NatureServe Explorer logo.An Online Encyclopedia of Life
Search
Ecological Association Comprehensive Report: Record 1 of 1 selected.
See All Search Results    View Glossary
<< Previous | Next >>

Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii / Calamagrostis canadensis Swamp Forest
Translated Name: Subalpine Fir - Engelmann Spruce / Bluejoint Swamp Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL000300
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This spruce-fir riparian forest type is a minor and sporadic plant association in the middle Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Utah, but is consistently present in most mountain ranges in the northern Rocky Mountains well into Canada. It occupies the lower to middle reaches of the subalpine zone, occurring from 1400 to 2776 m (4595-9075 feet), and occasionally to 3300 m (10,800 feet) in elevation. It has the coldest and wettest environment in the Abies lasiocarpa alliance because of high groundwater levels and cold-air drainage from surrounding uplands. Snowpack often persists late into the season. Sites include toeslopes and footslopes and stream terraces of all gradients. However, the most common landscape position is poorly drained depressions or basins, from pond margins, to fairly sizable kettleholes to minor swales. These depositional positions are typified by fine-textured soils. These sites are typically subirrigated and in the early portion of the growing season are saturated to the surface, but they become dry by mid summer or earlier. The canopy of this type is highly variable with some stands having a dense canopy of Abies lasiocarpa, with Picea engelmannii a lesser component and Pinus contorta or Populus tremuloides seral components. Abies and Picea are sometimes only poorly represented as stunted or very slow-growing individuals in old-growth stands of persistent Pinus contorta. These prolonged seral conditions typically occur with sites that are not too wet. Sites are sufficiently wet that Pseudotsuga menziesii and Larix occidentalis do poorly here as seral species. Pinus albicaulis may occur when this type extends into the upper subalpine zone in protected basins, where it is most commonly found on hummocks or drier sites within the stand. Shrub associates include Ledum glandulosum, Lonicera involucrata, Ribes lacustre, Vaccinium cespitosum, Vaccinium myrtillus, and Vaccinium scoparium. Rubus parviflorus, Symphoricarpos albus, and Spiraea betulifolia, can comprise a distinct layer in some stands. The modal undergrowth condition is characterized as a relatively lush sward of Calamagrostis canadensis (or Calamagrostis stricta) with scattered shrubs and herbs. Other graminoids can include Carex aquatilis, Carex disperma, Carex microptera, Carex norvegica ssp. inferalpina, Carex utriculata, Luzula parviflora, and Poa reflexa. Associated forbs are geographically variable, and occasionally they can be conspicuous. Those forbs with high constancy include Thalictrum occidentale, Senecio triangularis, Veratrum viride, Heracleum maximum, Dodecatheon jeffreyi, Maianthemum stellatum, Streptopus amplexifolius, and Equisetum arvense. Moss cover is typically high.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This association is defined as a PNV vegetation type. If it were renamed as a dominance type, the species would include Pinus contorta, Abies lasiocarpa, or Picea engelmannii. The association name proposed here is new and better reflects the fact that a mix of the two climax dominant tree species exists in these stands in all combinations of cover and structure. Prior classifications (Pfister et al. 1977, Steele et al. 1983) have recognized and termed this same type Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis, accepting that Picea engelmannii might constitute anything from a dominant to a trace or even be absent. They viewed the absence of Abies lasiocarpa, where Picea engelmannii was dominant with the same undergrowth composition, as somehow different. We have recognized that Abies lasiocarpa and Picea engelmannii are close ecological analogues and that this community is the wettest in which these two species are capable of sharing dominance. There is presently no indication that Picea engelmannii / Calamagrostis canadensis Swamp Forest (CEGL002678), defined by a total lack of Abies lasiocarpa, is other than a stochastic phenomena, though in some portions of Montana the lower elevation limits of Picea are noted to exceed those of Abies lasiocarpa. In situations as wet as denoted by say Picea engelmannii / Equisetum arvense Swamp Forest (CEGL005927), Abies lasiocarpa is either not present, or found only in microsites, or as unthrifty specimens that will never reach the upper canopy.

