Milk, Marias, and St. Mary Monitoring: Developing a Long-term Rotating Basin Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Strategy for Montana Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Prepared by: Catherine Mclntyre, Karen Newlon, Linda Vance, and Meghan Burns Montana Natural Heritage Program a cooperative program of the Montana State Library and the University of Montana March 2011 MONTANA Natural Heritage Program Milk, Marias, and St. Mary Monitoring: Developing a Long-term Rotating Basin Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Strategy for Montana Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Agreement Number: CD - 97854401 Prepared by: Catherine Mclntyre, Karen Newlon, Linda Vance, and Meghan Burns MONTANA Natural Heritage Program rotate ffc ffijKSSg* Library Jy Montana © 2011 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 • 1515 East Sixth Avenue • Helena, MT 59620-1800 • 406-444-5354 This document should be cited as follows: Mclntyre, Catherine, Karen Newlon, Linda Vance, and Meghan Burns. 2011. Milk, Marias, and St. Mary Monitoring: Developing a Long-term Rotating Basin Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Strategy for Montana. Report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 35 pp. plus appendices. ii Executive Summary Wetlands are important landscape features that provide critical ecosystem services. Properly func- tioning wetlands retain sediment, attenuate floods, recharge groundwater, and cycle nutrients. They are particularly important in the arid West, where only a small fraction of the landscape supports wetlands. Although the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1 972 initiated federal regulations to protect wetlands, the ambient condition of wetlands continues to be degraded nationwide (National Research Council 2001). Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, all waters of the United States (including wetlands) must be monitored and assessed every two years. To understand the condition of wetlands and ripari- an areas in Montana, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) conducts ecological integrity assessments (EIA) of wetlands and riparian areas in Montana. This report describes the MTNHP pilot project conducted as an initial step in developing a statewide rotating-basin assessment and monitoring strategy. The primary objective of the pilot project was to conduct Level 1 -2-3 assessments, describe wetland condition, and identify potential anthropo- genic stressors in the Milk, Marias, and St. Mary's watersheds in Montana. The target population for assessments was palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands. We used National Wetland Inventory (NWI) polygons mapped from 1980's aerial photography to generate a pool of potential sample sites (i.e., the sample frame) for random site selection. The survey design followed a Generalized Random Tes- sellation Stratified (GRTS) procedure for discrete objects with reverse hierarchical randomization. This approach accounts for the spatial patterning inherent in ecological systems. We conducted a Level 1 landscape analysis to characterize potential landscape level disturbances at three spatial scales (100, 300, and 1,000 meters) around the wetland perimeter. The Level 1 land- scape analysis also included landscape profiles using 1 6 1 ,003 NWI palustrine wetland polygons and ancillary data sources to summarize these and other attributes at the fourth, fifth, and sixth code hydrologic unit levels. We performed Level 2 rapid wetland assessments at 123 sites selected for field data collection. Field ecologists used the Montana EIA form to assess wetland condition for all wetland types within the project area. The EIA approach uses a set of ecological attributes that reflect both the structure and function of the wetland to assess ambient condition. Each ecological attribute contains one or more indicators to represent the status or trend of the attribute. These indicators are measured by metrics that include narrative ratings scaled along a gradient of wetland condition status. Each metric consists of three to five narrative statements that are assigned along an ordinal scale value. Higher numbers correspond with increasing levels of disturbance. Each metric rating is summarized into an overall attribute score for five attributes: 1) Landscape Context; 2) Relative Patch Size; 3) Biotic; 4) Physicochemical; and 5) Hydrology. The ratings for these five attributes are then combined to produce an overall EIA condition score. The MTNHP EIA method uses vegetation as an intensive biological measure to assess wetland condition. Intensive Level 3 vegetation data were collected at 44 of the Level 2 sites using a 20 m x 50 m releve plot. Level 3 vegetation data were used to conduct a Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA). The Level 1 landscape analysis showed little vari- ability at all three spatial scales. This is due, in part, to the homogeneity of the landscape within the project area. The dominant land uses in this part of Montana are dry land farming and livestock grazing, and much of the area is intersected by lo- cal dirt roads. With so little variability in the land- scape, the landscape level analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of wetland condition. Wetland profile results indicated that 8 1 % of the wetlands within the project area are palustrine emergent wetlands with either temporary or seasonal water regimes. Approximately 101, 400 acres of depres- sional wetlands occur within the project area. Three watersheds had a greater number of altered wet- lands than unaltered wetlands. in Results for the Level 2 rapid assessments indicate that among depressional wetlands, Great Plains Prairie Potholes and Great Plains Saline Depres- sions are in better condition than either Great Plains Open or Closed Depressions. Results for open and closed depression wetlands indicate that these systems are highly susceptible to human disturbances. Northwestern Great Plains Ripar- ian systems also had more sites ranked as severely altered, suggesting that these systems need more focused protection. Our Level 3 results indicate that most of the wet- lands assessed are dominated by species that can tolerate moderate disturbance as demonstrated by the cover-weighted mean c-values ranging from four to six. In addition, lower adjusted FQI values indicate that most of the assessed sites are dominat- ed by plants that are frequently found in disturbed sites. The dominant human disturbances observed and affecting wetland condition in the project area include roads, conversion of temporary and sea- sonal wetlands to dryland farming and stock ponds, and soil and vegetation disturbance associated with heavy livestock grazing. Effects of human induced disturbance may covary with natural disturbances including drought. Drought may affect wetland condition more than either local or landscape level human disturbances. There are several confounding issues with assess- ing wetlands in this region. Depressional wetlands are dynamic systems where wet-drought cycles influence the ecological communities present. Therefore, our assessments are just a snapshot of the ecological condition of the wetland at that stage within its wet-drought cycle. Because assessment results may change depending on the wet-drought cycle it is important to assess reference wetlands over a long period of time to establish a gradient of known conditions for wetlands with different water regimes. Both the Level 1 and Level 2 analysis need further calibration and refinement based on intensive Level 3 assessments. Additional Level 3 assessments should be developed to help in the further valida- tion of our methods. Based on this pilot project, the MTNHP will continue to develop indicators and metrics for a long-term integrated, statewide, multi- jurisdictional wetland condition monitoring and assessment strategy based on EPA's recommended elements. IV Acknowledgements This project was funded by an Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 Wetland Program Development Grant. We would like to thank Toney Ott and Jill Minter of EPA Region 8 for their sup- port and commitment to wetland assessment and monitoring in our region. This project would not have been successful with- out the help of many dedicated individuals includ- ing Jessica Clarke, Larissa Pfleeger, Tara Luna, and Eva Mason who spent long buggy days in the field collecting quality data, as well as Randy Apfelback, Lynda Saul, and Stephen Carpenedo of MT DEQ who provided feedback and advice on the field pro- tocol. Catherine Maynard of the NRCS provided helpful recommendations on content and editorial feedback. Joanna Lemly of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program acted as a sounding board for many ideas and provided helpful suggestions for data analysis. Allan Cox of MTNHP developed the webpage for this project on the MTNHP website. Also, thanks to Tony Olsen with the Environmental Protection Agency who provided guidance on using GRTS and to Coburn Currier of MTNHP for for- matting and editing the final version of this report. Finally, thanks are due to the Monitoring and Assessment Workgroup of the Montana Wetland Council for their support and guidance through the development of the MTNHP Level 1-2-3 proto- col. In particular, thanks to Mike Philbin from the Bureau of Land Management for all his support and dedication to wetlands and riparian areas in Montana. Any errors or omissions in the report are entirely the responsibility of the authors. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 3 Physical Setting 3 Geology and Climate 3 Vegetation and Ecological Processes 7 Animal Communities 9 Methods 10 Site Selection 10 Data Collection 10 Data Analysis 13 Results 15 Wetland Landscape Profile Results 15 Level 1 Landscape Analysis Results 20 Level 2 Rapid Assessment Results 20 Level 3 Analysis Results 23 Discussion 30 Literature Cited 32 Appendix A: Ecological System Descriptions Appendix B: Ecological System Field Key Appendix C: Level 1 Digital Data Set Sources and Scoring Appendix D: Montana Natural Heritage Program Level 2 Ecological Integrity Assessment Form Appendix E: Calculation of Level 2 Attribute and Overall AA Scores Appendix F: Montana Natural Heritage Program Level 3 Intensive Vegetation Assessment Form Appendix G: Vegetation Cover Classes and Releve Plot Layout Appendix H: Calculation and Description of Floristic Quality Assessment Indices Appendix I: Wetland Landscape Profiling Appendix J: Level 1 Attribute Frequency Histograms for Three Landscape Scales Appendix K: Level 2 Attribute Frequency Histograms Appendix L: Level 2 Scores for Each Ecological System Appendix M: Level 2 Attribute and Overall Condition Score Frequency Histograms by Wetland Ecological Systems for Systems with n = > 8 sites. List of Figures Figure 1. Watersheds included in the Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers project area 3 Figure 2. Level III Ecoregions included in the project area 4 Figure 3. Relative annual precipitation (REAP) in inches for the project area 5 Figure 4. Acres of mapped wetlands within the project area 15 Figure 5. Density of wetlands by fourth code hydrologic units within the project area 16 Figure 6. Percent of wetlands in the project area that are located on private land 19 Figure 7. Percent of wetlands in the project area that are considered altered 20 Figure 8. Distribution of Level 2 assessments 22 Figure 9. Overall condition scores for Level 2 wetland sites 24 vi List of Figures (Con't) Figure 10. Overall condition scores for the dominant ecological systems within the project area 25 Figure 1 1 . Mean C-Values weighted by the relative average cover of plant species in Level 3 vegetation plots 27 Figure 12. Frequency of adjusted FQI scores 27 Figure 13. Effects of heavy livestock grazing on wetland soil and vegetation 28 Figure 14. Frequency of species by their regional wetland indicator status 28 List of Tables Table 1 . The Montana Natural Heritage Program Rapid Assessment Method attributes and component metrics 11 Table 2. Predicted responses of vegetation metrics to increasing levels of human disturbance 14 Table 3. Summary table of number, acres and percentage of total wetland acres by Cowardin classification water regime and class and associated hydrogeomorphic type and code 17 Table 4. Wetland landscape profiling of palustrine wetlands within each fourth code hydrological unit (HUC) 18 Table 5. Mean Level 1 scores for landscape metrics, attributes and overall site score with standard deviations (S.D.) 21 Table 6. Number of Level 2 sites by Level IV Ecoregion, 4th code hydrological unit, and hydrogeomorphic type (HGM) 23 Table 7. Mean overall EI A scores with their standard deviations and minimum and maximum scores for each ecological system 24 Table 8. Correlations between Level 2 attribute scores and Cowardin water regimes using Spearman's correlations 25 Table 9. Correlations between Level 2 attribute scores and the number of different stressor types using Spearman's correlations 25 Table 10. Mean values for FQA indices by Cowardin water regime with their standard deviations (S.D.) 26 Table 1 1 . Spearman correlations between Level 3 vegetation data and relative effective annual precipitation (REAP) 29 vn Introduction Wetlands are important landscape features that provide critical ecosystem services. Properly functioning wetlands retain sediment, attenuate floods, recharge groundwater, and cycle nutrients. These critical biological functions also have the potential for significant socioeconomic impacts. These functions are particularly important in the arid West, where only a small fraction of the land- scape supports wetlands. Historically, nearly 25% of Montana's wetlands have been lost since 1780 (Dahl 1990, Jones 2003). Although the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 initiated federal regulations to protect wetlands, the ambient condition of wetlands continues to be degraded na- tionwide (National Research Council 2001). Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, all waters of the Unites States (including wetlands) must be monitored and assessed every two years. Reporting on the ambi- ent condition of wetlands is necessary to determine if management and restoration practices are suc- ceeding (Kentula 2007). The CWA requirement for States to report on the condition of State waters and wetlands underscores the need for a comprehensive wetland monitor- ing and assessment program in Montana. To adequately characterize wetland condition and pri- oritize conservation, restoration and management, wetland assessments should be conducted within a watershed context (National Research Council 2001, White and Fennessy 2005, Brooks et al. 2006) and at multiple spatial scales (Brooks et al. 2004). The Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) Framework provides a scientifically sound method- ology for these types of biological and ecological resource assessments (Kentula 2007). "Ecological integrity" is the ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain a full suite of organisms with species composition, diversity, and function comparable to systems in an undisturbed state (Karr and Dudley, 1981). It varies along a continuum of anthropo- genic influences or disturbances. At one end of this continuum are pristine or minimally impacted sys- tems, supporting the full complement of ecological processes. With increasing human disturbance, the condition of these systems may decline (Karr and Chu 1999). An EIA assessment framework uses multi-metric indices to evaluate the ecological in- tegrity of wetlands at multiple spatial scales. By integrating landscape level land-use data and site- level condition assessments, the EIA framework provides comprehensive, watershed level wetland integrity evaluations, and meets regional and site specific information needs. The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) conducts ecological integrity assessments for wetlands in Montana using the EIA framework, augmented with methods developed by ecologists from other state Natural Heritage programs and the NatureServe network (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2006, 2008; Rocchio 2006a, 2006b). The MTNHP multi-scale EIA follows the three-tier approach recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA). The first tier is a Level 1 GIS- based landscape assessment using available digital data to provide information on watershed condi- tion. Its primary metrics are based on anthropo- genic stressors such as roads, resource extraction, and land conversion from native vegetation to ag- riculture or residential development. The Level 1 assessment also includes wetland profiles summa- rizing general information on wetland abundance, type, extent, and function within a given watershed (Johnson 2005). The second tier (Level 2) is a rapid field-based assessment using a suite of metrics to record the general condition of individual wet- lands. These metrics evaluate various indicators of landscape context, biotic, hydrologic, and physico- chemical condition. Finally, a detailed quantitative Level 3 field assessment is conducted and used to calculate site-specific indices of biological integrity (refer to Appendix B for field form). Using the three-tiered approach, information from each level is used to validate the results of the other levels (Kentula 2007). The multi-tiered approach allows the ambient condition of wetlands to be monitored over time and spatially referenced. Management decisions and actions can then be prioritized so that sites in good condition can be protected and sites that have been impacted can be selected for restora- tion. This report describes the MTNHP pilot project con- ducted as an initial step in developing a statewide rotating- basin assessment and monitoring strategy. The primary objective of the pilot project was to conduct Level 1-2-3 assessments, describe wetland condition, and identify potential anthropogenic stressors in the Milk, Marias, and St. Mary water- sheds in Montana. These watersheds were selected because of their biological and socioeconomic importance and the availability of complete digital wetland mapping from the National Wetland Inven- tory (NWI). Study Area Physical Setting The project area is located in north central Mon- tana and includes Glacier, Liberty, Toole, Pondera, Teton, Hill, Blaine, Phillips, Chouteau, and Val- ley Counties. The study area extends from Glacier National Park on the Rocky Mountain Front east across the foothills and the glaciated plains. It lies within the southwestern edge of the Prairie Pothole region, an area with national and global ecological significance (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Un- like many significant natural areas in the U.S., the Prairie Pothole region of northern Montana is not the subject of focused state or federal protection efforts. Lands are primarily privately owned with federal and state ownership scattered throughout the watersheds. Land use is divided between live- stock grazing on native prairie, dryland farming, and hay production. Three river basins were used to delineate the study area: those portions of the St. Mary and Milk River Basins that fall within Mon- tana, and all of the Marias River (Figure 1). Geology and Climate The project area includes 15,794,321 acres and includes portions of four Level III ecoregions (Omernik 1987): the Canadian Rockies, the North- western Glaciated Plains, the Middle Rockies, and the Northwestern Great Plains. However, most of the project is within the Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion (Figure 2). The western edge is rugged and forested, with outcrops of Precam- brian Belt rock. Geologically, it is characterized by drift deposits, colluvium, moraines, glacially carved U-shaped valleys, kettle ponds, and poorly developed drainage networks. Elevations in this area can exceed 3,000 meters; highest elevations have lingering snow, and are mostly talus and rock. By contrast, the central and eastern portions are The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Project Area / ■■Study Area □ vftmsWs 2; io 10: 150 Figure 1. Watersheds included in the Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers project area. dominated by plains, terraces, and floodplains that formed in glacial till, by gravel deposits, and by alluvium over clay shale, sandstone, and siltstone (Nesser et al. 1997). Unlike the western front, the prairie portion has minor vertical relief. Elevations along the Milk River range from 750 meters near Fresno Dam to 600 meters at Glasgow, while eleva- tions along the Marias River range from 900 meters at Tiber Dam to 750 meters at its confluence with the Missouri River. The Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion is the most westerly edge of gla- ciation and is dominated by both moraines and de- pressional wetlands carved out by the Keewatin ice sheet (Jones 2003). Glacial till, outwash, and drift up to 30 meters thick overlay the rolling terrain (Nesser et al. 1997). The most extensive geologic substrate in the study area, extending from Canada to the Missouri River, is marine -origin clay shale and shale of the Bearpaw and Claggett formations. Sandstone and sandy shale is locally common and is most abundant in the breaks along the Marias and Milk Rivers. Quaternary age alluvium fills most of the valley bottom of the Milk River. Climate varies widely from the western to eastern parts of the study area. Relative effective annual precipitation (REAP), which is an indicator of the amount of moisture available at a given location accounting for precipitation, slope, aspect, and soil properties, ranges from over 1,524 mm (60 in) in the western portion of the project area to 406 mm (16 in) in the eastern portion (Figure 3). The cli- mate is continental and temperate with frigid win- ters and warm to hot summers (McNab and Avers 1994). Mean January low temperatures ranges from -10.5°C (13.1°F) at East Glacier in the west to -14.1 °C (6.7 °F) at Malta in the east. Mean July high temperatures range from 23.6 °C (74.4 °F) at East Glacier to 30.9 °C (87.7 °F) at Malta (Western Regional Climate Center 2010). Across the area, precipitation peaks in late spring or early summer with steady, soaking frontal system rains. Summer The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Level III Eco regions A level III Eco regions IT.MkUmRdcIiui 41 - Canadian Rockies 42 - Narthivoifem Gbculud Plains 42 - NarttweBlern Great Plains 25 50 ion ■ Mi«i ISC Figure 2. Level III Ecoregions included in the project area. rainfall comes mainly from convection thunder- storms that typically deliver bursts of intense rain in scattered locations. These storms are often ac- companied by large diameter hail and flash floods (Jones 2003). Where rainfall exceeds evapotranspi- ration, conditions are suitable for agriculture, par- ticularly cereal grains. The growing season across the farmed areas is typically 110-130 days, with approximately 70-80% of annual precipitation fall- ing within that period (McNab and Aver 1994). The Milk, Marias and St. Mary Rivers originate on the Rocky Mountain Front. The Milk begins in the foothills north of Browning, Montana at the con- fluence of the South and Middle Fork of the Milk River. The Milk River joins the North Fork of the Milk River and flows into Fresno Reservoir, east of Havre, Montana. After flowing through a series of diversion dams below the reservoir, the Milk River joins the Missouri River 12 miles downstream of Fort Peck Dam. The Marias River begins in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation at the confluence of Cut Bank, Dupuyer, and Birch Creeks and the Two Medi- cine River. It flows southeastward to Lake Elwell, formed by Tiber Dam. From Lake Elwell, a rec- reation and irrigation facility, the river flows east and south for 50 miles before entering the Missouri River at Loma. The St. Mary River begins in Glacier National Park and flows through the Blackfeet Indian Reserva- tion. Over 150,000 acre feet of water is diverted from the St. Mary into the North Fork of the Milk through a canal and inverted siphon. The remain- ing water flows into Canada and ultimately into Hudson Bay. Tributary streams in the westernmost part of the study area are perennial or intermittent, fed by groundwater, snowmelt, and spring/summer rains. In the eastern part of the study area, except around Relative Effective Annual Precipitation for the Milk and Marias Project Area Precipitation (inches) ^B 16 }■■■ ^M 25- 28 ^M 29-33 ^B 34-36 ^M 37-39 IH 40-43 | 44-46 25 50 100 ^B 47-54 ^M 55-62 37.5 75 150 Figure 3. Map showing the relative annual precipitation (REAP) in inches for the project area. the Bears Paw Mountains, most tributaries are in- termittent or ephemeral (Vance 2009). In the east, snow depths in winter seldom exceed 3-6 inches, but wind redistributes snow to lee positions and swales, where subsequent compaction results in considerably higher moisture content than on flats. These swales may also concentrate rainfall during late spring and during summer storm events, creat- ing ephemeral channels. Wetland hydrology in the study area is also com- plex. In the western portion, and especially on the Blackfeet Reservation, there are numerous carrs and fens along the mountain to valley transition zone. The central and eastern portions are charac- terized by prairie potholes, open and closed depres- sional wetlands, saline depressions, and emergent marshes (full ecological system descriptions in Appendix A and Ecological System Field Key in Appendix B). Depressional wetlands occur in the Milk River in the area around the Bowdoin Nation- al Wildlife Refuge, often occupying old oxbows of the pre-glacial Missouri River. Prairie potholes occur across the study area, but are most densely concentrated in the area north of US Route 2, where poorly denned or nonexistent surface drain- age channels are a characteristic of the rolling land- scape. Fine-textured, low-permeability soils limit infiltration (Winter 1989), and small drainage ba- sins concentrate even the small amount of surface runoff. Rainfall accumulates rapidly in potholes during spring months, especially when infiltration is hindered until after the ground thaws. Snowmelt is the primary source of water for these systems as well as springtime rains so that water levels are typically higher in the spring and early summer as opposed to later in the summer from summer rain and runoff events (Winter 1989). Depressional and prairie pothole wetlands can be temporarily, sea- sonally, or semipermanently flooded. Temporary wetlands typically are small shallow basins that only hold water for one to two months (Johnson et al. 2010). Seasonal wetlands tend to be larger basins that will hold water for up to two to three months (Stewart and Kantrud 1971, Johnson et al. 2010). Depressional wetlands that are clustered on the landscape are denned as wetland complexes and are often connected to one another hydrologi- cally through both surface water and groundwater (Winter and Rosenberry 1995, Johnson et al. 2010). Evapotranspiration appears to be the primary con- duit for water loss (Shjeflo 1968). In Montana's semiarid climate, evapotranspiration will generally be much greater than precipitation during summer months. Moreover, the same clay and silt soils that limit infiltration when wet are prone to developing