» 



Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The USFWS procedure does not consider 

 responsiveness or functional processes. 



Use in Determining State of System: The USFWS procedure can be used to describe the 

 state of a riparian system, but is not designed to deal with cause and effect relationships that 

 would be useful in determining potential state changes in a riparian system. 



Relation to Other Procedures: The USFWS procedure does a good job of keeping open to 

 more detailed modifiers, such as soils information. Standard soil taxonomic classification 

 can be placed into the procedure at the modifier level. The dominance level is fairly standard 

 as vegetation description goes. Some differences between other procedures can be expected 

 in the delineation between overstory, dominance density, etc. The procedure appears to fit 

 into other vegetation classification schemes, such as those done on a regional or provincial 

 level. Overall, the procedure recognizes the difference between fluvial surfaces and major 

 vegetation forms at a level that makes it reasonably easy to merge with classification proce- 

 dures for other considerations, such as geology, climate, landforms, etc. 



Automated Data Processing: ADP was not discussed in the procedure. Since all but the 

 lower hierarchy are defined (5 system names, 8 subsystem names, 1 1 class names, and 28 

 subclass names), most of a classification could be standardized and used in ADP very easily. 

 When more detail is demanded from the dominance and modifier description, ADP applica- 

 tions will be more complex. 



Limitations and Assumptions: The procedure is not designed to reflect potential natural 

 communities or community ecology. However, a detailed classification using some of the 

 other procedures discussed above could provide information fitting the protocol of this 

 procedure. 



33 