A number of phases of the Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis association have been recognized (Pfister et al. 1977, Steele et al. 1981, 1983, Cooper et al. 1987), but at this juncture we have considered those with an appreciable cover of forbs (for example the Ligusticum canbyi phase in northern Idaho) as just variation to be accepted within the association. There is no information to suggest they measurably differ in site parameters, rather they seem more to represent geographic floristic distinctions. The shrub-dominated phases (Vaccinium cespitosum, Ledum glandulosum) do exhibit differences in site parameters and probably should be elevated to the association level (for example Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii / Vaccinium cespitosum / Calamagrostis canadensis), but this has not yet been thoroughly reviewed. Some (including Hansen et al. (1995)) have apparently included stands with appreciable (>10%) cover of Carex utriculata, Carex disperma, or Carex scopulorum in this association, when in fact a yet wetter soil moisture regime is indicated by these species when exhibiting such relatively high cover.


Vegetation Hierarchy
Class 1 - Forest & Woodland
Subclass 1.B - Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland
Formation 1.B.3 - Temperate Flooded & Swamp Forest
Division 1.B.3.Nc - Rocky Mountain-Great Basin Montane Flooded & Swamp Forest
Macrogroup Rocky Mountain-Great Basin Montane Riparian & Swamp Forest
Group Rocky Mountain-Great Basin Montane Riparian & Swamp Forest
Alliance Subalpine Fir - Engelmann Spruce Swamp Forest

This is the revised vegetation hierarchy. For more information see Classification Sources and usnvc.org.

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL000138 Pinus contorta / Calamagrostis canadensis Swamp Forest
CEGL000574 Populus tremuloides / Calamagrostis canadensis Riparian Forest
CEGL002678 Picea engelmannii / Calamagrostis canadensis Swamp Forest
CEGL005909 Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa - Populus tremuloides - Conifer / Calamagrostis canadensis Riparian Forest



Related Concepts from Other Classifications

Related Subnational Community Units
These data are subject to substantial ongoing revision and may be out of date for some states.
In the U.S., contact the state Heritage Program for the most complete and up-to-date information at: http://www.natureserve.org/natureserve-network.
Information from programs in other jurisdictions will be posted when they are made available.
Subnation Concept Name Relationship to Standard Confidence Reference
Idaho Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii / Calamagrostis canadensis Forest Equivalent Certain IDCDC 2005
Montana Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Forest Equivalent Certain MTNHP 2002
Wyoming Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Forest Equivalent Certain WNDD unpubl. data


