United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northeastern

Research Station

General Technical

Report NE-294

Proceedings

Land Type Associations Conference:

Development and Use in Natural Resources

Management, Planning and Research

April 24 – 26, 2001

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin
Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

May 2002 Fax: (740)368-0152

Visit our homepage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne
Proceedings

Land Type Associations Conference:

Development and Use in Natural Resources

Management, Planning and Research

April 24 – 26, 2001

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Edited by:

Marie-Louise Smith

Sponsored by:

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

National Society of Consulting Soil Scientist, Inc.

The Natural Areas Association

The Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters

Northeastern State Forest Resource Planners Association

The Wisconsin County Foresters Association

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry

University of Wisconsin, School of Natural Resources

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station

USDA Forest Service, Natural Resources Inventory Group (TERRA)

Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

The Ohio State University, School of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Northeastern Area Forest Resources Program Leaders

Natural Resources Research Institute

Published by:

USDA Forest Service

Northeastern Research Station

11 Campus Blvd Suite 200

Newtown Square PA 19073-3294
Kevin McSweeney

College of Ag. & Life Sciences

Department of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Conference Steering Committee

Connie Carpenter

USDA Forest Service

Northeastern Area State

and Private Forestry

Durham, NH

Jim Jordan

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

Northeastern Area State and

Private Forestry

Rhinelander, WI

Darrell Zastrow

WI Department of Natural Resources

101 S. Webster Street, PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

zastrd@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us

Lloyd Casey

USDA Forest Service Northeastern

Area State and Private Forestry

11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200

Newtown Square, PA 19073

lrcasey@fs.fed.us

Marie-Louise Smith

USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Research Station

PO Box 640

Durham, NH 03825

marielouisesmith@fs.fed.us

John W. Attig

WI Geological and Natural History Survey

3817 Mineral Point Road

Madison, WI 53705

jwattig@facstaff.wisc.edu

Bill Moulton

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

Dept. of Forest & Parks

324 N. Main Street

Barre, VT 05641

bill.moulton@anrmail.anr.state.vt.us

Larry Laing

US Forest Service

Eastern Region

310 West Wisconsin Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53203

lelaing@fs.fed.us

Steve Fay

White Mountain National Forest

719 North Main Street

Laconia, NH 03246

sfay@fs.fed.us

Dr. George Parker

Department of Forestry

and Natural Resources

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

grp@fnr.purdue.edu

Dr. David M. Hix

Ohio State University

School of Natural Resources

2021 Coffey Road

Columbus, OH 43210

hix.6@osu.edu

Program Committee

Connie Carpenter (Chair)

USDA Forest Service

Northeastern Area State

and Private Forestry

271 Mast Road

Durham, NH

conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us

Jim Jordan

USDA FS

North Central Research Station

Northeastern Area

State and Private Forestry

Rhinelander, WI

Dave Hvizdak

USDA Natural Resource

Conservation Service

Spooner, WI

Dan Hanson

MN Department of

Natural Resources

Grand Rapids, MN

John Kabrick

MO Department of

Conservation

Columbia, MO

Joe Kovach

WI Department of

Natural Resources

Tomahawk, WI

Mitch Moline

WI Department of

Natural Resources

Madison, WI

Tim Nigh

MO Department of

Conservation

Jefferson City, MO

Paul Westegaard

Wood County Forester

Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Darrell Zastrow

WI Department of

Natural Resources

Forestry Sciences

Madison, WI

Dave Hoppe

USDA Forest Service

Nicolet National Forest

Rhinelander, WI

Poster Committee

Dr. Eunice Padley (Chair)

WI Department of

Natural Resources

Madison, WI 

Janet Silbernagel

University of WisconsinMadison

Department of

Landscape Architecture 

Madison, WI 

David Shaddis

USDA Forest Service 

Chippewa National Forest 

Cass Lake, MN 

Mitch Moline

WI Department of

Natural Resources 

Madison, WI

Conference Co-Chairs
Contents

I. LTA Development

Landscape Ecosystem Classification Principles and Concepts ...............................................2

Burton V. Barnes

Towards National Landtype Association Data Standards .......................................................3

Thomas DeMeo, David T. Cleland, Carl Davis, Martin Ferwerda, Alan J. Gallegos, John Haglund,

Steve Howes, Jim Keys, Larry Laing, George T. Robertson, Wayne A. Robbie, Andy Rorick, David A.

Shadis, David Tart, Eric Winthers, Donald Fallon, Eunice Padley

Landtype Associations: Concepts and Development in Lake States National Forests ........ 11

James K. Jordan, Eunice A. Padley, David T. Cleland

Development of Wisconsin’s Landtype Associations — A layer within the National

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units ........................................................................ 24

Darrell E. Zastrow, David J. Hvizdak, Mitchell C. Moline

General Ecosystem Survey of National Forest System Lands in Arizona and

New Mexico ............................................................................................................................ 29

Wayne Robbie and Shirley Baros

LTA Delineation for the Hoosier National Forest: Criteria and Methods ............................30

Andrey V. Zhalnin, George R. parker, Guofan Shao and Patrick Merchant

Land Type Associations using Digital Soil Maps and Landscape Topography ................... 39

David W. MacFarlane, Craig Coutrous, James P. Dunn

Predictive Community Mapping using Ecological Land Units in the Northern

Appalachian Ecoregion .......................................................................................................... 39

Mark Anderson, Charles Ferree, Greg Kehm, and Arlene Olivero

Development and Applications of Landtype Associations in Missouri .............................. 40

Tim A. Nigh and Walter Schroeder

II. Planning, Management, and Research Applications

Policy Implications of Using Landtype Associations ........................................................... 42

Chester Joy

Use of Ecological Units in Mapping Natural Disturbance Regimes in the Lake States...... 43

David Cleland, David Shadis, Donald.I. Dickman, James K. Jordan, Richard Watson

Use of LTAs as a Tool for Wildlife Management in Minnesota ........................................... 44

Gary Drotts and Jodie Provost

The History of White Pine in Minnesota and the use of Landtype Associations

for Restoring White Pine Forests............................................................................................ 45

Dan Hanson and John C. Almendinger

Land Typing for Bioregional Planning: A Perspective from the Niagara Escarpment,

Ontario .................................................................................................................................... 46

Robert J. Milne, Michael R. Moss and Lorne P. Bennett

Use of Landtype Associations and Landforms in Managing Pennsylvania’s

State Forests............................................................................................................................. 54

Daniel A. Devlin, Wayne L. Myers, William D. Sevon and Donald M. Hoskins

Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project ........................................................................................ 59

Robert DeVillez and Randy Wilkinson

Human Preference for Ecological Units: Patterns of Dispersed Campsites within

Landtype Associations on the Chippewa National Forest ................................................... 62

Dennis Parker and Lisa Whitcomb
Land Type Association Applications on the White Mountain National Forest .................. 68

Stephen Fay and Norma Jo Sorgman

Use of Landtype Associations as a Coarse Filter for Ranking Quality of Indiana Bat

Habitat on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia .............................................. 71

Thomas DeMeo

Land Type Associations of Weber County, Utah ................................................................... 81

DeVon Nelson and Jeff Bruggink

Updating the USDA-NRCS Major Land Resource Areas in Wisconsin using National

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units Landtype Associations ...................................90

David J. Hvizdak and Mitchell C. Moline

Land Type Associations Conference: Summary Comments ................................................ 93

Thomas R. Crow

III. Posters, Map Gallery, & Interactive Exhibit Abstracts

Posters

Application of Land Type Associations in Michigan’s Northern Lower Peninsula to

Guide Landscape Management of State Forests ................................................................... 98

Joshua Cohen

Development of Landtype Associations in Minnesota ........................................................ 98

Dan S. Hanson

Landtype Association Application to Forest Plan Revision on the ChequamegonNicolet National Forest .......................................................................................................... 99

David J. Hoppe, Mark A. Theisen, and Dennis G. Kanten

A Case Study: Mid-scale Hydrologic Relationships Derived from the Analysis and

Application of Land Type Associations Developed for the Helena National Forest ......... 100

Larry E. Laing and Bo A. Stuart

Developing an Ecological Land Classification for the Allegheny National Forest:

a Top-down, Bottom-up Approach. ..................................................................................... 101

William J. Moriarity, George M. Baumer, and Chales E. Williams

Map Gallery Abstracts

Northern Highland – American Legion State Forest: Management Opportunities

by LTA ..................................................................................................................................... 102

Mitchell C. Moline

ECOMAP in forest resource planning and management in New Jersey ............................ 102

James P. Dunn and Craig Coutrous

Landtype Association Map of Minnesota ............................................................................ 102

Dan S. Hanson

Wisconsin Major Land Resource Area Map 2001 ................................................................ 102

David J. Hvizdak and Mitchell C. Moline

Landtype Associations of the Western Upper Peninsula, Michigan ................................... 103

J.Jordan, L.Carey, B.Dopek, S.Mase, R.Regis, C.Schwenner, K.Wilgren

Wisconsin Landtype Associations 2001 ............................................................................... 103

Mitchell C. Moline

Development and Applications of Landtype Associations in Missouri ............................. 103

Tim A. Nigh and Walter Schroeder

Landtype Associations of Eastern Upper Michigan ............................................................. 104

Eunice A. Padley
Draft Landtype Associations for New Hampshire ............................................................... 104

Sid Pilgrim (ret.), Susan Francher, Laura Falk, Ken Desmaris, Constance Carpenter, Steve Fay,

William Leak, Marie-Louise Smith, John Lanier, and David Publicover

Interactive Display Abstracts

New Jersey ECOMAP ............................................................................................................. 105

James P. Dunn

An Ecological Characterization of the Greater Yellowstone Area with a Demonstration

of Landtype Association Level Interpretations .................................................................... 105

Catherine L. Maynard, John Nesser, and Duane F. Lund

FR Map – Custom ArcView Mapping using the NHFEU (LTA) .......................................... 105

Mitchell C. Moline

IV. Roundtable Discussion and Summary .................................................................. 108

Connie Carpenter

V. Participants ..................................................................................................................... 114
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 1

I. LTA DEVELOPMENT
2 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

Examination of the latest views by ecologists on 21st

century frontiers indicates that there is no higher priority

than research and application of landscape ecology.

Landscape ecology is the science of landscapes,

understood concretely as spatial and volumetric

ecosystems in their regional contexts. It’s application

provides the framework and substance for understanding

and solving the most pressing human-caused problems

of the 21st century and the management of landscapes

and waterscapes. Ecosystem is another fuzzy ecological

term like population and community—maybe an

illusion? Therefore, advancing the theory and

application of ecosystem classification and mapping

requires a clear understanding of what a landscape

ecosystem is—a real live chunk of earth space with

characteristic composition, structure, and function—and

the ability to articulate this reality to multiple publics.

Advancing an ecosystem approach requires systematic

classification and mapping of ecosystems throughout

regional landscapes with defined protocols for

distinguishing boundaries at all scales. Greater attention

to the hierarchy of spatial scales, multiple-factor

integration, and climatic factors at appropriate scales

would increase our ability to understand changes in

ecosystem composition, structure, and function in the

light of climatic change and unexpected stresses.

Ecosystem classification with genetic differentiation of

plant populations in mind and the importance of

collaboration with aquatic ecologists are emphasized.

The new paradigm of landscape ecology needs to be

reflected in the training and employment of ecosystem

ecologists with strong field skills rather than

environmentalists or disciplinary specialists. Theory is

the most practical of all things, but Bottom Line: Ya

Gotta Know the Territory!

Landscape Ecosystem Classification Principles and Concepts

Burton V. Barnes1

1

Stephen H. Spurr Professor of Forestry, School of Natural

Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI (bvb@umich.edu)
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 3

Abstract

As landscape analyses become the norm for the next

generation of National Forest planning, the need to

achieve consistency in mapping ecological units at the

landscape, or Landtype Association (LTA) scale, becomes

imperative. Using an interdisciplinary team approach, we

first make the case for national data standards. We then

propose standards to reflect the scale, patterns, and

processes of LTAs using four map unit themes: design,

delineation, characterization, and validation. We aim for

a balance between consistency and the practical need to

recognize previous work and the diversity of landscapes

across the United States.

Introduction

Given the complexity of issues confronting land

managers, the need for ecological maps as a planning

framework (Cleland et al. 1997) is greater than ever.

Over the past ten years in resource management, the

value of characterizing and understanding ecological

patterns and processes changing at the landscape scale

has become firmly embraced. Yet implementation and

use of mapping at landtype association (LTA) scale is still

hampered by incomplete coverage and by a lack of

consistency, both within regions and nationally. In this

paper we review the definition of LTAs and their

importance in forest planning. We then make the case

for adoption of standardized methodology and elements

of LTAs. Finally, we propose LTA data standards, organized

among four map unit themes: design, delineation,

characterization, and validation of map units.

This paper represents a portion of the work of a U.S.

Forest Service interdisciplinary team (henceforth

described as the “revision team”) charged with updating

manual standards and protocols to meet today’s

business needs and in accord with today’s science. (The

Natural Resources Conservation Service also has a

representative on the team.) Forest Service Handbook

2090 (ecological unit standards) is under revision by this

team, and will be incorporated into Forest Service

Manual 1940. Thus standards in this paper may be

further revised before this manual is finalized. While

these standards will apply to Forest Service mapping

efforts, the revision team seeks the cooperation and

expertise of other agencies and organizations as we

continue to work towards the ideal of a unified approach

to ecological mapping. Their comments and input on

this work are welcome.

Definitions

Landtype associations are landscape scale map units

defined by multiple biotic and abiotic factors, including

a dominant geomorphic process type, similar landforms,

surficial and near-surface geologic formations, and

associations of soil families and potential natural

vegetation at the series level (Forman and Godron 1986,

Bailey and Avers 1993, Cleland et al. 1997). In

accordance with the national hierarchy of ecological

units (ECOMAP 1993), climate should also be included

when developing LTAs, although it is usually less

important as a delineator than at broader scales. In this

document, we include definitions of commonly used

terms in ecological unit mapping (see Glossary) to avoid

confusion and promote standardization of discourse.

Towards National Landtype Association Data Standards

Thomas DeMeo1, David T. Cleland2, Carl Davis3, Martin Ferwerda4, Alan J. Gallegos5, John Haglund6, Steve Howes7,

Jim Keys8

, Larry Laing9, George T. Robertson10, Wayne A. Robbie11, Andy Rorick12, David A. Shadis13, David Tart14,

Eric Winthers15, Donald Fallon16, Eunice Padley17

1

Ecologist, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region,

Portland, OR (tdemeo@fs.fed.us)

2

Ecologist/NFS Liaison, USDA Forest Service Research North

Central Research Station, Rhinelander WI

3

Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service Okanogan-Wenatchee

National Forests, Wenatchee, WA

4

Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service Natural Resource

Information System, Sandy, OR

5

Assistant Geologist, USDA Forest Service Southern Sierra

Province, Clovis, CA

6

Ecologist, USDA Forest Service Natural Resource Information

System, Sandy, OR

7

Soils Program Manager, USDA Forest Service Pacific

Northwest Region, Portland, OR

8

National Coordinator for Integrated Inventories, USDA Forest

Service, Washington, DC

9

Soils and Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Program

Manager, USDA Forest Service Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI

10Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service Tonto National Forest,

Phoenix, AZ

11Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Coordinator, USDA

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM

12Geologist, USDA Forest Service Natural Resource Information

System, Sandy, OR

13Landscape Ecologist, USDA Forest Service Chippewa National

Forest, Cass Lake, MN

14Analytical Ecologist, USDA Forest Service NRIS Tools Module,

Bend, OR

15Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Specialist, USDA Forest

Service, Washington D.C.

16Project Leader, USDA National Resources Conservation

Service, Big Timber, MT

17Forest Ecologist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

Madison, WI
4 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Context of LTAs within

the National Hierarchy

Landtype associations represent a middle, landscape

scale in the national hierarchy of ecological units

(Cleland et al. 1997). At broader scales (subsection,

section, province, and domain), a regional concept

applies; and landtypes and their phases are found at

local (fine-resolution) scale.

Climate, geology, geomorphology, soil, and potential

vegetation, as well as their associated processes, operate

at all scales of the hierarchy. It’s important to note,

however, that the relative importance of individual

factors varies with scale (Cleland et al. 1992) and with

ecological province (broad-scale differences across the

United States).

At macro-scale, sunlight and precipitation (climate), and

patterns in gross physiography are used to delimit

provincial boundaries. The separation of the tallgrass

from the shortgrass prairie region based on precipitation

levels is a good example. At meso-, or landscape scale

(the focus of this paper) geomorphic conditions and

processes mediate these climatic effects. Mountain

building, bedrock differences, glaciation, and fluvial

action temper, change, and mediate climatic effects. Rain

shadows are created in some areas and rain forests in

others. Limestone bedrock leads to increased site fertility,

in turn increasing productivity and affecting plant

community composition and structure. Deglaciation

leaves behind moraines, galaciofluvial deposits, and

other features with profound effects on resulting soil and

vegetation. Finally, at a land unit scale (landtypes and

landtype phases), differences in soil textures and

drainage, and micro-topography strongly influence the

plant communities we see on the ground.

Importance and Value of

Landtype Associations

The chief value of landtype association mapping is the

planning framework it provides. LTAs provide a context

for organizing National Forest and other landscape-scale

planning. Because they reflect mid-scale influences of

local weather patterns, disturbance regimes, biological

productivity and resiliency, and hydrologic patterns and

function, they serve as an excellent coarse filter for

organizing the landscape by capabilities and limitations.

Perhaps less appreciated is the relatively low cost—in

dollars, personnel, and time—of developing LTAs.

Whereas finer-scale landtype maps for a National Forest

may take years to develop, LTAs can normally be

developed in a year or less. In the rapidly changing

contexts of resource management, the ability to quickly

develop useful information is of great value. An initial

emphasis on LTAs in no way diminishes the importance

of landtypes. Indeed, LTAs can direct priorities for

landtype and landtype phase mapping. Landtypes and

their phases are nested within LTAs, and in turn are used

to check and revise boundaries, and interpret conditions

and processes occurring within and among LTAs.

Mapping efforts may be increased in areas of complex

nature or where more management activity is

anticipated. Perhaps more importantly, LTAs, once

established and in routine use, will help build the

managerial support needed for a successful landtype

mapping and interpretation program.

Finally, because LTAs are relatively broad landscape

units, usually with visible differences, LTAs are readily

summarized and communicated, both within the

natural resource profession and with the public. This is

of no small value in developing a Forest plan.

The Need for Standards

Data standards are badly needed for landtype association

work. Without standard ways of delineating, building,

classifying, and describing map units, communication

across National Forests and administrative regions is

hampered. In lieu of standards, LTAs become less

defensible scientifically, because of lack of peer review,

and legally, because adjacent entities, such as National

Forests, will be inconsistent in addressing the same or

similar resource management issues. Resource

management problems are increasingly interrelated

across broad landscapes. For example, it is no longer

acceptable to evaluate rare or wide-ranging species’

viability at only a local scale.

LTA data standards must be developed carefully, in an

open, well-thought out process. Hastily developed

standards that are unworkable in practice are just as

limiting as a lack of standards. We have therefore

incorporated peer review throughout the standards

development process. In addition to the utility of

applying national standards in mapping LTAs, the

ultimate success or failure of data standards will depend

on whether or not professionals support them as

meeting their best interests. These interests can only be

determined through thorough discussion, review,

compromise, and editing.

In order to provide a common platform for data entry,

storage, analysis, and reporting, the Forest Service is

implementing a Natural Resource Information System

(NRIS). The component of this effort that supports the

national hierarchy of ecological units is known as “Terra”

(subsequently referred to as “NRIS Terra” in this

document). Extensive practical experience indicates

NRIS Terra simply will not work without data

standardization. Maintaining custom data structures for

local data sets has proven prohibitive in cost and

unworkable when combining data sets to answer

questions across broad geographic areas. Because this

lack of standardization means other agencies and

partners must contend with a multitude of approaches
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 5

to addressing the same kinds of data, cooperation and

coordination are frustrated.

NRIS Terra supports data from the National Hierarchy

very well. We recommend following NRIS Terra codes

and protocols (for example, Haskins et al. 1998 for

geomorphology). Standards developed through our

effort should also facilitate the data stewardship

intended by the NRIS effort.

Finally, in an era of downsizing and reduced budgets,

standardization offers cost-cutting advantages.

“Retrofitting” data sets to agree with each other to

produce a landscape analysis, such as the Interior

Columbia Basin assessment in the Pacific Northwest, is

enormously expensive and time-consuming. In the

competition for scarce data management dollars,

strategies with simple, standardized approaches

applicable to broad areas will survive. Lack of

standardization will only increase the pressure to

develop regional, centralized teams for planning. In this

context, National Forest staff may lose funding and

support if approaches to data standardization are not

successful.

Developing Landtype Association

Standards

National data standards and protocols are under

development by an interdisciplinary Forest Service team.

This paper outlines the standard protocols recommended

by the team. For greater detail, see Forest Service Manual

1940, scheduled for completion in late 2001. For ease of

communication in this paper, we organize data

standards around four central map unit themes: design,

delineation, characterization, and validation.

Map Unit Design

Before proceeding further we must first clarify some key

concepts in mapping ecological units. These units, as at

all levels of the National Hierarchy of Ecological Units,

are map units. They are spatial and can be displayed in a

geographic information system. Map units are sets of

polygons with similar identity, and repeat across the

landscape. Their occurrence is driven by predictable

landscape patterns of geomorphology, soil, vegetation,

and other relevant ecological factors.

In the context of landtype associations, elements are

used to describe the map units. (Note that LTAs are also

composed of finer-scale landtypes—each with its own

assemblage of elements (ecological types)). We recognize

five necessary elements to differentiate landtype

associations: geomorphology, climate, geology (both

bedrock and surficial), soil, and potential vegetation.

Each of these elements represents a taxonomic unit

(group of similar samples) developed through

classification (the systematic process of developing these

groups). The integration of these taxonomic elements

through conceptual or numerical modeling is critical in

mapping and interpreting LTAs.

At the LTA scale, map units may be constructed through

aggregating finer-scale ecological units developed

through a classification procedure, or by distinguishing

land areas through the process of regionalization (Rowe

1980). In any case, the conceptual basis of LTA units is

the integration of geomorphology, climate, bedrock and

surficial geology, soils, hydrology, and potential

vegetation. While the association of multiple factors is

all important in identifying ecological units, all factors

are not equally important at all spatial scales (Cleland et

al. 1992). Different physical factors may predominate at

different locations; for example, bedrock may be a strong

influence where it is close to the surface, but surficial

geology may be more important elsewhere.

Map Unit Delineation

Delineation of LTAs should proceed based on the

ecological factors recognized during differentiation,

using delineation criteria. The strategy we recommend

includes integration of the elements within map units,

and also making map units interlock within scales (e.g.,

nesting landtypes within LTAs).

Strategy Within Units

Within map units, geomorphology, geology, climate,

soil, and potential vegetation are defined as inter-related;

i.e., ecological processes unite them as a common

ecosystem, rather than a mere association of elements

(Fig. 1).

Strategy Between Scales—Top Down and Bottom Up

LTA map units are designed to nest within subsection

boundaries (the next broader scale in the National

Figure 1.—Interrelationships of ecological elements

important in characterizing ecological units.

Bedrock

Geology

Regional

Climate

Geomorphic

Processes

Landforms

Surficial Geology

(Parent Material)

Morphometry

(elev,aspect,slope)

Local

Climate

Soil PNV

Relationships of Ecological Type Elements
6 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Hierarchy), and should in turn contain landtypes (the

next finer scale in the National Hierarchy).

Two basic approaches for designing map units have

emerged—top down (regionalization) and bottom up

(aggregation). The top down approach conceptually

separates broader ecological regions (subsections) into

LTAs, using geomorphology, climate, bedrock and

surficial geology, soils, hydrology, and potential

vegetation. This method usually involves an

interdisciplinary team synthesizing information and

making judgments on where the combination of

ecological factors changes in a way significant to

management. LTA boundaries are placed at the

approximate locations where these changes occur. Raised

or shaded relief maps, orthophotos, satellite images,

geologic maps, vegetation maps, and other tools aid the

work. Geographic information systems aid this process

where data are available.

One advantage of this method is its relatively quick

development and inexpensive cost. A top down

approach enables recognition of complex landscape

patterns that may be less obvious at a finer scale. Thus,

top-down stratification sometimes captures patterns and

processes of landscapes more effectively than the bottom

up approach used alone.

With the bottom-up approach, existing finer-scale units

(landtypes and landtype phases) are aggregated into

landtype associations. Landtypes and landtype phases

are developed using more intensive ground data, so with

this approach, quantitative data are available. An

advantage of the bottom-up approach, therefore, is that

the composition of the LTAs is known in greater detail. A

disadvantage is that landtypes and landtype phases are

expensive and time-consuming to develop. Also, broader

scale patterns of landscape features are sometimes not

recognized through aggregation.

As a standard methodology, we recommend an

integrated approach employing both top-down and

bottom-up strategies. The top-down approach should

first be used to quickly stratify the landscape, based

primarily on geomorphology and geology but tempered

by considerations of climate, soil, and potential

vegetation. LTAs will then not only serve as an

immediate input to Forest planning, but also as a

stratification for subsequent landtype level work. In turn,

the initial top-down LTA work should be verified or

refined using a bottom up approach with landtypes or

landtype phases. The pattern of landtypes will serve to

check the work, generating corrections where necessary.

Information on the landtypes will also provide useful

information on the composition of the LTAs. For

example, plant species diversity within and across

landscapes can be estimated, serving to map one aspect

of biodiversity.

Importance of Factors

Geomorphology and geology are usually the prime

environmental factors shaping the delineation of

landtype associations. At this scale, geomorphic

processes of mountain building (tectonics and

volcanism), glaciation, fluvial action, and other

processes temper the influence of climatic factors preeminent at regional scales. The resulting landforms and

their geology (mountains with different bedrock

geologies, glaciated landscapes differing by type of

deposition, etc.) define LTAs. Other factors—climate,

soils, and potential vegetation— are then used to refine

these delineations.

LTAs should be mapped at 1:100,000 scale. This scale is

broad enough to distinguish the landscape nature of

LTAs while capturing sufficient detail for planning at

National Forest scale.

Each landtype polygon should be attributed or somehow

linked with an LTA code. In this way LTAs can also be

displayed at landtype/landtype phase scale (1:24,000).

Displaying this “membership” of landtypes within LTAs

is useful when generating summaries and predicting

effects. This relates multiple scales to each other—one of

the main strengths of the National Hierarchy. For this

reason, landtypes should be forced to fit (or “nest”)

within a landtype association.

While this nested spatial hierarchy applies to ecological

units, the occurrence or interpretations of patterns or

processes for particular phenomena may or may not

follow this nested spatial organization. For example,

habitats for mobile fauna and metapopulations, or

natural disturbance regimes, may be networked among

LTAs occurring within a subsection. Distinguishing and

applying a nested versus networked spatial hierarchical

organization to select ecological patterns or processes

becomes possible by evaluating the phenomenon of

interest and grouping (networking) LTAs when

necessary.

Normally LTAs are mapped as units thousands to tens of

thousands of acres in area. As with landtypes, LTAs may

repeat within subsections, depending on regional

patterns, although they will tend to repeat much less

than landtypes. Delineating inclusions within landtype

associations should be discouraged—these should be

mapped as landtypes or landtype phases, at a finer scale.

Map Unit Characterization

The following guidelines describe how to characterize

LTAs in most situations. The relative influence of the

elements will vary somewhat with ecological province.

Fig. 1 provides a conceptual view of how the elements

are interrelated.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 7

Geomorphology

At LTA scale, geomorphology means the process(es)

shaping the landscape, as well as the morphometry of

that landscape. The Forest Service publication A

Geomorphic Classification System (Haskins et al. 1998)

describes 10 process types, from fluvial to volcanic. These

processes in turn generate patterns of landforms, such as

the highly dissected Allegheny Plateau or the moraines

and outwash plains of glaciated landscapes. Haskins et

al. (1998) is the Forest Service standard for geomorphic

process and landform terms, as well as morphometric

measures. These are intended for all Forest Service land

characterization efforts and are part of the NRIS Terra

database.

A complete geomorphic characterization for an LTA map

unit would therefore consist of three parts: 1) process, 2)

dominant landscape(s), and 3) morphometry. Following

is an example of these three components, respectively:

Process.—Glacial alpine ice erosion features and alpine

ice contact depositional features, occurring with mass

wasting flows and complexes;

Dominant Landscapes.—Mountains, foothills, and

valleys; and

Morphometry.—Drainage density, slope gradient,

elevation range, drainage pattern, and relief.

Geology

Both surficial and bedrock geology are needed to

properly characterize the geology of a landscape.

Surficial geology includes the kinds of unconsolidated

material (e.g., colluvium, alluvium, residuum, or glacial

deposits) covering the surface, and the original rock

type(s) from which they eroded.

Bedrock geology is an important delineating factor for

LTAs in many landscapes. It will tend to be less

important where surficial materials cover bedrock to

depths greater than 10 meters or so. Bedrock

characterization means describing the lithology (rock

type, such as sandstone, limestone, granite, basalt, etc.).

In certain areas, such as the Sierra Mountains, the

bedrock’s structure (e.g., faulting) is also important. The

list of appropriate geology terms resides in NRIS Terra as

well.

Climate

At the landtype association scale, regional patterns of

sunlight and precipitation are altered by landforms

(typically mountains), or by large water bodies.

Mountains feature elevational gradients that generate

cooler temperatures and increasing precipitation with

increasing elevation (orographic effect). Rain shadows

are often created on the other sides of these mountains.

Nationally accepted climatic classifications have yet to be

devised, so climatic descriptors at this scale are likely to

vary, as least for the near future. Trewartha (1968) is a

good starting point; as it was used in Bailey’s (1988,

1995) work, in turn the philosophical underpinning of

the National Hierarchy of Ecological Units.

Soils

Soils should be characterized and classified at a level of

detail that conveys important information at the scale of

the LTA. The level of soil taxonomy used in classifying

the soils may need to vary with the complexity of the

landscape, but should be one of the higher categories of

USDA Soil Taxonomy, such as the Subgroup level.

Consideration must be used to balance the level of detail

and the number of classifications used in characterizing

the LTA. Patterns in soil texture and drainage are typically

used to define and characterize LTAs. Soil attributes of

LTAs will be described using the nomenclature of Soil

Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1999). Soil climate

information (frigid, mesic, thermic, etc.) should be

included in map unit descriptions.

Potential Natural Vegetation

Potential natural vegetation (PNV) is defined as the

plant community with a vegetation structure that would

become established if all successional sequences were

completed without interference by man under the

present climatic and edaphic conditions (including

those created by man) (Tuxen 1956, Mueller-Dombois

and Ellenberg 1974).

PNV is a taxonomic concept established to make

scientific generalizations about basic land capability.

Potential, rather than existing, vegetation is used in order

to capture the productivity and capabilities of areas, and

to provide a relatively stable characterization over time.

We realize that in highly or frequently disturbed areas,

potential vegetation may be a difficult concept to

describe. In these cases, use the best practical

approximation of potential conditions.

An emphasis on potential vegetation in ecological unit

mapping in no way diminishes the importance of

existing vegetation. Indeed, potential vegetation at LTA

scale can be used to stratify the landscape and better

organize existing vegetation mapping efforts.

The Forest Service will use PNV at the series level for

LTAs. Names and codes for potential vegetation should

follow those correlated and standardized at the Forest

Service Regional level (e.g., Hall 1998). Examples include

western hemlock series, sugar maple-red oak series, etc.

Supporting Characterizations

Although not mandatory, supporting characterizations,

such as stream density and pattern, disturbance regimes,
8 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

associated rare plants and animals, etc. are valuable and

encouraged.

Map Unit Validation

Display Criteria

Display criteria are important considerations in

communicating LTAs (or any map units, for that matter).

The integration of five elements (geomorphology,

climate, geology (bedrock and surficial), soils, and

potential vegetation), while ecologically accurate, is

difficult to display and communicate. In display criteria

the user has considerable latitude; standards are not

appropriate. Therefore, while geomorphology and

geology should be used as the primary delineation

factors for LTAs, a user may choose to display soils or

potential vegetation. Design criteria will be driven by

user analysis or communication needs. For example, on

both the White Mountain (Fay, this symposium) and the

Monongahela (DeMeo, this symposium) National

Forests, LTAs were often grouped and displayed by broad

vegetation types for ease of communication. This does

not obviate the need to follow standards in delineating

and attributing LTAs.

Bottom Up and Top Down Validation

Note that the bottom up process of aggregating

landtypes into LTAs serves to validate LTAs by describing

their composition more clearly (see Map Unit

Delineation section above). In turn, a top down

approach serves to test the validity of finer-scale

landtypes.

Field Validation

Fieldwork can also be used to validate LTAs, although

bear in mind the differences in scale between an LTA

described at landscape scale and data collected at sites on

the ground. Field data should sample the landscape

adequately and be coordinated with the landtype

development process.

Analysis Validation

Analyzing ground data can show differences (or lack of

differences) in LTAs. For example, if a large, random

sample of plant association plots in two nominal LTAs

shows a similar plant community composition, perhaps

they should be joined into one LTA map unit. Similarly,

if breaks or discontinuities are found within an LTA,

perhaps it should be split into two LTAs. Such an

analysis tests the hypothesis that a similar

geomorphology and bedrock influence should generate

similar vegetation.

Peer Review

Rigorous peer review, both within the Forest Service and

among other agencies (both state and Federal), partners,

academia, and the public, is strongly recommended. (Of

course, such review should examine adherence to these

standards, as well as any supplemental Forest Service

Regional standards.) Such efforts encourage

standardization and correct errors. Especially important

is edge-matching LTAs between Forests or other

administrative units. Coordinated strategic planning

among all the partners will greatly ease this process.

Glossary

Bedrock Geology.—Characteristics of the consolidated

material at the earth’s surface or that immediately

underlies soil or other unconsolidated, surficial deposits,

specifically: lithology (rock type), weathering, structure

(e.g., fracturing or bedding), and stratigraphy (the rockunit age and designation).

Classification.—The act and result of arranging facts or

things into groups or classes of like individuals

(Kimmins 1987). Classification permits confident

statements to be made about all the members of a class

based on the knowledge gained from analysis and

interpretation of a limited number of samples.

Delineation.—The process of separating map units

(repeating sets of polygons) using a consistent set of

criteria.

Ecological units.—Map units designed to identify land

and water areas at different levels of resolution based on

similar capabilities and potentials for response to

management and natural disturbance. These capabilities

and potentials derive from multiple elements: climate,

geomorphology, geology, soils, water, and potential

natural vegetation. Ecological units should, by design, be

rather stable. They may, however, be refined or updated

as better information becomes available.

Elements.—As used in this paper, the components of a

landscape that describe its ecological characteristics.

Geographic Information System (GIS).—A powerful

computer set of tools for collecting, storing, retrieving,

transforming, and displaying spatial data from the real

world for a particular set of purposes. Spatial data in a

GIS are characterized by their position, attributes, and

spatial interrelationships (topology) (Burrough 1986).

Geomorphology.—The classification, description,

nature, origin, and development of present landforms

and their relationships to underlying structures, and of

the history of geologic changes as recorded by these

surface features.

Landtype Association.—Landtype associations are

landscape scale map units defined by a dominant

geomorphic process type, similar landforms, surficial

and near-surface geologic formations, and associations
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 9

of soil families and potential natural vegetation at the

series level (Forman and Godron 1986, Bailey and Avers

1993, Cleland et al. 1997).

Map Unit.—Map units represent areas on the ground

(polygons) distinguishable from one another based on

certain biological or physical properties. Criteria for

creating map units are determined by the mapping

objective. Map units typically repeat across the

landscape, thus consist of one to many polygons each

comprised of the same set of biophysical properties.

Ecological units are a specific type of map unit (NRIS

Terra 2000).

Map Unit Characterization.—The description of the

elements in a map unit. In regards to LTAs, this includes

the “primary five” (geomorphology, geology, climate,

soils and potential vegetation), but also often includes

supporting elements, such as hydrology, disturbance

regimes, etc.

Map Unit Delineation.—The criteria used to spatially

differentiate between map units. At LTA scale, differences

in geomorphology and geology are normally the

primary delineation criteria between map units. Climate,

soils, and potential vegetation also influence this

delineation, however.

Map Unit Design.—What a map unit is intended to

depict or display. In this paper, map unit design

considerations include the interrelationships between

elements, and how LTAs relate to finer scale units

(landtypes/landtype phases) and broader scale units

(subsections).

Map Unit Validation.—In this paper, the process of

verifying the accuracy of ecological unit differentiation,

delineation, and characterization.

Morphometry.—The measurement and mathematical

analysis of the configuration of the earth’s surface and of

the shape and dimensions of its landforms (i.e., relief,

elevation range, slope aspect, gradient, shape, and

position, dissection frequency and depth, and drainage

pattern and density).

National Hierarchy of Ecological Units.—The US Forest

Service’s multiple-scale, multiple-element system of map

units used to characterize the natural world and provide

a framework for National Forest planning and

management (Cleland et al. 1997). Other state and

Federal agencies are also using the National Hierarchy,

particularly at broader scales.

Surficial Geology.—The mode of deposition of

unconsolidated deposits lying on bedrock or occurring

on the earth’s surface, and the rock type(s) from which

those deposits are derived, known as “kind” and

“origin,” respectively.

Literature Cited

Bailey, R.G. 1987. Suggested hierarchy of criteria for

multiscale ecosystem mapping. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 14: 313-319.

Bailey, R.G. 1988. Ecogeographic analysis: A guide to

the ecological division of land for resource

management. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service

Miscellaneous Pubublication 1465. 18 p.

Bailey, R.G., and P.E. Avers. 1993. Multi-scale ecosystem

analysis. In: G. Lund, ed. Integrated ecological and

resource inventories: Proceedings of the symposium.

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service Publication

WO-WSA-4.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the

United States. Second edition revised and expanded.

(First edition 1980). Miscellaneous Publication 1391

(rev.). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 108 p.;

map 1:7.5 million.

Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of geographical

information systems for land resources assessment.

Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. 194 p.

Cleland, D.T., T.R. Crow, P.E. Avers, and J.R. Probst.

1992. Principles of Land Stratification for

Delineating Ecosystems. In: Proceedings of Taking

an Ecological Approach to Management National

Workshop. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.

120 p.

Cleland, D., P.E. Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G.

Bailey, T. King, and W.E. Russell. 1997. National

hierarchical framework of ecological units. Pp. 181-

200. In: Ecosystem management: Applications for

sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Mark S.

Boyce and Alan Haney, eds., New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

ECOMAP 1993. National hierarchical framework of

ecological units. Washington, DC: USDA Forest

Service.

Forman, T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology.

New York: John Wiley and Sons. 619 p.

Hall, F.C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for

seral and potential natural communities. Portland,

OR: USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-418.

290 p.

Haskins, D.M., C.S. Correll, R.A. Foster, J.M. Chataoian,

J.M. Fincher, S. Strenger, J.E. Keys, Jr., J.R. Maxwell, and

T. King. 1998. A geomorphic classification system.

Version 1.4. USDA Forest Service, Geomorphology

Working Group. 154 p.
10 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Kimmins, J.P. 1987. Forest ecology. New York:

Macmillan Publishing. 531 p.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and

methods of vegetation ecology. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

NRIS Terra. 2000. Terra User Guide. Sandy, OR: USDA

Forest Service.

Rowe, J.S. 1980. The common denominator in land

classification in Canada: An ecological approach to

mapping. Forestry Chronicle. 56: 19-20.

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system

of soil classification for making and interpreting

soil surveys. Washington, DC: USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service Agricultural

Handbook 436. 869 p.

Trewartha, G.T. 1968. An introduction to climate. New

York: McGraw-Hill. 408 p.

Tuxen, R. 1956. Die heutige naturliche potentielle

Vegetation als Gegenstand der

Vegetationskartierung. Berichte zur Deutschen

Landekunde. 19: 200-246.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 11

Abstract

Landtype Associations (LTA’s) represent one spatial-scale

of a hierarchical ecological land classification system

developed by the USDA-Forest Service for use in land

management planning, analysis, and monitoring and

evaluation. The system is described in, “The National

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units” (ECOMAP

1993). LTA’s are the primary spatial-scale used in

National Forest planning; information at this level also

provides context for project-level activities and content

for ecoregional assessments. Mappers in the Lake States

have been refining LTA concepts and mapping to better

reflect new understanding of landscape ecosystem

concepts and spatial hierarchies. LTA’s are landscape

ecosystems, made up of clusters of interacting finerscaled patches (Crow 1991). They have emergent

properties which are not discernable by observing the

function of an individual patch, but are apparent at the

broader spatial-scale (Salt 1979). LTA’s are conceptually

identified based on differentiating criteria, and may be

mapped by the “top-down” method of regionalization

(Rowe, 1962). Broader-scaled ecosystems are subdivided

based on dominant physical factors that control or

mediate biotic structure and function at this level. LTA

boundaries may be based on climatic, physiographic, or

hydrologic features that correspond with changes in

vegetative composition or productivity. Often the precise

boundary location is difficult to identify, as the

dominant environmental factors may occur along a

gradient. In cases where ecological boundaries are not

discrete, they may be placed along physiographic

boundaries or aligned with finer-scaled boundaries of

soils or vegetation.

Introduction

National Forests and state agencies in the Lake States are

collectively updating a level of ecological land

classification known as the Landtype Association (LTA).

This paper presents an overview of concepts and

mapping processes for the development of LTAs.

A general description of the land classification system is

found in “The National Hierarchical Framework of

Ecological Units” (hereafter referred to as the

“Hierarchy”) (ECOMAP 1993, Cleland et al. 1997).

Landtype Associations: Concepts and Development in Lake States National Forests

James K. Jordan1, Eunice A. Padley2, David T. Cleland3

Direction has been given that this Hierarchy be used

within the National Forest System as a basis for land

management planning, analysis, monitoring, and

cooperative efforts with other agencies and partners

(Unger 1993). The Hierarchy is a “regionalization,

classification, and mapping system for stratifying the

Earth into progressively smaller areas of increasingly

uniform ecological potentials for use in ecosystem

management”. It identifies eight hierarchical levels of

land classification that have been demonstrated to be

useful in land management and planning in the Forest

Service (Bailey and Avers 1993). There may be other

levels needed in the future, or by other land managers.

Albert et al. (1986) stated that, “Management occurs at

various levels, from continent-wide to site specific, and

thus it is important to delineate ecosystems at a level and

scale that is appropriate to the management intensity.”

