association is assumed to be the stable plant community on a 

 particular site provided no major changes in the fluvial 

 surface or water regime occur. Essentially, a community 

 type may be a subset of a riparian association and may 

 develop into a riparian association through normal succes- 

 sional stages of development. A community type (as de- 

 scribed, and not one specific site) may also be serai to 

 several riparian associations. 



Other Attributes Additional modifiers include soils, climate, and management 



information. Management information includes livestock, 

 wildlife and fisteries potential, fire effects, silvicultural 

 production and considerations, potential and pathways for 

 recovery, and related studies. 



Use, Testing, Validation: The publication is, in itself, a test and validation. The document 

 is very useful. It includes several keys to define associations and communities fix)m vegeta- 

 tion and landforms. The classification has been in use for 3 years and is well received by 

 U.S. Forest Service managers (Kovalchik, pers. com.). 



Ease of Application: The procedure is straightforward. Its ease of application is probably 

 dependent on the experience of the field personnel doing the vegetation mapping and identifi- 

 cation. The geomorphic-based alternative for predicting vegetation potential has proved 

 effective for managers without taxonomic skills. 



Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The procedure requires some thought to 

 produce system response estimates. Geomorphology, at the landform level (64 landform 

 cross-sections given) along with the geomorphic key to vegetation potential can be very 

 useftil in defining system response and is one of the best features of the publication. 



Use in Determining State of System: The procedure determines associations (i.e., site 

 succession). Reference are made to other potentials from the association descriptions based 

 on changes in water regime, which is approaching the concept of states and site progression. 



Relation to Other Procedures: This procedure relates to standard Daubenmire classifica- 

 tion, and uses physiographic regions modified fix)m Baldwin (1964) and Franklin and 

 Dymess (1973). Nothing limits this procedure from being used with the USFWS Cowardin 

 et al. (1979) procedure; everything needed is supplied. It is also conceptually related to 

 ecological site classification at the association/community levels. 



Automated Data Processing: The procedure does not appear to be readily converted to a 

 standard data base management system except at the landform level, which will easily fit into 

 a geographic information system. The knowledge supplied in the descriptions would woric 

 well in an expert system type of envirormient. 



Limitations and Assumptions: As presented, the author has done a superb job of getting to 

 the manager's need. 



16 



