings that can be susceptible to livestock grazing (Taylor 2000).
Restoration:
Reseeding and/or restoration are possible, but the major limiting factor is precipitation at critical plant growing periods. All plants within the riparian site need water table access to successfully establish as seedlings.
Hydrological functions
Channels in this site are perennial and groundwater fed. Many of the headwaters are found in the mountains found in MLRA 47XB. The bed material is composed of a mix of material, predominantly gravel, but sand and cobbles are also found. Perennial streams are scarce in this MLRA and most of the streams have been altered due to irrigation withdrawls and small diversions or dams on the streams. Spring floods and summer monsoon floods continue to influence channel form and vegetation, despite hydrologic alterations.
Recreational uses
National Parks in this MLRA draw millions of people every year. While established hiking trails may not exist, footpaths throughout these canyons are prevalent, evidence that they are frequented by human visitors.
The Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service manage most of areas that are within this ecological site. Some canyon bottoms are accessible to off-road vehicles on the established trails while other canyon bottoms allow only non-motorized forms of travel. Canyon bottoms in this MLRA are primarily visited in the spring and fall, although these sites are accessible year-round.Wood products
Limited to no opportunity for wood products.
Supporting information
Other references
References
Anderson, M. 2006. Salix exigua. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2009, November 23].
Braatne J.H., S.B. Rood and P.E. Heilman. 1996. Life history, ecology, and conservation of riparian cottonwoods in North America. In: Biology of Populus and its Implications for Management and Conservation (Eds R.F. Stettler, H.D. Bradshaw, P.E. Heilman & T.M. Hinckley), pp. 57–86. NRC Research Press, Ottawa.
Bryan, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in the arid southwest. Science 62(1607): 338-334. Accessed online www.sciencemag.org [July 10, 2010].
Clark, D., M. Dela Cruz, T. Clark, J. Coles, S. Topp, A. Evenden, A. Wight, G. Wakefield, and J. Von Loh. 2009. Vegetation classification and mapping project report, Capitol Reef National Park. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2009/187. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Everitt, B. L. 1995. Hydrologic factors in regeneration of Fremont cottonwood along the Fremont River, Utah, in Natural and Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial Geomorphology, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 89, edited by J. E. Costa et al., pp. 197–208, AGU, Washington, D. C., doi:10.1029/GM089p0197.
Gilbert, Cathy A. and McKoy, Kathleen L., Capitol Reef National Park Cultural Landscape Report: Fruita Rural Historic District. NPS Report No. 8, 1997. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/care/clr/clrt.htm
Graf, W.L. 1983. Downstream changes in stream power in the Henry Mountain, Utah. Annals, Assoc. Am. Geog. 73(3): 373-387.
Horton, J.L., T.E. Kolb, and S.C. Hart. 2001. Physiological response to groundwater depth varies among species and with river flow regulation. Ecological Applications 11: 1046–1059.
Hunt, C.B., P. Averitt, and R.L. Miller. 1953. Geology and geography of the Henry Mountains region Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 228, 244p.
Karrenberg, S., P.J. Edwards, and J. Kollmann. 2002. The life history of Salicaceae living in the active zone of floodplains. Freshwater Biology 47: 733-748.
Katz, G.L. and P.B. Shafroth. 2003. Biology, ecologcy and management of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russian olive) in western North America. Wetlands 23(4): 763-777.
Levick, L., J. Fonseca, D. Goodrich, M. Hernandez, D. Semmens, J. Stromberg, R. Leidy, M. Scianni, D. P. Guertin, M. Tluczek, and W. Kepner. 2008. The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center, EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046, 116 pp.
McBride, J.R. and J. Strahan. 1984. Establishment and survival of woody riparian species on gravel bars of an intermittent stream. American Midland Naturalist 112 (2): 235-245.
Reichenbacher, F.W. 1984. Ecology and evolution of southwestern riparian plant communities. Desert Plants 6(1): 15-22.