Landtype Associations are a level of the Hierarchy that

was developed primarily for use in National Forest

planning and analyses. It also has applications in

assessment and analyses at broader and finer-scales, and

is useful to natural resource managers in many agencies

and organizations.

Principles and Concepts

The objective of ecological classification and inventory is

to distinguish, at various scales, land areas that differ

significantly from one another in one or more ecological

factors (Albert et al. 1986). This approach is intended to

improve land-use planning, management, and

monitoring by providing a basis for understanding

ecosystem structure and function and the “inherent

capabilities of land and water resources and the effects of

management on them” (ECOMAP 1993).

Principles described in the Hierarchy include the

application of ecosystem concepts, hierarchical structure

and spatial-scales, dominant controlling or mediating

environmental factors, partitioning gradients, and

utilizing the top-down process of regionalization in

conjunction with the bottom-up process of classification.

This section presents a description of how these

principles have been applied to LTA’s.

Concepts of Ecological Units

The ecologist Tansley, in 1935, first used the term

“ecosystem” to express the concept of abiotic and biotic

factors interacting to form a system. Ecosystems are the

combination of an ecological unit (expressing potential

conditions) and the structure and processes that

presently exist within the ecological unit (current

conditions, or successional state). Both layers of

1

Forest Ecologist (volunteer), USDA Forest Service, North Central

Research Station, Rhinelander, WI (jjordan@cheqnet.net)

2

Ecologist/Silviculturist, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, Madison, WI

3

Research Liaison, USDA-Forest Service, North Central Research

Station, Rhinelander, WI
12 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

information, together with information on types and

rates of change, are essential for making management

decisions.

Ecological units are identified through a systems

approach that integrates ecosystem components and

processes such as climate, physiography, soil, water,

vegetation, and disturbance (Rowe 1991, Spies and

Barnes 1985, Cleland et al. 1992, 1994, Uhlig and

Jordan 1996). The ecological unit has been defined in

the Hierarchy as “a land or water area that has similar

capabilities and potentials for response to disturbance,

including management”. In a mathematical sense, the

ecological unit is a weighted sum of physical component

variables that predict vegetative composition and

productivity, and also consider sensitive environmental

conditions.

LTA’s represent the landscape-scale of the Hierarchy; they

are groupings of Landtypes or subdivisions of

Subsections based upon similarities in geomorphic

process, geologic rock types, soil complexes, stream

types, lakes, wetlands, subseries or plant association

vegetation complexes. Repeatable patterns of soil

complexes and plant communities are useful in

delineating map units at this level.” (ECOMAP 1993).

Forman and Godron (1986) have written that at this

scale, “ecological units are defined by general

topography, geomorphic process, surficial geology, soil

and potential natural community patterns and local

climate (Forman and Godron 1986). These factors affect

biotic distributions, hydrologic function, natural

disturbance regimes and general land use. Terrestrial

features and processes may also have a strong influence

on ecological characteristics of aquatic habitats” (Platts

1979, Ebert et al. 1991).

Landscape patterns become apparent at the LTA level,

and patterning is an important ecological property of

many LTA’s. Landscape ecosystems have been described

as a cluster of interacting finer-scaled ecosystem patches

(Wertz 1972) (Crow 1991). The properties of these

smaller, embedded ecosystems emerge in the context of

the larger landscape. Salt (1979) has written, “An

emergent property of an ecological unit is one which is

wholly unpredictable from observation of the

components of that unit. A corollary is: An emergent

property of an ecological unit is only discernible by

observation of that unit itself.” Emergent properties

depend in part on the spatial arrangement of Landtypes

(LT’s) and Landtype Phases (LTP’s) within an LTA; these

influence the exchange of energy and matter that occurs

through fire or wind disturbance, propagate exchange, or

animal transport.

Integration of multiple ecological factors

Ecosystems are made up of multiple factors; they

include biotic and abiotic components in association

with each other, and are differentiated by characteristics

of structure or function. The ability of biotic

components to exist on the Earth’s surface is dependent

on conditions of the physical environment, primarily

material and energy supplies as solar radiation,

moisture, and nutrient availability, and disturbance

regimes. These major environmental gradients are

modified locally by climate, physiography, hydrology,

soils, flora, and fauna (Barnes et al. 1982, Jordan 1982,

Cleland et al. 1985).

Biotic and abiotic factors differ in their relative level of

influence on ecosystem structure and function at

different spatial-scales and at different geographic

locations. Information on associations among ecological

factors at a given location is best gained through research

and other ecosystem studies prior to classification or

mapping. With this approach, the relative importance of

different factors is recognized, their mutual associations

and interactions are discovered, and appropriate factors

are associated with specific geographic areas and spatialscales.

At the LTA level in the Lake States, research studies have

identified associations among many ecosystem

components, including glacial features, mid-scale

climatic variation, soil physical and chemical

characteristics, hydrology, vegetative composition and

productivity, nutrient cycling processes, regeneration,

forest succession, and natural disturbance regimes of fire

and wind (Barnes et al. 1982, 1984, Albert et al. 1986,

Zak et al. 1986, Host et al. 1987, Denton and Barnes

1988, Padley 1989, Host and Pregitzer 1992).

Hierarchical structure of ecosystems

Partitioning the spatial variability of the environment

into levels of scale aids in comprehending ecosystem

complexity. Each level of scale has differences in

dominant environmental factors, organization of

ecological systems, type and degree of patterning, kinds

of processes, and rates at which certain processes occur.

Identifying these scales and their characteristics clarifies

our thinking about ecological systems, and thus helps us

better understand and predict the ways management will

affect them.

Rowe (1980) has stated that to determine the effects of

management on ecosystems, we often need to examine

conditions and processes occurring above and below the

level under consideration. Broader-scaled information

provides context for management questions and helps

identify roles and opportunities; finer-scaled

information provides important detail. Selection of a

spatial-scale for a primary level of consideration is based

on the level of complexity or generalization appropriate

to the management decision.

A nested spatial hierarchy provides this structure for

selecting a primary scale appropriate to the level of

decision, and for analyzing context and content
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 13

(Brenner and Jordan 1992). Small land areas can be

grouped together into larger units based on common

characteristics, or, conversely, larger units can be

subdivided if sufficient information on differences

within the unit is available (Allen and Starr 1982,

O’Neill et al. 1986, Albert et al. 1986).

The concept of hierarchically organized ecosystems has

been described as analogous to that of biological

hierarchies: organelles, cells, tissues, organs, individuals,

demes, and species are specific levels of biological

organization, with lower levels nested within higher

levels. Each of these levels has a specific function that can

only be understood by observing the whole unit at the

appropriate level of scale. Ecological systems have

spatially explicit hierarchical characteristics; different

levels of scale have different functions, and these

functions are apparent only when the whole system is

considered at specific scales (Allen and Starr 1982). A

hierarchical approach to ecological systems allows us to

develop and utilize those levels of spatial-scale where

organization is apparent. These are the levels that

contain the greatest amount of information pertinent to

our management activities.

 The selection of which and how many levels to develop

in a classification hierarchy involves a degree of

subjectivity, because hierarchies are often continuous,

but there are certain spatial-scales with greater

applicability to management questions (Allen and Starr

1982, Rowe 1991). The LTA level was developed to

describe patterns and processes operating at the

landscape level for application in land management

assessment, analysis, and planning. Ecological

organization at this scale is based on associations of

mid-scale climatic regimes, patterns of landforms

developed on glacial features, natural disturbance

regimes, and vegetative alliances.

Dominant ecological factors

One or a few ecological factors often dominate

ecosystem structure or function at a specific level of

spatial-scale. At broad-scales, temperature, precipitation,

and gross physiography control the composition of

vegetative communities (e.g. the Rocky Mountains, or the

Great Plains) (Spurr and Barnes 1980, Bailey 1987). At

mid-levels of scale, solar energy and moisture inputs are

modified by physiography, especially elevation and

aspect in mountainous regions (Rowe 1980, Bailey

1988). At fine-scales, biotic distributions are influenced

by soils, local topography, and floristic mediation

(Bailey 1987, Cleland et al. 1994).

The dominant environmental factor controlling biotic

distributions at the LTA scale in the Lake States is the

glacial feature, because the source material and surface

form of glacial deposits constrains other physical factors

that control the distribution and growth of vegetation.

Associations between vegetation and glacial features are

usually readily observable from elevated vantage points

such as airplanes or fire towers. In general, northern

hardwood forests tend to occur on glacial moraines,

mixed pine or oak forest on ice-contact features, and jack

pine forest on outwash plains.

Secondarily dominant factors include hydrology, lakeeffect climatic zones, bedrock outcrops, or, occasionally,

landscape context that controls long-term past

disturbance. At certain locations, these factors may be

more dominant than glacial features. For example, the

influence of a watertable at the land surface overrides the

effect of parent material in determining vegetative

composition.

Surficial geologic features are made up of interacting

patterns of landforms, which have been characterized as

combinations of “relief-topography (surface shape) and

geological parent material (subsurface composition and

structure)” (Rowe 1991). Other definitions of landform

include, “physiography, geomorphology, terrain, and

topography” (Pregitzer and Ramm 1984); “a threedimensional part of the land surface, formed of soil,

sediment, or rock that is distinctive because of its shape,

that is significant for land use or to landscape genesis,

that repeats in various landscapes” (Soil Survey Staff

1975). Some refer to landforms in the Lake States

synonymously with glacial features like end and lateral

moraines, till plains, outwash plains, outwash channels,

deltas, beach complexes, lake plains, islands, and

bedrock topography (Burgis 1977). Rowe (1994) has

stated that “repetitive patterns in vegetation can be traced

directly to repetitive patterns of topography associated

with specific kinds of surficial materials of landforms.”

This definition, “repetitive patterns of topography,”

corresponds with historical concepts of land

classification.

Our use of the term “landform” generally corresponds

with the term “landtype”. Landforms, then, are specific

topographic portions of glacial features in the Lake

States, such as post-glacial erosional valleys incised on

the side of a moraine. Landtype Associations are

repeating patterns of landforms, such as an end moraine.

Such usage provides consistency with historical land

classifications and with terminology used in the

Hierarchy (ECOMAP 1993).

 The lack of consensus on the definition of the term

“landform” makes its application in LTA development

problematic. There is a need for a geologic term that

corresponds to the landscape-scale and LTAs.

Partitioning Gradients

Biotic distributions and ecological processes are

controlled by gradients of solar energy, moisture, and

nutrients. At finer spatial-scales, these gradients are

modified by physiography, soils, hydrology, and biota

(Cleland et al. 1985, 1994, Spies and Barnes 1985).
14 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Some gradients change gradually, but there are instances

where changes are abrupt, such as at a lakeshore or a

cliff. Unfortunately, managing natural resources along a

gradient is usually impractical or impossible, and

mapped units are needed. A major goal and challenge of

land classification is to partition environmental

gradients so that map units are relatively homogeneous

within their boundaries. Homogeneity is generally

greater at finer spatial-scales, but some units are

inherently more variable than others. A map unit

boundary is the best estimate of the location where

change along a gradient becomes important to

management, but users must recognize that variability

can be relatively high when diffuse gradients are present.

Advances in technology will allow us to display “fuzzy”

boundaries that show gradients as incremental degrees of

change.

Regionalization and Classification

Regionalization (or ecosystem geography) is a process by

which an area is subdivided based on dominant

ecological factors whose effects in controlling or

mediating biotic distributions are known (Rowe 1980,

1991; Bailey 1988, 1995a). Landscapes are partitioned by

identifying their characteristics and differentiating them

from surrounding areas using criteria relevant to the

intended purpose, proceeding “from above” by division

and subdivision. This method is useful in identifying

and delineating broad-scale ecological units where

macroclimatic zones or large physiographic features (e.g.

mountain ranges) have strong and obvious associations

with vegetation patterns. Regionalization often uses

existing maps of the dominant abiotic factor or factors,

which makes regionalization a cost-effective approach to

ecological mapping when relationships between biotic

and abiotic factors are known.

For finer-scaled units, classifications are developed from

analyses of site-level data and mapped based on legends

developed from classifications. Fine-scale units would be

difficult to derive by regionalization because there is

usually not information available at the appropriate

spatial resolution.

LTA’s in the Lake States have most often been developed

through regionalization because previously mapped

information on ecological factors is available (Russell

and Jordan 1992). Information on surficial and bedrock

geology, drift thickness, historic vegetation, wetlands,

hydrography, and elevation, together with research

information on associations of ecological factors and

dominant factors, have provided the basis for

regionalization.

Aggregation of finer-scaled units (LT’s or LTP’s) is may be

another way to map LTA’s. At present, these finer-scaled

units have not yet been developed for most areas. If the

aggregation method is used a top-down framework must

be present. Highly patterned areas should in some cases

be grouped into LTA’s even though they contain very

dissimilar LT’s or LTP’s. In these cases, patterning may be

the dominant ecological factor that may be very difficult

to identify through aggregation.

Associations of LTA’s with Disturbance Regimes

While climate and landform influences exert

fundamental constraints on forest composition,

disturbances control temporal patterns of vegetative

structure and composition, and regulate successional

processes in a landscape (Huston 1994, Alverson et al.

1994). In pre-European settlement times, cycles of

succession were initiated by the natural regimes of fire,

wind, or flooding, or through actions of insects and

disease. Knowledge of the spatial distribution of natural

disturbances is important because managers often wish

to emulate some aspects to help conserve biological

diversity.

Some natural disturbances have been associated with

glacial features in the Lake States. Whitney (1986) found

that frequencies of catastrophic fires were greatest on

outwash sand plains and were less frequent in forests on

ice-contact sand hills. Similarly, composition of the Big

Woods of Minnesota was related to fire history, which

was in-turn related to glacial landforms (Grimm 1984).

Rowe (1984) noted that landforms were associated with

fire patterns, which interacted with insect population

cycles. Wind is the dominant disturbance factor within

glacial moraines; the most frequent and extensive wind

disturbance is fine-scale gap-phase replacement

(Whitney 1986, Runkle 1982). Catastrophic wind

disturbance, infrequent in the Lake States, is sometimes

followed by fire (Canham and Loucks 1984). Knowledge

of these associations enables mappers to identify the

dominant natural disturbance regime for LTA’s.

Mapping Process

When LTA’s are delineated, higher levels of the Hierarchy

have usually already been mapped. Broad-scale

dominant factors at the Subsection and higher levels of

scale, particularly macro-climate, and gross

physiography, will have already been identified. At the

LTA level, the mapping process usually involves

subdividing Subsections through the process of

regionalization, using existing mapped information on

the relevant ecological components. The follow

discussion described this process.

Differentiating Criteria

Differentiating criteria are ecological factors that allow us

to conceptually separate ecological units; they are the

dominant controlling or mediating factors operating at a

given spatial-scale. Differentiating criteria are not used

alone, and the conceptual identification of an ecological

unit will be based on corresponding changes among
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 15

multiple abiotic and biotic components relevant at the

particular scale and location of interest.

We make a distinction between differentiating criteria

and delineating criteria. The latter refers to those

relatively stable and fine-resolution environmental

features that are used to draw ecological unit

boundaries. Differentiating criteria are those factors

used to conceptually formulate the ecological unit.

Differentiating criteria for LTA’s in the Lake States

include, in general order of most frequent use, surficial

geology, composition or productivity of historic

vegetation (or some estimate thereof), hydrology, mesoclimate, patterning of LT or LTP’s, bedrock type,

hydrography, and disturbance processes. In addition to

these criteria, the Hierarchy (ECOMAP 1993) suggests

that patterns of soil complexes and local landforms can

sometimes be used as differentiating criteria for LTA’s. It

is further known that repeating patterns of associated

ground-flora species groups, such as the Habitat Types

described by Kotar et al. (1988) have been used to

conceptually separate LTA’s. Differentiating criteria are

further described in the following sections.

Glacial Features

Surficial geologic features associated with Pleistocene

glaciation are the dominant abiotic factor correlated

with vegetative composition and productivity, and other

ecosystem functions, at the LTA level in the Lake States.

Associations among glacial features, soil characteristics,

and vegetative composition and productivity have been

documented (Curtis 1959, Peet and Loucks 1977, Barnes

et al. 1982, Jordan 1982, Spies and Barnes 1985, Albert

et al. 1986, Host et al. 1987, Padley 1989, and Host and

Pregitzer 1992). In Canada, Rowe (1971), and Rowe and

Sheard (1981) have described similar associations.

Ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling have also

been linked to glacial features and landforms (Padley

1989, Zak and Pregitzer 1990). Because of the strong

association of glacial formations with other ecological

characteristics and functions, they are most often used as

the primary criteria in differentiating land areas at the

LTA scale. The specific glacial formations generally used

as differentiating criteria include terminal moraines, till

plains, heads-of-outwash, outwash plains, lake plains,

glacial outlet, dune/beach-ridge feature, and drumloid

till plain.

At the landscape-scale, broad climatic zones used in

developing Regional and Subregional level ecological

units are modified by geology and topographic

(landform) features (Bailey et al. 1994). Landforms

modify the intensity and flux of solar energy and

moisture, affect the flow of organisms, and determine the

pattern of soil development and associated vegetation

and animal populations. They provide the essential

framework of the ecosystem, controlling such factors as

soil moisture, temperature, and nutrients (Rowe 1971,

Bailey 1988).

Historic Vegetation

Information on composition and productivity of historic

vegetation is useful in conceptualizing and

differentiating among LTA’s. In most parts of the Lake

States, historic vegetation can be estimated from

information on early European settlement era forest

composition available from General Land Office (GLO)

survey maps and notes, see Figure 1. These data are

generally of too coarse a resolution to serve as

delineating criteria, but help provide the conceptual

basis for separating the unit by providing information

about vegetation at a time when effects of human

disturbance were considerably less. The successional

status of forests during early European settlement is

more indicative of potential capability of ecological

units than are today’s largely human-induced

successional conditions, and are useful for identifying

correlative changes in vegetative potential as related to

one or more of the abiotic ecosystem components.

Climate

At Regional and Subregional scales, climate is largely

controlled by latitude and continental features. At the

landscape-scale, climate is modified by geology and

topography. For example, snowfall amounts and

snowpack thickness tend to increase with elevation.

Other climatic variations are due to the effect of the

Great Lakes, with vegetation in the lake-effect along Lake

Superior and the eastern shoreline of Lake Michigan

reflecting strong influences of moisture inputs from lake

humidity and temperature moderation. There may be

other climatic variations due to topographic influences

on air movement and humidity, such as orographic

effects.

CE

BE

BE

BE

BE BE BE BE BE BE

BE

BE

BE BE

BE

BE BE BE BE BE

BE

BE

BE

BI

EL

HE

HE

HE

HE HE

HE HE

HE

BA

PI PI

PI

PI

PI PI PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI PI PI PI

PI

PI

PI

PI PI PI PI

PI

PI

MA MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

RO

RO

RO

RO

RO RO

RO

SU

SU

WO

BE BE

BE

BE BE

BE

BE

BE

BE BE

BE BE BE

BE

BE

BE

BE BE

BE BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE BE

BE

BE

BE BE

BE

CH

PI

PI

HE

HE

MA

MA MA

LI HE

WO WO

Figure 1.—Digital historic vegetation composition

estimated from GLO survey maps and notes.
16 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Climatic influences are difficult to differentiate because

climatic changes usually occur along a diffuse gradient.

Also, climatic data in the Lake States are not yet

available at a sampling density suitable for analysis at

the landscape-scale. Although there are several studies

that demonstrate a process for identifying climatically

distinct areas, most of these efforts were conducted at a

broader scale. Methods will likely become available in

the future to better differentiate climatic zones at the

LTA level.

Bedrock Geology

Occasionally, a primary differentiating factor for a LTA

may include the presence of, depth to, and type of

bedrock. For example, limestone outcrops along the

Niagaran Escarpment strongly influence composition of

forest and ground-flora species where limestone is

within plant rooting depth, or where it influences water

chemistry in wetlands. Bedrock also influences the

development of stream patterns. Bedrock-controlled

terrain of large extent may be differentiated as a separate

LTA, while smaller areas of bedrock outcrop are

considered inclusions in other units.

Hydrography

Hydrography, or the pattern of lakes and streams that

develops on the landscape, has shown a correlation with

glacial features at the Subsection level, and in some cases

at the LTA level as well, see Figure 2. Hydrographic

patterns may be useful in differentiating LTA’s in some

areas. The pattern, density, and type of streams, lakes,

and wetlands can often be related to glacial features. For

example, the common occurrence of lakes in collapsedoutwash deposits and/or terminal moraines relates to

processes and conditions during deposition, whereas

parallel stream patterns and few lakes are found on

former glacial clayey lakebeds.

In general, the process of regionalizing LTA’s will involve

the use of hydrography in differentiating glacial

landforms. Aquatic features are usually not a dominant

environmental influence at the LTA scale, and will

generally not be the primary factor used in

regionalization. The exception to this general guideline

occurs when a water body is large enough to exert an

influence on the surrounding terrestrial area that is

believed to be greater than the influence of the terrestrial

systems on the water body. Some examples include large

lakes that create conditions of temperature moderation

and humidity that influence ecological factors in the

surrounding area, such as the occurrence of northern

hardwood forests on old sand dunes along Lake

Michigan.

Hydrology

Hydrology is an environmental factor sometimes used in

conceptually separating units at the LTA level. The

presence of regional watertables within rooting depth

has a strong influence on vegetative composition and

ecological processes at the landscape-scale. The effect of a

shallow watertable, where present, may override the

effects associated with the glacial feature. Watertable

depth can affect processes of succession, type and

frequency of disturbance, and rate of forest growth. Thus

if an extensive land area is predominantly vegetated by

hydrophilic species and contains hydric soils, it would be

considered a unique LTA. If a landscape consists of an

intricately patterned area of wetlands and uplands, the

entire area could be identified as a single LTA based on

the concept of LTA’s as clusters of interacting ecosystem

patches.

Disturbance Processes

In some instances, ecological processes are

differentiating criteria used in conceptually separating

ecological units. Processes that often operate at the LTA

scale include natural disturbance regimes of fire, wind,

and flooding. The landscape context of a LTA unit can

sometimes govern the intensity, type, and frequency of

natural disturbance events, and these events may have a

long-term effect on vegetative composition and

successional pathways. A number of local studies have

documented associations between disturbance regimes

and vegetation types, or among vegetation types and

soils, landforms, or glacial formations (Maissurow 1941,

Canham and Loucks 1984, Whitney 1986, Padley 1989,

Webb 1989, Pastor and Broschart 1990, Frelich and

Lorimer 1991, 1994, Mladenoff et al. 1993, Mladenoff

and Pastor 1993). These associations of disturbance

regimes and ecological units occur at all spatial-scales,

depending on the geographic location and the type of

disturbance process. Other processes associated with the

Figure 2.—The pattern of lakes and streams is often

correlated with glacial features and LTAs.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 17

landscape-scale are geomorphic processes (landslides),

cycles of insect habitation, and diseases of vegetation.

Soil and Vegetation

Patterns of associated landforms, which are often

equivalent to glacial features in the Lake States, are the

primary differentiating factor at the LTA scale. Soils are

derived from parent materials on the mantle of

landforms, hence landforms often exhibit characteristic

patterns in soil texture, morphology and drainage, as

well as patterns in vegetation (Host et al. 1987, Cleland

1992). Although repetitive broad-scaled patterns of soil

texture, drainage, and distribution of vegetative

communities can be used to differentiate LTA’s, these

broad patterns are often not recognizable until after the

LTA has been conceptualized based on the glacial feature.

Soil characteristics and associated plant communities

may become the primary delineation criteria at the LT

and LTP levels of the Hierarchy. Soil patterns within

LTA’s are used to validate and characterize the conceptual

unit, and to refine LTA boundaries from the bottom-up

as LT’s and LTP’s are mapped and characterized.

Similarly, plant communities including ecological

species groups or Habitat Types develop in association

with soil patterns within landforms, and therefore are

not used as differentiating criteria at the LTA level, but

are used as differentiating and delineating criteria at

finer-scales.

Boundary Identification

After a LTA unit has been identified conceptually, based

on primary differentiating criteria, units are mapped

based on delineating criteria. Delineating criteria are

those factors used to identify the specific location for

placement of map unit. The delineating criteria are those

relatively stable environmental features that help

identify where a change in ecological potential has

occurred. As discussed previously, some dominant

controlling or mediating environmental factors occur

along gradients, and some gradients can be quite diffuse

while others are relatively discrete. Identifying the precise

location at which to place a unit boundary can be

difficult when the unit is conceptually based on features

that occur along a gradient.

The process of identifying ecological boundaries follows

that described by Rowe (1984), who recommended a

multifactorial approach, beginning with factors that

operate at broader spatial-scales. Climatic maps provide

iso-lines that display gradients of solar radiation,

temperature, soil moisture, and other factors related to

ecologically important changes in forested ecosystems. If

these climatic factors show a correlation with the mosaic

of landscape patches that comprise vegetative structure at

the spatial-scale of consideration, they may be useful in

boundary placement. After subregions have been divided

based on climatic differences, they are further

subdivided based on features known to control the

intensity of ecologically significant key factors at the next

finer-scale. The correlation of biological indicators with

glacial features or other physical factors provides

information as to where to subdivide the landscape into

ecological units. Boundaries of ecological significance

that emerge show correlative changes in meso-climate,

vegetation, soil, hydrology, landforms, and landform

patterns.

Climatic Boundaries

Climatic boundaries are often the most diffuse of the

environmental factors we wish to partition. While

quantitative methods may be used to help identify

climatically distinct areas (Rauscher 1984, Denton and

Barnes 1988, Host and Polzer 1995), due to the coarse

resolution of existing climatic data, most climatic zones

identified through these methods have been at scale

broader than the LTA. Sometimes, changes in vegetative

composition may be indicative of climatic boundaries.

Local expertise is sometimes useful in identifying

locations where climatic differences occur. Because of the

difficulties in gathering information on climatic

boundaries, this factor is more often used as a

differentiating criterion than a delineating one.

Physiographic Boundaries

At the landscape-scale in the complex, glaciated terrain

of the Lake States, glacial features, comprised of

landform patterns, are the primary delineating criterion.

Landforms, with their control of radiation regime, and

retention of water and other materials according to

slope, aspect and geological substrate etc, usually afford

good clues to boundary placement (Rowe 1991), see

Figure 3.

Figure 3.—Landform patterns are the primary

delineating criteria.
18 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Surficial geology maps that depict topographic features

formed by Pleistocene glaciation are the most valuable

source of information for identifying physiographic

boundaries at the LTA scale. The spatial resolution of

such maps is a consideration in deciding whether to

utilize the boundaries as they appear on the map, or to

use stereo-photographic interpretation or another finerscaled land feature within the LTA to draw the boundary

more accurately. Detailed surficial mapping that depicts

landforms within glacial formations may be generalized

to depict the LTA boundary. Detailed Pleistocene geology

maps are available for many parts of Wisconsin on a

county basis (Clayton 1984, Attig 1985, Mickelson

1986). These maps are an excellent source of

information on glacial formations and the landform

patterns that comprise them.

Hydrologic Boundaries

In areas where watertables are a dominant controlling or

mediating influence on vegetation composition and

productivity, maps of wetlands or hydric soils can be

used to identify boundary placement. Such information

can separate areas influenced by watertables from

adjacent uplands. Host et al. (1996) used STATSGO

information on drainage classes to identify areas with

similar drainage characteristics. In eastern Upper

Peninsula of Michigan, the National Wetlands Inventory

maps were used as one piece of information in

identifying and mapping LTA units where the dominant

controlling environmental influence is a watertable

within the rooting depth.

Distinguishing wetlands from each other can present a

more difficult problem, but such a situation is rarely

encountered. Here, corresponding changes in vegetation,

landform, soils, or surface water drainage divides may

indicate a difference in nutrient status, acidity, or

oxygenation that will help identify boundaries.

Use of Finer-scaled Information to Locate Boundaries

Soils and vegetation are ecosystem components that vary

at scales finer than the LTA, and are nested within the

LTA. Maps and imagery displaying locations of these

finer-scaled attributes are often used to identify

locations of LTA boundaries. Soils maps from Order 2

surveys conducted by the Natural Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS), or maps of LT’s where available, are

suitable sources for helping locate LTA boundaries.

Satellite imagery or aerial photographs may be used to

identify vegetative boundaries, although may

boundaries are related to land-use rather than ecological

potential. Maps of historical vegetation, if drawn at fine

enough a resolution, are sometimes useful for

identifying boundaries associated with potential

vegetation.

Bedrock outcrops, or shallow-to-bedrock areas, are

ecological features that often vary at finer-scales than

LTA’s in the Lake States. If the bedrock-controlled areas

are mapped or can be identified on photographs at a fine

enough resolution, they can provide an indication as to

the location of ecological boundaries.

Scale and Map Unit Sizes

The map scale used in displaying ecological units

implies a certain level of perceived detail (Bailey 1988).

It is chosen based on the intended use of the map;

usually in mid-scale planning applications. Typical map

scales for displaying Lake States LTA’s range between

1:100,000 and 1:250,000. The map may be developed at

a larger map scale than that used for display, to about

1:50,000. Maps should not be displayed at a scale larger

than the one used for development.

The size of any given map unit will depend on its

ecological characteristics at the LTA scale. Mapping

landscape ecosystems involves identifying interacting

clusters of heterogeneous finer-scaled ecosystems (LT’s),

or single large areas of relatively homogenous

composition. Some landscape features are inherently

smaller, while others are larger. We examined the size of

LTA’s and draft LTA’s that intersect National Forests in the

Lake States. The size distribution is shown in Figure 4.

Sizes ranged from 1,432 to 950,650 acres, with 90

percent interval of the sizes between 9,665 and 385,972

acres. The 90 percent interval level corresponds well with

the range of sizes recommended several years ago by the

National Forests’ LTA team; they suggested a minimum

polygon size of 10,000 acres with exceptions to 3,000

acres for features with significantly different perceived

function. The maximum size recommended was 175,000

acres, with exceptions to 300,000 acres for extremely

homogenous areas.

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1

275379

105131157183209235

261

LTA's

Acres



	


Figure 4.—Size distribution of LTA’s that intersect Lake

States National Forests.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 19

Recommended Approach

In the past, LTA’s in the Lake States have generally been

developed by: 1) identifying the conceptual unit

through visually examining paper maps for correlative

changes in vegetation and abiotic factors, 2) preparing

draft maps on paper, 3) field checking or sampling, and

4) revising draft maps and preparing a final version.

Advances in spatial information and management tools

can reduce the time and effort involved in LTA

conceptualization and delineation, and also improve

repeatability and documentation. The addition of

ancillary information in databases or attribute tables can

increase the utility of products. We recommend that new

technologies be utilized while retaining the original

concepts and procedural approach to developing

ecological units.

The recommended approach includes the following steps:

1) Assess information needs and sources. Land managers

primarily utilize LTA information for strategic

planning and assessments (Almendinger, et al. 2000).

In the Lake States, several organization have identified

issues and information needs for regional,

subregional, and landscape “LTA” scales (Jordan and

Uhlig 1995, Seesholtz et al. 1995, Webster and

Vasievich 1997). Managers should continue to be

involved in the identification of the need for LTAs,

and the attribute information to be acquired.

2) Information assemblage. All pertinent information

should be gathered, including information on

separate ecosystem components as well as existing

maps of ecological units. The information should be

of an appropriate spatial resolution to depict

landscape ecosystems; thus, AVHRR satellite imagery

at 1 km2 is generally too coarse, and aerial

photographs at 1:20,000 are too detailed. Imagery

and maps in the range of approximately 1:60,000 to

1:250,000 will often be useful. Electronic information

that can be manipulated in a GIS environment is the

most desirable. Digitized surficial geology maps,

climatic classifications, DEM’s, STATSGO, historic

vegetation, hydrology, current vegetation and land

use, and other GIS themes will be useful in analyses,

syntheses, and display.

3) Conceptual identification. Conceptual units are

developed through the process of rationalization, by

examining the information themes while applying the

differentiating criteris. GIS techniques can aid in

synthesizing multiple information themes by

identifying correspondence among vegetation and

abiotic factors, aiding the mapper by displaying

simple theme overlays, or 3-dimensional views of

surficial formations with various information themes

draped on them. For a more quantitative approachs,

Host et al. 1966, Barnes, B. 2001, Zastrow, D.E. 2001,

Cleland, D.T. 2001, Nigh, P.A. 2001.

4) Drafting boundaries. Boundaries between conceptual

units are identified based on the delineating criteria. If

GIS technology and information is available,

boundaries from the most accurate piece of digital

information can be used. If paper maps are being

used, boundaries will be drafted onto overlays. Draft

versions of ecological unit maps, are usually based on

meso-climatic zones and/or physiography. The draft

maps are refined by other pertinent ecological factors

and fine-scaled information, where available.

Rationale for boundary placements should be

documented. (Zastrow, D.E. 2001, Nelson, D. 2001).

 5) Validation. Techniques described earlier, such as

utilizing vegetation information from classified

Landsat TM imagery, can partially replace field work

as a method for validating LTA units (Host et al.

1996). There will be a role for longer-term

management studies where questions exist regarding

boundary locations, or where there is a need to better

identify important environmental factors and their

mechanism of operation (Fay, S.C. and Sorgman, N.J.

2001, Hansen, D.S. and Almendinger, J.C. 2001,

Drotts, G. and Provost, J. 2001, Hvizdak, D.J. 2001).

6) Reporting. After LTA’s are mapped, there is a need to

develop attribute tables that can be accessed in a GIS

environment, that display data and descriptive

information. Narrative, integrated descriptions are

also needed to provide the average user with an

understanding of the emergent properties, ecosystem

linkages, and ecological processes operating in the

unit. Additionally, there have been requests for

management handbooks that describe capabilities,

opportunities, and limitations of LTA’s for various

management activities. Wisconsin has developed the

most extensive GIS-link LTA database in the Lake

States (Zastrow, D.E. 2001).

7) Revision. Iterative revisions will be needed as more

and better information becomes available from

remotely sensed imageries, research and management

studies, and agency inventory and survey projects. As

mappers have opportunities to investigate individual

units in detail, synthesizing information and

conducting field examinations, new comprehension

of ecological structure and function will emerge and

boundaries will be refined and improved to better

reflect units of equivalent ecological response.

Conclusion

LTAs provide the appropriate framework (context and

content) for addressing biological, physical, and social

issues in strategic planning and assessments. Land

managers need to address these issues that are regional,

subregional, and landscape- scale (i.e., biological

diversity, forest health, climate change, and fire risk and

management).
20 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Although ecosystems change due to disturbances and

biological processes, the basic physical components of

LTAs are relatively stable. In the Lake States, the

dominant environmental factor controlling biotic

distributions at the LTA-scale are Pliestocene glacial

features.

Regionalization is the dominant process for developing

LTAs in the Lake States. Research has documented

associations of glacial features with soil characteristics,

vegetation composition and productivity, nutrient

cycling, hydrography, and hydrology.

LTA maps have been developed for most of the Lake

States using a common approach as described in this

paper.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to other members of the Lake States

National Forests Lantype Association Team: Joseph A.

Gates, Forest Soil Scientist, Huron-Manistee National

Forest; David J. Hoppe, Forest Soil Scientist, Nicolet

National Forest; Leonard S. Kempf, Forest Soil Scientist

(Former), Chequamegon National Forest; Barbara

Leuelling, Forest Soil Scientist, Superior National Forest;

Kirstin Seleen, Landscape Ecologist (former), Hiawatha

National Forest; David A. Shadis, Forest Soil Scientist,

Chippewa National Forest; Janet Silbermagel, Landscape

Ecologist (former), Hiawatha National Forest. Assistance

in typing and editing was provided by staff from the

Ottawa National Forest and the North Central Research

Station, including: Mary Kathryn Mukavitz, Bobbie

Evans, Heidi Isakson, and Tina Scupien.

Literature Cited

Albert, D.A., S.R. Denton, B.V. Barnes. 1986. Regional

landscape ecosystems of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources.

32 p.

Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy:

perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press. 310 p.

Almendinger, J.C., D.S. Hanson, J.K. Jordan. 2000.

Landtype association of the Lake States. St. Paul,

Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources. 23p.

Alverson, W.S, W. Kuhlman, D.M. Waller. 1994. Wild

Forests: Conservation Biology and Public Policy.

Washington DC: Island Press. 300 p.

Attig, J.W. 1985. Pleistocene geology of Vilas County,

Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History

Survey Information Circular 50, 32 p. Map 85-2;

1:100,000.

Bailey, R.G. 1987. Suggested hierarchy of criteria for

multiscale ecosystem mapping. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 14: 313-319.

 Bailey, R.G. 1988. Ecogeographic analysis: a guide to

the ecological division of land for resource

management. Miscellaneous Publication 1465.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 18 p.

Bailey, R.G. 1995a. Ecosystem Geography. New York,

NY: Springer-Verlag. 204 p. [Map]

Bailey, R.G. and P.E. Avers. 1993. Multi-scale ecosystem

analysis. In: G. Lund, ed. Integrated Ecological and

Resource Inventories: proceedings of the symposium;

1992 April 12-16; Phoenix, AZ. WO-WSA-4.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service.

Bailey, R.G., P.E. Avers, T. King, W.H. McNab, eds. 1994.

Ecoregions and subregions of the United States.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, Scale

1:7,500,000, colored, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. [Map]

Barnes, B.V. 1984. Forest ecosystem classification and

mapping in Baden-Wurttemberg, West Germany. In:

Bockheim, J.G., ed. Forest land classification:

experiences, problems, perspectives: proceedings of

the symposium; 1984 March 18-20; Madison, WI.

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin: 49-65.

Barnes, B.V., K.S. Pregitzer, T.A. Spies, V.H. Spooner.

1982. Ecological forest site classification. Journal of

Forestry. 80: 493-498.

Barnes, B.V. 2001. Landscape ecosystem classification

principles and concepts. In: Smith, M.L., ed.

Landtype Associations: development and use in

natural resources management, planning, and

research: proceedings of the conference; 2001 April

24-26: Madison, Wisconsin.

Brenner, R.N. and J.K. Jordan. 1992. An ecosystem

classification and planning model applied at

multiple scales. In: Master, D.C.; Sedjo, R.A., eds.

Modeling Sustainable Forest Ecosystems: proceedings

of the symposium; 1992 November 18-20;

Washington, DC. Washington, DC: American Forest.

Burgis, W.A. 1977. Lake-Wisconsinan history of

northeastern Lower Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan. University Microfilms

International, Microfilm No. 78-4659. Ph.D.

dissertation.

Canham, C.D. and O.L. Loucks. 1984. Catastrophic

windthrow in the presettlement forests of

Wisconsin. Ecology. 65: 803-809.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 21

Clayton, L. 1984. Pleistocene geology of the Superior

Region, Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin

Geological Natural History Survey, Information

Circular No. 46, Madison, WI. 40 p.

Cleland, D.T., J.B. Hart Jr., K.S. Pregitzer, C.W. Ramm.

1985. Classifying oak ecosystems for management.

In: Johnson, J.E., ed. Proceedings: Challenges for oak

management and utilization; 1985 March 28-29;

Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin:

120-134.

Cleland, D.T., T.R. Crow, P. Avers, J.R. Probst. 1992.

Principles of land stratification for delineating

ecosystems. In: Proceedings, Taking an Ecological

Approach to Management 1992 April 27-30; Salt Lake

City, UT. 120 p.

Cleland, D.T., T.R. Crow, J.B. Hart, E.A. Padley. 1994.

Resource management perspective: remote sensing

and GIS support for defining, mapping, and

managing forest ecosystems. In: V.A. Sample, ed.

Remote Sensing and GIS in Ecosystem Management.

American Forests, Forest Policy Center. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 243-264.

 Cleland, D.T., P. E. Avers, W. H. McNab, M.E. Jensen,

R.G. Bailey, T. King, and W.E. Russell. 1997. National

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. In:

M.S. Boyce and A. Haney, eds., Ecosystem

Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and

Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven

& London: 181-200.

Cleland, D.T., D. Shadis, D.I. Dickman, J.K. Jordan, R.

Watson, R. 2001. Use of ecological units in mapping

natural disturbance regimes in the lake states. In:

Smith, M.L., ed. Landtype Associations: development

and use in natural resources management, planning,

and research: proceedings of the conference; 2001

April 24-26: Madison, Wisconsin.

Crow, T.R. 1991. Landscape ecology: the big picture

approach to resource management. In: Decker, D.J.;

Kresny, M.E.; Goff, G.E.; Smith C.R.; Gross, D.W., eds.

Challenges in Conservation of Biological Resources -

A Practitioner’s Guide. San Francisco, Westview Press.

Curtis, J.T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Drotts, G. and J. Provost. 2001. Use of LTAs as a tool for

wildlife management in Minnesota. In: Smith, M.L.,

ed. Landtype Associations: development and use in

natural resources management, planning, and

research: proceedings of the conference; 2001 April

24-26: Madison, Wisconsin.

Denton, D.R. and B.V. Barnes. 1988. An ecological

climatic classification of Michigan: a quantitative

approach. Forest Science. 34: 119-138.

Ebert, D.J., T.A. Nelson, J.L. Kershner. 1991. A soil-based

assessment of stream fish habitats in coastal plains

streams. In: Proceedings, Warmwater Fisheries

Symposium. 1991 June 4-8; Phoenix, AZ.

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of

ecological units. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Fay, S.C. and N.J. Sorgman. 2001. Past and future uses

of landtype associations on the White Mountain

National Forests. In: Smith, M.L., ed. Landtype

Associations: development and use in natural

resources management, planning, and research:

proceedings of the conference; 2001 April 24-26:

Madison, Wisconsin.

Forman, T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology.

John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 619 p.

 Frelich, L.E. and C.G. Lorimer. 1991. Natural

disturbance regimes in hemlock-hardwood forests

of the Upper Great Lakes Region. Ecological

Monographs. 61: 145-164.

Grimm, E.C. 1984. Fire and other factors controlling

the big woods vegetation of Minnesota in the midnineteenth century. Ecological Monographs. 54: 291-

311.

Host, G.E. and P.L. Polzer. 1995. Regional climatic

analyses of the northern Lake States. University of

Minnesota-Duluth, Natural Resources Research

Institute, Technical Report NRRI/TR-95/32. 11 p.

[Maps]

Host, G.E., P.L. Polzer, D.J. Mladenoff, M.A. White, T.R.

Crow. 1996. A quantitative approach to developing

regional ecosystem classifications. Ecological

Applications. 6: 608-618.

Host, G.E., K.S. Pregitzer, C.W. Ramm, J.B. Hart, D.T.

