Foothills Fescue Range Plant Community Guide - Sustainable ...

Publication No. T /038 

ISBN: 0-7785-2836-7 

For additional copies contact: 

Barry W. Adams P. Ag. 

Range Management Specialist 

Rangeland Management Branch 

Public Lands Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 

Agriculture Centre, #100, 5401 - 1 st Ave South 

Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 4V6. 

 

ph 403 382-4299 cell 403-308-9946 fax: 403 381-5792 

On the Web: 

Rangeland plant community guides are available on our website at: 

< http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/land/publiclands/range.html> 

Citation for this document: 

Adams, B.W., R. Ehlert, D. Moisey and R.L. McNeil. 2003. Rangeland Plant 

Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Foothills Fescue Natural 

Subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands Division, Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Pub. No. T/038 85 pp. 

-ii-

RANGE PLANT COMMUNITIES AND RANGE HEALTH ASSESSMENT 

GUIDELINES FOR THE FOOTHILLS FESCUE NATURAL SUBREGION OF 

ALBERTA 

Second Approximation 

Pub. No. T/044 

June 2003 

Updated April 2005 

Prepared by: 

Barry W. Adams, Richard Ehlert and Darlene Moisey 

and 

Ron L. McNeil 

LandWise Inc., Lethbridge, AB 

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 

Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands and Forest Division 

Lethbridge, Alberta 

-iii-

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................vi 

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................vi 

Comments on the First Approximation ............................................................................vii 

Using the Guide - Major Topics ......................................................................................viii 

Key to Range Plant Communities ................................................................................. .x 

1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................ 1 

1.1 This guide is an aide to range health assessment ....................................... 1 

1.2 Ecological range sites and grassland plant communities................. ........2 

2.0 Physiography, Climate and Soils of the Foothills Fescue Grassland ...............3 

2.1 Overview .....................................................................................................3 

2.2 Correlation of soils and range sites .. ......................................................10 

2.3 Guidelines for determining range sites ................ ...................................14 

3.0 Review of Grazing Research in the Foothills Fescue Prairie ..........................18 

4.0 Previous Plant Community Studies ...................................................................22 

4.1 Native plant communities ...................... ..................................................22 

4.2 Modified plant communities ......................................................... ...........23 

5.0 Classification Methods 

5.1 Plant community classification methods ... .............................................25 

6.0 Results ..................................................................................................................26 

6.1 Range plant community summaries ........................................................32 

7.0 Guidelines for Assessing Plant Community Structure, Soil Exposure and 

Litter Abundance and Noxious Weeds. ............................................... ........... 63 

7.1 Question 1 - Integrity and ecological status................................. ............50 

7.2 Question 2 - Plant community structure ....................................... ...........51 

7.3 Question 3 - Does the site retain moisture (litter standards) ....................52 

7.4 Question 4 - Site/soil stability .................................................. ..............53 

7.5 Question 5 - Noxious weed infestation .....................................................54 

8.0 Literature cited ...................................................................................................69 

Appendix 9.1 Range Site Types in the Grassland Natural Region ......................74 

Appendix 9.2 A Concise Guide to Assist Users with AGRASID.......... ................76 

Appendix 9.3 Outlier Plant Community Table ..................................... ............... 84 

-iv-

List of Figures 

Fig. 1. Natural Subregions in southern Alberta, and the SCAs that they correlate with. 

..................................................................................................................................4 

Fig. 2. Ecodistricts in the Foothills Fescue, and the Buffalo Hill Upland areas. ...............5 

Fig. 3. Foothills Fescue, and the Buffalo Hill Upland areas, and adjoining natural 

subregions in SW Alberta. ......................................................................................6 

Fig. 4. Soil textures and their relationship to ecological range sites ................................17 

Fig. 5 An example of an SLM code ...................................................... .........................76 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Key distinguishing features of the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion 

compared with neighbouring Natural Subregions. .....................................7 

Table 2. Summary of climatic data for selected stations in the Foothills Fescue 

Natural Subregion .......................................................................................2 

Table 3. Major soils and associated ecological/range sites, by Ecodistrict or area. 

....................................................................................................................11 

Table 4. Soil correlation with range sites in SCA 5................................................12 

Table 5. Soil correlation with range sites in SCA 6.................................................13 

Table 6. Definition of soil particle sizes .................................................................16 

Table 7. Functions and attributes of healthy rough fescue plant communities .......21 

Table 8. Percent of plots with Kentucky bluegrass, Timothy or awnless brome 

grass in two Natural Subregions................................................................24 

Table 9. Plant communities listed by ecological range site within the Foothills 

Fescue grassland .......................................................................................28 

Table 10. Range plant communities and ecologically sustainable stocking rates by 

ecological range site within the Foothills Fescue grassland.....................30 

Table 11. Litter normals for the Foothills Fescue. ....................................................66 

Table 12 Soil exposure normals for major range sites in the Foothills Fescue 

grassland. ..................................................................................................67 

Table 13. Ecological/range sites, with definitions and abbreviated AGRASID 

correlations ................................................................................................74 

Table 14 Description of soil model unit numbers ....................................................77 

Table 15 Selected stoniness classes ....................................................................... .79 

Table 16 Description of undifferentiated soil models .......................................... ..79 

Table 17 Description of selected landscape models ................................................80 

Table 18 Surface form modifiers .............................................................................81 

Table 19 Soil series of SCA 5 ................................................................................. 82 

Table 20 Soil series of SCA 6 ..................................................................................83 

Table 21. Outlier communities are those sites which are unclassified due to small 

sample size or insufficient data. ................................................................84 

-v-

Executive Summary 

The Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is the moistest of the four Natural Subregions 

that make up the Grassland Natural Region. The Foothills Fescue is defined by Orthic 

Black Chernozemic soils with potential natural vegetation dominated by rough fescue, 

Parry oatgrass, Idaho fescue and wheatgrasses. Summer aridity and frequent winter 

Chinooks limit the persistence of woody species. Consequently, forest and shrub 

communities are limited to riparian areas and sheltered sites. The Foothills Fescue once 

occupied about 3.8 million acres in southwestern Alberta. Today about 16.8% of the 

original grassland landscape remains, primarily on commercial ranching operations 

where rough fescue is prized as a winter forage. 

This, and other plant community guides in the series, replace the original Guide to Range 

Condition and Stocking Rates for Alberta Grasslands by Wroe et al. (1988). The guide is 

designed for use with the field workbook - Range Health Assessment for Grassland, 

Forest and Tame Pasture (Adams et al. 2003). 

A new feature of this guide is a soil correlation mechanism that provides more guidance 

in determining range site, an important link to range plant communities. The guide 

should be used with published soil survey information or AGRASID (Agricultural 

Regions of Alberta Soil Information Database). Other site information like landscape, 

soil features and textural groupings will aid in range site determination. 

A rich history of range research is reviewed from the Stavely Research Substation, 

managed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Past range plant community studies are 

also reviewed. 

The analysis identified a total of 30 plant communities, 20 native grassland types, four 

modified grasslands and an additional six open shrub communities. Plant communities 

are reported in three categories. The reference plant communities are considered to 

represent the potential natural community for the site in question. Successional and 

modified plant communities are also identified in relation to the reference plant 

communities. These communities reflect the impact of variation in frequency and 

intensity of disturbance to the reference plant community. Suggested carrying capacities 

are provided for each plant community type. 

Future studies will address riparian plant communities and other range sites of lesser 

extent on the landscape. The report also includes consolidated guidelines and scoring 

notes for range health assessment in the Foothills Fescue. 

Acknowledgments 

We wish to acknowledge Michael Willoughby, ASRD, Edmonton, for his leadership in 

the development of range plant community classifications for a significant portion of 

Alberta’s rangelands. We also wish to express our sincere thanks for his council and 

assistance on methods and procedures. Mike Alexander, ASRD, Blairmore, John 

-vi-

Carscallen and Greg McAndrews, ASRD, Calgary, Alan Robertson (High Range 

Ecological Consultants), Varge Craig (Alta Rangeland Services Ltd.) and Tony Brierley 

(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) have contributed much to the review and 

refinement of this document and their assistance is greatly appreciated. 

Development of plant community guides for the Grassland Natural Region has been 

possible because of large and growing body of high quality vegetation plot data collected 

by Range Management program staff and a number of rangeland consultants since 1986 

when the Southern Range Inventory project was established, primarily to collect range 

plant community information for management planning. These professionals have payed 

particular care and attention to accurate plant taxonomy and consistent application of 

inventory methods. We wish to acknowledge the high quality of range vegetation 

inventory data that has been collected for the Public Lands Division by Kathy and Clare 

Tannas (Eastern Slopes Rangeland Seeds, Cremona, AB), Alan Robertson (High Range 

Ecological Consultants, Edmonton, AB) and Bryne Weerstra (Biota Consultants, 

Cochrane, AB). 

Thanks to Dr. Walter Willms and Dr. John Dormaar, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 

for their friendship and constant encouragement. Thanks also to Francis Gardner, 

Gordon Cartwright and Jack Vandervalk for their years of patient teaching about foothill 

grasslands, their many values and management. 

Comments on the Second Approximation 

The second approximation adds an additional 10 plant communities to the original 20 in 

the first approximation. This classification provides an initial plant community guide to 

provide basic standards for assessing range health using the new range health assessment 

protocol (Adams et. al 2003). The first approximation guides in the Grassland Natural 

Region provide plant community information in a similar format to the plant community 

guides developed by Willoughby et. al (2003) for Boreal and Rocky Mountain natural 

regions thus ensuring a more standardized format province wide. 

A new feature of guides in the Grassland Natural Region will be an improved framework 

for correlating soils information to range site and plant community. A strength of the 

original stocking guide (Smoliak et. al 1966, Wroe et. al 1988) was the use of generic 

range sites definitions that allowed users to recognize site potential. The new system 

builds on the old framework but provides more objectivity in determining range site. 

Recently Thompson and Hansen (2002) have classified riparian and wetland plant 

communities in the Grassland Natural Region. The 3 rd approximation of this guide will 

integrate their riparian plant community types as a new research project provides soil 

correlation guidelines for riparian landscapes in the Grassland Natural Region. 

-vii-

Determining Ecological Range Sites 

USING THE GUIDE - MAJOR TOPICS 

To use this plant community guide, you will need information about the dominant and 

co-dominant soils for the landscape you are interested in within the Foothills Fescue. 

Identification of the potential natural community (or reference plant community) for a 

site begins by recognizing the ecological range site. Range site is identified through key 

attributes of the landscape, of soil features and by textural groupings. 

Important! - Review the reference materials identified in this chapter, especially 

AGRASID 3.0 1 (Agricultural Regions of Alberta Soil Information Data Base) 

Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed review of physiography, climate and soils of the Foothills 

Fescue Natural Subregion: 

• General overview of physiography, climate and soils in the Foothills Fescue 

................................... page 3 - 9 

• General definitions for ecological range sites - Appendix 9.1........ page 74 

• Correlation of soils and ecological range sites ................................ page 10 - 13 

• Procedure for determining range sites ............................................ page 14 - 17 

• A concise guide for guide to assist users of AGRASID .................. page 76 - 83 

Review of Literature 

Previous grazing studies and plant community studies are reviewed in chapters 3 and 4 of 

the report: 

• Grazing research in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion ........ page 18 - 21 

• Previous plant community studies in the Foothills Fescue ...............page 22 - 24 

Range Plant Communities (Reference, Successional and Modified) and 

Suggested Carrying Capacities 

The KEY to range plant communities is on the following page. 

Chapter 6 is the core chapter describing range plant communities within the Foothills 

Fescue, their successional relationships, suggested carrying capacities and detailed plant 

community descriptions: 

• Summary table of reference, successional and modified plant communities 

....................................... page 28 - 31 

• Summary of range plant communities and suggested carrying capacities 

1 To obtain a copy of AGRASID 3.0 go to: 

http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/soil/agrasid/agrasidmainpage.html 

-viii-

............................................... page 32-62 

• Description of native grassland communities ............................... page 32 - 52 

• Description of modified grassland communities ........................... page 53 - 56 

• Description of shrub communities ................................................. page 57 - 62 

Guidelines for Assessing Range Health in the Foothills Fescue Natural 

Subregion 

• Guidelines for assessing ecological status, plant community structure, soil 

exposure, litter abundance and noxious weeds in the Foothills Fescue Natural 

Subregion ......................................................................................... page 63 - 68 

-ix-

Plant Community Categories 

Key to Range Plant Communities 

1. Native grasslands found in the Foothills Fescue .................................................Native Grassland Key 

Plant communities are modified to non-native species or are shrub communities...................................2 

2. Plant communities dominated by non-native species like Kentucky blue grass, awnless brome and 

Timothy and/or weedy disturbance species .....................................................Modified Grassland Key 

Plant communities have more than 5% canopy cover of Willow, Common Rose or Ground Juniper 

......................................................................................................................... Shrub Community Key 

Native Grassland Key 

1. Native grassland is dominated 2 by rough fescue ......................................................................................2 

Native grassland is dominated by Parry oatgrass, Idaho fescue, upland sedges, northern and western 

wheat grass or Kentucky bluegrass............................................................................................................8 

2. Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue and Parry oatgrass, with or without Idaho fescue.. ........3 

Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue, Richardson’s needle grass, or 

wheatgrasses with only minor amounts of Parry oatgrass....................................................................... 4 

3. Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue, and Parry oatgrass with or without Idaho fescue and is a 

loamy range site...................................................... ..................Rough Fescue - Parry Oatgrass FFA5 

Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue and Parry oatgrass with or without Idaho fescue and is a 

thin breaks or shallow-to-gravel/gravel range site. ................................................................................. 5 

4. Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue and Parry oatgrass with or without Idaho fescue and is a 

thin break range site ...........................................Rough Fescue - Parry Oatgrass - June Grass FFA17 

Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue Parry oatgrass with or without Idaho fescue and is a 

shallow-to-gravel/gravel range site....... Rough Fescue - Parry Oatgrass - Kentucky bluegrass FFA9 

5. Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue and Richardson needle grass and is a loamy range site 

on steep slopes (NOT thin breaks)...........................Rough Fescue - Richardson Needle Grass FFA23 

Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue or wheatgrasses and; Parry oatgrass 

occurs in minor amounts or is absent........................................................................................................6 

6. Native rough fescue - Idaho fescue dominated grassland has been recently disturbed by drought or short 

term grazing impacts and shows a significant cover of disturbance species like fringed sage.................... 

................................................................................Rough Fescue - Fringed sage - Idaho Fescue FFA3 

Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue with Idaho fescue or northern and western wheatgrass 

as subdominant species ...................................................................... ................... ..................................7 

7. Native grassland is a loamy range site dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue and upland sedges, 

Parry oatgrass is absent or in minor amounts .................... Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Sedge FFA2 

Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue with Idaho fescue and/or wheatgrasses as subdominant 

species ....................................................................................................................................................7a 

7a. Native grassland is dominated by rough fescue and northern or western wheatgrass 

................................................................Rough Fescue - Northern and Western Wheatgrass FFA24 

Native grassland is a loamy range site dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue and northern or western 

wheatgrass and is a loamy range site.......Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Western Wheat Grass FFA1 

8. Native grassland is dominated by Parry oatgrass and rough fescue.........................................................9 

Native grassland is dominated by Idaho fescue, upland sedges, northern or western wheat grass, green 

needle grass or Kentucky bluegrass.........................................................................................................11 

2 

Dominated is defined as species that forms the highest percent cover, or higher than other 

associated individual species. 

-x-

9. Native grassland is dominated by Parry oatgrass and rough fescue and is a loamy range site .............. 

...............................................................Parry Oatgrass - Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass FFA6 

Native grassland is dominated by Parry oatgrass and rough fescue and is a thin breaks or 

gravel/shallow-to-gravel range site.........................................................................................................10 

10. Native grassland is a thin breaks range site.............................................................................................. 

....................................................Parry Oatgrass - Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine grass FFA18 

Native grassland is a gravel/shallow-to-gravel range site........................................................................ 

.......................................................................Parry Oatgrass - Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue FFA10 

11. Native grassland is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass....Kentucky Bluegrass - Rough Fescue FFA19 

Native grassland is dominated by upland sedges, northern or western wheatgrass, Idaho fescue or green 

needle grass .............................................................................................................................................12 

12. Native grassland is dominated by upland sedges and fringed sage........................................................... 

.................................................................Upland Sedges - Fringed Sage - Kentucky Bluegrass FFA4 

Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass, Idaho fescue or green needle grass 

................................................................................................................................................................13 

13. Native grassland is dominated by Idaho fescue and rough fescue................................................... 

...............................................................................Idaho Fescue - Rough Fescue - Junegrass FFA13 

Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass or green needle grass.......................14 

14. Native grassland is dominated by green needle grass................................................................................ 

...................................................................... Green NeedleGrass - Fringed Sage - June Grass FFA28 

Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass ........................................................15 

15. Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass with rough fescue as subdominant 

species.....................................................................................................................................................16 

Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass with green needle grass or western 

porcupine grass as the major subdominant species.................................................................................17 

16. Native grassland is dominated by northern and western wheatgrass and rough fescue on a loamy range 

site ............................................... ...........Northern or Western Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue FFA25 

Native grassland is dominated by northern and western wheatgrass and rough fescue on a limy range 

site............................................. ............. Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue FFA29 

17. Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass with green needle grass as the major 

subdominant ....... ..........................Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Green Needle Grass FFA27 

Native grassland is dominated by northern or western wheatgrass with western porcupine grass as the 

major subdominant....... .....Northern Wheat Grass - Western Porcupine Grass - Junegrass FFA14 

Modified Grassland Key 

1. Modified grassland community is dominated by awnless 

brome......................................................................................................Awnless Brome - Alfalfa FFB3 

Modified grassland community is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass.....................................................2 

2. Modified grassland community is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass with awnless brome and native 

wheatgrasses as a subdominant species.................................................................................................. 

.............................Kentucky Bluegrass - Awnless Brome - Northern and Western Wheatgrass FFB4 

Modified grassland community is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass with Timothy or fringed sage as 

subdominant species..................................................................................................................................3 

3. Modified grassland is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and Timothy..................................................... 

.................................................................................................. Kentucky Bluegrass - Timothy FFB1 

Modified grassland community is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and and fringed sage 

..............................................................................................Kentucky Bluegrass - Fringed Sage FFB2 

Shrub Community Key 

1. Shrub community is a wetland or sub-irrigated range site with beaked willow and other willows being 

the principal shrub species at between 5 and 15% canopy cover..............................................................2 

Shrub community is an upland range site with more than 5% canopy cover of common wild rose, 

snowberry or ground juniper......................................................................................................................3 

-xi-

2. Plant community is dominated by beaked willow, sedges and tufted hair grass......................................... 

..................................................................................Beaked Willow/Sedge - Tufted Hair Grass FFC2 

Plant community is dominated by invasive agronomic species like Kentucky bluegrass, Timothy and 

awnless brome ...............Beaked Willow/Kentucky Bluegrass -Timothy - Tufted Hair Grass - FFC3 

3. Range site is a thin breaks type and plant community is dominated by ground juniper ...........................5 

Plant community is dominated by common wild rose or western snowberry ..........................................4 

4. Plant community is a highly disturbed plant community with grazing resistant shrubs like common wild 

rose and invasive and weedy species like Kentucky bluegrass, Timothy and dandelion........................ 

................................................................Common Wild Rose/Kentucky Bluegrass - Dandelion FFC1 

Plant community is a limy range site on cool north or east facing slopes and is dominated by western 

snowberry ......................................................................................... Snowberry/ Awnless Brome FFC5 

5. Shrub community is dominated by ground juniper and Parry oatgrass ..................................................... 

...............................................Creeping Juniper/Parry Oat Grass - Western Porcupine Grass FFC4 

Shrub community is dominated by ground juniper and northern and western wheatgrass ........................ 

..............................................................Creeping Juniper/Northern and Western Wheatgrass FFC6 

-xii-

1.0 Introduction and Background 

1.1 This guide is an aide to range health assessment 

This plant community guide is provided as an essential reference for range health 3 

assessment in the Foothills Fescue prairie. Range health assessment (Adams et al. 2003) 

is a new approach that builds on the traditional range condition concept that considers 

plant community type in relation to site potential, but also adds new indicators of 

important natural processes and functions. 

Range management strives to protect and enhance the soil and vegetation complex while 

maintaining or improving the output of consumable products along with a wide range of 

other values and natural functions. Ranchers and resource managers have used the 

concept of range condition in Alberta to measure any deterioration that has taken place 

within a range plant community due to disturbances, especially those from livestock 

grazing. Range condition has been rated in relation to a concept of site potential or 

climax vegetation. The first stocking guide for the Grassland Natural Region The Guide 

to Range Condition and Stocking Rates for Alberta Grasslands, was patterned after the 

US Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service “range site” concept (Smoliak 

et al 1966, Wroe et al 1988). Since the first guide was published, several generations of 

ranchers and range resource managers have developed an understanding of range sites 

and the ecological conditions that they represent. The new range health tools are 

similarly intended for use by range resource managers and ranchers and for a wide 

variety of other groups and users that share an interest in healthy rangelands. 

Range managers generally strive to maintain plant communities at or near the climax or 

potential natural community (PNC) stage in order to provide higher levels of ecological 

functioning and to sustain an optimum flow of products like livestock forage. Healthy 

range plant communities perform important ecological functions and provide a broader 

suite of goods and services than lower seral stages. Early and mid seral stages need to be 

present in the landscape to represent the full range of natural variation that existed prior 

to European settlement, but should not be predominant. 

Our use of the term “range health” instead of “range condition” flags a change in 

approach that builds on the traditional range condition approach that considers plant 

community type in relation to site potential, but also adds new indicators of important 

natural processes and functions, important functions performed by healthy rangelands. 