secondary cracks during dry months, resulting in rapid infiltration when summer rain events occur. Consequently, prairie potholes will be relatively dry throughout most years, and only hold measur- able amounts of water in years when precipitation significantly exceeds average. Although precipitation and evapotranspiration are the principal drivers of water exchange in prairie potholes, both subsurface and surface interactions can occur between individual wetlands. Subsurface flows are well-documented (reviewed by Winter 1989), and allow water retention over significant periods of time, far exceeding what would be ex- pected if only surface inputs and evaporation are considered (Winter and Rosenberry 1995). Depend- ing on the underlying geology and hydraulic head, individual wetlands can be recharge wetlands, dis- charge wetlands, or flow-through wetlands; topo- graphic position alone is insufficient as an indicator of pothole hydrology (Leibowitz and Vining 2003). Flows can also reverse on a seasonal basis: an individual pothole can be a discharge wetland in the spring, receiving ground water from uplands, and then become a recharge wetland in summer as evapotranspiration creates a groundwater sink (Winter 1989). Surface connectivity occurs among some prairie potholes, with topographically lower wetlands receiving inputs from upslope wetlands (Winter 1989, Winter and Rosenberry 1998). In certain ar- eas, surface water connections may occur sporadi- cally when periods of intense rain result in potholes overflowing and forming temporary connections to adjacent ones. Leibowitz and Vining (2003) have coined the term "temporal connectivity" to refer to this phenomenon, and suggest that it be considered not as a presence/absence occurrence, but rather as a probability event. However, they note that temporal connectivity is much more likely to ex- ist in the eastern part of the prairie pothole region, which is characterized by relatively flat terrain. In the more rolling prairie landscapes and semiarid climate of the study area, the probability of this temporal surface water connectivity is likely to be distributed over fewer wetlands and a longer period of time. When surface water connections occur, however, they can have an ecologically controlling effect. Surface water flow from larger, upslope wet- lands can increase electrical conductivity and sa- linity (Leibowitz and Vining 2003), both of which are factors controlling the distribution of plants (Stewart and Kantrud 1971) and invertebrates (Euliss et al. 2002) in prairie potholes. The hydro- logic functions at a given wetland can sometimes be determined in the field by salinity, or can be identified by vegetation types. Potholes with high salinity tend to be groundwater discharge wetlands. Potholes that are classified as temporarily flooded in the NWI mapping tend to recharge groundwater, while those characterized as seasonally flooded are generally either flow-through or groundwater recharge. Semi-permanently flooded potholes can have either groundwater discharge or flow-through functions (Euliss et al. 2002). Vegetation and Ecological Processes Riparian habitats along the Milk, and to a lesser extent, the Marias, are characterized by the ox- bow marshes, shrub-dominated terraces, and Cot- tonwood gallery forests generally associated with floodplains. The St. Mary, at higher elevations, is a high gradient river with less floodplain develop- ment, and riparian habitats are more character- istically mixed woodland and shrubland. Three species of cottonwood occur: plains cottonwood {Populus deltoides), narrowleaf cottonwood {P. angustifolia), and black cottonwood (P. balsam- ifera ssp. trichocarpd). In the western portion of the project area, black cottonwood is the dominant riparian tree. Plains cottonwood is the most com- mon species overall, and dominates most stands, although narrowleaf cottonwood is also common. Central and eastern floodplains can be lush if they are still within reach of high flows. More mesic stands support a well-developed and diverse shrub and small tree layer including boxelder {Acer ne- gundo), peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), yellow willow (S. luted), red-osier dogwood (Cor- nus sericea), chokecherry {Primus virginiana), western snowberry {Symphoricarpos occidenta- lis), Wood's rose {Rosa woodsii), and silver buf- faloberry {Shepherdia argentea). Drier stands on terraces often have no shrub component at all or a less diverse shrub layer dominated by western snowberry or Wood's rose. The native grasses that once characterized these stands, such as western wheatgrass {Pascopyrum smithii) and thickspike wheatgrass {Elymus lanceolatus), have now largely been replaced by exotic pasture grasses, primarily Kentucky bluegrass {Poa pratensis) and smooth brome {Bromus inermis). Grazing has also greatly altered these communities in places by shifting shrub composition to favor less palatable species, such as rose and snowberry. Tributaries generally have small, narrow flood- plains with discontinuous bands of cottonwood. In the central and eastern parts of the study area, these streams usually have broader terraces with silver sage {Artemisia cana) I western wheatgrass communities. Saltgrass {Distichlis spicata), three- square bulrush {Schoenoplectus pungens), and black greasewood {Sarcobatus vermiculatus) are common along more alkaline streams. In general, small, ephemeral streams have greater year-to-year hydrologic variability than larger rivers, so cotton- wood regeneration is highly episodic. Wetland vegetation is highly variable, depending on wetland type and location. Along the Rocky Mountain Front, fens occur at higher elevations as a mosaic of herbaceous and woody plant communi- ties. In herbaceous communities, several plant as- sociations are dominated by sedges {Carex sp.) and spikerushes {Eleocharis sp.). Bryophyte diversity is generally high and includes sphagnum {Sphagnum sp.). Shrub-dominated carrs are typically com- posed of willow {Salix sp.) and dwarf birch {Betula nana). The surrounding landscape may be ringed with other wetland systems: fens often grade into marshes, wet meadows or riparian shrublands, and can be surrounded by conifer swamps or wet to mesic coniferous forests. Marshes occur in and adjacent to ponds and prairie potholes, as fringes around lakes or oxbows, and along slow-flowing streams and rivers. Marshes are classified as either seasonal or semipermanent based on the dominant vegetation found in the deepest portion of the wetland, as vegetation is representative of the hydroperiod. Semipermanent wetlands are continually inundated with water depths up to 2 meters (6.5 feet). Dominant vegeta- tion includes common threesquare, Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), and hardstem bulrush {Schoenoplectus acutus). Alkaline marsh communities are usually dominated by alkali bulrush (S. maritimus), fresh water cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and seashore saltgrass. Depressional wetlands are dynamic systems that developed under climatic conditions where wet- drought cycles in Montana influence the ecologi- cal communities in these systems (Hansen et al., 1995). Vegetation communities within these sys- tems are characterized as concentric zones around the deeper portion of the wetland. These bands of vegetation communities follow a hydrologic gradi- ent from low prairie, to wet meadow, then to emer- gent marsh or open water in the deeper portion of the wetland. The number of zones is dependent on the wet-drought cycle where during drought years there may only be one vegetative zone. Flooding, drawdown and the eventual exposure of mud flats drive the water-level vegetation cycle. Seeds from annuals and perennials germinate and cover ex- posed mud flats, but when precipitation floods the depressions the annuals drown and the perennials survive. Over a series of years the perennials domi- nate. The drawdown to mudflats is necessary so that emergent vegetation can become reestablished. Closed depressions usually feature a drawdown zone dominated by western wheatgrass and foxtail barley {Hordeum jubatum). Povertyweed (Iva axil- laris) and willow dock (Rumex salicifolius) occupy the broad, low gradient basins that are shallowly inundated in the spring and draw down every year to reveal bottoms of gray bentonite. Common spikerush {Eleocharis palustris) occurs within the drawdown area where there is more organic matter in the substrate. Hardstem bulrush typifies closed depressions sufficiently deep to remain permanent- ly inundated during most years. Open depression wetlands often have submerged aquatic plants in the open water zone including common hornwort {Ceratophyllum demersum), short spikewater milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum), and horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) as well as floating-leaved plants including pondweeds (Stuckenia and Potamogeton sp.), white water crowfoot {Ranunculus aquatilis) and arrowheads (Sagittaria sp.). The central marsh zone is typi- cally dominated by hardstem bulrush, but soft- stem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), common threesquare and alkali bulrush, often co-dominate. Also found in the marsh zone are cattails, water knotweed (Polygonum amphibium), and hemlock water parsnip (Sium suave). The seasonally flooded zones are typically dominated by graminoids including common spikerush, needle spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis), Ameri- can sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne), wheat sedge (Carex atherodes), foxtail barley, shortawn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis), and water foxtail (A. geniculatus). Open depressional systems are often bordered by wet prairie zones characterized by spe- cies such as slimstem reedgrass (Calamagrostis stricta), bluejoint (C. canadensis), clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis) and fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris). Open depressions with more alkaline or saline water and soil chemistry will typically be bordered by species such as saltgrass, west- ern wheatgrass, and freshwater cordgrass. Sites that have been moderately grazed often have an increase in Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), knotted rush (J. nodosus), foxtail barley, and American sloughgrass. In semi-permanent open depressional systems, the drawdown zone is typically dominated by beaked sedge (Carex utriculata) water sedge (C aquatilis), and Nebraska sedge. Saline depressional wetlands are similar, but tend to have brackish water and high salinity, attributed to high evaporation and the accumulation of miner- als dissolved in the water. Species that typify this system are salt-tolerant and halophytic graminoids such as alkali bulrush, common three square, inland saltgrass, Nuttall's alkali grass (Puccinellia nut- talliana), foxtail barley, red swampfire (Salicornia rubra) and freshwater cordgrass, and shrubs such as black greasewood. Prairie potholes occur in shallow depressions that were created when ice from receding glaciers were abandoned and melted creating small complexes of depressions. These types of wetlands are ephemer- al with standing water only lasting for a few weeks in the spring to early summer but water levels can vary due to seasonal and inter-annual variations (Jones 2003, Van der Kamp et al. 1999). Vegeta- tion in prairie potholes also occurs in concentric zones that follow the hydrologic gradient of the wetland including low prairie, wet meadow, and shallow marsh (Stewart and Kantrud 1971). The types of vegetation that occur in these wetlands are influenced by water duration, salinity, and the sur- rounding land use (DeKeyser et al. 2003). Domi- nant vegetation includes spikerush, foxtail barley, and western wheatgrass. The native upland vegetation ranges from the cool- season perennial bunch grasses and forbs that dom- inate the Rocky Mountain Front foothills to the mix of short- and mid-grass prairie communities that intermix with shrub steppe in central and eastern portions. Grasses have the greatest canopy cover, and western wheatgrass is usually dominant. Other species include thickspike wheatgrass {Elymus lanceolatus), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and needle and thread {Hesperostipa comata). Near the Canadian border in north-central Montana, this system grades into rough fescue (Festuca campestris) and Idaho fescue (F idahoensis) grasslands. Steppe vegeta- tion is the result of a semi-arid continental climate where the highly variable precipitation favors shal- low-rooted herbaceous perennial grasses and deep- rooted shrubs over forests or woodlands. Shrub steppe vegetation is characterized by open stands of silver sagebrush or Wyoming big sagebrush {Arte- misia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) over an herba- ceous layer dominated by western wheatgrass, blue grama or needle-and-thread. The co-occurrence of short- and mid-grass prairies is also due to climatic variability. Shorter, drought-resistant grasses such as blue grama increase in abundance during times of drought. Mid-grasses, such as the rhizomatous western wheatgrass and the bunch- forming prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) and needle-and- thread, increase under more favorable moisture conditions. Animal Communities Wetlands, particularly prairie potholes, are widely recognized for their significance as critical breeding habitat for waterfowl (Batt et al. 1989). Wetlands also support a diverse assemblage of water depen- dent birds including Montana species of concern such as the Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nyctico- rax nycticorax), White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi), Franklin's Gull (Larus pipixcan), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Forster's Tern (S. forsteri), Amer- ican White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), and Black Tern (Chlidonias niger). Amphibian spe- cies of concern within the project area include the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), plains spade- foot (Spea bombifrons), and great plains toad (Bufo cognatus). The western hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus) is also a wetland-dependent species insofar as it feeds on toads, themselves dependent on stand- ing water during part of their life cycle. The small mammal community in prairie wet- lands in Montana is primarily composed of five species: masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), muskrat {Ondatra zibethicus), thirteen-lined ground squir- rel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and meadow vole (Mi- crotias pennsylvanicus), all important food sources for prairie predators. The heavier vegetation cover natural to pothole wetlands serves as a popula- tion reservoir for small mammals. Bats are also dependent in some part on wetlands, as obligate insectivores, and on the roosting sites found in Cot- tonwood forests. Wetlands and riparian areas are also important habi- tat for larger mammals including red fox ( Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink {Mustela vison), weasels (Mustela spp.), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and deer (Odocoileus spp.). Whitetail deer (O. virginianus) are abundant in the riparian corridor along the riv- ers. In recent years, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) have expanded their range across the study area, and have been found as far east as the confluence of the Marias and Missouri Rivers. Methods Site Selection We used wetland polygons mapped by the NWI in the 1980's to generate a pool of potential sample sites (i.e., the sample frame) for random site selec- tion. We stratified sites by Level IV ecoregion to maximize within-ecoregion similarities and mini- mize between-region variability in vegetation, ge- ology, and climate (Van Sickle and Hughes 2000). The sample frame included all palustrine wetland types mapped by the NWI. The survey design fol- lowed a Generalized Random Tessellation Strati- fied (GRTS) procedure for discrete objects with reverse hierarchical randomization (Stevens 1997). All 161,003 NWI polygons within the sample frame were treated as the discrete objects with lo- cations identified by the wetland polygon centroid. The GRTS design was selected because it creates a spatially balanced sample among randomly se- lected sites (Stevens and Olsen 1999, Stevens and Olsen 2004). This approach can account for the spatial patterning inherent in ecological systems (i.e., sites in close proximity tend to be more simi- lar than widely separated sites). Spatially balanced sampling is also more efficient than simple random sampling because it can minimize the redundancy inherent in a simple random sample, which might select multiple proximate sites (Stevens and Jensen 2007). An unequal probability stratified survey de- sign was then used to select sample sites stratified by Level IV ecoregion (Omernik 1987). The num- ber of sites selected within each Level IV ecore- gion was proportional to the area of each ecoregion within the project area. Sixty-six percent (10,344,286 acres) of the Milk, Marias, and St. Mary project area is in private own- ership. To ensure that wetlands on the remaining 34% (5,457,880 acres) publicly owned lands were included in our sample frame, two subpopulations were identified where approximately 50% of the selected wetlands occurred on privately owned lands and 50% occurred on public land. A total of 1,3 14 wetlands were selected from the NWI based sample frame with a 50% oversample to account for wetlands that no longer existed or were inacces- sible due to denied access by private landowners. For the Level 1 landscape analysis, all 1,314 wet- land points were included. To select sites for the Level 2 rapid wetland field assessments, we used a two-stage approach. First, to determine if the wet- land polygons mapped in the 1980's still existed, each sample site was visually examined in ArcMap 9.3 (ESRI 2008) using lm resolution aerial imag- ery taken in 2005 by the National Agricultural Im- agery Program (NAIP). We determined land own- ership for each wetland polygon from the original Level 1 site selection by spatially joining the NWI polygon centroid and cadastral land ownership data (Montana Department of Administration 1 999). To ensure access to sites on private land, we contacted property owners by telephone or occasionally in person. If permission was denied, the site was dropped and the next accessible site was evalu- ated until the sample size included 123 wetlands proportionately distributed across the four Level IV ecoregions. We conducted Level 3 vegetation assessments on 44 of the Level 2 assessment sites. Sites for the intensive assessments were selected in the field based on vegetation characteristics. Data Collection Wetland Landscape Profile Certain wetland types may perform certain func- tions better than other wetland types (Brinson 1993, Johnson 2005). For example, wetlands lo- cated in floodplains tend to have a high sediment retention function while wetland flats have a low sediment retention function. The ability of wetlands to effectively perform certain functions depends upon vegetation, landscape position, water source, and hydrodynamics (Brinson 1993). Cumulative impacts to wetlands within watersheds will have significant additive effects (Johnson 2005). There- fore, it is important to identify the type and location of wetland resources within a given watershed. Wetland profiles provide information on the dis- tribution and characteristics of wetlands within a watershed. We prepared landscape profiles using all the 161 ,003 mapped palustrine wetland poly- gons and ancillary data sources to summarize these and other attributes for fourth, fifth, and sixth code 10 hydrologic units. We supplemented the Cowardin wetland classification, which describes the system, dominant vegetation type, and water regime, with a hydrogeomorphic attribute that describes a wetland in terms of its landscape position and hydrology This attribution allows wetland type to be associat- ed with a wetland function. We calculated five met- rics to produce the wetland profiles: 1) Density of wetlands, calculated as the total number of palus- trine wetlands divided by total land acres within a given hydrologic unit; 2) Number and acreage of wetland types by Cowardin class, water regime and hydrogeomorphic type and code; 3) Percent- age of wetlands on private, state, federal, and tribal lands; 4) Percentage of wetlands protected through conservation easements or land manage- ment based on the Protected Areas Database (Data Basin 2010); and 5) Percentage of altered wetlands (defined as those wetlands mapped with a "im- pounded" or "excavated" modifier). Level 1 Landscape Analysis A Level 1 landscape analysis was used to char- acterize potential landscape level disturbances at three spatial scales (100 meters, 300 meters, and 1,000 meters) from the wetland perimeter using the buffering and identify functions in ArcGIS. Landscape level indicators of disturbance were de- rived from available digital datasets including land cover/land use, hydrology, and roads (Appendix C). Given the lack of detailed up-to-date spatial data on livestock grazing and resource extraction, the lm resolution NAIP aerial imagery was exam- ined for evidence of either disturbance. Four major attributes were considered as possible sources of anthropogenic stressors: roads, hydrological modi- fications, land cover/land use type, and resource use. We evaluated and scored each attribute based on multiple metrics (Table 1). We assigned a rating to each metric for roads, hydrological disturbances, and resource use based upon its distance from the wetland or buffered wetland perimeter. For land cover/land use, metric ratings were assigned based upon the percent cover of each land cover type within the wetland polygon or wetland buffer. Dis- turbance ratings increased with either decreasing distance from the disturbance or increasing percent cover of each land cover type. To calculate an overall Level 1 site score, we multi- plied individual metrics by a given weight and then summed into an overall attribute score (Appendix C). The four attribute scores were then weighted and summed again to achieve a final site score. Table 1. The Montana Natural Heritage Program Rapid Assessment Method attributes and component metrics. Attribute Metric Landscape Context Size Biotic Structure and Composition Hydrology Physicochemical Landscape Connectivity Buffer Width Buffer Length Buffer Condition Wetland Size Relative to Historic Conditions Relative Cover of Native Plant Species Relative Cover of Tolerant Native Plant Species Cover of Noxious Plant Species Organic Matter Accumulation Patch Interspersion Water Source Hydroperiod Hydrologic Connectivity Soil Surface Integrity Water Quality 11 Level 2 Rapid Assessments We completed 123 Level 2 rapid wetland assess- ments. Field ecologists used the Montana Ecologi- cal Integrity Assessment (EIA) form (Appendix D) developed by the MTNHP to assess wetland condition for all wetland types within the project area. The EIA approach uses a set of ecological at- tributes that reflect both the structure and function of the wetland to assess ambient condition (Table 1). Each ecological attribute contains one or more indicators to represent the status or trend of the at- tribute. These indicators are measured by metrics that include narrative ratings scaled along a gradi- ent of wetland condition status. Each metric con- sists of three to five narrative statements that are assigned an ordinal scale value. Higher numbers correspond with increasing levels of disturbance. Each metric rating is summarized into an overall attribute score for five attributes: 1) Landscape Context; 2) Relative Patch Size; 3) Biotic; 4) Phys- icochemical; and 5) Hydrology. The ratings for these five attributes are then combined to produce an overall EIA condition score (Collins et al. 2004; Appendix E). At each sample point, we established a 0.5 hectare assessment area (AA). The AA is the boundary of the wetland (or a portion of the wetland) targeted for sampling and analysis and is defined as all wet- land area of the same ecological system type within a 0.5 hectare area around the sample point. If the wetland was smaller than 0.5 hectares and included a single ecological system, the entire wetland was assessed. In wetlands where several ecological systems occurred, the center of the AA was adjust- ed up to 50 meters so that the AA consisted of only one ecological system. Once the AA was defined, we recorded general site characteristics (e.g., elevation, soil drainage, topographic position, amount of the AA covered by standing water, HGM class, and Cowardin system). We also collected soils data at each site by excavat- ing two 45-60 cm deep soil cores in representative areas of the AA. For each soil layer, the depth, texture, matrix color, and abundance and color of redoximorphic features were recorded. Soil colors were determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006; Munsell Color Company 2000). The EIA form also contains a stressors checklist developed by the MTNHP. Stressors on the check- list include paved roads, developed buildings, min- ing activity, agriculture, and logging within 500 meters of the AA perimeter and within the AA. Stressors to wetland hydrology within 500 meters of the AA include impoundments, pumps, diver- sions, and dikes. Observed stressors were tallied to create a disturbance gradient. We assumed that a wetland with more stressors present will be more impaired than a wetland with no or few stressors (Miller and Wardrop 2006). Level 3 Intensive Assessments The MTNHP EIA method uses vegetation as an intensive biological measure to assess wetland con- dition (see Appendix F for field form) and to vali- date both the Level 1 landscape analysis and the Level 2 rapid assessments (Wardrop et al. 2007). Vegetation was selected because wetland plants are generally good indicators of the cumulative im- pacts of disturbances on wetland condition (Cronk and Fennessy 2001). In addition, vegetation can be assessed in all types of wetlands, including those that only have standing water seasonally, whereas indicators such as water chemistry, diatoms, and macroinvertebrates require standing water for most or all of the growing season. Intensive Level 3 vegetation data were collected at 44 of the Level 2 sites using a 20 m x 50 m releve plot (Peet et al. 1998). The structure of the plot consists often lOmx 10m(100 m^) modules typically arranged in a 2 x 5 array (Appendix G). The plot was subjectively placed within the AA to maximize abiotic/biotic heterogeneity and to cap- ture micro-site variations produced by hummocks, water tracks, side-channels, pools, wetland edge, and microtopography. The absolute cover of all vascular species within four of the 1 00 m2 modules was estimated using the cover classes developed by Peet et al. (1998; Appendix G). The area covered by standing water, bare ground, litter and bryo- phytes was also estimated for each module. Cover class midpoints were used to calculate average cov- er values over the entire releve plot for each taxon. 