Cleland. 1987. Landform-mediated differences in

successional pathways among upland forest

ecosystems in Northwestern Lower Michigan. Forest

Science. 33: 445-457.

Hanson, D.S. and J.C. Almendinger. 2001. The history of

white pine in Minnesota and the use of landtype

associations for restoring white pine forests. In:

Smith, M.L., ed. Landtype Associations: development

and use in natural resources management, planning,

and research: proceedings of the conference; 2001

April 24-26: Madison, Wisconsin.
22 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Host, G.E. and K.S. Pregitzer. 1992. Geomorphic

influences on ground-flora and overstory

composition in upland forests of Northwestern

lower Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

22: 1547-1555.

Huston, M.A. 1994. Biological diversity: the coexistence

of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge

University Press. 681 p.

Hvizdak, D.J. and M.C. Moline. 2001. Updating the

USDA NRCS Major land resource areas in

Wisconsin using landtype associations and

meshing it with the national hierarchical

framework of ecological units. In: Smith, M.L., ed.

Landtype Associations: development and use in

natural resources management, planning, and

research: proceedings of the conference; 2001 April

24-26: Madison, Wisconsin.

Jordan, J.K. 1982. Application of an integrated land

classification. In: Proceedings, Artificial Regeneration

of Conifers in the Upper Lakes Region; 1982 October

26-28; Green Bay, WI. Houghton MI: Michigan

Technological University: 65-82.

Jordan, J.K. and P.W.C. Uhlig. 1995. Ecosystem

management strategies for the lake superior region.

University of Minnesota-Duluth, Continuing

Education and Extension, Duluth, Minnesota. 69p.

Kotar, J., J.A. Kovach, and C.T. Locey. 1988. Field guide

to forest habitat types of Northern Wisconsin.

Department of Forestry, Madison WI: University of

Wisconsin.

Maissurow, D.K. 1941. The role of fire in the

perpetuation of virgin forests of northern

Wisconsin. Journal of Forestry. 39: 201-207.

Mickelson, D.M. 1986. Glacial and Related Deposits of

Landglade County, Wisconsin: Geological and

natural history survey information. Circular 52. 30

p. Map 86-2, 1: 100,000.

Mladenoff, D.J. and J. Pastor. 1993. Sustainable forest

ecosystems in the northern hardwood and conifer

forest region: concepts and management. In: Aplet,

G.H.; Johnson, N.; Olson, J.T.; Sample, V.A. Defining

Sustainable Forestry. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,

USA: 145-180.

Mladenoff, D.J., G.E. Host, J. Boeder, and T.R. Crow.

1993. LANDIS: a spatial model of forest landscape

disturbance, succession, and management. In:

Second International Conference/Workshop on

Integrating Geographic Information Systems and

Environmental Modeling; proceedings of the

symposium; 1993 Sept; Breckenridge, CO.

Breckenridge, CO: National Center for Geographic

Information Analysis.

Nigh, P.H. and W. Schroeder. 2001. Development and

application of landtype association in Missouri. In:

Smith, M.L., ed. Landtype Associations: development

and use in natural resources management, planning,

and research: proceedings of the conference; 2001

April 24-26: Madison, Wisconsin.

Nelsen, D. and J.L. Bruggink. 2001. Landtype

association for county land use planning, Weber

County, Utah. In: Smith, M.L., ed. Landtype

Associations: development and use in natural

resources management, planning, and research:

proceedings of the conference; 2001 April 24-26:

Madison, Wisconsin.

O’Neill, R.V.; D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide, T.F.H. Allen.

1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Padley, E.A. 1989. Associations among glacial

landforms, soils, and vegetation in northeastern

Lower Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University. 279 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Pastor, J. and M. Broschart, M. 1990. The spatial pattern

of a northern conifer-hardwood landscape.

Landscape Ecology. 4: 55-68.

Peet, R.T. and O. Loucks. 1977. A gradient analysis of

southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology. 58: 485-499.

Platts, W.S. 1979. Including the fishery system in land

planning. General Technical Report INT-60. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

37 p.

Pregitzer, K.S and C.W. Ramm. 1984. Classification of

forest ecosystems in Michigan. In: Bockheim, J.G.,

ed. Forest land classification: experiences, problems,

perspectives: proceedings of the symposium; 1984

March 18-20; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University

of Wisconsin: 114-131.

Rauscher, H.M. 1984. Homogeneus macroclimatic

zones of the Lake States. Reseach Paper NC-240, St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 39

p.

Rowe, J.S. 1962. Soil, site and land classification. The

Forestry Chronicle. 3: 420-432.

Rowe, J.S. 1971. Why Classify Forest Land? The Forestry

Chronicle. 7: 144-148.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 23

Rowe, J.S. 1979. Revised working paper on

methodology/philosophy of ecological

classification in Canada. In: Rubec, C.D.A., ed.

Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the Canadian

Committee on Ecological (Biophysical) Land

Classification. 1978 April 4-7; Victoria, B.C. Ottawa,

ON: Land Directorate, Environment Canada: 23-30.

Rowe, J.S. 1980. The common denominator in land

classification in Canada: An ecological approach to

mapping. Forestry Chronicle. 56: 19-20.

Rowe, J.S. 1984. Forest land classification: limitations

of the use of vegetation. In: Bockheim, J.G., ed.

Forest land classification: experiences, problems,

perspectives: proceedings of the symposium. March

18-20, 1984; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin: 132-147.

Rowe, J.S. 1991. Forests as landscape ecosystems:

implications for their regionalization and

classification. Presented at the Symposium on

Ecological Land Classification: Applications to

Identify the Productive Potential of Southern Forests.

January 7-9; Charlotte, NC.

 Rowe, J.S. 1994. Land classification and ecosystem

classification. Presented at the Global to Local:

Ecological Classification Conference. August 15-17;

Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

 Runkle, J.R. 1982. Patterns of disturbance in some oldgrowth mesic forests of eastern North America.

Ecology. 63: 1533-1546.

Salt, G.W. 1979. A comment on the use of the term

emergent properties. American Midland Naturalist.

13: 145-161.

Seesholtz, D., P. Freedmond, D. Sorenson, E. Padley, J.

Jordan. 1995. Northwoods broad-scale issue

identification project. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Unpublished documentworking paper.

Soil Survey Staff 1975. Soil taxonomy. AGRIC. Hand B.

436. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 754 p.

Spies, T.A. and B.V. Barnes. 1985. A multi-factor

ecological classification of the northern hardwood

and conifer ecosystem of Sylvania Recreation Area,

Upper Peninsula, Michigan. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 15: 949-960.

Spurr, S.H. and B.V. Barnes. 1980. Forest Ecology. (3rd

ed.) New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational

concepts and terms. Ecology. 16: 284-307.

Unger, D.G. 1993. Memo to Regional Foresters, Station

Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, and

Washington Office staff. Subject: National

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units,

November 5, file designation 1330/2060.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Washington Office.

Webster, H.H. and J.M. Vasievich. 1997. Lake states

regional forest resources assessment, technical

papers. General Technical Report NC-189. St. Paul,

Minnesota: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 314

p.

Wertz, W.A. and J.A. Arnold. 1972. Land Systems

Inventory. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

Whitney, G.G. 1986. Relation of Michigan’s

presettlement pine forests to substrate and

disturbance history. Ecology. 67: 1548-1550.

Zak, D.R. and K.S. Pregitzer. 1990. Spatial and temporal

variability of nitrogen cycling in northern Lower

Michigan. Forest Science. 36: 367-380.

Zak, D.R., K.S. Pregitzer, and G.E. Host. 1986. Landscape

variation in nitrogen mineralization and

nitrification. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16:

1258-1263.

Zastrow, D.E., D.J. Hvizdak, and M.C. Moline. 2001.

Development of Wisconsins Landtype Association-a

layer within the National Hierarchical framework of

Ecological Units. In: Smith, M.L., ed. Landtype

Associations: development and use in natural

resources management, planning, and research:

proceedings of the conference; 2001 April 24-26:

Madison, Wisconsin.
24 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

The National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological

Units (NHFEU) is an ecological classification system that

divides landscapes into ecologically significant regions at

multiple scales. Ecological types are classified and units

are mapped based on the associations of biotic and

environmental factors which include climate,

physiography, water, soils, air, hydrology, and potential

natural communities. In Wisconsin, the Provinces,

Sections, and Subsections of the NHFEU have been used

as large scale ecological units for resource assessment

and planning projects. Wisconsin created the finer

“landscape” scale Landtype Association (LTA) layer of the

NHFEU. The development of this important layer of

information supplies a spatially oriented, ecological

classification tool that is available to a variety of

landowners, land managers, and resource interest groups

in Wisconsin and the Lake States. A partnership in

Wisconsin developed the LTA layer of the NHFEU for the

entire state. Many individuals representing a diversity of

forest industries and councils, environmental and

landowner interest groups, private interested persons and

experts, and many agencies have provided information

and assistance in the development of the LTA map. A

group of volunteers (Wisconsin LTA Project Team) was

formed to initiate the LTA drafting work and

development of an annual work plan. A first

approximation for the state of Wisconsin was completed

in the fall of 1999.

Introduction

The National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological

Units (NHFEU) is an ecological classification system that

divides landscapes into ecologically significant regions at

multiple scales (McNab and Avers 1994, and Bailey

1996). Ecological types are classified and units are

mapped based on the associations of biotic and

environmental factors which include climate,

physiography, water, soils, air, hydrology, and potential

natural communities. In Wisconsin, the Provinces,

Sections, and Subsections of the NHFEU had been

delineated and are being used as large-scale ecological

units for resource assessment and planning projects.

Wisconsin has delineated the finer “landscape” scale

Landtype Association (LTA) layer of the NHFEU. The

development of this important layer of information will

supply a spatially oriented, ecological classification tool

that is available to a variety of landowners, land

managers, and resource interest groups in Wisconsin and

the Lake States.

History

Within the state, LTA’s had been developed primarily on

National Forest Lands. The statewide development of

Landtype Associations gained momentum in the mid1990’s. A workshop of field-level resource managers

from a variety of agencies identified the need for such an

agreement whereby a variety of ecological land

classifications systems were available and being used by

land managers (Steele et al. 1994). A critique of an

exercise at the workshop pointed out that the lack of a

common ecological language in these systems was a

major barrier to communication and the sharing of

information between land managers. In response to this

concern, a cooperative effort led by the University of

Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin DNR Forestry

program developed the Wisconsin Forest Accord.

The Wisconsin Forest Accord is a memorandum of

understanding designed to focus future communication

for statewide forest resource management using the

Forest Habitat Type Classification System (Kotar et al.

1988 and Kotar and Burger 1996) and the NHFEU as a

common language. Use of the Forest Habitat Type

Classification System promotes a common language for

interpreting site capability based on potential natural

vegetation. The NHFEU divides the state into

ecologically significant regions at multiple scales. The

Accord further resolved to continue the development,

evolution, and application of these ecological

classification technologies. In July of 1994,

representatives of more than a dozen public, industrial

and private landowners signed on to the Wisconsin

Forest Accord. The signing of the Wisconsin Forest

Accord marked the first time nationwide that an entire

state adopted uniform criteria to describe, evaluate and

share critical ecological information between private

landowners, county, state and federal agencies.

Since the signing of the Accord, workshops focused on

the development of LTA’s in Wisconsin were conducted.

These workshops were intended to train interested

agencies and individuals on LTA technical development

procedures and the potential utility of this information.

Development of Wisconsin’s Landtype Associations — A Layer within the

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units

Darrell E. Zastrow1, David J. Hvizdak2, Mitchell C. Moline3

1

Forestry Sciences Section Chief, Division of Forestry,

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

53707

2

Resource Soil Scientist, USDA Natural Resource Conservation

Service, Spooner WI 54801

3

GIS Project Leader, GIS Services Section, Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707

(molinm@dnr.state.wi.us)
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 25

From these workshops three distinct groups of

participants were identified and include:

• Guidance Team – The group of managers and key

leaders who oversee and support the activities of the

project team. Guidance team members do not conduct

the actual activities of the project, rather guide the efforts

and support the project with needed resources.

• WI LTA Project Team – The group of technical and

procedural experts who develop the project.

• Interested Persons – The largest group of individuals

who express interest in the process or products under

development.

From this workshop, a general understanding of the

development procedures for the LTA layer occurred and

the various agencies began identifying needed resources,

including financial and technical expertise. In essence, a

partnership in Wisconsin is developing the LTA layer of

the NHFEU for the entire state. A variety of agencies and

private individuals participate as partners in this effort

and assist in the development of a LTA GIS layer.

Agencies represented on the WI LTA Project team are

identified in Figure 1. In addition, many individuals

representing a diversity of forest industries and councils,

environmental and landowner interest groups, private

interested persons and experts, and representatives of

aforementioned agencies have provided information

and assistance in the development of LTA’s for

Wisconsin.

Deliniation

The specific data used in the development of Wisconsin’s

LTA layer varies across the state depending on the best

information available. The WI LTA Project Team gathered

the best available ecological information for the

development of the LTA’s (Figure 2). The primary data

source for the WI LTA Database were gathered from

existing GIS layers or project team input. An automated

process has been developed to annually update the WI

LTA Database by GIS spatial overlays and new input data

tables collect by the project team (Figure 3). The data

depicted in the WI LTA Database originate from climate,

soil, habitat, geology, hydrology and vegetation datasets.

Delineation of LTA boundaries for Wisconsin progressed

north to south. The process included the following

processing steps:

• Technical Expertise

• Digitizing

• Database Development

• Documentation

Wisconsin LTA’s reflect the interrelationships of geology,

landforms, hydrology/hydrography, soil associations,

vegetative communities, natural disturbances, and

climate. Since each factor varies in its susceptibility to

change, LTA development proceeded from the most

stable to the least. Draft LTA’s, or LTA groups, were

initially delineated within the NHFEU framework by

identifying geomorphic patterns (surficial and bedrock

geology, landforms, and hydrography) because these

represent the most stable and the most recognizable

features on the landscape and are the dominant

environmental factor controlling biotic distributions and

soil attributes. Plant-soil relationships, within the

context of their relationships to climatic factors and

geomorphology, refined the initial LTA’s and provided

for additional LTA development. Natural disturbance

patterns, relative to all the other factors, provided the

final refinement. As new data and ecological concepts are

developed, LTA’s will be further refined on a periodic

basis. The WI LTA Project Team is in the process of

developing a procedure for LTA validation.

Data Model

The WI LTA Project Team developed an annual process

to create and update GIS data model and database for

• USDA Forest Service - S&PF 

• USDA Forest Service - National Forest 

• Wisconsin County Forest Association 

• University of Wisconsin - Madison 

• University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point 

• Menominee Tribal Enterprises 

• WI Geological and Natural History Survey 

• WI Department of Natural Resource

Figure 1.—Agencies represented on the WI LTA Project

Team

CLIMATE HABITAT 

Mesoclimatic Regions Common Forest Habtat Type 

GEOLOGY HYDROGRAPHY 

Geomorphic Process Surface Drainage Pattern 

Geomorphic Surface Total Perennial Stream Miles 

General Topography Total Intermittent Stream Miles 

Bedrock Type Total Open Water Area 

Bedrock Depth Total Wetland Area 

Bedrock Description Aquifer Depth 

SOIL VEGETATION 

Common Soil Associations Historical Cover Types 

Soil Surface Texture Historical Cover Type Description 

Soil General Texture 

Soil Family Texture 

Soil Drainage 

Soil Parent Material 

General Soil Description 

Figure 2.—Primary data content for the WI LTA Database
26 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

 Existing

LTA Data

Determine Areas

 to be digitized

Recieve New

Line Work

Digitize and Attribute

Polygons

Recieve Changes

 for existing data

Correct Polygons

and Polygon

Attributes

Append

Extents &

Edgematch

Create/Update LTA Draft Map

Determine Errors in

Database and Draft

 Map

REGIONS

Finial LTA Draft Map Determine Additional Data for LTA

Database

WI LTA

Project Team

LTA ArcView Project

Yes No

Create/Update

LTA Database

Climate

Veg

Habitats

Geology

Soils

Hydro

Spatial Database Processing

Map Products

Figure 3.—Process used by WI LTA Project Team for LTA delineation

LTA’s in Wisconsin. The purpose for data collection was

to provide a technical description of the NHFEU,

specifically the Landtype Association. This included

descriptions of the line, polygon, region features and a

set of related data tables. The WI LTA Database includes

all digital spatial features and related tabular

information. A subset of the WI LTA Database is the LTA

Region Data Model. This is an ArcInfo data model

utilizing a separate REGION for polygon features in

each level the NHFEU. A general description of the data

used for production of the database can be found in

Figure 2.

The WI LTA Region Data Model is a spatial

representation of the NHFEU including such features as

the Province, Section, Subsection, Landtype Association

and Landtype. This data set depicts the NHFEU in

representing LTA’s at 1:250,000 scale. The WI LTA

Database is designed with the intent of making linkages

to other statewide databases possible, as well as

maintaining the integrity of the 1:250,000 scale data.

The WI LTA Database is now complete state-wide. Total

expenditures for a robust state wide dataset to date has

been about $100,000. The 2001 revision includes

supplementary ecological classifications systems used by

WDNR and other agencies.

Data distribution for Wisconsin LTA information is

provided in a CD-ROM format entitled LTA Disk 2.1.

This CD has a similar look to the USDA Forest Service

“Ecological Units of the Eastern United States - First

Approximation”. The CD contains all GIS information

and FGDC compliant metadata for the WI LTA Database

and WI LTA Region Data Model. From this CD

individuals are able to query, analyze, print maps and

reports of the first approximation of LTA’s for Wisconsin

(Figure 4.)
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 27

Figure 4.—2001 LTA Report from LTA Disk 2.1
28 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Summary

The WI LTA Project Team will continue to refine the

“landscape” scale Landtype Association (LTA) of the

NHFEU. Future progress will include capture of recent

available GIS dataset such as soils and current vegetation.

GIS applications and data training opportunities will be

made available to field staff to include integration of the

Federal Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data and other ECS

models. This development and improvement of

information will supply a spatially oriented, ecological

classification tool that can be use by a variety of

landowners, land managers and resource interest groups

in Wisconsin and the Lake States

Acknowledgment

We thank all the participating individuals, agencies and

partners for providing their time to accomplish the

creation of the WI LTA Database through membership

on the WI LTA Project Team. The development of the WI

LTA Database was dependent upon their cooperation

and is the foundation for the continued success for

future development, application and validation of LTA’s

in the state of Wisconsin.

Literature Cited

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregion of the

United States. Miscellaneous Publication 1391.

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 107 p.

McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological

Subregions of the United States: Section

Descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5.

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 267 p.

Kotar, J., J.A. Kovach, and C.T. Locey. 1988. Field guide

to forest habitat types of northern Wisconsin.

Department of Forestry, University of WisconsinMadison, and Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources. Madison, WI. 221 p.

Kotar J., and T.L. Burger. 1996. A guide to forest

communities and habitat types of central and

southern Wisconsin. Department of Forestry,

University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI. 382 p.

Steele, T.W., D. R. Field, J. E. Baughman, M. V.

Beaufeaux, R. Eckstein, K. R. Sloan, and D. Zastrow.

1994. Paper presented at the Ecosystem Management

Strategies for the Lake Superior Region Conference,

May 16-18, Duluth, MN. History Survey. Madison,

WI. 4 sheets.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 29

Abstract

An ecosystem survey at the landscape scale was

completed on 22 million acres of National Forest System

lands in Arizona and New Mexico. Ecological

components consisting of climate, soil, vegetation and

water were simultaneously integrated through direct

gradient analysis to develop a continuum of terrestrial

and aquatic ecosystems. Soils were classified to subgroup

categories of Soil Taxonomy and Potential Natural

Communities were classified to the series (alliance)

vegetation taxonomic category. Fluvial and lacusterine

water bodies were categorized with respect to

permanence, continuity and trophic states. A regional

climate classification based upon seasonal distribution

of precipitation and winter temperatures was used to

differentiate weather regimes between the two states.

Compensating factors of landform, slope and aspect

that determine the spatial arranges of aquatic and

terrestrial ecosystems were introduced during the

mapping process. Mapping was completed on 1:250,000

scale USGS quadrangle sheets. Field documentation was

completed to verify map components, accuracy of

delineations and present conditions. State and transition

of ecological systems were described through primary

climax and disclimax classes. Terrestrial ecosystems

consist of contiguous polygons and aquatic ecosystems

were represented by line segments (stream) and

polygons (lakes). Interpretations of site productivity, soil

condition, erosion hazard and vegetation potential are

presented. Multi-forest analysis to address distribution

and extent of plant communities, disturbance regimes,

productivity potentials and suitability for revegetation

are used to prioritize treatment areas in the southwestern

region.

General Ecosystem Survey of National Forest System Lands in Arizona and New Mexico

Wayne Robbie1 and Shirley Baros2

1

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM,

87102 (wrobbie@fs.fed.us)

2

University of New Mexico, Earth Data Analysis Center,

Albuquerque, NM, 87131
30 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

A GIS approach to delineate LTAs for the Hoosier

National Forest (HNF) area is used. In our model we

assume that the spatial distribution pattern of ELTs

provide a theoretical foundation for LTA unit

delineation. On the basis of ELT computer classification

two approaches were applied: automated (moving

window with area 4-12 km2), and semi-automated

(visual detection of areas of different ELT patterns

followed by multivariate statistical analysis and

clustering). The moving window method failed to

provide a reasonable spatial clustering of analyzed areas

into LTAs. Visual analysis resulted in 5 LTAs that were

delineated using natural landscape features such as rivers

or watershed boundaries (ridges) on the basis of spatial

pattern differences between ELTs (mean ELT size and

mean proximity index). In addition, we incorporated

into the delineation process a soil parent material layer

that greatly affects site conditions and vegetation of the

area.

Introduction

An Ecological Land Type Association was defined in the

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units as

a “groupings of Landtypes or subdivisions of Subsections

based upon similarities in geomorphic process, geologic

rock types, soil complexes, stream types, lakes, wetlands,

and series, subseries, or plant association vegetation

communities” (ECOMAP 1993). This ecological unit

represents the landscape scale in the hierarchy and its

mapping can help in forest or area wide planning and

analysis of the watershed. LTA’s reflect distinct landscape

processes and ecological capabilities as reflected in

patterns of ecological landtypes and ecological landtype

phases.

LTA’s will effectively define the landscapes associated

within the Hoosier National Forest and surrounding area

and help to define management areas. Management

areas on the Hoosier National Forest are defined as an

area with similar management objectives and a common

management prescription.

Generally two approaches can be used to define LTAs:

automated versus expert based classification. The first

method is rarely used in the field of ecological unit

mapping. A national map of vegetation ecoregions

produced by Hargrove and Luxmoore (1998) is a good

example of such an approach. The authors used a 1 km

grid and nine variables that are important for vegetative

growth and listed several advantages of the multivariate

geographic clustering technique they used:

• Clustering is data-driven and empirical producing the

same result every time, given the same data and a request

for the same number of clusters, in contrast to regions

drawn by expert opinion.

• Users control what data are included for consideration

in the clustering process based on what is appropriate for

their purposes.

• Finally, any eclectic combination of continuous

variables can be combined to form homogeneous areas

on a map.

On the other hand, expert-based classification can

consider information that can not be incorporated into

the computer-based classification due to the absence of

GIS layers or statistically proven relations that can affect

classification. For instance, the history of land use, stand

composition and/or forest management practices could

be included. In our work we tested both methods in

attempt to delineate LTA units within the Pleasant Run

unit of Hoosier National Forest.

Methods

The study area is located in south-central Indiana and

underlain by Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock that

becomes deeper from east to west (Gutshick 1966).

Analysis was performed within the Pleasant Run unit of

Hoosier National Forest that is situated within the

Brown County Hills Subsection according to Bailey’s

(1994) Ecoregion classification (Figure 1). This unit

encompasses 412,507 ha of land. Parent material of this

area is early to middle Mississippian age siltstones and

shales of the Borden group (Schneider 1966). Prevailing

soils of this area are acid silt loams formed from

weathered bedrock and a small amount of loess

(Homoya et al. 1984). Typical relief consists of uplands

dissected by creeks, steep slopes and narrow hollows.

Van Kley (1992, 1995) developed an ecological

classification for the forest that includes five ELTs and

twelve ELTPs for the Pleasant Run unit. Important

factors affecting the classification were landscape

LTA Delineation for the Hoosier National Forest: Criteria and Methods

Andrey V. Zhalnin1, George R. Parker 2, Guofan Shao3 and Patrick Merchant4

1PhD student, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

(azahlnin@fnr.purdue.edu)

2Professor of Forest Ecology, Purdue University, West Lafayette,

IN

3

Assistant Professor, Remote Sensing and GIS, Purdue

University, West Lafayette, IN

4Soil Scientist, Hoosier National Forest, Bedford, IN
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 31

physiography and soil parental material at ELT level and

physiography, horizon A depth and vegetation at ELTP

level. ELTs for the HNF have been mapped using GIS

tools (Shao 1999). Since the ELT map already reflects

information on landscape physiography and soils, we

accepted this map as a basis for delineation of larger

units (LTAs) as a first approximation. A soil data layer

was added due to the effect of limestone soils on

vegetation pattern within the area.

Moving Window Analysis

We used Arc View GIS software for a Moving window

analysis performed in several stages. starting from an

arbitrary point in the left top corner of the map, the

study area was first divided into uniform quadrats with

an area of 4 or 16 km2

 using Avenue script for Arc View

(Rho 2000), (Figure 2). Quadrat size was selected based

on the LTA size specified in the National Hierarchical

Framework of Ecological Units (Cleland et al. 1997). The

guideline was to maintain an area large enough to

capture spatial differences among quadrats and small

enough to fit into landscape feature boundaries (rivers,

ridges, etc.). All edge quadrats that contained less than

50% of area covered by the ELT map were excluded from

analysis to eliminate distortions. The next step was to

analyze each quadrat with the Patch Analyst extension

for ArcView (Rempel et al. 2000) for differences in ELT

spatial pattern. From a variety of spatial metrics

suggested by the program, mean patch size (MPS) and

mean proximity index (MPI)were selected as metrics that

most reflected spatial differences between quadrats. Each

metric was calculated for each ELT separately. Next we

used multivariate statistic analysis (Principal component

analysis) to extract quadrat clusters. The last step was to

map clusters and visually analyze them as reasonable

units.

Selected Area Analysis

In this type of analysis we assumed that it was most

appropriate to consider the natural features of the

landscape as LTA boundaries. Therefore at the first stage

we visually analyzed the ELT map and defined areas

Figure 1.—A map of study area.

Dark gray – four Hoosier National

Forest units. Bailey’s ecological

region sections are shown in the

background.

Figure 2.—Northern unit of

Hoosier National Forest and grid

resulted from area division into 4

(left) and 16 (right) km2

.
32 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

different in ELT spatial pattern and natural landscape

boundaries (streams or ridges) to establish boundaries

of pseudo LTAs (Figure 3). Areas covered with large

water bodies were not included. The next step was to

analyze each pseudo LTA with the Patch Analyst

extension of Arc View (Rempel 2000) for differences in

ELT spatial distribution. As in the moving window

analysis we chose mean patch size (MPS) and mean

proximity index (MPI). Again, each metric was

calculated for each ELT separately. Then we used

multivariate statistic analysis (Principal component

analysis and Detrended Correspondence Analysis) as

well as cluster analysis (Minimum variance, squared

Euclidean criteria) to group pseudo LTA into final LTA

units. In addition, we used a soil map to determine

limestone areas and incorporate that information into

the LTA classification.

Results

Moving Window Analysis

The two kilometer grid ultimately resulted in 109 cells to

be analyzed for spatial differences. Results of

multivariate and cluster analysis of the spatial metric

(MPS) are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Both PCA and DCA

did not reveal a pattern distinctive enough to form

groups of similar spatial characteristics. Quadrats were

either uniformly spread along the metric gradient or

were clumped together. Results of cluster analysis are

presented in Figure 5 as a map of quadrats where each of

four clusters has a different pattern. Pseudo LTA

boundaries are also shown to give an idea of areas

naturally outlined by landscape features.

The four kilometer grid resulted in 34 cells. Results of

multivariate and cluster analysis of this spatial metric

(MPS) are shown in Figures 6 and 7. Again quadrats

plotted along variability gradients did not reveal a

distinctive pattern of grouping either on the PCA or the

DCA graph. Results of cluster analysis are presented on

figure 7. Quadrats did show spatial differences but

results are hard to interpret and fit into the landscape.

Selected Area Analysis

In the first stage we defined 20 sub units (Pseudo LTAs,

Figure 3). Spatial metrics for each subunit’s ELT are

presented in tables 1-2. We performed the same

standard multivariate statistical procedure as in moving

window analysis. Subunits 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 17 and 18

were not included in multivariate analysis. Units 5 and 6

were added to unit 7, since they are small parts of larger

units that lie outside the Hoosier National Forest

boundary, and visually resemble unit 7. Unit 8 has a

Figure 3.—Pseudo LTA unit boundaries for the Hoosier

National Forest area. Numbers refer to temporary unit

labels in analysis.

Figure 4.—Results of PCA (left) and DCA (right) statistics for 4 km2 plots. Axes

represent mean patch (ELT) size variability of 5 ELTs among quadrats.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 33

Figure 5.—Mapped analysis quadrats. Each

cluster is marked with a different pattern. Lines

represent subunit areas from Selected Area

analysis and show natural boundaries of

landscape features (rivers, ridges, watershed

boundaries).

Figure 6.—Results of PCA (left) and DCA (right) statistics for 16 km2 plots. Axes

represent mean patch (ELT) size variability of 5 ELTs among quadrats.

Figure 7.—Mapped analysis quadrats. Each cluster

is marked with a different pattern. Lines represent

subunit areas from Selected Area analysis and

show natural boundaries of landscape features

(rivers, ridges, watershed boundaries).
34 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Table 1.—Results of mean patch size (hectares) analysis for subunit’s ELTs

Subunit

number ELT

Dry ridge Dry slope Mesic ridge Mesic Slope Bottom-land

1 0.61 4.44 1.32 3.36 15.35

2 2.03 3.54 12.38 3.18 1.35

3 2.67 6.72 21.84 6.13 3.89

4 1.85 7.55 — 4.72 15.27

5 1.5 4.22 2.72 2.49 58.38

6 4.88 6.92 3.89 2.5 8.47

7 2.07 4.96 31.49 4.27 10.96

8 — 1.17 223.46 1.32 16.07

9 1.62 1.11 13.41 2.49 9.69

10 1.51 1.94 24.9 2.42 9.3

11 1.76 6.36 11.44 4.34 29.56

12 2.57 2.43 11.4 4.37 14.44

13 2.23 2.89 21.24 3.37 11.99

14 2.3 3.49 21.25 2.8 7.03

15 2.68 3.99 13.12 2.33 3.29

16 3.92 5.52 13.22 3.64 3.45

17 3.97 3.49 24.44 4.59 5.83

18 3.42 2.53 18.97 8.68 2.6

19 1.02 5.85 39.83 8.03 3.18

20 2.35 6.06 18.31 3.59 1.42

Table 2.—Results of mean proximity index analysis for subunit’s ELTs

Subunit

number ELT

Dry ridge Dry slope Mesic ridge Mesic Slope Bottom-land

1 1.79 528.34 — 194.48 1280.41

2 33.54 90.65 15.24 391.20 118.23

3 32.12 384.21 31.36 209.48 131.37

4 18.94 619.71 0.00 396.80 2847.51

5 42.35 182.46 7.08 27.23 5845.78

6 92.06 759.42 35.01 109.25 77.89

7 106.91 554.97 354.94 428.45 3875.24

8 — 20.66 1315.86 26.00 2927.86

9 51.40 32.18 711.11 179.92 709.37

10 41.03 124.27 1125.99 203.83 713.18

11 26.37 379.64 5.04 392.87 1063.59

12 111.15 107.47 69.07 496.92 1689.90

13 51.08 153.74 93.43 319.80 1698.94

14 45.05 222.70 909.70 106.79 799.95

15 148.85 292.40 83.78 136.15 389.22

16 395.38 425.38 22.47 201.75 217.22

17 297.92 167.52 75.05 384.06 1751.34

18 310.66 124.77 2734.79 1427.38 318.78

19 9.85 173.23 5.40 774.10 216.14

20 81.52 476.34 132.12 190.73 114.87
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 35

Figure 8.—Results of PCA (left) and DCA (right) statistics for LTA subunits. Axes represent

mean patch (ELT) size variability of 5 ELTs among subunits.

Figure 9.—Results of PCA (left) and DCA (right) statistics for LTAs. Axes represent mean

proximity index variability of 5 ELTs among LTAs.

Figure 10.—Map of LTAs

delineated for the Pleasant Run

Unit of the Hoosier National

ForesMAPPING.
36 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Table 3.—Selected spatial metrics for the five LTA units within the area of the

Northern unit of Hoosier National Forest

LTA ELT

12 4 5 6

Class area, acres

1 4119 14699 6166 13443 11348

2 1506 8659 1730 7741 5814

3 - 286 3309 322 947

4 1776 7151 1354 6496 4506

5 500 1858 1172 2148 1023

Mean Patch Size*, acres

1 5.71 8.84 51.38 8.50 27.02

2 4.64 15.61 38.43 12.30 23.34

3 0.00 2.91 551.43 3.51 36.41

4 7.41 9.83 45.13 8.65 16.75

5 8.35 7.43 58.59 14.72 11.88

Patch Size Standard Deviation

1 5.63 6.87 32.29 6.53 71.55

2 3.53 10.90 22.96 10.47 59.54

3 - 1.25 369.42 1.98 47.97

4 9.00 6.23 40.80 6.14 48.77

5 6.45 5.03 59.22 15.50 33.07

Edge Density

1 47.43 104.20 29.44 102.65 53.28

2 34.00 91.88 14.69 91.07 50.88

3 - 34.74 68.47 33.17 49.81

4 47.68 109.81 13.17 109.52 49.21

5 40.04 96.14 29.37 102.69 36.52

Interspersion Juxtaposition Index

1 56.40 91.36 76.09 91.46 71.86

2 57.63 81.87 78.19 81.98 68.66

3 80.07 99.93 80.36 94.28

4 55.91 80.09 81.68 79.51 62.68

5 52.67 86.81 56.04 89.17 52.82

Mean Proximity Index

1 80.70 314.15 1027.06 312.93 2986.89

2 26.38 384.50 12.84 401.21 956.56

3 - 23.54 1423.00 22.56 556.11

4 152.82 279.44 128.27 293.16 1093.27

5 258.43 155.70 2894.44 820.82 746.87
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 37

unique pattern of ELT spatial distribution. Units 13 and

16, as well as 17 and 18 represent two groups of LTA that

have a distinctive difference from the rest of the area due

to the pattern of limestone soil occurrence that forms

two LTAs. MPS and MPI metrics for each subunit are

shown in tables 1 and 2.

The ultimate reasonable number of LTAs for the

Northern unit of Hoosier National Forest is 4 – 5 units.

Three of the subunits formed distinctive LTAs and did

not need multivariate analysis. Therefore the quota for

the remaining subunits is two LTAs. Multivariate analysis

of MPS indicated that in general subunit variability

forms two clusters: first – pseudo LTAs 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14,

15; second - pseudo LTAs 3, 4, 7, 11, 19, 20 (PCA

statistics). Subunit 19 is “outlier” on the graph, but still

can be considered closer to group 2 than to group 1

(Figure 8, left). Groups from DCA were not that

distinctive: group 1 - 2, 3, 11, 12, 15, 20; group 2 - 7, 9,

10, 14, 19. Subunits 1 and 4 were not closely associated

with the rest of the subunits (Figure 8, right). Results of

multivariate analysis of MPI show more than two

clusters: group 1 - 2, 12, 19; group 2 - 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 15,

20; group 39, 10, 14 (DCA statistics, Figure 9, right). PCA

statistics suggests two clusters: group 1 - 9, 10, 14; group

2 - 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 20. Subunits 15, 19, 2 and 12 are

dispersed throughout the scatter plot (Figure 9, left).

Clustering showed similar results and will not be

discussed here. These analysis were used to determine

boundaries for two additional LTAs.

On the basis of visual and statistical analysis we ended

up with five LTA units (Figure 10). For each unit spatial

metrics were calculated again and the selected metrics

that best reflect spatial variability are presented in table

3. Spatial metrics definitions (Elkie et al. 1999) are as

follows:

• Class Area - sum of areas of all patches belonging to a

given class.

• Edge density - amount of edge relative to the landscape

area.

• Mean Shape Index - shape complexity. MSI = 1 when

all patches are circular (polygons) or square (grids). MSI

= sum of each patches perimeter divided by the square

root of patch area (hectares) for each class.

• Mean Proximity Index - measure of the degree of

isolation and fragmentation. Mean proximity index

(MPI) is a measure of the degree of isolation and

fragmentation of a patch. MPI uses the nearest neighbor

statistic.

• Interspersion Juxtaposition Index - measure of patch

adjacency. Approaches zero when the distribution of

unique patch adjacencies becomes uneven and 100 when

all patch types are equally adjacent.

Discussion

Results from the moving window analysis revealed a

peculiar contradiction between window size that is

necessary to capture spatial variability among ELTs and

output resolution that would reasonably fit landscape

features and represent ecological units at the LTA scale.

Grid cells of 16 square kilometers captured differences in

ELT spatial pattern quite well, but the cell boundaries

did not agree with the landscape pre-determined

boundaries of different LTAs. Smaller cells provided a

better fit but were less precise in estimating spatial

characteristics of ELTs. Multivariate analysis performed in

order to group grid cells into meaningful clusters

supported this idea. At the finer resolution spatial

metrics of the ELTs were poorly grouped using both PCA

and DCA statistics. Larger cells (16 km2

) showed better

grouping that were hard to interpret. Generally this

approach failed to be useful in reaching the ultimate

goal - to delineate LTA boundaries due to abovementioned contradiction.

The second approach was more tedious in terms of

deciding where to draw a boundary as well as drawing

or rearranging existing GIS layers (e.g. polyline river

themes in Arc View). However, primary units were well

matched to landscape topography with a mean area 21.9,

minimum area 3.9 and maximum 73.6 km2

 and

standard deviation 17.3 km2

. Multivariate statistics

confirmed this approach by displaying better groupings

that improved combining subunits. Final LTA units have

the following statistics (spatially separated areas were

considered) : mean area 39.78 km2, maximum 103.65,

minimum 5.80 and standard deviation of the area 31.54

km2. Numerical values for the LTA areas are within the

range for the landtype associations suggested by Cleland

et al. (1997) within ECOMAP Framework (~ 4-40 km2

).

Conclusions

• The ELT unit map is a good starting point and

conceptual basis for LTA mapping, which can be

extended and modified with additional information

later

• Human based delineation of analysis units performed

better versus automated, moving window delineation at

the spatial scale of ELT and LTA units

• Mean Proximity Index and Mean Patch Size metrics

best reflected spatial differences among LTA analysis

units

This is the first approximation of LTAs and the project is

on-going. Additional GIS data on forest stand

composition, soils , ground vegetation and

hydrogeological settings for the area will be

incorporated to describe LTAs more precisely and

provide implications for management practices.
38 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Subunits that were generated as an intermediate product

can be rearranged into new LTAs according to updated

information. Names of LTAs will be given after field

sampling and based on prevailing vegetation,

physiography and soils.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the USDA Forest Service.

Literature cited

Bailey, R.G., P.E. Avers, T. King, and W.H. McNab, eds.

1994. Ecoregions and subregions of the United

States (map). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

1: 7,500,000.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the

United States. Miscellaneous Publication 1391,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service. 108 p.

Cleland, D. T., P.E. Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G.

Bailey, T. King, W.E. Russell. 1997. National

hierarchical framework of ecological units. In:

Boyse, M.S.; Haney, A. Ecosystem management

applications for sustainable Forest and wildlife

resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 181-

200.

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of

ecological units. Washington, DC: USDA Forest

Service. 20 p.

Elkie, P.C., R.S. Rempel, A.P. Carr. 1999. Patch Analyst

User’s Manual. Natural Resources Northwest Science

and Technology Thunder Bay, Ontario Technical

Manual TM-002: 16 p.

Gutshick, R.G. 1966. Bedrock geology. In: Lindsey, A.A.

ed. Natural Features of Indiana. Indiana Academy of

Science, Indianapolis: 1-20.

Hargrove, W. W. and R.J. Luxmoore. 1997. A spatial

Clustering Technique for the Identification of

Customizable Ecoregions. In: ESRI User Conference

Proceedings, July 8-11, 1997: http://www.esri.com/

library/userconf/proc97

Homoya, M.A., D.B. Abrwel, J.R. Aldrich, T.R. Post. 1984.

The natural regions of Indiana. Indiana Academy of

Sciences 94: 245-268.

Rho, P. 2000. Extract Grid by Moving Windows,

Avenue script for ArcView. http://gis.esri.com/

arcscripts.

Schneider, A.F. 1966. Physiography. In: Lindsey, A.A. ed.

Natural Features of Indiana. Indiana Academy of

Science, Indianapolis: 1-20.

Shao, G. 1999. Mapping Ecological Landtypes for the

Charles C. Deam Wilderness, the Hoosier National

Forest of Indiana. Web publication at http://

www.fnr.purdue.edu/shao/elt_web.html.

Van Kley, J.E. 1992. An ecological classification system

for the Central Hardwoods Region: The Hoosier

National Forest. Purdue University, Ph.D. Thesis: 436

p.

Van Kley, J.E., G.R. Parker, D.P. Franzmeier, and J.C.

Randolph. 1995. Field guide: Ecological

classification of the Hoosier National Forest and

surrounding areas of Indiana. USDA Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station: 76 p.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 39

Abstract

Land Type Associations (LTA) are map units which

aggregate landtypes into groups with similar ecological

potential. They are one level in the ECOMAP hierarchy

which maps ecological potential at different spatial

scales. Ecological “potential” is a vague term which has

made LTA mapping (and Ecomapping in general) a

difficult task. We defined ecological potential as a direct

function of physical landscape attributes which can be

explicitly mapped. LTAs were derived from digital soil

Land Type Associations using Digital Soil Maps and Landscape Topography

David W. MacFarlane1, Craig Coutrous1, James P. Dunn1

1

The New Jersey Forest Service, 501 East State Street, PO Box

404, Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 (dmcfarln@crssa.rutgers.edu)

series maps provided by the Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil series map-units were

aggregated into broad-scale groupings which reflect the

similar parent material from which they were derived.