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii / Calamagrostis canadensis Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Carsey, K., G. Kittel, K. Decker, D. J. Cooper, and D. Culver. 2003a. Field guide to the wetland and riparian plant associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO.
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii / Calamagrostis canadensis Plant Association
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Baker, W. L. 1984a. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 44(4):647-676.
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Habitat Type
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. General Technical Report INT-34. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 174 pp.
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Crowe, E. A., and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetland plant associations of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman national forests. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Association
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Crowe, E. A., B. L. Kovalchik, and M. J. Kerr. 2004. Riparian and wetland vegetation of central and eastern Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Portland. 473 pp. [http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/ publications.html]
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Habitat Type
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Komarkova, V. K., R. R. Alexander, and B. C. Johnston. 1988b. Forest vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre national forests: A preliminary habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-163. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 65 pp.
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Cooper, S. V. 1975. Forest habitat types of northwestern Wyoming and contiguous portion of Montana and Idaho. Unpublished dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 190 pp.
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Cooper, S. V., K. E. Neiman, R. Steele, and D. W. Roberts. 1987. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: A second approximation. General Technical Report INT-236.USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 135 pp. [reprinted in 1991]
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Hess, K., and R. R. Alexander. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt national forests in northcentral Colorado: A habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-266. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 48 pp.
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Mauk, R. L., and J. A. Henderson. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. General Technical Report INT-170. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 89 pp.
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Steele, R., R. D. Pfister, R. A. Ryker, and J. A. Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. General Technical Report INT-114. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 138 pp.
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Steele, R., S. V. Cooper, D. M. Ondov, D. W. Roberts, and R. D. Pfister. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho - western Wyoming. General Technical Report INT-144. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 122 pp.
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Habitat Type, Calamagrostis canadensis Phase
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Cooper, S. V., K. E. Neiman, R. Steele, and D. W. Roberts. 1987. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: A second approximation. General Technical Report INT-236.USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 135 pp. [reprinted in 1991]
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Habitat Type, Ligusticum canbyi Phase
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Cooper, S. V., K. E. Neiman, R. Steele, and D. W. Roberts. 1987. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: A second approximation. General Technical Report INT-236.USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 135 pp. [reprinted in 1991]
Related Concept Name: Abies lasiocarpa / Calamagrostis canadensis Habitat Type, Vaccinium caespitosum Phase
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Cooper, S. V., K. E. Neiman, R. Steele, and D. W. Roberts. 1987. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: A second approximation. General Technical Report INT-236.USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 135 pp. [reprinted in 1991]
Related Concept Name: Conifer / Calamagrostis canadensis Community Type
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Padgett, W. G., A. P. Youngblood, and A. H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. Research Paper R4-ECOL-89-0. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES306.830 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic-Wet Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G5 (01Feb1996)
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY
Canadian Province Distribution: AB
Global Distribution: Canada, United States
Global Range: This association occurs in Colorado, northern Utah, western Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and north into Alberta, Canada.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Dry Domain
Division Name: Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains
Province Name: Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe - Open Woodland - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province
Province Code: M331 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Yellowstone Highlands Section
Section Code: M331A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Bighorn Mountains Section
Section Code: M331B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Overthrust Mountains Section
Section Code: M331D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: North-Central Highlands Section
Section Code: M331H Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Parks and Ranges Section
Section Code: M331I Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Wind River Mountain Section
Section Code: M331J Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Province Name: Middle Rocky Mountain Steppe - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province
Province Code: M332 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Idaho Batholith Section
Section Code: M332A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Bitterroot Valley Section
Section Code: M332B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Rocky Mountain Front Section
Section Code: M332C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Belt Mountains Section
Section Code: M332D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Beaverhead Mountains Section
Section Code: M332E Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Challis Volcanics Section
Section Code: M332F Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Province Name: Northern Rocky Mountain Forest - Steppe - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province
Province Code: M333 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Okanogan Highlands Section
Section Code: M333A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Flathead Valley Section
Section Code: M333B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Rockies Section
Section Code: M333C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Bitterroot Mountains Section
Section Code: M333D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: The canopy of this type is highly variable, with stands of the southern distribution having a dense canopy of Abies lasiocarpa, with Picea engelmannii a lesser component and Pinus contorta a highly constant seral component. Populus tremuloides is also present sometimes as a seral component. Often these Abies lasiocarpa-dominated stands represent a later successional stage, from which the formerly dominant Pinus contorta has been removed by natural mortality. According to Mauk and Henderson (1984), Abies and Picea are sometimes only poorly represented as stunted or very slow-growing individuals in old-growth stands of persistent Pinus contorta. These prolonged seral conditions typically occur with sites that are not too wet. In the north all degrees of canopy closer have been documented, with the cover usually not greater than 50% and dominated by highly variable combinations of Abies lasiocarpa and Picea engelmannii. Sites are sufficiently wet that Pseudotsuga menziesii and Larix occidentalis do poorly here as seral species, though Pinus contorta may constitute a significant component, its cover often exceeding that of climax dominants. Pfister et al. (1977) report that Pinus albicaulis may occur when this type extends into the upper subalpine zone in protected basins, where it is most commonly found on hummocks or drier sites within the stand. Shrub associates include Ledum glandulosum, Lonicera involucrata, Ribes lacustre, Vaccinium cespitosum, Vaccinium myrtillus, and Vaccinium scoparium. Shrubs characteristic of drier sites may grow on hummocks or at the base of trees (Steele et al. 1983). Rubus parviflorus, Symphoricarpos albus, and Spiraea betulifolia, can comprise a distinct layer in some stands.

The modal undergrowth condition is characterized as a relatively lush sward of Calamagrostis canadensis (or Calamagrostis stricta) with scattered shrubs and herbs. Other graminoids include Carex aquatilis, Carex disperma, Carex microptera (= Carex festivella), Carex norvegica ssp. inferalpina (= Carex media), Luzula parviflora, and Poa reflexa. Associated forbs are geographically variable, and occasionally they can be conspicuous. Those forbs with high constancy at least in the northern portion of this type's range include Thalictrum occidentale, Senecio triangularis, Veratrum viride, Heracleum maximum, Dodecatheon jeffreyi, Maianthemum stellatum (= Smilacina stellata), Streptopus amplexifolius, and Equisetum arvense. In particular geographic areas Ligusticum spp., Trautvetteria caroliniensis, and Aconitum columbianum can comprise significant cover; other important species include Actaea rubra, Arnica cordifolia, Linnaea borealis, Mertensia ciliata, Mitella pentandra, Osmorhiza depauperata, Pyrola chlorantha, Saxifraga odontoloma (= Saxifraga arguta),and Trollius laxus. Due to the high coverage values for both shrubs and graminoids, the forb component of some sites is negligible (Cooper 1975). Moss cover is typically high.