12 For Level 3 assessment sites, multiple vegetation metrics were used to conduct a Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA). Previous studies have demon- strated that the FQA is a good predictor of wetland condition (Lopez and Fennessy 2002, DeKeyser et al. 2003, Jones 2004, Hargiss et al. 2008). A FQA accounts for the presence of exotic species, the richness of native species, and an individual plant species' tolerance and sensitivity to disturbance (Cronk and Fennessy 200 1 , Miller and Wardrop 2006). Similar indices of plant community integri- ty have been used in wetlands in the Prairie Pothole region of North Dakota and found to be robust in assessing the influence of anthropogenic and natu- ral disturbances on plant communities (Hargiss et al. 2008). However, it is recommended that when developing indices for plant communities in this re- gion, wetlands be separated by their hydrologic re- gime (Hargiss et al. 2008). For this reason Level 3 results for temporarily, seasonally, and semi-perma- nently flooded wetlands were analyzed separately. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were generated for all Level 1, 2, and 3 data, and the range and distribution of each metric were examined using frequency his- tograms. We calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients to analyze relationships among and between metric and attribute scores for each level of assessment. Level 1 data from the landscape analysis were compared to Level 3 vegetation data to assess the relationships between disturbances in the surrounding landscape and wetland condition in the project area. All statistical analyses were conducted in R 2. 1 0. 1 (R Core Development Team 2009). Correlations were considered significant at p < 0.05. Correlations were ranked as: strong (r > 0.5); moderate (0.4 and 0.5); or weak (less than r < 0.4) (Hychka et al. 2007). For the FQA, we assigned Coefficients of Conser- vatism (C-values) ranging from to 1 to all plants identified to species (Northern Great Plains Floris- tic Quality Assessment Panel 2001). C-values were assigned as: 9-10: Native species that exhibit a high degree of ecological specificity. 7-8: Native species typical of well established communities that have minimal distur- bance. 4-6: Native species found in certain wetland systems that can tolerate moderate distur- bance. 1-3: Widespread native species that occur in a variety of communities and are common in disturbed sites. 0: Exotic species Metrics in the FQA include native species richness, non-native species richness, total species richness, mean C-value of all plants, mean C- value of just native plants, and a cover weighted mean C-value for both native species and total species and a Flo- ristic Quality Index (see Appendix H for complete list of formulas). Lower FQI and mean C-values indicate that the site is dominated by plants that are frequently found in disturbed areas while higher values indicate a greater floristic quality (Lopez and Fennessy 2002). Although the FQI is com- puted only for native species, it is also useful to calculate an FQI that includes non-native species, as their presence in a site is often a response to a disturbance (Lopez and Fennessy 2002, Miller and Wardrop 2006, Bourdaghs et al. 2006, Milburn et al. 2007). The depressional and pothole wetlands found in the study area are inherently species poor. Typically, the FQI is sensitive to species richness, so species- poor sites will receive a lower FQI value despite being in or close to a natural state. Therefore, we calculated an adjusted FQI (Miller and Wardrop 2006) that incorporates a "maximum attainable FQI score" based on the highest possible value as well as both native and non-native species scores, into the final index. A cover- weighted FQI was also calculated using the relative average cover of a species in the entire plot as a weighting factor (Milburn et al. 2007). This cover-weighted FQI was also calculated for native species alone, and for the adjusted FQI. A cover-weighted adjusted FQI was also produced for each site using the relative average cover of a species in the entire plot as a weighting factor 13 (Milburn et al. 2007). Refer to Appendix H for for- sis we compared the observed relationship between mulas. Level 1 landscape level metrics and the Level 3 FQA metrics with expected relationships. Correla- We predicted the response of vegetation metrics to tion results between Level 1 metrics and FQA indi- increasing human disturbance to test the assump- ces in the expected direction (positive or negative) tions supported in published wetland research were interpreted as an indication of responsiveness (Table 2). Using Spearman rank correlation analy- to human disturbance (Stein et al. 2009). Table 2. Predicted responses of vegetation metrics to increasing levels of human disturbance. Predicted Response to Increasing Human Vegetation Metric Disturbance Non-Native Richness Increase Native Richness Decrease Total Richness Decrease % Natives Decrease % Non-natives Increase Mean C Decrease Mean C Nat Decrease Cover- Weighted Mean C Decrease Cover- Weighted Mean C of Natives Decrease FQI all species Decrease FQI Decrease Adjusted FQI Decrease Adjusted Cover- Weighted FQI Decrease 14 Results Wetland Landscape Profile Results The project area includes 22 4th code hydrologic units equaling 15,794,321 acres. Of the total, 10,344,286 acres are private and 5,457,886 acres are public. The dominant ecological systems in- clude an upland matrix of cultivated crops (32,723 acres), Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie (29,216 acres), and Introduced Upland Veg- etation -Annual and Biennial Forbland (13,912 acres). Complete tables and maps for the wetland landscape profile for fifth and sixth code hydrologic units are included in Appendix I. Wetland Density Based on 1980s NWI mapping, wetland and ripar- ian areas are more concentrated between Havre and Malta and in the watersheds located in the southwestern portion of the study area (Figure 4). Wetland density is similar, with watersheds around Malta and Havre having the greatest density of wetlands followed by the watersheds west of Cut Bank (Figure 5). The Wild Horse Lake watershed had the highest wetland density, followed by the Battle Creek and Cottonwood Creek watersheds. Number and Acreage of Wetland Types The majority of wetlands in the project area are freshwater emergent wetlands with a temporar- ily or seasonally flooded water regime (Table 3). Wetlands associated with riverine systems are the dominant hydrogeomorphic type; these are through-flow basins associated with lotic systems. Wetlands are considered to have a riverine HGM type if they are located within 100 meters of a perennial or intermittent stream and 20 meters of The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers N A Fourth-code Hydrologic Units 4^k m \ L ^^" ■■ Mapped Wetla nd Acres Z3 1.692 -*.£17 HI *.3M - 9,400 ^■9,401 - lfi,M9 ^B IG.BCO -30,196 ^B JiJ 1 97 -49,395 -"— ■ Smaants :■ 25 50 100 150 Figure 4. Acres of mapped wetlands within the project area. 15 The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Fourth-code Hydrologic Units A t^M^F^ Wetland Density ZI2 I Miles Slrgams 25 50 100 150 Figure 5. Density of wetlands by fourth code hydrologic units within the project area. an ephemeral stream. The second most common hydrogeomorphic type for wetlands in the project area is depressional. Percentage of Wetlands on Private, Public, and Tribal Land Most wetlands in the project area are located on private land (Table 4). In some watersheds, includ- ing Wild Horse Lake, Sage Creek, and Willow Creek, wetlands occur almost exclusively on pri- vate land (Figure 6). Wetlands in other watersheds, including the Milk River Headwaters and Cut Bank Creek, are mostly on tribal lands. Only a small percentage of wetlands in each watershed are on state or federal land. Percentage of Protected Wetlands The percentage of wetlands protected through con- servation easements or land management was cal- culated for each watershed based on the Protected Areas Database of the United States (Table 4). Based on the information in the database, wetlands within the Wild Horse Lake, Battle Creek, and Whitewater Creek watersheds are all considered protected. Other watersheds with a high percent- age of protected wetlands include Cut Bank Creek, Milk River Headwaters, and Peoples Creek. How- ever, it should be noted that the database character- izes public lands managed for natural resource use (e.g., grazing) as protected. Percentage of Altered Wetlands We calculated the percentage of altered wetlands using the impounded and excavated modifiers from the NWI Cowardin wetland classification at- tributes (Table 4). The wetland profile indicates that in the Battle Creek, Lower Milk River, and the Rock Creek watersheds, the percentage of altered wetlands exceeds the percentage of natural wetland types (Figure 7). 16 Table 3. Summary table of number, acres and percentage of total wetland acres by Cowardin classification water regime and class and associated hydrogeomorphic type and code. Water Regime #of Polygons Acres % of Total Wetland Acres Temporarily Flooded Saturated Seasonally Flooded Semipermanently Flooded Intermittently Exposed 89,944 3,938 41,295 19,675 6,015 161,211 23,885 78,905 36,357 3,441 53% 8% 26% 12% 1% Class #of Polygons Acres % of Total Wetland Acres Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Freshwater Pond Shore 129,091 4,036 24,787 3,097 246,634 20,704 31,227 5,590 81% 7% 10% 2% Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Type #of Polygons Acres % of Total Wetland Acres Depressional Lacustrine Riverine Slope 89,105 411 55,314 16,817 101,400 3,829 187,350 12,195 33% 1% 61% 4% Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Code #of % of Total Wetland Polygons Acres Acres Lentic Basin Through Flow (LE3BATH) Lotic River Floodplain Through Flow (LRFPTH) Lotic Stream Basin Through Flow (LSBATH) Lotic Stream Fringe Through Flow (LSFRTH) Terrene Basin Complex (TEBACO) Terrene basin Isolated (TEBAIS) Terrene Slope Complex (TESLCO) Terrene Slope Isolated (TESLIS) 184 2,607 1% 1,155 4,323 1% 51,318 155,446 51% 2,499 26,149 9% 15,253 31,959 10% 73,852 69,440 23% 2,201 3,191 1% 14,616 9,003 3% 17 Table 4. Wetland landscape profiling ofpalustrine wetlands within each fourth code hydrological unit (HUC). HUC 4th Code HUC Name Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Saint Mary River 10010002 0% 0% 25% 75% 81% 97% 3% Two Medicine River 10030201 18% 0% 20% 61% 66% 98% 2% Cut Bank Creek 10030202 7% 0% 1% 92% 79% 97% 3% Marias River 10030203 91% 3% 6% 0% 35% 76% 24% Willow Creek 10030204 90% 8% 2% 0% 13% 72% 28% Teton River 10030205 67% 19% 14% 0% 53% 86% 14% Milk River Headwaters 10050001 0% 0% 0% 100% 74% 97% 3% Upper Milk River 10050002 68% 5% 28% 0% 49% 78% 22% Wild Horse Lake 10050003 99% 0% 0% 0% 100% 99% 1% Middle Milk River 10050004 76% 6% 11% 7% 57% 80% 20% Big Sandy Creek 10050005 85% 4% 3% 8% 49% 83% 17% Sage Creek 10050006 94% 6% 0% 0% 13% 73% 27% Lodge Creek 10050007 85% 8% 7% 0% 24% 56% 44% Battle Creek 10050008 72% 8% 20% 0% 100% 46% 54% Peoples Creek 10050009 24% 6% 1% 68% 83% 77% 23% Cottonwood Creek 10050010 77% 4% 19% 1% 66% 96% 4% Whitewater Creek 10050011 57% 4% 38% 1% 100% 93% 7% Lower Milk River 10050012 55% 5% 31% 9% 58% 47% 53% Frenchman Creek 10050013 82% 8% 9% 0% 27% 78% 22% Beaver Creek (Milk River) 10050014 68% 3% 27% 2% 77% 76% 24% Rock Creek 10050015 51% 4% 45% 0% 73% 49% 51% Porcupine Creek 10050016 37% 12% 4% 47% 37% 82% 18% 18 The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Fourth-code Hydrologic Units A Percent of Wetlands on Private Land [ 10* I 1 1% - 25% ■I:.' M 76% -100% ">■ — Streams 25 C-3 ■00 I M Its 160 Figure 6. Percent of wetlands in the project area that are located on private land. 19 The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Fourth-code Hydrologlc Units A P«rc9nt Ol Altered Wetland* f H%-4* I I5%-T% (■21% -zs% ^^ /Til - &ft W ~"^ Streams 25 I'.'ll'.-S 53 l« 150 Figure 7. Percent of wetlands in the project area that are considered altered. Determination was made using Cowardin classification modifiers for impounded and excavated wetlands. Level 1 Landscape Analysis Results The Level 1 landscape analysis was conducted on 1,3 14 wetlands throughout the project area at three different spatial scales (100, 300, and 1,000 meters; Table 5). Sites with scores near one indicate little to no disturbance while increasing scores indicate increasing landscape disturbances. In general, landscape metrics showed little variability across all three spatial scales. Individual metric scores and overall attribute scores for most disturbance categories were clustered around one; however, transportation scores exhibited the greatest variabil- ity (Appendix J). The Local Roads metric had the highest mean scores within the Overall Roads at- tribute and among all of the metrics included in the Level 1 analysis, suggesting that they may influ- ence the landscape context within the project area. The scores for this metric increased with increasing spatial scale. The Crop/Agriculture metric had the highest mean scores out of all the metrics within the Land Cover attribute and did increase with an increasing spatial scale. Wells scored the highest within the Hydrologic Disturbance Attribute, and Mines/Gravel Pits scored the highest within the Re- source Use attribute. However, scores were similar at all three spatial scales for both metrics. The standard deviations around the mean for all metrics indicate that there is overlap between metric and attribute scores at all three spatial scales. Level 2 Rapid Assessment Results A total of 123 Level 2 wetland assessments were conducted during the summer of 2009 (Figure 8). The number of Level 2 sites by ecological system, Level IV Ecoregion, 4th code hydrological unit, and hydrogeomorphic type (HGM) are summarized in Table 6. Wetland assessment sites occurred in 6 of the 4th code HUCs, with most sites falling within the Milk River and Missouri-Marias wa- 20 Table 5. Mean Level 1 scores for landscape metrics, attributes and overall site score with standard deviations (S.D.). 100 m Buffer 300 m Buffer 1000 m Buffer Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Four wheel drive 1.24 0.63 1.37 0.77 1.58 0.90 Local 2.10 1.33 2.52 1.41 3.33 1.21 Highway 1.14 0.68 1.19 0.80 1.33 1.08 Transportation Score 1.49 0.62 1.68 0.70 2.07 0.77 Medium Density 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.06 Low Density 1.02 0.18 1.01 0.07 1.01 0.07 Open Development 1.04 0.23 1.02 0.15 1.00 0.05 Crop/Agriculture 1.95 1.59 2.15 1.65 2.49 1.69 Hay/Pasture 1.92 1.56 1.07 0.40 1.70 1.26 Land Cover Score 1.43 0.70 1.36 0.50 1.55 0.50 Ditches 1.08 0.38 1.11 0.44 1.18 0.56 Wells 1.20 0.59 1.22 0.61 1.26 0.71 Reservoirs 1.01 0.10 1.02 0.17 1.08 0.39 Hydrology Score 1.11 0.26 1.12 0.27 1.18 0.34 Livestock 1.12 0.56 0.92 0.80 1.18 0.72 Mines/Gravel pits 1.90 0.99 1.99 1.00 1.99 1.00 Resource Use Score 1.39 0.49 1.29 0.52 1.47 0.58 Overall Level 1 Score 1.38 0.31 1.40 0.32 1.62 0.37 tieds. The dominant ecolo, gical system repre- Level 2 EIA Condition Scores sented by assessed wetlands was the Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression (n=49) within the Glaciated Northern Grasslands and North Cen- tral Brown Glaciated Plains Level IV Ecoregions (Omernik, 1987). The Great Plains Prairie Pot- hole (n=19), Northwestern Great Plains Riparian (n=15), Western Great Plains Closed Freshwater Depression (n=13), and Great Plains Saline De- pression (n=8) were also well-represented. A number of additional ecological systems were also assessed but were not as common: Emergent Marsh (n=5), Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow (n=6), Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen (n=l), North- ern Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool (n=l), and Intermountain Basins Greasewood Flat (n=l). A few riparian systems were represented among assessed wetlands, including Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (n=l), Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland (n=2), Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Ripar- ian Woodland (n=l), and the Western Great Plains Floodplain system (n=l). EIA scores for attributes were well distributed for the Landscape Context, Biotic, Hydrologic, and Physicochemical Condition attributes (Appendix K). More sites scored higher for the Landscape Context and Hydrologic Disturbance metrics. The Biotic scores were concentrated in the middle of the range and the Relative Patch Size scores were predominantly high with a small proportion scor- ing extremely low. Overall condition scores ranged from 50 to 100, with a higher frequency of sites ranking between 80 and 100 (Figure 9). Overall EIA scores were averaged for each ecologi- cal system (Table 7). The following describes the scores for each ecological system (refer to tables in Appendix L and frequency histograms in Appendix M). Only wetlands with assessment data from eight or more sites are discussed. Based on the condition thresholds established in the MTNHP EPA Refer- ence Wetland Project (Newlon 201 1) wetlands were grouped into four categories: relatively unaltered (scores = 90-100), slightly altered (scores = 80-89), 21 M The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Project Area A • Laval Thq WpHwkI A54«smenls ■"^Streams Highways I I Study A/M ; Ceunty BouHaiy 20 it.' ts 50 100 '■00 Figure 8. Distribution of Level 2 assessments. moderately altered (scores = 70 - 79), and severely altered (scores < 70). Western Great Plains Depressional Wetland Systems Great Plains Prairie Potholes scored the highest, followed by Western Great Plains Saline Depres- sions. Western Great Plains Open and Closed De- pressions received lower minimum scores than any other system. Of the Great Plains Prairie Potholes assessed, most of the sites were either relatively un- altered or slightly altered. Three sites were consid- ered moderately altered while three sites were se- verely altered (Figure 10). Overall condition scores for Western Great Plains Closed Depressions were evenly distributed, with five sites ranked as slightly altered, four sites ranked as moderately altered, and four sites considered severely altered. Thirty-four of the 49 Open Depression wetlands were ranked as moderately to severely altered. Only five Open Depressions were considered to be relatively unal- tered. Seven of the eight Saline Depression sites as- sessed were ranked as slightly altered to relatively unaltered with only one site considered moderately altered. Northwestern Great Plains Riparian Out of the 15 sites assessed only two wetlands were ranked relatively unaltered and slightly altered. Four sites were ranked moderately altered while the remaining sites are considered severely altered (Figure 10). Wetland Condition and Water Duration Correlation coefficients were compared between each Level 2 attribute score and Cowardin wetland classification water regimes to see if there were any relationships between wetland condition and the duration of standing water (Table 8). The only metric that had a significant correlation to increased water duration was the Biotic attribute, indicating 22 Table 6. Number of Level 2 sites by Level IV Ecoregion, 4th code hydrological unit, and hydrogeomorphic type (HGM). Level IV Ecoregion N 17r 41a 41b 41c 41d 42j 421 42m 42n 42o 42q 42r 431 Scattered Eastern Igneous-Core Mountains Northern Front Crestal Alpine-Subalpine Zone Western Canadian Rockies Southern Carbonate Front Glaciated Northern Grasslands Sweetgrass Uplands Cherry Patch Moraines Milk River Pothole Upland North Central Brown Glaciated Plains Rocky Mountain Front Foothill Potholes Foothill Grassland Missouri Breaks Woodland Scrubland 2 3 1 1 1 40 1 12 6 32 13 10 1 HUC4 N Big Sandy Creek Milk River Missouri-Marias Missouri-Musselshell Saskatchewan St. Mary 1 78 39 1 1 3 HGM Type N Depressional Riverine Slope Flat Lacustrine Fringe 95 19 6 1 2 that wetlands that hold standing water for longer may have fewer non-natives and tolerant native species. Wetland Condition and Human Disturbance Gradient To assess the relationships between the Level 2 attribute scores and the stressors recorded on the stressor checklist in the field, we analyzed cor- relations between Level 2 attribute scores and the count of different stressor types (Table 9). There were only weak correlations between the two; how- ever, the inverse relationships indicate that the in- creasing number of stressors may lead to a decline in condition. Buffer and transportation stressors were negatively correlated with the Landscape Context attribute and buffer stressors and hydrol- ogy stressors were negatively correlated with the Physicochemical attribute. Level 3 Analysis Results Level 3 vegetation data were collected from 44 sites and then used to assess wetland condition for each site in the study area based on the FQA. Since the majority of the wetlands included in this project were depressional wetlands that undergo cyclic fluctuations in water levels, FQA metrics were cal- culated and compared separately for wetlands clas- 23 > u c QJ 3 a- QJ 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Overall Assessment Area Condition Score 40 50 80 90 100 Figure 9. Overall condition scores for Level 2 wetland sites. Table 7. Mean overall EIA scores with their standard deviations and minimum and maximum scores for each ecological system. Ecological System N Mean S.D. Min Max Great Plains Prairie Pothole Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland Northwestern Great Plains Riparian Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat North American Arid West Emergent Marsh Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow Northern Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 19 83.6 11.1 57.5 98.3 13 73.4 13.7 42.7 87.7 49 73.4 11.7 47.7 98.3 8 87.3 7.9 73.7 96.7 15 72.2 12.1 53.2 92.2 1 73.5 ~ ~ ~ 1 87.5 ~ ~ ~ 5 82.1 6.5 74.9 89.8 6 85.5 10.2 71.6 98.3 1 53.3 ~ ~ ~ 1 69.3 ~ ~ ~ 1 86.5 ~ ~ ~ 1 79.2 ~ ~ ~ 2 94.0 3.3 91.7 96.4 24 ■ant PUh Pwii PnlMUt ■W^rtTTi 4rit ^hii Cipstfj hpnu. pwtntip &Hr Pinu Op** Fi**rMt*f ■U tivrr &ti; PIim 5»!i"* D*frtiiM <7(i ?t) 7<) ftlJW Overall Condition Scoro H 100 Figure 10. Overall condition scores for the dominant ecological systems within the project area. Table 8. Correlations between Level 2 attribute scores and Cowardin water regimes using Spearman s correlations. All relationships that are significant at the= 0.05 level are indicated in boldface. Water Duration Final Land Context 0.07 Final Relative Patch Size 0.12 Final Biotic 0.32 Final Hydrologic -0.06 Final Physicochemical 0.10 Final AA Score 0.16 Table 9. Correlations between Level 2 attribute scores and the number of different stressor types using Spearman s correlations. All relationships that are significant at the= 0.05 level are indicated in boldface. Buffer Land Use Transportation Hydrologic Stressors Total Stressors Stressors Stressors Stressors in the AA Stressors Final Land Context -0.26 -0.2 -0.27 -0.13 0.06 -0.22 Final Relative Patch Size 0.01 0.15 -0.01 -0.04 -0.06 -0.01 Final Biotic -0.16 -0.02 -0.04 -0.21 -0.01 -0.14 Final Hydrologic -0.19 -0.05 -0.06 -0.23 0.07 -0.17 Final Physicochemical -0.21 -0.16 0.07 -0.25 -0.27 -0.25 Final AA Score -0.25 -0.1 -0.11 -0.25 -0.08 -0.25 25 sified as temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent (Table 10). However, there was very little vari- ability found between the FQA metrics of wetlands with different water regimes. Species richness and the FQI for total species increased only slightly with increasing water duration. Vegetation metrics for native species had higher values while metrics including exotic species had lower values. Our Level 3 results indicate that most of the wet- lands assessed are dominated by species that can tolerate moderate disturbance as demonstrated by the cover-weighted mean c-values of species found most frequently (Figure 1 1). In addition, lower ad- justed FQI values indicate that most of the assessed sites are dominated by plants that are frequently found in disturbed sites. Only a couple of the sites had a good floristic quality (Figure 12). Wetland Condition and Human Disturbance Gradient Relationships between FQA metrics and the Level 2 stressors checklist recorded on site were ana- lyzed. It was expected that there would be stronger relationships than with the Level 1 landscape met- rics. However, there were no significant correla- tions between the FQA metrics and the number of stressors. This can be attributed to the assumption that a wetland with more stressors present will be in more impaired condition than a wetland with no or few stressors. In contrast we found that several of the stressors observed independently had large scopes and more severe impacts than the accumu- lated impacts of many stressors. The dominant human disturbances observed affect- ing wetland condition in the project area include roads, conversion of temporary and seasonal wet- lands to dryland farming and stockponds, and soil and vegetation disturbance associated with heavy livestock grazing (Figure 13). Effects of human induced disturbance may covary with natural disturbances. For instance, drought may be affecting wetland condition more than ei- ther local or landscape level human disturbances. Effects of drought include reduced zonation and encroachment by terrestrial vegetation in depres- sional wetland systems. In addition, many wetlands visited were no longer functioning as wetlands but contained relic hydric soils. The regional wetland Table 10. Mean values for FQA indices by Cowardin water regime with their standard deviations (S.D.). Temporary (n=ll) * Seasonal (n=17) Semi-permanent (n=16) Non-native species richness Native species richness Total species richness % Native species % Non-native species Mean C of total species Mean C of native species Cover-weighted mean C for total species Cover- weighted mean C for native species FQI for native species FQI for total species Cover-weighted FQI for total species Cover- weighted FQI native species Adjusted FQI Adjusted cover-weighted FQI Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 2 1 3 2 4 2 6 4 9 5 10 6 8 5 13 7 14 7 74 14 76 13 70 14 26 14 24 13 30 14 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 4 1 5 2 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 10 3.2 13.5 4.6 13.6 5.6 11.8 3.7 13.9 3.9 15.0 4.1 11.7 5.2 16.0 7.7 13.1 5.4 12.4 4.3 14.9 5.4 14.4 3.9 44.4 6.1 43.3 14.2 41.2 5.4 46.6 7.1 46.2 15.9 40.1 8.5 26 Cover- weighted Mean C Values for Native Plants I- 1 -3 4-6 7 -S covtr-wttghntd Mtin c vaiuti 9-10 Figure 11. Mean C-Values weighted by the relative average cover of plant species in Level 3 vegetation plots. Adjusted FQIfor Native Species n M. 12 ' s LL. ( p- c ■ v- ■ l l l 1 1 - l II <30 30-10 r--?: 51 -GO 61-70 71-EO 01-90 Aojuiitd FQI .valuti Figure 12. Frequency of adjusted FQI scores. The adjusted FQI incorporates a maximum attainable FQI score based on the highest possible value as well as both native and non- native species (Miller and Wardrop, 2006). This is a particularly important metric for ecological systems that are naturally species poor like depressional and prairie pothole systems. 