Parent material groups were aggregated to form LTAs,

which reflect both parent material and landscape

topography. The Lower Kittatinny Valley (LTA:221Ba2),

for example, is comprised of soil series derived from

alluvial, glacio-fluvial and limestone till which dominate

the lower portions of the Hudson-Kittatinny Valley.

Hence ecological potential at the LTA scale is defined

specifically by local or regional differences in soils and

topography. Ecological potential was related to botanical

inventories conducted within each LTA and aerial covertype mapping.

Abstract

The Northern Appalachian Ecological Land Unit (ELU)

dataset focuses on three primary factors that are

important to the distribution and abundance of

ecological communities in a region: elevation, geology,

and landform. These three primary factors were

modeled in a GIS and combined into distinct 90m grid

cell units that each represent the intersection of a given

landform feature occurring within a particular elevation

range on a given bedrock type. (e.g. low elevation

calcareous sideslope). The ELU dataset was then

combined with EPA MRLC 30m land cover data and

used to predict the general location and extent of

particular ecological communities based on the current

land cover (MRLC) and underlying diversity of abiotic

ecological features (ELU). One hundred and fifty

Northern Appalachian communities were linked to the

ELU+MRLC type classes based on probability model

factors, and the resultant community distribution maps

integrated into TNC science and stewardship planning

applications.

Predictive Community Mapping using Ecological Land Units in

the Northern Appalachian Ecoregion

Mark Anderson1, Charles Ferree1, Greg Kehm1, and Arlene Olivero1

1

The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Region, Boston, MA

02110 (manderson@tnc.org)
40 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

The Missouri Ecological Classification System (ECS)

Project is an inter-agency sponsored program to pursue

development of an ECS for the state of Missouri. Using

the USFS hierarchy we have completed development of

ecological units statewide through the landtype

association (LTA) level. We have also piloted the

development of ecological landtypes for the Current

River Hills subsection. LTAs have been used as a

framework for ecoregional inventory, assessment and

planning. Regional priorities were directed toward

public and private land management activities using

LTAs as a guide. Area level planning and management

has also used LTAs as a framework for breaking large

conservation areas into management units. ELTs have

been used to direct land management strategies within

LTAs.

Development and Applications of Landtype Associations in Missouri

Tim A. Nigh1 and Walter Schroeder2

1

Ecologist, Missouri Department of Conservation,

PO Box 180 Jefferson City, Mo. 65102-0180

(night@mail.conservation.state.mo.us)

2Associate Professor, Department of Geography,

University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 65211
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 41

II. PLANNING, MANAGEMENT,

AND RESEARCH APPLICATIONS
42 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Policy Implications of Using Landtype Associations

Abstract

The General Accounting Office (GAO), is an

independent, non-partisan agency of the Congress

charged with reporting to committee chairmen and

others on the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of

federal programs. In recent years GAO has reported and

testified before committees on problems with

accountability of federal land and resource management

agencies including, notably, the USDA Forest Service. A

central focus of GAO’s work has been performance

accountability – or agency accountability for making

progress in accomplishing agency objectives – especially

in relation to a framework of accountability GAO has

Chester Joy1

1U.S. General Accounting Office, Natural Resources and

Environment Team, Washington, D.C.

developed related to implementation of the Government

Performance Results Act of 1993 and other statues

enacted in the last decade to foster accountability.

Central to achieving accountability is the development

of good performance measures. Useful measures of

agency performance related to achieving desired or

current conditions of ecological units such as LTAs.

GAO’s recent and ongoing work on multiagency efforts

to address the problem of increasing threats from

catastrophic wildfires raise questions about how LTAs

can best be used to formulate useful agency performance

measures, how well ecological unit delineation and

condition characterization are being integrated into

agency management decision-making, and how the

research enterprise associated with them can best be

applied in a timely fashion. Conference participants are

encouraged to share with GAO their insights into how

these questions can best be assessed.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 43

Abstract

We are conducting a review of the literature and

mapping natural disturbance regimes across Province

212 in the Lake States using Subsections and Landtype

Associations as initial polygons of investigation. The

objective is to map landscape ecosystems at multiple

scales based on their susceptibility to, hence potential for

disturbance through wildfires. We are utilizing a number

of sources of spatial and plot-level information. This

includes General Land Office records of past fire

locations and extent, maps of pre-European settlement

vegetation, weather station monthly and daily data,

surficial geology maps, remotely-sensed vegetation, FIA

data on forest conditions, digital elevation models, and

fine-scale NRCS soil surveys. We are using a hierarchical

approach to mapping and interpreting landscape

ecosystems. This approach enables assessment of

interactions and spatial relationships (adjacency and

nesting) among fire-dependent and fire-intolerant forest

ecosystems, and their associated disturbance regimes.

Currently we have identified five forest-replacement and

two community maintenance (ground fire) classes based

on the literature, and are attributing polygons into

combinations of these classes. These classes range from

very short (30 –75 years) to very long (>1,000 years) fire

return intervals. Exploratory analyses of General Land

Office data are underway within fire-prone ecosystems to

determine if historical patch size and age, hence fire

extent and return intervals, can be estimated based on

recorded tree diameters and modern data on tree specie’s

diameter-age relationships. Density, extent, and possibly

return intervals of historical and modern fires will be

described for disturbance polygons. Final maps,

interpreted in conjunction with information on current

ecological and social conditions, will be useful for

prioritizing fuel and fire management needs, and

assisting land managers in developing plans and

prescriptions for maintaining or restoring fire-adapted

ecosystems.

Use of Ecological Units in Mapping

Natural Disturbance Regimes in the Lake States

David Cleland1, David Shadis2, Donald.I. Dickman3, James K. Jordan4, Richard Watson5

1

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station,

Rhinelander, WI (dcleland@fs.fed.us)

2

USDA Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest, Cass Lake,

MN

3

Michigan State University, Department of Forestry, East

Lansing, MI

4

Consultant, Ironwood, MI

5

Consultant, Cadillac, MI
44 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

With the advent of an ECS in Minnesota and it’s recent

mapping completion to the LTA level, the Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife is

in the process of assessing a direction for the utilization

of all ECS levels into the assessment, planning,

management and monitoring of wildlife populations

and habitats. Examples to be demonstrated are:

1) Minnesota Wildlife Resource Assessment Project

(MnWRAP) - Project will define species range and

habitat relationships to the ECS subsection and LTA level

and act as a core wildlife GIS/database reference source

for Minnesota. Various uses of this application will be

demonstrated;

2) Subsection Forest Resource Management Planning

(SFRMP) - State timber management planning and other

related forest resources are now be planned on a ECS

subsection basis, however, not all wildlife specific needs

may be addressed at this level. Various wildlife needs

that can be addressed at the subsection and/or LTA level

will be demonstrated; and,

3) Open Landscape Assessment in Northern Minnesota

for Management of Brushland Wildlife Habitat. This

project will demonstrate how the LTA level has been used

to refine and document the distribution of open/

brushland landscapes in Minnesota and act as a tool for

the management of this wildlife resource.

Use of LTAs as a Tool for Wildlife Management in Minnesota

Gary Drotts1 and Jodie Provost1

1Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of

Wildlife, Brainerd, MN 56401

(gary.drotts@state.mn.dnr.us)
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 45

Abstract

We use Landtype Associations (LTAs) to illustrate the

paleohistory, historic distribution, and modern

occurrence of white pine (Pinus strobus) in Minnesota.

These topics are fundamental to restoring forest

communities with white pine. Pollen diagrams from

across the state were used to reconstruct the paleohistory

of white pine in Minnesota. This is a story of invasion

and westward migration during the middle and late

Holocene, beginning about 7,000 years ago. We defined

the set of LTAs where white pine was at least three

percent of the Public Land Survey bearing trees as the

historic habitat for white pine. Time-series maps

The History of White Pine in Minnesota and the use of Landtype Associations

for Restoring White Pine Forests.

Dan Hanson1 and John C. Almendinger1

1

Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, MN

55744 (dan.hanson@dnr.state.mn.us)

illustrate the migration as these LTAs were invaded by

potential seed zones for white pine. Maps of white pine

bearing trees show that it did not occur uniformly across

this region in the mid-1800s. Rather, there are clear

centers of high abundance associated with particular

LTAs. For each LTA, we calculated the relative abundance

of white pine as a bearing tree and its relative abundance

in a recent inventory (1990 Forest Inventory and

Analysis). These calculations illustrate where white pine

was formerly abundant and where it has suffered its

greatest population declines. Bearing tree records were

used in conjunction with a vegetation classification to

better understand forest communities with white pine.

The bearing tree records provide an understanding of

how white pine associated with other trees on different

LTAs. The classification provides a means of grouping

LTAs into management units with similar white pine

communities, potential for restoration, and ecological

constraints.
46 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

Functional models of land units were used to classify

land units of the central region of the Niagara

Escarpment, Ontario, Canada. The Escarpment Slope

Model (ESM) combines geomorphic processes with

forest dynamics in Escarpment slope systems. This

classification is comparable to the ‘land types’ of the U.S.

system. The Escarpment Landscape Model (ELM)

expands the scope of the ESM to consider geomorphic

processes, forest dynamics and wildlife populations at

the scale of the landscape. The ELM identifies land units

at the scale of the ‘land type association’. This functional

approach to land classification is presented as an

improvement on the current Ontario approach, the

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) program.

Introduction

To be of value to environmental management beyond

merely a characterization of land information, the

development of mappable units at the level of land type

association requires the identification of integrated land

types based upon functional properties of such land

units. Land types in the Ontario system are currently

mapped as ecological land units. The Ontario approach

is examined in the context of both the United States land

type association procedures and the value of both of

these methodologies for effective land and landscape

management.

This examination will be centred on the development of

an integrated landscape model for the Niagara

Escarpment of Southern Ontario. This model identifies

land units similar in scale to the ‘land types’ and ‘land

type associations’ of the U.S. system. It is based on a

functional approach to land systems, that recognizes the

inter-relationships between landscape structural

characteristics, surficial processes, forest dynamics, and

bird associations; the latter being used to illustrate types

of wildlife relationships. Originally, the integration of

geomorphic processes and forest dynamics were

established in a slope system model (Moss and Milne

1998). More recently, the role that these biophysical

processes have on wildlife and habitat, such as the

spatio-temporal response of avian populations to these

processes, has been integrated into this model (Milne

and Bennett 1998). The value of this approach to

management illustrates the role of a ‘land type’, and

‘land type association’ base, to a range of management

and stewardship goals which could include other

wildlife groups as well as restoration, conservation and

preservation goals for ecosystem sustainability.

Background

In Ontario, there is a long history of land ‘typing’ (Wiken

and Ironside 1977). Such provincial procedures were

incorporated into the Canadian Federal ‘ecoregional’

proposals, which achieved considerable international

recognition in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The units in the

system proposed by the Canadian Committee on

Ecological Land Classification (CCELC) which

correspond most closely with the U.S. ‘land type’ and

‘land type association’ are, respectively, ecosite and

ecosection, i.e. units recognizable at a scale of 1:10,000

to 1:250,000. This version of ecological land

classification is based on an inventory of land system

component characteristics. More recently, the provincial

government of Ontario has developed the Ecological

Land Classification (ELC) program based on the work of

the CCELC (Lee and others 1998). Comparable land

units in this system are the ecosite and community series.

The ecosite is defined as a part of an ecosection having a

relatively uniform parent material, soil and hydrology,

and a chronosequence of vegetation (Environmental

Conservation Service Task Force 1981). This unit

represents the recurring plant species selected for and

maintained by varying ratios of different factors. The

community series, comparable to the ‘land type

association’, is based on the type of vegetation cover or

the plant form that characterizes the community (Lee

and others 1998).

However, the development of a functional land system

model and related mappable land units must go beyond

simply recording the characteristics. Ecosystems are

dynamic, and the vegetation cover, for example, reflects

this by directional change or flux in both structure and

biodiversity. A land unit classification should recognize

the underlying processes that drive these changes. Given

this, the resultant map will provide a better

understanding of the system and consequently enhance

the impact of management decisions (Moss 1983).

 Land Typing for Bioregional Planning:

A Perspective from the Niagara Escarpment, Ontario

Robert J. Milne1, Michael R. Moss2 and Lorne P. Bennett2

1Lecturer, Department of Geography and Environmental

Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canda

(rmilne@wlu.ca)

2Dean of Faculty of Environmental Science and Assistant

Professor, respectively, Department of Geography,

University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 47

Niagara Escarpment

The Niagara Escarpment is the dominant landscape

feature of Southern Ontario, extending for over 700 km

from the U.S. border at the Niagara River to the head of

the Bruce Peninsula in eastern Lake Huron (Figure 1).

From the late 1950’s, concerned citizen groups began to

lobby for some form of preservation and controls on

land use planning and development on the Escarpment.

In 1973, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and

Development Act was passed, establishing the Niagara

Escarpment Commission (NEC) which published its

Proposed Plan for the Niagara Escarpment in 1979

(Niagara Escarpment Commission 1979). Subsequently,

in 1990, the Niagara Escarpment was designated a

World Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO (United Nations

Cultural and Scientific Organization). Later

modifications to the Plan reflect an evolving land use

management strategy that provides for the multi-use of

this landscape for activities including agriculture,

aggregate extraction, tourism, and natural heritage (Moss

and Milne 1998).

Biophysical Models of the

Niagara Escarpment

Over the past 25 years, the relationships between

geomorphic processes and forest dynamics have been

Figure 1.—Land Type Associations of the Niagara Escarpment, Ontario.
48 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

studied at a number of locations on the Niagara

Escarpment; for example, in the Niagara Peninsula

(Moss and Rosenfeld 1979), the Bruce Peninsula (Moss

and Nickling 1980), and Blue Mountain (Milne and

Moss 1988). From this work, a model of the Escarpment

slope system has been developed based on the

interactions of geomorphic processes and forest

dynamics (Moss and Milne 1998). More recently, the

slope system model has been expanded to include the

avifauna component of the land system (Milne and

Bennett 1998). In this paper, a model of the broader

Escarpment landscape is introduced that extends the

scope of the model beyond the main face of the

Escarpment to include the uplands and valleys in order

to provide a more thorough understanding of the

complete Escarpment system.

Escarpment Slope Model (ESM)

The Escarpment Slope Model (ESM) identifies the

interrelationships between physical and biological

processes. Specifically, the model identifies the response

of forest systems to the spatio-temporal complexity of

geomorphic processes operating across the Escarpment

slopes.

Geomorphic Processes

The lithology and structure of the Niagara Escarpment

determine a number of specific geomorphic processes

that currently modify surface form. These geomorphic

processes range in magnitude from low energy, small

magnitude events such as soil creep, sheetwash, and

rockfall to much larger disturbances initiated by large

debris slides and blockfalls. These larger disturbances

occur over an area of at least several hundred square

metres. As noted in Figure 2, the recurrence of these

events also varies. The low energy events occur on a

regular basis, whereas the more disruptive events occur

less frequently and more irregularly as a result of

variations in the magnitude of weathering and erosion

processes.

Three slope types have been identified that are a function

of landform and underlying lithology (Figure 3). Type A

slopes are dominated by steep cliffs of massive limestone

or dolostone; Type B are small cliffs, 2-3 metres in height

and characterized by crevasses of various widths; and

Type C are rounded slopes of glacial till or weathered

bedrock that have a predominantly shale base (Moss and

Milne 1998).

Forest Dynamics

The forest dynamics depend on the particular

combination of slope processes and landforms. When

disturbance is low, there is little disruption of the

vegetation cover. Forest dynamics are typically by single

tree replacement, creating gaps in the forest canopy that

quickly return to a closed forest (see Figure 2). Larger

gaps are formed when slumps and debris slides occur. In

these cases, the forest cycle includes the establishment of

a shrub cover which remains dominant if there is

continual or frequent disruption. Sometimes these scars

are sites of seeps where water enters the slope surface

materials, promoting further movement of slope

material and leading to a continuously exposed slope

and a stressful high moisture environment. Some scars

are eventually covered by a successional forest that

returns to the locally dominant or forest cover,

identified as the end phase in Figure 3. Larger debris

slides can be governed by similar processes but they are

more likely to exist as open scars for longer periods.

These are often complex micro-environments, subject to

Figure 2.—The Escarpment Slope Model (ESM): the relationships between

geomorphic processes and forest dynamics.

Geomorphic

Process

Slope

Type

Disturbance

Size (m 2)

Recurrance

Interval (yrs)

Forest Dynamics

Open Surface Open Forest Closed Forest

creep

sheetwash

rockfall

slump

debris

slide

blockfall

C

A

B

B

C

C

A

1-10

10-100

100+

<1

10-30

20-100

Gap End

Talus

Talus

Shrub

Shrub

Shrub

Shrub

Mixed

Mixed

End

End

Scar

Scar
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 49

moisture and temperature stresses that create many

combinations of revegetation, and include slide reinitiation (Milne and Moss 1988).

The processes described above are more common on

slope segments where the surface is primarily composed

of clay, weathered shale bedrock, or glacial till. When the

slope is located below limestone cliffs, as found with

Type A slopes, a deep talus base develops. This type of

slope is dominant in the northern sections of the

Escarpment on the Bruce Peninsula (see Figure 1). Most

faces have frequent rock falls in which small blocks of

weathered bedrock are delivered to the base of the cliff.

When rockfall is steady, a stressful slope environment is

created that limits vegetation establishment and growth.

These slopes usually have a dominant shrub layer,

sometimes interspersed with individual trees which

fluctuate in dominance depending on the frequency of

talus accumulation. In some cases, large blocks are

released from the face, initiating debris slides which

disturb all vegetation in their path. Eventually a

combination of shrubs and trees cover the large blocks

and talus on the blockslide scar, although this

successional process may be delayed depending on the

environmental stress and the amount of rooting material

covering the slope (Moss and Milne 1998).

Wildlife

The wildlife component of this model is useful in

developing a better understanding of the interaction

between wildlife and the biophysical processes and,

more broadly, how these ecosystems function. Despite

the volumes of research on wildlife management and

land use, there has been little attempt to integrate

wildlife ecology with research on biophysical processes.

There is a strong literature base on the relationship

between wildlife and vegetation, or more generally

Figure 3.—The three major slope types encountered along the

Niagara Escarpment.
50 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

habitat, and there has also been more limited

investigation of the relationship between vegetation and

geomorphic processes (e.g. Parker and Bendix 1996).

However, there has been little research on the

relationship between wildlife and biophysical processes

in slope systems.

Milne and Bennett (1998) found that the spatial pattern

of avian species within the Escarpment forests varied

depending on slope position and changes to forest

habitat. Forest-interior species were found over most of

the Escarpment. This would indicate that even though

there may be variations in habitats on the slopes, such as

small gaps created by landslides or stream valleys, forestinterior birds use the entire complex of forest habitats.

However, specific habitats may be created by slope

processes, for example, where there is talus accumulation

or slope failure. These habitats attract species that are

opportunistic, making use of temporary gaps in the

forest cover. The overall combination of different slope

units and systems creates irregular patterns in the forest

ecosystems of the slopes which is reflected in the patterns

of bird diversity. This suggests that these surficial, land

unit processes are responsible for maintaining a high

level of diversity of birds in forests on the Escarpment.

Escarpment Landscape Model (ELM)

The ESM described above can, however, be expanded to

provide a more comprehensive model of the Niagara

Escarpment landscape system. Where the ESM focused

on the inter-relationships between geomorphic processes

and forest dynamics on the different slope types, the

Escarpment Landscape Model (ELM) has a broader

spatial scope to include the bedrock plains and glacial

till plains above the face as well as the stream valleys and

lower plains within and below the scarp face. In some

cases, the Escarpment slope gently grades to flat or hilly

glaciated lower plains. In other areas, the base of the

slope is actively being shaped by fluvial processes as

streams cut deeply through glacial material and the

Escarpment bedrock. It is the complex of these land units

that make up the greater Escarpment landscape system. It

is also these combinations of units that compose the

larger land system units, the equivalent of the ‘land type

associations’ in the U.S. system.

Figure 4.—The Escarpment Landscape Model (ELM) and land types of the central region of the

Niagara Escarpment.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 51

The slope model provides an understanding of the slope

systems useful for management planning within the

natural and protected areas of the Niagara Escarpment.

However, land use decisions within the jurisdictional

area of the NEC plan will often have a greater impact on

the surrounding land types, the uplands and valleys

included in the ELM, where human access is often

greater.

ELM of the Central Escarpment

An Escarpment Landscape Model (ELM) for the central

Niagara Escarpment is illustrated in Figure 4. This area is

included in the Dufferin Hills and Caledon Hills land

type associations identified in Figure 1. The Dufferin

Hills unit of the Escarpment is dominated by Type C

slopes, with rounded caps and deep glacial deposits. In

contrast, the Caledon Hills unit has Type B slopes with

small cliffs and extensive bedrock plains. Based on the

relationships between wildlife, forest dynamics and

geomorphic processes, a set of nine land units,

comparable to ‘land types’, were identified that become

the building blocks for the land type associations.

 In this model, one of the distinguishing features of the

land types are the processes that initiate change or

control the structure of the system. One way to classify

these processes is based on the level of disturbance and

stress that the site experiences. At this scale of operation,

the sources of disturbance are expanded from the ESM to

include a differentiation between both human and

natural disturbances. For this model, these levels are

simply identified as high or low disturbance. High levels

of human disturbance include land clearance and forest

replacement. For example, there are a number of pine

and spruce plantations found along the Escarpment

which alter the vegetation structure of the forest from

deciduous to coniferous. There are also sites where the

land has been cleared for agriculture but has

subsequently been abandoned and is returning to a

natural forested state. In the earlier successional stages,

these areas are a combination of fields, orchards and

cedar stands. Areas in the uplands and valleys, rather

than the slopes, often exhibit higher levels of human

disturbance. By contrast, natural disturbances are greater

where there are geomorphic events of high magnitude,

more common on the Escarpment face.

Land Types

From the ELM, a set of ‘land units’ were established

based on the combination of the geomorphic

information, forest dynamics characteristics and bird

associations. These are mappable units and are similar in

scale to the ‘land type’ of the U.S. system (ECOMAP,

1993) or the ‘ecosite’ of the Ontario Ecological Land

Classification system (Lee and others 1998). Each of

these ‘land types’ cannot be described here, but a

comparison of the upland sites within the area will be

presented as an overview.

Figure 4 identifies four land units in the uplands

differentiated by the level of disturbance and lithology.

Where disturbance and stress are relatively low, two

types of land units exist. On the bedrock plain, a mixed

forest community, the Mixed Interior Plain land type,

develops with small pockets of wetland forest

interspersed with upland deciduous stands. Where there

is poor drainage, silver maple, Acer saccharinum, red

maple, Acer rubrum, and eastern white cedar, Thuja

occidentalis, dominate, while the forests on the welldrained sites are primarily sugar maple, Acer saccharum,

and American beech, Fagus grandifolia. The bird

populations are typical of deciduous forest interior

including Scarlet Tanager, Piranga olivacea, Wood

Thrush, Hylocichla mustelina, Ovenbird, Seiurus

aurocapillus, and Red-eyed Vireo, Vireo olivaceus. In

addition, the small wetlands attract other species such as

Northern Waterthrush, Seiurus noveboracensis, and

Wood Duck, Aix sponsa. This pattern of habitats

increases the overall species diversity for these areas. By

comparison, the well-drained sites in the undulating

glacial till areas, the Deciduous Interior Slope land type,

are dominated by deciduous trees primarily sugar maple

with white ash, Fraxinus americana, butternut, Juglans

cinerea, and American beech. These forests are very

similar to the slope forests that become established

when there is little disturbance. The bird associations are

also typical of deciduous forest interior as described

above but the wetland species are absent.

In some areas, there has been considerable human

disturbance, including both forest clearance and

plantation establishment. These are identified as the

Coniferous Interior Upland land type. Plantations are

subject to various levels of management determined by

the type of vegetation and the site dynamics. The

plantation forests are typically red pine, Pinus resinosa,

although there are some stands of white pine, Pinus

strobus, jack pine, Pinus banksiana and white spruce,

Picea glauca. The birds associated with these land types

are typical of coniferous interior forests, quite different

from the birds found within the native deciduous cover

the plantations have replaced. The dominant birds

include Yellow-rumped Warbler, Dendroica coronata,

Pine Warbler, Dendroica pinus, Chipping Sparrow,

Spizella passerina, and Red-breasted Nuthatch, Sitta

canadensis. When the plantations have had little

management or have been allowed to naturalize, a

deciduous understorey replaces the coniferous cover.

Where this occurs, other birds such as Mourning Warbler,

Oporornis philadelphia, enter the system.

Other sites are in the process of reforestation following

field abandonment. In general, these sites, the

Grassland/Thicket Upland land type, are dominated by

eastern white cedar, apple, Malus spp., hawthorn

Crataegus spp., and shrubs such as raspberry, Rubus spp.

The bird populations are dominated by field and thicket

species such as Northern Cardinal, Cardinalis cardinalis,

Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia, and Field Sparrow,
52 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Spizella pusilla. The recovery of the vegetation cover at

sites where human disturbance has been removed

suggests these forests will eventually return to the

dominant upland deciduous forest cover and

corresponding bird species. The time scale for recovery

will depend on the level of human disturbance.

Land Type Associations

Originally, the ESM provided the foundation for

establishing a functional landscape classification for the

Niagara Escarpment (Moss and Milne 1998). Land units

along the length of the Escarpment were delineated by

the slope type and related geomorphic processes. As a

result, a set of nine planning units was identified along

the entire length of the Niagara Escarpment (Figure 1).

These units are comparable in scale to the ‘land type

associations’.

The ELM has provided a more detailed understanding of

the ecosystem processes operating at the scale of the

‘land type’, and consequently, can be expanded to verify

the pattern of the ‘land type associations’ as described

here for the Dufferin Hills and Caledon Hills units. At

the ‘land type association’ scale, unit identification is

primarily a function of the dominant landforming

processes and resultant landforms. At the lower level of

the hierarchy, land types are more a function of local

processes such as disturbance or stress.

From the model, two land type associations emerge that

are primarily differentiated on the basis of landforming

processes. These two associations include: (1) the Caledon

Hills, where there is only a thin surface cover over a

limestone bedrock, which forms an irregular plain

extending back from the ridge/rim of the Escarpment and

2) the Dufferin Hills, where the glacial deposits form an

undulating surface characterized by steep slopes and small

valleys in glacial till. These two associations are composed

of combinations of the land types identified in the model,

but specific types will dominate within each association.

For instance, the Mixed Interior Plain and Mixed Edge Rim

land types are typical of the Dufferin Hills land type

association, and the Deciduous Interior Slope and Mixed

Riparian Interior are common in the Caledon Hills land

type association.

By comparison, the Ecological Land Classification (ELC)

system for Southern Ontario, at the scales of ‘land type’

and ‘land type association’, is primarily focussed on

vegetation pattern and variation in the structure of the

forest cover. With this focus, any variations in vegetation

dynamics and patterns in habitat will be overlooked.

This will have implications for land management. At the

scale of the ‘community series’ of the ELC, an area may

be mapped as deciduous forest cover. However, this will

overlook the dynamics of the biophysical processes that

are driving this system. For example, Figure 4 shows that

some forest cover in the slope and upland units is

deciduous, but forest gap replacement occurs more

frequently in the Deciduous Gap Slope unit than the

Deciduous Interior Slope. In response, bird populations

will have a greater diversity in the Deciduous Gap Slope

units where landslides are a component of the

biophysical system. Consequently, these units could play

a more critical role in foraging and nest sites for many

species than sites situated in the Deciduous Interior

Slope units. In turn, land and resource planning

decisions should take these differences into

consideration when planning land use on the

Escarpment. ‘Community series’ maps within the ELC

cannot identify such habitat processes. This clearly

restricts its usefulness as a land use planning tool.

Summary

The land unit equivalents to ‘land types’ and ‘land type

associations’ have been described for Ontario and

specifically, the Niagara Escarpment, Ontario. These

units were originally based on the Escarpment Slope

Model (ESM), a functional approach that combined

geomorphic processes with forest dynamics in

Escarpment slope systems. This model has been

expanded to include avian populations to illustrate the

role of wildlife in these systems. The scale of the model

was also increased to include adjacent land units above

and below the Escarpment face and slope. This work has

culminated in the Escarpment Landscape Model (ELM)

which combined scales of land types and land type

associations. The Ontario Ecological Land Classification

(ELC) program was compared to functional models that

were developed from research on the Niagara

Escarpment. Unlike the Ontario approach, which is

strongly based on vegetation cover, the Escarpment

Landscape Model builds from the biophysical processes

at the land type level to established land type

associations based on functionally integrated land types.

The ELM is comparable in scale to the planning units of

the Niagara Escarpment Plan and is applicable for

current land use planning issues in this region.

Literature Cited

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of

ecological units. Unpublished administrative paper.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service.

Environmental Conservation Service Task Force. 1981.

Ecological land survey guidelines for environmental

impact analysis. Ecological Land Classification Series,

No. 13. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada,

Ottawa.

Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P.

Uhlig, S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological land

classification for Southern Ontario: First

approximation and its application. Ontario Ministry
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 53

of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section,

Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field

Guide FG-02.

Milne, R. J. and L.P. Bennett. 1998. Seasonal patterns of

avian populations on the central Niagara

Escarpment. In: S. Carty, R. Murzin, S. Powell, D.

Ramsay, eds. Leading Edge ‘97 Conference

Proceedings; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,

Toronto: 115-121.

Milne, R. J. and M.R. Moss. 1988. Forest dynamics and

geomorphic processes of the Niagara Escarpment,

Collingwood. In: M.R. Moss, ed. Landscape Ecology

and Management; Polyscience Publications, Montreal.

129-140.

Moss, M.R. 1983. Landscape synthesis, landscape

processes and land classification - some theoretical

and methodological issues. GeoJournal. 7: 145-153.

Moss, M.R. and R.J. 1998. Biophysical processes and

bioregional planning: The Niagara Escarpment of

Southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 40: 251-268.

Moss, M.R. and W.G. Nickling. 1980. Geomorphological

and vegetation interaction and its relationship to

slope stability on the Niagara Escarpment, Bruce

Peninsula, Ontario. Geographie Physique et

Quaternaire. 24: 95-106.

Moss, M. R and C.L. Rosenfeld, C.L. 1978. Morphology,

mass wasting and forest ecology of a post glacial reentrant valley in the Niagara Escarpment.

Geografiska Annaler. 60A: 161-174.

Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC). 1979. The

Proposed Plan for the Niagara Escarpment

Commission. Niagara Escarpment Commission,

Georgetown.

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OMEE).

1994. The Niagara Escarpment Plan. Ontario

Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto.

Wiken, E.B. and G.R. Ironside. 1977. The development

of ecological (biophysical) land classification in

Canada. Landscape Planning. 4: 273-275.
54 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

The Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry is committed to

sustainable ecosystem management using a landscape

based approach on 2.1 million acres of state forest land.

The Bureau has relied on two major ecological

delineation methods to help define landscape level units

– ECOMAP and Landform Map. Landtype Associations

(LTA) will serve as the basic large-scale management unit

on state forest lands. Goals will be established for all

LTAs based on its “landscape context” considering its

biological character, the nature of all surrounding LTAs,

and its landform context.

Introduction

The state forest system of Pennsylvania — two million

acres of woodland in 48 of the Commonwealth’s 67

counties — comprises 12 percent of the forested area of

the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania’s state forests

represent one of the largest expanses of wildland in the

eastern United States making them a truly priceless

public asset.

Pennsylvania’s state forests have been under formal

management since 1955 with the development of State

Forest Management Plans that focused on timber and

water resources. These plans were followed by State Forest

Resources Plans (1970) that evolved from the initial plans,

to multiple-use plans, to detailed multiple-resource

management plans (1985) including water, soils,

minerals, fauna, flora, timber, and recreation. Our

current planning effort, a fourth generation of plans, has

evolved to an ecosystem management approach with a

focus on the sustainability of forests to provide an array

of values including the conservation of biological

diversity, recreational opportunities, and forest products.

Sustainability is a complex idea involving economic,

environmental and social factors. The term forest

sustainability implies the following elements: the

continued existence and use of forests to meet human

physical, economic, and social needs, the desire to

preserve the health of forest ecosystems in perpetuity,

and preserving options for future generations while

meeting the needs of the present.

Sustainability concerns the interactions between humans

and forests. Forests are defined as ecosystems dominated

by trees but with other components such as shrubs,

herbs, mammals, birds, insects, microscopic creatures,

soil, air, water, and the interactive processes that bind

them together. Forest managers must consider ecosystem

integrity constraints when prescribing actions to provide

forest uses and/or values. The Pennsylvania Bureau of

Forestry believes that sustainability can best be met by

using an ecosystem management approach to forest

management.

Sustainable ecosystem management rests on the

understanding of environmental geography.

Coordinated management at a landscape level is

essential for implementing ecosystem management.

Landscapes are mosaics of interacting communities or

ecosystems. Landscape patterns change in time and

space, reflecting both the impact of human activity upon

the system, as well as natural changes such as climate.

Ecosystem management, focusing on landscape context,

is the strategy that best ensures that the viability of forest

systems can be maintained while, concurrently,

providing benefits to society.

Although many agree that “landscape” level planning

and management are key components for managing

forest ecosystems, there is no widely accepted definition

of what constitutes a “landscape.” The Pennsylvania

Bureau of Forestry has relied on two major ecological

delineation efforts to help define and delineate

landscape level units in the Commonwealth and on state

forest lands. These efforts include the U.S. Forest Service’s

National Hierarchy of Ecological Units (ECOMAP)

(Bailey1995) and the Pennsylvania DCNR Bureau of

Topographic and Geologic Survey’s Landform Mapping

project (Sevon 1998).

Pennsylvania ECOMAP

The goal of ECOMAP for Pennsylvania is to provide a

geographic spatial framework, based on ecological

parameters, which can be widely used by agencies and

organizations throughout the Commonwealth.

Use of Landtype Associations and Landforms in Managing Pennsylvania’s

State Forests

Daniel A. Devlin1, Wayne L. Myers2, William D. Sevon3 and Donald M. Hoskins4

1

Chief, Resource Planning & Information, Pennsylvania

Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Bureau

of Forestry, Harrisburg, PA (ddevlin@dcnr.state.pa.us)

2Associate Professor, Environmental Resources Research

Institute & School of Forest Resources, Penn State

University, University Park, PA

3Geologist, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation &

Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic & Geologic

Survey, Harrisburg, PA

4

Retired Director, Pennsylvania Department of

Conservation & Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic

& Geologic Survey, Harrisburg, PA
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 55

Pennsylvania’s ECOMAP effort is directed toward

coordination and building consensus. It builds upon the

work of a consortium of agencies led by the U.S. Forest

Service, in which Pennsylvania has participated. An

eight-level hierarchy of ecological units forms the basis

for the framework. In essence, a standardized

classification and mapping system stratifies the earth

into progressively smaller areas of increasingly uniform

ecological potential. These units provide a means of

integrating research, inventory and monitoring

information from multiple disciplines and organizations

for assessments across political, administrative, and

jurisdictional boundaries.

The Pennsylvania ECOMAP consortium endorsed and

adapted the concepts of the U.S. Forest Service National

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (ECOMAP

1993). The Forest Service, in cooperation with the

Bureau of Forestry, brokered the delineation of ecological

units within the Commonwealth and across state

boundaries through the first five levels of the hierarchy

as follows: domain, division, province, section, and

subsection.

Section and subsection units for Pennsylvania were

configured for compatibility with the long-standing and

widely recognized physiographic provinces and sections

of Pennsylvania (Sevon 2000). The Bureau of Forestry

recognizes ECOMAP subsections within Pennsylvania as

“Ecological Regions.”

The Bureau of Forestry coordinated the delineation of

the lower levels of the hierarchy, ecological landtype

(ELT) and landtype association (LTA), on, and adjacent

to, state forest lands. These two levels, ELT and LTA, bear

directly on resource management and planning.

An ELT is a contiguous sector of terrain that exhibits

relatively uniform influence on the landscape context.

LTAs are complexes of complementary landscape

components (ELTs) that combine through spatial

adjacency. ELTs are instances of a specific landscape

setting, whereas LTAs are extensive areas (typically

thousands of acres) of terrain having composite

characteristics that are more or less distinctive in the

regional context. The LTA level is considered a landscape

level because it represents the scale at which natural

resource management plans and operations become

more specific.

Four major considerations have shaped the

conceptualization of both LTAs and ELTs for

Pennsylvania. The first of these is ecological specificity,

whereby the framework should be useful for segregating

differing ecological conditions. The second is

determination of landscape context, whereby the

framework should assist resource planners in

recognizing where and how allowances need to be made

for vicinity influences. The third is extendibility,

whereby the framework should be applicable to other

northeast states. The fourth is its complementary nature

with contemporary technologies of geographic

information systems (GIS). The intent is to capture

components of spatial information that are not easily

extracted from GIS databases in an automated manner,

so that combining the ECOMAP delineation with

common GIS layers should enhance the value of both.

The approach used was to first delineate ecological

landtypes (ELTs) in terms of landform components,

because this level constitutes the building blocks of

landscapes that must have substantial consistency across

regions. The landtype association (LTA) level has a

different nature in that its elements are logical

aggregations of ELTs that have commonality in their

particular setting. Thus, a given ELT can only belong to

one LTA.

Landscape scale ecological mapping reflects floral and

faunal propensities, but not necessarily existing biotic

composition. ELT typology is designed to be transferable

among regions with very different geological histories.

Topographic position is the strongest consideration for

delineating ELTs across Pennsylvania. Although many

organizations are using soils and/or vegetation to

delineate ELTs, statewide data on soils and vegetation is

limited. Thus, ELTs were determined by analyzing

topographic maps in conjunction with supplemental

information (e.g., remotely sensed images, soil maps,

and hydrologic maps).

ELTs are grouped into the following families: Crests,

Uplands, Slopes, Terraces and Plains, Valleys, Hills,

Wetlands, and Water. Differences in soil and geology are

expressed in landform, because resistance to erosion

principally determines topography. Environmental

properties thus enter indirectly into topographically

delineated ELTs. However, these properties will not be

adequately expressed through ELTs unless supplemented

by overlay analysis using geographic information systems

(GIS) to build tables of environmental factors such as

slope steepness and aspect.

LTAs tend to have considerable individuality relative to

their environmental implications. LTAs should segregate

substantial differences due to underlying soil and

geology. Placement of divisions between LTAs is crucial

for management purposes but oftentimes nebulous in

the field. To help resolve this apparent quandary, we

introduced the concept of caplands and cuplands.

Caplands are the generally convex to level upper

landscape surfaces that receive precipitation and direct it

downward as runoff to small intermittent or headwater

flowpaths. Cuplands are generally concave to level valley

areas that concentrate moisture as channelized flow and

near-surface groundwater.

Caplands extend from crests and uplands down to the

base of footslopes flanking valleys. Cuplands consist

primarily of valley floors or valley bottoms, floodplains,
56 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

and wetlands. Hydrologic processes change at the

interface between caplands and cuplands from being

dominated by runoff and erosion to favoring infiltration

and deposition along with collection in major

watercourses and basins. Not surprisingly, this is also a

juncture where habitats change with regard to moisture

dependent species versus those that tolerate dryer

conditions.

This gives process rationale for LTA separation. LTAs are

primarily either caplands or cuplands. When delineating

LTAs, resource managers avoided partitioning drainages

longitudinally. It was preferable to contain headwater

drainages in capland LTA’s. Separation should occur

where they meet cupland LTAs. If it proved necessary to

partition crests or uplands, it was done at saddles or

where drainages appear to meet from opposing directions.

Both ELTs and LTAs were delineated by Bureau of

Forestry field foresters using a standard protocol (Myers

2000). ELTs and LTAs were delineated and attributed on

mylars overlaying standard 1:24,000 scale USGS

topographic maps. Mylar overlays were checked by

Bureau of Forestry central office staff for completeness

and consistency. The mylars were scanned, digitized,

rectified, edge-matched, and attributed through a

contract with the Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

Dr. Wayne Myers, PSU, reviewed and, when necessary,

revised ELT and LTA coverages to insure adherence to

protocols and to provide quality control.

 The LTA will form the basis of the Bureau of Forestry’s

landscape management approach on state forest lands.

Scope for consideration of the human dimension is

greatest at the LTA level. Geology, orography, prevailing

winds, viewsheds, watersheds, connectivity, insularity,

infrastructure, and land-use history determine

interactions among LTAs.

Landform Map

The Landform Map of Pennsylvania is a project of the

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. The project originated

in 1994 as a response to a request by the Pennsylvania

Bureau of Forestry. The Bureau of Forestry desired an

updated and smaller scale version of the 1:2,000,000

scale Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania (Berg and

others 1989). A recompilation of that map at 1:50,000

scale refined all boundaries and created several new

sections. The map was digitized at 1:100,000 scale.

Recognition of the potential for production of a much

more detailed landform map and a strong indication of

interest in such a map from the Bureau of Forestry

prompted work on the Landform Map to commence

early in 1997. The first version of the map, completed

early in 1998 increased the number of landform

subdivisions from 16 to 65. The utility of this effort was

recognized immediately and work commenced on

further refinements in the map.

The Landform Map of Pennsylvania is a detailed

subdivision of the physiographic provinces within

Pennsylvania. The 2000 version has 653 subdivisions.

The map has been digitized and attributed. Subdivision

classification adheres broadly to the scheme proposed by

Godfrey and Cleaves (1991) and is: Province, Section,

Region, District, and Area.

Landform subdivisions on the current map have been

interpreted using 1:50,000-scale topographic maps with

20-foot contour intervals (an existing county map

series). Use of maps of this scale and detail allowed

interpretation of the topography of Pennsylvania at a

level never before attempted (Sevon 1997, 1998).

Criteria for subdivision include:

1. Subdivision must have a topographic identity that

distinguishes it from an adjacent subdivision.

2. Subdivisions should have readily definable

boundaries, but arbitrary boundaries are acceptable

where necessary.

3. Subdivision must be large enough to show on a

1:500,000-scale map.

The landform map comprises:

1. A digital map with:

a. Landform boundaries and identification numbers

for each landform.

b. Topography in selected metric intervals or in

digital-elevation image.

c. Public road network.

d. Stream network.

e. Names of selected cities.

2. A digital database with the following descriptive

items:

Unit number; Province; Section; Region; District; Area;

representative 7.5-minute quadrangle; county; area,

dominant topographic form; land use (15 categories);

boundaries; underlying rock type; geologic structure;

surficial sediment; drainage pattern; drainage density);

elevation (maximum, minimum); slope (maximum,

minimum, mean); relief (maximum, minimum, mean);

detailed descriptions of landform and boundaries; and

soil temperature.