We use the term range health to mean the ability of rangeland to perform certain 

ecological functions. These functions include: 

• net primary production, 

3 The range health approach is being adopted in the United States and Canada by a variety of 

agencies and organizations including the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the US Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Butler et al 1997, Busby et al 1994, and Task Group on 

Unity in Concept and Terminology 1995). The Alberta Rangeland Health Assessment project will provide 

new rangeland monitoring tools for Alberta rangelands (Alberta Range Health Task Group 1999). 

1

• maintenance of soil/site stability, 

• capture and beneficial release of water, 

• nutrient and energy cycling and, 

• plant species functional diversity. 

Healthy rangelands will provide sustainable grazing opportunities for livestock producers 

and also sustain a long list of others products and values. Declines in range health will 

alert the range manager to the need for management changes. 

1.2 Ecological Range Sites and Grassland Plant Communities 

Range health is measured by comparing the functioning of ecological processes on an 

area of rangeland to a standard known as an ecological site description. An ecological 

site is similar to the concept of range site, but a broader list of characteristics are 

described. An ecological site as defined by the Task Group on Unity and Concepts 

(1995), “is a distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs 

from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of 

vegetation”. This is similar to the ecosite/ecosite phase concept described by Archibald 

and Beckingham (1996) largely applied in the forested portions of the Rocky Mountain, 

Foothills and Boreal Forest Natural Regions where forest cover provides a valuable aide 

to community classification. 

Ecological classification systems are an important tool for resource managers (Archibald 

and Beckingham 1996, Willoughby et. al 2003) and they: 

• help us to organize what we know about ecosystems, 

• provide resource managers with a common language for range resource management 

and planning, 

• facilitate ecologically based decision making, 

• help us to understand and refine resource potentials and carrying capacities over time. 

Early grassland studies in the 1940’s and 1950’s (Clark et. al 1943, Coupland 1950, 

1961) provided a broad and generalized understanding of prairie grassland communities, 

but a comprehensive classification of Alberta Grassland Natural Region has never been 

completed. An ecological classification system must provide a method for identifying 

site potential and to help predict where a particular plant community is likely to occur in 

the landscape. In a forest setting, forest canopy provides important evidence of growing 

conditions and site potential. In grassland environments, soils information is essential to 

predicting the potential natural community, especially where disturbance history may 

limit the resource manager’s understanding of the ecological status of the current plant 

community vs. the potential for the site. In range health assessment, we refer to the 

plant community that is an expression of site potential as the reference plant 

community (RPC) since this is the community that acts as a standard for 

comparison. 

2

With the development of AGRASID (Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory 

Database, ASIC 2001), it is possible to establish site and soil characteristics within an 

acceptable degree of accuracy from the AGRASID for lands in the agricultural settlement 

area of the province. The soil/range site correlation tables developed by LandWise Inc. 

(1998, 2001) provide a crosswalk that allows users to apply information about soils and 

other landscape variables to establish range sites. Range site descriptions are used to 

predict reference plant communities in the current project. 

Grassland plant communities are defined in an ecological classification system in a 

similar fashion to forest communities by grouping vegetation data (from research plots 

and range surveys) “into similar functional units that respond to disturbance in a similar 

and predictable manner (Archibald and Beckingham 1996)”. An important part of this 

classification process is to correlate the plant communities with recognizable range sites 

in the prairie landscape. The plant communities presented in this project represent the 

first approximation for the soil correlation areas (SCAs) and Natural Subregions in 

question and will be further revised and refined when additional vegetation survey data 

becomes available. 

2.0 Physiography, Climate and Soils of the Foothills Fescue Grassland 

2.1 Overview 4 

The Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is one of four Natural Subregions in the 

Grassland Natural Region, along with the Dry Mixedgrass, Mixedgrass and Northern 

Fescue (Fig. 1). The Foothills Fescue accounts for 1.95 % of the area of Alberta and it 

covers 13.45% of the Grassland Natural Region (ASIC, 2001). The boundaries of Natural 

Subregions correspond closely to the boundaries of the Agricultural Regions of Alberta 

Soil Information Database (AGRASID) Soil Correlation Areas (SCAs) (ASIC 2001). 

The Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is correlated with SCA 5 in the south (Del 

Bonita through Cardston to the Pekisko area), and with SCA6 in the north (Stavely north 

to Crossfield and Trochu). We estimate that about 16.8% of the original grassland area 

of the Foothills Fescue is still intact, most of which is located in SCA 5 (Fig. 2 - in 

green). 

The Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion occurs along the lower and eastern flanks of the 

Foothills Geologic Belt. The Foothills Fescue displays a wide range of physiography due 

to variation in glaciation and bedrock topography. Elevations in the Foothills Fescue are 

much higher than in the other grassland subregions (Achuff 1994), but lower than in the 

Foothills Parkland to the west. The Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion includes four 

Ecodistricts 5 (Fig. 2). From south to north they are: a highland area on the Milk River 

Ridge named the Del Bonita Plateau, the Cardston Plain, the Willow Creek Upland, 

which occurs at lower to mid elevations on the flanks of the Porcupine Hills, and the 

4 

For a detailed description of physiography, climate and soils of the Grassland Natural Region, 

see LandWise Inc. (2003). 

5 Ecodistricts are based on distinct physiographic and/or geologic patterns. They are distinguished 

by similar patterns of relief, geology, geomorphology and genesis of parent material. 

3

Delacour Plain, which is entirely on the plains. Two small isolated occurrences of 

Foothills Fescue also occur within the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion between 

Mossleigh and Milo (Buffalo Hill Upland), where elevations are higher than on the 

surrounding plains (Fig. 2). The Foothills Fescue is also presented in relation to 

adjoining Natural Subregions (Fig. 3). 

Fig. 1. Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion in relation to soil correlation areas 5 and 6. 

4

Fig. 2. Ecodistricts in the Foothills Fescue, and the Buffalo Hill Upland areas. 

5

Fig. 3. Foothills Fescue, and the Buffalo Hill Upland areas, and adjoining Natural 

Subregions in SW Alberta. 

6

The climate in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is characterized by short summers 

with warm days and cool nights, and long cold winters, similar to the climate throughout 

southern Alberta. However, winter temperatures in the Foothills Fescue Natural 

Subregion are moderated by frequent chinook winds, which are strong westerly winds 

that occur most frequently in late fall and winter. The adjoining Mixed Grass Natural 

Subregion (Table 1), is drier, warmer in summer and has less intense Chinooks. To the 

west the Foothills Parkland is cooler and moister. 

Table 1. Key distinguishing features of the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion 

compared with neighboring Natural Subregions. 

Natural 

Subregion 

Dominant Soils Dominant 

Vegetation 

Foothills Fescue Black Chernozem Foothills rough 

fescue 

Mixed Grass Dark Brown 

Chernozem 

Foothills Parkland Black Chernozem 

(Thick) 

Northern Fescue Dark Brown 

Chernozem and 

Dark Brown 

Solonetz 

Wheatgrasses 

and spear grasses 

Foothills rough 

fescue, shrubs 

and aspen forest 

Plains rough 

fescue and 

Porcupine grass 

Central Parkland Black Chernozem Plains rough 

fescue, shrubs 

and aspen forest 

General Climate 

Compared to Foothills 

Fescue 

winter climate moderated by 

Chinooks, high frequency of 

snowfall in late winter and 

early spring (Achuff 1994) 

drier, warmer summers, less 

intense Chinooks 

cooler and moister 

colder, more continental, drier 

and fewer Chinooks 

colder with significantly fewer 

Chinooks 

Mean annual precipitation in the Foothills Fescue ranges from about 397 mm at Del 

Bonita to 589 mm at Pincher Creek. The Cardston Plain receives more precipitation than 

the other three Ecodistricts (Table 2) due to its proximity to the Rocky Mountains and the 

higher frequency of snowstorms in late winter and early spring. The Foothills Fescue 

overall receives more snowfall in late winter and early spring than does the Northern 

Fescue Subregion (SCA4) (Achuff 1994). 

Mean daily temperature in the Foothills Fescue ranges from 3.8 o C at Whiskey Gap and 

High River, to 5.4 o C at Cardston (Table 2). Cardston is highly influenced by chinooks, in 

7

addition to experiencing warmer summers than the Milk River Ridge (Del Bonita 

Plateau) to the east and the Foothills Fescue north (SCA6). Mean daily temperatures have 

risen about 0.5oC between the earlier recording period (1951 to 1980) and the more 

recent period (1971 - 2000) (Table 2). The increases at Calgary and High River may at 

least partially reflect the rapidly growing urban area. 

A ninety day frost-free period has been considered a diagnostic value for the higher 

elevation areas of the Foothills Fescue. The frost-free period for the Milk River Ridge 

Upland was reported as less than 90 days by Kjearsgaard et al. (1986), consistent with the 

88-day Climate Normal value for Whiskey Gap. It is assumed that the mean daily 

temperature and the frost-free period in the Willow Creek Upland is more similar to the 

Del Bonita Plateau than to the Cardston Plain, although the only recorded data is 

precipitation at Claresholm/Meadow Creek, at an elevation of 1052 m. 

Table 2. Summary of climatic data for selected stations in the Foothills Fescue 

Natural Subregion 

Ecodistrict Station 

and 

Elevation 

in meters 

Del Bonita 

Plateau 

Cardston 

Plain 

Willow 

Creek 

Upland 

Delacour 

Plain 

Del Bonita 

Whiskey 

Gap 

Cardston, 

1193 

Pincher 

Creek 

Town 

Claresholm 

/Meadow 

Creek, 

1035 

Calgary Int. 

Airport, 

1084 

Trochu- 

Equity, 854 

Mean 

Daily 

Temp. 

( o C) 

Z Precipitation – Potential Evapotranspiration 

Total 

precip. (P) 

(mm) 

Mean 

precip. as 

rain (%) 

% of 

ppt. 

from 

May to 

Sept. 

Z (P- 

PE) 

(mm) 

Effective 

Growing 

Degree 

Days 

(EGDD > 

5oC) Y 4.3 397 76 1390 

8 

Frostfree 

period 

(days 

(>0 o C) 

3.8 452 61 1321 88 

X 4.8 (5.4) 550 (557) 58 (61) (58) 1543 (1579) 111 

w 4.1 589 59 (1396) 106 

444 67 61 

3.6 (4.1) 423 (413) (78) 70 (76) -204 1281 (1431) 113 

3.5 419 74 68 (1578) 

Y Values without brackets are compiled from Atmospheric Environment Service (1951 – 1980 Normals), 

and most are published in Brierley et al. (1991), MacMillan et al. (1987). 

X Values in brackets are Canadian Climate Normals for the 1971 – 2000 period (From www.mscsmc.ec.gc.ca/climate/climate_normals/results 

W Values are published in Walker et al. (1991).

The Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is dominated by Black Chernozemic soils (Table 

3). Parent materials are dominantly glacial till, an unsorted mixture of sand, silt and clay 

deposited directly from the ice. Glacio-lacustrine deposits are the next most common 

where silt and clay have settled from suspension from ice-marginal glacial lakes. Glacial 

fluvial (outwash) sediments occur in glacial meltwater channels, in middle and upper 

terraces of major creeks and river valleys. These deposits are often composed of greater 

than 20% gravel and cobbles, within a coarse matrix of loamy sand and sand, in lenses or 

bands. Residual and fluvial-aeolian parent materials have a minor occurrence in the 

subregion. Topography is dominantly undulating, but hummocky, inclined, level, rolling 

and ridged areas also occur. Drainage is dominantly north to the South Saskatchewan 

River drainage, but a drainage divide occurs on the north escarpment of the Milk River 

Ridge, and the drainage to the south flows to the Missouri River system. 

The level and undulating areas of the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion are largely 

devoted to crop agriculture. Upland areas, including the Willow Creek Upland and the 

Del Bonita Plateau, are dominated by native vegetation and are used for livestock 

grazing. 

9

2.2 Correlation of Soils and Range Sites 

The major soil series and their associated range sites for each Ecodistrict in the Foothills 

Fescue Natural Subregion are summarized in Table 3. LandWise Inc. (1998, 2001) 

developed soil correlation guidelines to link soils and site to ecological range site types. 

A complete listing of ecological range site types can be found in Appendix 9.1. 

• Soil correlation guidelines to range sites for SCA 5 and 6 can be found in Tables 4 and 

5 on pages 12 and 13. You can use AGRASID 3.0 or a published soil survey report to 

determine the dominant and co-dominant soils for the site you wish to evaluate. Use 

the soil series name or three letter name abbreviation to determine range site. 

• Range site can also be determined using the range site descriptions in section 2.3 on 

pages 14-17. 

• See Appendix 9.2 A Concise Guide to Assist Users of AGRASID 

Major Soil Orders and Great Groups in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion 

Black Chernozemic soils dominate in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion. 

Chernozemic soils are well- to imperfectly-drained soils that have developed under 

grassland communities. They are characterized by a dark-coloured surface (A) horizon 

that is at least 10 cm thick, resulting from the accumulation of debris and decomposition 

of organic matter derived from grasses and forbs. The A horizon of Black Chernozems 

has a colour value darker than 3.5 moist and dry. Chroma is usually 1.5 or less dry. The 

soil climate is sub-humid. An important distinction also includes Ah horizon thickness. 

In the Foothills Fescue, Ah horizons normally are less than 20 cm in thickness on an 

average slope position, and hence, are loosely termed Orthic Black soils. Thick Black 

Chernozems predominate in the Foothills Parkland (Table 1) where growing conditions 

are cooler and moister. 

Regolosolic soils occur to a minor extent. Regosols lack a B horizon greater than 5 cm 

and may also be characterized by a shallow A horizon. Regosols are weakly developed 

soils for many reasons, which can include development on young geologic materials 

(flood plains), or in unstable locations such as steep slopes, active flood plains or 

locations prone to wind erosion. 

Brunisolic soils are also of relatively minor extent in the Foothills Fescue Natural 

Subregion, but they occur where shallow parent materials overlie sandstone bedrock, or 

with weathered sandstone. Brunisolic soils lack a Chernozemic A horizon, and are 

usually characterized by an Ah less than 5 cm thick. Brunisolic soils represent an 

intergrade between Regosolic and Chernozemic soils. 

Solonetzic soils contain a high proportion of sodium in the subsoil and they are 

characterized by a hardpan layer in the subsoil that is massive and hard when dry, and 

impervious and very sticky when wet. They are usually associated with areas of former 

saline and sodic groundwater discharge, but they can also occur where sodium rich 

bedrock material occurs at or near the soil surface. The limited occurrence of Solonetzic 

soils in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is normally associated with discharge 

areas where sodium salts have influenced soil development. 

Gleysols are subject to periodic flooding or prolonged wetting, and typically lack oxygen 

10

during a portion, or most, of the growing season. Gleysols are often nutrient poor due to 

denitrification, and because decomposition is hindered by wetness. Gleysols are 

representative of seasonal to semi-permanent wetlands. 

Table 3. Major soils and associated ecological/range sites, by Ecodistrict or area. 

Ecodistrict 

or Area 

Del Bonita 

Plateau, 

glaciated 

portion 

Del Bonita 

Plateau, 

unglaciated 

portion 

Cardston 

Plain 

Willow 

Creek 

Upland 

Buffalo Hill 

Upland 

Delacour 

Plain 

Major Soil 

Series 

Soil Subgroup Parent Material Ecological/Range Site 

BZR (Beazer) Orthic Black Chernozemic glacial till Loamy (Lo) 

RFD (Rockford) Orthic Black Chernozemic gravelly medium 

Shallow to Gravel 

glaciofluvial 

(SwG) 

OKY (Ockey) Orthic Black Chernozemic till veneer over bedrock Thin Breaks (TB) 

DLB (Del 

Bonita) 

Orthic Black Chernozemic loess Loamy (Lo) 

HLM (Hillmer) Orthic Black Chernozemic medium slope-wash fans Loamy (Lo) on higher 

elevations; Overflow 

(Ov) on lower 

elevations 

CTN (Cardston) Orthic Black Chernozemic fine glaciolacustrine Clayey (Cy) 

CWY (Cowley) Calcareous Black Chernozemic fine glaciolacustrine Limy (Li) 


NNK 

(Ninastoko) 

Black Solodized Solonetz glacial till Blowouts (BlO) 




NFK (North 

Fork) 

Orthic Eutric Brunisolic till veneer over bedrock Thin Breaks (TB) 

PSO (Parsons) Rego Black Chernozemic glacial till Limy (Li) 

ODM (Oldman) Rego Black Chernozemic coarse glaciofluvial Limy (Li) 

ADY 

(Academy) 

Orthic Black Chernozemic glacial till Loamy (Lo) 

ADY 

(Academy) 

Orthic Black Chernozemic glacial till Loamy (Lo) 

RKV 

Orthic Black Chernozemic medium glaciolacustrine Loamy (Lo) 

(Rockyview) 

veneer over till 

DEL (Delacour) Orthic Black Chernozemic glacial till Loamy (Lo) 

MDP 

Orthic Black Chernozemic moderately coarse 

Sandy (Sy) 

(Midnapore) 

glaciofluvial 

ARE (Ardenode) Orthic Black Chernozemic very coarse fluvial/eolian Sand (Sa) and Choppy 

Sandhills (CS) 

LTA (Lyalta) Orthic Black Chernozemic medium glaciolacustrine 

blanket 

Loamy (Lo) 

KYN (Kathyrn) Saline Gleyed Black 

medium glaciofluvial Saline Lowland (SL) 

Chernozemic 

veneer over till 

KEO (Keoma) Gleyed Black Solodized moderately-fine 

Blowouts (BlO) 

Solonetz 

glaciofluvial veneer over till 

11

Table 4. Soil correlation with ecological range sites in SCA 5, Black Soil Zone, SW 

Alberta, Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion. 

Productivity 

Rating 

More herbage due 

to superior soil 

moisture 

Normal vegetation 

response 

Limited by 

moisture (or soluble 

salts adversely 

affecting plant 

growth) 

Ecological/Range 

Site 

Overflow (Ov) 

Subirrigated (Sb) 

Wetlands (WL) 

Clayey (Cy) 

Loamy (Lo) 

Sandy (Sy) 

Badlands (BdL) 


Choppy Sandhills 

(CS) 

Gravel (Gr) 

Limy (Li) 

Saline Lowlands 

(SL) 

Sands (Sa) 


(SwG) 

Thin Breaks (TB) 

Soil or Landscape 

Description 

Fan, apron, channeled or 

concave (non-saline) 

landscapes 

Gleyed; imperfectly drained 

(CSSC 1998) 

Gleysols; poorly drained 

(CSSC 1998) 

Fine (FI) or very fine (VF) 

textures (refer to Fig. 4 ) 

Medium (ME) or moderately 

fine (MF) textures (refer Fig. 

4) 

Moderately coarse (MC); or 

very coarse (VC) veneer over 

medium (ME) textures (refer 

to Fig. 4) 

Bedrock exposures >10%, 

and bedrock generally

Table 5. Soil correlation with range sites in SCA 6, Black Soil Zone of SW Alberta, 

Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion. 

Productivity 

Rating 

More herbage due 

to superior soil 

moisture 

Normal 

vegetation 

response 

Limited by 

moisture (or 

soluble salts 

adversely 

affecting plant 

growth) 

Ecological/Range 

Site 

Overflow (Ov) 

Subirrigated (Sb) 

Wetlands (WL) 

Clayey (Cy) 

Loamy (Lo) 

Sandy (Sy) 

Badlands (BdL) 


Choppy Sandhills 

(CS) 

Gravel (Gr) 

Limy (Li) 

Saline Lowlands 

(SL) 

Sands (Sa) 


(SwG) 

Thin Breaks (TB) 

Soil or Landscape Description Z Soil Series 

Fan, apron, channeled or 

concave (non-saline) landscapes KEO 

Gleyed; imperfectly drained 

KEO, KYN 

(CSSC 1998) 

Gleysols; poorly drained (CSSC 

DWT, IND, ZGW 

1998) 

Fine (FI) or very fine (VF) 

THH, TWG 

textures (Refer to Fig. 4) 

Medium (ME) or moderately 

ADY, DEL, LTA, RKV, 

fine (MF) textures (Refer to Fig. YSAKaa 4) 

Moderately coarse (MC); or 

very coarse (VC) veneer over 

HPV, MDP 

medium (ME) textures (Refer to 

Fig. 4) 

Bedrock exposures >10%, and 

generally

2.3 Guidelines for Determining Range Sites 

Ecological Range Sites in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion 

Ecological/range sites in the following guidelines are divided into three groups based on 

their main defining feature of landscape, soil or texture. 

Group 1 Ecological Range Sites Defined Mainly by Landscape 

Badlands/Bedrock (BdL): 

Applies to all inclined to steeply sloping landscapes with greater than 10% bedrock 

exposures of softrock or hardrock. Slopes generally range from 15% to 60% (in isolated 

cases 7% to 100%). Includes I4m, I4h and I5 landscape models from AGRASID 3.0. 

Overflow (Ov): 

Applies to non-saline Chernozemic (soils with A, B and C horizons) and/or Regosolic 

soils (soils that lack a B horizon >5 cm thick, and may lack an A horizon) on landscapes 

that are low-relief inclines in valley or basinal settings. Overflow sites are usually fan or 

apron deposits, where upslope streams enter lowland areas and experience a marked 

decrease in gradient. Slopes generally range from 2% to 9% (in isolated cases from 0.5% 

to 15%). Overflow occurs only on lower slope positions or adjacent to stream(s), and the 

percentage of eligible overflow ranges from 10% to 50% per SLM (specific rules within 

each SCA). Overflow includes I3l and I4l landscape models from AGRASID 3.0, and 

also applies to the soil series Hillmer (HLM) and Shandor (SND) in SCA5. 

Riparian (Ri): 

Applies to all stream channels and flood plains. Includes FP1, FP2, FP3, SC1-l, SC1-h, 

SC2, SC3 and SC4 landscape models from AGRASID 3.0. True riparian areas only 

include the valley floor (from bottom of bank to bottom of bank on the other side of the 

valley). 

