Preface 



Classifications label and show relationships among items, 

 as contrasted with inventories, which produce informa- 

 tion. The process of developing a classification, including 

 review, testing, and modification, is complex. The system 

 should ultimately provide for uniform site identification 

 and characterization for different renewable resource 

 inventory, assessment, and planning levels. 



The land classification system described here con- 

 sists of hierarchial classification frameworks for vegeta- 

 tion and soils, linkage of an aquatic habitat classification 

 system to terrestrial vegetation and soil, landform defini- 

 tions, and a process for combining separate hierarchies 

 into ecological units. Relationships among ecological 

 units and geographical ecosystem associations also are 

 presented. The classification system presented builds on 

 previous work by Driscoll and others (1983). This classifi- 

 cation system was developed by the Resources Evaluation 

 Techniques Program of the U.S. Department of Agricul- 

 ture Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

 Experiment Station in cooperation with the U.S. Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and the 

 U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Manage- 

 ment, Geological Survey, and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 The National Governor's Association Council of State 

 Planning Agencies provided assistance. Authors and 

 their agencies were involved to varying degrees in concep- 

 tualizing, writing, reviewing, and revising this report. 



Richard S. Driscoll, Forest Service, provided overall 

 guidance in preparing the report. He synthesized ecolog- 

 ical philosophies to develop the framework for the classi- 

 fication system; prepared those sections dealing with 

 ecology, classification, and integration; and coordinated 

 the contributions and reviews of others. 



Daniel L. Merkel, Soil Conservation Service, as- 

 sisted materially in conceptualizing the framework; con- 

 stantly made certain the information was understandable 

 and potentially usable; kept others informed on what the 

 classification is and why it was developed; coordinated 

 the review process and comments; and assisted substan- 

 tially in writing drafts and the final manuscript. 



James S. Hagihara, Bureau of Land Management, 

 provided substantial technical assistance in assuring the 

 classification system was understandable and applicable, 

 in developing examples and writing drafts of integrated 

 units, in evaluating review comments, and in developing 

 and maintaining technology transfer. He was also fully 

 responsible for securing resources and coordinating field 

 evaluations of the classification system. 



Dale E. Snyder, Soil Conservation Service, was 

 responsible for developing the landform terms and parts 

 of the section on integration, and for evaluating and 

 adjusting the manuscript to review comments on soils 

 and integration. 



David L. Radloff, Forest Service, contributed sub- 

 stantially to the ecological sections of the manuscript by 

 reviewing and revising those sections for more complete 

 understanding. 



This document does not constitute final acceptance 

 of the classification system by the cooperating agencies. 

 Testing and evaluation are currently underway. The 

 framework should be considered an intermediate step in 

 an evolutionary process. The system will be modified as 

 experience is gained in the use of land classification for 

 land management planning and in regional and national 

 assessments or appraisals. 



in 