This digital coverage along with its database is an

essential component for landform analysis and further

subdivisions. The map and data should be useful for

evaluating habitats for birds, mammals, and flora. It also

compliments the Pennsylvania ECOMAP effort (Sevon

and Hoskins 1999).
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 57

Landscape Scale Management on State

Forest Lands

The central purpose of ecological mapping is to facilitate

understanding of landscape organization in terms of

ecological implications for resource management.

Landscape scale ecological units are those involving

visual range along with processes for near-surface

movement of organisms and substances across the

terrain. The landscape scale typically involves substantial

acreage (1,000-5,000 acres). Because this is the scale of

strong spatial interplay among ecosystem elements, it is

also the scale natural resource managers must be most

concerned about when assessing offsite influences and

consequences.

The Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry has been planning

for and managing large-scale land units for over 30

years. Traditionally, state forest lands have been zoned

and divided into management units called

compartments. State Forests lands are assigned a

management zone that subjects the area to specific

management criteria and/or restrictions. Compartments

are permanently identifiable geographic units using

physical features such as roads, trails, rights-of-way,

streams, and ridge tops as compartment boundaries. As a

general rule, compartment acreage ranged between 500

and 3,000 acres.

Compartments were examined on a regular schedule.

The compartment examination schedule provided for

the orderly examination of all state forest lands within

the 15-year management period. The schedule consisted

of a table listing the compartments in numerical order

with a corresponding column for entering the year of

examination. One-fifteenth of the compartments were

examined each year.

Each stand or area otherwise classified was examined

visually. The area examined was of sufficient size to

allow the examiner to determine reasonably the present

condition of each classified stand or other area and to

make recommendations on management needs for the

next fifteen years. Such determinations and

recommendations included timber management, habitat

management, recreation management, and

infrastructure condition/needs. Recommendations were

made based on various stated resource objectives.

Accomplishments and/or changes in the compartment

were noted, kept in a compartment file, and in some

instances sent to the central office for updating maps and

databases.

Although the compartment has served as the Bureau’s

basic large-scale management unit for over 30 years, it

has several shortcomings in terms of using an ecological

approach to forest management. First, the boundaries of

compartments are based on convenient physical features

that usually have little biological or ecological

implication. Second, all compartments are considered

similar in that the goals and objectives are the same for

each and are distributed evenly across all compartments

regardless of its biological/ecological potential. Third, a

compartment is considered an entity unto itself with

little consideration to its location on the landscape.

The management of state forest land is based on State

Forest Resource Management Plans that are goal driven.

Traditionally, Bureau of Forestry program areas have

developed regional, compartment, and resource/use

goals. These goals were based on scientific knowledge,

legal mandates, public input, and constraints. In the

current planning effort goals are being developed on

several scales including statewide, ecoregional (ECOMAP

subsection), individual state forest, landscapes (LTAs),

and resource/use. Although new management plans will

be based on multi-level goals, they will focus on

landscapes and landscape goals.

Because of the limitations related to compartments, as

stated above, the Bureau is switching its basic large-scale

unit of management to the LTA. We believe that the LTA

is better suited to a landscape scale ecological approach

for state forest land management. However, it should be

noted that landscapes are contextual in nature rather

than fixed parcels of land. Therefore, LTAs will be

analyzed and considered in their “landscape context”.

The landscape scale (LTA) is often referred to as the

intersection of ECOMAP’s top-down / bottom-up

approach to ecological classification. LTAs must fit into a

larger scale ecological unit, Section and Subsection, but

they are usually formulated based on finer scale

ecological units, usually ELTs. Following this concept,

landscape (LTA) goals will be formulated based on

stated fine-scale resource/use goals and broad-scale

ecoregional goals.

Each LTA will be analyzed as to its potential

contribution to stated ecoregional goals such as

connectivity and its potential contribution to stated

resource/use goals such as biodiversity conservation,

timber management, flora management, water resource

management, etc. In considering its contribution, each

LTA will be examined first in terms of its biological/

ecological character such as its make-up of

compartments, ELTs, forest communities, aquatic

communities, infrastructure, etc. Second, each LTA will

be examined in relation to the nature and/or character

of all surrounding LTAs to determine its potential

complementariness and/or clash. Third, each LTA will be

examined in its landform(s) context denoting the

specific characterizing landform attributes, such as rock

type, elevation, relief, slope, etc. Program area staff in

conjunction with field staff will formulate initial

landscape goals using this “landscape context”

approach.

LTAs will be examined on a regularly scheduled basis as

described above for compartments. Recommendations
58 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

based on ground examinations will be formulated for

each LTA. Recommendations will be recorded and

reviewed. Any changes in forest community types,

infrastructure, habitat, etc., will be documented and

changes made to appropriate GIS coverages and/or

databases. Recommendations for changes in LTA goals

will be forwarded to central office staff for consideration

and approval/modification.

The Bureau of Forestry believes that the use of LTAs as a

large-scale management unit on state forest lands will

have several benefits. The first is its potential application

to other land holdings in the state, regionally, and across

the country. The delineation of LTAs is based on standard

protocols that can be applied regardless of land

ownership. Second, LTAs are ecologically based

delineations as opposed to traditional compartments.

Third, LTAs will be viewed in their landscape context

allowing for the character of the LTA and surrounding

LTAs to play a major role in setting goals.

Perhaps the greatest benefits to using LTAs in terms of

their landscape context is flexibility and adaptability as

opposed to having standardized goals and objectives that

apply across the landscape regardless of the landscapes

ability to accommodate them. The landscape context

approach, using LTAs, focuses on natural ecosystem

processes as opposed to forcing systems into regimented

standards. Bureau of Forestry resource managers (field

and central office staff) will be better able to apply their

knowledge and skills using this approach.

Literature Cited

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Descriptions of the ecoregions of

the United States. USDA, Forest Service,

Misccellaneous Publication 1391 (rev.), Washington,

D.C.

Berg, T. M., J.H. Barnes, W.D. Sevon, V.W. Skema, J.P.

Wilshusen, and D.S. Yannacci, comps. 1989.

Physiographic provinces of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 13,

1:2,000,000 scale.

ECOMAP. 1993. National Hierarchial Framework of

Ecological Units. USDA Forest Service, Washington,

D.C. 20 p.

Godfrey, A. E., and E.T. Cleaves. 1991. Landscape

analysis: theoretical considerations and practical

needs. Environmental Geology and Water Science. 17:

141-155.

Myers, W. L. 2000. Landscape scale ecological mapping

of Pennsylvania forests. Environmental Resources

Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA ER2002 17 p.

Sevon, W. D. 1997. Geologically correct topography of

Pennsylvania. Geological Society of America Abstracts

with Programs. 29: A37-A38.

Sevon, W. D. 1998. Landform map of Pennsylvania.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with

Programs, v. 30, no. 1, p. 73.

Sevon, W. D., and D.M. Hoskins. 1999. Ecological forest

management and the landform map of

Pennsylvania. Geological Society of America Abstracts

with Programs. 31: 484.

Sevon, W. D., compiler. 2000. Physiographic provinces

of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th

ser., Map 13, 4th ed., 1:2,000,000 scale.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 59

Abstract

This project sought to implement an innovative strategy

for identifying ecological units, Land Type Associations

(LTA’s) within a landscape; define NIPF planning

objectives; and target landowners within the LTA units

for contact. Landowners were provided information on

the role of their parcel in the landscape and factors

affecting management activities. Information developed

and presented included: current land cover; land type

association descriptions; soils information; preEuropean settlement conditions; common and unique

birds and mammals; natural features; and native plant

and watershed information. Landowners and consulting

planners were provided the information through public

meetings, mailings, tours and personal contact. NIPF

landowners were encouraged to develop and implement

ecosystem plans through the USDA – State of Michigan

Forest Stewardship Program. In addition to the $30,000

the State of Michigan Stewardship Committee allocated

for the Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project they earmarked

an additional $11,250 in funds for developing forest

stewardship plans within the Clay Lake Plain area. As of

April 6, 2001, 145 landowners with over 26,140 acres of

land are under Stewardship Management Planning. This

represents seven percent of the NIPF lands within the

project area.

Sponsors

On July 15, 1994, the Michigan Department of Natural

Resources entered into an agreement with the Upper

Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development

Council (501c-3 nonprofit association), to initiate the

forest stewardship program known as the Clay Lake

Plain Ecosystem Project. Supporting sponsors included

the U.P. RC&D Forestry Committee, the Chippewa

County Soil Conservation District, MI Department of

Natural Resources - Forest Management & Wildlife

Divisions, USDA agencies - Natural Resources

Conservation Service and the Forest Service, Michigan

Technological University Remote Sensing - GIS lab and

the Eastern U.P. Planning & Development Region.

Project Goals & Products

Since the 1980’s, resource personnel from the MDNR,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, (NRCS), Farm

Service Agency, (FSA), and the citizen committees of

these organizations, have had numerous discussions on

the unique qualities and opportunities the proposed

project area affords. The project area fits in extremely

well with the ecosystem approach to resource

management and the objectives of the Forest

Stewardship Program. Selection of the project area was

based on several unique qualities the area offers for such

a study. The goals for the Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem

Project were to implement a strategy for identifying sub

region ecological units within the Eastern Upper

Peninsula; define these units and management activities

and target educational, technical and financial assistance

needs, and to incorporate existing knowledge about

biodiversity and functions of ecosystems into Forest

Stewardship management plans. The Clay Lake Plain

Ecosystem Project on private lands complements

another ongoing project by the Eastern U.P. Partners in

Ecosystem Management a committee of state, federal

and industrial forest landowners efforts to plan and

manage their lands with an ecosystem approach. To

guide and promote this effort, the Clay Lake Plain

Ecosystem Advisory Committee was organized through

the RC&D Council and the Chippewa Soil Conservation

District. Members represented landowners, interest

groups and public interests or agency personnel.

Objectives of the proposal were well received and the

committee soon was functioning to achieve the project

objectives.

Geographic Information Services, (GIS), were contracted

through Michigan Technological University. Base data

that was provided or obtained for use in the project

included: soils data, land use cover information,

presettlement conditions and land type association

(LTA) data based upon U.S. Forest Service work on the

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units.

While the GIS work was underway, the Advisory

Committee developed a mission statement and a set of

ecosystem project planning objectives that they felt

would conserve the uniqueness of the E.U.P. Clay Lake

Plain Ecosystem. The Advisory Committee spent

considerable time defining the unique qualities of the

area and evaluating objectives that would maintain these

qualities.

The project mission statement and planning objectives

that were identified for use in developing ecosystem

based management plans within the area were:

To promote a cooperative effort to maintain and or enhance

the biodiversity of sustainable ecosystems on private lands in

the Eastern Upper Peninsula through information and

education.

Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project

Robert DeVillez1 and Randy Wilkinson2

1

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Newberry, MI,

49868 (deviller@state.mi.us)

2

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Newberry,

MI 49868
60 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Ecosystem Project Planning Objectives

Plans should address the following:

• Grassland nesting species and cover.

• Wetland areas for dependent species.

• Riparian areas: stream bank corridors and

shorelines.

• Best management practices to sustain forests and

forest dependent species.

• Evaluation and maintenance of drainage systems.

• Non-game and game species.

• Presettlement land cover.

• Habitats for diversity.

• Water quality issues.

• Impact of development on habitats.

• Recreational opportunities.

• All adjacent landowner uses.

The Advisory Committee next made suggestions for the

make-up of the LTA information sheets and development

of the public outreach activities. Randy Wilkinson, U.P.

RC&D Coordinator, and Bob DeVillez, DNR CFM

Forester assembled the information for the LTA

information sheets. The DNR Wildlife Biologist, MI

Natural Features Inventory staff, USDA Natural

Resources Conservation soil scientists and U.S. Forest

Service plant ecologists, assisted them in technical areas.

Ecosystem information covered in the LTA sheets

include:

• LTA - Legend & Description

• Ecological Significance

• Acreage & Cover Type Breakdown

• Soil Association

• Native Plant Information

• Common & Unique Birds & Mammals

• Watershed Information

As the Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem data was being

assembled and edited, the Committee and advisors

discussed methods of outreach to landowners. The first

outreach activity included the development of an

Ecosystem Project Informational Brochure. Major points

of the brochure were a definition of ecosystems,

ecosystem mapping, land cover display, planning

objectives, ecosystem management examples and sources

of planning and implementation assistance.

Discussion followed on methods of public and planner

stewardship information. Consulting foresters and

planners were contacted and provided information and

materials. Public outreach included news releases, direct

mail of the brochure to targeted landowners, public

meetings, presentations to sportsman clubs and updates

by Advisory Committee members to other organizations

of which they are members. Distribution and updates

were also provided through SCD newsletters, Farm

Services Agency mailings and County Fair display

materials. Response to these efforts was well received by

landowners, organizations and the news media. The

Advisory Committee discussed the fact that a method of

information dissemination needed to be developed that

would not require continued use of resource specialist’s

time. It was decided to develop a short, (12 - 15 minute)

video covering ecosystem management, stewardship

principles and the Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project. It

was hoped this would allow for continued information

efforts by numerous agency and Advisory Committee

members. A contract was approved with a local video

production firm for development of the video, spot

announcement and 100 copies of the video.

Project Outcomes

Outreach Results:

Through the efforts of the committee, technical advisors

and sponsors, the following is a summary of some of the

Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project outreach efforts.

Public Town Hall Meeting

600 targeted mailings. 82 people attended evening

informational meeting. News releases were also utilized

as a tool.

Presentations

Presentations were made to agencies, organizations and

the general public. Included in this are presentations to

Natural Resources Conservation Service staff, DNR staff,

wildlife or special purpose committees, State

Stewardship Committee, RC&D Councils, local and state

forestry association groups, Great Lakes land type

association groups, MI Society of American Foresters and

the Soo Sustainable Community Committee. The

purpose of these meetings was to inform and update

membership on the project and solicit assistance in

getting information out about the project.

Tour

Approximately five weeks after the public town hall

meeting, a field tour was arranged and held on an active

stewardship landowner property. Targeted audience was

the people who attended the public meeting. Twentythree people attended, including staff, 3 planners and

members of the State Stewardship Committee. Several

landowners that did not attend did contact landowners

advisory committee members for additional

information.

Video development

This informational effort was started after the town hall

meeting. Delays in the production resulted in not having

the video available during the outreach effort. The video

will be used now for future outreach and stewardship

efforts. Final public results will not be known on this

effort until several months after the final report is

complete.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 61

A 30-second spot commercial was developed from the 13

1/2 minute video. The commercial was placed with TV-6

Marquette, TV 9 & 10 Cadillac/Traverse City and Bresnan

Cable Co. The cable coverage includes the central U.P.,

Marquette, and Escanaba to Newberry and Sault Ste.

Marie. Bresnan also donated 75 commercial spots on

ESPN, CNN, TNN and Discovery. In total to date, 176

spots have been contracted for.

Cost of Project

Major costs for the Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project

included approximately $17,500 for mapping, printing,

personnel and materials. Of this $6,000 were for GIS

support, $9,000 for reports, brochures, education

meeting and map display. Targeting and data base work

costs were approximately $9,500 of which $6,600 was

for video production. Meeting and training expense was

approximately $500. Administrative and miscellaneous

expense was approximately $2,300. Over $24,000 of inkind services by the Advisory Committee, technical

committee and technical staff time was utilized during

the 2 1/2 year project time. Actual mapping and data

work did not get started until Sept. of 1994. Total project

grant costs were approximately $27,500. Final costs will

be included as an attachment to the report to the grant

provider, the Department of Natural Resources.

Evaluation

Several methods of evaluation were used during this

project. In data gathering, selection of information, and

public outreach, the experience and opinions of the

landowner advisory committee were used. Technical

information was limited to that which the advisory

committee felt was of landowner interest.

During the final portions of the project and video review

a short evaluation form was developed and presented to

the Advisory Committee, consultants and technical staff

familiar with the overall project. These written

evaluations showed a couple of interesting items.

Everyone felt that the information gathered was useful

to landowners. Advisory committee members felt that

information on native plants, as well as common and

unique birds and mammals was of more interest to

landowners than the resource data such as soils,

possibly because this information is less readily

available. The Advisory Committee felt that the most

successful methods of public information on this

project were the public meeting, word of mouth, and

one-on-one group contact. As stated, the effects of the

commercial and 13 minute video will not be known for

several months yet. All evaluations stated that the

project value to the landowners was worth the cost of

the project (grant) and matching volunteer and staff

time.

In the eyes of the Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Advisory

Committee, the project has been a very successful one

that has far exceeded the objectives of the grant

agreement. The five stated goals of the grant agreement

have been met.

As part of the evaluation, the Advisory Committee

compiled a landowner profile and listing of activities

that landowners have accomplished that meet the

Ecosystem Project Planning Objectives. The information

was gathered from the required assessment form that is

part of the Stewardship Plan and USDA cost sharing

accomplishments by landowners in the project area.

The Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project landowner, on the

average, owns 180 acres, and the range was from 18 acres

to 1,620 acres. The majority of the landowners have

owned the property for ten years or less. They

predominantly reside in the Upper Peninsula of

Michigan and are absentee landowners. They have full

title to the properties that are under a warranty deed

rather than land contract. They have had no past contact

with professional resource people and rarely have

received any cost sharing. The majority has never had a

written management plan, nor have they cut or sold

timber from their property. Landowners, priorities for

the resource values of the property are primarily for

wildlife and recreation.

Accomplishment of Ecosystem Project Planning

Objectives, encouraged by the Advisory Committee, on

lands within the project as of April 6, 2001 includes the

following:

Grassland Nesting

and Cover: 100 projects for 230 acres

Wetland Created: 31 projects for 640 acres

Reforestation Projects: 86 projects for 445 acres

Timber Management: 87 projects for 5,220 acres

Other Wildlife Habitat

Improvement: 3 projects for 155 acres

Acknowledgements

This project was supported in part by a grant from the

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the USDA

Forest Service and the Michigan State Forest Stewardship

Committee.
62 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

Forest Service landscape architects sought a method for

determining if people showed a preference for certain

landscape-scale ecosystems and if ecological

classification units could be used in visual resource

management. A study was conducted on the Chippewa

National Forest to test whether there was a systematic

relationship between dispersed campsite locations and

landtype associations (LTA) (most National Forests allow

“free-choice” camping; sites with repeated use are

inventoried and monitored as “dispersed campsites”). A

statistically significant pattern exists in dispersed

campsite locations as a function of LTA’s. End moraine

and sand plain LTA’s contain the most campsites, while

people apparently show little inclination to pitch their

tents in the peatlands and ancient lakeplains. The test

reinforces many conclusions from existing landscape

preference research, such as people’s preference for water

bodies (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Herzog 1985, USDA

1974, Ellsworth 1982). The findings also indicate that

landscape scale management of visual resources using

Ecological Classification and Inventory units may be

appropriate and that LTA’s could be used as a forest

planning unit that “links” the social and natural

environment.

Introduction

The Research and Management Context

Existing Visual Resource Management Systems

Patterns in human preference for different landscapes in

the Forest Service Scenery Management and Visual

Management Systems are established through criteria of

landform, rock-form, vegetation types, and bodies of

water.

Although descriptions or analysis of characteristic

succession or disturbance patterns, and associated visual

changes to the landscape, are not discussed at length in

the systems, the criteria used to identify the most visually

scenic landscapes are very similar to the criteria used to

inventory and classify ecological units in the Ecological

Classification and Inventory System (USDA 1974 and

1996).

Predictable Human Adaptation to Environments

Anthropologists have long recognized a connection

between human cultural adaptations and the biophysical

environment. In 1911, for example, Ellen Church

described the vast area of steppes and deserts extending

across Europe and Asia and the associated diverse ethnic

groups of Negroes, Hamites, Semites, Indo-Europeans,

and Mongolians, who all developed the behavioral

adaptation for nomadic herding as their main

occupation. People tend to take customs, social

organization structures, and economic tendencies with

them when migrating (Church, 1911) and, as described

by Alfred Crosby (1992) in his description of the

European Colonial invasion of the Americas, they will

modify the composition,structure and function of a

newly encountered ecosystem to create landscapes with

which they are familiar. Those ecosystems in the Eastern

United States which failed to support the European,

agrarian model fell into public ownership; hence most

eastern National Forests share common features of nonarable land such as steep topography, infertile soils, cold

climate, or a high proportion of wetlands.

Studies in visual perception by environmental

psychologists such as Steve and Rachel Kaplan (1989),

also indicate that human response may be

psychologically or physiologically affected by adaptation

to the environment. Humans tend to prefer the

environments in which their survival is most likely or

those that include features or characteristics that meet

certain psychological needs, such as “making sense,

stimulation, and complexity”. They believe that the more

“regular” and predictable patterns in human visual

preference are the psychological perceptions of

landscapes they have identified through their research

(Kaplan, 1979).

The Purpose for a Dispersed Campsite Analysis

on the Chippewa National Forest

Land management agencies are increasingly adopting

ecologically based methods for planning and carrying

out management activities such as timber harvesting. But

how well do systems developed for the biophysical

environment relate to forest resources such as recreation

and scenery, which are more human-focused and

Human Preference for Ecological Units: Patterns of Dispersed Campsites within

Landtype Associations on the Chippewa National Forest

Dennis Parker1 and Lisa Whitcomb 2

With assistance from Bob Carr 3, Herb Schroeder 4, and Paul Gobster 4

1Public Services Team Leader, USDA Forest Service

Chippewa National Forest; Cass Lake, MI 56633

2

Regional Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service Eastern

Region, Milwaukee, WI 53211

3GIS Coordinator, USDA Forest Service Eastern Region,

Milwaukee, WI 53211

4USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station,

Evanston, IL 60202
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 63

perceptual in nature? Landscape architects, recreation

planners, and other personnel within these agencies

who address people-forest interactions face the question

of how to best incorporate ecological classification

systems into existing recreational and visual planning

systems, like the Scenery Management System. Research

and past planning experience as described above

supports the relationship between people’s preferences

for landscapes and the presence of certain biophysical

features. If this relationship could be shown to occur in

patterns, and extended to ecological classification units

like landtype associations, then landscape architects and

recreation planners could link their planning systems

with ecological classification systems to provide a

common foundation and language for resource

planning.

Forest Plan revision efforts for the Chippewa National

Forest adopted landtype associations as planning units

for new management prescriptions. Landscape architects

involved in the project decided to inventory, analyze,

and set draft visual management goals for the forest

using landtype associations as the planning unit to

improve consistency and integration with other

resources. After completing the inventory stage of the

process, they wanted to “test” whether or not they might

be “on the right track,” in terms of whether or not people

show a preference for landscape scale areas on the

Chippewa Forest. The following statistical analysis of

dispersed campsite locations by landtype associations

was conducted to determine whether or not a pattern

existed in campsite locations (indicating a preference of

some landtype associations over others) or if people

preferred all landtype associations equally for dispersed

camping.

Methods And Materials

Why Use Dispersed Campsite Locations?

USDA Forest Service camping regulations allow “free

choice” camping outside designated, developed

campgrounds. People may choose where they would like

to camp, within specified distances from roads, trails,

rivers and lakes, unless the management prescription for

an area (e.g. a Research Natural Area) specifically

prohibits camping. This activity is called “dispersed

camping.” Forest Service personnel monitor where

people choose to camp, and sometimes, like on the

Chippewa Forest, they will note the locations where

repeated use occurs. Since the general public, or at least

those that engage in dispersed camping, choose where

they want to camp based on their own likes and dislikes,

the locations of the dispersed campsites give some

indication of environmental preference. As managers,

Forest Service personnel do not know whether or not the

choice is based on visual, access (closeness to road, etc.),

activity association, or some other factor; however, the

locations, and any patterns in the locations, do give some

indication of the landscapes in which people like to

camp.

Gathering Data and Setting Up the Test

The boundaries of the Chippewa Forest landtype

associations (LTA’s) were established prior to the

dispersed campsite test by a team of ecologists, soil

scientists, and other personnel in cooperation with

scientists from other agencies and forests. 405 dispersed

campsites were located on the Chippewa National Forest

using a global positioning system. Two of the dispersed

campsites occurred next to Leech Lake and fell within the

Leech Lake LTA. Given the extreme size of Leech Lake,

(87,644 acres) and that the lake comprises almost the

entire landtype association, the Leech Lake LTA (and the

two dispersed campsites) were excluded from further

analysis. The Cass Lake (15,900 acres) and Lake

Winnibigoshish (56,764 acres) were also excluded from

the test, again, due to the extreme sizes of the lakes and

that the LTA boundaries followed the lakeshore

boundaries and did not include dry land on which

dispersed camping could occur.

Results

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit test was used

to determine whether or not a pattern existed in

dispersed campsite locations. H0, the null hypothesis,

was that people prefer all landtype associations equally;

the number of dispersed campsites within a LTA related

to the percent area of the forest the LTA comprised. For

example, if a LTA comprised fifty percent of the forest

area under consideration, then fifty percent of the

dispersed campsites were found within the LTA. H1, the

suggested alternative hypothesis, was that the number of

dispersed campsites within an LTA did not relate to the

proportional area of the Forest an LTA comprises and

people do not prefer all ecosystems equally for dispersed

camping. Table 1 shows the data used in the test and

Table 2 indicates the results of the test.

The largest value in /Sx-Fx/ (16.72) is greater than T.95

(7.2) and therefore H0 is rejected (Table 2); people do

not prefer all landtype associations equally for dispersed

camping and some sort of pattern exists in the locations.

The bar graph in Figure 1 illustrates the differences

between the actual and expected number of dispersed

campsites. The Bemidji sand Plain shows the greatest

difference between expected and actual numbers of

dispersed campsites. The Marcell Moraine shows the next

highest difference between expected and actual numbers

with more than the expected number of dispersed

campsites. The Black Duck Till Plain and Bena Dunes

and Peatlands also have high differences with less than

expected numbers of dispersed campsites. The Itasca and

Sugar Hills moraines have slightly more than the

expected number of sites while the other Till Plains

(Hill City and Guthrie) have slightly less than expected.
64 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Table 2.—Actual versus expected numbers of dispersed campsites on the Chippewa National Forest

by landtype association

Landtype Association Expected No. of Campsites Actual No. of Campsites Difference

Agassiz Lake Plain 0.05240111 0.002469136 -0.049931976

Bena Dunes/Peatland 0.13947625 0.022222222 -0.117254024

Bemidji Sand Plain 0.06472907 0.251851852 0.187122786

Black Duck Till Plain 0.19696471 0.088888889 -0.108075820

Deer River Peatland 0.04012814 0 -0.040128137

Guthrie Till Plain 0.05071623 0.041975309 -0.008740922

Hill City Till Plain 0.03333016 0.009876543 -0.023453612

Itasca Morain 0.12954443 0.145679012 0.016134584

Marcell Morain 0.09913724 0.271604938 0.172467700

Rosie Lake Plain 0.15823542 0.120987654 -0.037247765

Sugar Hills Moraine 0.03533726 0.044444444 0.009107186

Table 1.—Data for Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit Test for Dispersed Campsite Locations on the

Chippewa National Forest by Landtype Association

H0: People prefer all ecosystems equally; the number of dispersed camping sites relates to the percent area of a

forest an LTA comprises.

H1: People do not prefer all ecosystems equally; the number of dispersed sites does not relate to the area of a

forest and LTA comprises.

LTA Acres % Land Base Dispersed Expected % Sample % /Sx-Fx/

Sites (FX) (SX)

Agassiz Lake Plain 75,295 5.24% 1 0.25 5.24 4.99

Bena Dunes/Peatland 200,413 13.95% 9 2.47 19.19 16.72

Bemidji Sand Plain 93,009 6.47% 102 27.65 25.66 -1.99

Black Duck Till Plain 283,018 19.70% 36 36.54 45.36 8.81

Deer River Peatland 57,660 4.01% 0 36.54 49.37 12.83

Guthrie Till Plain 72,874 5.07% 17 40.74 54.44 13.70

Hill City Till Plain 47,892 3.33% 4 41.73 57.77 16.05

Itasca Morain 186,142 12.95% 59 56.30 70.73 14.43

Marcell Morain 142,450 9.91% 110 83.46 80.64 -2.81

Rosie Lake Plain 227,368 15.82% 49 95.56 96.47 0.91

Sugar Hills Morain 50,776 3.53% 18 100.00 100.00 0.00

Total 1,436,897 405

TO = 16.72 > T95 = 7.2

Reject Hï
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 65

Far less than the expected number of campsites also

occur within the Deer River Peatland and Agassiz Lake

Plain.

Discussion

The patterns in dispersed campsite locations, and the

characteristics of the associated LTA’s, are generally

consistent with what could be expected based on results

from existing research in visual preference and

perception. The landtype associations with more than

the expected number of dispersed campsites have

characteristic hydrologic patterns and vegetation that

people typically rate highly in visual preference and

perception studies. LTA’s with both rolling and nearly

level terrain have more than the expected number of

campsites, which mirrors the mixed results for

topographic preference in several studies. And, while

some studies that indicate preference for characteristic

community structure and disturbance patterns do exist,

Forest Service management techniques, such as

harvesting timber and wildfire prevention, make

connections between the study results and existing

research problematic. Ultimately, however, the results of

the dispersed campsite analysis generally support the

use of landtype associations as a planning unit for

scenery management and encourage the use of multiple

scales of ecological classification units in land

management planning for both the natural and social

environment.

Hydrologic Features

The results of the dispersed campsite location analysis on

the Chippewa National Forest indicate that the single

largest determinant in campsite locations may be the

“recreation quality,” quantity, and distribution of

hydrologic features. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) state

that, from their experience with visual perception

research, the presence of water so greatly influences

visual preference and perception studies, that images

with hydrologic features are not used unless the study

focuses specifically on water bodies. People show such

an overwhelming desire to look at, and possibly be near,

water, that the use of images with hydrologic features

skews research results unless all the images in the study

include water features. The results of the dispersed

campsite study support the Kaplan’s assertion given that

the campsite distances from hydrologic features range

between 4 meters to 20 meters.

In addition, the results of the dispersed campsite study,

and the patterns in campsite locations, also support

existing research on the types of hydrologic features

people prefer. Thomas Herzog found that people most

preferred hydrologic features in mountainous settings

followed by large lakes, rivers and then swamps (in

Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). John Ellsworth and William

Hammit looked at differences in preference for rivers,

marshes, and bogs, and found that images of open water

bodies with clear, reflective surfaces rated highly (in

Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Characteristic hydrologic

features occur in patterns and vary between landtype

associations on the Chippewa Forest. For example, very

large, clear lakes that are distributed widely across the

landscape are more common in the end moraine, sand

plain, and till plain landtype associations. Sand plains

also tend to have sandy beaches and lake bottoms that

people could find more favorable for swimming and sun

bathing. Sport fisheries for walleye and other species are

also best in these lakes. Lakes occur less frequently in

peatlands and lake plains and are more likely to have

“encroaching” wetland vegetation surrounding the

perimeter and mucky bottoms. These characteristics

could discourage swimming, sun bathing, and other

recreation activities along the lakeshore.

Generally, those LTA’s with more than the expected

number of campsites (Bemidji Sand Plain and Marcell

Moraine) contain hydrologic features that provide great

fishing and shoreline recreation opportunities. Those

LTA’s with less than the expected number of campsites,

like the Black Duck Till Plain and Bena Dunes and

Peatlands, have relatively fewer lakes, lakes with less

favorable fishing opportunities, and larger scale wetlands

and forested wetlands. Dispersed campsites in these LTA’s

tend to occur along rivers.

Topographic and Geologic Features

The conclusions from studies in visual preference and

perception of landforms appear somewhat variable.

Brush (1981) found that people prefer more

mountainous landscapes. In 1987, Herzog found that

people prefer mountains, canyons, and desert rock

formations equally (in Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). The

results of the dispersed campsite analysis also show

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Agassiz Lake Plain

Bena Dunes/Peatland

Bemidji Sand Plain

Black Duck Till Plain

Deer River Peatland

Guthrie Till Plain

Hill City Till Plain

Itasca Morain

Marcell Morain

Rosie Lake Plain

Sugar Hills Morain

Figure 1.—Difference among expected versus actual

dispersed campsite locations on the Chippewa

National Forest by landtype association.
66 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

preference for different terrain and geologic features. The

Chippewa Forest is relatively flat. More than the expected

number of dispersed campsites occurred in the more

rolling terrain of the Marcell Moraine and the more level

terrain of the Bemidji Sand Plain.

Characteristic Flora

Forest composition may affect preference ratings due to

people’s expectations for what should occur in the

landscape (Yarrow, 1966 in Ribe 1989). Several studies

indicate a higher preference for hardwood species over

conifers (e.g. Ribe , 1989.) Klukas and Duncan (1967,

cited in Ribe 1989) found that people in Minnesota

prefer mature pines to a deciduous forest. During the

development of the current Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan for the Chippewa Forest, people

voiced a concern for maintaining and promoting the

“North Woods” character of the landscape. This

character was defined, in part, by the presence of large

white pine, red pine, and northern hardwood forests

(USDA, 1986).

Overstory and ground flora composition also occurs in

patterns between different landtype associations (LTA’s).

Red and white pine forests, with large diameter

“character trees,” characterize the Bemidji Sand Plain

landtype association. Northern hardwoods forests are

typical for the end moraine LTA’s, such as the Marcell,

Itasca, and Sugar Hills associations. In general, the

results of the dispersed campsite study are consistent

with existing research and public comments during the

development of the current Forest Plan; those LTA’s with

more than the expected number of campsites have

characteristic vegetation patterns that coincide with what

people describe as the desired “North Woods” character

for the landscape.

Community Structure

Community structure, in the following discussion refers

to both the vertical structure of a forest and the age

structure of the community. Several studies indicate that

people prefer mature forests with large diameter trees

(e.g. Brush 1979). Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) attribute

the apparent dislike of younger forests to a “blocked”

appearance. They assert that people like to feel as if they

can negotiate freely throughout a space and the

multitude of stems in a young stand appears restricting

and possibly dangerous.

Timber management activities within the National Forest

and cutover logging make correlations between the

results of the dispersed campsite analysis and

community structure somewhat problematic.

Characteristically, without management by people, some

forest communities may have a more “blocked”

appearance than others. For example, jack pine trees tend

to have relatively small diameter trunks and grow in

dense “thickets” following catastrophic crown fires. In

Michigan expansive outwash plains covered by primarily

jack pine forests are classified as one landtype

association (USDA, 1993). Cedar, tamarack, or other

forested wetland areas on the Chippewa Forest currently

have the dense or “visually impenetrable” appearance

that people may not like due to logging practices early in

the last century; these areas are not typically managed

for timber currently, however they have not developed

the “large tree character” people prefer. Forested

wetlands are characteristic of several landtype

associations that have less than the expected number of

campsites, such as the Deer River Peatland and Rosy

Lake Plain. Over time, the community structure of these

landtype associations, and their appearance, may

change.

Disturbance Patterns

Fire repression efforts and timber harvesting practices

make any connections between dispersed campsite

locations and characteristic disturbance patterns difficult.

Regardless of the type of disturbance causing the event,

the presence of downed woody debris negatively affects

visual preference ratings (Ribe, 1989). People do not like

the appearance of a burned landscape (e.g. Brush, 1979,

and Ribe, 1989). However, studies also show that people

like the appearance of some landscapes after ground

cover recovery (USDA, 1994). Studies by Buhyoff and

Leuschner (1978), Buyoff, Wellman, and Daniel (1982),

and Buyoff, Leuscher, and Wellman, (1979) found that

the visual results of insect infestations decreased visual

preference.

The Bemidji Sand Plain, with more than the expected

number of dispersed campsites, is a fire-dependent

community, although large-scale, catastrophic crown

fires may not be common. Currently wildfires are

suppressed and the timber is managed for conifer saw

logs (USDA, 1986). Many of the landtype associations

with less than the expected number of campsites, like the

Deer River Peatland and Agassiz Lake Plain, are

primarily forested and open wetlands that could

experience flooding, insect infestations, windthrow, and

possibly some fires. These areas are typically not

managed for timber production due to their wetland

character.

Conclusion

The landtype associations on the Chippewa National

Forest with more than the expected number of dispersed

campsites (end moraines and sand plains) have

characteristic hydrologic and vegetation patterns that

typically rate highly in visual preference and perception

studies. Those landtype associations with less than the

expected number of dispersed sites are characterized by

large-scale wetlands and relatively few lakes. Systems like

the Forest Service Scenery Management System use

similar criteria to evaluate landscapes as those used in
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 67

ecological classification systems (ECS). Human uses

occur in patterns, such as dispersed campsite locations,

that relate to ecological boundaries like landtype

associations. Ecological classification can be used to

inventory, analyze, and manage social environment

factors and provide a “link” between humans and other

species.

Literature Cited

Brush, R.O. 1981. Landform & Scenic Preference: A

Research Note. Landscape Planning. 8: 301-306

Buhyoff, G.J. and W.A. Leuscher. 1978. Estimating

psychological disutility from damaged forest

stands. Forest Science. 24: 424-432.

Buhyoff, G.J., W.A. Leuscher, and J.D. Wellman. 1979.

Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage.

Journal of Environmental Management. 8: 261-267.

Buhyoff, G.J., J.D. Wellman, and T.C. Daniel. 1982.

Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle

and western spruce budworm damaged forest

vistas. Forest Science. 28: 827-838.

Church, E. 1911. Influences of Geographic

Environment on the Basis of Ratzel’s System of

Anthropology. New York: Henry Holt & Company.

Crosby, A. W. 1988. Ecological Imperialism: The

overseas migration of Western Europeans as a

biological phenomenon. In Donald Worster, ed., The

Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern

Environmental History, Cambridge University Press.

Ellsworth, J. 1989. Masters Thesis. Cited in Kaplan, Steve

and Kaplan, Rachel. The Experience of Nature.

Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of

Nature. Cambridge University Press.

Ribe, R. 1989. The Aesthetics of Forestry: What Has

Empirical Preference Taught Us? Experimental

Management. 13: 55-74.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape

Management Vol 2 Agriculture Handbook 46.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource

Management Plan—Chippewa National Forest.

Unpublished administrative paper.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Field Guide to Ecological

Classification and Inventory System of the HuronManistee National Forest USGPO 759-212.

USDA Forest Service 1994. Recreation, Interpretation,

and Visual Preference Survey. Apalachee Savannahs

Scenic Byway. Unpublished administrative paper.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Landscape Aesthetics A

Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture

Handbook 701.
68 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

Four Land Type Associations along a steep elevation

gradient have been used since the early 1980’s.

Applications include support for delineation of Bicknell

Thrush and Canada Lynx habitat, identification of

commercial forest zones for land use planning, support

for visual quality mapping, and identification of

softwood forest community potential in major valleys.

Successful use depends on easily observed land units,

and being the only or best way to address a land

management problem.

Introduction

The successful use of land type associations (LTA’s) for

land use planning or other purposes depends on at least

two factors: 1—They must be observable, discernable

features on the landscape easily recognized by a variety

of users and; 2—They must either be the best or only

way to resolve or address a land management issue. The

reason they must be observable without depending on

subtle or detailed technical distinctions is to overcome

the inertia of relying on other potentially less suitable

approaches because they are more familiar. The reason

they must be the only or best approach is because it

strengthens the usefulness of the method. An inability to

meet these criteria leads to an intermediate level of land

classification that may not be used.

The White Mountain National Forest has had LTA’s since

the early 1980’s. There are four—Mountaintop, Upper

Mountain Slope, Mountain Slope, and Valley. Each one

is based on a unique set of ecological land types, so it is

a completely “nested” system. All lie within the White

Mountain Subsection. This subsection distinguishes

itself from nearby subsections by its generally higher

elevations and steep environmental gradients. The land

type associations generally follow changes in elevation.

The Mountaintop LTA lies generally above 3,000 feet,

and includes low growing balsam fir forest on shallow

till soil resulting from intense continental ice sheet

scouring. The Upper Mountain LTA lies in the 2500-

3000’ zone characterized by moderately tall balsam fir,

red spruce, and paper and heart-leaved birch on deep

alpine ablation tills. The Mountain Slope LTA is the

classic northern hardwood forest of sugar maple, beech

and birches on deep, well-drained ablation till soil in the

1000-2500’ elevation. The Valley LTA is a spruce, fir,

hemlock and white pine forest on outwash sands,

washed-till and slack water sediments at elevations

generally beneath 1000’.

Applications

Use of LTA’s includes long-term land use planning, and

support to bolster the analysis of individual issues. Our

experience is LTA’s are not used for small, individual

project purposes. Some examples of our applications are

as follows. All include spatially referenced applications

across the 800,000-acre White Mountain National Forest.

The acreages represented by each LTA are as follows:

Mountaintop: 200,000; Upper Mountain: 160,000;

Mountain Slope: 270,000; and Valley: 160,000 acres.

Mountaintop Association

The Bicknell Thrush is a sensitive species that resides in

alpine and sub-alpine communities at high elevation in

New England. Its status has lead to interest in better

definition of habitat throughout its range. On the White

Mountain National Forest, alpine and sub-alpine

communities have significant human use including

hiking, camping and in some locations alpine ski areas.

These human uses mean analyses must be conducted to

estimate the effects on this species in accord with its

conservation plan.

Initial estimates of habitat include the upper reaches of

the Mountaintop LTA, especially where it

intersects with the alpine zone. Since these lands are not

routinely inventoried for vegetation for other purposes,

the Land Type Association is a good mechanism for

initial habitat identification. Since the time this need

arose, a study including 250+ plots to listen for the

thrush, and characterize habitat more definitively, has

refined habitat estimates, and highlighted site specific

conditions that provide more, or less, suitable habitat.

An alternative application is with respect to aesthetics

and recreation. The visual management system in the

U.S. Forest Service relies partly on something known as

“variety class”. Variety class relates to the occurrence of

landform, vegetation form, water form and rock form. In

essence, where there is more variety, there is greater

scenic and recreation attraction. The Mountaintop LTA

has a combination of ledges, water flowing over ledge

and boulders, softwoods and paper birch, and distinct

breaks in terrain—all combining to provide distinctive

variety bolstering the recreation opportunity. In creating

a forest-wide inventory of visual variety class, therefore,

land type associations provided a useful mechanism to

support this inventory need.