Thin Breaks (TB): 

Applies to: 1) all steeply-sloping landscapes with less than 10% bedrock exposures; 2) to 

largely vegetated areas with bedrock at or near (within 5 m of) the surface; 3) the soil 

series Mokowan (MKN), North Fork (NFK), Ockey (OKY), Owendale (OWD) and 

Oxley (OXY). 

14

Group 2. Ecological/Range Sites Defined Mainly by Soil Features 

Blowouts (BlO): 

Applies to all SLMs where soils from the Solonetzic order are dominant (>50%) or 

co-dominant (30 to 50%). Solonetzic soils have an impervious hardpan layer (Bnt 

horizon) in the subsoil that is caused by excess sodium (Na+). The land surface is 

frequently characterized by eroded pits. Applies to the soil series Crowlodge (CGE), 

Klemengurt (KGT), Ninastoko (NNK), Piegan (PGN), Mami (MAM), Beddington (BED) 

and Keoma (KEO), and also applies to undifferentiated Solonetz (ZSZ). 

Limy (Li): 

Applies to all immature or eroded soils with free lime (calcium carbonates) at the soil 

surface or in the B horizon. Free lime is detected by effervescence when soil is treated 

with 10% hydrochloric acid (HCl). Limy soils include Rego or Calcareous 

Chernozemics, eroded phases, and subgroups from the Regosolic order if they are 

calcareous. Applies to the soil series Cowley (CWY), Mokowan (MKN), Oldman 

(ODM), Parsons (PSO), Elbow (EBO), Highwood (HIW) and Happy Valley (HPV). 

Sub-irrigated (Sb): 

Applies to all Gleyed, non-saline, medium to very coarse textured soils. Gleyed soils 

occur where the water table occurs near the soil surface, but does not often occur above 

the soil surface. Gleyed subgroups have faint to distinct mottles within 50 cm, or 

prominent mottles between 50 and 100 cm. 

Saline Lowland (SL): 

Applies to all salt-enriched soils, including Saline phase Chernozemic, Saline phase 

Regosolic, and Saline phase Gleysolic soils. Saline phase soils have an electrical 

conductivity greater than 4.0 dS/m, which retards most plant growth. Applies to the soil 

series Balzac (BZC), Gayford (GAY), and Kathyrn (KYN), and also applies to 

undifferentiated saline soils (ZNA). 

Wetlands (WL): 

Applies to all non-saline or weakly-saline of the Gleysolic and Organic orders. Gleysolic 

soils occur in seasonal to semi-permanent wetlands. They are typified by dull colours or 

prominent mottles with 50 cm due to prolonged periods of intermittent or continuous 

saturation, and the lack of oxygen in the soil. Organic soils are dominated by the 

accumulation of decomposing peat material derived mainly from sedges and reeds. 

Applies to the Gleysolic soil series Joanto (JAT), Dewinton (DWT), and Indus (IND), 

and also applies to undifferentiated wet soils (ZGW). 

15

Group 3 Ecological/Range Sites Defined Mainly by Textural Groupings 

Soils are made up of varying components of sand, silt and clay, with the sum of the three 

equal to 100% (Fig. 4, the soil textural triangle). Soils may also include particles larger 

than 2.0 mm, or coarse fragments (Table 6). 

Table 6. Definition of soil particle sizes. 

Clayey (Cy): 

Category Particle Diameter (mm) 

Components of soil 

texture 

clay 600 

Applies to all non-saline and non-gleyed Chernozemic soils (soils with A, B and C 

horizons), and non-saline and non-gleyed Regosolic soils (soils that lack a B horizon >5 

cm, and may lack an A horizon) with soil textures in the fine or very fine (E.g., clay and 

silty clay) textural subgroups (>40% clay, Fig. 4). Applies to the soil series Cardston 

(CTN), Pincher (PNR), Shandor (SND), Three Hills (THH), and Twining (TWG). 

Loamy (Lo): 



cm, and may lack an A horizon) with soil textures in the medium and moderately fine 

textural subgroups (E.g., loam and clay loam, Fig. 4). Applies to the soil series 

Academy (ADY), Bullhorn (BUL), Beazer (BZR), Delacour (DEL), Del Bonita (DLB), 

Hillmer (HLM), Lyalta (LTA), Rockyview (RKV), Sakalo (SAK), and Standoff (SOF). 

Sandy (Sy): 



cm, and may lack an A horizon) with soil textures in the moderately coarse (sandy loam) 

textural subgroup (Fig. 4). Applies to the soil series Knight (KNT), Lonely Valley 

(LVY), and Midnapore (MDP). 

Sands (Sa): 



cm, and may lack an A horizon) with soil textures in the very coarse (loamy sand) 

16

textural subgroup (Fig. 4). Sa does not apply to duned landscapes. Applies to the soil 

series Ardenode (ARE) and Highwood (HIW). 

Choppy Sandhills (CS): 



cm, and may lack an A horizon) with soil textures in the very coarse (loamy sand) 

textural subgroup. CS applies to soils that occur on duned landscapes, including Dl1, 

D1m, D1h, D2l, D2m and D2h in AGRASID 3.0. Applies to the soil series Ardenode 

(ARE). 

Gravel (Gr): 

Applies to any soil with less than 20 cm of a surface mantle of any textural class over 

very gravelly or very cobbly (>50% gravel or cobbles) material. Applies to the Rinard 

(RND) and Bow Valley (BOV) soil series. 

Shallow to Gravel (SwG): 

Applies to any soil with 20 to 50 cm of a surface mantle of any textural class overlying 

gravelly or very gravelly or cobbly to very cobbly (>20% gravel or cobbles) material. 

Applies to the Blackfoot (BFT), Rockford (RFD) and Rosebud (RSB) soil series. 

Fig. 4. Soil textures and their relationship to ecological/range sites. 

% Clay 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

SiC 

Si 

SiCL 

HC 

SiL 

C 

Ecological/Range Site Textural Sub-group 

Clayey (Cy) 

Very fine 

Fine 

Loamy (Lo) 

Sandy (Sy) 

Moderately fine 

Medium 

Moderately coarse 

Sands (Sa), Choppy Sandhills (CS) Very coarse 

CL 

L 

SC 

SCL 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

% Sand 

SL 

Textural Class 

HC Heav y Clay 

C Clay 

SiC Silty Clay 

SC Sandy Clay 

SiCL Silty Clay Loam 

CL Clay Loam 

SCL Sandy Clay Loam 

L Loam 

SiL Silt Loam 

Si Silt 

SL Sandy Loam 

LS Loamy Sand 

S Sand 

LS S 

17

3.0 Review of Grazing Research in the Foothills Fescue Prairie 

Why is plant community important? 

Ranchers and range resource managers generally strive to maintain plant communities at 

or near the climax or potential natural community (PNC) stage because they provide 

higher levels of ecological functioning. Healthy range plant communities are said to 

perform important ecological functions and to provide a broader suite of goods and 

services than lower seral stages. A rich history of grazing research has been undertaken 

in the Foothills Fescue grassland and continues at Stavely, the Agriculture and Agri- 

Food Canada research substation, which was established in 1948. The original studies 

were undertaken to understand carrying capacity. Much of this research considers the 

character and response of the rough fescue grassland to a spectrum of grazing intensities 

that have either maintained or transformed the plant community and soils. The highlights 

of this research are reviewed below. The major functions of intact rough fescue 

grasslands are summarized in Table 7. These special attributes help us to understand 

why rough fescue in now Alberta’s provincial grass. 

Long-Term Stocking Rates Study 

One of the principal long-term studies compared the effects of four stocking rates over a 

35 year period (Johnston 1962, Johnston et al. 1971, Willms et al. 1985, Dormaar and 

Willms 1990): light, 2.0 acres per Animal Unit Month (ac./AUM); moderate, 1.5 

ac./AUM; heavy, 1.0 ac./AUM; and very heavy, 0.5 ac./AUM. The initial impact was 

to replace the deep-rooted and productive rough fescue with shorter and shallow-rooted 

species including Parry’s oatgrass and Idaho fescue. With very heavy grazing, the plant 

community was further modified to dominance by Parry oatgrass but included many 

weedy species such as common dandelion, sedges and pussytoes. Rough fescue was 

largely eliminated from the stand after five years of heavy grazing and the lowest level of 

range condition was recorded after 13 years of very heavy stocking (Willms et al. 1985). 

Forage production declined by 50% from a stable average of 1780 lb./ac. and became far 

more variable and more dependent on current precipitation (Willms et al. 1985). 

Stocking at 1.5 ac/AUM was judged as the best of the four rates to sustain the plant 

community. 

Grazing Impacts on Soils and Watershed Function 

The soil responses to very heavy stocking followed those of the vegetation, i.e., the 

character of the soil was modified to that of a drier climatic region (Johnston 1962, 

Willms et al. 1985). With changes in the vegetation there was a corresponding decline in 

soil organic matter, loss of soil structure, increased surface sealing and reduced 

infiltration rates (Johnston 1962, Johnston et al. 1971, Naeth et al. 1990). With reduced 

levels of surface residue in the form of carryover, increased evaporation and reduced 

snow catch were likely consequences (Dormaar and Willms 1990). The net effect was 

less soil water to support plant growth. 

Grassland plant cover normally prevents soil erosion, regardless of stocking rates. Naeth 

et al. (1990) reported the decline in water infiltration rates with heavy stocking rates due 

to excess removal of plant cover and soil compaction. As grazing intensity increased, 

water intake and water holding capacity declined. The consequence was more runoff. 

Once a threshold value of 10 to 15% soil exposure was exceeded, soil erosion processes 

18

increased such that they contributed to loss of more than 5 cm of Ah horizon under the 

heavy grazing treatment. In a related study, measurable declines in soil quality could be 

detected on fescue grassland (Dormaar et al. 1989) in as little as five years at high rates 

of forage utilization (80%). 

In very recent studies at Stavely (Chanasyk et al. 2002, Manfumo et al. 2002), runoff 

rates were higher on heavy to very heavily grazed fescue grassland during larger 

summer storm events and during spring runoff from snow melt. 

Plant Community Weathering Losses 

Rough fescue is considered a “hard” grass. A well developed sclerenchymatous layer in 

the leaves and the characteristic of leaf rolling permit a high curability and hence 

improves the grass’s value for dormant season grazing. Willms et al. (1996) reported 

that plant community and growing conditions had a strong influence on dry matter losses 

in the fescue prairie. Weathering, trampling and herbivory (insects and mammals) may 

limit the amount of forage available for livestock to graze. In a three year study at 

Stavely, average losses for a rough fescue community 24%. Weathering losses 

increased dramatically to 43% in the Parry Oatgrass - Kentucky Bluegrass community 

and to 56% the Kentucky bluegrass - low sedge type. The term “soft grass” is applied to 

this latter community due to the higher weathering potential. The key management 

implications are that overgrazing diminishes the value of fescue prairie for winter grazing 

and weathering losses must be factored in when setting forage utilization levels. 

Winter Grazing 

The Foothills Fescue prairie is renowned for its adaptation to provide winter forage for 

livestock and wildlife species like elk. Fescue grasslands can be readily damaged by 

heavy grazing pressure in summer but are very tolerant of winter grazing (Willms et al 

1998). Historically, fescue prairie supported populations of wintering bison. Long term 

ranching practice and research at Stavely have confirmed winter grazing of rough fescue 

as an economical and sustainable practice (Willms et al. 1993) although it must be 

stressed that rough fescue must be present as a significant part of the pasture composition 

since it will provide most of the winter forage when snow is present. A number of 

efficiencies are gained with winter use. One common misconception is that winter 

grazing is advantageous because heavy utilization of forage is possible because plants are 

dormant. Research shows that other reasons likely explain the adaptation to winter 

grazing: 

• In clipping studies of rough fescue, highest herbage yields were provided by a single 

harvest during dormancy. Multiple harvests and clipping during the growing season 

provided lower herbage yields (Willms and Fraser 1992). 

• Livestock will tend to graze rough fescue more uniformly during winter given its 

availability through the snow and its erect and available structure. 

The long-term stocking rate studies at Stavely showed that in the moderate grazing 

treatment, under season-long grazing (the rate that generally maintained range condition), 

forage utilization averaged only 30 to 40% (Willms, personal communication). In the 

winter grazing studies (Willms et al, 1993), forage use averaged less than 50%. 

Though fescue prairie soils have the highest moisture regime of any other plant 

community in the Grassland Natural Region, litter residue must still be provided. Litter 

enhances forage production by improving moisture infiltration, reducing soil temperature 

19

and reduced evapo-transpiration. Without adequate litter or mulch, forage yields will 

likely be reduced by about one third during dry years (Willms 1995). Heavy grazing of 

winter range will have a “drying out” effect on fescue prairie. Yields will be lower in dry 

years and more unstable. This drying effect from heavy use of winter range is borne out 

by much anecdotal evidence from rancher experience. Heavy grazing of rough fescue 

plants also results in more tillers per plant but shorter leaves (Willms and Fraser 1992). 

This may make rough fescue forage less available depending on snow conditions. 

20

Table 7. Functions and attributes of healthy rough fescue plant communities. 

Functions and 

Characteristics of Rough 

Fescue Plant Communities 

Why are healthy plant communities important? 

Impact of excessive disturbance on values and functions. 

Forage Productivity • forage production is highest from the rough fescue-dominated communities in 

the black soil zone 

• forage yield potential declines with species shifts to Parry’s oatgrass and 

Kentucky bluegrass - sedge 

Forage Quality and 

Availability 

Production Stability and 

Risk 

Managerial Efficiency and 

Flexibility 

• forage quality in rough fescue may be similar to many other graminoids in the 

community during spring and summer, but rough fescue cures better and is 

more available through the snow during dormancy 

• forage yields tend to be very stable in rough fescue-dominated communities 

given deep rooting 

• as species shift to lower seral communities, forage yields fluctuate more and are 

more dependent on current precipitation conditions 

• high curability of rough fescue permits winter grazing, reducing wintering costs 

and making grazing options more flexible for the producer 

• lower successional communities are subject to greater forage weathering losses 

and declines in forage quality and are unsuitable for winter grazing 

Ranch Maintenance Costs • as rough fescue canopy cover declines, other more grazing resistant species 

increase; at heavy to very heavy rates weed invasion will increase resulting in 

higher maintenance costs for weed control 

Site Stability and Soil 

Maintenance 

Moisture Retention and 

Watershed Function 

• rough fescue communities normally have little exposed soil and are stable; soil 

loss increases as soil exposure exceeds about 10 to 15% 

• 5 to 7 cm of topsoil may be lost after 40 years of very heavy grazing pressure 

• rough fescue communities produce substantial litter that serves to conserve 

scarce moisture, enhance moisture infiltration and retention 

• heavy grazing pressure increases soil compaction and reduces infiltration into 

the soil; runoff increases accompanied by an increase in soil erosion 

Plant Community Structure • late seral communities feature tall bunchgrass structure 

• plant community structure declines towards lower seral communities 

Wildlife Habitat Values • rough fescue provides quality winter forage for elk and high cover values for a 

wide variety of wildlife species 

Vulnerability to 

Grasshopper Impacts and 

Soil Insect Abundance 

• healthy range will resist change caused by grasshoppers; forage supply is more 

abundant and rough fescue provides poor egg laying sites 

• abundance and diversity of soil arthropods (mites) was greater in the more 

productive rough fescue communities 

Biodiversity Maintenance • highest species richness at light to moderate levels of grazing 

• ungrazed rough fescue has simpler species composition with litter build up and 

heavy to very heavy grazing leads to species impoverishment 

• with heavy grazing pressure, invasion by agronomic species leads to serious 

decline in plant species diversity 

21

4.0 Previous Plant Community Studies 

4.1 Native Plant Communities 

A seminal monograph on the rough fescue association is titled The Fescue Grassland in 

Alberta (Moss and Campbell, 1947) and some of the highlights are summarized below. 

The original fescue grassland association, was considered to occupy any landscapes with 

Black Chernozemic features and most of the organic accumulation in these soils was 

attributed to a single species: rough fescue. The zone was considered to be much larger 

than its current extent due to fire control which accompanied European settlement 

permitting forest expansion and modification of grassland soils due to forest soil genesis 

processes. 

In most areas of the rough fescue association, the bunchgrass may grow to the exclusion 

of other species under light grazing impact. In southwestern Alberta, Parry oatgrass may 

replace rough fescue as grazing pressure increases and may also form an edaphic climax 

on some sites. Moss and Campbell noted, though rough fescue normally dominates in 

climax communities, that Parry Oatgrass may be locally dominant on shallow soils of 

rocky and gravelly slopes and sites that are windblown. They also correlated this 

phenomena with the area between Waterton and the southern Porcupine Hills. Moss and 

Campbell felt that rough fescue prairie was the true climax prairie of the foothills region 

and was not heavily impacted by bison like many areas of the Mixedgrass prairie 

(Coupland 1961). It could be that the role of dormant season grazing was not understood 

as the key to the maintenance of rough fescue communities. This is also the most likely 

regime under which bison also used the prairie (Epp 1992). 

Moss and Campbell also described important ecological gradients to other natural 

regions. In the southwest of Alberta’s Foothills Fescue, species associated with the 

Palouse prairie (Central Washington) to the west and southwest were recognized 

including Idaho fescue, Columbian needle grass, bluebunch wheatgrass and a number of 

forbs including sticky geranium and balsam root. Along the eastern and southern extent 

of the fescue association, a number of needle grass species were recognized as codominant. 

Coupland described the fescue association of the Cypress Hills as an important outlier of 

fescue association (Coupland 1961). He further described the communities that adjoin the 

black soil zone in the mixed prairie where rough fescue is less competitive, where 

western porcupine grass is a key subdominant and where ground cover from little club 

moss is much more significant than in the black soil zone. 

Looman (1982) and Hills et al. (1995) defined three rough fescue zones in Alberta: 1) the 

largest of the three in east-central Alberta is dominated by plains rough fescue (Festuca 

hallii); 2) in the southwest and on the top of the Cypress Hills bench, is dominated by 

foothills rough fescue (Festuca campestris); and 3) extends north of 50 degrees N, in the 

foothills and mountains of north-central Alberta and is dominated by northern rough 

fescue (Festuca altiaca) . 

Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue is a major community type extending from Montana into 

southwestern Alberta (Mueggler and Stewart, 1980). In Montana, this type occupies sites 

more mesic in character than Rough Fescue - Bluebunch Wheatgrass, another Palouse 

22

prairie type of British Columbia and the Northwestern US. Range sites for this type are 

mostly loamy with a wide variety of slopes but generally less than 30%. 

Rough fescue dominated communities have been classified for the Upper Foothills, 

subalpine and Montane Subregions of southwestern Alberta ( Willoughby (1999, 2001) 

and Willoughby et al. (2003). In these three natural subregions Willoughby describes 35 

rough fescue dominated communities. The majority are grassland communities, four are 

shrub types and five involve forest succession. About two thirds of the communities 

were either late-seral in character or representative of grazing succession. About 10 of 

35 communities have been modified by grazing and other disturbances to include a 

significant component of non-native species like Kentucky bluegrass. One of the key 

plant communities relative to this study is the Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Parry 

Oatgrass community (Willoughby et al., 2003). Like Moss and Campbell (1947), this 

community is considered a modal community broadly representative of Black 

Chernozemic soils at 1300 to 1900 m elevation. In the Montane, Willoughby et al. 

(2003) have consider Idaho Fescue-Parry Oatgrass - Rough Fescue to be an edaphic 

climax community found generally upslope of the rough fescue type described above. 

4.2 Modified Plant Communities 

A number of agronomic grasses may invade Foothills Fescue grassland, especially with 

excessive disturbance from activities like road construction, overgrazing, oil and gas 

development, logging and recreational activities. For example, Kentucky bluegrass, a 

native of Europe and northern Asia, has been considered an invasive non-native species 

in much of North America: 

Indians referred to it as “white man’s foot grass”; they believed that, wherever the 

white man trod, this grass later grew as enduring markers of his footprints. The 

invasion and expansion of Kentucky bluegrass were so marked and rapid that early 

Kentucky pioneers .....wrote about the abundance of grass meadows similar to 

those of Europe. At present most authorities agree that Kentucky bluegrass, like 

timothy and other cultivated grasses, was introduced into the country from the Old 

World, where it is native...(USDA 1988) 

Invasion of Alberta grassland communities by agronomic grasses is most apparent in the 

black soils of the foothills and parkland. Moisture availability will strongly influence the 

competitiveness of these species as they move into native plant communities. Table 8 

shows the frequency of agronomic species in the Foothills Fescue Grassland vs. Foothills 

Fescue Parkland vegetation based on the plot data that has been evaluated in this report. 

In the Foothills Fescue, 68% of plots sampled contained Kentucky bluegrass, with 36% 

containing Timothy and 7% containing awnless brome. In the Foothills Parkland, 

Kentucky bluegrass had a similar frequency of occurrence in plots, but Timothy and 

awnless brome were two and three times more frequent in the moister growing 

environment of the foothills parkland. 

23

Table 8. Percent of plots with Kentucky bluegrass, Timothy or awnless brome grass in 

two natural subregions. 

Natural Subregion 

n=sample plots 

Foothills Fescue 

n=487 

Foothills Parkland 

n=410 

Kentucky bluegrass Timothy Awnless Brome 

68 36 7 

75 73 21 

Once invaded by non-native species, the potential for recovery to a native community 

seems quite limited based on current knowledge. Willoughby (1997) found that some 

rangeland reference area sites which were protected from grazing before Kentucky 

bluegrass became established recovered to Rough Fescue-Idaho Fescue-Parry Oatgrass in 

20-30 years. In contrast sites that had significant Kentucky bluegrass invasion recovered 

to a Rough Fescue-Kentucky Bluegrass-dominated community over the same time period 

instead. Brown (1997) attempted to reduce the cover and competitiveness of awnless 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass on a project site near Calgary with repeated fire and 

mowing treatments but was met with poor results. At Stavely, a 6 year regime of annual 

cropping with glyphosate applied in the first year failed to eliminate agronomic grasses 

like Kentucky bluegrass from plot sites adjoining native grassland (Willms, personal 

comm.). 