Rood, S.B, J.A. Goater, J.M. Mahoney, C.M. Pearce, and D.G. Smith. 2007. Floods, fire, and ice: disturbance ecology of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian Journal of Botany 85: 1019-1032.
Stromberg, J.C., S.J. Lite, R. Marler, C. Paradzick, T.B. Shafroth, D. Shorrock, J.M. White, and M.S. White. 2007. Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 381-393.
Webb, R.H. 1985. Late Holocene flooding on the Escalante River, south-central Utah. University of Arizona, Tucson, PhD dissertation.
Wooley, R.R. 1946. Cloudburst floods in Utah, 1850-1938. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 994, 128p.
Taylor, J. L. 2000. Populus fremontii. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2009, October 14].
Zouhar, K. 2003. Tamarix spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2013, March 21].
Other References
Bestelmeyer, B., J.R. Brown, K.M. Havstad, B. Alexander, G. Chavez, J.E. Herrick. 2003. Development and use of state and transition models for rangelands. J. Range Manage. 56(2):114-126.
Bestelmeyer, B.,A.J. Tugel, G.L. Peacock, D.G. Robinett, P.L. Shaver, J.R. Brown, J.E. Herrick, H. Sanchez, and K.M. Havstad. 2009. State-and-Transition Models for Heterogeneous Landscapes: A Strategy for Development and Application. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62:1-15.
Briske, D. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2006. A Unified Framework for Assessment and Application of Ecological Thresholds. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:225–236.
Briske, D. D., B. T. Bestelmeyer, T. K. Stringham, and P. L. Shaver. 2008. Recommendations for Development of Resilience-Based State-And-Transition Models. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:359–367.
Harrelson C. C., Rawlins, C. L. and Potyondy J. P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique, General Technical Report RM-245, USDA - Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 61 pages. Available at: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/publications/documentsStream.html
Herrick, J.E. J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Volume I Quick Start. USDA - ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Available at: http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/monit_assess/monmanual_main.php.
Herrick, J.E. J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Volume II: Design, Supplementary Methods and Interpretation. USDA - ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Available at: http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/monit_assess/monmanual_main.php.
Kovalchik, B.L. and L.A. Chitwood, 1990. Use of Geomorphology in the Classification of Riparian Plant Associations in Mountainous Landscapes of Central Oregon, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management 33/34:405-418.
Poole, G.C. and C.H. Berman, 2001. An Ecological Perspective on In-Stream Temperature: Natural Heat Dynamics and Mechanisms of Human-Caused Thermal Degradation. Environmental Management 27:787-802.
Pringle, C.M., R.J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J. R. Karr, M.W. Osgood, J.R. Webster, R.L. Welcomme, and M.J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch Dynamics in Lotic Systems: the Stream as Mosaic. The North American Benthological Society 7(4):503-524
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Stream Classification System. Catena, 22 169199. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colorado, and Ft. Collins, CO.
Rosgen, D.L., 2006. A Watershed Assessment for River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Wildland Hydrology Books, Fort Collins, CO.
Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and W.D. Broderson (editors). 2002. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.
Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and Transition Modeling: An Ecological Process Approach. J. Range Manage 56: 106-113.
USDA, NRCS. 2008. (Electronic) Field Office Technical Guide. Available online at: http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/efotg_locator.aspx.
USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2004. National Forestry Handbook. Available online at: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/nfhandbook/
USDA, NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov
USDA, NRCS. 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook. Available online at: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/nrph.html
USDA, NRCS Soil Survey Manuals for appropriate counties within MLRA 35.
USDA, NRCS, 2007. Southerland, W. B., Technical Supplement 3E, National Engineering Handbook 654, Rosgen Stream Classification Technique – Supplemental Materials.
USDA, USFS, 2010. Fire Effects Information System Database. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
USDI, USGS, 2010. National Water Information System. Available online at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/
Contributors
Sarah Quistberg
Approval
Kendra Moseley, 5/19/2025
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 06/15/2026 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:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