Land Type Association Applications on the White Mountain National Forest

Stephen Fay1 and Norma Jo Sorgman1

1Forest Soil Scientist and GIS Specialist, respectively, USDA

Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Laconia,

NH (sfay@fs.fed.us)
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 69

Upper Mountain Slopes

Two examples are available to illustrate potential uses of

this LTA. First, the Canada Lynx is a threatened species

for which there is now a conservation plan. Similar to

the Bicknell thrush, there is a need to identify its likely

habitat. While there are a number of factors involved,

one is the occurrence of softwood forest at high

elevations where there were historic sightings. The

Mountaintop and Upper Mountain Slope LTA’s provide a

good, first approximation of potential habitat. Clearly,

there are other ways to make this identification, such as

remote sensing, but given the timing of the need, and the

benefits of field checking from the ecological land type

inventory that support the land type associations, this

was a useful way to define potential habitat. Timber

inventory is infrequent at these elevations. In addition,

disturbance patterns are an important feature of lynx

habitat, especially the occurrence of 5-acre or greater

areas of blow-down. Characterization of disturbance

patterns by land type association revealed that blowdowns of this size are uncommon in this association.

Secondly, the distinction between commercial

forestland, and non-commercial land, was made during

the 1986 land management planning process. Land type

association was the first step in doing this. The

distinction is between the Mountain Slope and Upper

Mountain LTA’s. The steepness of slope in the Upper

Mountain Association raises road-building costs about

25% greater than the Mountain Slope due to cut and fill

slopes. The size and value of the timber is substantially

less in the Upper Mountain, making road building even

more of an issue. The steepness of the slope makes clearcutting the only viable harvest method for rubber-tired

skidder, but openings this size on these steep slopes at

upper elevations are very visible and do not meet visual

quality objectives. And finally, the remoteness from

roads and other evidence of human use, plus the visual

variety class, makes these lands highly suitable for

dispersed recreation purposes. The Mountaintop and

Upper Mountain Slope land type associations, therefore,

are not part of the commercial forest base on this Forest.

It is the Mountain Slope and Valley LTA’s that initially

comprise the commercial forest zone, though other

factors ultimately affect these places, and not all of it is

designated as commercial forest zone. Admittedly, this

all seems like common sense, but the point is that the

associations are a systematic way to reach this conclusion

that can be displayed spatially across the whole National

Forest.

Mountain Slopes

Quality northern hardwood timber production is one of

the goals of the White Mountain National Forest. The

Mountain Slope LTA defines the main boundary of this

forest community. These are lands, in contrast to

Mountaintop and Upper Mountain Slopes, where timber

values are relatively high, and road costs are lower. From

this perspective, this makes these lands suitable for

commercial harvest purposes. In the continuing

discussion about use of National Forest System lands,

the LTA provides an ecological basis for delineation of

this important forest community. Development of a

forest-wide wildlife management strategy depends on

knowing the distribution of major forest communities,

and their succession patterns. This LTA is where much

aspen and paper birch is grown to support wildlife

needs, therefore, it helps to assess the possible

distribution of these succession communities. And

finally, as a sidelight, the ecological land types that

underlie this LTA are the means used to separate those

places within this LTA where even and uneven-age

management is applied. Certain ecological land types

may be managed for a lower Q-factor, meaning more,

larger trees that contribute to timber values, and the

creation of a “large tree” image in the visual

management program.

Major Valleys

The major valleys are where the impacts of human

activity on forest composition are most visible. A mosaic

of forestry, agriculture, fire and human habitation has

meant the original red spruce, balsam fir; eastern

hemlock and white pine forest is heavily intermixed with

red maple, aspen, paper and yellow birch. There is an

interest in restoring some of the original softwood forest

composition. One of the reasons is that even a few

softwoods in a hardwood stand contributes significantly

to songbird diversity, which in turn contributes to the

overall biodiversity of the forest. It is estimated some

thirty-five-songbird species are added to a hardwood

forest when even a few softwood stems are included. A

second reason is that it is generally believed that

softwoods grown on softwood sites will produce larger,

more productive trees of better quality. This is not only a

factor in timber production, it also means that larger,

better nesting sites are available, and that white pine may

be better represented in the supra-canopy. The Valley

land type association is a useful way to delineate the

boundary of these softwood sites. While timber

inventory is an alternative approach, especially where

there is some softwood representation in the under-story,

the fact remains that much inventory is done in the

winter when the under-story is not visible, and in many

instances there is little, or no, softwood represented.

Future Uses

The applications we have made so far are routine kinds

of uses in land management planning. We have a couple

possible ideas for future uses.

The White Mountain National Forest in cooperation

with the U.S. Forest Service Northeast Research Station

(Durham, NH) and The Nature Conservancy is starting

to apply a computer generated landform analysis to its

landscape. The goal is to apply a completely systematic
70 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

approach to distinguishing different ecological

conditions on the landscape. The Nature Conservancy

model will be the approach. The outcome will be

compared to an already spatially referenced ecological

classification to “fine-tune” the computer approach. One

reason to try this computer-generated approach is to

permit a rapid ecological classification of similar nearby

mountainous lands where it is presently absent. A

second reason is to potentially derive a useful way to

classify landscapes related to the nature and distribution

of soil mineralogy, an important consideration on

landscapes where soil acidification is an issue.

Another possible use also relates to acid deposition.

Limited research is beginning to show some affiliation

between landscape position and base cations such as

calcium and magnesium. Calcium is a significant factor

in the structure of a forest, and regulation of its growth.

It also has been shown in places to be a precursor, along

with other pre-disposing factors, in forecasting areas of

forest health concern. In this sense, differences in forest

canopy, soil and stream water calcium along an elevation

gradient may prove to be important. At this point, red

spruce at high elevations on shallow till soils already

demonstrate some forest health concerns. This may

mean that on a forest-wide basis, land type association

may be one of the delineators of forest health risk, along

with other considerations such as insect, disease,

drought and land use.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 71

Abstract

Landtype associations (LTAs) were used to rank Indiana

bat (Myotis sodalis) habitat for landscapes of the

Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. A panel of

expert biologists identified hibernacula, swarming

habitat, maternity habitat, roosting habitat, and foraging

habitat (in this order, from most to least important) as

the elements related to life stages of concern in

maintaining viable Indiana bat populations. LTAs were

then ranked by their suitability for each of the habitat

elements. Weighted by the relative value of the habitat

element, rankings (scores) were quickly developed for

each LTA. Results identified large areas of the

Monongahela National Forest with little likelihood of

use by Indiana bats. Dry oak forest was predicted as the

most favorable forest type. Subsequent summer field

investigations (1997-2000) led to the capture of only

three Indiana bats among hundreds of other species

Forest-wide. Results may mean Indiana bats are using

summer habitat elsewhere, populations are so low they

are evading detection, or that incorrect methods were

used. The latter seems unlikely given the extensive

nature of the sampling. In evaluating Indiana bat

habitat, this coarse filter works well in directing surveys

toward landscapes where they are most relevant, but

should be coupled with fine-scale approaches in

developing comprehensive management

recommendations.

Introduction

The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was listed by the US Fish

and Wildlife Service as endangered in 1967. Populations

have shown a 60 percent decline since the 1960s. More

recent data show a population decline from about

500,000 bats in the early 1980s to 353,000 bats in the

mid-1990s. Indiana bats are considered “exceptionally

vulnerable to disturbance by humans and to local

habitat changes” (NatureServe 2001).

Indiana bats occur in the central and part of the southern

United States. They are virtually extirpated in the

northeast US. The core area of the population occurs in

Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri. These three states

account for a little less than 75 percent of the known

population, and are the location for nine priority one

hibernacula (those with more than 1,000 bats).

In the mid-1990s concerns for Indiana bats intensified in

National Forests of the northeastern United States. One

of these Forests was the Monongahela in West Virginia.

Although nearby Hellhole Cave was an important

hibernaculum, Indiana bat habitat and occurrence

throughout the 906,000-acre national forest had not

been surveyed. Because few Indiana bats have been

documented on the Forest, populations here are

probably peripheral to the species as a whole. An

effective strategy for addressing potential impacts of

timber, road, and other projects was needed.

Purpose And Objectives

The National Environmental Policy Act requires

assessment of the impacts of proposed projects on

federally-administered lands. Regarding wildlife species

of concern, this often means field inspection of sites to

determine species occurrence and habitat relationships.

Because field survey resources of time, funding, and

personnel are increasing limited, more efficient sampling

strategies are needed. Expensive, time-consuming

inspections in areas with little likelihood of occurrence

can divert resources from important habitats deserving of

careful evaluation.

The purpose of this effort was therefore to provide a

quick, defensible coarse filter method to rank the

suitability of landscapes as Indiana bat habitat

throughout the Monongahela, and predict where bats

would be most likely to occur.

This strategy in no way reduces the importance of finescale surveys; rather, it should help direct the effort to

areas of more important habitat and where management

impacts are more likely to occur. Because little data on

Indiana bat occurrence existed on the Monongahela, and

because a landscape approach to the problem of

identifying potential impacts was needed, a predictive

model using an expert system was employed.

Study Area And Methods

Landtype associations were selected as a way to stratify

the Monongahela landscape. Landtype associations are

landscape scale units delineated by geomorphic process

type, similar landforms, geology, soil subgroups, and

potential natural vegetation series (Forman and Godron

1986, Bailey and Avers 1993, Cleland et al. 1997). The

Monongahela is comprised of 26 landtype associations,

but for ease of understanding and communication,

these can be grouped within four broad vegetation

Use of Landtype Associations as a Coarse Filter for Ranking Quality of Indiana

Bat Habitat on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

Thomas DeMeo1

1

Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Portland, OR (tdemeo@fs.fed.us)
72 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

zones: mixed mesophytic, northern hardwoods, red

spruce, and dry oaks (DeMeo et al. 1995).

Mixed mesophytic forests are characterized by sugar

maple, Acer saccharum, and red oak, Quercus rubra,

typically at elevations below 900 m in the Allegheny

Mountains (Core 1966). Northern hardwoods occur at

higher elevations (900 to 1150 m), are generally less

productive, and are characterized by American beech,

Fagus grandifolia. Red spruce, Picea rubens, forest occurs

at the highest elevations (1150 to 1240 m) and is

characterized by cold soils and a relatively short growing

season. Dry oaks, in contrast to the other three types,

predominate in the eastern (Ridge and Valley) portion of

the Monongahela, which has a markedly drier climate,

thus limiting forest productivity. Vegetation there is

characterized by white, Quercus alba, and chestnut oak,

Quercus prinus, with scarlet, Quercus coccinea, and

black oaks, Quercus velutina, on drier sites, and the “dry

pines” (table mountain, Pinus pungens, pitch, Pinus

rigida, and Virginia pine, Pinus virginiana) on the

poorest sites (DeMeo 1999).

Methods feature an iterative process of successive

refinement. This approximation can be thought of as a

set of hypotheses to test and refine as our understanding

improves.

A panel of experts were assembled at two meetings in

November and December, 1997. Participants had a high

level of experience in bat biology, with particular

emphasis on the local area. (See Appendix for

participants list.) The panel identified the following as

key habitat needs of the Indiana bat at different stages of

its life cycle: (1) hibernacula, (2) roosting habitat, (3)

foraging habitat, (4) maternity habitat, (5) swarming

habitat.

Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing the greatest

value, we can rank these items as to relative importance

to contributing to viable populations of Indiana bats on

the Monongahela National Forest (Table 1). Following is

a discussion of each habitat need and the rationale for

the ranking assigned.

Hibernacula

Winter survival is critical for bat population viability.

Moreover, suitable caves for hibernacula are a relatively

uncommon landscape feature, particularly since Indiana

bats prefer a cave temperature range of 39-46 degrees F

(Agency Draft Recovery Plan 1997). We rank this

component highly, since there are known caves of value

to Indiana bats within the Monongahela NF boundary

(Stihler 1997).

Craig Stihler (pers. comm.) of the West Virginia Division

of Natural Resources has ranked West Virginia

hibernacula in four categories: Category I, 1000 or more

Indiana bats; Category II, 100-1000 bats; Category III,

50-100 bats; Category IV, less than 50 bats. These ratings

were used to develop the hibernaculum rating for each

LTA in the model.

Roosting Habitat

In summer, Indiana bats roost in trees, mainly along

streams (NatureServe 2001). Maternity habitat, where

females raise young, is a type of roosting habitat, but

important enough to be considered a separate habitat

requirement. (See maternity habitat section that

follows.)

Roosting habitat consists of snags and live trees with

exfoliating bark, including hickory (Carya) species, some

oak species, and older sugar maples. Tree structure,

however, is probably more important than species per se

(Agency Draft 1997). Ideal roosting habitat depends on

four factors: (1) whether the tree is dead or alive (dead

preferred); (2) the amount of loose bark; (3) the tree’s

exposure to the sun; and (4) the tree’s location relative to

other trees, water sources, and foraging areas (Agency

Draft 1997). Tree cavities are sometimes used as well

(Gardner et al. 1991, Kurta et al. 1993). Most of the

Monongahela landscape has forests in the 60-90 year age

class. Many areas include residual trees (notably chestnut

oak and sugar maple) not cut during the 1880-1920

logging era. The panel perceived roosting habitat as

important, but less limiting than hibernacula, maternity

habitat, or swarming habitat. Roosting habitat is

abundant on the Forest, with great abundance in the

Ridge and Valley Section (because of oak and hickory

abundance), and less consistent abundance in the

Allegheny Mountains Section.

Foraging Habitat

Foraging habitat receives a lower rank still, because the

bats appear to use a wide variety of habitats for foraging;

i.e., they are habitat generalists. At this point in the

model-building, our ability to differentiate foraging

habitats on the Monongahela is poor. While our current

understanding is that Indiana bats use both riparian and

upland habitat, work done elsewhere stresses the value

of riparian habitat (Agency Draft Recovery Plan 1997).

Excellent foraging habitat has been identified as woody

Table 1.—Preliminary ranking of habitat elements

contributing to Indiana bat population viability,

Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia.

Hibernacula Rank

Habitat Element 5

Roosting habitat 2

Foraging habitat 1

Maternity habitat 3

Swarming habitat 4
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 73

vegetation within 30m of a stream (Cope et al. 1978).

Notably, streams and associated floodplain forest are

prefered foraging habitat for pregnant and lactating bats

(Agency Draft Recovery Plan 1997).

A couple of points must be made. One is that “riparian”

in the above documents refers to relatively broad, low

energy streams associated with sycamore and elm. This

type of riparian zone is less characteristic of the

Monongahela landscape than in the Midwest, where

these findings were developed. The second important

consideration is that in Midwestern landscapes there

tends to be more contrast between riparian zones and

the surrounding landscape. Riparian corridors there are

often narrow wooded corridors along streams in a matrix

of agricultural fields. This great contrast between riparian

zones and the surrounding matrix may increase the value

of riparian zones for bats (just as they appear to for

songbirds). In the Monongahela landscape, with much

less agriculture, there may be less contrast between

riparian zones and the surrounding landscape,

particularly with first and second order, high-energy

streams.

In Kentucky and Virginia, male Indiana bats have been

documented using upland oak-hickory forest (Kiser and

Elliott 1996, Hobson and Holland 1995). From

Missouri, there is some indication bats prefer a mix of

riparian, upland, and pasture edge habitats (LaVal et al.

1976, LaVal and LaVal 1980). A mix of upland forest, old

fields, and pastures was suggested by Clark et al. (1987)

and Gardner et al. (1991). (In West Virginia, the state’s

largest Indiana bat hibernaculum (Hellhole Cave)

occurs in such a landscape.) Research also suggests bats

use forest roads as travel corridors (Hobson and

Holland 1995).

In conclusion, because Indiana bats on the

Monongahela are thought to use a wide range of

habitats for foraging, we perceive this part of the life

cycle as least limiting to their viability, and give it the

lowest rank (1). For now, we will rank LTAs featuring

broad riparian corridors as slightly greater in value as

foraging habitat.

Maternity Habitat

Maternity habitat, where females raise the young either

singly or in colonies, can be considered a special case of

roosting habitat. As with roosting habitat in general, live

and dead trees with exfoliating bark are preferred.

Clawson (1996), working in Missouri, found a

significant correlation of large-diameter (greater than

30.1 cm) trees with maternity colonies. Large trees are

apparently important as roosting sites during the

maternity period.

With maternity habitat, however, there appears to be an

additional emphasis on trees receiving direct sunlight

(Callahan et al. 1997, NatureServe 2001). Warmer

(southern and western) aspects also are preferred,

because cool temperatures can delay development of

fetal and juvenile young (Racey 1982).

While Indiana bats are adaptable, maintaining a variety

of roost sites from year to year is important (Kurta et al.

1993, Callahan et al. 1997), since the bats’ maternity

colonies show site fidelity (Humphrey et al. 1977, Clark

et al. 1987, Gardner et al. 1991).

Maternity habitat is associated with riparian floodplains

(Humphrey et al. 1977), although recent research in

Illinois indicates female Indiana bats may be using

uplands for maternity colonies much more than

previously thought. Of 51 trees used for maternity,

Garner and Gardner (1992) found 38 were on upland

sites.

The panel ranked maternity habitat next in importance

after hibernacula and swarming areas. Clearly, ability to

reproduce successfully is critical to species viability.

Consideration of maternity habitat in West Virginia

presents special challenges, however. A study by Stihler

(1996) on the Fernow Experimental Forest,

Monongahela NF, documented 69 Indiana bats, of

which only 5 were females. Moreover, the females were

captured late in the season, suggesting no maternity

colonies occurred in the area.

No maternity colonies have been documented in West

Virginia, and while they may occur on the Monongahela,

it is equally plausible the bats are not using this area for

maternity colonies at all. Until our understanding is

refined, this item is ranked relatively high, in

consideration of the importance of maternity colonies

for species viability across its range.

Swarming Habitat

These are staging areas surrounding hibernacula, where

bats feed and mate prior to hibernation (Cope and

Humphrey 1977). The swarming period is important,

since bats need to replenish fat supplies prior to

hibernation. Maintaining adequate habitat buffers

around Indiana bat hibernacula is therefore a

component of good bat management. The panel gave

this a high rank, not as important as hibernacula, but

clearly more important than roosting or foraging habitat.

The appropriate radius around hibernacula for staging

areas is uncertain; reported distances range from 2.66 to

3.5 miles (Stihler 1996, Worthington 1998). For now, a

distance of 3.5 miles is assumed, based on Stihler’s

telemetry work at Big Springs Cave, near Parsons, WV

(Stihler 1996). While this study involved only four

Indiana bats, it is the only fall swarming data available

for the Monongahela National Forest. This estimate will

be revised as new data become available. As with

maternity habitat, roosting trees are important (Agency

Draft 1997). Swarming areas are therefore ranked highly

(4), because of their association with hibernacula.
74 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Value of Landtype Associations as Habitat

The Monongahela has been delineated into 26 landtype

associations (LTAs) based on physiography, climate, and

vegetation (DeMeo et al. 1995). Table 2 contains a

ranking of the LTAs as to their value to provide habitat

for each of the five life-cycle components. Each also

contains a brief justification for the ranking. Note cave

rankings are those provided by Stihler (pers. com.) (See

preceding “Hibernacula” section.)

Calculation of Habitat Scores

If we now weight (multiply) each of the above scores for

each LTA by the importance values described at the

beginning of the document, we can obtain a ranking of

the estimated relative value of each LTA as Indiana bat

habitat. For example, consider LTA Aa01 (North Fork

Mountain/River Knobs):

Habitat LTA Element

Element Ranking Ranking Score

Hibernacula 3 * 5 15

Roosting 5 * 2 10

Foraging 3 * 1 3

Maternity 4 * 3 12

Swarming 3 * 4 12

Overall Rating (Sum) 52

In this way, the ratings for the LTAs emerge as follows:

LTA Rating LTA Rating

Aa01 52 Bc01 22

Aa03 69 Bc02 3

Aa04 21 Bc03 49

Aa06 70

Ba01 3 Bd01 39

Ba02 41 Bd02 38

Ba03 44 Bd03 29

Ba04 30

Ba05 24

Ba06 28

Ba07 4

Ba08 3

Ba09 15

Ba10 47

Ba11 46

Ba12 4

Ba13 30

Ba14 42

Ba15 29

Revision of Maternity Habitat Scores

At a review of the model by an interdisciplinary group in

December 1997, the suggestion was made to consider

how air temperature would affect female Indiana bat

dispersal from caves to summer maternity sites. Craig

Stihler (pers. com.) suggested that evening temperatures

in April and May would be the most useful in ranking

areas, with warmer areas presumably better habitat. In

Missouri, for example, a higher density of maternity

colonies were found in areas exposed to direct sunlight

(Callahan et al. 1997).

Accordingly, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Association (NOAA) weather data for 1986-1997 was

used to generate the average minimum temperatures for

April and May. Data from 18 weather stations on or near

the Monongahela National Forest were employed. These

data were used to rank landtype associations (LTAs) by

evening temperatures. Although weather stations are not

always at locations representative of larger areas, we feel

the approach is valid, since our goal is to rank LTAs by

temperature, not determine precise estimates for each

LTA.

The range of average minimum temperatures for AprilMay was 34.8 to 42.9 degrees F. The maternity habitat

suitability scores were adjusted as follows: LTAs with

average minimum temps within the first third (34.8 to

37.5 degrees F) were decreased by one, since these

temperatures were the coldest in the 8.1 degree range

from 34.8 to 42.9 degrees F. (For example, LTA Ba02

assigned average temperature was 37.0 degrees F, so its

maternity habitat score was reduced from two to one.)

Maternity habitat scores for LTAs with temperatures in

the high range (40.2 to 42.9 degrees F) were increased by

one, and those in the mid-range (37.5 to 40.2 degrees)

were not changed. Scores were not decreased below 0 or

increased beyond 5, the original limits of the scores.

To our knowledge, research thus far has not addressed

the question of critical temperature thresholds for

Indiana bat dispersal and maternity sites. As this

information becomes available, we will use it to refine

the model. Revised total scores for LTAs, reflecting

changes in maternity habitat scores, are as follows:

LTA Rating LTA Rating

Aa01 55 Ba12 4

Aa03 69 Ba13 33

Aa04 24 Ba14 45

Aa06 73 Ba15 29

Ba01 3 Bc01 25

Ba02 41 Bc02 3

Ba03 41 Bc03 26

Ba04 27

Ba05 24

Ba06 25 Bd01 33

Ba07 4 Bd02 38

Ba08 3 Bd03 29

Ba09 12 Ba11 43

Ba10 50
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 75

Table 2.—Landtype Association (LTA) ranking based on habitat values for each of the five life-cycle components of

the Indiana bat, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia.

M221A Northern Ridge and Valley Section

M221Aa Northern Ridge and Valley Subsection

Aa01 North Fork Mountain/River Knobs LTA

Hibernacula 3 Some limestone formations, but relatively few

Roosting 5 Abundant hickories

Foraging 3 A general ranking, since foraging habitat not presently

well-differentiated

Maternity 4 Dry oaks, adjacent pastures.

Swarming 3 Parallels ranking for hibernacula

Aa03 Germany Valley LTA

Hibernacula 5 Hell Hole cave, the only hibernaculum designated critical

habitat for Indiana bats in West Virginia, falls within

this LTA. The only category I cave on the Mon.

Roosting 3 This LTA mostly pastures.

Foraging 3

Maternity 5 Mix of pastures and dry oak forest.

Swarming 5 Parallels ranking for hibernacula.

Aa04 Potomac Riparian LTA

Hibernacula 0 Unlikely in riparian zone.

Roosting 4 Sycamores and elms.

Foraging 4 Riparian LTAs ranked slightly higher as foraging areas.

Maternity 3 Some pastures and hickories, including snags.

Swarming 0

Aa06 Cave Mountain LTA

Hibernacula 5 Two known hibernacula (albeit not on NF) that were

historically category I.

Roosting 5 Abundant hickories, chestnut oak.

Foraging 3

Maternity 4 Good woodland/pasture mix.

Swarming 5 Not as good as Germany Valley.

M221B Allegheny Mountains Section

M221Ba Northern High Allegheny Subsection

Ba01 Cheat-Shavers-Back Allegheny Mountain System, Frigid Soils LTA

Hibernacula 0 High elevation, no limestone.

Roosting 1 Virtually no oaks/hickories.

Foraging 1 Cool microclimate.

Maternity 0 Cool microclimate.

Swarming 0

Ba02 Cheat Mountain Slopes LTA

Hibernacula 4 Two known Cat. III caves; one known Cat. IV.

Roosting 2 May have scattered snags and sugar maple.

Foraging 3 Presumed average value.

Maternity 2 Moderately high elevation (3000-3800 ft)

Swarming 2

Ba03 Upper Tygart Valley LTA

Hibernacula 3 One known Cat. III cave.

Roosting 3 Fair amount hickory.

Foraging 3 Average value.

Maternity 4 Lower elevation, pasture mix.

Swarming 2

Ba04 Tygart Valley River Riparian LTA

Hibernacula 1 Hibernacula unlikely; no limestone.

Roosting 4 Sycamores/elms.

Foraging 4 Riparian areas ranked slightly higher.

Maternity 3 Woodland/pasture mix; thermal cover may be lacking.

Continued
76 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Swarming 1

Ba05 Middle Mountain System LTA

Hibernacula 1 Hibernacula unlikely; non-limestone.

Roosting 3 Lower slopes will have oak/hickory, but mostly northern

hardwoods.

Foraging 3

Maternity 2 Mostly moderately high elevations.

Swarming 1

Ba06 Spruce Knob System LTA

Hibernacula 2 Hibernacula possible in small pockets.

Roosting 2 Hickory limited, mostly northern hardwoods.

Foraging 3 Few non-forested areas.

Maternity 1 Higher elevations.

Swarming 2

Ba07 Dolly Sods LTA

Hibernacula 0 High elevation, no limestone.

Roosting 1 Practically no hickory, few large snags.

Foraging 2 Colder climate, lack of large trees.

Maternity 0 Cold climate, lack of thermal cover.

Swarming 0

Ba08 Allegheny Plateau Block Red Spruce-Frigid Soils LTA

Hibernacula 0 High elevation, no limestone.

Roosting 1 Virtually no hickories.

Foraging 1 Cool microclimate.

Maternity 0 Cool microclimate.

Swarming 0

Ba09 Burner Mountain-Laurel Fork VA System LTA

Hibernacula 0 Lack of limestone.

Roosting 3 Some hickory at low elevation elevation.

Foraging 3 Few non-forested areas.

Maternity 2 Some areas in this LTA are at low elevation.

Swarming 0

Ba10 Allegheny Sideslopes LTA

Hibernacula 4 Two known cat. II caves, one cat. IV.

Roosting 3 Some hickories.

Foraging 3

Maternity 2 Some low elevation sites.

Swarming 3

Ba11 Northern Allegheny Mountain LTA

Hibernacula 4 Limestone in Sinks of Gandy area.

Roosting 2 Mostly northern hardwoods.

Foraging 3 Some large pasture areas.

Maternity 1 Higher elevations.

Swarming 4

Ba12 Canaan Valley LTA

Hibernacula 0 High elevation, no limestone.

Roosting 1 Practically no hickory, many areas open.

Foraging 2 Colder climate, lack of trees.

Maternity 0 Cold climate, lack of cover.

Swarming 0

Ba13 Cheat River LTA

Hibernacula 1 Hibernacula unlikely; no limestone.

Roosting 4 Sycamores/elms.

Foraging 4 Riparian areas ranked slightly higher.

Maternity 3 Woodland/farmland mix; cover lacking.

Swarming 1

Table 2—continued

Continued
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 77

Ba14 Cheat River Hills LTA

Hibernacula 3 Possible in limestone adjacent to Mauch Chunk layer.

Roosting 3 Hickories moderately abundant.

Foraging 3

Maternity 2 Moderately high elevations.

Swarming 3

Ba15 Allegheny Front Foothills LTA

Hibernacula 1 Lack of limestone.

Roosting 4 Oak/hickory well-represented.

Foraging 3

Maternity 3 Climate more like ridge and valley.

Swarming 1

M221Bc Southern High Allegheny Subsection

Bc01 Allegheny Plateau LTA

Hibernacula 1 Lack of limestone.

Roosting 2 Mostly northern hardwoods.

Foraging 3

Maternity 2 Moderately high to high elevations.

Swarming 1

Bc02 Allegheny Plateau Red Spruce-Frigid Soils LTA

Hibernacula 0 High elevation, no limestone.

Roosting 1 Virtually no hickory.

Foraging 1 Cool climate.

Maternity 0 Cool climate.

Swarming 0

Bc03 Cloverlick System LTA

Hibernacula 3 One known Cat. III and one Cat. IV cave.

Roosting 3 Oak-hickory fairly abundant.

Foraging 3

Maternity 3 Some low elevation sites, good farmland mix.

Swarming 4

M221Bd Eastern Allegheny Mountain and Valley Subsection

Bd01 Allegheny Mountain System LTA

Hibernacula 1 Limestone lacking.

Roosting 3 Oak-hickory fairly abundant.

Foraging 3

 Maternity 3 Some low elevation sites, good farmland mix.

Swarming 4

Bd02 Beaverlick-Brushy System LTA

Hibernacula 2 Some limestone, although tends to be more like chert or

mixed with shales (not conducive to cave formation).

Roosting 4 Oak-hickory well-represented.

Foraging 3

Maternity 3 Lower elevation sites, some farmland mix.

Swarming 2

Bd03 Slabcamp-Little Mountain System LTA

Hibernacula 1 Limestone lacking.

Roosting 4 Oak-hickory well-represented

Foraging 3

Maternity 3 Lower elevation sites, some farmland mix.

Swarming 1

Table 2—continued
78 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Summer Habitat Suitability

Another suggestion from the December 1997 meeting

was to evaluate summer habitat only, since maternity

sites appear to be selected independent of hibernacula

locations. In this approach we therefore use only the

roosting, foraging, and maternity components of the

model (omit hibernacula and swarming scores). This

approach is thought to illustrate the summer habitat

potential— the period when most management

activities, such as logging, occur.If this approach is taken,

the ratings become:

LTA Rating LTA Rating

Aa01 28 Ba12 4

Aa03 24 Ba13 24

Aa04 24 Ba14 18

Aa06 28 Ba15 23

Ba01 3 Bc01 16

Ba02 10 Bc02 3

Ba03 21 Bc03 15

Ba04 21

Ba05 12

Ba06 7 Bd01 15

Ba07 4 Bd02 20

Ba08 3 Bd03 20

Ba09 12

Ba10 18

Ba11 7

Use of Ratings

From this it can be seen that the highest ratings are in the

Ridge and Valley. This agrees with the map exercise of the

November meeting. These ratings can be used to

prioritize where field surveys or fine-scale data collection

occur, with the caveats 1) that field verification of the

model will be necessary, and that 2) the model is subject

to revision over time as our understanding improves.

Guidelines can be developed to indicate the appropriate

level of field sampling effort. The guidelines can be

considered hypotheses, to be tested with field data and

other information as it becomes available. Following is a

suggested set of possible guidelines.

Year-Long Habitat Model (Includes hibernacula,

maternity, roosting, foraging, and swarming habitat):

Rating Surveying Recommendation

< 10 No consideration necessary.

10-40 Conduct similar analysis at landtype (LT) scale

for each project EA. Field work may or may

not be necessary.

41-50 LT scale analysis, mist-netting.

>50 LT scale analysis, mist-netting, mitigation

measures.

Summer Habitat Model (Includes roosting, foraging,

and maternity habitat only):

Rating Surveying Recommendation

< 10 No consideration necessary.

10-20 Conduct similar analysis at landtype (LT) scale

for each project EA. Field work may or may

not be necessary.

21-25 LT scale analysis, mist-netting.

>25 LT scale analysis, mist-netting, mitigation

measures.

At this time one model is not recommended over

another, but provided fall/winter sites were wellprotected, it seems reasonable to use the summer model.

As additional field data are obtained and analyzed, the

above would be revised in an iterative process (as well as

used to refine the model itself).

Model Validation

Clearly, field data are needed to validate this model, so

that it can be revised as our understanding of Indiana bat

habitat improves. Bat mist net data collected on the

Monongahela during summer 1997 are summarized in

Table 3.

Although 275 bats were captured during the summer,

none were Indiana bats. This suggests the Monongahela

National Forest may be providing suitable habitat that is

not being used. Extensive subsequent sampling in 1998-

2000 revealed only two adult Indiana bat males and one

Table 3.—Summary of bat mist net capture, summer 1997, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia.

Area LTA No. Net Locations No. Bats Indiana Bats LTA Model Score*

Location Ba14 11 37 0 42/18*

Lockridge Bd01 10 106 0 39/15

Indian Run Ba14 12 44 0 42/18

Burner Settlement Ba09 12 12 0 5/12

Lower Glady Ba10 11 27 0 47/18

Big Ditch Bc01 11 35 0 22/16

Cabot Gas Ba09 3 1 0 15/12

*Total model/Summer model scores
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 79

juvenile Indiana bat on or near the Monongahela

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2000).

Perhaps the largest problem in sampling Indiana bats is

that Indiana bats are highly mobile and migratory

(USDA Forest Service 2000). Another consideration is

that mist netting as a method may not be adequate to

locate Indiana bats, although it appears to be the best

current method available. Another possibility is that the

bats are using habitats other than the mixed mesophytic

and xeric oak sites evaluated above. To test this

hypothesis, bat sampling on northern hardwood sites is

recommended. Further evaluation of other mixed

mesophytic and dry oak sites also is recommended.

Finally, other methods of identifying bats, such as

identifying their calls with electronic equipment, are

being pursued.

Conclusion

Effective modeling of Indiana bat habitat will require

both coarse filter and fine filter strategies. Methods

outlined in this paper are intended to prioritize surveys

and refine our understanding of Indiana bat habitat. The

model was effective in identifying much of the

Monongahela National Forest as habitat of little value

for Indiana bats. Removing the need to field sample

these areas saves considerable resources to survey areas of

more valuable bat habitat. To this end, coupling this

work with a fine-scale bat modeling process, such as the

Romme model (Romme et al. 1995) or Gardner’s model

(Gardner et al. 1991), is the logical next step in refining

this work and making it more effective.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledgments the critical

reviews by Pat Ormsbee, wildlife biologist, USDA Forest

Service, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon;

Petra B. Wood, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Extension

Unit, West Virginia University, Morgantown; and John

Edwards, Division of Forestry, West Virginia University,

Morgantown. Their comments strengthened the

manuscript considerably. Any errors that remain are my

own.

Participants in the expert panel used to develop the

model:

Steve Mighton, Endangered Species coordinator, USDA

Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI

Kieran O’Malley, Biologist, West Virginia Division of

Natural Resources, Romney, WV

Harry Pawelczyk, Biologist, USDA Forest Service

Monongahela National Forest, Elkins, WV

Lynette Serlin, Biologist, USDA Forest Service

Monongahela National Forest, Marlinton, WV

Karen Stevens, Biologist, USDA Forest Service

Monongahela National Forest, Bartow, WV

Craig Stihler, Biologist, West Virginia Division of Natural

Resources, Elkins, WV

Linda Thomasma, Research Biologist, USDA Forest

Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV

William Tolim, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Elkins, WV

Jo Wargo, USDA Forest Service Monongahela National

Forest, Richwood, WV

Literature Cited

Agency Draft Recovery Plan (Agency Draft). 1997.

Indiana bat (agency draft) recovery plan.

Minneapolis, MN: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3. 43 p.

Bailey, R.G., and P.E. Avers. 1993. Multi-scale ecosystem

analysis. In: G. Lund, ed. Integrated ecological and

resource inventories: Proceedings of the symposium.

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service Publication

WO-WSA-4.

Callahan, E.V., R.D. Drobney, and R.L. Clawson. 1997.

Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats

(Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Journal of Mammology.

78: 818-825.

Clark, B.K., J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Summer

habitat of the endangered Indiana bat in Iowa.

American Midland Naturalist. 118: 32-39.

Clawson, R.L. 1996. Indiana bat summer habitat

patterns in Missouri. Final report to Missouri

Department of Conservation. 16 p.

Cleland, D., P.E. Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G.

Bailey, T. King, and W.E. Russell. 1997. National

hierarchical framework of ecological units. In: M.S.

Boyce and A. Haney, eds. Ecosystem management:

Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife

resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 181-

200

Cope, J.B., and S.A. Humphrey. 1977. Spring and

summer swarming behavior in the Indiana bat,

Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammology. 58: 93-95.

Cope, J.B., A.R. Richter, and D.A. Searly. 1978. A survey

of bats in Big Blue Lake project area in Indiana.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Unpublished

administrative report. 51p.

Core, E.L. 1966. Vegetation of West Virginia. Parsons,

WV: McClain Printing Co. 217 p.
80 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

DeMeo, T., L. Tracy, and L. Wright. 1995. Landtype

associations of the Monongahela National Forest,

West Virginia. Elkins, WV: USDA Forest Service

unpublished report on file. 16 p.

DeMeo, T. 1999. Forest songbird abundance and

viability at multiple scales on the Monongahela

National Forest, West Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation,

West Virginia University, Morgantown. 149 p.

Forman, T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology.

New York: John Wiley and Sons. 619 p.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hoffman. 1991.

Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of

Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Final report,

Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois Dept. of

Conservation. Champaign, Illinois. 56 p.

Garner, J.D., and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of

summer distribution and habitat utilization of the

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Final report,

Project E-3, Unpublished administrative report. 23 p.

Hobson, C.S., and J.N. Holland. 1995. Post-hibernation

movement and foraging habitat of a male Indiana

bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammology. 58: 334-

346.

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977.

Summer habitat and ecology of the endangered

Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammology.

58: 334-346.

Kiser, J.D. and C.L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food

habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana

bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Johnson

County, Kentucky. Final report, Kentucky Department

of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfurt, KY.

Unpublished administrative report. 65 p.

Kurta, A., D. King, J.A. Teramino, J.M. Stribley, and K.J.

Williams. 1993. Summer roosts of the endangered

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the northern edge

of its range. American Midland Naturalist. 129: 132-

138.

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, W. Caire, L.R. Wingate, and

M.L. LaVal. 1976. An evaluation of the status of

Myotine bats int he proposed Meramec Park Lake

and Union Lake project areas. Missouri Special

Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO.

Unpublished administrative report. 136 p.

LaVal, R.K., and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies

and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis

on cave-dwelling species. Terrestrial Series 8,

Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

52 p.

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. 2001. Version 1.3. Arlington, VA, USA:

Association for Biodiversity Information. Available:

http://www.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: June 8, 2001).

Racey, P.A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. In: T.H.

Kunz, ed. Ecology of bats. New York: Plenum Press:

57-104.

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack. 1995. Literature

summary and habitat suitability Index model:

Components of summer habitat for the Indiana

bat, Myotis sodalis. Federal aid project E-1-7, Study

No. 8. 31D Environmental, 38 p.

Stihler, C. pers. comm. Nongame wildlife biologist, West

Virginia Div. Nat. Res., Elkins.

Stihler, C. 1996. Bats of the Fernow Experimental

Forest, Tucker County, West Virginia. Unpublished

report on file, West Virginia Division of Natural

Resources, Elkins, WV. 14 p.

Stihler, C. 1997. Letter dated August 13, 1997 to A.

Scherer, US Fish and Wildlife Serv., Pleasantville, NJ,

on West Virginia hibernacula of the Indiana bat, 2 pp.

Nongame wildlife biologist, West Virginia Div. Nat.

Res., Elkins.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Biological assessment for

threatened and endangered species on the

Monongahela National Forest, WV. Available: http://

www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/enviromental/

forest_plan_amend

biological_assessmt_tande_species.pdf

Worthington, B.T. 1998. Letter from Daniel Boone Forest

Supervisor to J. Bensman, Heartwood Forest Watch

Coordinator, Jan. 27, 1998. 5 p.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 81

Abstract

A land type association inventory was made primarily to

support county planning and as an example of

ecological land classification to planners and others who

could benefit from information gathered by this

approach. The inventory was made by visually

delineating, describing and interpreting 13 land type

associations on satellite imagery using personal

knowledge and field observations supplemented by

existing resource reports. The inventory proved to have

limited application to the present, residential level of

planning in the county but has considerable promise as

the bridge between the current widespread use of land

classification on National Forest lands and its possible

use on lands of other jurisdictions.

The County

Weber County is one of five counties which make up the

Wasatch Front in northern Utah. Eighty percent of the

people in the state live in this 90 by 20 mile strip at the

foot of the Wasatch Mountain Range along the east sides

of the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake. Of the 29 counties

in the state, Weber ranks 27th in size at 371,840 acres

and fourth in population with about 193,000 people.

The population grew 14 percent between 1990 and

1997, the source of the growing development pressure

on the land. Ogden, the county seat with a population of

77,226 people, is the largest of 20 communities in the

county (US Census Bureau 2000). Like most of Utah,

Weber County is highly urbanized with 95 percent of the

people living in towns of over 2,500. Manufacturing is

the largest single category of employment (electronics,

medical equipment, airbags, armored cars), but Hill Air

Force Base in adjacent Davis County is the single largest

employer. Natural resource-related work such as mining,

logging and farming produce less than 3 percent of the

county’s income. Seventy-seven percent of the land in the

county is privately owned (Weber County Public Land

Advisory Council 1997). This contrasts with the

statewide ownership pattern where federal land

ownership is 68 percent.

Archaeologists have found signs of early hunter-gatherers

in the marshes and along the stream channels on the

eastern shore of the Great Salt Lake dating back nearly

10,000 years (Madsen, 1980). There is evidence that

Western Shoshoni people raised crops, fished the

streams, and hunted antelope, deer and buffalo in what

is now the western part of the county from about 1300

until the early 1800s when trappers reached the area. The

first European to see the Great Salt Lake is thought to

have been Jim Bridger, one of William Henry Astor’s

trappers, in 1824. In 1846, one of the last of the

mountain men, Miles Goodyear, chose a spot on the

Weber River near present day Ogden to build a fort for

trading and supplying immigrants. A year later, he sold

his interests in the Weber County area to the Mormons

who had arrived in the Salt Lake Valley about 40 miles to

the south of his fort in 1847. With the arrival of the

Mormons, settlement began in earnest. Irrigation systems

for farming were constructed; towns were established; an

infrastructure of roads, canals, schools, etc. were

established (Sandier and Roberts 1997). The arrival of

the railroad in 1869 brought a major outside influence

to the county. Ogden became the main railroad center

for the intermountain west, contributing to its industrial

growth. The Defense Department made large

investments in the Weber County area in the 1930s and

1940s. Ogden lost its status as a major railroad center in

the 1980s but other forms of business and industry keep

the area growing (Miller 1980).