27 Figure 13. Effects of heavy livestock grazing on wetland soil (left photo) and vegetation (right photo) indicator status of plant species recorded for the Level 3 assessment indicate that the frequency of facultative upland (FACU) and upland (UPL) spe- cies is greater than would be expected in a fully functioning wetland (Figure 14). To determine the relationship between drought and wetland condition, the relationship between the relative effective annual precipitation (REAP) and FQA metrics was analyzed (Table 11). Many of the FQA metrics were significantly and positively correlated to REAP. The FQI was strongly posi- tively correlated with REAP, indicating that the floristic quality of wetlands increased in areas with increased precipitation. There were moderate cor- relations between REAP and total species richness, mean C-values, and the FQI for natives. Both cov- er-weighted FQI metrics were weakly correlated. Frequency of Regional Wetland Indicator Status Rtgieml Wtiland Indicator Smut Figure 14. Frequency of species by their regional wetland indicator status (USFWS). 28 Table 11. Spearman correlations between Level 3 vegetation data and relative effective annual precipitation (REAP). All relationships that are significant at the= 0.05 level are indicated in boldface. REAP NN Richness 0.19 N Richness 0.52 Total Richness 0.48 % Native 0.30 % Non-native -0.30 MeanC 0.44 Mean C Nat -0.22 CW Mean C 0.01 CW Mean C Nat -0.10 FQI 0.60 FQI Nat 0.45 CWFQI 0.34 CW FQI Nat 0.37 Adj FQI 0.00 Adj CW FQI 0.01 29 Discussion The goal of this project was to assess wetland con- dition in the Milk, Marias, and St. Mary watersheds using the EPA's three-tier approach to wetland assessments. An additional goal was to identify potential anthropogenic stressors affecting wetland condition both within the wetland area and in the surrounding landscape at varying spatial scales. Using wetland profiles it was determined that 8 1 % of the wetlands within the project area are palus- trine emergent wetlands with either temporary or seasonal water regimes. There are approximately 101,400 acres of depressional wetlands within the project area. Three watersheds were identified that had a greater number of altered wetlands than un- altered wetlands. This indicates that many of these wetlands are threatened and in need of local level protection. The Level 1 landscape metric, attribute, and overall scores showed little variability at all three spatial scales. This is due, in part, to the homogeneity of the landscape within the project area. The dominant land uses in this part of Montana are dry land farm- ing and livestock grazing, and much of the area is intersected by local dirt roads. Agricultural land cover within 100 meters of temporary wetlands was determined to influence wetland condition, whereas condition in semi-permanent wetlands is primarily influenced by roads within 100 meters. Because temporary wetlands are usually smaller, more shal- low systems that dry out during the growing sea- son, they often encounter more anthropogenic dis- turbances like tillage for crops within and directly adjacent to the wetland boundary (DeKeyser et al. 2003). With so little variability in the landscape, the landscape level analysis did not provide a reli- able assessment of wetland condition. the effects of livestock are more evenly distrib- uted on the landscape and Saline depressions are often dominated by vegetation that is unpalatable. Results for open and closed depression wetlands indicate that these systems are highly susceptible to human disturbances. Northwestern Great Plains Riparian systems had more sites ranked as severely altered, suggesting that these systems need more focused protection. The dominant human distur- bances observed and affecting wetland condition include roads, conversion of temporary and sea- sonal wetlands to dryland farming and stock ponds, and soil and vegetation disturbance associated with heavy livestock grazing. Level 2 scores were not highly correlated with stressors measured at the site using the stressor checklist. This indicates that either our metrics are not sensitive enough to capture changes in wetland condition from particular stressors or that the stressor checklist is inadequate. Because there were also no significant correlations between the stressors and the Level 3 FQA scores, it is most plausible that the stressor checklist is not a quan- titative enough measure of disturbance. Using the tallied number of stressors observed at each site as an indicator of disturbance, it was assumed that the more stressors present at a site the greater the disturbance. What the stressor checklist does not take into account is that many stressors may be present but might only slightly affect wetland con- dition (e.g. light grazing, light recreation, and horse trail within 500 meters) while one stressor may be present that significantly affects wetland condition (culverts, impoundments, ditches). In the future the scope and severity of each disturbance should also be recorded. Results for the Level 2 rapid assessments indicate that among depressional wetlands, Great Plains Prairie Potholes and Great Plains Saline Depres- sions are in better condition than either Great Plains Open or Closed Depressions. Great Plains Prairie Potholes and Western Great Plains Saline Depressions higher condition scores can be at- tributed to fewer impacts from livestock grazing. Prairie potholes occur in wetland complexes so that There are several confounding issues with assess- ing wetlands in this region. Depressional wetlands are dynamic systems where wet-drought cycles influence the ecological communities present (Han- sen et al., 1995). Therefore, our assessments are just a snapshot of the ecological condition of the wetland at that stage within its wet-drought cycle. Because assessment results may change depending on the wet-drought cycle it is important to assess 30 reference wetlands over a long period of time to establish a gradient of known conditions for wet- lands with different water regimes (DeKeyser et al. 2003). There is a significant east to west moisture gradient across the Prairie Pothole region, with decreased precipitation on the western edge due to a rain shadow from the Rocky Mountains. The project area is within the most westerly edge of the Prairie Pothole region and therefore contains wet- lands that are much drier and more temporary than wetlands in the eastern part. This east to west gra- dient increased over the twentieth century, where the western edge of the prairie pothole became sig- nificantly drier (Johnson et al. 2010). low prairie zone surrounding depressional wetlands in vegetation assessments to capture annual shifts of species between the upland and the wetland to account for a fluctuating water regime (DeKeyser et al. 2003). By including the low prairie zone in the future, we can better tease out the influences of adjacent anthropogenic disturbances and shifts in hydrology. In general, however, none of the three levels of assessment may be able to make clear connections between anthropogenic stressors and wetland integrity in this area. Stressors are too evenly distributed, and drought may be an overrid- ing factor driving wetland condition. Wetlands visited within the project area appeared to be drier than in the past, and in some cases were no longer functioning as wetlands. Many of the de- pressional wetlands included in the project clearly had historically been functioning temporary or even seasonal wetlands based on relic hydric soils or the presence of a few hydrophytes, but they no longer had the hydrology to sustain plant commu- nities dominated by hydrophytes. These wetlands were dominated by upland species encroaching from the adjacent prairie. In addition, many of the depressional wetlands, while functioning, had re- duced zonation, so that only one plant community was present. Wetlands that remain in the drought stage of their wet-drought cycle for long periods of time often end up in an unproductive condition (Johnson et al. 2010). Because plant communities in this region developed in the presence of distur- bances like fire and grazing by Bison, in a land- scape that lacks these intense, short-duration distur- bances, they often become static, which can have a negative affect on wetland condition (DeKeyser et al. 2003). Impacts from drought are not measured in our Level 1 landscape analysis or our Level 2 rapid assessment. Other wetland assessment stud- ies in the Prairie Pothole region have included the The results from this study support the use of a spa- tially balanced and random survey design. The condition scores for wetlands in this project were similar to the wetland scores of wetlands sur- veyed for the MTNHP reference network of wet- lands in central and eastern Montana. However, there were more significant correlations between both the Level 1 and Level 2 assessments with the FQA metrics for the reference wetlands. This could be due to the fact that wetlands included in the reference network were targeted and therefore spatially autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.66, z-score = 6.03) while sites in this project were not spatially autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.03, z-score = 0.05). Both the Level 1 and Level 2 need further cali- bration and refinement based on intensive Level 3 assessments. Additional Level 3 assessments should be developed to help in the further valida- tion of our methods. Based on this pilot project, the MTNHP will continue to develop indicators and metrics for a long-term integrated, statewide, multi- jurisdictional wetland condition monitoring and assessment strategy based on EPA's recommended elements. 31 Literature Cited Batt, B. D. J., M. G. Anderson, C. D. Anderson, and F. D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie pot- holes by North American ducks. Pages 204-224 in A.G. van der Valk. Northern Prairie Wetlands, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Bourdaghs, M., C. A. Johnston, and R. R. Regal. 2006. Properties and performance of the Flo- ristic Quality Index in Great Lakes coastal wet- lands. Wetlands 26: 718-735. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic clas- sification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP- DE-4, Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Brooks, R. P., D. H. Wardrop, and J. A. Bishop. 2004. Assessing wetland condition on a water- shed basis in the mid-Atlantic region using syn- optic land-cover maps. Environmental Monitor- ing and Assessment 94:9-22. Brooks, R P., D. H. Wardrop, and C. A. Cole. 2006 . Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a water- shed basis with examples from Spring Creek watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environmental Management 38:673-687. Collins, J. S., E. Stein, and M. Sutula. 2004. Draft California rapid assessment method for wetlands v. 3.0: User's manual and scoring forms. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Regional Monitor- ing Program web site http://www.wrmp.org/in- dex.html Cronk, J. K. and M. S. Fennessy 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology. Lewis Publishers, New York, NY. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Data Basin. Accessed June 2010. Protected Areas database located at http://www.databasin.org/ protected-center/features/PAD-US-CBI DeKeyser, E. S., D. R Kirby, and M. J. Ell. 2003. An index of plant community integrity: devel- opment of the methodology for assessing prairie wetland plant communities. Ecological Indica- tors 3:119-133. ESRI. 2008. ArcGIS 9.2. ESRI Corporation, Red- lands, California. Euliss, N. H., Jr., D. M. Mushet and D. H. Johnson. 2002. Using aquatic invertebrates to delineate seasonal and temporary wetlands in the prairie pothole region of North America. Wetlands 22 (2): 256-262. Faber-Langendoen, D., G. Kudray, C. Nordman, L. Sneddon, L. Vance, E. Byers, J. Rocchio, S. Gawler, G. Kittel, S. Menard, P. Comer, E. Muldavin, M. Schafale, T. Foti, C. Josse,and J. Christy. 2008 . Ecological Performance Stan- dards for Wetland Mitigation: An Approach Based on Ecological Integrity Assessments. Na- tureServe, Arlington, VA. + Appendices http:// www.natureserve.org/publications/epaWetland- Mitigation.jsp Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Rocchio, M. Shafale, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, J. Teague, and T. Foti. 2006. Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation. NatureServe, Arlington VA. Hansen, P. L., R D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy, and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conserva- tion Experiment Station, School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Miscel- laneous Publication No. 54. 32 Hargiss, C. L. M., E. S. DeKeyser, D. R. Kirby, and M. J. Ell. 2008. Regional assessment of wetland plant communities using the index of plant community integrity. Ecological Indica- tors 8:303-307. Hychka, K. C, D. H. Wardrop, and R. P. Brooks. 2007. Enhancing a landscape assessment with intensive data: a case study in the upper Juniata watershed. Wetlands 27:446-461. Johnson, B. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic wetland pro- filing: an approach to landscape and cumulative impacts analysis. EPA/620/R05/00 1 . U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Johnson, W. Carter, B. Werner, G. R. Guntensper- gen, R A. Voldseth, B. Millett, D.E. Naugle, M. Tulbure, R. W H. Carroll, J. Tracy, and C. Olawsky. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. Bioscience 60: 128-140. Jones, W M. 2003. Milk and lower Marias River watersheds: assessing and maintaining the health of wetland communities. Report to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mon- tana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 1 7 pp. plus appendices. Jones, W M. 2004. Using vegetation to assess wetland condition: a multimetric approach for temporarily and seasonally flooded depressional wetlands and herbaceous-dominated intermittent and ephemeral riverine wetlands in the north- western glaciated plains ecoregion, Montana. Report to the Montana Department of Envi- ronmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 34 pp. plus appendices. Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological per- spective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68. Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Kentula, M. E. 2007. Foreword: monitoring wet- lands at the watershed scale. Wetlands 27: 412- 415. Leibowitz, S. G. and K. C. Vining. 2003. Temporal connectivity in a prairie pothole complex. Wet- lands 23:13-25. Lopez R. D., and M. S. Fennessy 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12:487-497. McNab, W. H., and P. E. Avers, eds. 1994. Eco- logical subregions of the United States: section descriptions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Publication WO-WSA-5, Wash- ington, D.C. Milburn, S. A., M. Bourdaghs, and J. J. Husveth. 2007. Floristic Quality Assessment for Min- nesota Wetlands. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota. Miller, L. M. and D. H. Wardrop. 2006. Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylva- nia wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6: 313-326. Mitsch, W J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Montana Department of Administration and Infor- mation Technology Services Division. 1999. The Montana Cadastral Database, http://gis.mt.gov. Munsell Color Company. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts (rev. ed.). Munsell Color Company, Gre- tag Macbeth, New Windsor, NY. National Research Council. 200 1 . Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Na- tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 33 Nesser, J. A., G. L. Ford, M. C. Lee, and D. S. Page-Dumroese. 1997. Ecological units of the Northern Region: subsections. General Technical Report INT-GTR-369, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Newlon, K. R. and L. K. Vance. 201 1 . A reference wetland network for assessment and monitoring of Montana's herbaceous wetlands. Report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 23pp. plus appendices. Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assess- ment Panel. 200 1 . Floristic quality assessment for plant communities of North Dakota, South Dakota (excluding the Black Hills), and adjacent grasslands. Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conter- minous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,00). Annals of the Association of American Geogra- phers 77:118-125. Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for re- cording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262-274. Rocchio, J. 2006b. Ecological integrity assess- ments for North American Arid Freshwater Marsh, Rocky Mountain Montane- Alpine Wet Meadows, Rocky Mountain Upper Montane- Subalpine Fens, Rocky Mountain Upper Mon- tane-Subalpine Riparian Shrublands, Rocky Mountain Upper Montane-Subalpine Riparian Woodlands, Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland, and Inter- moutain Basin Playas. Unpublished report pre- pared for NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Reports available online at: http://www.cnhp. colostate. edu/reports.html or http://www.NatureServe.org/ getData/eia_integrity_reports.jsp Shjeflo, J. B. 1968. Evapotranspiration and the wa- ter budget of prairie potholes in North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 585- B, 49 p. Stein, E. D., A. E. Fetscher, R P. Clark, A. Wis- kind, L. Grenier, M. Sutula, J. N. Collins, and C. Grosso. 2009. Validation of a wetland rapid assessment methods: use of EPA's Level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and refinement. Wetlands 29: 648-665. Stevens, D. L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid- based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations. Environmetrics, 8:167-95. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www. R-project.org. Rocchio, J. 2006a. Rocky Mountain subalpine- montane riparian shrubland ecological system: Ecological Integrity Assessment. Unpublished report prepared for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and US EPA Region 8 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resourc- es. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Envi- ronmental Statistics 4:415-428. Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially- balanced sampling of natural resources in the presence of frame imperfections. Journal of American Statistical Association 99:262-278. Stevens, D. L., Jr. and S. F. Jensen. 2007. Sample design, execution, and analysis for wetland as- sessment. Wetlands 27:515-523. 34 Stewart, R. E., and H. A. Kantrud. 1971. Classifica- tion of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. Publ. 92, U.S. Dept. of the Inte- rior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 57 pp. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in United States, version 6.0. ed. G. W. Hurt and L. M. Vasila, Fort Worth, TX: USDANRCS in cooper- ation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/). Van der Kamp, G., W J. Stolte, and R. G. Clark. 1999. Drying out of small prairie wetlands after conversion of their catchments from cultivation to permanent brome grass. Hydrological Sci- ences 44: 387-397. Winter, T. C. 1989. Hydrologic studies of wetlands in the Northern Prairie. Pages 16-54 in A. G. van der Valk, editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Winter, T. C. and D. O. Rosenberry. 1995. The interaction of groundwater with prairie potholes in the Cottonwood Lake area, east-central North Dakota, 1979-1990. Journal of Hydrology 15: 193-221. Winter, T C. and D. O. Rosenberry. 1998. Hydrology of prairie pothole wetlands during drought and deluge: A 17-year study of the Cottonwood Lake wetland complex in North Dakota in the perspective of longer term measured and proxy hydrologic records. Climate Change 40: 189-209. Van Sickle, J. and R. M. Hughes. 2000. Classifica- tion strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. Journal of the North American Ben- thological Society 19: 370-384. Vance, L. K. 2009. Assessing wetland condition with GIS: a landscape integrity model for Mon- tana. A report to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT 23 pp. plus appendices. Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L. Stevens, Jr., S. F. Jensen, and R. P. Brooks. 2007. Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Up- per Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416-431. Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Western U.S. climate historical summaries. (http://www. wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html). Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. Accessed June 2010. White, D. and S. Fennessy 2005. Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration potential at the watershed scale. Ecological Engineering 24:359-377. 35 Appendix A. Ecological System Descriptions Western Great Plains Closed Depressional Wetland General Description This system includes a variety of depressional wetlands generally found in complexes in central and eastern Montana. This type of wetland differs from Western Great Plains Open Depressional Wetlands and Great Plains Prairie Potholes by being completely isolated from both the regional groundwater system and inter-wetland surface drainage systems. They occur in depressional basins found in flat, enclosed upland areas or on level shallow lake basins. The major sources of input water are precipitation and snow melt, and water loss occurs through evapotranspiration. The basins are typified by the presence of an impermeable layer, such as dense clay formed in alluvium that is poorly drained. Subsurface soil layers are restrictive to water movement and root penetration. Ponds and lakes associated with this system can experience periodic drawdowns during dry years, but are replenished by spring rains. Closed depressions experience irregular hydroperiods, most filling with water only occasionally and drying quickly, influencing the plant communities that are present. The drawdown zone is typically dominated by western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum). Povertyweed (Iva axillaris) and willow dock (Rumex salicifolius) occupy the broad, low gradient basins which are shallowly inundated in the spring and draw down every year to reveal bottoms of gray bentonite. Common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) occurs within the drawdown area where there is more organic matter in the substrate. Hardstem bulrush {Schoenoplectus acutus) typifies closed depressions sufficiently deep to remain permanently inundated during most years. Species richness can vary considerably among individual examples of this system and it is especially influenced by adja- cent land use like agriculture and grazing. Appendix A- 1 Diagnostic Characteristics lowland, herbaceous, depression, depressional, playa, clay subsoil, impermeable layer, saturated, isolated wetland, strictly isolated wetland Range This system can be found throughout the eastern portion of the Western Great Plains; however, it is most prevalent in the central states of Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. In Montana, closed depressions are most concentrated to the north of the HiLine and Route 2, from the Blackfeet Reservation to the North Dakota border. Individual depressions can also be found across the Northwest Glaciated Plains north of the Missouri River. Environment This system is typified by depressional basins found in flat enclosed upland areas and level shal- low lake basins, with an impermeable layer such as dense clay isolating the wetland from the re- gional groundwater system. It differs from Western Great Plains Open Depression Wetlands and Great Plains Prairie Potholes by being completely isolated from both the regional groundwater system and inter- wetland surface drainage systems. These wetlands occur in depressional basins found in flat enclosed upland areas or on level shallow lake basins. The major sources of input water are precipitation and snow melt; water loss occurs through evapotranspiration. The basins are typified by the presence of an impermeable layer, such as dense clay formed in alluvium that is poorly drained. Subsurface soil layers are restrictive to water movement and root penetration (Cook and Hauer, 2007). Ponds and lakes associated with this system can experience periodic drawdowns during dry years, but are replenished by spring rains. Closed depressions experience irregular hydroperiods, filling with water only occasionally and drying quickly, which influences the plant communities that are present. Vegetation Vegetation within this system is highly influenced by hydrology, salinity, fire and adjacent land uses. The drawdown zone is typically dominated by western wheatgrass {Pascopyrum smithii) and foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), the most common wet meadow component of this land- scape. Needle spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis) and the small annual forbs slender plantain {Plantago elongata) and purslane speedwell {Veronica peregrina) are common in most stands. Povertyweed (Iva axillaris) and willow dock (Rumex salicifolius) occupy the broad, low gradient basins which are shallowly inundated in the spring and draw down every year to reveal bottoms of gray bentonite. The common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) association is also within the drawdown zone but occurs at sites where there is more organic matter in the substrate. Foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) and needle spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis) are typically well repre- sented in drier stands, while water knotweed (Polygonum amphibium) stands are found at wetter sites. Marsh vegetation, dominated by hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), typifies de- pressions sufficiently deep to remain permanently inundated during most years. Forbs commonly associated with these marsh communities include water knotweed (Polygonum amphibium), common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) and two headed water-starwort (Callitriche hetero- phylla). Appendix A- 2 Dynamic Processes These systems developed under Northern Great Plains climatic conditions, which included natu- ral disturbances by large herbivores, periodic flooding events and occasional fire. Wet-drought year climatic cycles in Montana, often in 10 to 20 year intervals, influence the ecological com- munities in these systems (Hansen et al. 1995). Each year seeds from annuals and perennials ger- minate and cover exposed mud flats, but when precipitation floods the depressions, the annuals drown and the perennials survive. Over a series of years the perennials dominate. The drawdown to mudflats is necessary so that emergent vegetation can become reestablished. This flooding, drawdown and the eventual exposure of mud flats drive the water-level vegetation cycle. Management Changes will occur in the plant communities due to climatic conditions and/or management ac- tions. Due to the nature of the soils, these sites are considered moderately resilient. With contin- ued adverse impacts, a moderate decline in vegetative vigor and composition will occur. Heavy continuous grazing and/or continuous seasonal (spring) grazing, without adequate recovery periods will eventually lead to loss of the Western wheatgrass-foxtail barley wetland commu- nity, and inland saltgrass will begin to increase. Western wheatgrass will increase initially, but then will begin to decrease. In time, heavy continuous grazing will cause inland saltgrass, fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris), and other pioneer perennials and annuals to increase. This replace- ment plant community is resistant to change, due to the grazing tolerance of inland saltgrass and increased surface salts. However, a significant amount of production and diversity has been lost compared to the Western wheatgrass -foxtail barley community, and the loss of key cool season grasses and increased bare ground will affect energy flow and nutrient cycling. Water infiltration will be reduced significantly due to the massive shallow root system "root pan" characteristic of inland saltgrass, and the increased amount of bare ground. It will take a long time to bring this plant community back with management alone (USDANRCS, 2003). Restoration Considerations The major barriers to restoration are isolation, infrequent flooding, impermeable soils and inva- sive species. These factors must be addressed during the planning and long term management of restored wetlands. Original Concept Authors Natureserve Western Ecology Group Montana Version Authors C. Mclntyre, L. Vance, T Luna Version Date 2/9/2010 Citation: Great Plains Closed Depressional Wetland — Western Great Plains Closed Depressional Wet- land. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on July 5, 2010. from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_De- tail.aspx?ES=9252 Appendix A- 3 Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland General Description This Great Plains system occurs in lowland depressions and along lake borders with open basins and a permanent water source through most of the year. This system is distinguished from the Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetlands by having a larger watershed and/or signifi- cant connection to the groundwater table. Soils are typically Mollisols, Entisols or occasionally Histosols. Soil pH varies from neutral to slightly alkaline. In Montana, this system is especially well represented along major and secondary tributaries of the Milk, Marias and Two Medicine rivers in the northwestern Great Plains glaciated pothole region. Throughout Montana, most sites within this system are found at elevations of 664-2,027 meters (2,180-6,650 feet). Species diversity can be high in some occurrences. These wetlands usually contain emergent graminoids such as cattails {Typha species), sedges {Carex species), spikerushes {Eleocharis species), rushes (Juncus species) and bulrushes {Schoenoplectus species), as well as floating vegetation such as pondweeds {Potamogeton species), arrowhead (Sagittaria species), or common hornwort {Cera- tophyllum demersum). At montane elevations, these systems can be moderately complex with a variety of species and communities. Increased grazing pressure in and adjacent to these systems will change the plant communities that are present. In semi-permanent systems, the drawdown zone is typically dominated by beaked sedge {Carex utriculata) water sedge {Carex aquatilis), and Nebraska sedge {Carex nebrascensis). In seasonal ponds that draw down annually, and in semipermanent wetlands during drought years, buried seeds of both annuals and perennials will germinate in exposed mud flats. Appendix A- 4 Diagnostic Characteristics Herbaceous, depression, depressional, saturated soils, partially isolated Range This system occurs across the western Great Plains from North Dakota and Kansas west to Mon- tana and south to Texas. This system can occur throughout the western Great Plains but is likely more prevalent in the south-central portions of the division. Its distribution extends into central Montana, where it occurs in the matrix of the Northwestern Great Plains Mixed Grass Prairie. However, these depressions are most concentrated to the north of the Hi-Line and Route 2, from the Blackfeet Reservation to the North Dakota border. Individual depressions can also be found across the Northwest Glaciated Plains north of the Missouri River. Environment Open depression wetlands are found throughout the Northwestern Glaciated Great Plains region of Montana. They form in lowlands, and along lake borders and stream margins. They generally have more open basins, a large watershed, and a permanent water source throughout most of the year, except during exceptional drought years. This system differs from closed depressional wet- lands by having a larger watershed and/or significant connection to the groundwater table (Cook and Hauer 2007). In Montana, most sites within this system are found at elevations of 664-2,027 meters (2,180-6,650 feet). Soils are typically Mollisols, Entisols or occasionally Histosols. Soil pH varies from neutral to slightly alkaline. Vegetation Open depression wetlands often have submerged aquatic plants in the open water zone including common hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum), short spikewater milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiri- cum), and horned pondweed {Zannichellia palustris) as well as floating-leaved plants including pondweeds (Stuckenia and Potamogeton species), white water crowfoot (Ranunculus aquatilis) and arrowheads (Sagittaria species). The central marsh zone is typically dominated by hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), but softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), com- mon threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens) and alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus), often co-dominate. Also found in the marsh zone are cattails (Typha species), water knotweed (Polygo- num amphibium), and hemlock water parsnip (Slum suave). The seasonally flooded zones are typically dominated by graminoids including common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), needle spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis), American sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne), wheat sedge (Carex atherodes), foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum), shortawn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis), and water foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus). Open depressional systems are often bordered by wet prairie zones characterized by species such as slimstem reedgrass (Calamagrostis stricta), clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis) and fowl blue- grass (Poa palustris). Open depressions with more alkaline or saline water and soil chemistry will typically be bordered by species such as saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and freshwater cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) . Sites that have been moderately grazed often have an increase in Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), knotted rush (Juncus nodosus), foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum), American sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Appendix A- 5 Dynamic Processes These systems developed under Northern Great Plains climatic conditions, and experienced the natural influence of large herbivores, periodic flooding events and occasional fire. Wet-drought year climatic cycles in Montana, often in 10 to 20 year intervals, influence the ecological com- munities (Hansen et al., 1995). Seeds from annuals and perennials germinate and cover exposed mud flats, but when precipitation floods the depressions, the annuals drown and the perennials survive. Over a series of years the perennials dominate. The drawdown to mudflats is necessary so that emergent vegetation can become reestablished. Flooding, drawdown and the eventual exposure of mud flats drive the water-level vegetation cycle. Species richness can vary consider- ably among individual examples and is especially influenced by adjacent land use. Agriculture may provide nutrient and herbicide runoff. In saline soil wetlands, the increase in precipitation during exceptionally wet years can dilute the salt concentration in the soils, which may allow for less salt-tolerant species to occur. Management Changes will occur in the plant communities due to climatic conditions and/or management activities. Conversion to agriculture and pastureland can impact this system when it alters the hydrology of the system. Restoration Considerations In open depression wetland systems where water has been drained or diverted, the original hydrology of the system must be restored. If water levels are restored, re-growth and re-coloni- zation from dormant rhizomatous root systems of common emergent species can occur within a few years. Livestock grazing should be controlled to allow regrowth, recolonization and re- sprouting from existing root systems. Many of the characteristic species found in these systems are rhizomatous, and exhibit excellent erosion control properties. In some cases, if hydric soils are heavily altered due to pugging or compaction, addition of organic material may be needed to facilitate vegetation recolonization. Original Concept Authors Natureserve Western Ecology Group Montana Version Authors L. Vance, C. Mclntyre, T Luna Version Date 2/9/2010 Citation: Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland — Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on July 5, 2010, from http://FieldGuide. mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=9218 Appendix A- 6 Great Plains Prairie Pothole General Description Prairie potholes occur in shallow depressions scraped out by glaciers in the northern Great Plains of Montana. The region is characterized by a glacial landscape of end moraines, stagna- tion moraines, outwash plains and lake plains. The glacial drift forms steep to slight local relief with fine-grained, silty to clayey soils. Limestone, sandstone, and shales are the predominant parent materials, and highly mineralized water can discharge from these rocks. The hydrology of this system is complex, and the concentration of dissolved solids results in water that ranges from fresh to extremely saline, with chemical characteristics varying seasonally and annually. Most prairie potholes and associated lakes contain alkaline water, which accumulates rapidly in during spring months, especially when soil frost is sufficiently deep to forestall all infiltration until after the ground thaws. Most water loss occurs through evapotranspiration, which exceeds precipitation during summer months. Vegetation within this system is highly influenced by hydrology, salinity and dynamics. Potholes can vary in depth and duration, which determines the local gradient of plant species. Similarly, species found within individual potholes will be strongly influenced by periodic drought and wet periods. The wettest sites, where water stands through summer, are characterized by hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), often occurring as a near monoculture, or with softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) or common threesquare {Schoenoplectus pungens) along slightly drier margins. In permanently flooded sites, aquatic buttercups {Ranunculus species), aquatic smartweeds {Polygonum species), pondweeds {Potamogeton species) or duckweeds {Lemna species) are common. At the drier extremes, pothole vegetation generally occurs in a concentric pattern from a wetter middle dominated by Appendix A- 7 spikerush (Eleocharis species) through a drier ring of foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum) and an outer margin of western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) or thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus). Prairie potholes are considered to be the most important breeding habitat for water- fowl in North America, with production estimates ranging from 50% to 80% of the continent's main species. However, the extreme variability in climate and pothole water levels also results in extreme fluctuations in waterfowl populations from year to year. Prairie pothole wetlands also support a diverse assemblage of water-dependent birds. Diagnostic Characteristics lowland, herbaceous depressional, pothole, isolated wetland, temperate Range In Montana, most prairie potholes are concentrated north of the HiLine and Route 2, from the Blackfeet Reservation to the North Dakota border, although individual potholes occur across the Northwest Glaciated Plains north of the Missouri River. Elsewhere, this system occurs through- out the northern Great Plains from central Iowa northeast to southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. It encompasses approximately 870,000 square kilometers with approximately 80% of its range in southern Canada. It is also prevalent in North Dakota, South Dakota, and northern Minnesota. Environment The prairie pothole ecological system is dominated by closed basins that receive irregular inputs of water from the surroundings and export water as groundwater. The climate is characterized by mid-continental temperature and precipitation extremes. The region is distinguished by a thin mantle of glacial drift with overlying stratified sedimentary rocks of the Mesozoic and Ceno- zoic ages; these form a glacial landscape of end moraines, stagnation moraines, outwash plains and lake plains. The glacial drift is from 30 meters to 120 meters thick and forms steep to slight local relief with fine-grained, silty to clayey soils. Limestone, sandstone, and shales are pre- dominant, and highly mineralized water can discharge from these rocks. Precipitation and runoff from snowmelt are often the principal water sources, with groundwater inflow as a secondary source. Evapotranspiration is the primary source of water loss, with seepage loss secondary. The hydrology of this system is complex, and the concentration of dissolved solids results in water that ranges from fresh to extremely saline, with chemical characteristics varying seasonally and annually. Most prairie potholes and associated lakes contain water that is alkaline (pH >7.4). Sur- rounding uplands are generally in cropland (small grains), hay, or range. Prairie potholes are considered to be the most important breeding habitat for waterfowl in North America, with production estimates ranging from 50% to 80% of the continent's main species. However, the extreme variability in climate and pothole water levels also results in extreme fluctuations in waterfowl populations from year to year. Prairie wetlands also support a diverse assemblage of water-dependent birds including Montana species of concern such as the Black- crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), White-faced Ibis {Plegadis chihi), Franklin's Gull {Larus pipixcan), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri), and Black Tern (Chlidonias niger). American White Pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) feed extensively on tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) found in prairie potholes. Sparsely-vegetated alkali potholes, especially in Sheridan County, are attractive to Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus). Appendix A- 8 Vegetation Vegetation within this system is highly influenced by hydrology, salinity and dynamics. This sys- tem includes elements of emergent marshes and wet, sedge meadows that develop into a pattern of concentric rings. Potholes can vary in depth and duration, which determines the local gradient of species. Similarly, plant species found within individual potholes will be strongly influenced by periodic drought and wet periods. The wettest sites, where water stands into or through sum- mer, are characterized by hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), often occurring as a near monoculture, or with a fringe of softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) or common threesquare {Schoenoplectus pungens) along slightly drier margins. Cattails (Typha spp.) are also seen in these wetter systems, although they are typically a minor component. During spring or in permanently flooded sites, aquatic buttercups (Ranunculus species), aquatic smartweeds (Polygo- num species), pondweeds (Potamogeton species) or duckweeds (Lemna species) may be abun- dant. At the drier extremes, pothole vegetation generally occurs in a concentric pattern from a wetter middle dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis species) through a drier ring of foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) and an outer margin of western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) or thick- spike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus) (Hansen et al. 1996, Lesica 1989). Grazing, draining, and mowing of this system can influence vegetation distribution. Dynamic Processes Flooding is the primary natural dynamic influencing this system. Snowmelt in the spring often floods this system and can cause the prominent potholes within the system to overflow. Greater than normal precipitation can flood out emergent vegetation and/or increase herbivory by animal species such as muskrats. Periodic wet and droughty periods cause shifts in vegetation. Vegeta- tion zones are evident, and each zone responds to changing environmental conditions. Draining and conversion to agriculture can also significantly impact this system. Much of the original extent of this system has been converted to cropland, and many remaining examples are under pressure to be drained. Management Livestock use of potholes is limited by low palatability of characteristic species, although open water attracts livestock for both drinking and cooling. When upland vegetation becomes sparse, cattle will graze on spikerush and bulrush. Wet soils are easily trampled. Grazing, when properly planned and executed, can be a management tool, preventing cattail encroachment into open wa- ter, limiting the spread of exotics such as crested wheat (Agropyron cristatum) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and avoiding excessive litter buildup. Prescribed burning can be used to the same ends. Prairie potholes are primarily threatened by crop agriculture, by unrestricted grazing, and by oil and gas development. Region-wide, nearly half of this system has been lost. Restoration Considerations In Great Plains prairie pothole wetland systems where water has been drained or altered, the original hydrology of the system must be restored. If water levels are restored, re-growth and re-colonization from dormant rhizomatous root systems of common emergent species can occur within a few years. Many of the characteristic species found in marsh systems are rhizomatous, thus exhibit excellent erosion control properties. However, species that are infrequent in these wetland systems may not re-occur or re-establish in a given time frame. The major barriers to Appendix A- 9 prairie pothole restoration are isolation, infrequent flooding and invasive species. These factors must be addressed during the planning and long term management of restored prairie pothole wetlands. During restoration, cattle grazing needs to eliminated or controlled to allow regrowth, recolo- nization and resprouting from existing root systems. In some cases, if hydric soils are heavily altered due to pugging or compaction, addition of organic material may be needed to facilitate plant recolonization. Original Concept Authors Natureserve Western Ecology Group Montana Version Authors L.K. Vance, C. Mclntyre, T. Luna Version Date 2/9/2010 Citation: Great Plains Prairie Pothole — Great Plains Prairie Pothole. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on July 5, 2010, from http ://FieldGuide .mt. go v/displayES_Detail. aspx?ES=9203 Appendix A -10 Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland General Description This ecological system is very similar to both the Western Great Plains Open Freshwater De- pression Wetland and the Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland found in wetland complexes in the central and northeastern portion of Montana. However, this system differs due to increased soil salinity, which causes these systems to become brackish. This high salinity is attributed to high evaporation and the accumulation of minerals dissolved in the water. Wetlands in this system are discharge wetlands, where water high in dissolved salts has moved from the regional groundwater system into the depression. Hydroperiods vary depending on precipita- tion and snowmelt, the primary source of water. Water is prevented from percolating out of the depression due to impermeable dense clay, and salt encrustations can occur on the surface with drying. Species that typify this system are salt-tolerant and halophytic graminoids such as alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus), common three square (Schoenoplectus pungens), inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Nuttall's alkali grass (Puccinellia nuttalliana) , foxtail barley (Hor- deumjubatum), red swampfire (Salicornia rubra) and freshwater cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and shrubs such as black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) . During exceptionally wet years, an increase in precipitation can dilute the salt concentration in the soils in some cases, allow- ing for less salt-tolerant species to occur. The distribution of this system extends into central Montana, where it occurs in the matrix of the Northwestern Great Plains Mixed Grass Prairie. However, these depressions are most concentrated to the north of the HiLine and Route 2, from the Blackfeet Reservation to the North Dakota Border. Individual occurrences can also be found across the Northwest Glaciated Plains north of the Missouri River. Appendix A- 11 Diagnostic Characteristics Isolated to partially isolated wetland, depression, saline conditions Range This system can occur throughout the western Great Plains but is more prevalent in the south- central portions of the division. Its distribution extends into central Montana where it occurs in the matrix of the Northwestern Great Plains Mixed Grass Prairie. These saline depressions are most concentrated to the north of the HiLine and Route 2, from the Blackfeet Reservation to the North Dakota Border. Individual depressions can also be found across the Northwestern Glaci- ated Plains north of the Missouri River. Environment This system is distinguished from the freshwater depression systems by brackish water caused by strongly saline and alkaline soils. This high salinity is attributed to excessive evaporation and the accumulation of minerals dissolved in groundwater discharge. Water is prevented from percolat- ing out of the depression due to an impermeable dense clay soil. Salt encrustations can occur on the surface due to slow water movement (Hansen et al, 1996). On the Blackfeet Indian reserva- tion, water samples collected from saline depressions had conductivity values that ranged from 1,550-40,000 uhmos/cm (Lesica and Shelley, 1988). Vegetation Vegetation within this system is highly influenced by soil salinity and soil moisture. Salt-tolerant and halophytic species that typify this system include alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus), common three square {Schoenoplectus pungens), inland saltgrass {Distichlis spicata), Nuttall's alkali grass {Puccinellia nuttalliana), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) , red swampfire (Salicor- nia rubra) and freshwater cordgrass {Spartina pectinata), and shrubs such as black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Other species include western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and foxtail barley {Hordeum jubatum). Plant zonation related to soil salinity is often apparent in these systems with distinct rings occurring around the fringe of the depression. In deeper, more depressed halophytic habitats, red swampfire or prairie cordgrass will dominate with Nuttall's alkali grass found directly upslope, followed by inland saltgrass. Shrubs such as greasewood and winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) are common around the outer margins of this system. Pursh seepweed (Suaeda calceoliformis), annual goosefoot (Chenopodium species) and seaside arrow- grass {Triglochin maritima) are common forbs. In northeastern Montana, the alkali bulrush association occurs as an emergent band around open water or as zonal vegetation around other plant associations. Water tables are often high, often remaining above the soil surface at least through late summer. Soils are poorly drained, alkaline Entisols. Alkali bulrush forms dense, monotypic stands with up to 91% cover. In some areas along the wetland edge, very minor amounts of common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) may be present. Alkali bulrush can survive periods of total inundation up to 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep, as well as drought periods where the water table remains less than 1 meter below the soil surface. It is a vigorously rhizomatous species that colonizes and spreads when the water table is within 10 centimeters (4 inches) of the surface. Cover of alkali bulrush may be replaced by red swampfire and other associated species during drought years. Appendix A -12 Red swampfire occurs in the drawdown zone that is flooded during the early part of the growing season but where the water table drops below soil surface by late spring or early summer. Soils in this zone usually have silty-clay to clay texture, and the soil surface is covered with salt crusts. Principle salts are sulfates and chlorides of sodium and magnesium. It is one of a very few spe- cies that can persist in these hyper-saline conditions when the water table drops below the soil surface (Dodd and Coupland 1966). Dynamic Processes These systems developed under Northern Great Plains climatic conditions that include natural influence of periodic flooding events and occasional fire. Climate has an important effect on saline areas because precipitation and snowmelt transport salts to the depressions and can dilute the soil solution while temperature and wind influence the rate of evapotranspiration. Increased precipitation and/or runoff can dilute the salt concentration and allow for less salt-tolerant spe- cies to occur while increased evapotranspiration increases soil salinity leading to a more brackish habitat type. Management Changes will occur in the plant communities due to climatic conditions and/or management activities. Restoration Considerations In saline depression wetland systems where water has been drained or altered, the original hy- drology of the system must be restored. If hydrology is restored, re-growth and re-colonization from dormant rhizomatous root systems of common emergent species can occur during periods of flooding. Cattle grazing should be deferred or controlled to allow regrowth, recolonization and resprouting from existing root systems. Annuals such as red swampfire and annual goosefoots require periods of inundation and drawdown to initiate germination and to complete their life cycles at the end of the growing season. Original Concept Authors Natureserve Western Ecology Group Montana Version Authors T. Luna, C. Mclntyre, L.K. Vance Version Date 2/9/2010 Citation: Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland — Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on July 5, 2010, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail. aspx?ES=9256 Appendix A -13 Western North American Emergent Marsh General Description This widespread wetland system occurs throughout the arid and semi-arid regions of North America. In Montana, this system is typically found in depressions surrounded by an upland matrix of mixed prairie, shrub steppe, or steppe vegetation. Natural marshes occur in and adja- cent to ponds and prairie potholes, as fringes around lakes or oxbows, and along slow-flowing streams and rivers as riparian marshes. Marshes are