24

5.0 Classification Methods 

5.1 Plant Community Classification Methods 

Data for this analysis consisted mostly of range survey and rangeland reference area data 

collected by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development from 1986 until present. A total 

of 487 vegetation inventory forms were analyzed. All data records were reviewed for 

completeness, species seven letter codes were assigned along with a unique identifier 

number for each transect. The data were then entered into the Prairie Data Base 

(Rangeland Management Branch, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development). The data 

base calculates mean values for species composition, total vegetation, moss/lichen and 

bare soil cover. 

The results of vegetation transect queries were extracted from the Prairie Data Base and 

formatted for analysis in a two dimensional matrix in the *.wk1 format that PC-ORD 

requires. Ordination and classification studies were carried out on the data sets using PC- 

ORD (MJM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon). The corresponding land data including 

soils and site information were sorted into a corresponding land data matrix. 

In order to establish major plant community types, ordination and classification 

interpretations were developed by using two statistical procedures (Willoughby 1997): 

a) De-trended Correspondence Analysis was applied (Gauch 1982). This procedure 

compares similarity and dissimilarity among sites. Plotting of the ordination scores in 

three dimensional “species space” allows viewing of site and species distributions and 

facilitates grouping of sites by community types. 

b) A cluster analysis procedure was employed as an alternate grouping technique to 

compare and contrast with the results of the DCA procedure. Ward’s method of cluster 

analysis was the most easily interpreted from the six or more procedures that might be 

chosen. 

Plant community type summaries were generated in Quattro 9 by averaging plant species 

composition, range in composition and percent constancy of occurrence among groups of 

vegetation inventory plots considered to form a unique plant community type. 

Environmental data were subsequently sorted into the same plant community groups as 

described above for further analysis and correlation with plant community groupings. 

Total vegetation canopy cover, moss/lichen and bare soil estimates were also calculated 

for the plant community type groupings of vegetation inventory plots. The resulting plant 

community descriptions are reported in one page summaries similar to those used by 

Willoughby et al. (2003). 

Ecologically sustainable stocking rates (ESSR) values are suggested for each plant 

community. These values reflect the maximum number of livestock (e.g.Animal Unit 

Months (AUM)/acre) that can be supported by the plant community given inherent 

biophysical constraints and the ecological goal of sustainable health and proper 

functioning of the plant community. When the ESSR is multiplied by the area (e.g. acres) 

of a plant community polygon the result is termed ecologically sustainable carrying 

capacity (ESCC), and is expressed as AUMs. At times, the ESCC must be adjusted for 

management factors (e.g. reduced livestock distribution), management goals (e.g. 

improve rangeland health, multiple use and values, etc.), drought conditions, and other 

natural phenomena impacting the site (e.g. forage quality, fire, pests, etc.). This 

25

adjusted/reduced value is the ecologically sustainable grazing capacity (ESGC). The 

ESGC values are not provided in the plant community guide because the necessary 

adjustments are determined by the rangeland resource manager. 

Suggested ESSR values may be determined from a combination of forage yield clipping 

studies, long-term rangeland reference area data, estimated production and historical 

grazing experience. In order to sustain ecological health and function of the plant 

community, the ESSR was based on historical grazing rates where the information was 

available, and on forage yield data when historic grazing records were not available. A 

number of assumptions underlie the development of ESSRs: 

• Ecologically sustainable forage utilization levels are set between 25 % to 50% total 

herbage production for grassland plant community types and the forage requirements 

of one animal unit (i.e. 455 kg of dry matter per month). 

• The remaining biomass production (carry over), is allocated for the maintenance of 

ecological functions (e.g. nutrient cycling, viable diverse plant communities, 

hydrological function, and soil protection, etc.) and plant community services (forage 

production, habitat maintenance, etc.). 

• The allocation of biomass production in this manner is well established and supported 

by the scientific community, and the amount required varies with Natural Subregion 

(Holechek et al. 1995). 

In this study, the historical grazing records and forage productivity data were correlated 

in establishing ecologically sustainable stocking rate (ESSR) value through the following 

steps: 

• A ranking was made of major reference plant communities by ecological range site, 

based on productivity data where available from rangeland reference areas. 

• Existing ESSR estimates were correlated with the appropriate range sites from Wroe 

et al. 1988. 

• New carrying capacity data were summarized from grazing records on file for selected 

grazing dispositions that typify a particular plant community. 

• A review team of experienced field staff then reviewed the suggested carrying 

capacity values and modified carrying capacity estimates where appropriate. 

• In the absence of grazing records, and especially with minor plant community types 

that normally have a small area of occurrence on the landscape, forage yield data or 

forage yield estimates were applied to derive an ESSR. 

6.0 Results and Discussion 

The analysis evaluated 487 vegetation plots and distinguished 30 plant communities of 

which 20 were native grassland types, four were modified grasslands and six were shrub 

types. The reference plant communities, their corresponding successional communities 

and modified communities are summarized in Table 9. Ecologically Sustainable 

Stocking Rate values and ranges are provided in Table 10. Each of the 28 plant 

26

communities is summarized on pages 31- 62. A total of 60 unclassified vegetation plots 

are summarized in Table 21 of Appendix 9.3. Owing to small sample size or 

unacceptable variability in the ordination Eigen values, the plots were not designated as 

plant communities in this approximation. As additional data become available, these 

unclassified plots will be reconsidered in future refinements of this guide. 

Reference plant communities and associated successional communities were defined for 

seven ecological range sites including wetland/subirrigated, four loamy types, 

gravel/shallow to gravel and thin breaks. The most significant of these are the three 

loamy types designated as loamy 1, 2 and 3 (Table 9). 

• The Loamy 1 plant community (FFA5) Rough Fescue - Parry Oatgrass, represents the 

moistest of upland loamy sites and is most common in the Willow Creek Upland. 

Historically, this type was likely extensive in the Delacour Plain, where only small 

remnant parcels of native grassland remain today. FFA5 is recognized by the 

presence of Parry oatgrass which may occur with or without Idaho fescue as a cosubdominant. 

• Loamy 2 (FFA2) Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue, tends to occur in more southerly 

portions of the Willow Creek Upland and south to the US border. This type seems to 

define a north-south moisture gradient, with Parry oatgrass dropping out of the stand 

in the southern Porcupine Hills and Oldman river drainage in the Cardston Plain. 

• Loamy 3 (FFA1) is a dry loamy range sites and is found along the eastern boundary 

with the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion and the Milk River Ridge. The presence of 

Western wheatgrass signals the transition to the drier Mixedgrass prairie that adjoins 

the Foothills Fescue to the east. 

• Loamy 4 is a transition plant community (FFA24) to the Mixedgrass and is the driest 

of the loamy types. 

Gravel/shallow to gravel range sites are common in the Pekisko and Oldman drainages. 

Limy range sites are commonly found in the Cardston Plain and the Del Bonita Upland. 

While plant communities closely resemble a number of loamy types, subtle difference in 

subdominant species are evident and productivity for these sites is considerably lower 

than on loamy sites. 

Successional community types, where defined, are listed for each reference plant 

community in column three of the Table 9 and are ordered in descending successional 

ranking. Plant species changes for each plant community are described in the summary 

pages for each plant community. A significant feature of plant community changes, as 

disturbance increases, is the increase in non-native species like Kentucky bluegrass. 

27

Table 9. Plant communities listed by ecological range site within the Foothills Fescue grassland. 

Ecological Range Site Range Plant Community 

(Reference Plant Community) 

Beaked Willow/Tufted Hair Grass 

(Wetland and Subirrigated) 

Foothills Rough Fescue 

(Loamy 1) 


(Loamy 2 ) 


(Loamy2 Steep Slopes) 


(Loamy 3) 


(Loamy 4) 


(Loamy 4 - Steep Slopes) 


(Limy 1) 


(Limy 2) 

FFC2 Beaked Willow/Sedge - 

Tufted Hair Grass 

FFA5 Rough Fescue – Parry 

Oatgrass 

FFA2 Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue 

- Sedge 

A23 Rough Fescue - Richardson 

Needle Grass 

FFA1 Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue 

- Western Wheatgrass 

FFA24 Rough Fescue - Western and 

Northern Wheatgrass 

FFA27 Northern and Western 

Wheatgrass - Green Needle Grass 


Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue 

Successional Community Types Modified Plant Communities 

FFA15 Sedge-Kentucky Bluegrass- 

Tufted Hairgrass 

FFA6 Parry Oatgrass - Rough 


FFA19 Kentucky Bluegrass - Rough 


FFA3 Rough Fescue - Fringed Sage 

FFA4 Sedge - Fringed Sage 

FFA14 Northern Wheatgrass – 

Western Porcupine Grass 


Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue 

FFA26 Awnless Brome - Northern 

and Western Wheatgrass 

FFA28 Green Needle Grass - 

Fringed Sage 

FFC3 Beaked Willow/Kentucky 

Bluegrass – Tufted Hairgrass 

FFC1 Common Wild Rose/Kentucky 

Bluegrass – Dandelion 

FFB1 Kentucky Bluegrass – Timothy 

FFB2 Kentucky Bluegrass 

FFB3 Awnless Brome - Alfalfa 

FFB4 Kentucky Bluegrass- Awnless 

Brome 

FFC5 Snowberry/Awnless Brome- 

Kentucky Bluegrass 

28

Ecological Range Site Range Plant Community 

(Reference Plant Community) 


(Gravel and Shallow to Gravel) 


(Thin Breaks 1) 


(Thin Breaks 2) 

FFA9 Rough Fescue – Parry’s 

Oatgrass 

FFA17 Rough Fescue – Parry’s 

Oatgrass – June Grass 

FFC6 Creeping Juniper/Northern 

and Western Wheatgrass 

Successional Community Types Modified Plant Communities 

FFA10 Parry’s Oatgrass – Rough 

Fescue – Idaho Fescue 

FFA13 Idaho Fescue – Rough 


A18 Parry’s Oatgrass – Rough 

Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass 

FFC4 Creeping Juniper/Parry 

Oatgrass - Western Porcupine Grass 

29

Table 10. Range plant communities and ecologically sustainable stocking rates (AUM/ac and acres/AU) by ecological range site within the 

Foothills Fescue grassland. 

Community 

Number 

(Range Site) 

FFC2 

FFA15 

FFC3 

FFC1 

(WL and Sb) 

FFA5 

FFA6 

FFA19 

FFB1 

(Lo1) 

FFA2 

FFA3 

FFA4 

FFB2 

(Lo2) 

FFA23 

(Lo2 steep 

slopes) 

FFA1 

FFA14 

(Lo3) 

FFA24 

FFA25 

FFA26 

FFB3 

FFB4 

(Lo4) 

Community Type 

( RPC(reference plant community), Successional, Modified) 

Beaked Willow/Sedge - Tufted Hair Grass 

Sedge-Kentucky Bluegrass-Tufted Hairgrass 

Beaked Willow/Kentucky Bluegrass - Tufted Hairgrass 

Common Wild Rose/Kentucky Bluegrass - Dandelion 

Rough Fescue - Parry’s Oat grass 

Parry’s Oatgrass - Rough Fescue 

Kentucky Bluegrass - Rough fescue 

Kentucky Bluegrass - Timothy 

Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Sedge 

Rough Fescue - Fringed Sage 

Sedge - Fringed Sage 

Kentucky Bluegrass 

ESSR 

AUM’s/Acre 

1.3 

0.9 

0.8 

0.5 

0.65 

0.5 

0.45 

0.4 

0.55 

0.4 

0.3 

0.3 

ESSR Range 

AUM’s/Acre 

1.0-1.5 

0.8-1.3 

0.5-1.0 

0.4-0.6 

0.55 - 0.7 

0.45-0.55 

0.40-0.50 

0.35-0.45 

0.50-0.60 

0.35-0.45 

0.25-0.32 

0.25-0.35 

ESSR 

acres/AU 

9 

13 

15 

24 

18 

24 

26 

30 

22 

30 

40 

40 

ESSR Range 

acres/AU 

Rough fescue - Richardson Needle grass 0.4 0.35-0.45 30 27-34 

Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Western Wheatgrass 

Northern Wheatgrass - Western Porcupine Grass 

Rough fescue - Western and Northern Wheatgrass 

Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue 

Awnless Brome - Northern and Western Wheatgrass 

Awnless Brome - Alfalfa 

Kentucky Bluegrass- Awnless Brome 

0.5 

0.35 

0.4 

0.35 

0.32 

0.35 

0.32 

0.45-0.55 

0.30-0.40 

0.35-0.45 

0.30-0.4 

0.28-0.35 

0.3-0.4 

0.28-0.35 

24 

34 

30 

34 

38 

34 

38 

8-12 

9-15 

12-24 

20-30 

17-24 

23-27 

24-30 

27-34 

20-24 

27-34 

37-48 

34-48 

23-27 

30-40 

27-34 

30-40 

34-43 

30-40 

34-43 

30

FFA27 

FFA28 

(Lo4 steep 

slopes) 

FFA29 

(Limy 1) 

FFC5 

(Limy 2) 

FFA9 

FFA10 

FFA13 

(Gr/SwG) 

FFA17 

FFA18 

FFC4 

(TB1) 

FFC6 

(TB2) 

Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Green Needle Grass 

Green Needle Grass - Fringed Sage 

0.32 

0.25 

0.28-0.37 

0.20-0.30 

Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue 0.35 0.25-0.37 34 32-48 

38 

48 

32-43 

40-60 

Snowberry/Awnless Brome-Kentucky Bluegrass 0.25 0.2-0.30 48 40-60 

Rough fescue - Parry’s Oatgrass 

Parry’s Oatgrass - Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue 

Idaho fescue - Rough fescue 

Rough fescue - Parry’s oatgrass - June grass 

Parry’s Oatgrass- Rough fescue- Western Porcupine grass 

Creeping Juniper/Parry oatgrass - Western Porcupine grass 

0.4 

0.35 

0.3 

0.35 

0.3 

0.3 

0.35-0.45 

0.30-0.45 

0.27-0.32 

0.30-0.45 

0.25-0.35 

0.25-0.35 

30 

34 

40 

34 

40 

40 

34-27 

27-40 

37-44 

27-40 

34-48 

34-48 

Creeping Juniper/Northern and Western Wheatgrass 0.28 0.25-0.32 43 43-48 

31

Foothills Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Western Wheat Grass - FFA1 

(Festuca campestris - Festuca idahoensis - Agropyron smithii) Herbaceous 

n=9 This is the reference plant community for black loamy soils in the Foothills Fescue prairie on the 

Milk River Ridge and in the eastern portions of the Foothills Fescue prairie adjoining the Mixedgrass prairie. 

Soils are medium textured, well drained with Orthic Black Chernozems and surface Ah horizons less than 

20 cm in thickness (often 10 - 15 cm). This community type occurs on very similar soils to FFA2, but in the 

more southerly and southeasterly portions of the subregion in areas of higher summer temperature extremes. 

With heavy grazing pressure, rough fescue is replaced by Idaho fescue and numerous forb species especially 

by pasture sage, lupine and golden bean. This plant community will have slightly more soil exposure as well 

as moss/lichen cover than in FFA2 or FFA5. Winter Chinook winds expose this grassland type and it is 

commonly used for winter grazing, a practice which serves to maintain a high abundance of rough fescue. 

In this drier variant of the foothills rough fescue community, litter management is important to maintain 

moisture retention on the site. Productivity data reported here is from monitoring of unburned grassland 

adjoining the Granum fire area for the years 1998 to 2000. 

Soil Exposure: 7 % (0-28)Moss/Lichen Cover: 9 % (0 - 66) Total Vegetation: 87% (66 - 97%) 

PLANT COMPOSITION CANOPY COVER(%) 

MEAN RANGE CONST 

SHRUBS 

UNDIFFERENTIATED ROSE 

(Rosa) 1 0-5 67 

BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) 

3 0-8 89 

FORBS 

PASTURE SAGEWORT 

(Artemisia frigida) 1 0-5 78 

SILVERY PERENNIAL LUPINE 

(Lupinus argenteus) 1 0-2 78 

GOLDEN BEAN 

(Thermopsis rhombifolia) 1 0-4 56 

UNDIFFERENTIATED ASTER 

(Aster) 1 0-2 56 

GRASSES 

FOOTHILLS ROUGH FESCUE 

(Festuca campestris) 61 36-85 100 

IDAHO FESCUE 

(Festuca idahoensis) 7 1-13 100 

WESTERN WHEAT GRASS 

(Agropyron smithii) 6 1-11 100 

UNDIFFERENTIATED SEDGE 

(Carex) 5 3-11 100 

JUNE GRASS 

(Koeleria macrantha) 1 0-4 44 

GREEN NEEDLE GRASS 

(Stipa viridula) 1 0-3 44 

ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 

RANGE SITE 

LOAMY 3 

SOILS 

ORTHIC BLACK (HILLMER, DEL BONITA) 

ELEVATION (M): 

1250 TO 1300 

SOIL DRAINAGE: 

WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

VERY GENTLE; GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

N/A 

FORAGE PRODUCTION (LB/AC) 

GRASS 1194 (859-1420) 

FORB 297 (97-403) 

SHRUB NOT AVAILABLE 

LITTER 1334 (799-1870) 

TOTAL 1491 (1156 - 1823) 

Ecologically Sustainable Stocking Rate 

0.50 Aum/ac 

32

Foothills Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue - Sedge - FFA2 

(Festuca campestris - Festuca idahoensis - Carex spp.) Herbaceous 

n=28 This is the reference plant community for black loamy sites in the Foothills Fescue grassland. 

Soils are medium textured, well drained Orthic Black Chernozems and surface Ah horizons of 10 - 15 cm 

in thickness (normally 10 - 15 cm). This community type occurs on very similar soils to FFA5, but is more 

common in the southern portion of the subregion, on black soils adjoining the Mixedgrass prairie and areas 

of higher summer temperature extremes like the Oldman River valley. With heavy grazing pressure, rough 

fescue is replaced by Idaho fescue and numerous forb species. This plant community normally has close 

to complete ground cover with little exposed soil. Winter Chinook winds expose this grassland type and 

it is commonly used for winter grazing which serves to maintain a high abundance of rough fescue. Forage 

production data presented here is from the Waldron Ranch rangeland reference area. 

Soil Exposure: 9 % (1-28)Moss/Lichen Cover: 7 % (1 - 35) Total Vegetation: 77% (45 - 96%) 



SHRUBS 

CREEPING JUNIPER 

(Juniperus horizontalis) T 0-7 8 

FORBS 

THREE-FLOWERED AVENS 

(Geum triflorum) 2 0-15 39 

GRASSES 



IDAHO FESCUE 



(Carex) 9 0-16 93 

NORTHERN WHEAT GRASS 

(Agropyron dasystachyum)5 0-14 96 

WESTERN PORCUPINE GRASS 

(Stipa curtiseta) 6 0-25 75 

CALIFORNIA OAT GRASS 

(Danthonia californica) 3 0-19 46 

PARRY OAT GRASS 

(Danthonia parryi) 4 0-16 43 

JUNE GRASS 


RICHARDSTON NEEDLE GRASS 

(Stipa richardsonii) 1 0-22 14 


RANGE SITE 

LOAMY 2 

SOILS 

ORTHIC BLACK (BEAZER, DEL BONITA, 

BULLHORN AND STANDOFF) 


M 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

MODERATE, STRONG, 

VERY STRONG, GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 


GRASS 1340 (351 - 1909) 

FORB 221 (106 - 362) 


LITTER 1126 (721 - 1982) 

TOTAL 1561 (713 - 2015) 


0.55 Aum/ac 

33

Foothills Rough Fescue - Pasture Sagewort - Idaho Fescue - FFA3 

(Festuca campestris - Artemisia frigida - Festuca idahoensis) Herbaceous 

n=5 This plant community is a late to mid seral grazing modified stage of the Rough Fescue - Idaho 

Fescue - Sedge community type within the Foothills Fescue grassland. Reduced rough fescue composition 

andincreased cover of western porcupine grass, June grass, sedges, pasture sage or three-flowered avens 

are a result of moderate to heavy grazing. This plant community is fairly responsive to rest and rotational 

grazing. Range recovery back to rough fescue domination may occur within a five to ten year period with 

rotational grazing and proper stocking rates. Soil exposure may be substantially increased (16%) and total 

vegetation canopy is reduced. 

Soil Exposure: 16 % (1-31)Moss/Lichen Cover:19 % (12 - 34) Total Vegetation: 55% (43 - 71%) 



SHRUBS 


(Juniperus horizontalis) 2 0-9 20 

FORBS 





GRASSES 

NORTHERN WHEATGRASS 


BLUEBUNCH WHEATGRASS 

(Agropyron spicatum) 2 0-9 20 


(Carex) 8 4-12 100 



IDAHO FESCUE 


JUNE GRASS 


ALKALI BLUEGRASS 

(Poa juncifolia) 2 0-8 60 




RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 2 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK (BEAZER, STANDOFF) 


M 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

N/A 


GRASS NOT AVAILABLE 

FORB NOT AVAILABLE 


LITTER NOT AVAILABLE 

TOTAL NOT AVAILABLE 


0.40 Aum/ac 

34

Sedge - Pasture Sagewort - Kentucky Bluegrass - FFA4 

(Carex spp. - Artemisia frigida - Poa pratensis) Herbaceous 

n=6 This is a highly disturbed early seral stage of the Rough fescue- Idaho Fescue-Sedge community 

type (FFA2). Typical increaser species include pasture sage, low sedges, June grass, early bluegrass and 

numerous forb species. Abundance of Kentucky bluegrass and dandelion are substantially increased as 

well. Soil exposure may reach very serious levels (about 35%), a level at which significant surface soil 

erosion may be evident. Total vegetation canopy is reduced which limits hydrologic functions such as 

infiltration and moisture retention. 