Planning in the County

The grid pattern of city layout was brought here from the

midwest by the pioneers. Planning to reduce conflicts

between kinds of development began county-wide in the

1940s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the county and cities

worked together on federal grants to prepare

comprehensive/master plans to guide orderly

development, efficient public services and architectural

continuity. Ogden and Roy, the second largest city in the

county, established planning units of their own in the

late 1970s, giving the county responsibility to support

the smaller towns and unincorporated parts of the

county. In the 1990s, the county worked with people in

Ogden Valley on a plan to help them retain the character

of the area and the water quality. Studies of water quality

and road access to the valley led to a minimum three

acre lot size. The county planning unit is now beginning

a project in the western part of the county. Need for

housing, a proposed inter-county highway, an outdated

general plan and a shortage of sewage treatment facilities

in the western part of the county prompted the current

planning effort (Barker 2001). The expected output is a

general growth plan which will capture the residents’

vision of a desired future and the goals, policies and

ordinances which will lead to that vision. Waste water

treatment is a major concern because of the shallow

water table in much of the western part of the county

and the nearly overloaded treatment system in that area

(Grier 2001).

Land Type Associations of Weber County, Utah

DeVon Nelson1 and Jeff Bruggink2

1

Weber County Volunteer, 1617 E. 1250 S., Ogden, UT

2

Regional Soil Scientist, Intermountain Region, USDA

Forest Service, Ogden, UT (jbruggink@fs.fed.us)
82 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

The Lands in the County

There are three main kinds of land based on

physiography. The narrow Wasatch Mountain range

extends from north to south in the middle of the county.

Valleys and high ridges lie “behind” the mountains to

the east and a long, gently sloping plain reaches

westward from the mountains to the Great Salt Lake.

Other northern Utah counties have similar land patterns.

In the national scheme of things, the three kinds of land

areas outlined here, according to a recent report

sponsored by the Forest Service (Nelson 1994) are called

“Subsections.” See Figure 1.

Two subsections, the Monte Cristo Hinterlands and the

Northern Wasatch Mountains are in the Overthrust

Mountain Section (M331D) of the Southern Rocky

Mountain Province. Locally, these are in the “Rockies.”

The lands to the west are in the Wasatch Front Valleys

subsection of the Bonneville Basin Section (341 A) of the

Intermountain Semi-Desert and Desert Province (McNab

and Avers 1994). Most call this the Great Basin. The three

subsections were the framework for identifying the

thirteen Land Type Associations (LTAS) described in this

report.

Weber County is drained by two major rivers. The

Ogden River flows through the central part of the county

from east to west and is a major tributary to the larger

Weber River. The Weber starts in the Uinta Mountains to

the southeast and enters the Front part of county from

the south. It then flows north through a heavily

urbanized valley about four miles to its junction with the

Ogden River. From here it goes west to empty into the

Great Salt Lake.

Wasatch Front Valleys Subsection

Over 95 percent of the people and 17 of the 20

communities in the county are in this approximately 11

miles by 13 miles “Front” subsection where the slopes

are flatter, elevations are lower, and the climate warmer

and dryer than the other two subsections. This part of the

county is sometimes called “the lower valley.” More

about this subsection and an example LTA description in

it are given in the Results section of this paper.

Northern Wasatch Mountains Subsection

The Northern Wasatch Mountains subsection rises

abruptly along a fault line that marks the eastern edge of

the lower valley. Many environmental differences

accompany this physiographic break, The precipitation,

for example, jumps from about I0 to 16 inches on the

low, western slopes to over 40 inches on the crests of the

Wasatch, a horizonal distance of about two miles but a

vertical shift of nearly 5,000 feet (Nelson 1994). The

geologic materials shift as radically, going from the

young, unconsolidated sediments in the western valleys

to steeply sloping quartzite and limestone rocks on the

western face of the mountains (Stokes 1988). Slope

gradients jump from less than 5 percent in the Front

valleys to over 60 percent in the mountains. The

mountains have small Douglas-fir stands on their north

aspects and ridge tops and oakbrush and mountain

maple on western and southern slopes. Oakbrush and

mountain maple form solid stands on the eastern

slopes. Snow Basin, a ski area on the east facing slopes

will be an important venue for the 2002 Olympics. See

Figure 2.

Figure 1.—Subsections

mapped in Weber County
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 83

Monte Cristo Hinterlands Subsection

The third subsection, the Monte Cristo Hinterlands, east

of the Wasatch Range, is the upper watershed of the

Ogden River. Most people in this subsection live in

Ogden Valley, an elongated, north-south area of stream

terraces and fans along the eastern side of the Wasatch

Mountains (Muir and Winkelaar 1974). A series of

relatively harsh, west-facing foothills rise to the west of

this valley. Pineview Reservoir sits along the west edge of

the subsection at the head of Ogden Canyon, one of

three access routes to the Ogden Valley area from the

“lower valley.” A series of ridges and canyons cut by

tributaries to the Ogden River lie to the east of the Ogden

Valley. A series of broad ridges and subdued uplands

form the rim of the Ogden River watershed. Compared

to the Wasatch Front Valleys Subsection, the hinterlands

are colder, wetter, and have much less land suitable for

development. The growing season in the Ogden Valley,

the only arable land here, is about 50 days less than it is

for the Front Valleys, which are 6 miles to the west and

about 400 feet lower (Soil Conservation Service 1968;

Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service 1974).

Outside of the Ogden Valley, nearly all of the hinterlands

support brush and tree cover whose main uses are

recreation, watershed and grazing land. The scenery,

hunting, hiking, and winter sports opportunities bring

many people to the area. Figure 3 is an example

landscape in this subsection.

The Survey

Purpose of the Survey

The initial rationale for making the LTA survey is as

follows:

1. Planning. A planning project in the western part of the

county was beginning about the time the LTA survey

began. This provided an opportunity to determine the

possible role of this rather general survey in land use

planning at the local level.

2. Demonstration. A subsection map of the state of Utah

was recently completed by the Forest Service. Ecological

land classification has been used for nearly three decades

on National Forests here but it has received very little

attention from other resource management agencies.

This LTA survey could be an example to demonstrate the

land classification concept to state and county officials.

3. Information. Over the years, considerable information

on various resources has been produced by state and

federal agencies. Although the information is readily

available, some of it remains unknown to local planners

and others dealing with the land. An LTA survey provides

a set of recognizable land units that the available

information can be tied to, making the information

more relevant and visible to potential users.

4. Communication. The LTA survey provides land units

which are the common ground for discussions about the

land use issues. The survey can be an orientation tool for

those getting acquainted with the county.

5. Learning. The survey map and description can be used

to teach anyone who is interested in the lands of Weber

County.

How the Survey Was Made

The survey was made by a combination of top-down and

bottom-up activities with as much field checking as

conditions permitted. The bottom-up tasks consisted of

Figure 2.—A landscape in the

Northern Wasatch Mountains

Subsection. The area shown is a

venue for the 2002 Winter

Olympics.
84 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

collecting published reports and maps and then using

these materials to guide the mapping of units and

preparing map units description.

Mapping

The mapping was mainly a top-down task. Using

information from the soil surveys, geologic maps and

observations from driving surveys as a rough guide, the

authors sketched out map units on a transparent overlay

on a satellite image of the county (Landsat TM,Oct. 30,

2000; Bands 4, 5, 3). Criteria from the imagery used to

delineate units were the type and density of the drainage

pattern, local relief as expressed by the vegetation and

shadow patterns, expressions of land use (e.g. visible

roads, fields and structures) and tonal differences

showing distribution of water and general slope aspects.

USGS topographic maps (7 1/2 minute quads) were

helpful in identifying land units in the Wasatch Front

Valleys subsection because few natural surfaces remain

intact and the key distinctions among these floodplains,

fans and terraces are related to slight elevational

differences. We visited as many units as we could in the

field. We changed some unit boundaries as a result of

these visits.

Descriptions and Interpretations

We drew mainly on the collected information to write

the LTA descriptions. The soil association descriptions

for the general soils maps in the two soil surveys were

especially helpful for this task (Soil Conservation

Service, 1968; Soil Conservation Service and Forest

Service 1974). Our comments on management were

based on field observations and on conversations with

planners and other knowledgeable persons. We also

used a map entitled “Selected Critical Facilities and

Geologic Hazards, Weber County, Utah.” by the Utah

Geological Survey and Earthquake Preparedness

Information Center (1995). Visual interpretation of the

satellite imagery helped us describe the vegetation and

physiographic features such as drainage patterns. We also

used a landslide map of the state (Hardy 1991), the 7 1/2

minute quad topographic maps for elevations and the

Forest Service ranger district map (USDA Forest Service

1994) for land ownership. An earlier land type

association report on the Ogden Valley (Muir and

Winkelaar 1974) was helpful at both mapping and

description stages. We used three sources of geologic

information (Eardley 1944, 1962; Stokes 1988).

Soils reports were particularly useful because, in

addition to soil descriptions and extensive

interpretations, they cover many other facets of the

environment including vegetation type, geologic

material, climate and physiographic information. A

problem with these reports is that they contain too much

detail for the level of mapping undertaken here, thus

requiring considerable time to sort out what was needed.

For example, five LTAs were identified in the Wasatch

Front Valleys subsection but over 100 soil units were

mapped in the same area. We tried to keep the

subsection and LTA descriptions simple with the

assumption that the referenced reports could be used for

more detailed needs.

Results

The inventory resulted in a report entitled the “The

Lands of Weber County, Utah.” The two parts of this

report are the map and the descriptions of the

subsections and their land type associations.

Figure 3.—A landscape in the Monte Cristo Hinterland Subsection showing the Pineview Reservoir
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 85

The Map

The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service’s GIS

Unit used our subsection and land type association

delineations to produce an attractive poster showing the

lands of Weber County as we saw them. The base map is

of an oblique, vertically exaggerated, false color infra-red

version of the landsat image used to map the LTAS. An

attractive, laminated version of the map at a scale of

1:32,000 with a legend giving thumbnail descriptions

and interpretations of the LTAs was prepared for key

county officials. Figure 4 is a small scale, black and white

version of this map poster.

Subsections and Land Type Association

Descriptions

The narrative part of the Weber County LTA report

consists of the descriptions and interpretations of the

three subsections and thirteen land type associations.

Space only permits presentation of examples of this

material here.

Subsection Description: The Wasatch Front Valleys

This part of the county is called the “lower valley.” The

area is almost entirely a series of gently sloping stream

and lake terraces and large fans of rock and earth at the

mouths of the several canyons along the front. Large

deltas formed at the mouths of the Ogden and Weber

River canyons when the mountain glaciers melted.

Remnants of these deltas have been covered with

younger material which washed in from the adjacent

mountain slopes. The distance between the foot of the

mountains (LTA W2) and the Great Salt Lake is 8 to 10

miles but the elevation difference is 600 feet, giving an

average slope of less than one-half percent. Within these

long terraces and benches the most visual features are the

valleys with their bluff-like side slopes cut by the two

rivers. Discontinuous sections of benches formed by now

extinct Lake Bonneville are visible along the foot of the

mountains. The exceptions to the depositional

landscapes mentioned above are Little Mountain and

Fremont Island. The first is a broad hill with outcrops of

tillite, a very old glacial deposit, in the western edge of

the county. Fremont Island is about 4 miles off shore. It

is the third largest island in the lake and tops out at 700

feet above the lake.

Other than the wetland along the Great Salt Lake in a

wildlife refuge, this western part of the county is almost

completely agricultural, residential, urban or industrial

land. About 95 percent of the county’s population live

here, and the bulk of the interstate highway system and

railroads cross this unit. This side of the mountains

frequently has temperature inversions in winter, causing

a layer of cloud of vehicle exhaust and industrial gasses

to blanket the valleys of the Wasatch Front.

Four kinds of land related to landform, age and location

of sediment deposits were mapped as land type

associations within this subsection. We mapped Little

Mountain and Fremont Island as LTA F5 to cover the

only areas with exposed bedrock. An “F” for Great SaIt

Lake “Front” is used as a prefix to the LTA numbers to

Figure 4.—Land type association map of Weber County
86 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

help distinguish them from other LTAs in the county.

Elevation in relation to the Great Salt Lake controls

much of the land use and management opportunities in

this part of the county. For example, experience has

shown that when the lake rises from its average of 4,200

feet to 4,204 feet, significant damage to structures from

flooding can be expected. The historical high was

reached in 1987 at 4,211.85 feet; the low in 1963 was

4,191.3 feet. In LTA F5 Little Mountain reaches 4,664 feet

and Fremont Island’s summit is 4,995 feet. Fremont

Island seems to loom over the lake and nearby flatlands.

Land Type Association Description: LTA: F 3 Low

Terraces.

General description.—This is a combination of flood

plains of the two rivers in the county and the lowest lake

terraces. Slow moving, meandering streams and drainage

ditches cross the area in several places.

Materials.—Fine textured fluvial and lacustrine

sediments.

Elevation.—4,202 to 4,220 feet.

Slopes.—Less than 3 percent gradients.

Precipitation.—13 to 16 inches

Mean Annual temperature.—47 to 52 degrees F.

Frost-free days.—150 to 175.

Soils.—Deep, stone-free loams to silty clay loam, mostly

poorly drained with some moderately well drained areas.

Most soils are saline or alkaline and have a water table

within 5 feet of the surface. In the western part, the land

surface has many small depressions. There are many free

flowing springs in this unit according to topographic

maps. Much of the area is salt crusted mud with little

vegetation.

Vegetation.—Salt tolerant grasses and greasewood.

Russian olive seems to be well adapted to the area.

Cattails and other marsh plants are in the wetlands.

Isolated cottonwood trees are along the Weber River.

Land use.—Pasture for cattle is the most extensive use.

Patches of irrigated row crops are in the higher, eastern

part. There are a few houses in higher areas or built-up

sites. Department of Wildlife Management manages

Ogden Bay Waterfowl Management Area (2 1,000 Acres)

and the Harold Crane WNM (I 1,000 acres). Seasonal

hunting and birdwatching are important uses. Several

private duck hunting clubs are next to the WNIAS. ATV

use is increasing. There are two processing plants here:

Western Zirconium and IMC Kalium. The latter uses

extensive evaporation impoundments in the northeast

arm of the Great Salt Lake.

Management concerns.—Flooding by the Weber River

and the Great Salt Lake, High sedimentation rates for the

Weber River. The liquefaction hazard. Swarms of summer

mosquitos. The Great Salt Lake Comprehensive

Management Plan (Great Salt Lake Planning Team 2000)

identifies these management issues: Vulnerability to

flooding by the Weber River and the Great Salt Lake, high

sediment for the Weber River, loss of agricultural land

habitat required for certain species of birds due to

residential housing development. See Figure 5.

Use of the LTA Inventory

Weber County planners are beginning to gather

information for the 10 year growth plan for the western

part of the county. This area is covered by four of the five

LTAs identified in the Wasatch Front subsection. The LTA

inventory has been introduced to the planners but it is

too early to determine what its effect will be. The

following is what we have learned so far:

Figure 5.—Land Type Association

F3, Low Terraces, in the foreground,

the more populated Land Type

Association F2, Mid Level Terraces,

in the middle and the Wasatch

Mountains forming the skyline
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 87

1. The survey provides a synoptic view of the county. This

gives planners an idea of where the next demands for

assistance may come from and the limitations of existing

plans. For example, the development requirements for

the Ogden Valley (LTA H5) that were just prepared may

not be appropriate for the expansion of houses along the

streams in the South Fork Valley (LTA H3) in that same

subsection. This perspective also appeals to the county

officers who have seen the final map.

2. LTA delineation was marginally useful to planning. It

did substantiate the boundaries used for more detailed

data collection. For example, the terrace level separating

the well drained soils of LTA F2 and from the imperfectly

and poorly drained soils in LTA F3 became different

categories in their detailed data collection efforts.

3. The information we accumulated for the LTA survey

was, or will be, given to the county planning team. The

team appreciated several key documents we have given

them, including the Soil Conservation Service’s soil

survey reports and the Great Salt Lake Comprehensive

Management Plan. References to other information

sources is expected to be helpful also. It is not certain

the team would have found these documents on its

own.

We aggregated a considerable amount of information in

the LTA descriptions which should be helpful. For

example, getting information out of the soil survey

report because of format and the spaghetti-like map can

be daunting. Our identification of issues and possible

hazards should alert the planners to information and

expertise needs beyond the scope of the LTA survey. Our

findings should help substantiate zoning and

regulations related to the natural resources. The planner

mentioned that a person had asked for a development

permit on a flood plain. The person denied that

flooding had occurred in the area. Our LTA F4 may help

support decisions regarding development in the flood

plains.

4. The Weber County planner we work with has been

fully occupied with starting the new planning project

and has not had time to discuss planning experiences in

lands the county has in common with adjacent counties.

The LTA survey may be an instrument to get such

discussions started.

5. The hierarchical approach was intellectually

interesting to local planners but did not have any impact

on the current planning process because (a) selection of

planning areas over the years has been based on

perceived needs and local development pressures.

Selection of areas is more of an evolutionary process

than an analytical one and (b.) The subsections are

accepted, facts of life for people in the county. It is “nice”

to have them documented and described but their

existence was never questioned.

6. Although the survey has not been used to provide the

context for site studies, we have used some site work

experience to describe the LTAS.

Conclusions

The survey was made too late to have any effect on long

term, county-wide planning, and it is too early to assess

the LTA inventory’s value to the planning task now

underway. A few observations are worth noting at this

time, however.

We had no illusions that an LTA survey could satisfy the

natural resource information needs of a residential

planning project. Chances are that no survey, regardless

of intensity, could meet every resource information need

where high investments on a site by site basis are made.

The information gathered in making the survey and its

use as a means to get one’s bearings in a subtly complex

landscape along with its role in identifying potential

land use issues and its application as a means to

extrapolate experience from adjacent counties, all suggest

the LTA survey is best used as a pre-planning tool in this

Weber County example.

There is good potential for using the framework of units

to give site investigations an ecological context. Making

the survey generated a small library of descriptions,

maps, and references which will improve our ability to

respond to land use questions scattered around the

county. It can provide a framework for extending

information and experience gathered at a site. This

function of the inventory is especially relevant to the site

specific work done by the county’s Public Land Advisory

Council.

The LTA inventory will be a useful example of land

classification. The concept of a hierarchy of land units is

not widely known in Utah outside of the Forest Service

and Utah State University. Over the years, key state and

federal agencies have been urged, with minor success, to

participate in a statewide land classification. The

emphasis was on land classification as an information

gathering tool and as a means for greater cross-boundary

coordination. The Weber County LTA survey will be a

useful tool to illustrate the land classification concept

and its possible applications in local land management

issues. The inventory can be used to reach out to the

counties. A positive response here would be very

gratifying in itself, but in addition, we may spark an

interest in land classification in the state and other

federal agencies with resource management

responsibilities.

Three common checks on the validity of a land

classification are (1) relevance to the issues at hand, (2)

visibility to the decision maker and (3) “mappability”

by the people making the classification. Using these

criteria, we have to say that the inventory had limited

application to the current planning project as an
88 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

information source but does have relevance as

orientation and communication tools. One of the

strengths of the inventory is that the LTAs are readily

visible to the county commissioners and department

heads. Little explanation was required to make them

understandable. For the most part, the LTAs in the final

map were fairly obvious and could be consistently

delineated. A mapping problem arose in only one

situation. We expected to be able to map a mountain

crest LTA in the Northern Wasatch Mountain Range

Subsection but we could not consistently delineate it

using the satellite image we had. Such a unit is visible on

the ground and may eventually be separated at the land

type level.

Low unit cost may be a fourth test of a successful LTA

inventory. Land classification methods evolved originally

to meet resource information needs on large areas of

undeveloped land quickly and inexpensively (Davis

1969). It required approximately 6 person weeks to

complete the inventory. Because much of the labor was

volunteered, we have to estimate the cost at about $1500

per week for labor and materials. If these figures are

used, it works out to be less than two and a half cents per

acre. We believe we are safe in saying that this criterion is

satisfied.

We broke new ground by making a county level LTA

inventory. This kind of survey is not uncommon on

National Forest land nor are more general subsection

maps new to the state. We know such inventories are

widely used in other parts of the country. In Utah,

detailed, individual resource maps, e.g. soils, vegetation

and geology, cover much of the state and are essential for

some uses but their number, diversity, and detail can

lead to confusion among planners and local officials if

the need is for an overview of a large land area. This

inventory was aimed at the gap between the

generalizations of the subsection maps and the detailed,

heavy single resource inventories. It will take some time

to determine the value of land type associations to local

planning but we now have an example we can use to

reach out to this vital level of government.

Acknowledgements

We thank Craig Barker and Kelly Grier of the Weber

County Planning Unit for their interest in the LTA

inventory. Special appreciation is owed to David

Prevadel and Russ Reading of the USDA Forest Service’s

GIS unit in Ogden for both their technical and aesthetic

expertise.

Literature Cited

Barker, C. 2001. Director of Weber County Planning.

Personal communication.

Davis, C.M., 1969. A Study of the Land Type. U.S. Army

Research Office, ORA Project 08055. 60 p.

Eardley, A. J. 1944. Geology of the north-central

Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Geolological Society of

America Bulletin 55: 819- 894.

Eardley, A. J. 1962. Geology of the Central Wasatch

Mountains of Utah. Wasatch Hinterland, Guidebook

to the Geololgy of Utah, Utah Geologic and Mining

Survey. 8: 52-60.

Grier, K. 2001. Weber County planner. Personal

communication.

Harty, K. M. 1991. Landslide Map of Utah. Utah

Geological Survey, M-133, Salt Lake City, UT, 28 p, 2

sheets.

Madsen, D. B. 1980. The Human Prehistory of the

Great Salt Lake Region. In Gwynn, J. Wallace, ed.,

Great Salt Lake, A Scientific, Historical and Economic

Overview, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Utah

Department of Natural Resources, Bulletin II 6.

McNab, W. H. and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological

Subregions of the United States: Sections. WO-WSA5. USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management,

Washington, D.C.

Miller, D. E. 1980. Great Salt Lake: a Historical Sketch,

in G. J. Wallace, ed., Great Salt Lake, A Scientific,

Historical and Economic Overview, Utah Geological

and Mineral Survey, Utah Department of Natural

Resources, Bulletin II 6. Salt Lake City, UT.

Muir, D.C. and P. Winkellaar. 1974, Soils Report, Soil

Reconnaissance of the Ogden Valley Management

Unit, Wasatch National Forest. USDA Forest Service,

Salt Lake City, UT. 90 p.

Nelson, D.O. 1994. Subsections on Ten National

Forests in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest

Service, Ogden, UT, Contract No 53-02s2-3-05057.

Roberts, R.C. and R.W. Sadler. 1997. A History of Weber

County. Utah State Historical Society and Weber

County Commission, Salt Lake City, UT. 460 p.

Soil Conservation Service. 1968. Soil Survey of Weber

Area, Utah. Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Morgan

Area, Utah, Morgan County and Eastern Part of

Weber County, Utah. Superintendent of Documents,

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 89

Stokes, W.L. 1988. Geology of Utah. Utah Museum of

Natural History, Occasional Paper No. 6. 280 p.

United States Census Bureau, 2000. County Population

Estimates. U. S. Department of Commerce,

www.census.gov.

Utah Department of Natural Resources, 2000. Great Salt

Lake Comprehensive Management Plan. Prepared

by the Great Salt Lake Planning Team. Salt Lake City,

UT.

Utah Geological Survey and Earthquake Preparedness

Information Center, 1995 (Map) Selected Critical

Facilities and Geologic Hazards, Weber County,

Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.

Utah Geological Survey 1994. Liquefaction potential

map for a part of Weber County, Utah. Public

Information Series 27. Salt Lake City, UT.

Weber County Public Land Advisory Council, 1997.

Some Weber County Statistics. Weber County

Commission. Ogden, UT.
90 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

A national effort is underway to update Major Land

Resource Areas (MLRAs) by 2002. The criteria for

delineating MLRAs have been revised to differentiate

them based on soil material kind and age, soil moisture

and temperature regime, native vegetation, and

landforms. Less emphasis is being placed on landuse at

this level, but will be a consideration in subdivisions of

MLRAs referred to as Common Resource Areas (CRAs).

In Wisconsin, the National Hierarchical Framework of

Ecological Units (NHFEU), at the Landtype Association

level, was used as a significant source for this update.

Landtype Associations (LTAs) are delineated using the

same basic criteria as MLRAs, but at a much finer scale

along with a few additional criteria, such as disturbance

regimes. With the completion of this project, MLRAs in

Wisconsin are now meshed with the NHFEU with LTAs

serving as the common thread. This is significant in that

not only do the two land classification systems mesh in

Wisconsin, which partially satisfies a related national

goal, but also a wealth of soil data will be readily

accessible to the NHFEU. Soil survey areas are currently

being set up around MLRAs where each MLRA will have

its own soil legend linked to the National Soil

Information System (NASIS) database. MLRAs will be

subdivided into CRAs and STATSGO (State Soil

Geographical Database) is slated for update, all within

the MLRA framework and with LTAs potentially serving

as a basis. With MLRAs, CRAs, STATSGO, and soil survey

map units meshed with the NHFEU in Wisconsin, each

NHFEU strata could be linked to the same national soil

survey database. Equally important, MLRAs will have a

significant link to NHFEU ecological data beyond the

standard NRCS databases. This will benefit all users of

these two land classification systems.

NRCS Framework

Major Land Resource Areas represent a hierarchical level

within the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) Framework of land resource categories. The

NRCS Framework is designed to address agricultural

potential and soil capabilities. It provides NRCS a basis

for making decisions concerning national and regional

agricultural issues and serves as a framework for

organizing and operating resource conservation

programs. It identifies needs for research and resource

inventories and provides a broad base for extrapolating

the results of research within national boundaries

(Agricultural Handbook 296 and National Soil Survey

Handbook).

Like the USDA Forest Service’s National Hierarchical

Framework of Ecological Units (NHFEU), the NRCS

Framework is hierarchical in nature consisting of Land

Resource Regions, Major Land Resource Areas, and

Common Resource Areas.

Land Resource Region (LRR): The highest level within

the NRCS Framework. These approximate broad

agricultural market regions having related patterns of

soil, climate, water resources, and land use. LRR’s are

most useful for national and regional planning. LRR

units are comparable in size to Provinces within the

NHFEU.

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): Subdivisions of

LRR’s reflecting associations among soils, climate, water

resources, vegetation, physiography, and land use.

MLRA’s are important in statewide agricultural planning

and have value in interstate, regional, and national

planning. MLRA units are comparable in size to Sections

and Subsections within the NHFEU.

Common Resource Area (CRA) or Land Resource Units

(LRU): The lowest level within the NRCS Framework

reflecting a particular pattern of soils, climate, water

resources, and land use. These generally represent a

geographic area having a characteristic land use pattern

where conservation treatment needs are similar. CRA or

LRU units are comparable in size to Subsections or

Landtype Associations within the NHFEU.

Interagengy Memorandum

Of Understanding

In 1995 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed

by nine federal agencies (NRCS, FS, EPA, BLM, USGS,

NPS, F&WS, NBS, and ARS) to integrate the major

resource mapping frameworks into a common

interagency spatial framework for defining ecological

units of the United States. This interagency framework

will be based on naturally occurring and recognizable

features such as soil, geology, geomorphology, climate,

water, and vegetation. Guides for this work will include

the NRCS Framework, the NHFEU, and the EPA

Ecoregion Framework along with other frameworks

depicting biological and physical components of the

environment, as appropriate.

Updating the USDA-NRCS Major Land Resource Areas in Wisconsin using

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units Landtype Associations

David J. Hvizdak1 and Mitchell C. Moline2

1

Resource Soil Scientist, USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Spooner, WI 54801

(dave.hvizdak@wi.usda.gov)

2GIS Project Leader, GIS Services Section, Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 91

The resulting interagency framework is not intended to

replace the three major frameworks already in place.

Rather, the interagency group recognizes the differences

and function of these frameworks and each will continue

to play an important role within their respective agency

program and administration. Commonality and

refinement of these frameworks will be the basis for

evolution of the common interagency spatial framework

and related databases

Each of the three major frameworks incorporate

associations among soil, geology, geomorphology,

climate, water, and vegetation into their respective

hierarchical system. Yet each produce very different land

resource maps which do not nest well with one another,

hence lack much common ground. To complicate the

matter even more, NRCS delineations regard land use as

important delineating criterion while EPA includes both

land use and water quality, none of which are criteria

within the NHFEU. Through the signed MOU, the nine

federal agencies agreed to establish some commonality

among the major frameworks through revision and

update of their own framework.

Updating Major Land Resource Areas

NRCS is in the process of updating MLRA’s. The last

revision took place around 1978. In the spirit of the

1995 MOU, along with increasing involvement of NRCS

staff in ecosystem planning, NRCS has slightly altered

the criteria defining MLRA’s. Primary distinguishing

characteristics for MLRA’s will be soil material kind and

age (includes surficial geology), soil moisture and

temperature regimes, native vegetation, and landforms.

While land use is still a consideration, its role will be

emphasized more at the CRA level. The project timeline

goal is to complete the update of MLRA’s by March 2002

with preliminary line work due April 15, 2001 and draft

descriptions due July 2001.

The intended reference base for updating MLRA’s

includes CRA/LRU delineations, STATSGO delineations

and associated data, and National Resource Inventory

(NRI) data. In Wisconsin, each reference criterion is

limited in application for updating MLRA’s. CRA/LRU’s

have not been developed statewide. STATSGO units only

represent soil associations derived from varying vintages

of general soil maps and is also scheduled for update.

NRI data is basically point data and has limited

application for delineating MLRA’s. Neither reference

ensures establishing common ground with other

frameworks. A need existed for an alternative reference.

Landtype Associations

In Wisconsin, Landtype Associations (LTA) were used to

update MLRA’s for several reasons. LTA’s represent

ecological resource associations incorporating the same

factors that define both MLRA’s and the proposed

interagency framework (soil, geology, geomorphology,

climate, water, and vegetation). Among the three major

frameworks, LTA’s represent the finest scale of ecological

resource mapping available having statewide coverage.

LTA’s were developed by a multi-discipline, multi-agency

team that included NRCS soil scientists. LTA delineations

are digitized with a supporting database. Attributes

within the LTA database, such as soil associations and

geomorphology, can be readily grouped to aggregate

LTA’s into MLRA’s. The bottom line is the groundwork

for MLRA revisions exists in the form of LTA’s.

MLRA Update Progression

Several MLRA revisions have been recommended over

the years in Wisconsin. By aggregating LTA’s into MLRA

units and incorporating the highly detailed LTA line

work, the revised MLRA’s now represent the landscape

more accurately. This process provided a quick method

of updating MLRA’s while at the same time provided for

a high level of accuracy not otherwise possible. Also,

MLRA lines coincide precisely with LTA lines establishing

common ground between the NRCS Framework and the

NHFEU. This is in accordance with the 1995 MOU. With

LTA’s associated with MLRA’s, LTA data will become a

significant source of information needed to update

MLRA descriptions.

Common Resource Area Development

With the revision of MLRA’s completed, NRCS will

eventually develop Common Resource Areas (CRA). The

term “Common Resource Area” is a proposed alternative

name to be used in place of “Land Resource Unit” (LRU)

currently being used. LRU’s are aggregates of STATSGO

units and historically have had wide use only in the

southwestern portion of the Nation. Common Resource

Areas are more widely accepted because they are to

represent geographical regions where conservation

treatment needs are similar. Landscape conditions,

climate, human considerations (land use), and other

natural resource concerns will be criteria used to

determine CRA units. Each CRA will have several

Benchmark Management Systems (conservation practices

templates) associated with it based on land uses within a

logical geographic framework. These templates then will

be included with the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide

(FOTG).

Landtype Associations could play a significant role in the

development of CRA’s. Each LTA exhibits a characteristic

land use pattern even though land use is not a

delineating factor within the NHFEU. This land use

association, as land use on the local level, generally

follows resource patterns characteristic of LTA’s. This

natural association readily lends itself to developing

characteristic conservation practices templates specific

for each LTA. With LTA’s digitized statewide and already

associated with MLRA’s, LTA delineations could serve as a

base for CRA development.
92 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

STATSGO Update

NRCS will soon be updating the State Soil

Geographic Database (STATSGO). STASGO is a

statewide spatial database representing soil

associations derived from detailed soil surveys.

The update will incorporate recently completed

soil surveys and will establish a link to the

National Soil Information System (NASIS).

NASIS is a soil database from which soil

attribute queries, reports, and interpretations

can be generated and managed.

NRCS detailed soil surveys and STATSGO

information were key factors in the

development of Landtype Associations. Since

LTA’s reflect soil associations relative to

landscape patterns, STASGO units could be tied

in with LTA’s either on a one-to-one basis or as

sub-units to LTA’s. This association would

benefit the NHFEU by providing a means for

linking LTA’s directly to NASIS.

Results

The linkage between the NRCS Framework and

the NHFEU is the Landtype Association. The

LTA enables a direct correlation from the

NHFEU to the NRCS Framework by creating a

common ground between the two systems. A

standardization of a spatial data model drives

the update process for both frameworks. Each

framework utilizes boundaries of the LTA to

delineate every level for each framework. The

data model then enables use of database

information to be shared between both systems

and other database mentioned above.

Utilizing NHFEU LTA’s to update MLRA’s, and

potentially CRA’s and STATSGO within the NRCS

Framework, is enabling NRCS to complete the update

in Wisconsin well within the prescribed timeframe

(Figure 1). The resultant MLRA map has a higher degree

of detail that is more representative of the landscape

than would have been possible to achieve otherwise.

This approach establishes common ground between the

NRCS Framework and the NHFEU, which will benefit

resource managers under either framework through

better coordinated data sharing and effective

communication of management concepts.

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the Wisconsin Landtype

Association Project Team, the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, and the USDA-Natural Resources

Conservation Service for their cooperation in this

MLRA project.

Literature Cited

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1991.

National Soil Survey Handbook. Washington, DC:

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Agricultural

Handbook 296: Land Resource Regions and Major

Land Resource Areas of the United States.

Washington, DC: USDA Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 156p.

Figure 1.—Revised Wisconsin MLRA map with LTA

delineations nested with MLRA’s.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 93

Introduction

Holding a conference on Landtype Associations in

Madison seems appropriate given the amount of

research and application on ecological classification that

has taken place here and elsewhere within the region. In

fact, a previous conference held at the University of

Wisconsin, Madison, in March 1984 on ecosystem

classification entitled “Forest Land Classifications:

Experiences, Problems, Perspectives” provides a useful

framework for summarizing the current meeting and,

more specifically, a benchmark for assessing the advances

in the development and application of ecosystem

classification.

In the proceedings of the 1984 conference, Bailey

presents six problems related to ecosystem classification

and mapping that needed resolution in order to

successfully implement a classification system. I think it

is worthwhile revisiting these problems in light of what

we heard at the current conference on Landtype

Associations. Are these problems still relevant or have we

moved beyond what was perceived by Bailey in 1984 as

major impediments to implementing ecosystem

classification?

Problems of Terminology and Criteria

for Recognition

According to Bailey (1984), there is not a universally

shared understanding of terms such as “ecological land

unit” and “ecosystem.” As a result, ecosystem

classification is not being applied uniformly across the

landscape, nor are same criteria being used in

development and application, and the basic concepts

underlying land classification can vary substantially.

The keynote speaker for the Landtype Associations,

Burton Barnes, addressed these problems. There will

always be those who view ecosystems as abstractions that

are defined only by the interactions among their

components and therefore difficult to identify in reality.

The take-home message from Barnes, however, is that

ecosystems are in fact tangible, identifiable, volumes of

air, land, water, and vegetation. Following the lead of

Rowe (1992), “landscape ecosystems” are described as

real geographic chunks of the earth’s skin. The concept of

a hierarchical, multiple-factor framework for

distinguishing, regionalizing, classifying, and mapping

landscape ecosystems is gaining the day. We saw many

examples of this at the conference. Sure there were some

differences, and there will always will be, but there were

many fundamental similarities in the conceptual basis

among the classifications presented at this conference.

The work of Barnes and his students on the Huron

Mountain Club, the Sylvania Wilderness, the

McCormick Experimental Forest, and the University of

Michigan’s Biological Station has been invaluable in

illustrating the process of identifying and characterizing

landscape ecosystems. This work was extended to larger

scales when Albert et al. (1986) published a

classification and map of regional ecosystems of

Michigan and Albert (1995) did the same for the three

Lake States. The evidence is overwhelming – ecosystems

can be identified and characterized at many different

spatial scales.

What Role Should Land Use Play

in Delineating Units?

This problem relates to the use of relatively permanent

characteristics such as soil, landform, and climate, as the

basis for delineating regional and landscape ecosystems

as opposed to using existing vegetation to characterize

the extent of units assuming that existing vegetation

better reflects land use.

The role of land use in delineating regional and

landscape ecosystem was not an issue at the Land Type

Association Conference. In fact, land type associations

provide a useful tool for considering land use. For

example, Devon Nelson demonstrated the utility of land

type associations as the basis for land use planning in

Weber County, Utah. Steve Fay illustrated the use of land

type associations for forest planning on the White

Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire. And Dan

Devlin showed us the use of landforms in managing

landscapes on Pennsylvania’s State Forests. The point

here is that land use is not an independent variable used

to define landscape ecosystems, but it can be a

dependent variable in which land use patterns are related

to landscape ecosystems as defined by their climate,

landform, soil, and vegetation. Clearly, we need more

demonstrations that illustrate the use of ecosystem

classification in addressing important environmental

and social issues such as those related to land use.

Insufficient Knowledge of Ecological

Processes Limits Our Ability to Make

Robust Environment Predictions

The basic argument here is that our knowledge of

ecological processes for most ecosystems is insufficient to

allow reliable predictions of ecosystem responses to

Land Type Associations Conference: Summary Comments

Thomas R. Crow1

1

Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, North Central

Research Station, Grand Rapids, MN (tcrow@fs.fed.us).
94 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

management actions (Bailey 1984). This statement is

probably as valid now as it was in 1984. But how does

this statement relate to ecosystem classification? Does

this lack of knowledge preclude identifying and

characterizing ecosystems? I think not. There will always

be more to learn about ecological processes, but again, I

consider ecosystem classification to be a useful tool — in

this case a research tool – that can be helpful in studying

ecological processes. Specifically, it provides a basis for

stratifying landscapes into similar ecosystems so that

differences among systems can be reduced when

studying processes.

This point was perhaps best demonstrated in Dave

Cleland’s paper in which Subsections and Landtype

Associations were used as the basis for mapping natural

disturbance regimes in the Lake States and in Gary

Drotts’ and Jodie Provost’s presentation in which species

ranges and habitat relationships were defined for

selected wildlife species within the framework provided

by Subsections and Landtype Associations. The

application of multi-factor, integrated, hierarchical

ecosystem classifications for the purpose of studying

ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, forest

dynamics, and forest growth is a largely untapped but

potentially useful area of application. It is just a matter

of time, for example, before modelers use Subsections or

Landtype Associations as a framework to parameterize

forest growth models. It seems so intuitive; I am

surprised that it has not been done already.

Existing Classifications Systems Usually

Emphasize the Terrestrial System

This is as much problem in 2001 as it was in 1984.

According to Bailey (1984), most land classifiers do not

understand aquatic systems and most aquatic classifiers

to not understand terrestrial systems. Amen to this

statement. We have the aquatic camp and the terrestrial

camp – each doing their own thing and waiting for the

other camp to come around. As we all recognize, aquatic

and terrestrial systems are closely linked and approaches

to classifying ecosystems should be capable of

recognizing the integrated nature of terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems.

A few small steps have been taken in linking terrestrial

and aquatic systems through classification (e.g., Baker et

al. 1998, Crow et al. 2000), but more effort in this area is

warranted.

The Problem of Wildlife

Although ecosystem classification is presented as a

means for integrating both physical and biological

factors existing in the landscape, integrating wildlife into

the classification process has proven difficult (Bailey

1984). This may be true when considering the factors

using to recognize and delineate units, but it is not true

when considering the application of ecosystem

classification. At this Conference, we heard about the

application of Landtype Associations for ranking the

quality of Indiana Bat habitat (Tom Demeo) on the

Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, for

evaluating habitat of the Kirtland’s Warbler in Michigan

(Burt Barnes), and as a tool for wildlife management in

Minnesota (Gary Drotts and Jodie Provost).

Abundant examples exist of applying ecosystem

classification to wildlife questions. Integrating wildlife

into the classification process may still be a problem, but

as an applications tool, ecosystem classification has

many uses in wildlife management.

The Relationship Between Delineated

Units is Difficult to Assess

Much progress has been made in understanding

relationships between landscape ecosystems during the

past 20 years. This work has included the movement of

organisms through landscapes, the flow of water and

water borne materials, the fluxes of carbon and nitrogen

between landscape ecosystems, the dispersion of seeds

and other propagules among ecosystems, as well as the

long distant transport of pollutants such as ozone in the

lower atmosphere. The importance of context, adjacency,

and proximity when considering ecological processes

and characterizing the composition of a landscape

ecosystem is now widely recognized. Much of this

progress has been accomplished as part of the emerging

discipline called landscape ecology (Pickett and

Cadenasso 1995).

At the beginning of this Conference, you were

encouraged to both communicate and demonstrate the

utility of Landtype Associations. Is it not enough to

simply classify, and as a tool, the classification is only a

beginning. As was pointed out, your work is in the

vanguard of applied ecology, but the linkages between

ecosystem classification, critical natural resource issues,

and decision-making are not obvious to most managers,

planners, and policymakers. Not only do you have the

responsibility for developing the classification, you are

also responsible for demonstrating its value to help

solve critical natural resource problems that are

important to the public. Until this is done, your job is

unfinished.

Literature Cited

Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A working

map and classification. USDA Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep.

NC-178. 250 p.

Albert, D.A., S.R. Denton and B.V. Barnes. 1986.

Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan. School
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 95

of Natural Resources and Environment, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor. 32 p.

Bailey, R.G. 1984. Integrating ecosystem components.

In JG. Bockheim, ed., Proceedings of the Symposium,

Forest Land Classification: Experiences, Problems,

Perspectives, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 181-

204.

Baker, M.E. and B.V. Barnes. 1998. Landscape ecosystem

diversity of river floodplains in northwestern lower

Michigan, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 58: 1405-1418.

Crow, T.R., M.E. Baker and B.V. Barnes. 2000. Diversity

in riparian landscapes. Pp. 43-66, in E.S. Verry, J.W.

Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff, eds., Riparian

Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern

United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Pickett, S.T.A. and M.L. Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape

ecology: Spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems.

Science. 269: 331-334.