classified as either seasonal or semiperma- nent based on the dominant vegetation found in the deepest portion of the wetland; vegetation is representative of the hydroperiod. A central shallow marsh zone dominated by graminoids and sedges characterizes seasonal wetlands, while semipermanent wetlands are continually inun- dated, with water depths up to 2 meters (6.5 feet) and a deeper central marsh zone dominated by cattails (Typha species) and bulrushes {Schoenoplectus species). Water chemistry may be alkaline or semi-alkaline, but the alkalinity is highly variable even within the same complex of wetlands. Marshes have distinctive soils that are typically mineral, but can also accumulate organic mate- rial. Soils characteristics reflect long periods of anaerobic conditions. Dominant vegetation often includes western wheatgrass {Pascopyrum smithii), Northwest Territory sedge {Carex utriculata), Nebraska sedge {Carex nebrascensis), broadleaf cattail {Typha latifolia), and hardstem bulrush {Schoenoplectus acutus). Alkaline marsh communities include western wheatgrass, fresh water cordgrass {Spartina pectinata), and seashore saltgrass {Distichlis spicata). Appendix A -14 Diagnostic Characteristics Herbaceous, depressional, mineral with A horizon greater than 10 cm, aquatic herb, deep water greater than 15 cm, saturated soil Range This wetland ecological system occurs throughout western North America. In Montana, it is sys- tem is found throughout the state at foothill to upper montane elevations. Environment This system is found in environments where precipitation is approximately 25 to 50 centimeters (10 to 20 inches) per year. In Montana, this system is typically found in depressions surrounded by an upland matrix of mixed prairie, shrub steppe, steppe vegetation and forests near the moun- tains. Natural marshes occur in and adjacent to ponds and prairie potholes, as fringes around lakes or oxbows, and along slow-flowing streams and rivers as riparian marshes. Water chemistry may be alkaline or semi-alkaline, but is highly variable even within the same complex of wet- lands. Marshes have distinctive soils that are typically mineral, but can also accumulate organic material. Soils characteristics reflect long periods of anaerobic conditions, with gleying, high organic content, and redoximorphic features. Wetland marshes are classified as either seasonal or semi-permanent based on the dominant vegetation found in the deepest portion of the wetland (Stewart and Kantrud 1971 and LaBaugh et al. 1996). Vegetation communities occurring in these marsh systems is representative of their hydroperiod; some basins dry to bare soil after seasonal flooding, while others will have a variety of wetland types in a zoned pattern dependent on sea- sonal water table depths and salt concentrations (Kudray and Cooper 2006). Vegetation Vegetation communities change according to wet-drought cycles. In seasonal ponds that dry out annually, and in semipermanent wetlands during drought years, buried seeds of both annu- als and perennials germinate, covering exposed mud flats (Hansen et al. 1995). In semi-perma- nent marshes, the drawdown zone is typically dominated by western wheat grass (Pascopyrum smithii) near the upland edge, with Northwest Territory sedge (Carex utriculata) and Nebraska sedge {Carex nebrascensis) as the dominant sedges located down gradient, and broadleaf cat- tail (Typha latifolia) and hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) located in the deeper, central portion of the marsh. Water sedge {Carex aquatilis) is frequently co-dominant with Northwest Territory sedge. Less commonly, blister sedge {Carex vesicaria) and awned sedge {Carex ath- erodes) are intermixed with Northwest Territory sedge or occur as co-dominants on similar sites. Beyond the emergent vegetation, floating-leaved hydrophytes may be present in wetter sites with longer inundation periods, including water lilies {Nymphaea species), yellow pondlily {Nuphar species), buttercup {Ranunculus species) and pondweed {Potamogeton species). Other floating species may be present in shallow water, such as duckweed, {Lemna species), and submergents such as common hornwort {Ceratophyllum demersum), horned pondweed {Zannichellia palus- tris), mare's tail {Hippuris vulgaris) and water milfoil {Myriophyllum species). Seasonal marshes are typically dominated by western wheat grass {Pascopyrum smithii), beaked sedge {Carex utriculata), inflated sedge {Carex vesicaria), Nebraska sedge {Carex nebrascensis), creeping spikerush {Eleocharis palustris), Baltic rush {Juncus balticus) and cattail {Typha latifo- lia or angustifolia). During wetter years, annuals disappear and marshes become dominated by Appendix A -15 emergent perennials. Common perennial forbs include common willow herb (Epilobium cilia- turn), marsh cinquefoil {Potentilla palustris), Gmelin's buttercup {Ranunculus gmelinii), greater creeping spearwort (Ranunculus flammula), hemlock water parsnip {Slum suave), willow dock (Rumex salicifolius), field mint (Mentha arvensis), leafy aster (Symphyotrichum foliaceum) and broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia). Fern allies such as water horsetail (Equisetum fluvia- tile) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) often form significant cover within seasonal marsh- es. Grasses common to marshes include small floating mannagrass (Glyceria borealis), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), and bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis). Seasonal and semi-permanent marshes with more alkaline water chemistry are commonly found throughout central and eastern Montana. Typical species include hardstem bulrush, cattail, com- mon threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), alkali bulrush (Shoenoplectus maritimus) and inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), red swampfire (Salicornia rubra) and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) in adjacent drawdown zones. These marsh communities are brackish and support species adapted to saline and alkaline water and soil conditions, similar to Western Great Plains Saline Depression systems. Typically, riverine marshes subjected to unaltered, seasonal water flow and annual flooding are characterized by zonal vegetation determined by water depth with stands of bulrush (Schoeno- plectus species), softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), and cattail in deeper water, and manna grass (Glyceria species), water sedge, inflated sedge, water horsetail and common spikerush in shallower water zones. Riverine marshes can be influenced by beaver activity and human caused influences that can change the structure and species richness of these plant com- munities. Beaver activity can increase species richness and diversify community structure by altering water flow, depth, and organic sediment accumulation. Dynamic Processes Wet-drought year climatic cycles in Montana, often in 10 to 20 year cycles, influence the ecolog- ical communities in these systems (Hansen et al., 1995). During this climatic cycle, wetlands go through a dry marsh, regenerating marsh, degenerating marsh and a lake phase that is regulated by periodic drought and deluge (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). During drought periods, seeds from annuals and perennials germinate and cover exposed mud flats, but when precipitation floods the depressions, the annuals drown and the perennials survive, regenerating the marsh. Over a series of years, perennials dominate and submersed and floating-leaved hydrophytes return. After a few years of the regenerating phase, emergent vegetation begins to decline and eventually the marsh reverts to an open water system. Muskrats may play an important role in the decline of emergent vegetation in some of these systems. During drought, the drawdown to mudflats is necessary so that emergent vegetation can become reestablished. Flooding, draw- down and the eventual exposure of mud flats drive the water-level vegetation cycle. In saline soil marshes, increase in precipitation during exceptionally wet years can dilute the salt concentration in the soils, allowing for less salt-tolerant species to occur. Species richness can vary considerably among individual examples and is especially influenced by adjacent land use. Agriculture and forestry operations, when adjacent, may cause nutrient and herbicide runoff. Appendix A -16 Management Changes will occur in the plant communities due to climatic conditions and/or management activities. Draining, ditching or conversion to agriculture and pastureland can alter the hydrology of the system. Moderate to Heavy grazing practices can greatly decrease cover of beaked sedge, and cause soil compaction. Invasive and exotic species such as reed canarygrass (Phalaris arun- dinacea), common reed (Phragmites australis) and Canadian thistle {Cirsium arvense) become established in areas of heavy grazing or other disturbances. Diversion or lateration of seasonal flooding in riverine systems can change the species composition and successional direction of riverine marsh communities. Restoration Considerations In marsh systems where water has been drained or altered, the original hydrology of the system must be restored. If water levels are restored, re-growth and re-colonization from dormant rhi- zomatous root systems of common marsh species can occur within a few years. Cattle grazing must be eliminated or controlled to allow regrowth, recolonization and resprouting from existing root systems. Many of the characteristic species found in marsh systems are rhizomatous, thus exhibit excellent erosion control properties. In some cases, if hydric soils are heavily altered due to pugging or compaction, addition of organic material may be needed to facilitate vegetation recolonization. Original Concept Authors Natureserve Western Ecology Group Montana Version Authors T. Luna., C. Mclntyre, L. Vance Version Date 1/21/2010 Citation: Emergent Marsh — North American Arid West Emergent Marsh. Montana Field Guide. Re- trieved on July 5, 2010, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx7ES-9222 Appendix A- 17 Appendix B. Ecological System Field Key Field Key to Wetland and Riparian Ecological Systems of Montana la. Wetland denned by groundwater inflows and peat (organic soil) accumulation of at least 40cm (unless underlain by bedrock). Vegetation can be woody or herbaceous. If the wetland occurs within a mosaic of non-peat forming wetland or riparian systems, then the patch must be at least 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres). If the wetland occurs as an isolated patch surrounded by upland, then there is no minimum size criteria Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen lb. Wetland does not have at least 40 cm of peat (organic soil) accumulation or occupies an area less than 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres) within a mosaic of other non-peat forming wetland or riparian systems 2 2a. Total woody canopy cover generally 25% or more within the overall wetland/riparian area. Any purely herbaceous patches are less than 0.5 hectares and occur within a mosaic of woody vegetation. Note: Relictual woody vegetation such as standing dead trees and shrubs are included here GO TO KEY A: Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems 2b. Total woody canopy cover generally less than 25% within the overall wetland/riparian area. Any woody vegetation patches are less than 0.5 hectares and occur within a mosaic of herbaceous wetland vegetation GO TO KEY B: Herbaceous Ecological Systems KEY A: Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems la. Woody wetland associated with any stream channel, including ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial (Riverine HGM Class) 2 lb. Woody wetland associated with the discharge of groundwater to the surface or fed by snowmelt or precipitation. This system often occurs on slopes, lakeshores, or around ponds. Sites may experience overland flow but no channel formation. (Slope, Flat, Lacustrine, or Depressional HGM Classes) 8 2a. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the montane or subalpine zone 3 2b. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the plains, foothills, or lower montane zone 4 3a. Montane or subalpine riparian woodlands (canopy dominated by trees), occurring as a narrow streamside forest lining small, confined low- to mid-order streams. Common tree species include Abies lasiocarpa, Picea engelmannii, Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Populus tremuloides Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 3b. Montane or subalpine riparian shrublands (canopy dominated by shrubs with sparse tree cover), occurring as either a narrow band of shrubs lining the streambank of steep V-shaped canyons or as a wide, extensive shrub stand (sometimes referred to as a shrub carr) on alluvial terraces in low-gradient valley bottoms. Beaver activity is common within the wider occurrences. Species of Salix, Alnus, or Betula are typically dominant Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 4a. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the foothills or lower montane zones of the Northern and Middle Rockies and the Wyoming Basin 5 4b. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the Northwestern or Western Great Plains of eastern Montana 6 Appendix B - 1 5a. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of the Northern Rockies in northwestern Montana. This type excludes island mountain ranges east of the Continental Divide in Montana. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa is typically the canopy dominant in woodlands. Other common tree species include Populus tremuloides, Betula papyrifera, Betula occidentalis, and Picea glauca. Shrub understory species include Cornus sericea, Acer glabrum, Alnus incana, Oplopanax horridus, and Symphoricarpos albus. Areas of riparian shrubland and open wet meadow are common Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 5b. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of the Middle Rockies and the Wyoming Basin. This type also includes island mountain ranges in central and eastern Montana. Woodlands are dominated by Populus spp. including Populus angustifolia, Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus deltoides, and Populus fremontii. Common shrub species include Salix spp., Alnus incana, Crataegus spp., Cornus sericea, and Betula occidentalis Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 6a. Woodlands and shrublands of draws and ravines associated with permanent or ephemeral streams, steep north-facing slopes, or canyon bottoms that do not experience flooding. Common tree species include Fraxinus spp., Acer negundo, Populus tremuloides, and Ulmus spp. Important shrub species include Crataegus spp., Prunus virginiana, Rhus spp., Rosa woodsii, Symphoricarpos occidentalis, and Shepherdia argentea Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine 6b. Woodlands and shrublands of small to large streams and rivers of the Northwestern or Western Great Plains. Overall vegetation is lusher than above and includes more wetland indicator species. Dominant species include Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus deltoides, and Salix spp 7 7a. Woodlands and shrublands of riparian areas of medium and small rivers and streams with little or no floodplain development and typically flashy hydrology Northwestern/Western Great Plains Riparian 7b. Woodlands and shrublands of riparian areas along medium and large rivers with extensive floodplain development and periodic flooding Northwestern/Western Great Plains Floodplain 8a. Woody wetland associated with small, shallow ponds in northwestern Montana. Ponds are ringed by trees including Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus tremuloides, Betula papyrifera, Abies grandis, Abies lasiocarpa, Picea engelmannii, Pinus contorta, and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Typical shrub species include Cornus sericea, Amelanchier alnifolia, and Salix spp Northern Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool 8b. Woody wetland associated with the discharge of groundwater to the surface, or sites with overland flow but no channel formation 9 9a. Coniferous woodlands associated with poorly drained soils that are saturated year round or seasonally flooded. Soils can be woody peat but tend toward mineral. Common tree species include Thuja plicata, Tsuga heterophylla, and Picea engelmannii. Common species of the herbaceous understory include Mitella spp., Calamagrostis spp., and Equisetum arvense Northern Rocky Mountain Conifer Swamp 9b. Woody wetlands dominated by shrubs 10 Appendix B - 2 10a. Subalpine to montane shrubby wetlands that occur around seeps, fens, and isolated springs on slopes away from valley bottoms. This system can also occur within a mosaic of multiple shrub- and herb-dominated communities within snowmelt-fed basins. This example of the system has the same species composition as the riverine example of this system and is dominated by species of Salix, Alnus, or Betula Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 10b. Lower foothills to valley bottom shrublands restricted to temporarily or intermittently flooded drainages or flats and dominated by Sarcobatus vermiculatus Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat KEY B: Herbaceous Wetland Ecological Systems la. Herbaceous wetlands of the Northwestern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Great Plains, or Western Great Plains regions of eastern Montana 2 lb. Herbaceous wetlands of other regions 5 2a. Wetland occurs as a complex of depressional wetlands within the glaciated plains of northern Montana. Typical species include Schoenoplectus spp. and Typha latifolia on wetter, semi-permanently flooded sites, and Eleocharis spp., Pascopyrum smithii, and Hordeum jubatum on drier, temporarily flooded sites Great Plains Prairie Pothole 2b. Wetland does not occur as a complex of depressional wetlands within the glaciated plains of Montana 3 3a. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains with saline soils. Salt encrustations can occur on the surface. Species are typically salt-tolerant such as Distichlis spicata, Puccinellia spp., Salicornia spp., and Schoenoplectus maritimus Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 3b. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains with obvious vegetation zonation dominated by emergent herbaceous vegetation, including Eleocharis spp., Schoenoplectus spp., Phalaris arundinacea, Calamagrostis canadensis, Hordeum jubatum, and Pascopyrum smithii 4 4a. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains associated with open basins that have an obvious connection to the groundwater table. This system can also occurs along stream margins where it is linked to the basin via groundwater flow. Typical plant species include species of Typha, Carex, Schoenoplectus, Eleocharis, Juncus, and floating genera such as Potamogeton, Sagittaria, and Ceratophyllum Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 4b. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains primarily within upland basins having an impermeable layer such as dense clay. Recharge is typically via precipitation and runoff, so this system typically lacks a groundwater connection. Wetlands in this system tend to have standing water for a shorter duration than Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetlands. Common species include Eleocharis spp., Hordeum jubatum, and Pascopyrum smithii Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland Appendix B - 3 5a. Depressional wetlands occurring in areas with alkaline to saline clay soils with hardpans. Salt encrustations can occur on the surface. Species are typically salt- tolerant such as Distichlis spicata, Puccinellia spp., Leymus sp., Poa secunda, Salicornia spp., and Schoenoplectus maritimus. Communities within this system often occur in alkaline basins and swales and along the drawdown zones of lakes and ponds Inter-Mountain Basins Alkaline Closed Depression 5b. Herbaceous wetlands not associated with alkaline to saline hardpan clay soils 6 6a. Wetlands with a permanent water source throughout all or most of the year. Water is at or above the surface throughout the growing season, except in drought years. This system can occur around ponds, as fringes around lakes and along slow-moving streams and rivers. If the wetland occurs within a mosaic of wetland or riparian systems, then the patch must be at least 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres). If the wetland occurs as an isolated patch surrounded by upland, then there is no minimum size criteria. The vegetation is dominated by common emergent and floating leaved species including species of Scirpus, Schoenoplectus, Typha, Juncus, Carex, Potamogeton, Polygonum, and Nuphar Western North American Emergent Marsh 6b. Herbaceous wetlands associated with a high water table or overland flow, but typically lacking standing water. Sites with no channel formation are typically associated with snowmelt and not subjected to high disturbance events such as flooding (Slope HGM Class). Sites associated with a stream channel are more tightly connected to overbank flooding from the stream channel than with snowmelt and groundwater discharge and may be subjected to high disturbance events such as flooding (Riverine HGM Class). Vegetation is dominated by herbaceous species; typically graminoids have the highest canopy cover including Carex spp., Calamagrostis spp., and Deschampsia cespitosa Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow Appendix B - 4 Appendix C. Level 1 Digital Data Set Sources and Scoring CU U ■- s o m s o o ON o o o o o o s u u W m w a a i-H t-H i-H H H H ^5 ^5 ^5 (D cd cd bfi sc .60 J— 1 J— 1 J—' o o O cd cd cd .60 ■5? -5? 1> 1> 1> o o o 60 6C 60 tya tya cfl 3 3 3 cfl t/3 t/3 a a (3 (D cd CD y y y (N (N (N ,& ,& ,& <+h 55 «+H Oh Ph Oh cK cK 'u tys -a Td c« ^_, 03 >> cd O 03 CD ft "03 y 5 60 ■4- _o 3 o o o cd cd cd y y y d d d c3 3 03 &o t/3 t/5 Q Q as O Q Oh Ph tys t/3 03 03 d d cd cd 60 60 CSl t/3 CD cd H Sh 43 43 -a T3 43 43 3 3 rji • ^H -a T3 tya (SI .3 J& CO CO 3 3 -4-J +J s s cd cd S s m cfl tya an B B .a .P B* Oh 43 43 c/i CD 43 O T3 H O an GO 03 a 03 y o o cd CD y CD a a 3 03 cfl an Q Q an y CD CD '5b i o 03 43 "o u Sh 3 -a ^ an X 5 .& .& ■ Br .& 'n 'n 'n 'n s4 i4 s4 s4 CD CD CD CD > > > > o O o o CD CD CD CD -a Td T3 •a (3 13 3 3 03 03 03 03 -1 -1 J H-1 i-H 1 i-H 1 i-H i-H Q Q Q Q m m m m % % | | > > > > o o o o 60 60 60 60 Oh 3 4= Cm O 3 CD CD Sh CD Oh 'n j4 CD > O CD t3 3 03 -I I M Q m > o 60 an an an an an H S-H u H H ^ .3 ,3 ^ ^ Qt Qt _g< _g< ^H t+H t+H ^h Oh 3 CJ 'C 60 03 Oh O 03 .Oh >~, 03 43 CD CD 03 Oh en 3 CD (3h O CD Oh _o "CD > CD T3 _03 , ■a £• ID -^h Td .3 > "3 ? CD -2 S 3 3 c2 «S 3 4= CfH O 3 CD CD — CD Oh c2h Oh 3 43 Cm O 3 CD CJ t-< CD Oh 3 3 43 43 Cn Cm o o 3 3 CD CD O O u u CD CD Oh Oh CJ > 1) o en U D Td Td 1) 3 3 Ph 03 03 >, h-1 h-1 H o 43 Ph o 43 43 O 43 Ph o 43 I 60 d 'n 03 Sh a 4^ CJ o Appendix C - 1 o o o t— 1— — 1 A o o o *0 1 ■<- CM O ■* un o CO un o A A o (/) m o o o Sa *o *o 0) *3 o^ ^o o^ in o o co -- CM S pa O O ^r o A ^ ^* ^* C3 i ci> 'S- 0) CO O CM CM o c o o e u Sh O re i T — CM CO t — T CO CM co ^t co co co CM co *j o o CN UT> un un (/) Ph T— CM T— Q o o s^O o"^ S^O CN o o CN CO 'S- CM CM cn co co _ O _ _ _ _ V V V V , c3 "J3 d y !s y y T3 as '-*-» Hi d d y 3 t/3 y u ^H y cfl ■*-» S3 o u y t/3 y y 3 o ■p 60 OS 3 oS -8* o y *y > y T3 y 'cfi d y T3 d y s 3 -a a3 •3 s- O o u. o as y s *y O cfl .g .g .g .g .g y t-H 5 cfl Fjj 60 43 ^H c« "as d as ■ — i fi u s- u u. tH & OS y 4= 60 *y 5 a 'n as Oh Oh ■4 Id y y > as U* 3 3 3 3 3 o o o o o y J3 42 <4H J3 J3 y y y y y a o o o o O y y y y y o d d d d d t/3 d d d d d 3 OS as as as y c/3 y y y y y | y y y y y y in cfl cfl cfl cfl > H S-< s-< H 14 5 5 5 5 5 s J 1) y Oh y fin y y Dh y 0J Oh V c/a cfl ~fc >> S y y y D 53 H '5b o d as "C "o ■e 3 3 O > w 5 t/3 y d d as as Appendix C - 2 Appendix D. Montana Natural Heritage Program Level 2 Ecological Integrity Assessment Form ASSESSMENT AREA INFORMATION Site ID Date Site Name Observer(s) Level 4 Ecoregion Land Ownership HUC4/HUC5/HUC6 GPS Coordinates at the assessment area center (UTMs) Notes on movement of the AA center: Waypoint ID Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Accuracy Elevation General AA description, including surrounding uplands Directions to AA and Access Comments: Soil Drainage (check one) Topographic Position (check one) Amount of AA Covered by Standing Water (check one) Well-drained slope none Mod well-drained depression 1-25% Poorly drained floodplain 26-50% Very poorly drained flat 51-75% 76-100% Assessment Area Photos-Taken from the center of the AA in the four care inal directions Photo # Photo Card Description Photo # N Photo # E Photo # S Photo # W Additional Photos: CLASSIFICATION Ecological System (check one—use Key to Ecological Systems) RM Fen LM Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Confidence Level Very High RM Wet Meadow Other W. N. Am. Emergent Marsh RM Riparian Shrubland RM Riparian Woodland NRM Wooded Vernal Pool High Medium Low Dominant Vegetation Association(s) Reason for selecting confidence level: HGM Class (check one Riverine Lacustrine Frinae Slope Confidence Level Very Hiqh Reason for selecting confidence level: Depressional High Flat Medium Low Coward in System Palustrine (P) (L2) ennial (R2) ennial (R3) Cowardin Class Aauatic Bet i(AB) l(ML) EM) 0) Scrub-Shrub (SS) Lacustrine Littoral Moss Liche Unconsolidated Bottom CUB) Riverine Lower Pe Emerqent ( Unconsolidated Shore (US) Riverine Upper Pe Forested (F Cowardin Water Regi Permanently Flooc me ed(H) Dsed (G) Flooded (F) (K) Seasonally Flooded (C) B) / Flooded (A) tly Flooded (J) Cowardin Special Modifers Beaver (b) Farmed (ft Intermittentlv Exp Saturated C Excavated (x) Semi-permanentlv Temporarih Intermitten Partially ditched/drained (d) Artificially Flooded Diked/impounded (h) Appendix D - 1 ASSESSMENT AREA DRAWING (add north arrow, document plant zones, indicate direction of drainage into or out of wetland, and include sketch of vegetation plot and soil pit placement). ALSO INDICATE ALL PLANT ZONES ON AERIAL PHOTO, IF POSSIBLE Notes: Appendix D - 2 s ■- i £ -C (U d) d) 5 fc a a. >■ u (B Q. S.E oi o a >■ (B s _ (9 U4 2 o u. s Q. o HI (U = m o £ .2 £ £ ? Q. -J U Q ,5 -n u w w ->* LJ i_ s_ X £ CL C, £ U x 9 c o jj ro ^ ■O JU T3 ^ a: oj => ■a c c OJ . _w 1_ 1)1 c in JZ >- u o o u ci) o Ol i j t- jU >- o Z5 F Z5 n 2 CD n ~5 u v E (U JZ ■*-> 03 Q. b u o c U c fM >r\l ■4-1 03 > c a c 0J JZ a ro ra JZ 4-J 4_J >- in "ol in c o — £J ro en r O in +J u 'c re m O ■a o > 03 o < o ai c 55 £ S. So O c o T3 ai ai ai c t! 2 OIJZ C U - aj T3 o u ■a c 03 ai O OJ o ai _L CO U UJ r^ a: U L. ■a > X * * J2 < OJ r ^ u m r- r- ■D pj OJ ra jj in T3 O y— , j =i O ■4-J t n m o i j JZ u X o 1_ o m b o Appendix D - 3 s ■- i £ -C (U d) d) 5 fc a a. >■ u (B Q. S.E oi o a >■ (B s _ (9 U4 2 o u. s Q. o HI (U = m o £ .2 £ £ ? Q. -J U Q ,5 -n u w w ->* LJ i_ s_ X £ CL C, £ U x 9 c o jj ro ^ ■O JU T3 ^ a: oj => ■a c c OJ . _w 1_ 1)1 c in JZ >- u o o u ci) o Ol i j t- jU >- o Z5 F Z5 n 2 CD n ~5 u v E (U JZ ■*-> 03 Q. b u o c U c fM >r\l ■4-1 03 > c a c 0J JZ a ro ra JZ 4-J 4_J >- in "ol in c o — £J ro en r O in +J u 'c re m O ■a o > 03 o < o ai c 55 £ S. So O c o T3 ai ai ai c t! 2 OIJZ C U - aj T3 o u ■a c 03 ai O OJ o ai _L CO U UJ r^ a: U L. ■a > X * * J2 < OJ r ^ u m r- r- ■D pj OJ ra jj in T3 O y— , j =i O ■4-J t n m o i j JZ u X o 1_ o m b o Appendix D - 4 Plant Zones in Entire Assessment Area Height Scale for Each Plant Zone Cover Scale for Each Plant Zone 1 <0.5 m 6 10-15 m 1 Trace 6 10-<25% 2 0.5-1 m 7 15-20 m 2 <1% 7 25-<50% 3 1-2 m 8 20-35 m 3 l-<2% 8 50-<75% 4 2-5 m 9 35-50 m 4 2-<5% 9 75-<95% 5 5-10 m 10 >50m 5 5-<10% 10 >95% Identify and describe the plant zones that occur within the assessment area. A plant zone should be described if it meets the following rules: la. The plant zone is dominated by a stratum distinctly different from the stratum that dominates other plant zones; OR lb. the plant zone is dominated by the same stratum as other plant zones, BUT each plant zone is dominated by different species AND the average height of the dominant species differs by > 1 m (e.g., Typha latifolia vs. Juncus balticus). 