Soil Exposure: 34 % (12-48) Moss/Lichen Cover: 14 % (1 - 39) Total Vegetation: 42% (18 - 67%) 



SHRUBS 

BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) 

1 0-7 17 

FORBS 



COMMON DANDELION 

(Taraxacum officinale) 2 0-6 50 

GRASSES 




(Carex) 18 11-26 100 



IDAHO FESCUE 


JUNE GRASS 


EARLY BLUEGRASS 

(Poa cusickii) 4 0-12 83 

ALKALI BLUEGRASS 

(Poa juncifolia) 2 0-6 50 

KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS 

(Poa pratensis) 11 0-27 83 




RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 2 

SOILS: 



M 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY 








0.30 Aum/ac 

35

Foothills Rough Fescue - Parry Oat Grass FFA5 

(Festuca campestris - Danthonia parryi) Herbaceous 

n=19 This is a reference plant community for Black Chernozems in the Foothills Fescue Natural 

Subregion. Soils have mostly loam and silt loam textures, are well drained and have surface Ah horizons 

generally greater than 15 cm in thickness. In the subregion, this community occurs on a wide range of site 

positions from well drained valley bottoms to midslopes and strong slopes. This community occurs on 

similar soils to FFA2 but is more common on the moister ranges of these soils, in the more northerly 

portions of Soil Correlation Area 5 and in grasslands adjoining the foothills parkland subregion. With heavy 

grazing pressure, rough fescue is replaced by Parry Oatgrass and numerous forb species. Given the good 

soil moisture conditions associated with this site and plant community, there is considerable potential for 

Kentucky bluegrass to become abundant. Shrubby cinquefoil is present but generally at lower canopy cover 

values than found on shallow-to-gravel and gravel sites. This plant community normally produces complete 

ground cover with about 1% soil exposure. This is the one of the most productive grassland plant 

communities in the foothills environment and is highly prized for winter grazing, a grazing practice which 

serves to maintain the abundance of rough fescue. Forage production data is from the Stavely Rangeland 

Reference area. 

Soil Exposure: 1% (0-11) Moss/Lichen Cover: 1 % (0 - 4) Total Vegetation: 96% (83 - 98%) 



SHRUBS 

SHRUBBY CINQUEFOIL 

(Potentilla fruticosa) 3 0-11 74 

PRAIRIE ROSE 

(Rosa arkansana) 2 0-6 74 

FORBS 

SILKY PERENNIAL LUPINE 

(Lupinus sericeus) 3 0-7 84 

GOLDEN BEAN 


GRASSES 



PARRY OATGRASS 




AWNED WHEATGRASS 

(Agropyron subsecundum)4 0-11 89 

BLUEBUNCH FESCUE 



(Carex) 2 0-5 95 

NORTHERN AWNLESS BROME 

(Bromus inermis ssp 

pumpellianus) 2 0-6 84 

JUNE GRASS 



RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 1 

SOILS: 


STANDOFF) 



WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

STRONG, MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

N/A 


GRASS 1920 (1436 - 2642) 

FORB 353 (174 - 614) 


LITTER 2400 (1800 - 4200) 

TOTAL 2273 (2050 - 2816) 


0.65 Aum/ac 

36

Parry Oat Grass - Foothills Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass FFA6 

(Danthonia parryi - Festuca campestris - Poa pratensis) Herbaceous 

n=47 This is a late seral plant community on loamy ranges sites with Black Chernozems in the Foothills 

Fescue grassland. This community type summary is particularly representative of lightly to moderately 

grazed fescue grasslands on moderate to strong slopes. The prominence of Parry oatgrass is normally 

thought to be a function of grazing history, but like the Parry Oatgrass-Rough Fescue-Western Porcupine 

Grass community type, this can be both a reference plant community and a grazing influenced successional 

community, especially on strong slopes in the Foothills Fescue grassland. Moss and Campbell (1947) and 

Willoughby et al. (2003) suggest that Parry Oatgrass may be dominant due to grazing pressure and may 

increase in abundance on steep, exposed and windswept slopes, making evaluation of ecological status 

difficult. The presence of Kentucky bluegrass at 5% cover is of concern to resource managers as further 

increases in Kentucky bluegrass will diminish the value of the plant community for grazing and wildlife. 

Despite minor changes in the plant community, mean soil exposure and moss/lichen cover are low at 2 and 

3 % respectively. 

Soil Exposure: 2 % (0-16)Moss/Lichen Cover: 3 % (0-37) Total Vegetation: 93% (50-98) 



SHRUBS 



PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



GOLDEN BEAN 


GRASSES 









JUNE GRASS 


AWNED WHEAT GRASS 

(Agropyron subsecundum) 3 0-16 81 


(Carex) 2 0-20 81 

IDAHO FESCUE 



RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 1 

THIN BREAKS 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (BEAZER, OCKEY) 

ELEVATION: 


WELL DRAINED 

RAPIDLY DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

STRONG 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

WESTERLY 







Suggested Carrying Capacity 

0.50 AUM/ac 

37

Foothills Rough Fescue - Parry Oat Grass - Kentucky Bluegrass FFA9 

(Festuca campestris - Danthonia parryi - Poa pratensis) Herbaceous 

n=15 This is the reference plant community for gravel and shallow-to-gravel range sites within the 

Foothills Fescue and Foothills Parkland Natural Subregions. Soils are Orthic Black and Rego Black 

Chernozems developed on a course outwash gravels. The shallow surface horizons are loam to silt loam 

in texture. These soils are more droughty in character compared to loamy sites, productivity is lower and 

less stable. With heavy grazing pressure, rough fescue will be replaced by Parry oatgrass and bluebunch 

fescue. Even with poorer soil growing conditions, this plant community will normally have only about 4% 

soil exposure. Productivity data presented here is from the Maycroft Rangeland Reference area (new 

Rangeland Reference on gravel range site was constructed in 2002 at Rocky Flats). 

Soil Exposure: 4 % (0-28)Moss/Lichen Cover: 3 % (0-14) Total Vegetation: 92% (66-98) 



SHRUBS 



FORBS 





NORTHERN BEDSTRAW 

(Galium boreale) 2 0-9 87 

GRASSES 







IDAHO FESCUE 



(Carex) 5 2-10 100 





JUNEGRASS 



RANGE SITE: 

GRAVEL AND SHALLOW TO GRAVEL 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (BLACKFOOT, 

ROCKFORD, RINARD) 

ELEVATION: 



SLOPE : 

NEARLY LEVEL 

VERY GENTLE 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

NORTHERLY 


GRASS 1078 (272 - 2262) 

FORB 296 (134 - 678) 


LITTER 726 (478 - 1139) 

TOTAL 1374 


0.40 AUM/ac 

38

Parry Oat Grass - Foothills Rough Fescue - Idaho Fescue FFA10 

(Danthonia parryi - Festuca campestris - Festuca idahoensis) Herbaceous 

n=12 This is a late seral plant community on gravel and shallow-to-gravel range sites in the Foothills 

Fescue and Foothills Parkland Natural Subregions. Most of the gravel and shallow to gravel parent 

materials occur along the gradient between the two natural subregions so it is difficult to distinguish 

communities for each subregion. Soils are Orthic Black and Rego Black Chernozems developed developed 

on coarse outwash gravels. The outwash shallow surface horizons are loam to silt loam in texture. The 

increased abundance of Parry Oatgrass and Idaho fescue are normally associated with grazing history but 

may be a function of site as well. Gravelly soils normally have a higher canopy cover and constancy of 

shrubby cinquefoil, a shrub that commonly increases with grazing pressure. Compared to loamy soils, 

gravel and shallow to gravel sites are more droughty, forage yields are lower and less stable. This 

community type is somewhat more resistant to invasion by Timothy and Kentucky bluegrass than loamy 

sites. Soil exposure will normally be less than 5% on this type. 

Soil Exposure: 1 % (0-3) Moss/Lichen Cover: 8 % (0-26) Total Vegetation: 92% (83-98) 



SHRUBS 



FORBS 







GRASSES 








(Carex) 6 2-11 100 





JUNE GRASS 


TIMOTHY 

(Phleum pratense) 2 0-13 42 


RANGE SITE: 

GRAVEL AND SHALLOW TO GRAVEL 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (BLACKFOOT, 

ROCKFORT, RINARD) 

REGO BLACK CHERNOZEM 

ELEVATION: 


WELL DRAINED 


VERY RAPIDLY DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

NEARLY LEVEL 

VERY GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

NORTHERLY 








0.35 AUM/ac 

39

Idaho Fescue - Foothills Rough Fescue - June Grass FFA13 

(Festuca idahoensis - Festuca campestris - Koeleria macrantha) Herbaceous 

n=9 This is a late seral plant community in the Foothills Fescue grassland on gravel range sites 

associated with the Rinard soil series. The reference plant community for this range site is likely dominated 

by rough fescue but the area of the gravel range site is very small in the Foothills Fescue Subregion. 

Moderate to heavy grazing pressure will increase the abundance of Idaho fescue along with other grazing 

resistant grasses like June grass, sedges and wheatgrass species. Due to the aridity of the site, this range 

site is likely more resistant to invasion from Kentucky bluegrass and Timothy than most loamy range sites. 

Range recovery is expected to be very slow, since gravel-based soils are shallow and drought prone. Note 

that the exposed soil and moss/lichen cover is much higher and total vegetation cover much lower than for 

rough fescue plant communities that have developed on loamy range sites. 

Soil Exposure: 11 % (0-19) Moss/Lichen Cover: 21% (0-45) Total Vegetation: 77% (55-91) 



SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 





GRASSES 

IDAHO FESCUE 




JUNE GRASS 



(Carex) 5 0-11 100 







BLUEBUNCH WHEAT GRASS 


PLAINS REED GRASS 

(Calamagrostis 

montanensis) 2 0-6 89 


RANGE SITE: 

GRAVEL 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (RINARD) 

ELEVATION: 

1300 TO 1350 METERS 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

LEVEL 

ASPECT: 








0.30 AUM/ac 

40

Northern Wheat Grass - Western Porcupine Grass - Junegrass FFA14 

(Agropyron dasystachyum - Stipa curtiseta - Koeleria macrantha) Herbaceous 

n=5 This is a late to mid-seral plant community associated with shallow to gravel and dry loamy range 

sites on the eastern fringes of the Foothills Fescue grassland near the boundary with the Mixedgrass prairie. 

This plant community is associated with shallow to gravel soils adjacent to Willow Creek and the Oldman 

River. Rough fescue may be present but is not dominant given the increased aridity of the site and the 

transition to Dark Brown Chernozemic soils. A number of Mixedgrass prairie species are prominent in 

the stand like needle-and-thread grass. The plant community is very similar to the Northern Wheatgrass - 

Idaho Fescue type found on the eastern slopes of the Milk River Ridge, which is a transitional community 

between the Foothills Fescue and Dry Mixedgrass natural subregions. 




SHRUBS 

BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis) 2 0-5 40 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



GOLDEN BEAN 


GRASSES 





JUNE GRASS 


IDAHO FESCUE 





(Carex) 5 0-12 80 


(Festuca campestis) 5 0-14 40 

NEEDLE-AND-THREAD 

(Stipa comata) 4 0-13 60 


RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 3 

SHALLOW TO GRAVEL 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC REGOSOL 

ORTHIC DARK BROWN CHERNOZEM 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM 

ELEVATION: 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

GENTLE 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 








0.35 AUM/ac 

41

Undifferentiated Sedge - Kentucky Bluegrass - Tufted Hair Grass 

FFA15 

(Carex spp. - Poa pratensis - Deschampsia cespitosa) Herbaceous 

n=3 This is a mid seral to late seral plant community on sub-irrigated range sites within the Foothills 

Fescue grassland. This is a drier sedge type than either the beaked sedge or awned sedge types described 

by Thompson and Hansen (2002) as well as the sedge types reported by Willoughby et.al. (2003) in the 

Montane natural subregion. It occurs on the nearly level zone between the riparian zone and upland loamy 

sites, where shallow groundwater and overflow from the adjoining steep slopes provide a sub-irrigation 

effect. The sites are highly productive but prone to invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and a number of 

disturbance induced forbs and weeds like Canada thistle and common dandelion which result from 

increased grazing pressure and other forms of disturbance. 

Soil Exposure: 0 % (0-0) Moss/Lichen Cover: 0 % (0-0) Total Vegetation: 98 % (98-98) 



SHRUBS 

BASKET WILLOW 

(Salix petiolaris) 2 0-7 33 

FORBS 

CANADA THISTLE 

(Cirsium arvense) 3 0-7 67 



SILVERWEED 

(Potentilla anserina) 2 0-6 67 

GRASSES 

SEDGE 

(Carex spp.) 27 25-30 100 

KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 


NORTHERN REED GRASS 

(Calamagrostis inexpansa)10 0-16 67 

TUFTED HAIR GRASS 

(Deschampsia cespitosa) 8 7-9 100 

WIRE RUSH 

(Juncus balticus) 4 1-8 100 

TIMOTHY 


NARROW REED GRASS 

(Calamagrostis stricta) 3 0-9 33 

MAT MUHLY 

(Muhlenbergia richardsonis)2 0-4 67 


RANGE SITE 

SUB IRRIGATED 

SOILS 

ORTHIC HUMIC GLEYSOL 

CUMULIC REGOSOL 



WELL DRAINED 

IMPERFECTLY DRAINED 

POORLY DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

NEARLY LEVEL 

LEVEL 

ASPECT: 

EASTERLY 








0.9 AUM/ac 

42

Foothills Rough Fescue - Parry Oat Grass - June Grass FFA17 

(Festuca campestris - Danthonia parryi - Koeleria macrantha) Herbaceous 

n=6 This is the reference plant community for thin break sites associated with loamy soils on strong 

to very strong slopes and mainly south and west aspects. Rough fescue is far less dominant, Parry Oatgrass, 

June grass, Idaho fescue and western porcupine grass indicate the drier and more exposed character of the 

site type. Heavy grazing pressure will increase the abundance of the subdominant grazing-resistant grasses 

and forbs. These sites are particularly vulnerable to hoof shearing from both livestock and wildlife species 

like elk. Expected soil exposure on healthy sites is close to 5%. 




SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 

GOLDEN BEAN 


SILKY PERENIAL LUPINE 




GRASSES 





JUNE GRASS 


IDAHO FESCUE 


WESTERN POCUPINE GRASS 



(Agropyron subsecundum)3 0-7 83 

SEDGE 

(Carex spp.) 3 2-5 100 

KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 



RANGE SITE: 

THIN BREAKS 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK (OCKEY, OWENDALE) 

ORTHIC EUTRIC BRUNISOL (NORTH FORK) 

ORTHIC REGOSOL (MOKOWAN) 



RAPIDLY DRIANED 

WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

STRONG 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

WESTERLY 








.35 AUM/ac 

43

Parry Oatgrass - Foothills Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass FFA18 

(Danthonia parryi - Festuca campestris - Stipa curtiseta) Herbaceous 

n=7 This can be both a reference plant community and a grazing influenced successional community 

on thin break sites with strong and very strong slopes in the Foothills Fescue grassland. Moss and Campbell 

(1947) and Willoughby et al. (2001) suggest that Parry oatgrass may be dominant due to grazing pressure 

and may increase in abuncance on steep, exposed and windswept slopes, making evaluation of ecological 

status difficult. Like FFA17, expected soil exposure is about 5%, the site type is vulnerable to hoof 

shearing from livestock and ungulates. 




SHRUBS 





FORBS 

GOLDEN BEAN 

(Thermopsis rhombifolia)2 0-4 86 



GRASSES 







SEDGE 

(Carex spp.) 5 0-14 86 

JUNE GRASS 


IDAHO FESCUE 



(Agropyron dasystachyum) 1 0-8 57 




RANGE SITE: 

THIN BREAK 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK (OCKEY, OWENDALE) 


ORTHIC REGOSOL (MOKOWAN) 



WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

STRONG 

VERY STRONG 

ASPECT: 

WESTERLY 

SOUTHERLY 







Suggested Carry Capacity 

0.30 AUM/ac 

44

Kentucky Bluegrass - Foothills Rough Fescue - FFA19 

(Poa pratensis - Festuca campestris) Shrub Herbaceous 

n= 7 This is a mid-seral plant community on loamy ranges sites with Black Chernozems in the Foothills 

Fescue grassland. This community type is representative of moderately to heavily grazed fescue grasslands 

on a broad range of slopes from gentle to strong. The dominance of Kentucky bluegrass at 23% marks 

the movement of the plant community towards modified status. Increased cover of Kentucky bluegrass is 

of concern to resource managers as the value of the plant community for wildlife and domestic livestock 

grazing are diminished along with drought hardiness. Stocking at .5 to .65 will serve to maintain the 

existing community. 

Soil Exposure: 0% (0-2) Moss/Lichen Cover: 0% (0- 1) Total Vegetation: 98%(96 - 100) 



SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 




FORBS 

GOLDEN BEAN 


WILD VETCH 

(Vicia americana) 1 0-4 71 



GRASSES 










(Agropyron dasyystachyum)2 0-7 71 

AWNED WHEATGRASS 



(Carex) 1 0-3 57 


RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 1 

SOILS: 


ELEVATION: 

M 


WELL DRAINED 

MODERATELY WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

VERY GENTLE, MODERATE, GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

N/A 








0.4 AUM/ac 

45

Foothills Rough Fescue - Richardson Needle Grass - FFA23 

(Festuca campestris - Stipa richardsonii) Herbaceous 

n=8 This is a reference plant community for thin black loamy sites in the Foothills Fescue grassland 

with strong slopes in the central and northern areas of soil correlation area 5. This community tends to occur 

on steep slopes above FFA2, but on slopes with more soil development than thin breaks. Richardson 

needle grass serves as an indicator of steep exposed slopes and also proximity to Montane growing 

conditions. With heavy grazing pressure, rough fescue is replaced by Richardson needle grass and Idaho 

fescue and numerous forb species. Litter management may be an important issue on these exposed slopes. 

This site type is vulnerable to trampling and hoof shear by livestock and ungulates. 

Soil Exposure: 4 % (1-19)Moss/Lichen Cover: 1 % (0-4) Total Vegetation: 90% (72 - 98%) 



SHRUBS 



FORBS 



GRASSES 



RICHARDSTON NEEDLE GRASS 

(Stipa richardsonii) 12 6-19 100 


(Carex) 7 3-12 100 

IDAHO FESCUE 






CALIFORNIA OAT GRASS 

(Danthonia californica) 3 0-9 75 

JUNE GRASS 





RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 2 - STEEP SLOPES 

SOILS: 




WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

STRONG 

VERY STRONG 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 






TOTAL 


0.40 AUM/ac 

46

Foothills Rough Fescue - Northern and Western Wheat Grass - FFA24 

(Festuca campesteris -Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii) Herbaceous 

n=20 This is the reference plant community for black loamy soils in the Foothills Fescue prairie in the 

Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau, particularly in the eastern portions adjoining the mixedgrass prairie. 

Soils are medium textured, well drained with Orthic Black Chernozems and surface Ah horizons less than 

20 cm in thickness (often 10 - 15 cm). This community type also occurs on clayey range sites where a 

higher proportion of wheatgrasses would be expected. This community type occurs on very similar soils 

to FFA1 and in close transition to the Mixedgrass subregion. With heavy grazing pressure, rough fescue 

is replaced by wheatgrass species, especially Western wheatgrass which appears to be somewhat better 

adapted to disturbance than Northern wheatgrass. This plant community has slightly more soil exposure 

as well as moss/lichen cover than FFA2 or FFA5. Winter Chinook winds expose this grassland type and 

it is commonly used for winter grazing a practice, which serves to maintain a high abundance of rough 

fescue. In this drier variant of the foothills rough fescue community, litter management is important to 

maintain 

moisture retention on the site. 

Soil Exposure: 9 % (1-24)Moss/Lichen Cover: 7 % (2-26) Total Vegetation: 89% (68 - 98%) 



SHRUBS 



BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis)4 0-18 70 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



GRASSES 



UNDIFFERENTIATED WHEATGRASS 

(Agropyron) 15 3-29 100 



JUNE GRASS 


AWNLESS BROME 

(Bromus inermis) 3 0-21 35 





BLUEBUNCH WHEAT GRASS 



RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 4 AND CLAYEY 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK (BEAZER, COWLEY) 


1250 TO 1300 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

LEVEL TO STRONGLY SLOPING 

ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 





LITTER NOT AVAILABLE) 



0.4 Aum/ac 

47

Northern and Western Wheat Grass - Foothills Rough Fescue - FFA25 

(Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii- Festuca campesteris -) Herbaceous 

n=82 This is the mid to late seral plant community on black loamy soils in the Foothills Fescue prairie 

in the Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau, particularly in the eastern portions adjoining the mixedgrass 

prairie. Soils are medium textured, well drained with Orthic Black Chernozems and surface Ah horizons 

less than 20 cm in thickness (often 10 - 15 cm). This community type also occurs on clayey range sites 

where a higher proportion of wheatgrasses would be expected. With heavy grazing pressure, rough fescue 

is replaced by wheatgrass species, June grass and fringed sage. This plant community expresses more bare 

soils and less total vegetation as compared to FFA24, the reference plant community type for this ecological 

site. Winter Chinook winds expose this grassland type and it is commonly used for winter grazing a 

practice, which serves to maintain a high abundance of rough fescue. In this drier variant of the foothills 

rough fescue community, litter management is important to maintain moisture retention on the site. 