Steele et al. (1981) and Cooper et al. (1987) recognize four phases for this type in Idaho. The first phase is a Ledum glandulosum phase. It represents the colder or higher extremes of the type, with reduced species richness, Ledum glandulosum forming a dominant undergrowth, and Gaultheria humifusa occurring with a greater frequency than in the other phases. Calamagrostis canadensis becomes increasingly scarce at the upper elevations of this phase. The second phase is a Vaccinium cespitosum phase, representing a frost pocket condition with Pinus contorta a persistent seral dominant. This phase often merges with Abies lasiocarpa/Vaccinium cespitosum on drier sites. The third phase is a Ligusticum canbyi phase which occup


Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Abies lasiocarpa G5 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy
 
 
Picea engelmannii G5 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy
 
 
Heracleum maximum G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Maianthemum stellatum G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Senecio triangularis G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Equisetum arvense G5 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Calamagrostis canadensis G5 Graminoid Herb (field)
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: Y
Environmental Summary: This riparian forest type is a minor and sporadic plant association in the middle Rocky Mountains but is consistently present in most mountain ranges in the northern Rocky Mountains well into Canada. It occupies the lower to middle reaches of the subalpine zone, occurring at elevations as low as 1400 m (4600 feet) in frost pockets to 2776 m (9100 feet), and occasionally as high as 3300 m (10,800 feet) (Rocky Mountain National Park). It has the coldest and wettest environment in the Abies lasiocarpa alliance because of high groundwater levels and cold-air drainage from surrounding uplands (Hess and Alexander 1986). In Colorado, at the southern extreme of its distribution, this association is characterized as having a narrow niche, occurring on toeslopes adjacent to moderate-gradient streams. Snowpack often persists late into the season. Conversely, in the Northern Rockies sites include toeslopes and footslopes and stream terraces of all gradients. However, the most common landscape position is poorly drained depressions or basins, from pond margins, to fairly sizable kettleholes to minor swales. Being predominantly depositional positions in the landscape, these sites are typified by fine-textured soils, clay loams being quite prevalent (Pfister et al. 1977). These sites are subirrigated and in the early portion of the growing season are saturated to the surface, some even having standing water; they become dry by midsummer or earlier. Permanently wet sites (seeps) have mucky surface soils below a typically thick organic layer. Better drained sites have a loamy surface soil texture, and often gravel. Areas of bare soil or rock are negligible on most sites. Average litter depths are extremely variable, ranging from almost none in stream bottom sites to depths of 15 cm in seepage or depression areas. Parent material for soils varies widely and includes granitics, quartzite, alluvium and colluvium, glacial till and drift of sedimentary origin (both calcareous and noncalcareous), and volcanics, both extrusive and intrusive.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: This type is not so constantly moist as to prevent burning as indicated by the predominance of Pinus contorta (Cooper 1975). Fischer and Bradley (1987) place this association in their fire group nine, except for the drier Abies lasiocarpa/Calamagrostis canadensis, Vaccinium cespitosum phase which is in fire group seven. Fire group nine represents the moist, lower subalpine habitat types with infrequent but severe fires of long-lasting effect. The combination of deep duff and large amounts of dead rotten fuel can result in severe surface fire during unusually dry moisture conditions such as late-summer droughts. Where dense understories exist, such fires can easily spread to the tree crowns and destroy the stand. Even if a severe surface fire does not crown, there is a good chance the overstory trees will be killed by cambium heating. Under normal moisture conditions for these sites, a lush undergrowth of shrubs and herbs usually serves as an effective barrier to rapid fire spread.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): L.D. Engelking
Element Description Edition Date: 13Jul2005
Element Description Author(s): S.V. Cooper and S.L. Neid
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 01Feb1996

Ecological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).


References
  • ANHIC [Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre]. 2018. Community database files. Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, Parks and Protected Areas Division, Alberta Community Development, Edmonton.

  • Baker, W. L. 1984a. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 44(4):647-676.

  • Bourgeron, P. S., and L. D. Engelking, editors. 1994. A preliminary vegetation classification of the western United States. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Western Heritage Task Force, Boulder, CO. 175 pp. plus appendix.