2. The plant zone makes up more than 5% of the AA (e.g., 250 m 2 for an AA of 0.5 ha). 3. Each individual patch of the plant zone is greater than 10m 2 . Plant Zone #1 (indicate location on site drawing) Stratum Forest/Woodland (Trees/Shrubs > 5 m) 5rns) :rusts) Leaf Type (can check more than one) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Shrubland fShrubs >0.5-5 ml Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Dwarf Shrubland (<0.5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Herbaceous fe.a.. Graminoids. Forbs. F( Graminoid Forb Fern Nonvascular (Bryophytes, cryptoaamic ( Submeraed/Floatina (Rooted or floatina-exclude emeraentl Sparsely Veaetated fincludina bare around} Dominant Species Height Class Cover Class Comments Stratum #2 (indicate location on site drawing) Stratum Forest/Woodland (Trees/Shrubs > 5 ml 5rns) Leaf Type (can check more than one) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Shrubland fShrubs >0.5-5 ml Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Dwarf Shrubland (<0.5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved MicroDhvllous Herbaceous fe.a.. Graminoids. Forbs. Ff Graminoid Forb Fern Nonvascular (Bryophvtes, crvptoaamic crusts) Submeraed/Floatina (Rooted or floatina-exclude emeraentl Sparsely Veaetated (includinq bare around) Dominant Species Height Class Cover Class Comments Appendix D - 5 Stratum Forest/Woodland (Trees/Shrubs > 5 m) ims) Leaf Type (can check more than one) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Shrubland (Shrubs >0.5-5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Dwarf Shrubland (<0.5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Herbaceous (e.q., Graminoids, Forbs, Ft Graminoid Forb Fern Nonvascular (Brvophvtes, cryptoqamic crusts') Submerged/Floating (Rooted or floating-exclude emergent) Sparsely Vegetated (including bare ground) Dominant Species Height Class Cover Class Comments Stratum #4 (indicate location on site drawing) Stratum Forest/Woodland (Trees/Shrubs > 5 m) >rns) Leaf Type (can check more than one) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Shrubland (Shrubs >0.5-5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Dwarf Shrubland (<0.5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Herbaceous (e.q., Graminoids, Forbs, Ft Graminoid Forb Fern Nonvascular (Bryophytes, cryptoqamic crusts) Submerqed/Floatinq (Rooted or floatinq-exclude emerqent) Sparsely Veqetated (including bare ground) Dominant Species Height Class Cover Class Comments Stratum #5 (indicate location on site drawing) Stratum Forest/Woodland (Trees/Shrubs > 5 m) ;rns) Leaf Type (can check more than one) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Shrubland (Shrubs >0.5-5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Dwarf Shrubland (<0.5 m) Broad-leaved Needle-leaved Microphyllous Herbaceous (e.q., Graminoids, Forbs, Fe Graminoid Forb Fern Nonvascular (Bryophytes, cryptoqamic crusts) Submerqed/Floatinq (Rooted or floatinq-exclude emerqent) Sparsely Veqetated (including bare ground) Dominant Species Height Class Cover Class Comments Appendix D - 6 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT Connectivity Non-riverine Select the statement that best describes the landscape connectivity within a 500 m buffer of the AA: 1. Intact: AA embedded in 90-100% unfragmented, natural landscape. 2. Variegated: AA embedded in 60-90% unfragmented, natural landscape. 3. Fragmented: AA embedded in 20-60% unfragmented, natural landscape. 4. Relictual: AA embedded in <20 % unfragmented, natural landscape. Riverine Select the statement that best describes the landscape connectivity within 500 m upstream and downstream of the AA: 1. Intact: AA embedded in 90-100% unfragmented, natural landscape. 2. Variegated: AA embedded in 60 90% unfragmented, natural landscape. 3. Fragmented: AA embedded in 20-60% unfragmented, natural landscape. 4. Relictual: AA embedded in <20 % unfragmented, natural landscape. Buffer Length Select the statement that best describes the buffer length of the AA: 1. Buffer is 76-100% of the AA perimeter. 2. Buffer is 51-75% of the AA perimeter. 3. Buffer is 25-50% of the AA perimeter. 4. Buffer is <25% of the AA perimeter, OR no buffer exists. Width Select the statement that best describes the buffer width of the AA: 1. Average buffer width between edge of the AA and the edge of the buffer is >200 m. 2. Average buffer width between edge of AA and the edge of the buffer is > 100-200 m. 3. Average buffer width between edge of the AA and the edge of the buffer is 50-100 m. 4. Average buffer width between edge of the AA and the edge of the buffer is <50 m, OR no buffer exists. Condition Select the statement that best describes the buffer condition of the AA: 1. Abundant (>95%) native vegetation cover, little or no (<5%) cover of non-native plants, intact soils, AND little or no trash. 2. Substantial (>75-95%) native vegetation cover, low (5-25%) cover of non-native plants, intact or moderately disturbed soils, moderate or lesser amounts of trash, OR evidence of minor human visitation or recreation. 3. Moderate (50-75%) native vegetation cover, moderate or extensive soil disturbance, moderate or greater amounts of trash, OR evidence of moderate human visitation or recreation. 4. Low (<50%) cover of native vegetation, barren ground and highly disturbed soils, moderate or greater amounts of trash, evidence of high intensity human visitation or recreation, OR no buffer exists. Buffer Condition Comments Describe elements that are NOT considered part of the buffer (e.g., roads, agriculture, etc.) SIZE Relative Patch Size Select the statement that best describes the relative patch size of the entire wetland (current size of the wetland divided by the historic size of the wetland): 1. Wetland is >95% of original size. 2. Wetland is >80-95% of original size. 3. Wetland is >50-80% of original size. 4. Wetland is <50% of original size. Absolute Patch Size Estimate the size of the entire wetland (from the aerial photo OR from the GIS). IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ESTIMATE SIZE, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE FORM THAT THE SIZE SHOULD BE ESTIMATED IN THE OFFICE. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (BIOTA) Relative Cover of Native Plant Species Select the statement that best describes the relative cover of native plant species within the AA: 1. >99% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of native vegetation. 2. 95-99% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of native vegetation. 3. 80-94% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of native vegetation. 4. <80% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of native vegetation. 5. <50% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of native vegetation. Invasive exotic species Select the statement that best describes invasive exotic species within the AA: 1. < 1% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive exotic species. 2. 1-3% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive exotic species. 3. >3-5% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive exotic species. 4. >5% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive exotic species. Invasive or highly tolerant natives Select the statement that best describes the invasive or highly tolerant natives within the AA: 1. <5% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive or tolerant native plant species. 2. 5-10% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive or tolerant native plant species. 3. >10-25% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive or tolerant native plant species. 4. >25% of the vegetation cover within the AA is comprised of invasive or tolerant native plant species. Appendix D - 7 Organic Matter Accumulation Select the statement that best describes the organic matter accumulation of the site: 1. Site has moderate amount of fine organic matter. New growth is more prevalent than previous years' growth. Layers of litter in pools or areas of topographic lows are thin. 2. Site is characterized by small amounts of coarse organic debris, with little plant recruitment, OR debris is somewhat excessive. 3. Site has little coarse debris and/or only scant fine debris OR debris is excessive. Physical Patch Types How many physical patch types occur within the site (refer to physical patch type table)? Patch Interspersion Select the statement that best describes the patch interspersion of the site: 1. Horizontal structure consists of a very complex array of nested or interspersed irregular biotic/abiotic patches with no single dominant type. 2. Horizontal structure consists of a moderately complex array of nested or interspersed irregular biotic/abiotic patches with no single dominant type. 3. Horizontal structure consists of a simple array of nested or interspersed irregular biotic/abiotic patches with no single dominant type. 4. Horizontal structure consists of one dominant patch type with no interspersion. PHYSICOCHEMICAL Soil Surface Integrity Select the statement that describes the soil surface integrity of the site: 1. Bare soil is limited to naturally caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails. 2. Some bare soil due to human causes (including livestock) is present but the extent and impact is minimal. The depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of ponding or channeling water. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is removed. 3. Bare soil due to human causes is common and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts. Damage is not excessive and the site will recover with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate recovery times. 4. Bare soil substantially degrades the site due to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread. Water, if present, would be channeled or ponded. The site will not recover without restoration and/or long recovery times. Water Quality Select the statement that best describes the water quality of the site: 1. No visual evidence of degraded water quality. Wetland species that respond to high nutrient levels are minimally present, if at all. Water is clear with no strong green tint or sheen. 2. Some negative water quality indicators are present, but limited to small and localized areas within the wetland. Wetland species that respond to high nutrient levels may be present but are not dominant. Water may have a minimal greenish tint, cloudiness, or sheen. 3. Negative water quality indicators or wetland species that respond to high nutrient levels are common. Sources of water quality degradation are apparent. Water may have a moderate greenish tint, sheen or other turbidity with algae common. 4. Wetland is dominated by vegetation species that respond to high nutrient levels or there is widespread evidence of other negative water quality indicators. Algal mats may be extensive, blocking light to the bottom. Sources of water quality degradation are typically apparent. Water has strong greenish tint, sheen, or turbidity. The bottom difficult to see during the growing season. HYDROLOGY Water Source Select the statement that best describes the water source under dry season conditions of the AA: 1. Sources are precipitation, groundwater, and/or natural runoff, or natural flow from an adjacent freshwater body, or the AA naturally lacks water in the dry season. 2. Sources are mostly natural but can include occasional or small effects of modified hydrology (e.g., developed land or irrigated agricultural land comprising less than 20% of the drainage basin within 2 km of the AA, presence of a few small stormdrains or scattered homes with septic systems). No large point sources or dams control the overall hydrology. 3. Sources or withdrawals are primarily from anthropogenic sources (e.g., urban runoff, direct irrigation, diversions, pumped water, impoundments, regulated releases through a dam, developed or irrigated agricultural land comprising more than 20% of the drainage basin within 2 km of the AA, presence of major drainage point source discharges that obviously control the hydrology of the AA). 4. Natural sources have been eliminated based on the following indicators: impoundment of all wet season inflows, diversions of all dry-season inflows, predominance of xeric vegetation, etc Hydroperiod (for depressional, lacustrine, and slope wetlands— NOT fens) Which of the following statements best describes the hydroperiod of the site: 1. Hydroperiod of the AA is characterized by natural patterns of filling or inundation and drying or drawdowns. 2. The filling or inundation patterns in the AA are of greater magnitude or duration than would be expected under natural conditions, but thereafter the AA is subject to natural drawdown or drying. 3. Hydroperiod of the AA is characterized by natural patterns of filling or inundation, but thereafter, is subject to more rapid or extreme drawdown or drying, as compared to more natural wetlands. OR The filling or inundation patterns in the AA are of substantially lower magnitude or duration than would be expected under natural conditions, but thereafter, the AA is subject to natural drawdown or drying. 4. Both the inundation and drawdown of the AA deviate from natural conditions (either increased or decreased in magnitude and/or duration). Appendix D - Hydroperiod (for fens) Select the statement that best describes the hydroperiod of the site: 1. Hydroperiod of the site is characterized by stable, saturated hydrology, or by naturally damped cycles of saturation and partial drying. 2. Hydroperiod of the site experiences minor altered inflows or drawdown/drying, as compared to more natural wetlands (e.g., ditching). 3. Hydroperiod of the site is somewhat altered by greater increased inflow from runoff, or experiences moderate drawdown or drying, as compared to more natural wetlands (e.g., ditching). 4. Hydroperiod of the site is greatly altered by increased inflow from runoff or experiences large drawdown or drying, as compared to more natural wetlands (e.g., ditching). Hydroperiod (for riverine sites) Select the statement that best describes the hydroperiod of the site (based on field indicators in the worksheet) : 1. Most of the channel through the AA is characterized by equilibrium conditions, with little evidence of aggradation or degradation. 2. Most of the channel through the AA is characterized by some aggradation or degradation, none of which is severe, and the channel seems to be approaching an equilibrium form. 3. There is evidence of severe aggradation or degradation of most of the channel through the AA, or the channel is artificially hardened through less than half of the AA. 4. The channel is concrete or otherwise artificially hardened through most of the AA. Groundwater Connectivity Are there areas within the assessment area buffer that indicate groundwater connectivity (e.g., visually confirmed, temporary surface water connection to an upslope wetland; areas of vigorous growth of upland vegetation relative to the surrounding uplands). Hydrologic Connectivity (for depressional, lacustrine, and slope wetlands-NOT isolated fens) Select the statement that best describes the hydrologic connectivity of the site: 1. Rising water in the AA has unrestricted access to adjacent areas without levees or other obstructions to the lateral movement of flood waters. 2. Unnatural features such as levees or road grades limit the amount of adjacent transition zone or the lateral movement of floodwaters, relative to what is expected for the setting, but the limitations exist for less than 50% of the AA perimeter. Restrictions may be intermittent along the margins of the AA, or they may occur only along one bank or shore. 3. The amount of adjacent transition zone or the lateral movement of flood waters to and from the AA is limited, relative to what is expected for the setting, by unnatural features such as levees or road grades, for 50-90% of the AA perimeter. Flood flows may exceed the obstructions, but drainage out of the AA is probably obstructed. 4. The amount of adjacent transition zone or the lateral movement of flood waters is limited, relative to what is expected for the setting, by unnatural features such as levees or road grades, for more than 90% of the AA perimeter. Hydrologic Connectivity (for naturally isolated fens) Select the statement that best describes the hydrologic connectivity of the site: 1. No natural connectivity with the surrounding water bodies. 2. Partial connectivity (e.g., ditching or draining to dry the fen). 3. Substantial to full connectivity that has obvious effects of drying the peat body. Hydrologic Connectivity (for confined riverine wetlands) Select the statement that best describes the hydrologic connectivity of the site based on the entrenchment ratio calculation: 1. Entrenchment ratio >2.0. 2. Entrenchment ratio 1.6-2.0. 3. Entrenchment ratio 1.2-1.5. 4. Entrenchment ratio <1.2. Hydrologic Connectivity (for unconfined riverine wetlands) Select the statement that best describes the hydrologic connectivity of the site based on the entrenchment ratio calculation: 1. Entrenchment ratio >2.2. 2. Entrenchment ratio 1.9-2.2. 3. Entrenchment ratio 1.5-1.8. 4. Entrenchment ratio <1.5. Appendix D - 9 PHYSICAL PATCH TYPE CHECK 1 ONE Open water- pond or lake Open water -pools Open water-river/stream Open water-oxbow/backwater channel Open water-tributary/secondary channel Open water-beaver pond Deep emergent plants (> 0.5 m water depth) Shallow emergent plants (< 0.5 m water depth) Submerged/floating vegetation Active beaver dam Adjacent or onsite springs/seeps Shrubs/Trees Transitional meadow Saline meadow Debris jams/woody debris Pool/riffle complex Point bars Mudflats Wet meadow patches Plant hummocks/sediment mounds Water tracks/hollows Tall herbaceous vegetation (> 0.5 m tall) Low herbaceous vegetation (< 0.5 m tall) Floating mat Vegetation cover dominated by sedges/moss Number of observed patches Appendix D -10 Land Use Observed Within 500 m of the AA Check all that apply Paved roads / parking lots Domestic or commercially developed buildings Gravel pit operation, open pit mining, strip mining Unpaved Roads (e.g., driveway, tractor trail, 4-wheel drive roads) Mining (other than gravel, open pit, and strip mining), abandoned mines Resource extraction (oil and gas development) Agriculture - dryland farming Intensively managed golf courses, sports fields Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling, rotochopping, clearcut) Heavy grazing by livestock Intense recreation (ATV use / camping / popular fishing spot, etc.) Logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees >50 cm dbh removed Agriculture - irrigated cropland Agriculture - permanent tree plantation Dam sites and flood disturbed shorelines around water storage reservoirs Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow lands dominated by exotic species Moderate grazing on rangeland Moderate recreation (high-use trail) Selective logging or tree removal with <50% of trees >50 cm dbh removed Light grazing on rangeland Light recreation (low-use trail) Haying of native grassland Fallow with no history of grazing or other human use in past 10 yrs Natural area / land managed for native vegetation Land Use Observed Within the AA Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling, rotochopping, clearcut) Heavy grazing by livestock Intense recreation (ATV use / camping / popular fishing spot, etc.) Logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees >50 cm dbh removed Dam sites and flood disturbed shorelines around water storage reservoirs Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow lands dominated by exotic species Moderate grazing Moderate recreation (high-use trail) Selective logging or tree removal with <50% of trees >50 cm dbh removed Light grazing Light recreation (low-use trail) Natural area / land managed for native vegetation Hydrology Within 500 m of the AA Upstream spring boxes Impoundment Pumps, diversions, or ditches that move water out of the wetland Evidence of aquatic life mortality Encroachment of terrestrial vegetation Stress or mortality of hydrophytes Compressed or reduced plant zonation Berm Dike Pumps, diversions, or ditches that move water into the wetland Recently drowned riparian vegetation Extensive fine-grained deposits Appendix D - 11 SitelD m GPS Waypoint Easting 50 m GPS Waypoint Easting (draw vegetation plot location on site drawing) Northing Accuracy (draw vegetation plot location on site drawing) Northing Accuracy Vegetation Plot Photos Module Bearing/Description Photo # Photo # Photo # Photo # Photo # Vegetation Plot Layout (circle the location of the intensive modules and note any changes to the plot layout) m n Notes: 50 m Appendix D - 12 Plant species presence and percent cover: For each intensive module, starting with the uppermost stratum, list all species in each stratum and estimate percent cover for the module. For tree species, estimate seedling, sapling, and mature trees separately. List any species found in the remaining modules in the residual "R" column and estimate percent cover for the entire plot. List any species outside the plot at the end of the table or designate with a in Cover Class column. Mark location of the intensive modules on aerial photo for reference. Cover Scale for Strata 1 Trace 6 10-<25% 2 <1% 7 25-<50% 3 l-<2% 8 50-<75% 4 2-<5% 9 75-<95% 5 5-<10% 10 >95% VEGETATION PLOT SPECIES TABLE Module 1 1 2 1 3 | 4 | 5 | R Cover Class Corner Module Stratum Species Water Bare Ground Litter Bryophytes (all cover, including under vegetation or litter cover) Appendix D -13 Appendix E. Calculation of Level 2 Attribute and Overall AA Scores 1. For each metric, convert narrative rating score (1, 2, 3, and 4) into the corresponding metric score: 1=12,2=9, 3=6, and 4=3. 2. Each final attribute score was calculated according to the following: Landscape Context (LC) Attribute Score : Raw score = [Buffer Condition x (Buffer width x Buffer length) 1 ' 2 ] m + Landscape Connectivity Final Attribute score = Raw Landscape Context Score x 1 00 Total possible points allowed (24) Relative Patch Size Attribute Score: Final Attribute score = Relative Patch Size Score x 1 00 Total possible points allowed (12) Biotic Attribute Score: Raw score = (Invasive native + Native + Invasive scores) + OM accumulation + patch interspersion 3 Final Attribute Score = Raw Biotic Score x 1 00 Total possible points allowed (36) Hydrology Attribute Score: Raw score = Hydrological Source + Hydroperiod + Hydrologic Connectivity scores Final Attribute Score = Raw Hydrology Score x 1 00 Total possible points allowed (36) Physicochemical Attribute Score: Raw score = Soil Surface Integrity + Water Quality scores Final Attribute Score = Raw Physicochemical Score x 1 00 Total possible points allowed (24) 3. Final AA Score = Final LC + Final Patch Size + Final Biotic + Final Hydro +Final Physicochemical 5 score Appendix E - 1 Appendix F. Montana Natural Heritage Program Level 3 Intensive Vegetation Assessment Form SitelD m GPS Waypoint Easting 50 m GPS Waypoint Easting (draw vegetation plot location on site drawing) Northing Accuracy (draw vegetation plot location on site drawing) Northing Accuracy Vegetation Plot Photos Module Bearing/Description Photo # Photo # Photo # Photo # Photo # Vegetation Plot Layout (circle the location of the intensive modules and note any changes to the plot layout) m n Notes: 50 m Appendix F - 1 Plant species presence and percent cover: For each intensive module, starting with the uppermost stratum, list all species in each stratum and estimate percent cover for the module. For tree species, estimate seedling, sapling, and mature trees separately. List any species found in the remaining modules in the residual "R" column and estimate percent cover for the entire plot. List any species outside the plot at the end of the table or designate with a in Cover Class column. Mark location of the intensive modules on aerial photo for reference. Cover Scale for Strata 1 Trace 6 10-<25% 2 <1% 7 25-<50% 3 l-<2% 8 50-<75% 4 2-<5% 9 75-<95% 5 5-<10% 10 >95% VEGETATION PLOT SPECIES TABLE Module 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | R Cover Class Corner Module Stratum Species Water Bare Ground Litter Bryophytes (all cover, including under vegetation or litter cover) Appendix F - 2 Appendix G. Vegetation Cover Classes and Releve Layout The following cover classes were used to estimate vegetation cover: 1 = trace (one individual) 6 > 10-25% 2<1% 7 > 25-50% 3 > 1-2% 8 > 50-75% 4 > 2-5% 9 > 75-95% 5 > 5-10% 10 > 95% 10 METERS 50 METERS Appendix G - 1 Appendix H. Calculation and Description of Floristic Quality Assessment Indices Indices Total species Richness Native species richness Non-native species richness Mean C (Call) Mean C of natives ( C nat) Cover-weighted Mean C (CWC all) Cover-weighted Mean C of natives (CWC nat) Floristic Quality Index for natives (FQI) Floristic Quality Index for all species (FQIall) Cover-weighted FQI for natives (CWFQI) Cover-weighted FQI for all species (CWFQIall) Adjusted FQI (AdjFQI) Adjusted cover-weighted FQI (adjCWFQI) Formulas N + A N A _ N+A j=i _ N N+A 'N + A 'N C = ZPi C i/ N + A 7=1 c=£p,c,/ n ;'=i FQI = CJN FQIall = C^N + A f N CWFQInat = CWFQI = V j= 1 J Jn+a adiFQI -(^ )(^__).,oo adjCWFQI = ( CWCna /{ )(^/r 1*100 A Floristic Quality Index (FQI) was then calculated for each site assessed with a Level 3 usin£ the following formula: FQI = CyfN Where C is the mean C-value and N is the number of native species within the entire plot. A FQI including both native and non-native species was calculated using the following formula: FQIall = C^N + A Appendix H - 1 The adjusted FQI score for each site was calculated for each site using the following formula: where C is the mean C-value of native plant species, N is the number of native species, and A is the number of non-native species. A cover-weighted index was calculated for each site using the following formula: ( N+A "N Cover-weighted FQI J Where p stands for the relative average cover of a species and C is the C-value of each species (/'), N is the number of native species, and A is the number of non-native species. A cover weighted adjusted FQI was also calculated for each site using the following formula: Adjusted cover-weighted FQI = (cWCnat^\ J 4n/ L 100 Appendix H - 2 Appendix I. Wetland Landscape Profiling 5th Code HUC Wetland Profiles Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Fifth-Code Hydrological Unit 5th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Headwaters Saint Mary River 1001000201 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% Swiftcurrent Creek 1001000202 