Rowe, J.S. 1992. The ecosystem approach to forestland

management. Forestry Chronicle. 68: 222-224.
96 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 97

III. POSTERS, MAP GALLERY,

& INTERACTIVE EXHIBIT ABSTRACTS
98 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Poster Abstract

The land type associations (LTAs) classified for Section VII (Northern Lacustrine-Influenced Lower

Michigan) are employed to provide Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ foresters and

biologists the landscape and historical context in which they are managing state forests. LTAs

developed by Michigan Natural Features Inventory (Corner and Albert, 1999) incorporated the

following data layers for delineation: glacial landform, slope class, soil texture, drainage class, and

presettlement vegetation, based on interpretation of vegetation notes collected during the 1816-1856

General Land Office survey (Comer et al., 1995). A comparison of presettlement vegetation and

current land cover was derived for each LTA. Present vegetation is based on Michigan Resource

Information System (MIRIS) land cover types. Total areas of presettlement communities within each

LTA and MIRIS cover types within each LTA were obtained by executing cross-tabulations of layers in

Geological Information System (GIS). Maps of state forest management compartments are overlain

in GIS with the LTA layer in addition to rare species’ locations and presettlement vegetation. Studies

of vegetation change by LTA contextualize management spatially and temporally. In addition to

description of biotic change by LTA, information on abiotic factors that influence management

options and constraints are elucidated, including; soil types, soil texture, drainage class, slope class,

bedrock geology, glacial landform, hydrology and disturbance regime. Providing information

embedded within LTAs in conjunction with details on rare species’ locations and presettlement

vegetation allows for consideration of such questions as: How is potential management is likely to

impact threatened species at scales greater than the stand? What are potential areas of focus for

restoration management? And, What are appropriate management scales and intensities?

Poster Abstract

This paper describes the data and methodology used to create Landtype Association (LTA) map for

Minnesota. The state was divided into six geographic areas based on groups of subsections. A team

of volunteers was assembled for each area. Team members represented a cross section of natural

resource management and inventory disciplines from a variety of organizations. LTAs were

delineated by visually interpreting a variety of land surface information including: geomorphology,

bedrock geology, topography, wetlands, hydrography, public land survey bearing trees, pre-European

settlement vegetation, Landsat satellite imagery, soil associations, county soil surveys, and local

knowledge of the landscape from individuals. Interrelationships of features were examined by

overlaying thematic maps and observing how patterns coincide. Because multiple features were used

to define LTAs, the feature(s) with the sharpest transition between adjacent LTAs are selected for

boundary lines. Geomorphology map units were commonly used as LTA boundaries because they

often integrate many of the individual features that show coincident pattern. LTA boundaries were

delineated on mylar printouts of the Geomorphology of Minnesota data based on USGS 1:100,000

scale tiles. The mylars were then used as a basis for the capturing the LTA boundaries in digital

format. Once the LTA coverage was complete, each polygon was assigned a code based on guidelines

in the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. The LTA coverage, considered the first

approximation, is available to the public via the DNR web site. Brief descriptions of the central

concept and key characteristics for each LTA is in progress. A multi-agency work group has been

formed to oversee periodic revisions.

Application of Land Type Associations in Michigan’s Northern

Lower Peninsula to Guide Landscape Management of State Forests

Joshua Cohen

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension, Lansing, MI 48909

(cohenjo@state.mi.us)

Development of Landtype Associations in Minnesota

Dan S. Hanson

Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand

Rapids, MN 55744 (dan.hanson@dnr.state.mn.us)
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 99

Poster Abstract

The revision process for the ten year old Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plans involved combining the two existing broad-scale Forest plans, as the

Forests are now one administrative unit. A common framework was needed to provide an ecological

context for developing a range of alternatives that would address biological diversity related issues,

such as, distribution of old growth areas, ecosystem restoration, habitat linkages, range of natural

variability and landscape patterns. The framework must also be applicable when addressing the

identified revision issues related to access and recreational opportunities, special land allocations

and timber production. Landtype Associations (LTA) provide the landscape-scale, ecological

framework for land allocation in the revised 1.5 million acre Forest plan. LTA delineations are based

on patterns of glacial landforms, topography, local climate, soil complexes and associated patterns

of vegetation and succession. LTA polygons were assigned Management Area themes based on

ecological potential, history of natural disturbance and management, existing condition and social

concerns. LTA characterizations were used in the development of Management Area prescriptions

that describe the theme, landscape setting, desired future composition and structure of plant

communities and disturbance regimes at the landscape and site level. While LTAs serve as the basis

for initial Management Area boundary placement, adjustments were necessary to map existing and

potential special management designations like Wilderness, Wildlife Management, and SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized Areas, whose boundaries often follow roads or survey lines. The resulting

Management Area map reflects these adjustments for social values, while retaining the integrity of

the LTA boundaries where active management is intended to encourage plant communities to

succeed to a desired future condition.

Landtype Association Application to Forest Plan Revision on

the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

David J. Hoppe1, Mark A. Theisen2, and Dennis G. Kanten2

1

USDA Forest Service, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Rhinelander, WI 54501

(dhoppe01@fs.fed.us)

2

USDA Forest Service,Park Falls, WI 54552
100 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

A Case Study: Mid-scale Hydrologic Relationships Derived from the

Analysis and Application of Land Type Associations Developed for

the Helena National Forest

Poster Abstract

Land Type Associations (LTAs) were developed on the Helena National Forest following the criteria

outlined in the Forest Service’s National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Hydrologic

features, patterns and processes associated with a diverse range of LTAs were subjected to spatial and

tabular data analysis using geographical information systems. The relationships emerging from the

analysis were validated through field observations and the systematic sampling of representative

valley segments within the LTAs.

As a result of this analysis and validation process we were able to demonstrate relationships between

LTAs and drainage and stream densities, valley segment patterns, flow regime patterns, elevational

influences, stream order, nutrient regimes, water storage, release and response characteristics, woody

debris dependency and recruitment capability, disturbance regimes and land use patterns. The LTAs

reflect local orographic weather patterns within a broader climatic context defined at broader scales.

The Land Types, which comprise the LTAs, are used to define classes of valley segments, which have

predictable valley bottom and stream characteristics.

Practical uses include assessing cumulative hydrologic effects related to management scenarios,

predicting habitat potential and response to management scenarios for fisheries and other riparian

dependent species, providing a framework for discussing watershed structure, composition and

function, predicting watershed response to increased peak flows, duration of peak flows, and

sediment, addressing watershed resiliency and susceptibility to disturbances, helping to facilitate

development of desired future conditions and determining approximate reference conditions.

Defining the hydrologic implications of LTAs is essential to effective land and watershed

management planning. Analysis of such relationships is needed to develop realistic desired future

conditions (DFCs). Such DFCs must consider the terrestrial and aquatic inter-relationships

associated with the various LTAs.

Larry E. Laing1

 and Bo A. Stuart2

1

USDA Forest Service Region 9, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203

(lelaing@fs.fed.us)

2

Helena National Forest, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 101

Poster Abstract

The Allegheny National Forest (ANF), in partnership with the Pennsylvania State University and

Clarion University, is developing an ecological land classification to guide management and

planning actions. A top-down, bottom-up approach consisting of digital mapping and field

sampling of vegetation, soils, and landforms was used to develop a classification system at the land

type association (LTA) and ecological land type (ELT) scales. The first approximation LTA/ELT

classification was based on physical characteristics such as soils and topography that were integrated

into a multi-layered GIS base map. First approximation LTA/ELT units were used to stratify

vegetation-environment sampling efforts throughout the forest. Vegetation-environment data were

analyzed by a range of multivariate statistical procedures (e.g., agglomerative and divisive clustering,

ordination) to identify arboreal and herbaceous plant species groups and their relation to site

characteristics. Stepwise discriminant function analysis (SDFA) was used to identify a set of

biological and physical site variables that best distinguished first approximation mapping units.

There was moderate correspondence between vegetation data and first approximation LTA/ELTs

suggesting that vegetation composition was not strongly associated with mapping units. A second

approximation LTA/ELT classification, refined and simplified using vegetation-environment data, is

currently being validated. Our approach to ecological land classification on the ANF is adaptive and

integrated, continually using new data from the field to refine mapping units in an ecologically

relevant manner.

Developing an Ecological Land Classification for the Allegheny

National Forest: a Top-down, Bottom-up Approach.

William J. Moriarity1, George M. Baumer 2, and Chales E. Williams3

1

USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest, Warren PA 16365 (wmoriarity@fs.fed.us)

2

Office of Remote Sensing of Earth Resources, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

PA 16802

3

Department of Biology, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, PA 16214
102 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Northern Highland – American Legion State Forest: Management Opportunities by LTA

Mitchell C. Moline

GIS Services Section, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707

(molinm@dnr.state.wi.us)

LTA map depicting how LTA’s are being used where ecological potential and management

opportunities exist to restore a variety of plant communities including red pine, white pine, and

hemlock for the Northern Highland – American Legion State Forest in northern Wisconsin. This

map was produced for the master planning activities of Wisconsin’s Northern State Forests.

ECOMAP in forest resource planning and management in New Jersey

James P. Dunn and Craig Coutrous

The New Jersey Forest Service, 501 East State Street, PO Box 404, Trenton, NJ 08625-0404.

Maps products displayed to demonstrate the various applications of ECOMAP in forest resource

planning and management in New Jersey.

Landtype Association Map of Minnesota

Dan S. Hanson

Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

Grand Rapids, MN 55744 (dan.hanson@dnr.state.mn.us)

The Landtype Association (LTA) map for Minnesota was completed in 1999. This first

approximation was created by natural resource professionals from Beltrami County, UPM-Blandin

Paper Company, Chippewa National Forest, Koochiching County, Minnesota Center for

Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Potlatch Corporation, Superior National Forest,

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. LTAs were delineated at a scale of 1:100,000 by visually observing

how patterns coincide among a variety of physical and biological land surface characteristics.

Geomorphology units were commonly used for LTA boundaries because they often integrate many

of the individual features that show coincident pattern. A digital vector cover is available on the

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) web site.

Wisconsin Major Land Resource Area Map 2001

David J. Hvizdak1 and Mitchell C. Moline2

1

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Spooner, WI 54801 (dave.hvizdak@wi.usda.gov)

2

GIS Services Section,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707

This map shows the updated USDA-NRCS Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) in Wisconsin, along

with potential Common Resource Areas. Incorporated in this map are the NHFEU Landtype

Associations (LTAs) which served as a basis for updating MLRAs. As a result of this project, Landtype

Associations provide common ground for both the NHFEU and MLRA land classification systems

through which both systems can benefit from each other’s databases for landuse assessments and

applications. Common Resource Areas are subdivisions of MLRAs delineated according to common

patterns in soils, climate, water resources, and land uses. They are important for local planning

purposes and have common management concerns or landuse prescriptions.

Map Gallery Abstracts
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 103

Landtype Associations of the Western Upper Peninsula, Michigan

J.Jordan1, L.Carey2, B.Dopek3, S.Mase4, R.Regis5, C.Schwenner6, K.Wilgren7

1

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, Rhinelander, WI 54501

(jjordan@cheqnet.net)

2USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Marquette, MI 49855

3

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Norway, MI, 49870

4

USDA Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest, Ontonagon, MI 49953

5

Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI 49855

6

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Eagle River, MI 49924

LTAs were initially developed within the 1.5 million acre Ottawa National Forest in the early 1970s

and served as an ecological-based, spatial context for the Ottawa, N.F. land management plan during

the 1980s. To achieve the goals of the Great Lakes Ecological Assessment (GLEA), a landscape scale

ecological unit (LTAs) needed to be developed for the entire Province 212 of Michigan, Minnesota,

and Wisconsin. In 1995, LTA development was underway throughout the Province except for the

remainder of the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. As requested by the GLEA, a team of local

experts was formed and work began on the LTAs of the entire western Upper Peninsula of Michigan

in January, 1997. On January 30, 2000, a final working draft report and map was distributed

throughout the Lake States. Digital map copies are available upon request.

Wisconsin Landtype Associations 2001

Mitchell C. Moline

GIS Services Section, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707

(molinm@dnr.state.wi.us)

This map depicts subregional and landscape ecological units developed according to the

classification scheme of the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (Avers et.al.,

1994). The map presents an iteration of Landtype Associations which nest within and refine

successively larger ecological units. The map can be applied to landscape level assessment, analysis,

and planning. The Landtype Associations were developed, mapped, and described in participation

with a variety of agencies, organizations, and individuals. Development of ecological units is an

ongoing process which will progress as additional information becomes available, and from peer

review and comments by users of this map. The map will be reviewed annually. The map and

descriptive legend are available through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. A variety of

agencies and private individuals participated as partners in the development of the LTA layer.

Agencies include the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, the Natural Resources Conservation

Service, the USDA Forest Service (State and Private Forestry and National Forests), the Wisconsin

County Forest Association, the University of Wisconsin (Madison and Stevens Point), Menominee

Tribal Enterprises, and the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

Development and Applications of Landtype Associations in Missouri

Tim A. Nigh1 and Walter Schroeder 2

1

Ecologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, PO Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102

(night@mail.conservation.state.mo.us)

2

Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

The Missouri Ecological Classification System (ECS) Project is an inter-agency sponsored program

to pursue development of an ECS for the state of Missouri. Using the USFS hierarchy we have

completed development of ecological units statewide through the landtype association (LTA) level.

We have also piloted the development of ecological landtypes for the Current River Hills

subsection. LTAs have been used as a framework for ecoregional inventory, assessment and

planning. Regional priorities were directed toward public and private land management activities
104 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

using LTAs as a guide. Area level planning and management has also used LTAs as a framework for

breaking large conservation areas into management units. ELTs have been used to direct land

management strategies within LTAs. This poster will describe the development and use of LTAs in

Missouri. It will be paired with a computer demonstration

Landtype Associations of Eastern Upper Michigan

Eunice A. Padley

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI 53203 (epadley@fs.fed.us)

Draft Landtype Associations (LTA’s) were updated from older maps in eastern Upper Michigan.

Updates were made using spatial data in GIS, overlaying old LTA maps with surficial geology, soils,

Digital Elevation Model (DEM), hydrography, original vegetation, and current vegetation themes.

The conceptual basis of each LTA, and its boundary placement, were reviewed according to protocols

established for the Lake States National Forests. Where LTA concepts were not reflected, new units

were differentiated based on combinations of geology, historic vegetation, soils, hydrography, and

elevation changes. The most spatially accurate layer, current vegetation, was used in delineating

boundaries. Some boundaries were quite discrete, while others reflected a gradual change in

ecological gradients.

The updated LTA map has been reviewed by the Forest Service, and will be released as a second draft

for general review after minor modifications. It is available electronically in draft form from the

author. The work was sponsored by the Forest Service, Eastern Region.

Draft Landtype Associations for New Hampshire

Sid Pilgrim (ret.)1, Susan Francher2, Laura Falk2, Ken Desmaris2, John Lanier 3,

Constance Carpenter4, Marie-Louise Smith4, William Leak4, Steve Fay5, David Publicover6

1

USDANatural Resources Conservation Service, Durham, NH 2

New Hampshire Division of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, NH

3

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, NH

4

USDA Forest Service, Durham, NH (conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us)

5

USDA Forest Service, Laconia, NH

6

Appalachian Mountain Club, Pinkham Notch, NH

A preliminary map of Landtype Associations (LTA’s) was developed to support the state of New

Hampshire’s 1995 Forest Resource planning process. A group of New Hampshire scientists and

resource professionals used the broad ecological approach described in the National Hierarchical

Framework of Ecological Unit (ECOMAP)(Avers et al. 1994). Each LTA was classified based on

similarities in geomorphic process, geologic rock types, soil complexes, hydrologic features, subregional climate, and potential natural community patterns. The draft map is available in digital

form from GRANIT, the state GIS center housed at the University of New Hampshire.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 105

New Jersey ECOMAP

James P. Dunn

The New Jersey Forest Service, 501 East State Street, PO Box 404, Trenton, NJ 08625-0404

An exhibit will demonstrate the utility of various levels of the National Hierarchy Framework of

Ecological Units. A hands on GIS platform will be employed to display and access sets of geospacial

data for Subsections 221Ba and 221Bd to the ELT level. Specific examples of management

applications, stewardship planning and watershed assessments will be available for demonstration.

An Ecological Characterization of the Greater Yellowstone Area with

a Demonstration of Landtype Association Level Interpretations

Catherine L. Maynard1, John Nesser 2, and Duane F. Lund3

1

USDA, NRCS Bozeman, MT 59715 (cmaynard@state.mt.us)

2

USDA Forest Service, Region One, Missoula MT 59807

3

USDA Forest Service, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), Helena MT 59601

In 1998 an interagency cooperative effort (NRCS, USFS Region One) was initiated to utilize the

Landtype Association, Subsection and Section levels of the National Ecological Mapping Hierarchy

to develop a comprehensive ecological characterization of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). This

GIS-based interactive exhibit will provide an overview of the methods, datasets and products

developed. A detailed ecological characterization of the GYA will be presented and will include

comprehensive descriptions of landscape level ecological unit features and attributes as well as a

method for characterizing the ecological features of component watersheds. The products shown

will also demonstrate the use of Landtype Association mapping to model general basin

morphometric properties (i.e. valley bottom settings, drainage density, stream channel and riparian

habitat types) of landscapes and their component watersheds. It then expands the displays and

discussion to represent how LTA’s can be applied to model and pre-map interpretations such as

susceptibility to erosion, sediment transport regimes, and fisheries habitat potential. This

presentation will include: Map posters, a demonstration of the Interagency GYA CDROM; a

demonstration of the Region 1 LTA CDROM publication which includes GIS coverages and

electronic documentation of map unit descriptions; and a demonstration of the valley-bottom

mapping, watershed classification, and erosion/sediment production spatial modeling tools.

Methods for the development of the map units (Section, Subsection, Landtype Associations) will

also be covered and copies of the CDROMS will be available.

FR Map – Custom ArcView Mapping using the NHFEU (LTA)

Mitchell C. Moline

GIS Services Section, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707

(molinm@dnr.state.wi.us)

FR_Map is a Division of Forestry mapping package customized using ESRI’s ArcView GIS Software. It

allows the user to automatically generate a color, poster-size map of any unit at any level in the

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (NHFEU) system. Maps of NHFEU units

(LTAs) can be automatically generated in a color, page-size format. A wide variety of backdrops can

be used for mapping. These include: land cover (from the Wisconsin Statewide Landcover initiate —

WISCLAND) using a forestry colorization; United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Raster

Graphics (DRGs); a hillshade derived from 30m horizontal resolution Digital Elevation Model

(DEM) data and boundaries of the NHFEU system units. FR_Map includes custom extensions to

perform the following tasks: label a variety of predefined features; save, load and modify image

legends; automatically generate tables of appropriate scale for the various subject themes and

modify environment variable files for data sharing.

Interactive Display Abstracts
106 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 107

IV. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

AND SUMMARY
108 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Abstract

The conference roundtable discussion resulted in the identification of a variety of needs regarding

the ECOMAP program in the Northeastern Area. These include:

♦Provide training on existing applications of LTAs to natural resource managers.

♦Develop new applications of LTAs.

♦Provide guidelines to standardize mapping and attribution of ecological units and database

development.

♦Support efforts to further clarify the relationships between spatial patterns contained in LTAs and

ecological processes operating at the landscape scale.

Market the use of LTAs to other states and disciplines (wildlife, conservation, forest health, fire

risk-mapping, naturalists).

♦Inform decisionmakers of the benefits of using LTAs.

Roundtable Discussion Group Outcomes

Group I

Question 1.—What do we feel confident about Land Type Association Development and Use?

(bullets reflect flip chart summary: moderator explanation)

• Multiple Scales/Nesting Hierarchy: It is important that LTAs are part of a nested hierarchy so what

can apply up and down the scales.

• Good landscape level framework: LTAs are good landscape level framework; this level has very

relevant application for resource management decisionmaking.

• Repeatability (or not): It appears that most LTA projects are taking the same approach in

development, with geomorphology being an overriding differentiating criteria that is refined

using soil and vegetation information. We are not sure how much others believe in the

repeatability.

• Information management template: LTAs are an effective and cost saving template for resource

information management.

• Cost effective (or not): They help identify and prioritize issues, thus saving time and money.

• Resource management priorities: LTAs are a good framework for identifying resource

management priorities.

• Their use in land use and forest planning: LTAs have excellent potential for land use and forest

planning.

• Their use encourages cooperation among divergent interests.

• LTAs are a communication tool.

Question 2.—What areas need further exploration; in what areas are further research and

management testing needed?

• We need to apply, demonstrate, advertise and market LTA use.

• Applications (some applications worth pursing include fire disturbance potential, land use

planning, information management and cost effectiveness).

• Repeatability of mapping (at a given scale?).

› Scale (of mapping?).

› Who should develop standards?

Roundtable Discussion and Summary

Connie Carpenter1

1

ECOMAP Coordinator

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private

Forestry, Durham, NH
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 109

• Standards would help:

› ensure and communicate repeatability

› establish mapping scale

› address size limits

› identify differentiating criteria

› Standards should be flexible

• Linking science to management to policy.

• We need more information management research.

• Geomorphic conditions need to be clearly tied to processes that they are a surrogate for.

Question 3.—What issues and opportunities do ECOMAP partners want to focus on first?

• Identify and pursue key applications and market them.

• ECS applications to stewardship plans.

• Identify key applications and act on them: demonstrate/advertise/market them.

• Provide clear documentation: Provide documentation that is clear about the science and art of

mapping LTAs.

› Metadata

› Science and art.

• Provide clear interpretations.

• Develop communication tools such as:

› Website (supporting interactive displays).

› Newsletter.

› Conference.

• Integrate terrestrial and aquatic ecological classification.

• Establish an Ecological Classification System/Forest Inventory and Analysis linkage.

• Need more partners

› NPS and interpretive opportunities.

• Soil survey updates and ECS

• National coordination

Group II

Question 1.—What do we feel confident about Land Type Association Development and Use?

• They capture patterns at the landscape level and processes.

• Enough people are doing this we could work on standardizations.

• They are able to depict capabilities at the landscape level.

• There are strong benefits to having states work on land type associations mapping and

development.

• Pleased with the similarities among independent efforts.

• National standards seem achievable if they are appropriate, not prescriptive.

• They already seem to have a level of acceptance for mid-scale planning.

• Current applications are strong.

• They are better for some studies than township and county boundaries that are currently used.

• There is tremendous potential for stratifying studies (e.g. biological studies of anticipated versus

actual population densities, and wildlife research).

• We can improve land type association mapping and applications over time and we want to.

• There is good interagency and state/federal acceptance of them.

• They have practical uses in identifying hydrological relationships.

Question 2.—What areas need further exploration; in what areas are further research and

management testing needed?

• Unclear on the objectives of pulling together across large areas.

• Need to examine if we really captured and validated processes (hydrologic relationships etc.).

• How do hydrologic relations interact up and down the hierarchy?

• Demonstrate the relationship among ecosystem components within land type associations.

• Need to learn how to look at functions and processes.

• Need to learn how to transfer information on functions and processes to users.
110 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

• Need a standardized data model linked to the national hierarchy structure.

• A relational database behind the model, and a repository at the national level perhaps a FGDC

(Federal Geographic Data Committee) issue.

• Need national standards for mapping at regional and LTA level.

• What is TERRA?

• Keep the system dynamic.

• No clear leadership in the Eastern United States.

• Development and interpretation right now is an agonizingly slow process, we need to get

something out there for people to use.

• Develop management interpretations.

• Seek broad national standards and consistency across the province level.

• Link Land Type Associations to the Montreal Process Indicators.

• Once you have Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for a unit you can establish performance measures.

• Support modeling approaches and testing.

• Repeatability issues.

• Standardize names/nomenclature.

• Need to get it out to the field.

Question 3.—What issues and opportunities do ECOMAP partners want to focus on first?

(list developed by voting for items in Question 2, items grouped after conference)

• Need to get the technology out to the field (11 votes).

• Develop management interpretations (10 votes). Need to learn how to transfer information on

functions and processes to users (1 vote). Development and interpretation right now is an

agonizingly slow process, we need to get something out there.

• Standardized data model linked to the national hierarchy structure, relational database behind

the model, and repository at the national level perhaps FGDC. (7 votes). Standardize names/

nomenclature (1 vote). What is terra.

• Need to learn how to look at functions and processes (7 votes). Haven’t demonstrated

relationship among ecosystem components within land type associations. (1 vote).

• National standards for mapping. Regional standards and LTA standards (5 votes). Keep the

standards dynamic so you don’t stifle integration of new concepts and technogical innovation.

No clear leadership in the Eastern United States (states currently developing own standards and

guidelines) (1 vote). Seek broad national standards and consistency within Provinces of the

Hierarchy. Support modeling approaches and testing. Address repeatability issues.

• Need to examine if we really captured and validated processes (3 votes).

• How do hydrologic relations interact up and down the hierarchy. (hydrologic relationships etc.)

(2 votes).

• Support modeling approaches and testing. (2 votes)

• Unclear on the objectives of pulling together across large areas.

• Link Land Type Associations to the Montreal Process Indicators. Once you have Criteria and

Indicators for a unit you can establish performance measures.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 111

Consensus Issues And Opportunities To Focus On First

Priority I

Get information on the value and uses of Land Type Associations out to the field.

How

a) Identify and support champions, (e.g. overcome time limitations etc.).

b) Institute technology transfer training opportunities.

c) Get federal seed money to develop training.

d) Develop strategies to meet the needs of the following target audiences:

a. Senior managers: inform them of the environmental and economic benefits of using LTAs so

they provide needed staff time and budgets.

b. Managers in the field: provide examples of improved decisions and operating efficiency so

they benefit from using Land Type Associations and support staffing and funding decisions

that give development and interpretation higher priority.

c. Non-industrial private forest land owners: Provide information on land Type associations so

land owners are aware of the big picture and the contributions of their actions.

e) Establish a web site.

f) Establish a user forum.

Priority II

Develop management applications of LTAs.

How

a) Get federal seed money to states to interpret Land Type Associations

b) Establish demonstration projects of LTA applications (e.g. field people use the units in a

planning application).

Priority III

Provide National Standardization for mapping, attribution, and data storage.

How

a) Formalize state-federal cooperation on TERRA, the USFS corporate database for terrestrial

ecological classification data.

b) Conduct tests of an automated approach to Land Type Association Mapping.

c) Develop a spatial data model.

d) Identify the appropriate data depository for Land Type Association Maps and attributes.

Written Comments Submitted

Question 1.—What do we feel confident about Land Type Association Development and Use?

• That they will continue to be used. That geomorphology will and should continue to be a

major delineating factor. That more and more people and agencies will see the need for them

and their utility.

• If the development relies upon a hierarchical approach with multifactor delineation criteria

then:

› Approach provides a consistent mapping/inventory strategy across regional and national

landscape.

› Provides a means for a lasting base inventory.

› Helps identify and describe important ecological structures, functions and processes.

› Helps increase understanding across broad regional areas.

› Can assist other resource inventories — establish interrelationships.
112 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Question 2.—What areas need further exploration; in what areas are further research and

management testing needed?

• Stress the importance of standards for Land Type Associations. Otherwise, they will not be

defensible and scientifically repeatable. There is too much reinventing the wheel.

• Problems in size/area of LTAs: e.g. Lake States 10,000 to 300,000 acres; New Jersey minimum of

500 acres. Are New Jersey LTAs really land types?

› If we don’t have size standards we won’t be able to communicate.

› Small LTAs are too small to be landscapes.

• Emphasis now is on different delineating criteria for different scales. Need more emphasis on

ecological processes.

• Where does present land use delineation come into play? For example, intensive oil and gas

development of hundreds to thousand of acres. These areas are impacted for many years. Some

impacts may last for many decades.

• Document the history of land type association mapping and use that includes information

from other countries.

• Research needs might include learning more about disturbance regimes. Also, in areas whose

disturbance regimes cross LTAs, should that change LTA boundaries or should it be an overlay?

• Other research management testing needs include looking at threatened and endangered

plants and animals.

• Desperately need further quality control (correlations documentation, map matching,

reporting, data base) approached between LTA inventory areas.

• Validating interrelationships or management interpretation: hydrologic response, wildlife/fish

habitat qualities, site potentials, etc.

• Identifying appropriate management interpretations at appropriate scales.

• Identify/approve/implement LTA standards across the nation.

Question 3.—What issues and opportunities do ECOMAP partners want to focus on first? How?

• It would seem like a good idea to try to work with and help non-Forest Service partners to put

these LTAs to good use. It seems important that the LTA not be a Forest Service product.

However, the issues and opportunities I see revolve around forest planning, forest plan revision

as well as smaller scale planning efforts.

• Also need to highlight appropriate/optimal use of LTAs in watershed analyses. When are LTAs

and when are watersheds the better base map to use for analysis?

• Need a common definition of terms

• Common acceptance of a hierarchical inventory approach with appropriate scales and

applications of management interpretations.

• Resolutions of difference between landscape inventory approaches (EPA-Bailey) so there is

more unity in landscape mapping and inventory.

• How?

› Need multiagency/landowner agreement (National, Regional, Local).

› Need working groups to begin to resolve difference in ideals, get strategy approaches,

standards, etc.

› Need to make our successes more visible.

› Need to incorporate other resource specialists in development of interrelationships/

interpretations. This will broaden the support group.

› Need to reach out and get the most skilled personnel to help with working groups regardless

of grade and location.

› Need to have higher priority for national funding.
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 113

V. PARTICIPANTS
114 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Aaseng, Norm

MN DNR

PO Box 25

St. Paul, MN 55155

651-297-7267

norman.aaseng@dnr.state.mn.us

Adams, Cheryl

Blandin Paper Company

115 SW First Street

Grand Rapids MN 55744-3699

Attig, John

WI Geological Survey

3817 Mineral Point Rd.

Madison, WI 53705

608-262-6131

jwattig@facstaff.wisc.edu

Ayers, Loren

WI DNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-261-6449

ayersl@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us

Barkley, Jeff

WDNR Neil H. LeMay Forestry Center

518 W. Somo Avenue

Tomahawk, WI 54487

715-453-2188

Barnes, Burton

School of Natural Resources

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1115

bvb@umich.edu

Barott, Jim

USDA Forest Service

417 Forestry Dr.

Blackduck, MN 56630

218-835-3107

jbarott@fs.fed.us

Bennett, Lorne

University of Guelph

Dept. of Geography

Guelph, Ontario, Can N1G 2W1

519-824-4120

lbennett@uoguelph.ca

Boudreau, Denise

DNR-Parks & Recreation

1601 Minnesota Dr.

Brainerd, MN 56401

218-828-2456

denise.boudreau@dnr.state.mn.us

Burbank, Diane

Green Mountain National Forest

1007 Rte. 7 South

Middlebury, VT 05753

802-388-4362

dburbank@fs.fed.us

DePuy, John

Mark Twain National Forest

401 Fairgrounds Rd.

Rolla, MO 65401

573-364-4621

jdepuy@fs.fed.us

Devlin, Dan

PA Bureau of Forestry

400 Market St.

Harrisburg, PA 17105

717-783-0389

Diamond, Stephanie

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

50 Wolf Rd.

Albany, NY 12233

518-457-7433

sjdiamon@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Drotts, Gary

Minnesota DNR

1601 Minnesota Dr.

Brainerd, MN 56403

218-828-2314

gary.drotts@dnr.mn.state.us

Dunn, James

New Jersey Forest Service

31 Tradewinds Dr.

Little Fog Harbor, NJ 08087

608-984-0813

jdunn@dep.state.nj.us

Durbin, Joe

Mead Corp.

PO Box 1008

Escanaba, MI 49829

906-786-1660

Fay, Stephen

USDA Forest Service

White Mountain National Forest

719 Main Street

Laconia, NH 03246

sfay@fs.fed.us

Ferree, Charles

The Nature Conservancy

11 de Lafayette St.

Boston, MA 02111

617-542-1908

ferree@tnc.org

Fitzpatrick, Daniel

USGS

2630 Fanta Reed Rd.

LaCrosse, WI 54603

608-781-6298

daniel_fitzpatrick@usgs.gov

Freeouf, Jerry

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 25127

Lakewood, CO 80225

jfreeouf@fs.fed.us

Participants

Burger, Tim

UW-Madison

1630 Linden Dr.

Madison, WI 53706

608-265-2228

tburger@facstaff.wisc.edu

Burkman, Peggy

USDA Forest Service

400 E. Munising Ave.

Munising, MI 49862

906-387-2512

pburkman@fs.fed.us

Carpenter, Connie

USDA Forest Service

271 Mast Rd.

Durham, NH 03824

603-868-7698

conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us

Cleland, David

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

Rhinelander, WI 54501

715-362-1117

dcleland@fs.fed.us

Cohen, Josh

MI Natural Features Inventory

PO Box 30444

Lansing, MI 48909

517-373-4911

cohenjo@state.mi.us

Coutros, Craig

New Jersey Forest Service

PO Box 404

Trenton, NJ 08625

609-984-0813

ccoutros@dep.state.nj.us

Crow, Thomas

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

Grand Rapids, MI 55744

218-326-7110

tcrow@fs.fed.us

Davis, Carl

USDA Forest Service

215 Melody Ln.

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Demeo, Thomas

USDA Forest Service

333 SW First

Portland, OR 97215

503-808-2963

tdemeo@fs.fed.us

DePaul, Linda

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-266-2388
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 115

Frisbee, Chris

USDA Forest Service

Eastern Region

310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 580

Milwaukee, WI 53203

414-297-3530

cfrisbee@fs.fed.us

Gallagher, Jay

WDNR

6250 S. Ranger Rd.

Brule, WI 54820

715-372-8539

Gallegos, Alan

USDA Forest Service

1600 Tollhouse Rd.

Clovis, CA 93611

559-297-0706

ajgallegos@fs.fed.us

Galvin, Andy

WNDR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-264-8968

galvia@mail01@wi.state.us

Garrett, Carol

USDA Forest Service

200 Sycamore St.

Elkins, WV 26241

304-636-1800

jgarrett@fs.fed.us

Goldman, Robert

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-264-8990

Haglund, John

USDA Forest Service

16400 Champion Way

Sandy, OR 97055

503-668-1660

jhaglund@fs.fed.us

Halvorson, Jim

WDNR

810 W. Maple St.

Spooner, WI 54801

715-635-4081

halvoj@dnr.state.wi.us

Hanson, Dan

MN DNR-Resource Assessment

413 SE 13th St.

Grand Rapids, MN 55744

218-327-4449

dan.hanson@dnr.state.mn.us

Hoppe, David

USDA Forest Service

68 S. Stevens St.

Rhinelander, WI 54501

715-362-1366

dhoppe01@fs.fed.us

Hvizdak, David

USDA NRCS

117 Timberlane Rd., Ste. 2

Spooner, WI 54801

715-635-3505 dave.

hvizdak@wi.usda.gov

Jordan, James

North Central Research Station - USDA

825 E. Margaret St.

Ironwood, MI 49938

906-932-8064

jjordan@ironwood.baysat.net

Joy, Chester

Government Accounting Office

Natural Resources and Environment

441 G Street NW

Washington, DC 20548

(202) 512-8157

Kabrick, John

Missouri Dept. of Conservation

1110 S. College Ave.

Columbia, MO 65201

573-882-9880

kabrij@mail.conservation.state.mo.us

Keys, Jr., Jim

USDA Forest Service

201 14th St. SW

Washington, DC 20024

202-205-1580

jkeys01@fs.fed.us

Kilbourne, Pete

Manti-LaSal National Forest

599 W. Price River Dr.

Price, UT 84501

435-636-3526

pkilbourne@fs.fed.us

Knight, Gregory

USDA Forest Service

850 N. 8th St.

Medford, WI 54451

715-748-4875

gknight@fs.fed.us

Kotar, John

UW-Madison

1630 Linden Dr.

Madison, WI 53706

608-262-3296

jkotar@facstaff.wisc.edu

Kovach, Joe

WDNR Neil H. LeMay Forestry Center

518 W. Somo Avenue

Tomahawk, WI 54487

715-453-1252

Kromroy, Kathryn

University of Minnesota

1991 Upper Buford Cr.

St. Paul, MN 55108

651-649-5115

kromr001@tc.umn.edu

Laing, Larry

USDA Forest Service

310 W. Wisconsin Ave.

Milwaukee, WI 53203

414-297-3659

lelaing@fs.fed.us

Lammers, Duane

USDA Forest Service

3200 Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

541-750-7258

dlammers@fs.fed.us

MacFarlane, David

New Jersey Forest Service

239 Spring St. #B-7

Red Bark, NJ 07701

732-932-1583

dmcfarln@crssa.rutgers.edu

Maclean, Ann

Michigan Tech. University

1400 Townsend Dr.

Houghton, MI 49931

906-487-2030

amaclean@mtu.edu

Many, Mike

Michigan DNR

PO Box 667

Gaylord, MI 49734

517-732-3541

mangm@state.mi.us

McLaughlan, Michael

Forest Ecosystems Branch

PO Box 3003

Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Can S6V 6G1

306-953-2436

mclaughlan@derm.gov.sk.ca

McSweeney, Kevin

UW-Madison

Menard, Shannon

ABI

1313 5th St. SE, Ste. 314

Minneapolis, MN 55414

612-331-0710

shannon_mendard@abi.org

Merchant, Patrick

USDA Forest Service

811 Constitution Ave.

Bedford, IN 47421

812-277-3582

pmerchant@fs.fed.us

Merkel, Dennis

Lake Superior State Univ.

650 W. Easterday Ave.

Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783

906-635-2152

dmerkel@gw.lsus.edu
116 Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294

Moeller, Henry

Soils Consulting Service

159 Hulls Hill Rd.

Southbury, CT 06488

203-264-6977

Moline, Mitch

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-261-6417

molinem@dnr.state.wi.us

Monthey, Roger

USDA Forest Service

271 Mast Rd. Durham, NH 03824

603-868-7699

rmonthey@fs.fed.us

Moriarity, Billy

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 847

Warren, PA 16365

814-723-5150

wmoriarity@fs.fed.us

Nelson, DeVon

Weber County

1617 E. 1250 S.

Ogden, UT 84404

801-392-6200

ndevon@home.com

Nesser, John

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

406-329-3412

jnesser@fs.fed.us

Nigh, Tim

MO Dept. of Conservation

2901 West Truman Blvd. P.O. Box 180

Jefferson City, MO 65102

373-751-4115

night@mail.conservation.state.mo.us

Padley, Eunice

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

Parker, Linda

USDA Forest Service

1179 4th Ave. S

Park Falls, WI 54552

lrparker@fs.fed.us

Parsons, Kenneth

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-266-5213

parsok@dnr.state.wi.us

Pedersen, Larry

MI DNR

PO Box 30452

Lansing, MI 48909

517-335-3330

pedersel@state.mi.us

Pingrey, Paul

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-267-7595

Prichard, Teague

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

Provost, Jodie

Minnesota DNR

1601 Minnesota Dr.

Brainerd, MN 56401

218-855-5079

jodie.provost@dnr.mn.state.us

Redders, Jeff

USDA Forest Service

15 Burnett Ct.

Durango, CO 81301

970-247-4874

jredders@fs.fed.us

Robbie, Wayne

USDA Forest Service

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

505-842-3253

wrobbie@fs.fed.us

Robertson, James

WI Geological Survey

3817 Mineral Point Rd.

Madison, WI 53705

608-265-7384

jmrober1@facstaff.wisc.edu

Russell, Walt

USFS-Retired

W868 County Rd. CI

Palmyra, WI 53156

262-495-2477

waltrus@cni-usa.com

Sausen, Janet

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-267-2765

sausej@dnr.state.wi.us

Schwarzmann, John

WI Commissioners of Public Lands

PO Box 277

Lake Tomahawk, WI 54539

715-277-3366

john.schwarzmann@bcpl.state.wi.us

Skrivseth, Kathy

Precision Mapping

3221 N. McDonald St.

Appleton, WI 54911

920-731-1477

Smith, Marie-Louise

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 640 Durham, NH 03824

603-868-7658

marielouisesmith@fs.fed.us

Spencer, Elizabeth

UW-Madison

134 Dunning St.

Madison, WI 53704

608-267-9788

elizpencer@hotmail.com

Stearns, Paul

WI Board of Commissioners of Public Lands

PO Box 277

Lake Tomahawk, WI 54539

715-277-3366

Stuart, Bo

USDA Forest Service

2880 Skyway Dr.

Helena, MT 59601

406-449-5201

bstuart@fs.fed.us

Suddarth, Brett

USDA Forest Service

PO Box 25127

Lakewood, CO 80225

Tepp, Jeff

USDA Forest Service

8901 Grand Ave. Place

Duluth, MN 55808

218-626-4376

jtepp@fs.fed.us

Tollefson, Tim

Stora Enso North America

PO Box 158

Rhinelander, WI 54501

715-365-4774

tim.tollefson@storaenso.com

Tooley, Joanne

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-261-6418

toolej@dnr.state.wi.us

Uhlig, Peter

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

1235 Queen St. E.

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 2E5

705-946-2981

peter.uhlig@mnr.gov.on.ca
Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research GTR-NE-294 117

VanderZouwen, Bill

WI DNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-266-8840

vandew@dnr.state.wi.us

Verry, Elon

USDA Forest Service

1831 Highway 169 East

Grand Rapids, MN 55744

218-326-7108

sverry@fs.fed.us

Walters, Jeff

WDNR PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-264-8558

waltej@dnr.state.wi.us

Whitcomb, Lisa

USDA Forest Service

310 W. Wisconsin Ave.

Milwaukee, WI 53203

414-297-1413

lwhitcomb@fs.fed.us

Williams, Chuck

Clarion University Dept. of Biology

230 Peirce Science Center

Clarion, PA 16214

814-226-1936

cwilliams@mail.clarion.edu

Wright, Rob

Forest Ecosystems Classification Project

3211 Albert St.

Regina, Saskatchewan, Can S4S 5W6

306-787-2914

rwright@serm.gov.sk.ca

Zastrow, Darrel

WDNR

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

608-266-0290

Zhalnin, Andrey

Purdue University Forestry & NR Dept.

1159 Forestry Bldg.

West Lafayette, IN 47907

765-494-6791

azhalnin@purdue.edu
Printed on Recycled Paper

Smith, Marie-Louise. 2002. Proceedings, land type associations conference:

development and use in natural resources management, planning and

research; 2001 April 24-26; Madison, WI. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-294. Newtown

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Research Station. 117 p.

Contains 39 papers and abstracts presented at the land type associations

conference.
Headquarters of the Northeastern Research Station is in Newtown Square,

Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at:

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont

Delaware, Ohio

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University

Parsons, West Virginia

Princeton, West Virginia

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York,

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University

Warren, Pennsylvania

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET

Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call

(202)720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

“Caring for the Land and Serving People Thr ving People Through Research”