Ecological Site A distinctive type of land that differs from other kinds of 



land in its ability to produce a characteristic potential natural 

 community. 



Community Type The existing/dominant plant community distinguished by 



floristic and structural similarities. 



Stream Subtype Used under the associated stream type to describe in detail 



the stream reach being classified. The modifiers used by 

 Rosgen (1985) are suggested to describe flow regimen, size, 

 organic debris/channel blockages, depositional features, and 

 meander patterns. 



Naming Conventions The physical site attributes are given in the beginning of the 



site name and are separated by a forward slash (J). The 

 ecological site attributes are given on the right-hand side of 

 the physical attributes and separated from them with a 

 semicolon (;). Codominants are separated using a hyphen (-). 



Use, Testing, Validation: Currently under testing through the University of Nevada, Reno. 



Ease of Application: The system appears about as easy as any other procedure to apply. 

 However, since it is more comprehensive than most procedures, there are more data require- 

 ments and may require more expertise. 



Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The procedure has incorporated the 

 concept of potential natural community, and as such, has recognized one form of system 

 response. It has also incorporated a great deal of geomorphic information, making the tie 

 between major physical systems more possible. 



Use in Determining State of System: Procedure has all necessary components to determine 

 site progression. 



Relation to Other Procedures: To a large degree, the procedure maintains consistency with 

 Soil Conservation Service standards for soil descriptions and to a lesser degree with the 

 USFWS Cowardin et al. (1979) wetlands procedures. The procedure does deviate in naming 

 conventions at the system, subsystem, and class level, but there are no major deviations in 

 concept. 



Automated Data Processing: The procedure is too new to evaluate, but does appear to be 

 suitable to a data base management system. 



Limitations and Assumptions: As written, the procedure is limited to inland areas; how- 

 ever, this could be expanded by following Cowardin et al. (1979) more closely. The naming 

 convention may be too complex to allow for easy description and cross-referencing. 



22 