Soil Exposure: 23 % (1-55)Moss/Lichen Cover: 4 % (0-17) Total Vegetation: 79% (58-98%) 



SHRUBS 



BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis)2 0–12 45 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



NARROW-LEAVED VETCH 

(Vicia americana) 1 0-5 40 

GRASSES 


(Agropyron) 25 4-61 100 

JUNE GRASS 








THREAD-LEAVED SEDGE 

(Carex filifolia) 3 0-21 73 



AWNLESS BROME 

(Bromus inermis) 2 025 24 

SUN-LOVING SEDGE 

(Carex pensylvanica) 1 0-14 45 

Environmental Variables 

RANGE SITE: 


SOILS: 



1250 TO 1300 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 


ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 








0.35 AUM/ac 

48

Smooth Brome Northern and Western Wheatgrass - FFA26 

(Bromus inermis Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii) Herbaceous 

n=9 This is a highly disturbed mid-seral plant community on black loamy soils in the Foothills Fescue 

prairie in the Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau, particularly in the eastern portions adjoining the 

mixedgrass prairie. Soils are medium textured, well drained with Orthic Black Chernozems and surface 

Ah horizons less than 20 cm in thickness (often 10 - 15 cm). This community type occurs on very similar 

soils to FFA1 and in close transition to the Mixedgrass subregion. In this community, disturbance pressure 

from heavy grazing has resulted in a major decline in rough fescue, a significant increase in disturbance 

species like Smooth brome, Western wheatgrass which appears to be somewhat better adapted to 

disturbance than Northern wheatgrass. This plant community has more soil exposure than the reference 

plant community FFA24. This community type has diminished value for winter grazing but can still be 

managed for vigor and productivity and to protect the soil against accelerated erosion. Litter management 

will be more of challenge as the proportion of native species declines and are replaced by “soft” grasses like 

Smooth brome that are prone to weathering loss from the elements. 




SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



ALFALFA 

(Medicago sativa) 2 0-10 22 

HOARY CRESS 

(Cardaria chalepensis) 1 0-4 22 

GRASSES 

AWNLESS BROME 



(Agropyron) 23 7-40 100 



JUNE GRASS 







(Carex) 1 0-3 44 




RANGE SITE: 


SOILS: 



1250 TO 1300 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 


ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 








0. 32 AUM/ac 

49

Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Green Needle Grass FFA27 

(Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii - Stipa viridula) Herbaceous 

n=10 This is the reference plant community for strong to steeply sloping loamy soils in the Foothills 

Fescue prairie in the Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau. This community is associated with the dry 

transition area to the mixedgrass subregion with a variety of associated species present including green 

needle grass, western porcupine grass, needle-and-thread grass and June grass. Ground juniper is an 

indicator of steep slopes and sandgrass may be locally abundant where weathered sandstone has resulted 

in pockets of sandy soil. With steep slopes, a higher component of exposed soil should be expected for this 

plant community. 




SHRUBS 

BUCKBRUSH 


PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



GRASSES 


(Agropyron) 21 7-34 100 





JUNE GRASS 






NEEDLE-AND-THREAD 

(Stipa comata) 4 0-22 40 



SAND GRASS 

(Calamovilfa longifolia) 2 0-16 20 


RANGE SITE: 


SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (BEAZER, COWLEY, 

NORTH FORK, OCKEY) 

ELEVATION: 

1200- 1350 M 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

STRONG TO STEEPLY SLOPING 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

EASTERLY 







Suggested Carrying Capacity 

0..32 AUM/ac 

50

Green Needle Grass - Fringed Sage FFA28 

(Stipa viridula - Artemesia frigida) Herbaceous 

n=3 This is mid-seral plant community for strong to steeply sloping loamy soils in the Foothills Fescue 

prairie in the Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau and is associated with FFA27, the reference plant 

community for the site. This community is associated with the dry transition area to the mixedgrass 

subregion. Grazing disturbance has reduced the cover of wheatgrass in this community type and resulted 

in a much higher cover of fringed sage. With steep slopes, a higher component of exposed soil should be 

expected for this plant community. 

Soil Exposure: 29% (13-46) Moss/Lichen Cover: 0 % (0) Total Vegetation: 75% (65-88) 



SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



GRASSES 



JUNE GRASS 



(Agropyron) 9 6-13 100 


(Carex) 8 3-17 100 





SLENDER WHEATGRASS 

(Agropyron trachycaulum) 1 0-4 33 


RANGE SITE: 


SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (BEAZER, COWLEY, 

NORTH FORK, OCKEY) 

ELEVATION: 

1200- 1350 M 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

STRONG TO STEEPLY SLOPING 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

EASTERLY 








0.25 AUM/ac 

51

Northern and Western Wheatgrass - Rough Fescue FFA29 

(Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii and Festuca campestris) Herbaceous 

n=20 This the reference plant community on limy rangesites in the Foothills Fescue prairie. Limy range 

sites tend to be immature or eroded soils with free lime (calcium carbonates) at the soil surface or in the B 

horizon. Hence growing conditions are limited by soil characteristics with dominant species like Northern 

and Western wheatgrass. The expected level of soil exposure is considerably higher than for loamy range 

sites. 

Soil Exposure: 20% (3-43) Moss/Lichen Cover: 1 % (0-3) Total Vegetation: 83% (64-98) 



SHRUBS 



BUCKBRUSH 


PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 



GRASSES 


(Agropyron) 27 5-61 100 

JUNEGRASS 












AWNLESS BROME 



RANGE SITE: 

LIMY 

SOILS: 

REGO BLACK CHERNOZEMS (PARSONS, 

OLDMAN) 

CALCAREOUS BLACK CHERNOZEMS 

(COWLEY, MOKOWAN, WOL-AA) 

ELEVATION: 

1200 - 1350 M 


WELL DRAINED 


VERY RAPIDLY DRAINED 

SLOPE : 


ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 








0.35 AUM/ac 

52

Kentucky Bluegrass - Timothy FFB1 

(Poa pratensis - Phleum pratense) Herbaceous 

n=38 This community is a modified plant community found on loamy range sites in both the Foothills 

Fescue and Foothills Parkland Natural Subregions. This plant community is the product of long-term heavy 

grazing, where rough fescue, Parry oatgrass and native wheatgrasses have been gradually replaced by 

Kentucky bluegrass and Timothy to a lesser extent. In general, the extent of site’s suitable for invasive 

grasses will be more limiting in the Foothills Fescue grassland compared to foothills parkland, a subregion 

more favorable to woody plant species due to a lower precipitation to evaporation ratio, and therefore, this 

community type will be most common on valley bottom and lower slope positions. With proper stocking 

levels and appropriate rotational grazing practices, the plant community can be quite productive but many 

values normally associated the native rough fescue communities are diminished including drought 

resistance and suitability for winter grazing. Based on existing information, there appears to be limited 

potential for recovery from this community type to one dominated by native graminoids. The Ecologically 

Sustainable Stocking Rate is set to allow the range health of the plant community to improve. Stocking at 

.5 to .65 AUM/ac will maintain the existing plant community. 




SHRUBS 

BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis) 4 0-15 68 

FORBS 





COMMOM YARROW 

(Achillea millefolium) 1 0-6 82 

GRASSES 



TIMOTHY 






NORTHERN AWNLESS BROME 

(Bromus inermis spp.) 2 0-33 53 





SEDGE 

(Carex spp.) 2 0-12 66 


RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 1 

SOILS: 


(BEAZER, STANDOFF) 




WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

VERY GENTLE 

MODERATE 

GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 








0.40 AUM/ac 

53

Kentucky Bluegrass - Fringed Sage FFB2 

(Poa pratensis - Artemisia frigida) Shrub Herbaceous 

n= 3 This community is a highly modified plant community found on loamy range sites in the Cardston 

Plain in the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion. This plant community is the product of long-term heavy 

grazing, where rough fescue and Parry oatgrass have been gradually replaced by Kentucky bluegrass and 

disturbance induced increasers like pasture sage. Further indicators of degradation include bare soil at 36% 

and vegetation canopy at about 44%. Risk of soil loss from this site will be significantly increased. With 

proper stocking levels and appropriate rotational grazing practices, the plant community can be quite 

productive but many values normally associated the native rough fescue communities are diminished 

including drought resistance and suitability for winter grazing. Based on existing information, there appears 

to be limited potential for recovery from this community type to one dominated by native graminoids. The 

suggested stocking rate will allow the range health of the plant community to improve. Stocking at .4 to 

.55 AUM/ac will serve to maintain the existing plant community. 

Soil Exposure: 36% (15-48) Moss/Lichen Cover: 1 % (1 - 2)Total Vegetation: 44% (35 - 53%) 



SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 

PASTURE SAGE 


LEAFY SPURGE 

(Euphorbia esula) 2 0-6 33 



COMMON YARROW 


GRASSES 

KENTUCK BLUEGRASS 




AWNLESS BROME 


JUNE GRASS 





RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 2 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (BEAZER, 

STANDOFF,CARDSTON) 

ELEVATION: 

M 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

VERY GENTLE 

GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 







Suggested Grazing Capacity 

0.3 AUM/ac 

54

Smooth Brome - Alfalfa FFB3 

(Bromus inermis - Medicago sativa) Herbaceous 

n=13 This an old field plant community associated with loamy range sites in the Foothills Fescue prairie, 

in the vicinity of the Oldman Reservoir near north of Brocket and Pincher Creek. These fields were once 

seeded as hay or pastureland but now are managed as pastureland. This community would rate as a 

desirable modified plant community given the abundance of Smooth brome and Alfalfa. It is unlikely that 

this community would revert to native status, but there are a number of native species that have 

reestablished with the agronomic species. This community will produce little forage during drought periods 

and are not well suited to dormant season grazing. Plant vigor should be maintained to prevent weed 

invasion. Soil exposure is greater than found in the reference plant community. 

Soil Exposure: 32 % (2-60) Moss/Lichen Cover: 0 Total Vegetation: 72% (42-93) 



SHRUBS 

PRAIRIE ROSE 


FORBS 

ALFALFA 






CREEPING WHITE PRAIRIE ASTER 

(Aster falcatus) 1 0-5 31 

YELLOW SWEET-CLOVER 

(Melilotus officinalis) 1 0-8 8 

GRASSES 

AWNLESS BROME 






RED FESCUE 

(Festuca rubra) 1 0-8 31 




RANGE SITE 


SOILS 



1250 TO 1300 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 


ASPECT: 

VARIABLE 








0.35 AUM/ac 

55

Kentucky Bluegrass - Smooth Brome - Northern and Western 

Wheatgrass - FFB4 

(Poa pratensis - Bromus inermis Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii) Herbaceous 

n=6 This is a modified plant community on dry loamy soils in the Foothills Fescue grassland in the 

Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau. This is a modified plant community to FFA24 and is associated 

with the transition area to the mixedgrass prairie. This plant community is most likely the result of heavy 

grazing pressure over a prolonged period but may also be old field communities once seeded for tame 

pasture or hay and now managed as rangeland pasture. It is unlikely that this community would revert to 

native status, but there are a number of native species that have reestablished with the agronomic species. 

This community will produce little forage during drought periods and are not well suited to dormant season 

grazing. Plant vigor should be maintained to prevent weed invasion. Soil exposure is increased over the 

reference plant community. 

Soil Exposure: 14% (5-33) Moss/Lichen Cover: 4 % (0 - 7) Total Vegetation: 89% (69-98) 



SHRUBS 

BUCKBRUSH 


PRAIRIE ROSE 


SASKATOON 

(Amelanchier alnifolia) 2 0-5 33 

FORBS 

ALFALFA 




PRAIRIE SAGEWORT 

(Artemisia ludoviciana) 1 0-3 50 



GRASSES 



AWNLESS BROME 



(Agropyron) 7 2-19 100 

CANADA BLUEGRASS 

(Poa compressa) 2 0-11 17 

QUACK GRASS 

(Agropyron repens) 2 0-5 33 


RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 1 

SOILS: 


STANDOFF) 



WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

STRONG, MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

N/A 








0.32 AUM/ac 

56

Raspberry-Rose/Kentucky Bluegrass - Dandelion FFC1 

(Rubus idaeus - Rosa woodsii / Poa pratensis - Taraxacum officinale) Shrub Herbaceous 

n=10 This is a highly disturbed, early seral plant community associated with wetland and moist loamy 

range sites in the Foothills Fescue and foothills parkland Natural Subregions. Site determination is difficult 

given the subtle transition from upland to riparian conditions. It is more common in the foothills parkland 

Natural Subregion, but can be found in wetland and moist valley bottom locations in the Foothills Fescue. 

This community has been significantly modified by disturbance history leading to the replacement of tufted 

hair grass and sedges by a variety of non-native species including Kentucky bluegrass, Timothy, Canada 

thistle, dandelion and quack grass, thus diminishing the values and functions of the plant community. 

Heavy grazing can modify the plant community and reduce the depth and quality of the turfy surface layer. 

This in turn reduces the potential moisture holding capacity and water infiltration into the soil, and, 

increases overall runoff. The range site may appear to be more of a loamy upland site when the dominance 

of riparian species is diminished. The potential to restore this plant community to native condition appears 

very limited at this time, but productivity and vegetation cover can be significantly enhanced through 

rotational grazing. Though the potential for recovery of the herbaceous layers appears unlikely, there are 

many woody species that may release with more rest in the grazing cycle including: basket willow, 

Saskatoon, chokecherry, gooseberry and aspen. The Ecologically Sustainable Stocking Rate will allow 

range health to improve. Stocking at .7 to .9 AUM/ac will maintain the existing plant community. 




SHRUBS 

WILD RED RASPBERRY 

(Rubus idaeus) 7 0-40 90 

COMMON WILD ROSE 

(Rosa woodsii) 7 0-16 90 

SNOWBERRY 

(Symphoricarpos albus) 4 0-13 80 

FORBS 



WILD WHITE GERANIUM 

(Geranium richardsonii) 3 2-8 100 

GRASSES 



TIMOTHY 


BLUEJOINT 


canadensis) 4 0-12 50 


(Carex) 3 0-8 90 

FOWL BLUEGRASS 

(Poa palustris) 3 0-14 60 




RANGE SITE: 

LOAMY 1, WETLAND, OVERFLOW 

SOILS: 



ELEVATION: 


POORLY DRAINED, IMPERFECTLY DRAINED 


WELL DRAINED 

SLOPE : 

VERY GENTLE, NEARLY LEVEL 

MODERATE 

ASPECT: 

NORTHERLY 








0.5 AUM/ac 

57

Beaked Willow/Sedge - Tufted Hair Grass FFC2 

(Salix bebbiana / Carex - Deschampsia cespitosa) Herbaceous Shrub 

n=6 This is a late seral to reference plant community for wetlands and subirrigated range sites in the 

Foothills Fescue grassland. This community is more common in the adjoining foothills parkland Natural 

Subregion, but can be found in wetland and moist valley bottom locations in the Foothills Fescue. The 

moist rich growing conditions of the site are easy to recognize given the presence of beaked willow and the 

dominance of sedges and tufted hair grass. Heavy grazing can modify the plant community and reduce the 

depth and quality of the turfy surface layer. This in turn reduces the potential moisture holding capacity 

and soil moisture infiltration and increases overall runoff. The range site may appear to be more of a loamy 

upland site when the dominance of riparian species is diminished. This is a highly productive plant 

community that can be maintained with rotational grazing practices. Season long grazing, even at proper 

stocking rates for the overall pasture will allow this type to become preferred range leading to declines in 

range health and productivity over time. 




SHRUBS 

BEAKED WILLOW 

(Salix bebbiana) 3 0-15 17 

UNDIFFERENTIATED WILLOW 

(Salix) 2 0-5 67 

FORBS 





GRASSES 


(Carex) 25 16-37 100 



UNDIFFERENTIATED REED GRASS 

(Calamagrostis) 8 0-25 33 

NARROW REED GRASS 


stricta) 7 0-27 50 

WIRE RUSH 




TIMOTHY 



RANGE SITE: 

SUB-IRRIGATED, WETLAND 

OVERFLOW 

SOILS: 



ELEVATION: 




SLOPE : 

GENTLE, LEVEL 

VERY GENTLE 

NEARLY LEVEL 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 








1.3 AUM/ac 

58

Beaked Willow/Kentucky Bluegrass -Timothy - Tufted Hair Grass - 

FFC3 

(Salix bebbiana/Poa pratensis - Phleum pratense - Deschampsia cespitosa) Shrub Herbaceous 

n=7 This an early to mid seral plant community in the Foothills Fescue grassland on wetland and very 

moist loamy range sites. Site determination is difficult given the subtle transition from upland to riparian 

conditions. It is more common in the foothills parkland Natural Subregion, but can be found in wetland and 

moist valley bottom locations in the Foothills Fescue. This community has been significantly modified 

by disturbance history leading to the replacement of tufted hair grass and sedges by a variety of non-native 

species including Kentucky bluegrass, Timothy, Canada thistle, dandelion, awnless brome and meadow 

fescue, thus diminishing the values and functions of the plant community. 

Soil Exposure: 1% (0-5) Moss/Lichen Cover: 1% (0- 4) Total Vegetation: 97% (94-98%) 



SHRUBS 

BEAKED WILLOW 

(Salix bebbiana) 4 0-29 14 



FORBS 





GRASSES 



TIMOTHY 

(Phelum pratense) 13 3-26 100 



SEDGE 

(Carex spp.) 5 0-24 57 

AWNLESS BROME 


MEADOW FESCUE 

(Festuca pratensis) 4 0-25 14 

WIRE RUSH 


HOOKER’S SEDGE 

(Carex hookerana) 2 0-10 29 


RANGE SITE: 

WETLAND 

LOAMY (MOIST) 

SOILS: 


GLEYED BLACK CHERNOZEM 

ELEVATION (): 





SLOPE : 

NEARLY LEVEL 

VERY GENTLE 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHERLY 

NORTHERLY 







Suggested Grazing Capacity 

0.8 AUM/ac 

59

Creeping Juniper - Parry Oatgrass - Western Porcupine Grass - 

FFC4 

(Juniperus horizontalis - Danthonia parryi - Stipa curtiseta) Shrub Herbaceous 

n=1 This is a preliminary community that is likely the reference plant community on the steepest of 

thin break range sites within the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion. This community is common on steep 

ridges and very strong slopes where juniper will form dense colonies through a strong spreading root 

system. 

Soil Exposure: 10% Moss/Lichen Cover:10% Total Vegetation:87% 



SHRUBS 


(Juniperus horizontalis) 39 

FORBS 

CREEPING WHITE PRAIRIE ASTER 

(Aster falcatus) 4 

COMMON YARROW 

(Achillea millefolium) 1 

GRASSES 


(Danthonia parryi) 23 


(Stipa curtiseta) 7 


(Carex) 4 

HOOKER’S OAT GRASS 

(Helictotrichon hookeri) 4 


(Festuca campestris) 3 

IDAHOE FESCUE 

(Festuca idahoensis) 3 

JUNE GRASS 

(Koeleria macrantha) 2 


(Agropyron dasystachyum)2 


RANGE SITE: 

THIN BREAKS 

SOILS: 


ORTHIC BLACK CHERNOZEM (OCKEY) 

ELEVATION: 

M 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

VERY STRONG 

ASPECT: 

SOUTHWEST 








0.2 AUM/ac 

60

Snowberry/Smooth Brome - Kentucky bluegrass FFC5 

(Festuca idahoensis - Festuca campestris - Koeleria macrentha) Herbaceous 

n=21 This plant community is disturbed shrub community that is associated with limy range sites, but 

occurs on moderate to steep north and east facing slopes. Aspect and winter snow deposition provide moist 

growing conditions which are suitable for Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass to invade and persist on 

the site. These sites may also be vulnerable to deposition of weed seeds like Canada thistle, which may 

become established with the superior moisture regime. 

Soil Exposure: 9 % (2-20) Moss/Lichen Cover: 0% (0-0) Total Vegetation: 89% (20 - 100) 



SHRUBS 

BUCKBRUSH 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) 13 0-34 81 

SASKATOON 


FORBS 

COMMON YARROW 


SMOOTH ASTER 

(Aster laevis) 2 0-19 19 



ALFALFA 


GRASSES 

AWNLESS BROME 




GIANT WILD RYE 

(Elymus piperi) 2 0-14 24 


RANGE SITE: 

LIMY 

SOILS: 

REGO BLACK CHERNOZEMS (PARSONS, 

OLDMAN) 

CALCAREOUS BLACK CHERNOZEMS 

(COWLEY, MOKOWAN, WOL-AA) 

ELEVATION: 

1200 - 1350 M 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

MODERATE TO SEEP SLOPES 

ASPECT: 

NORTH AND EAST 








0.25 AUM/ac 

61

Creeping Juniper/Northern and Western Wheat Grass FFC6 

(Juniperus horizontalis/Agropyron dasystachyum and smithii) Herbaceous 

n=10 This is a reference plant community for thin break range sites in the Foothills Fescue prairie within 

the Cardston Plain and Del Bonita Plateau. This community is a product of dry and exposed slope 

conditions. Thin break range sites are steeply sloping landscapes with less than 10% bedrock exposure and 

with bedrock within 5 m of the soil surface. Soil exposure is very high given the steepness and exposure 

of slopes. 




SHRUBS 



SASKATOON 


BUCKBRUSH 


SKUNKBUSH 

(Rhus trilobata) 2 0-7 50 

FORBS 

GOLDEN BEAN 


GRASSES 


(Agropyron) 21 5-34 100 

BLUEBUNCH WHEATGRASS 




JUNE GRASS 




Foothills rough fescue 


INDIAN RICE GRASS 

(Oryzopsis hymenoides) 1 0-9 30 

PLAINS MUHLY 

(Muhlenbergia cuspidata) 1 0-4 50 


RANGE SITE: 

THIN BREAKS 

SOILS: 

ORTHIC REGOSOL 

(NORTH FORK, OCKEY, MOKOWAN, 

OWENDALE) 

ELEVATION: 

1200 - 1350 M 


WELL DRAINED 


SLOPE : 

STEEPLY SLOPING 

ASPECT: 

SOUTH AND WEST 








0.28 AUM/ac 

62

7.0 Guidelines for assessing plant community structure, soil exposure and litter 

abundance and noxious weeds. 