  • CNHP [Colorado Natural Heritage Program]. 2006-2017. Tracked natural plant communities. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. [https://cnhp.colostate.edu/ourdata/trackinglist/plant_communities/]

  • Carsey, K., G. Kittel, K. Decker, D. J. Cooper, and D. Culver. 2003a. Field guide to the wetland and riparian plant associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Cogan, D., K. Varga, and G. Kittel. 2005. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program: Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. Final Project Report 2002-2005 Vegetation Mapping Project. Technical Memorandum 8260-06-02. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. 87 pp. plus Appendixes A-F.

  • Cooper, D. J., and T. R. Cottrell. 1990. Classification of riparian vegetation in the northern Colorado Front Range. Unpublished report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Field Office, Boulder. 115 pp.

  • Cooper, S. V. 1975. Forest habitat types of northwestern Wyoming and contiguous portion of Montana and Idaho. Unpublished dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 190 pp.

  • Cooper, S. V., K. E. Neiman, R. Steele, and D. W. Roberts. 1987. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: A second approximation. General Technical Report INT-236.USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 135 pp. [reprinted in 1991]

  • Crowe, E. A., B. L. Kovalchik, and M. J. Kerr. 2004. Riparian and wetland vegetation of central and eastern Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Portland. 473 pp. [http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/ publications.html]

  • Crowe, E. A., and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetland plant associations of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman national forests. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

  • Fischer, W. C., and A. F. Bradley. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. General Technical Report INT-223. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 95 pp.

  • Hansen, P. L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy, and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 646 pp. plus posters.

  • Hess, K., and R. R. Alexander. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt national forests in northcentral Colorado: A habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-266. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 48 pp.

  • Hop, K., M. Reid, J. Dieck, S. Lubinski, and S. Cooper. 2007. U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program: Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI. 131 pp. plus Appendices A-L.

  • IDCDC [Idaho Conservation Data Center]. 2005. Wetland and riparian plant associations in Idaho. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. [http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/tech/CDC/ecology/wetland_riparian_assoc.cfm] (accessed 14 June 2005).

  • Johnston, B. C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential plant communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas. R2-ECOL-87-2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, CO. 429 pp.

  • Kettler, S., and A. McMullen. 1996. Routt National Forest riparian vegetation classification. Report prepared for Routt National Forest by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

  • Kittel, G., E. Van Wie, M. Damm, R. Rondeau, S. Kettler, and J. Sanderson. 1999a. A classification of the riparian plant associations of the Rio Grande and Closed Basin watersheds, Colorado. Unpublished report prepared by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

  • Komarkova, V. K., R. R. Alexander, and B. C. Johnston. 1988b. Forest vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre national forests: A preliminary habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-163. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 65 pp.

  • MTNHP [Montana Natural Heritage Program]. 2002b. List of ecological communities for Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana State Library, Helena, MT.

  • Mauk, R. L., and J. A. Henderson. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. General Technical Report INT-170. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 89 pp.

  • Padgett, W. G., A. P. Youngblood, and A. H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. Research Paper R4-ECOL-89-0. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

  • Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. General Technical Report INT-34. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 174 pp.

  • Reid, M. S., S. V. Cooper, and G. Kittel. 2004. Vegetation classification of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. Final report for USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, International Peace Park Mapping Project. NatureServe, Arlington VA.

  • Richard, C., G. Kittel, and S. Kettler. 1996. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the San Juan National Forest. Draft 1 report. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

  • Salas, D., J. Stevens, and K. Schulz. 2005. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program: Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Technical Memorandum No. 8260-05-02. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. 161 pp. plus Appendices A-L (733 pp.).

  • Steele, R., R. D. Pfister, R. A. Ryker, and J. A. Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. General Technical Report INT-114. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 138 pp.

  • Steele, R., S. V. Cooper, D. M. Ondov, D. W. Roberts, and R. D. Pfister. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho - western Wyoming. General Technical Report INT-144. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 122 pp.

  • Terwilliger, C., K. Hess, and C. Wasser. 1979a. Key to the preliminary habitat types of Region 2. Addendum to initial progress report for habitat type classification. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.

  • WNDD [Wyoming Natural Diversity Database]. No date. Unpublished data on file. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • WNHP [Washington Natural Heritage Program]. 2018. Unpublished data files. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

  • Western Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boulder, CO.


Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.

Copyright 2019
NatureServe
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: March 2019