The following guidelines are designed for use with the Range Health Assessment for 

Grassland, Forest and Tame Pastures - Field Workbook (Adams et al. 2003). The range 

health protocol is available from the Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands 

Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development as a field workbook in 2003. The 

following comments are to assist the user in interpreting the range health codes and 

instructions in the Foothills Fescue grassland. 

7.1 Question 1 Integrity and Ecological Status 

Why is plant species composition important? 

Plant species composition is a fundamental consideration in range health assessment. 

Plant species composition will influence a site’s ability to perform functions and provide 

products and services. Native plant communities evolve within their environment and 

slowly change over time as environmental factors change. Significant short term changes 

in plant composition do not normally occur unless caused by significant disturbances like 

continuous heavy grazing, prolonged drought, prolonged high periods of precipitation, 

exotic species invasion, frequent burning or a timber harvesting treatment. 

What changes in plant community may result from disturbance? 

Plant species changes due to grazing pressure are predictable: 

C Perennial species that tend to be most productive and palatable are also the most 

sensitive to grazing and will decline with increased grazing pressure. 

C Species with lower forage value and greater adaptation to grazing pressure will 

increase in relative abundance. 

C Eventually very heavy grazing pressure will lead to weedy species that are adapted to 

more constant levels of disturbance. 

What successional stages should we manage for? 

Range management objectives tend to favor the later stages of plant succession (late-seral 

to reference plant community or good to excellent range condition). Late-seral plant 

communities tend to be superior in the efficient capture of solar energy, in cycling of 

organic matter and nutrients, in retaining moisture, in supporting wildlife habitat values 

and in providing the highest potential productivity for the site. Early-seral stages 

represent plant communities with diminished ecological processes that are less stable and 

more vulnerable to invasion by weeds and non-natives species. They are also 

characterized by diminished resource values such as livestock forage production, wildlife 

habitat values and watershed protection. 

63

How do management changes affect plant communities? 

When disturbance impacts are reduced or removed, the present plant community may 

react in a number of ways. It may appear to remain static, or it may move toward a 

number of identifiable plant communities, including the potential natural community. 

Some rangeland communities due to disturbance history or a natural process of invasion, 

have become dominated by non-native species called modified plant communities. To the 

best of our knowledge, long-term rest of these modified plant communities will not return 

these to native plant communities. When non-native plant communities are being 

evaluated (not including tame pasture at this time), a separate set of questions are applied 

to determine the health status of modified plant communities. 

How can I tell the ecological status of a plant community? 

The plant community tables provide guidance in understanding the ecological status of a 

given plant community: 

• The range plant community column normally contains plant communities considered 

to be the Reference Plant Community(RPC) or site potential. 

• The next column to the right shows plant communities that are seral. These 

communities have had some modification due to disturbance with seral status 

declining as you move down the column. 

• The next column to the right of the seral communities column summarizes seral 

modified communities where disturbance history has altered the plant communities to 

a non-native or modified status. 

7.2 Question 2 - Plant Community Structure 

What is plant community structure and why is it important? 

This parameter recognizes the importance of structure associated with the canopy cover of 

major life form groups (trees, shrubs, forbs and graminoids) in a plant community. A 

diverse plant community supports optimum nutrient cycling and energy flow. Different 

life forms or life form groups vary in canopy structure and rooting depths, using sunlight, 

water and nutrients from different zones in the vegetation canopy and soil. Plant 

community structure is important in maintaining net primary production, especially in 

forested rangelands, and in the maintenance of habitat values for a spectrum of wildlife 

species including browsing opportunities for ungulates and feeding and nesting sites for 

breeding birds. In grasslands plant community structure also contributes to snow capture 

and retention. 

Scoring structure in the Foothills Fescue grassland 

• rough fescue grassland will normally have a tall grass and forb layer including rough 

fescue, a number of native wheatgrasses and a number of tall forbs 

• Parry oatgrass and Idaho fescue will identify a mid-grass structural layer 

• healthy Foothills Fescue grasslands normally have a rich layer of low grasses and low 

forbs filling in the spaces in the canopy between the larger bunchgrasses 

64

• this layer of low graminoids and forbs may be shaded out in the absence of grazing 

• when rating structure in modified plant communities, tall growing non-natives 

(Kentucky bluegrass, awnless brome and Timothy) may receive full marks for 

structure if they provide a canopy height similar to a healthy rough fescue stand 

7.3 Question 3 - Does the site retain moisture (litter standards) 

What is litter and how does it contribute to range health? 

When functioning properly, a watershed captures, stores and beneficially releases the 

moisture associated with normal precipitation events. Uplands make up the largest part of 

the watershed and are where most of the moisture received during precipitation events is 

captured and stored. Live plant material from both vascular and non-vascular plants and 

litter, residual plant material, either standing, freshly fallen or slightly decomposed on the 

soil surface, is strongly linked to range health. Litter cover aids a number of important 

functions on rangeland including: water infiltration (slowing runoff and creating a path 

into the soil), reducing soil erosion from wind and water, reducing evaporative losses and 

reducing raindrop impact. 

In grassland environments significant incoming precipitation is lost as evapotranspiration. 

Litter acts as a physical barrier to heat and water flow at the soil surface. 

Litter conserves moisture by reducing evaporation, making scarce moisture more 

effective. Studies show that forage yields are reduced by about 30 % during dry years 

when litter has been removed by fire or heavy grazing on foothills rangelands (Willms et. 

al 1986). Table 3 summarizes litter normals for the Foothills Fescue grassland. Like 

climate normals, litter normals will be adjusted and refined over time as additional years 

of monitoring add to the normals. 

How much is enough? 

Our basic assumption is that healthy grazed sites that provide optimum grazing 

opportunities will have a characteristic litter level that will be maintained over time with 

light to moderate stocking rates. By monitoring a variety of different ecological range 

sites over time, we are able to establish a “litter normal” expressed as lb./ac. The litter 

normals recommended for the Foothills Fescue grassland are summarized in Table 3. The 

litter normal relates to the potential productivity of the site. 

• Most loamy range sites in the Foothills Fescue grassland will be Orthic Black 

Chernozems with Ah thickness 20 cm or less. Thick Black describes the deeper 

profiles that exceed 20 cm in Ah thickness. 

• Threshold values should be viewed as a starting point, a minimum level for 

establishing a basic level of moisture retention. 

• While it is possible to have an excessive litter build up that has choking effect on the 

grassland, this generally occurs at > 4000 - 6000 lb./ac. of litter. 

• Modified plant communities have a diminished potential to produce adequate litter 

levels since the non-native plant material is much more prone to weathering loss. 

65

Table 11. Litter normals for the Foothills Fescue. 

Range 

Site 

Litter 

Normal 

Healthy 

>65% of 

normal 

Healthy 

with 

problems 

65 to 35% 

of normal 

Unhealthy 

780 780 650 650-350 325 325-175

lowlands, solonetzic soils, some sandy soils). Erosion and sediment production from sites 

that are normally unstable is not the focus of this question, but rather the loss of key soil 

particles from well developed sites that are normally stable. 

Human-caused bare soil is rated by considering the total bare soil on a range site minus 

the amount that is normally naturally occurring. For most sites in the Foothills Fescue 

grassland, there is normally no bare soil. The following table shows the normal range of 

mean soil exposure values observed in the plant community data. Steep slopes, gravelly 

soils and thin break sites may have up to about 10% naturally occurring bare soil (Table 

12). 

Table 12. Soil exposure normals for major range sites in the Foothills Fescue grassland. 

Range Sites Soil Exposure 

(% canopy cover) 

Loamy 

• Loamy 1 moist 

• Loamy 2 mid 

• Loamy 3 dry 

• Loamy steep 

0-1% 

0-5% 

0-8% 

5-8% 

Gravel and Shallow-to-Gravel 5-10% 

Thin Breaks 5-10% 

7.5 Question 5 - Noxious weed infestation. 

Noxious weeds are invasive plants that are alien species to the rangeland plant 

community. Weeds are seldom a problem in vigorous, well managed pastures although 

weed invasion may occasionally happen in healthy stands. Weeds may be introduced to 

relatively healthy stands through rodent burrows, but generally their presence indicates a 

degrading plant community. Noxious weeds diminish the agricultural productivity of a 

site, and threaten biological diversity and the structure, function, and sustainability of 

ecosystems. They diminish the multiple uses and values that range is normally capable of 

providing. 

Weeds normally provide a strong message about range health. Weeds most often invade 

range where grazing practices have resulted in available niche space (bare soil, surplus 

moisture); available micro-habitats normally occupied by range plants, but now available 

to weeds due to overgrazing or some other land use or natural disturbance. Grazing 

management strives to maintain plant vigor and vegetation cover so that all niche space is 

filled by one or more plant communities that can occupy the site and thereby minimize 

weed invasion. 

67

The rating noxious weed infestation should be guided by local weed list of noxious weeds 

as provided by municipal weed control authorities. This question attempts to identify 

noxious (restricted weeds) infestation on a range site. 

In the analysis of plot data, three noxious weeds were encountered including Canada 

thistle, leafy spurge and tall buttercup. Several nuisance weeds were also encountered 

including perennial sow thistle and annual hawk’s beard. Canada thistle was the most 

common occurring in about 15 percent of plots. On highly disturbed sites it occurred at 

up to 12 % canopy cover. All other weed species occurred at trace levels of frequency 

and cover. 

68

8.0 Literature cited 

Adams, B. W., G. Ehlert, C. Stone, M. Alexander, D. Lawrence, M. Willoughby, D. 

Moisey, C. Hincz, and A. Bogen. Range Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and 

Tame Pasture. Public Lands Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Pub. 

No. T/044 105 pp 

Adams, G.D., G. Trottier, W. Strong, I.D. McDonald, S.J. Barry, P. Gregoire, G. Babish 

and G. Weis. 1997. Vegetation Component Report, CFB Suffield - National Wildlife 

Area, Wildlife Inventory. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edcmonton, 96 pp. 

Achuff, P.L., 1994. Natural regions, subregions and natural history themes of Alberta. A 

classification for protected areas management. Alberta Environmental Protection, 

Edmonton, Alberta. 

Archibald, J.H, G.D. Klappstein and I.G.W. Corns. 1996. Field guide to ecosites of 

southern Alberta. Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For. Serv., Northwest reg., North. For. Cent., 

Edmonton Alberta. Spec Rep. 8. 

Alberta Soil Information Centre (ASIC) 2001. AGRASID 3.0: Agricultural Region of 

Alberta Soil Inventory Database (Version 3.0). Edited by J. A, Brierley, T.C. Martin and 

D.J. Spies. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural 

Development, Conservation and Development Branch. Edmonton, Alberta. Available: 

http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/asic 

Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field guide to ecosites of northern Alberta. 

Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For. Serv., Northwest reg., North. For. Cent., Edmonton Alberta. 

Spec Rep. 5. 

Brierley, J.A., Rodvang, A.T., and Pettapiece, W.W., 1991. Soil Survey of the Municipal 

District of Cardston (M.D. No. 6), Alberta. Land Resource Research Contribution No. 

87-62. Alberta Institute of Pedology Report No. S-86-48. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Brown, D. 1997. Smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss) in Foothills Fescue grassland: 

stand characterization and the effects of cattle, sheep, mowing, glyphosate and fire. M.Sc. 

Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 136 pp. 

Butler, L.D. 1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook. Grazing Lands Technology 

Inst, NRCS – USDA, Washington D.C. 

Busby, F.E. 1994. Rangeland Health – New Methods to Classify, Inventory and Monitor 

Rangelands. National Academy of Science Report, National Research Council, 

Washington D.C. 180 pp. 

69

Chanasyk, D.S., E. Mapfumo and W. Willms. 2002. Quantification and simulation of 

surface runoff from fescue grassland watersheds. Agric. Water Management 59: 137-153. 

Chanasyk, D.S., E. Mapfumo, E., W.D. Willms and M.A. Naeth. Quantification and 

Simulation of Soil Water on Grazed Fescue Grassland Watersheds J. Range Manage. (In 

press) 

Chetner, S. and the Agroclimatic Atlas Working Group. 2003. Agroclimatic Atlas of 

Alberta, 1971 to 2000. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Agdex 071-1. 


Clarke, S.E., J.A.Campbell, and J.B. Campbell. 1942. An ecological and grazing capacity 

study of the native grass pastures in southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 

Canad. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull., 44. 

Coupland, R.T. 1961. A reconsideration of the grassland classification in the northern 

great plains of North America. Journal of Ecology 49: 135-167. 

Dormaar, J.F. and W.D Willms. 1998. Effects of forty-four years of grazing on fescue 

grassland soils. J. Range Manage. 51:122-126. 

Dormaar, J.F., and W.D. Willms. 1990. Sustainable production from the rough fescue 

prairie. J. Soil Water Conserv. 45:137-140. 

Dormaar, J.F., S. Sandiak, and W.D. Willms. 1989. Vegetation and soil responses to short 

duration grazing on fescue grasslands. J. Range Manage. 42:252-256. 

Dykersterhuis, E.J. 1949. Condition and management of rangelands based on quantitative 

ecology. Journ. Range Manage. 2:104-115. 

Epp, H.T. 1993. Original range managers: migrant and sedentary grazers. Pp 47-59 in 

Proceedings - First Interprovincial Rangeland Conference, Jan. 17 - 21, Saskatoon, SK 

Hill, M.J., W.D. Willms, D.J. Major and J.R. King. 1995. Modelling the Biogeography of 

Rough fescue in Alberta. Proc. Fifth International Rangeland Congress. Salt Lake City, 

Utah. pp 234-235. 

Gauch, H.G. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, 298 pp. 

Johnston, A. 1961. Comparison of lightly grazed and ungrazed range in fescue grassland 

of southwestern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 41:615-622. 

Johnston, A. 1962. Effects of grazing intensity and cover on the water-intake rate of 

fescue grassland. J. Range Manage 15: 79-82. 

Johnston, A., J.F. Dormaar and S. Smoliak. 1971. Long-term grazing effects on Fescue 

Grassland soils. J. Range Manage 24:185-188. 

70

Kjearsgaard, A.A., Jajek, J., Pettapiece, W.W., and McNeil, R.L., 1986. Soil Survey of the 

County of Warner, Alberta. Alberta Institute of Pedology Report No. S-84-46, 1984. 

Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. 

LandWise Inc., 1998. Soil series and Soil Landscape Model correlation for SCAs 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5, 6, 8 and 16. Prepared for Alberta Public Lands. Lethbridge, Alberta. 

LandWise Inc., 2001. Range Site - Soil Series and Soil Landscape Model Conversion for 

Soil Correlation Areas (SCA's) 7, 9 and 10. Prepared for Alberta Public Lands. 

Lethbridge, Alberta. 

Looman, J. 1969. The fescue grasslands of western Canada. Vegetation, 19: 128-145. 

Looman, J. 1982. Grasslands of Western North America: Fescue Grasslands. In Grassland 

Ecology and Classification Symposium. June 1982, Kamloops B.C.. Edited by A.C. 

Nicholson, A. 

McLean and T.E. Baker. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 353pp. 

Mapfumo, E, W.D. Willms and D.S. Chanasyk. 2002. Water quality of surface runoff 

from grazed fescue grassland watersheds in Alberta. Water Qual. Res. J. of Can. 37:543- 

562. 

Mapfumo, E., D.S. Chanasyk, and W.D. Willms. Modeling daily soil water under 

Foothills Fescue grazing with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool model. (Submitted for 

publication) 

MacMillan, R.A., 1987. Soil Survey of the Calgary Urban Perimeter. Alberta Soil Survey 

Report No. 45. Alberta Research Council, Terrain Sciences Dept., Bulletin No. 54. 


McNeil, R.L., 2003. Ecological/range sites and potential plant communities of southern 

Alberta, derived from AGRASID 3.0. Prepared by LandWise Inc. for the Integrated 

Resource Management Branch, Alberta Environment. 

Moss, E.H. and J.A. Campbell. 1947. The fescue grassland of Alberta. Can J. Res. 

25:209-227. 

Mueggler, W.F. and W.L. Stewart. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of 

Western Montana. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report INT-66: 154 pp. 

Naeth, M.A., Pluth, D.J., Chanasyk, D.S., Bailey, A.W., Fedkenheuer, A.W., 1990. Soil 

compacting impacts of grazing in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of 

Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:157-167. 

71

Naeth, M.A., A.W. Bailey, D.J. Pluth, D.S. Chanasyk, and R.T. Hardin. 1991. Grazing 

impacts on litter and soil organic matter in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems 

of Alberta. J. Range Manage. 44:7-12. 

Robertson, C., and Hendry, M.J., 1982. Bedrock lithology of the southern plains of 

Alberta. Alberta Agriculture, Lethbridge, Alberta. 

Robertson, A. and B.W. Adams. 1990. Two worksheets for range vegetation monitoring. 

Range Notes Issue No. 8 February, 1990. Pub No. T/207. Alberta Forestry, Lands and 

Wildlife, Public Lands Division, Edmonton,11pp. 

Shetsen, I., 1987. Quaternary Geology, Southern Alberta. 1:500,000. Alberta Research 

Council, Terrain Sciences Dept. Digital version is available for $20.00 from the Alberta 

Geological Survey, email EUB.AGS-Library@gov.ab.ca. 

Smoliak, S., J.A. Campbell, A. Johnston and L.M. Forbes. 1966. Guide to range condition 

and stocking rates for Alberta grasslands. Alberta Lands and Forests Publ. 27 pp. 

Task Group on Unity in Concept and Terminology. 1995. New concepts for assessement 

of rangeland condition. J. Range Manage. 48:271-225. 

Thompson, W.H. and P.L. Hansen. 2002. Classification and management of riparian and 

wetland sites of the Alberta Grassland Natural Region and adjacent subregions. Bitterroot 

Restoration, Inc. Prepared for the Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Program-Cows 

and Fish, Lethbridge. 416 pages. 

Turchenek, L.W., and Fawcett, M.D., 1994. Soil Survey of the Municipal District of 

Rocky View No. 44, Alberta. Alberta Soil Survey Report No. 53. Alberta Research 

Council, Environmental Research and Engineering Dept., Edmonton, Alberta. 

Walker, B.D., Brierley, J.A., and Coen, G.M., 1991. Soil Survey of the Pincher Creek - 

Crowsnest Pass Area, Alberta. Alberta Soil Survey Report No. 50. Agriculture Canada, 

Research Branch, Land Resource Research Contribution No. 88-04. Alberta Institute of 

Pedology Publication No. S-91-50. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Walker, B.D., and Pettapiece, W.W., 1996. Soils of the Gleichen area, 82I/SW. Alberta 

Soil Survey Report No. 82I-SW. CLBRR Contribution No. 96-14. Agriculture and 

Agri-Food Canada Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Alberta Land 

Resource Unit, Edmonton, AB. 

Willms, W.D., A.W. Bailey, and A. McLean. 1980. Effect of clipping or burning on some 

morphological characteristics of Agropyron spicatum. Can. J. Bot. 58:2309-2312. 

Willms, W.D., S. Smoliak, and J.F. Dormaar. 1985. Effects of stocking rate on rough 

fescue grassland vegetation. J. Range Manage. 38:220-225. 

Willms, W.D., S. Smoliak, and A.W. Bailey. 1986. Herbage production following litter 

removal on Alberta native grasslands. J. Range Manage. 39:536-539. 

72

Willms, W.D. 1988a. Response of rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) to light, water, 

temperature, and litter removal, under controlled conditions. Can. J. Bot. 66:429-434.24 

Willms, W.D. 1988b. Forage production and utilization in various topographic zones of 

fescue grasslands. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 68:211-223. 

Willms, W.D., J.F. Dormaar, and G.B. Schaalje. 1988. Stability of grazed patches on 

rough fescue grasslands. J. Range Manage. 41:503-508. 

Willms, W.D., S. Smoliak, and J.F. Dormaar. 1990. Vegetation response to time 

controlled grazing on mixed and fescue prairie. J. Range Manage. 43:513-517. 

Willms, W.D. 1991. Cutting frequency and cutting height effects on rough fescue and 

Parry Oatgrass yields. J. Range Manage. 44:82-86. 

Willms, W.D. and J. Fraser. 1992. Growth characteristics of rough fescue (Festuca 

scabrella var. campestris) after 3 years of repeated harvesting at scheduled frequencies and 

heights. Can. J. Bot. 70:2125-2129. 

Willms, W.D., B.W. Adams, and J.F. Dormaar. 1996. Seasonal changes of herbage 

biomass on the fescue prairie. J. Range Manage. 49:100-104. 

Willms, W.D., and L.M. Rode. 1998. Forage selection by cattle on fescue prairie in 

summer or winter. J. Range Manage. 51:496-500. 

Willoughby, M. 1997. Rangeland reference areas - Seven Mile Creek, Range Condition 

and Trend 1964-97. Alberta Environmental Protection, Land and Forest Services, 20 pp. 

Wroe, R.A., S. Smoliak, B.W. Adams, W.D. Willms, and M.L. Anderson. 1988. Guide to 

brange condition and stocking rates for Alberta grasslands. Alberta, Forestry Lands and 

Wildlife Publ., 33p. 

USDA. 1988. Range plant handbook. Reprint of original 1937 handbook. Dover 

Publications, New York. 809 pp. 

Willoughby, M.G. 1992. Species diversity and how it is affected by livestock grazing in 

Alberta. Range Notes: Issue No. 13, Alberta Public Lands. Pub. No. T/207. 3 pp 

Willoughby, M.G., M.J. Alexander and B.W. Adams. 2003. 5th approximation. Range 

plant community types and carrying capacity for the Montane subregion. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alta. Pub. no. T/589 223pp. 

73

APPENDIX 9.1 Ecological Range Site Definitions 

Table 13. Ecological/range sites, with definitions and abbreviated AGRASID 

correlations. From McNeil (2003). 

ZEcological/ Range Site 

Revised Definition AGRASID 3.0 Correlation 

Subirrigated Water table is close to surface during Gleyed non-saline medium- to 

(Sb) 

growing season, but rarely above. coarse-textured soils. 

Riparian (Ri) Zone most closely adjacent to stream Any SLM with floodplain or 

and river channels. Also known as the stream channel landscape model 

lotic zone. 

(FP1,FP2, FP3, SC1-l, SC1-h, 

SC2, SC3or SC4) 

Overflow (Ov) Areas subject to water spreading and Inclined, low relief landscapes 

sheetflow. Typically on gentle inclines including fans and aprons; or 

or terraces prone to stream overflow. soils developed on fans, aprons or 

terraces. 

Wetland (WL) Typically low-lying or depressional Non or weakly saline Gleysols or 

positions subject to occupation by water Organic soils. OR 

ranging from temporary to semi- undifferentiated water bodies 

permanent in duration. Also known as (ZWA) with any landscape model 

the lentic zone. 

except W1, W2 or W3. 

Clayey (Cy) Clayey textured soils including silty Fine- and very-fine-textured soil 

clay, sandy clay, clay, and heavy clay. 

Generally >40% clay. 

groups. 

Loamy (Lo) Includes loam, silt loam, silt, clay loam, Medium- and moderately-fine 

sandy clay loam, and silty clay loam. textured soil groups. 

Sandy (Sy) Sandy-loam-textured soils. Moderately coarse soil group. 

Limy (Li) Eroded or immature soils with free lime Eroded, Rego and Calcareous 

(CaCO3) at the soil surface. Soil pH 

generally >7.5. 

soils or subgroups. 

Sand (Sa) Loamy sand and sand soils, and not with Very-coarse-textured soil group 

a duned surface. 

and not on duned landscape 

models. 

Blowouts (BlO) Areas with eroded surface pits reflecting Dominant or Co-dominant 

the presence of abundant Solonetzic 

(hardpan) soils. 

Solonetzic Order Soils. 

Choppy Loamy sand and sand soils with a duned Very-coarse-textured soil groups 

Sandhills (CS) land surface. 

with duned landscape models. 

Thin Breaks Areas with bedrock at or near the soil Landscape models I3m and I3h; 

(TB) 

surface; largely vegetated. May include OR layered, medium, or fine 

thin, eroded or immature soils on gentle materials with mas pm of L6, L7, 

to steep landscapes. 

L8, L16, M5, or F5. 

Shallow to Soil with 20 to 50 cm of a sandy or Layered materials denoted by mas 

Gravel (SwG) loamy surface overlying a gravel or pm (parent material) codes L4 or 

cobble- rich substrate. 

L5. 

74

Z Ecological/ 

Range Site 

Saline Lowland 

(SL) 

Revised Definition AGRASID 3.0 Correlation 

Areas with negligible vegetation due to 

electrical conductivity (salts) and/or 

sodium adsorption ratio limitations. 

Gravel (Gr) Dominated by gravels or cobbles (>50% 

coarse fragments). May be covered by a 

mantle with few gravels, up to 20 cm 

Badlands/ 

Bedrock (BdL) 

thick. 

Nearly barren lands with exposures of 

softrock or hardrock. Includes steep 

valley walls. 

Saline Regosolic or Saline 

Gleysolic series OR sodic 

Regosolic series. 

Layered or coarse materials with 

mas pm codes L1, L17, L19, L21 

or C1. 

Specific Landscape Models I4h, 

I5. 

Z Ecological/range sites are listed in order from most productive to least productive. 

75

9.2 A Concise Guide to Assist Users of AGRASID 

9.2.1 - AGRASID: SOIL LANDSCAPE MODELS 

AGRASID 3.0 is the most recent version of the Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Information Database 

(ASIC 2001). AGRASID is a digital compilation of soils and landscapes presented at a scale of 1:100,000. 

The basic soil map unit of AGRASID is the Soil Landscape Model (SLM) (ASIC 2001). Soil Landscape 

Models include soil series codes, a unit number, and a landscape model (Figure 5). Soil series proportions in 

a polygon or SLM are either dominant (50 to 100%), co-dominant (30 to 50%), or significant (10 to 30%). 

The soil series code in SLMs in which one soil series is dominant are denoted with three-letter symbols. The 

soil series code in SLMs in which two or three soil series are co-dominant are denoted with four-letter codes, 

with the first two letters indicating the first co-dominant soil and the last two letters indicating the second 

co-dominant soil. For example, an SLM with the soil series symbols BZCT indicates a co-dominant Beazer 

(BZR, Orthic Black Chernozem) developed on glacial till and, Cardston (CTN, Orthic Black Chernozem) 

developed on fine glaciolacustrine parent material. 

A soil model unit number between 1 and 21 following the soil series symbol generally indicates a significant 

component of a particular soil or soils (Table 14). 

Examples of Soil Model Numbers Used in Soil Landscape Models 

A 

• A simple SLM with one dominant soil (BZR) is indicated as BZR1/U1l. The soil model number 1 

indicates a relatively pure unit with no significant identified soils. The landscape model U1l indicates a 

low-relief undulating landscape with slopes generally less than 2%. 

• A complex SLM with two co-dominant soils (BZR and CTN) is indicated as BZCT2/U1h-c. The soil 

model number 2 indicates a significant proportion of wet soils (Gleysols or gleyed subgroups). The 

landscape model U1h indicates undulating topography (slopes of 2 to 5%). The c modifier refers to the 

presence of channels (Table 18). 

Soil Series (indicates two 

co-dominant soils: 

BZ = (Beazer) 

CT = (Cardston) 

Tables 19 & 20 

BZCT2/U1h-c 

Soil Model Unit 

Number (2 = 

Significant wet soils 

–Table 14) 

Fig. 5 An example of an SLM code. 

Landscape Model (Table 17) 

Surface form and slope class 

U1h = gently undulating with 

slopes of 2 – 5% 

Surface Form 

Modifier (c = 

channeled) (Table 

18) 

76

9.2.2 SOIL MODEL UNIT NUMBERS 

Table 14. Description of Soil Model Unit Numbers. 

Soil Model 

Unit 

Number 

Significant Soil 

Additional Description 

1 Relatively pure unit. No significant soils identified. 

2 Wet, including gleyed subgroups, Gleysols or 

Organics 

Gleyed are imperfectly drained; Gleysols and Organics are 

usually poorly or very poorly drained 

3 Saline or salt-enriched Saline phase or Saline subgroups 

4 Eroded, Rego or Calcareous Eroded and Thin phases, Rego or Calcareous subgroups 

5 Finer textured Soils must be at least one textural group finer (refer to 

textural triangle, Fig. 4) than the dominant or co-dominant 

soils. 

6 Coarser textured Soils must be at least one textural group coarser (refer to 

textural triangle, Fig. 4) than the dominant or co-dominant 

soils. 

7 Solonetzic order hardpan layer affected by sodium enrichment 

8 Wet (2) and Eroded, Rego and Calcareous soils Both Soil Model Units 2 and 4 are present in significant 

(4) 

proportions 

9 Wet (2) and coarser (6) Both Soil Model Units 2 and 6 are present in significant 

proportions 

10 Wet (2) and Solonetzic (7) Both Soil Model Units 2 and 7 are present in significant 

proportions 

11 Eroded, Rego and Calcareous soils (4) and 

coarser textured (6) 

Both Soil Model Units 4 and 6 are present in significant 

proportions 

12 Wet (2), Eroded, Rego and Calcareous (4) and 

coarser textured (6) 

The three Soil Model Units 2, 4 and 6 are present in 

significant proportions 

13 Significant saline soils (3) and eroded Rego and Both Soil Model Units 3 and 4 are present in significant 

Calcareous soils (4). 

proportions 

14 Eroded, Rego and Calcareous (4) and 

Solonetzic (7) 


proportions 

15 Coarser textured (6) and Solonetzic (7) Both Soil Model Units 6 and 7 are present in significant 

proportions 

16 Chernozemic only if the dominant or codominant 

soils are Brunisolic, Luvisolic, 

Vertisolic, Regosolic, Solonetzic and/or 

Gleysolic 

Significant Chernozemic soils in polygons dominated by soils 

of other orders. 

17 Significant finer-textured soils (5) and 

significant Solonetzic soils (7). 


proportions 

18 Wet (2) and finer-textured (5) Both Soil Model Units 2 and 5 are present in significant 

proportions 

19 Wet (2) and Chernozemic (16) only if the 

dominant or co-dominant soils are of a non- 

Chernozemic order. 


proportions 

20 Imperfectly or freely drained soils (Gleyed 

subgroups) only if dominant or co-dominant 

soils are of the Gleysolic or Organic orders. 

Dominantly poorly or very poorly drained soils, with 

significant non-Chernozemic soils that are either imperfectly 

or freely drained. 

21 Dominant or two codominant Gleysolic soils 

with significant Organic soils. 

Dominated by mineral wetland soils with significant areas of 

peat accumulation. 

77

Variants 

Variants of Soil Series are indicated as modifiers following the Soil Series code. Three 

examples are listed below. For a complete list of the 48 possible variants, see ASIC 2001. 

co: Coarse-textured variation of the noted soil series. Textural class is at least one 

group coarser (Fig. 4). E.g., BZR is medium-textured, so a BZRco indicates at 

least a moderately-coarse-textured variation. 

gl: Gleyed phase of the noted soil series. Soils are generally imperfectly drained, 

indicative of temporary wetlands. May also be indicative of a high watertable, 

which can promote subirrigation. 

st: Stony phase used to indicate surface stoniness class of S3 or greater. Selected 

classes are defined in Table 15. 

Table 15. Selected stoniness classes. 

Stoniness 

Class 

Description % of Land Surface 

Covered By ZStones or 

Boulders 

S3 very stony 3 – 15 

S4 excessively stony 15 – 50 

S5 exceedingly stony >50 

Z Stones are 25 to 60 cm in diameter; boulders are >60 cm in diameter. 

Undifferentiated Soil Models 

Some soil landscapes are complex and may contain a wide variety of soil series. For these 

conditions undifferentiated soil models are used. Undifferentiated soil models begin with 

the letter Z, and reflect a broad grouping of particular soils that can include a soil order 

(E.g., ZSZ for Solonetzic), a soil subgroup (E.g., Gleyed is a component of ZGW), or a 

broad soil textural group (E.g., ZCO for coarse soils, Fig. 1). Nine undifferentiated soil 

models were used in AGRASID (Table 16). 

78

Table 16. Description of Undifferentiated Soil Models. 

Undifferentiated 

Soil Model Code Description 

ZCO Coarse soils (gravel and sand) 

ZER Eroded mineral soils including Regosols and Rego and 

Calcareous subgroups 

ZFI Finer-textured soils (finer than indicated by series) 

ZGW Gleyed subgroups, Gleysols and water 

ZNA Saline soils 

ZOR Organic soils 

ZSZ Solonetzic order soils 

ZUN Undifferentiated mineral soils 

ZWA Water bodies 

9.2.3 Landscape Models 

Landscape Models reflect landform, surface shape, slope and relief. (Table 17). They are 

usually denoted with a capital letter followed by a number followed by a small letter. For 

a complete listing of landscape models, please refer to AGRASID Version 3.0 (ASIC 

2001). Landscape models pertinent to Organic soil areas are not included for Range 

Guides of the Grassland Natural Region. 

Table 17. Definition of Selected Landscape Models. 

Code 

Definition of Landscape Model Predominant Slope 

Range (%) 

DL Disturbed land, including communities and facilities. 

D1l Low-relief longitudinal dunes. 2 – 9 

D1m Moderate-relief longitudinal dunes. 5 – 15 

D1h High-relief longitudinal dunes. 9 – 30 

D2l Low-relief parabolic dunes. 2 – 9 

D2m Moderate-relief parabolic dunes. 5 – 15 

D2h High-relief parabolic dunes. 9 – 30 

FP1 Unconfined meander floodplain. 0 – 5 

FP2 Unconfined braided channel. 0 – 5 

FP3 Confined floodplain with or without low-level terraces. 0 – 5 

HR2m Moderate-relief hummocky and ridged. 5 – 15 

HR2h High-relief hummocky and ridged. 9 – 30 

H1l Low-relief hummocky. 4 – 9 

H1m Moderate-relief hummocky. 7 – 15 

H1h High-relief hummocky. 12 – 30 

H5l Low-relief hummocky draped moraine over softrock. 4 – 9 

H5m Moderate-relief hummocky draped moraine over softrock. 7 – 15 

H5h High-relief hummocky draped moraine over softrock. 12 – 30 

I3l Inclined, generally single slope landform, including fans and aprons. 2 – 9 

79

Code 

Definition of Landscape Model Predominant Slope 

Range (%) 

I3m Inclined; generally single slope moderate-relief landform. 6 – 15 

I3h Inclined and steep; generally single slope high relief landforms with 0 to 10% 

exposed bedrock. 

15 – 60 

I4l Inclined; generally single slope low-relief landforms with >10% exposed softrock. 2 – 9 

I4m Inclined; generally single slope moderate-relief landforms with >10% exposed 

softrock. 

6 – 15 

I4h Inclined and steep; generally single slope high-relief landforms with >10% 

exposed softrock. 

15 – 60 

I5 Inclined steep with extensive failure slumps. 15 – 60 

IUl Combination of inclined and undulating; generally a wavy pattern of gentle slopes 

on an overall inclined landscape. 

1 – 5 

IUh Combination of inclined and undulating to hummocky; generally a wavy pattern of 

gentle to moderate slopes on an overall inclined landscape. 

3 – 9 

L1 Level plain. 0 – 2 

L2 Level closed basin (depression with raised edges). 0 – 2 

L3 Level and terraced; not within modern stream channels. 2 – 5 

M1m Moderate-relief rolling, including multi-directional inclined slopes greater than 

400 m in length. 

6 – 15 

M1h High-relief rolling, including multi-directional inclined slopes greater than 400 m 

in length. 

15 – 30 

R2l Low-relief ridged landscape. 2 – 5 

R2m Moderate-relief ridged landscape. 6 – 15 

R2h High-relief ridged landscape. 12 – 30 

SC1-l Steep-sided valleys with a confined floodplain; low relief. 1 – 9 

SC1-h Steep-sided valleys with a confined floodplain; high relief. 9 – 60 

SC2 Incised stream channel in wide valley with one or more terraces. 2 – 60 

SC3 V-shaped valley with no terraces or floodplain. 2 – 60 

SC4 Intermittently incised subglacial stream channel; partially infilled with glacial 

deposits. 

2 – 60 

U1l Gently undulating or wavy pattern. 0.5 – 2 

U1h Undulating or wavy pattern. 2 – 5 

W1 Channels, sloughs and ponds in a linear arrangement. 0 – 1 

W2 Sloughs in a non-aligned aggregation. 0 – 1 

W3 Level basin that may be filled or partially filled with water. Semi-permanent to 

permanent water body. 

0 – 1 

80

Landscape models sometimes include the following surface form modifiers (Table 18). 

Table 18. Surface Form Modifiers. 

Surface Form 

Description 

Modifier Code 

c Channeled or rilled due to water erosion. Includes narrow and shallow 

temporary watercourses. Used when four or more channels occur within a crosssectional 

distance of 800 m. 

d Dissected or gullied due to water erosion. Includes narrow to wide deep 

watercourses that interfere with ground transportation. 

e Eroded pits. Areas with more than 40% blowouts. 

n Concave or basinal water collection areas affected by surface water collection 

and/or groundwater discharge. 

r Shallow to bedrock. Bedrock is 1 to 5 m below ground surface 

81

9.2.4 LISTING OF SOIL SERIES FOR THE FOOTHILLS FESCUE (SCAs 5 & 6) 

Soil series are defined on the basis of detailed features of the soil pedon, such as colour, lithology, texture, and structure. Soil series reflect a unique 

combination of a soil subgroup and parent material that is present over a representative land area. Soil series are named for geographic points (e.g. towns) 

located in the area where they occur, and each soil series is denoted with a three-letter symbol. Soil series descriptions include soil subgroup, texture 

(Fig. 4) and parent material. A change in any of the three properties can result in a new soil series if there is sufficient area mapped in its applicable Soil 

Correlation Area. 

82

Appendix 9.3 

Table 21. Outlier communities are those sites which are unclassified due to small sample size or insufficient data. 

OUTLIER COMMUNITIES IN THE 

FOOTHILLS FESCUE SUB-REGION 

Community Number 

of Sites 

NATIVE OUTLIER COMMUNITIES 

*Ecodistrict *Slope *Drainage *Range 

Site 

*Landform Element *Aspect *Grazing 

Intensity 

Cow Parsnip 1 BLA very gentle, gentle, 

moderate slope 

UNDM. N/A UNDM N M 

Foothills Rough Fescue-Bluegrass 6 BLA,DEL strong, very gentel, WD, Lo, Cy mid slope, UNDM, upper SE, NE, NE- M, H, L, 

nearly level, moderate UNDM. 

slope 

SW, E, UNDM 

slopes 

UNDM 

Foothills Rough Fescue-Kentucky 3 WLW,CAR very gentle, gentle, WD Cy terrace S, SW, UNDM, H 

Bluegrass-Idaho Fescue 

UNDM 

UNDM 

Foothills Rough Fescue-Parry Oat Grass 2 WLW moderate slope RD N/A crest, mid slope, upper slope NW, UNDM H, M 

Foothills Rough Fescue-Sedge-Idaho Fescue 2 DEL strong slope UNDM. Cy upper slope, UNDM UNDM UNDM 

June Grass-Pary Oat Grass-Foothills Rough 


1 WLW steep slope WD TB crest, mid slope, upper slope W H 

Kentucky Bluegrass-Alkali Bluegrass 2 CAR level, nearly level, very WD Lo level deppression, lower UNDM H 

gentle, gentle, moderate 

slopes, UNDM 

slope, mid slope 

Needle and Thread Grass-Foothills Rough 


1 WLW UNDM RD SwG terrace UNDM UNDM 

Northern Wheatgrass-Foothills Rough 


3 WLW nearly level RD SwG terrace UNDM UNDM 

Parry Oat Grass-Foothills Rough Fescue 3 BLA strong, very strong slope RD,WD Lo UNDM S ,W , SW M, L 

Parry Oat Grass-Foothills Rough 3 WLW moderate, strong slope RD N/A UNDM S, N/NE, L, M 

Fescue/Silky Perenial Lupine 

UNDM 

Parry Oat Grass-Kentucky Bluegrass- 

Northern Wheatgrass 

1 BLA very gentle slope UNDM. SwG crest UNDM M 

Richardson Needle Grass-Foothills Rough 5 CAR,WLW very gentle, moderate, WD Lo mid slope, terrace SE, E, UNDM M 


level, nearly level, 

gentle, srtong slope 

Salt Grass-Wheatgrass 1 END UNDM UNDM. N/A UNDM UNDM L, M 

Smooth Brome-Common Yarrow 2 CAS, CAR very gentle, gentle slope, MWD, N/A level W, UNDM H, UNDM 

UNDM 

WD 

Timothy-Foothills Rough Fescue 2 BLA moderate, strong slope RD, Lo upper slope, mid slope, E M 

MWD 

lower slope 

84

Timothy-Kentucky Bluegrass/Graceful 3 WLW,CAR very gentle, gentle slope, WD UNDM, terrace, level deppression, S, W-NW, H, UNDM 

Cinquefoil-Dandelion 

level 

Lo level, UNDM. UNDM 

Timothy-Kentucky Bluegrass-Foothills 3 BLA very gentle, gentle, very WD, RD, Lo, lower slope, mid slope, E M, H 

Rough Fescue 

strong, nearly level MWD UNDM upper slope, terrace 

Western Porcupine Grass-Hooker's Oat 3 WLW,BLA strong, gentle slope, RD,WD TB, Cy, upper slope, lower slope, SW, UNDM M, UNDM 

Grass-Foothills Rough Festcue 

MODIFIED OUTLIER COMMUNITIES 

UNDM 

UNDM. mid slope, terrace 

Crested Wheatgrass 1 CAR very gentle, gentle slope WD N/A level, lower slope UNDM H 

Brome-Timothy 1 WLW moderate, strong slope RD N/A mid slope SE H 

Kentucky Bluegrass/ Small-leaved 2 CAR very gentle, gentle, WD N/A level, mid slope, upper slope E-W, SW H 

Everlasting on cleared land 

moderate slope 

Sedge-Northern Wheatgrass-Junegrass on 

cleared land 

1 WLW UNDM WD N/A 6 UNDM H 

Hairy Wild Rye on cleared land 1 CAR strong, very strong slope WD N/A mid slope NE UN-USED 

SHRUB and FOREST OUTLIER 

COMMUNITIES 

Beaked Willow / Foothills Rough Fescue - 1 BLA strong slope RD Lo lower slope, mid slope, N L 

Parry Oat Grass 

upper slope 

Buckbrush / Marsh Reed Grass 1 BLA strong slope RD Lo mid slope E L 

Foothills Rough Festcue-Parry Oat Grass on 1 BLA strong slope MWD Lo lower slope, mid slope, W H 

shrubland 

upper slope 

Hairy Wild Rye/ Lindley's Aster- 

Twinflower on treed wetland (mixedwood?) 

1 WLW very strong slope WD N/A mid slope W M 

Pinegrass-Hairy Wild Rye shrubland 1 WLW UNDM WD N/A mid slope, upper slope N M 

Prairie Sedge-Quack Grass-Alkali Blue 

Grass on treed wet land 

1 CAR very gentle, gentle slope WD N/A level deppression UNDM M 

Saskatoon / Pary Oat Grass-Foothills Rough 


1 BLA strong slope RD Lo crest, mid slope, upper slope E L 

*lists of details are in order of decreasing frequency unless separated by a dash (-), in which case they are equal. Only the major representatives are listed. 

UNDM means that the details are undetermined for that site. N/A in the range site category is due to format in which site was sampled and no range site was recorded. 

85

Foothills Fescue Range Plant Community Guide - Sustainable ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?