0% 0% 60% 40% 100% 85% 15% Upper Saint Mary River 1001000203 0% 0% 11% 89% 79% 99% 1% Lee Creek 1001000204 0% 0% 4% 96% 85% 100% 0% Willow Creek 1001000205 16% 1% 17% 67% 5% 85% 15% Upper Two Medicine River 1003020101 0% 0% 28% 72% 87% 99% 1% Badger Creek 1003020102 0% 0% 5% 95% 95% 99% 1% Middle Two Medicine River 1003020103 0% 0% 0% 100% 82% 98% 2% Blacktail Creek 1003020104 0% 0% 0% 100% 84% 96% 4% Dupuyer Creek 1003020105 45% 0% 55% 0% 10% 98% 2% Birch Creek 1003020106 40% 0% 10% 49% 68% 97% 3% Lower Two Medicine River 1003020107 6% 0% 0% 94% 53% 88% 12% Upper Cut Bank Creek 1003020201 0% 0% 3% 97% 86% 100% 0% Willow Creek 1003020202 16% 1% 17% 67% 51% 85% 15% Middle Cut Bank Creek 1003020203 0% 0% 0% 100% 64% 93% 7% Little Rock Coulee 1003020204 0% 0% 0% 100% 70% 86% 14% Big Rock Coulee 1003020205 52% 4% 0% 44% 25% 89% 11% Spring Creek 1003020206 0% 0% 0% 100% 91% 90% 10% Lower Cut Bank Creek 1003020207 25% 1% 0% 74% 71% 97% 3% Marias River-Schultz Coulee 1003020301 100% 0% 0% 0% 9% 90% 10% Sunburst 1003020302 96% 3% 1% 0% 49% 94% 6% Rocky Spring Coulee 1003020303 94% 2% 5% 0% 100% 91% 9% Spring Coulee 1003020304 99% 1% 0% 0% 1% 95% 5% Aloe Lake 1003020305 97% 3% 0% 0% 100% 94% 6% Upper Dry Fork Marias River 1003020306 64% 0% 36% 0% 13% 45% 55% Lower Dry Fork Marias River 1003020307 98% 2% 0% 0% 5% 66% 34% Marias River-Pearson Coulee 1003020308 88% 4% 8% 0% 12% 82% 18% Upper Pondera Coulee 1003020309 99% 1% 0% 0% 2% 74% 26% South Pondera Coulee 1003020310 96% 4% 0% 0% 12% 62% 38% Rocky Coulee 1003020311 86% 14% 0% 0% 36% 82% 18% Powder Coulee 1003020312 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71% 29% Lower Pondera Coulee 1003020313 95% 5% 0% 0% 7% 66% 34% Basin Coulee 1003020314 88% 12% 0% 0% 26% 33% 67% Dugout Coulee 1003020315 91% 9% 0% 0% 9% 22% 78% Upper Cottonwood Creek 1003020316 96% 4% 0% 0% 6% 80% 20% Middle Cottonwood Creek 1003020317 92% 8% 0% 0% 9% 68% 32% Lower Cottonwood Creek 1003020318 97% 3% 0% 0% 3% 64% 36% East Fork Black Coulee 1003020319 98% 2% 0% 0% 2% 93% 7% Black Coulee 1003020320 80% 7% 13% 0% 3% 85% 15% Marias River-Dead Indian Coulee 1003020321 81% 2% 16% 0% 14% 54% 46% Marias River-Chip Creek 1003020322 91% 9% 1% 0% 11% 50% 50% Black Coulee 1003020401 80% 7% 13% 0% 5% 85% 15% Trail Creek 1003020402 92% 6% 2% 0% 11% 69% 31% Upper Willow Creek 1003020403 88% 11% 1% 0% 18% 76% 24% West Fork Willow Creek 1003020404 97% 3% 0% 0% 7% 73% 27% Eagle Creek 1003020405 82% 18% 0% 0% 22% 77% 23% Lower Willow Creek 1003020406 91% 1% 8% 0% 3% 54% 46% Teton River-North Fork Teton Riverl003020501 60% 0% 40% 0% 86% 100% 0% Willow Creek 1003020502 16% 1% 17% 67% 11% 85% 15% Deep Creek 1003020503 53% 3% 44% 0% 13% 78% 22% Appendix I- 1 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Fifth-Code Hydrological Unit 5th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Teton River-Choteau 1003020504 45% 52% 3% 0% 67% 66% 34% Spring Coulee 1003020505 99% 1% 0% 0% 23% 95% 5% Upper Muddy Creek 1003020506 66% 13% 21% 0% 41% 97% 3% Middle Muddy Creek 1003020507 56% 0% 44% 0% 80% 97% 3% Lower Muddy Creek 1003020508 92% 7% 1% 0% 23% 97% 3% Teton River- Dutton 1003020509 89% 11% 0% 0% 12% 90% 10% Teton River- Timber Coulee 1003020510 92% 7% 1% 0% 31% 79% 21% Teton River- Weatherman Coulee 1003020511 95% 5% 0% 0% 17% 82% 18% Teton River-Dry Fork Coulee 1003020512 91% 9% 0% 0% 11% 49% 51% South Fork Milk River 1005000101 0% 0% 0% 100% 79% 99% 1% North Fork Milk River 1005000102 0% 0% 0% 100% 41% 96% 4% Milk River-Kennedy Coulee 1005000103 0% 0% 0% 100% 68% 93% 7% Red River 1005000201 90% 9% 0% 0% 18% 87% 13% Sweetgrass 1005000202 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 89% 11% Beaupre Coulee 1005000203 97% 2% 1% 0% 36% 87% 13% Miners Coulee 1005000204 84% 4% 12% 0% 11% 78% 22% Milk River-Spring Coulee 1005000205 49% 8% 43% 0% 88% 87% 13% Ninemile Coulee 1005000206 66% 14% 21% 0% 52% 55% 45% Dry Lake Coulee 1005000207 81% 5% 14% 0% 44% 93% 7% Milk River-Fresno Reservoir 1005000208 36% 3% 61% 0% 88% 69% 31% Wild Horse Lake 1005000301 99% 0% 0% 0% 100% 99% 1% Beaver Creek 1005000401 81% 1% 0% 7% 46% 68% 32% Little Boxelder Creek 1005000402 99% 1% 0% 0% 1% 83% 17% Clear Creek 1005000403 97% 2% 1% 0% 9% 87% 13% Milk River-Bullhook Creek 1005000404 74% 26% 0% 0% 38% 63% 37% Redrock Coulee 1005000405 93% 4% 3% 0% 19% 78% 22% Milk River-Fifteen Mile Creek 1005000406 85% 5% 10% 0% 22% 80% 20% Box Elder Creek 1005000407 81% 19% 0% 0% 27% 59% 41% Snake Creek 1005000408 96% 3% 1% 0% 6% 64% 36% Thirtymile Creek 1005000409 72% 8% 20% 0% 46% 77% 23% Wayne Creek 1005000410 86% 7% 7% 0% 34% 93% 7% Savoy Creek 1005000411 81% 9% 10% 0% 35% 81% 19% White Bear Creek 1005000412 13% 16% 0% 71% 93% 80% 20% Milk River-Milk Creek 1005000413 55% 3% 3% 40% 79% 76% 24% Dodson Creek 1005000414 72% 2% 26% 0% 46% 76% 24% Milk River-Exeter Creek 1005000415 80% 3% 17% 0% 45% 84% 16% Alkali Creek 1005000416 78% 6% 16% 0% 100% 81% 19% Assiniboine Creek 1005000417 88% 6% 5% 0% 15% 82% 18% Little Cottonwood Creek 1005000418 63% 7% 29% 2% 69% 89% 11% Milk River-Hewitt Lake 1005000419 75% 3% 22% 1% 86% 76% 24% Stinky Creek 1005000420 76% 8% 16% 0% 31% 62% 38% Milk River-Snieder Coulee 1005000421 96% 3% 1% 0% 77% 94% 6% Lonesome Lake 1005000501 98% 2% 0% 0% 46% 94% 6% Big Sandy Creek-Gorman Creek 1005000502 80% 11% 0% 9% 28% 84% 16% Big Sandy Creek-Boxelder Creek 1005000503 65% 7% 9% 18% 68% 73% 27% Big Sandy Creek-Gravel Coulee 1005000504 75% 2% 0% 23% 30% 51% 49% Upper Sage Creek 1005000601 94% 5% 0% 0% 12% 67% 33% Little Sage Creek 1005000602 88% 12% 0% 0% 17% 78% 22% O'Brien Coulee 1005000603 93% 7% 0% 0% 10% 73% 27% England Coulee 1005000604 98% 2% 0% 0% 8% 92% 8% Lower Sage Creek 1005000605 92% 8% 0% 0% 18% 63% 37% Lodge Creek 1005000701 85% Appendix 8% :I-2 7% 0% 24% 56% 44% Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Fifth-Code Hydrological Unit 5th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered East Fork Battle Creek 1005000801 50% 18% 32% 0% 66% 62% 38% Battle Creek 1005000802 81% 4% 15% 0% 100% 40% 60% South Fork Peoples Creek 1005000901 10% 0% 0% 90% 97% 77% 23% Upper Peoples Creek 1005000902 35% 20% 0% 45% 73% 81% 19% Lone Tree Coulee 1005000903 7% 0% 0% 93% 92% 58% 42% Lower Peoples Creek 1005000904 34% 0% 5% 61% 77% 83% 17% Murray Coulee 1005001001 97% 3% 0% 0% 35% 99% 1% Buckley Creek 1005001002 96% 4% 0% 0% 30% 100% 0% Woody Island Coulee 1005001003 72% 3% 22% 2% 88% 98% 2% Black Coulee 1005001004 80% 7% 13% 0% 26% 85% 15% Cottonwood Creek 1005001005 65% 5% 29% 0% 43% 85% 15% East Fork Whitewater Creek 1005001101 53% 7% 38% 1% 100% 92% 8% Whitewater Creek 1005001102 59% 3% 38% 1% 92% 94% 6% Bear Creek 1005001201 84% 2% 14% 0% 62% 54% 46% Buggy Creek 1005001202 36% 26% 38% 0% 74% 38% 62% Antelope Creek 1005001203 67% 5% 28% 0% 44% 21% 79% Milk River-Hinsdale 1005001204 92% 5% 3% 0% 30% 79% 21% Brazil Creek 1005001205 72% 2% 27% 0% 75% 3% 97% Cherry Creek 1005001206 60% 30% 10% 0% 65% 59% 41% Lone Tree Creek 1005001207 40% 1% 59% 0% 99% 3% 97% Little Beaver Creek 1005001208 2% 3% 95% 0% 100% 2% 98% Willow Creek 1005001209 16% 1% 17% 67% 11% 85% 15% Milk River-Glasgow 1005001210 58% 1% 0% 41% 24% 92% 8% Frenchman Creek 1005001301 82% 8% 9% 0% 27% 78% 22% Big Warm Creek 1005001401 66% 4% 13% 17% 73% 65% 35% Upper Beaver Creek 1005001402 65% 5% 29% 1% 44% 71% 29% Flat Creek 1005001403 80% 1% 19% 0% 100% 73% 27% Middle Beaver Creek 1005001404 83% 3% 14% 0% 56% 73% 27% Lake Bowdion 1005001405 34% 2% 65% 0% 100% 94% 6% Larb Creek 1005001406 60% 2% 38% 0% 50% 36% 64% Lower Beaver Creek 1005001407 80% 3% 16% 0% 55% 91% 9% Upper Rock Creek 1005001501 46% 0% 54% 0% 79% 49% 51% South Creek 1005001502 33% 1% 66% 0% 100% 17% 83% Crow Creek 1005001503 32% 8% 60% 0% 76% 43% 57% Big Snake Creek 1005001504 70% 1% 28% 0% 36% 47% 53% Willow Creek 1005001505 16% 1% 17% 67% 3% 85% 15% Lower Rock Creek 1005001506 57% 4% 40% 0% 77% 61% 39% Snow Coulee 1005001601 56% 1% 0% 44% 26% 87% 13% Middle Fork Porcupine Creek 1005001602 82% 2% 1% 15% 14% 68% 32% West Fork Porcupine Creek 1005001603 21% 32% 38% 9% 85% 75% 25% East Fork Porcupine Creek 1005001604 0% 0% 0% 100% 27% 84% 16% Porcupine Creek 1005001605 18% 28% 2% 52% 52% 87% 13% Appendix 1-3 The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Fifth-code Hydrologic Units A Acra* dF Mopped Walljndi NUIItAciit 1(H . l.ftM l.flH-?.SW ■■4.1U- 1.311 M 7,202 . '?. J"' ■ Milw The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Fifth-code Hydrologic Units A ** \ MW^^ «r r ^ WflUnd G»i«lly I: i -i -. :> OS J ■|*'« M ■ 'J -■v — Slraami ■oo Appendix 1-4 The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Fifth-code Hydrologic Units I Ol Allured WtilHiMfl 9 ZS SO A HMilei : hii The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers hi A Fifth-code Hydrologic Units L* ^BBp^^^^^^ * P8fl;»nt1 pf M*pp«l WHUndl fln fnvjt* Land ■•"'■ ,u " D SO tOO 1W Appendix 1-5 6th Code HUC Wetland Profiles Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Headwaters Belly River 100100010201 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Upper Belly River 100100010203 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Headwaters Saint Mary River 100100020101 0% 0% 100% 0% 83% 100% 0% Reynolds Creek 100100020102 0% 0% 100% 0% 73% 100% 0% Red Eagle Creek 100100020103 0% 0% 100% 0% 55% 100% 0% Saint Mary Lake 100100020104 0% 0% 100% 0% 41% 100% 0% Swiftcurrent Lake 100100020201 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Boulder Creek 100100020202 0% 0% 58% 42% 52% 100% 0% Swiftcurrent Creek 100100020203 0% 0% 54% 46% 74% 71% 29% Duck Lake 100100020301 0% 0% 1% 99% 22% 100% 0% Otatso Creek 100100020302 0% 0% 16% 84% 6% 100% 0% Kennedy Creek 100100020303 0% 0% 37% 63% 8% 100% 0% Lower Saint Mary Lakes 100100020304 0% 0% 5% 95% 100% 99% 1% Saint Mary River- 100100020305 0% 0% 14% 86% 16% 98% 2% International Border West Fork Lee Creek 100100020401 0% 0% 32% 68% 82% 100% 0% East Fork Lee Creek 100100020402 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% Upper Willow Creek 100100020501 0% 0% 1% 99% 0% 100% 0% Upper Lake Creek 100301021101 0% 0% 0% 0% 84% 0% 0% Lower Lake Creek 100301021102 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Benton Lake 100301021103 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Huntley Coulee 100301021403 0% 0% 0% 0% 95% 0% 0% Missouri River-Black Coulee 100301021404 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 0% 0% Missouri River-Bullhead Coulee 100301021406 0% 0% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% Missouri River-Bird Coulee 100301021601 0% 0% 0% 0% 47% 0% 0% Missouri River-Fort Benton 100301021602 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% Missouri River-Rowe Bench 100301021605 0% 0% 0% 0% 49% 0% 0% Headwaters North Fork Sun River 100301040103 0% 0% 0% 0% 39% 0% 0% Route Creek 100301040104 0% 0% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% Upper North Fork Sun River 100301040107 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Biggs Creek 100301040108 0% 0% 0% 0% 65% 0% 0% Middle North Fork Sun River 100301040110 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 0% 0% Beaver Creek 100301040403 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% Sun River- Alkali Flat 100301040404 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 0% 0% Sun River-Split Rock Lake 100301040405 0% 0% 0% 0% 97% 0% 0% Sun River-Pishkun Reservoir 100301040406 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Sun River-Shed Coulee 100301040601 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% School Section Coulee 100301040701 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% Upper Big Coulee 100301040705 0% 0% 0% 0% 37% 0% 0% North Fork Muddy Creek 100301040801 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% Muddy Creek Headwaters 100301040802 0% 0% 0% 0% 70% 0% 0% Power 100301040803 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% Upper Muddy Creek 100301040804 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% Third Bench 100301040805 0% 0% 0% 0% 95% 0% 0% Spring Coulee 100301040806 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Two Medicine Lake 100302010101 0% 0% 92% 8% 22% 92% 8% Two Medicine River- 100302010102 0% 0% 62% 38% 59% 98% 2% Midvail Creek Upper South Fork Two 100302010103 0% 0% 100% 0% 7% 100% 0% Medicine River Appendix 1-6 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Lower South Fork Two 100302010104 0% 0% 55% 45% 100% 100% 0% Medicine River Little Badger Creek 100302010105 0% 0% 2% 98% 100% 100% 0% Two Medicine River-Elk Creek 100302010106 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 99% 1% Headwaters Badger Creek 100302010201 0% 0% 100% 0% 79% 100% 0% Badger Creek-Lonesome Creek 100302010202 0% 0% 100% 0% 63% 100% 0% Badger Creek-Mitten Lake 100302010203 0% 0% 0% 100% 43% 98% 2% Badger Creek-Hay Coulee 100302010204 0% 0% 0% 100% 15% 99% 1% Whitetail Creek 100302010205 0% 0% 0% 100% 11% 100% 0% Lower Badger Creek 100302010206 0% 0% 0% 100% 52% 99% 1% Two Medicine River- 100302010301 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 99% 1% Big Nose Coulee Two Medicine River-Hagan Flat 100302010302 0% 0% 0% 100% 49% 97% 3% Upper Blacktail Creek 100302010401 0% 0% 0% 100% 47% 99% 1% Lower Blacktail Creek 100302010402 0% 0% 0% 100% 11% 88% 12% Upper Dupuyer Creek 100302010501 50% 0% 50% 0% 6% 99% 1% Sheep Creek 100302010502 28% 0% 72% 0% 10% 99% 1% Middle Dupuyer Creek 100302010503 33% 0% 67% 0% 100% 97% 3% Lower Dupuyer Creek 100302010504 98% 2% 0% 0% 46% 96% 4% Middle Fork Birch Creek 100302010601 0% 0% 100% 0% 6% 100% 0% South Fork Birch Creek 100302010602 0% 0% 100% 0% 95% 100% 0% North Fork Birch Creek 100302010603 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% Upper Birch Creek 100302010604 8% 0% 50% 43% 100% 99% 1% Cartwright Coulee 100302010605 97% 3% 0% 0% 100% 90% 10% Middle Birch Creek 100302010606 49% 0% 1% 50% 100% 99% 1% Rocky Ridge Coulee 100302010607 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 96% 4% Lower Birch Creek 100302010608 59% 0% 0% 41% 18% 97% 3% Kipps Coulee 100302010701 0% 0% 0% 100% 45% 62% 38% Two Medicine River- 100302010702 6% 0% 0% 94% 45% 90% 10% Shields Crossing North Fork Cut Bank Creek 100302020101 0% 0% 22% 78% 0% 100% 0% Upper Cut Bank Creek- 100302020102 0% 0% 1% 99% 66% 100% 0% Running Crane Lake Greasewood Creek 100302020103 0% 0% 0% 100% 96% 99% 1% Upper Cut Bank Creek-Sharp Lake 100302020104 0% 0% 0% 100% 41% 99% 1% Depot Creek 100302020201 0% 0% 23% 77% 9% 88% 12% Upper Willow Creek 100302020202 0% 0% 0% 100% 29% 99% 1% Middle Willow Creek 100302020203 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 99% 1% Lower Willow Creek 100302020204 0% 0% 0% 100% 2% 99% 1% Trail Coulee 100302020301 0% 0% 0% 100% 1% 50% 50% Cut Bank John Coulee 100302020302 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 69% 31% Cobell Coulee 100302020303 0% 0% 0% 100% 7% 48% 52% Powell Coulee 100302020304 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 77% 23% Middle Cut Bank Creek-Ford 100302020305 0% 0% 0% 100% 24% 99% 1% Upper Little Rock Coulee 100302020401 0% 0% 0% 100% 36% 82% 18% Middle Little Rock Coulee 100302020402 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 76% 24% South Fork Little Rock Coulee 100302020403 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 93% 7% Lower Little Rock Coulee 100302020404 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 68% 32% East Fork Big Rock Coulee 100302020501 46% 2% 0% 52% 60% 83% 17% Headwaters Big Rock Coulee 100302020502 0% 0% 0% 100% 29% 77% 23% Upper Big Rock Coulee 100302020503 5% 0% 0% 95% 0% 84% 16% Middle Big Rock Coulee 100302020504 89% 10% 0% 1% 41% 99% 1% Appendix /- 7 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Lower Big Rock Coulee 100302020505 40% 0% 0% 60% 8% 80% 20% Guardipee Lake 100302020601 0% 0% 0% 100% 80% 97% 3% Mission Lake 100302020602 0% 0% 0% 100% 14% 58% 42% Upper Spring Creek 100302020603 0% 0% 0% 100% 7% 99% 1% Lower Spring Creek 100302020604 0% 0% 0% 100% 80% 97% 3% Gillam Coulee 100302020701 0% 0% 0% 100% 54% 61% 39% Cut Bank Creek- Wasteway Coulee 100302020702 0% 0% 0% 100% 17% 99% 1% Snake Coulee 100302020703 98% 2% 0% 0% 55% 100% 0% Old Maids Coulee 100302020704 97% 3% 0% 0% 100% 83% 17% Cut Bank Creek-Hope Lake 100302020705 6% 0% 0% 94% 49% 90% 10% Cut Bank Creek 100302020706 32% 1% 0% 67% 27% 80% 20% Marias River- Appott Coulee 100302030101 100% 0% 0% 0% 73% 97% 3% Bullhead Creek 100302030102 100% 0% 0% 0% 76% 95% 5% Schultz Coulee 100302030103 99% 1% 0% 0% 5% 85% 15% Marias River-Interfluvial 100302030104 99% 1% 0% 0% 56% 78% 22% East Fork Red River 100302030201 98% 2% 0% 0% 10% 77% 23% Rim Rock Colony 100302030202 91% 8% 0% 0% 53% 93% 7% Gravel Pit 100302030203 100% 0% 0% 0% 63% 93% 7% Sunburst 100302030204 99% 0% 1% 0% 7% 95% 5% Willshaw Flats 100302030205 96% 3% 1% 0% 0% 96% 4% Kevin 100302030301 91% 4% 5% 0% 100% 92% 8% Healy Coulee 100302030302 99% 1% 0% 0% 2% 89% 11% Upper Rocky Spring Coulee 100302030303 94% 1% 5% 0% 68% 71% 29% Lower Rocky Spring Coulee 100302030304 96% 0% 4% 0% 0% 93% 7% Sand Coulee 100302030401 98% 2% 0% 0% 100% 81% 19% Upper Spring Coulee 100302030402 98% 2% 0% 0% 5% 93% 7% Lower Spring Coulee 100302030403 94% 6% 0% 0% 68% 87% 13% Aloe Lake 100302030501 95% 5% 0% 0% 100% 94% 6% Mead Coulee 100302030502 99% 1% 0% 0% 49% 95% 5% South Fork Dry Fork Marias River 100302030601 72% 0% 28% 0% 100% 23% 77% Middle Fork Dry Fork Marias Riverl00302030602 7% 0% 93% 0% 100% 94% 6% Lake Frances 100302030603 97% 3% 0% 0% 64% 77% 23% North Fork Dry Fork Marias River 100302030604 99% 1% 0% 0% 72% 70% 30% Lone Man Coulee 100302030605 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 9% 91% Dry Fork Marias River- 100302030606 76% 24% 0% 0% 0% 35% 65% New Miami Colony Spring Creek 100302030701 97% 3% 0% 0% 31% 71% 29% Dry Fork Marias River- Williams 100302030702 100% 0% 0% 0% 54% 70% 30% Big Flat Coulee 100302030703 93% 7% 0% 0% 23% 82% 18% Little Flat Coulee 100302030704 100% 0% 0% 0% 16% 64% 36% Dry Fork Marias River-Latz Lake 100302030705 100% 0% 0% 0% 25% 59% 41% Dry Fork Marias River-Fowler 100302030706 98% 2% 0% 0% 20% 61% 39% Pearson Coulee 100302030801 97% 3% 0% 0% 18% 87% 13% Marias River- Shelby 100302030802 97% 0% 2% 0% 6% 70% 30% Marias River- Williamson Park 100302030803 94% 6% 0% 0% 21% 86% 14% Marias River-F Bridge 100302030804 77% 4% 19% 0% 99% 74% 26% Marias River-Hoffman Coulee 100302030805 90% 5% 5% 0% 1% 90% 10% Upper Upper Pondera Coulee 100302030901 99% 1% 0% 0% 3% 79% 21% Middle Upper Pondera Coulee 100302030902 98% 2% 0% 0% 10% 70% 30% Favot Coulee 100302030903 99% 1% 0% 0% 100% 69% 31% Lower Upper Pondera Coulee 100302030904 99% 1% 0% 0% 15% 75% 25% Upper South Pondera Coulee 100302031001 94% 6% 0% 0% 0% 69% 31% Appendix I - Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Lower South Pondera Coulee 100302031002 99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% Upper Rocky Coulee 100302031101 99% 1% 0% 0% 29% 61% 39% Lower Rocky Coulee 100302031102 80% 20% 0% 0% 5% 92% 8% Upper Powder River 100302031201 100% 0% 0% 0% 4% 70% 30% Lower Powder River 100302031202 100% 0% 0% 0% 15% 75% 25% Flat Coulee 100302031301 96% 4% 0% 0% 7% 47% 53% Dead Indian Coulee 100302031302 98% 2% 0% 0% 100% 46% 54% Upper Lower Pondera Coulee 100302031303 83% 17% 0% 0% 27% 74% 26% Middle Lower Pondera Coulee 100302031304 99% 1% 0% 0% 68% 87% 13% Timber Coulee 100302031305 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 81% 19% Lower Lower Pondera Coulee 100302031306 81% 19% 0% 0% 10% 16% 84% Upper Basin Coulee 100302031401 86% 14% 0% 0% 20% 38% 62% Middle Basin Coulee 100302031402 97% 3% 0% 0% 16% 43% 57% Lower Basin Coulee 100302031403 77% 23% 0% 0% 13% 11% 89% North Fork Dugout Coulee 100302031501 99% 1% 0% 0% 7% 15% 85% Upper Dugout Coulee 100302031502 95% 5% 0% 0% 13% 38% 62% East Fork Dugout Coulee 100302031503 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 14% 86% Lower Dugout Coulee 100302031504 81% 19% 0% 0% 1% 11% 89% Corral Creek 100302031601 100% 0% 0% 0% 31% 86% 14% Government Creek 100302031602 88% 12% 0% 0% 12% 87% 13% Horse Creek 100302031603 96% 4% 0% 0% 100% 72% 28% Upper Cottonwood Creek 100302031604 99% 1% 0% 0% 44% 77% 23% Cottonwood Creek 100302031701 95% 5% 0% 0% 21% 65% 35% Tiber Coulee 100302031702 86% 14% 0% 0% 15% 73% 27% Cottonwood Creek-Chester 100302031703 96% 4% 0% 0% 76% 65% 35% Cox Coulee 100302031801 96% 4% 0% 0% 59% 53% 47% Twelvemile Coulee 100302031802 100% 0% 0% 0% 49% 29% 71% Sixmile Coulee 100302031803 98% 2% 0% 0% 88% 87% 13% Cottonwood Creek-Larson Coulee 100302031804 94% 6% 0% 0% 40% 26% 74% Headwaters East Fork Black Coulee 10030203 1901 98% 2% 0% 0% 9% 96% 4% East Fork Black Coulee- Joplin 100302031902 100% 0% 0% 0% 27% 96% 4% East Fork Black Coulee-Inverness 100302031903 94% 6% 0% 0% 50% 82% 18% 100302031904 100302031904 100% 0% 0% 0% 35% 98% 2% East Fork Black Coulee-Ean Schooll 0030203 1905 100% 0% 0% 0% 67% 90% 10% Lower East Fork Black Coulee 100302031906 99% 1% 0% 0% 76% 66% 34% Headwaters Black Coulee 100302032001 85% 15% 0% 0% 56% 93% 7% Upper Black Coulee 100302032002 99% 1% 0% 0% 47% 47% 53% Rocky Coulee 100302032003 100% 0% 0% 0% 7% 67% 33% Middle Black Coulee 100302032004 97% 3% 0% 0% 40% 41% 59% Flat Coulee 100302032005 96% 4% 0% 0% 27% 47% 53% Lower Black Coulee 100302032006 95% 5% 0% 0% 0% 93% 7% Marias River-Bootlegger Trail 100302032101 92% 1% 7% 0% 26% 74% 26% Marias River-Smith Coulee 100302032102 15% 2% 83% 0% 11% 16% 84% Marias River- Spring Coulee 100302032103 50% 3% 47% 0% 14% 90% 10% Hay Coulee 100302032104 91% 0% 8% 0% 37% 47% 53% Marias River-Horse Coulee 100302032105 87% 10% 3% 0% 24% 44% 56% Dead Indian Coulee 100302032106 99% 1% 0% 0% 28% 36% 64% Marias River-Eightmile Coulee 100302032107 100% 0% 0% 0% 46% 68% 32% Marias River-Fourmile Coulee 100302032108 97% 1% 2% 0% 8% 5% 95% Sheep Coulee 100302032201 100% 0% 0% 0% 80% 14% 86% Lone Tree Coulee 100302032202 91% 9% 0% 0% 19% 0% 100% Dry Fork Coulee West 100302032203 89% 11% 0% 0% 37% 72% 28% Appendix 1-9 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Chip Creek 100302032204 96% 3% 1% 0% 100% 65% 35% Dry Fork Coulee East 100302032205 81% 19% 0% 0% 100% 12% 88% Marias River-Loma 100302032206 93% 4% 3% 0% 9% 67% 33% Fifteenmile Coulee 100302040101 84% 15% 1% 0% 88% 89% 11% Black Coulee 100302040102 92% 8% 0% 0% 34% 63% 37% Upper Trail Creek 100302040201 93% 5% 2% 0% 100% 72% 28% Lower Trail Creek 100302040202 90% 10% 0% 0% 0% 55% 45% Upper Miners Coulee 100302040301 94% 1% 4% 0% 25% 81% 19% Lower Miners Coulee 100302040302 84% 16% 0% 0% 20% 78% 22% Upper-Upper Willow Creek 100302040303 92% 8% 0% 0% 25% 78% 22% Middle -Upper Willow Creek 100302040304 91% 9% 0% 0% 16% 69% 31% Sheep Creek 100302040305 82% 18% 0% 0% 100% 69% 31% Lower-Upper Willow Creek 100302040306 67% 33% 0% 0% 86% 73% 27% Upper Dunkirk Coulee 100302040401 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 46% 54% Lower Dunkirk Coulee 100302040402 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 86% 14% Upper West Fork Willow Creek 100302040403 94% 6% 0% 0% 3% 76% 24% Antelope Coulee 100302040404 96% 4% 0% 0% 8% 65% 35% Crooked Coulee 100302040405 91% 9% 0% 0% 33% 75% 25% Lower West Fork Willow Creek 100302040406 98% 2% 0% 0% 80% 63% 37% Upper Eagle Creek 100302040501 79% 21% 0% 0% 3% 78% 22% Lower Eagle Creek 100302040502 84% 16% 0% 0% 44% 76% 24% Upper-Lower Willow Creek 100302040601 99% 1% 0% 0% 34% 31% 69% Kinyon Coulee 100302040602 98% 2% 0% 0% 54% 62% 38% Middle-Lower Willow Creek 100302040603 98% 2% 0% 0% 100% 37% 63% Lower-Lower Willow Creek 100302040604 71% 1% 28% 0% 19% 52% 48% Upper North Fork Teton River 100302050101 0% 0% 100% 0% 8% 100% 0% Lower North Fork Teton River 100302050102 0% 0% 100% 0% 21% 99% 1% South Fork Teton River 100302050103 0% 0% 100% 0% 83% 100% 0% Middle Fork Teton River 100302050104 2% 0% 98% 0% 78% 99% 1% Teton River-McDonald Creek 100302050105 61% 0% 39% 0% 6% 100% 0% South Fork Willow Creek 100302050201 0% 0% 100% 0% 64% 95% 5% North Fork Willow Creek 100302050202 86% 0% 14% 0% 60% 100% 0% Upper Willow Creek 100302050203 0% 0% 100% 0% 42% 96% 4% Lower Willow Creek 100302050204 3% 0% 97% 0% 23% 89% 11% Upper Deep Creek 100302050301 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 81% 19% Hay Coulee 100302050302 49% 0% 51% 0% 100% 63% 37% Nunemaker Coulee 100302050303 81% 18% 1% 0% 36% 68% 32% Dog Creek 100302050304 51% 1% 48% 0% 2% 51% 49% Middle Deep Creek 100302050305 44% 1% 54% 0% 46% 84% 16% Lower Deep Creek 100302050306 98% 2% 0% 0% 18% 92% 8% Teton River-Hod Main Coulee 100302050401 84% 14% 2% 0% 46% 87% 13% Upper Freezeout Lake 100302050402 22% 75% 3% 0% 19% 63% 37% Roundup Coulee 100302050403 74% 26% 0% 0% 62% 54% 46% Lower Freezeout Lake 100302050404 23% 73% 4% 0% 79% 45% 55% Teton River-Spring Coulee 100302050405 74% 26% 0% 0% 92% 100% 0% Teton River-Gamble Coulee 100302050406 100% 0% 0% 0% 83% 91% 9% Upper Spring Coulee 100302050501 100% 0% 0% 0% 29% 99% 1% Lower Spring Coulee 100302050502 100% 0% 0% 0% 66% 90% 10% Muddy Creek-Rinker Creek 100302050601 11% 42% 47% 0% 83% 69% 31% Blindhorse Creek 100302050602 48% 48% 4% 0% 17% 95% 5% Blackleaf Creek 100302050603 72% 0% 27% 0% 14% 98% 2% Muddy Creek-Miller Creek 100302050604 78% 0% 22% 0% 37% 94% 6% Appendix I - 10 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Muddy Creek-Bynum 100302050701 25% 0% 75% 0% 6% 91% 9% Muddy Creek-Foster Creek 100302050702 65% 0% 35% 0% 100% 98% 2% Jones Creek 100302050801 99% 1% 0% 0% 38% 95% 5% Farmer Coulee 100302050802 97% 2% 0% 0% 100% 86% 14% Kropp Coulee 100302050803 91% 9% 0% 0% 9% 97% 3% Muddy Creek-Eyraud Lakes 100302050804 85% 11% 3% 0% 24% 100% 0% Muddy Creek 100302050805 96% 4% 0% 0% 80% 95% 5% Teton River- Alkali Flat 100302050901 100% 0% 0% 0% 26% 97% 3% Teton River-Collins 100302050902 100% 0% 0% 0% 51% 80% 20% Old Railroad Coulee 100302050903 100% 0% 0% 0% 91% 69% 31% Upper Muddy Creek 100302050904 99% 1% 0% 0% 49% 57% 43% Kerr Bridge 100302050905 77% 23% 0% 0% 33% 99% 1% Kinnerely Coulee 100302051001 95% 1% 4% 0% 36% 88% 12% Flat Coulee 100302051002 99% 1% 0% 0% 9% 68% 32% Teton River- Rye Coulee 100302051003 81% 19% 0% 0% 20% 95% 5% East Fork Timber Coulee 100302051004 89% 11% 0% 0% 8% 45% 55% Timber Coulee 100302051005 100% 0% 0% 0% 91% 42% 58% Berry Coulee 100302051006 95% 5% 0% 0% 25% 82% 18% Teton River-Sheep Coulee 100302051007 99% 1% 0% 0% 100% 68% 32% East- West Knee 100302051101 96% 4% 0% 0% 63% 80% 20% Teton River-100302051102 100302051102 97% 3% 0% 0% 50% 13% 87% Teton River-Dent Bridge 100302051103 72% 28% 0% 0% 84% 78% 22% Antelope Coulee 100302051104 98% 2% 0% 0% 3% 96% 4% Weatherman Coulee 100302051105 97% 3% 0% 0% 24% 78% 22% Teton River-Frank Gilbert 100302051106 100% 0% 0% 0% 91% 88% 12% Chimney Rock Coulee 100302051201 94% 6% 0% 0% 69% 47% 53% West Fork Dry Coulee 100302051202 100% 0% 0% 0% 10% 8% 92% Dry Fork Coulee 100302051203 98% 2% 0% 0% 0% 14% 86% Teton River-Eightmile Coulee 100302051204 92% 8% 0% 0% 12% 78% 22% Teton River-Collins School 100302051205 46% 52% 3% 0% 48% 87% 13% Lower Little Sandy Creek 100401010101 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Upper Little Sandy Creek 100401010102 100% 0% 0% 0% 49% 100% 0% Little Eagle Creek 100401010201 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% 0% 0% Missouri River- Archers Island 100401010302 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% Six Mile Coulee 100401010303 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 0% 0% Spring Coulee 100401010304 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% Coal Banks Coulee 100401010305 0% 0% 0% 0% 58% 0% 0% Upper Birch Creek 100401010801 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% Upper Suction Creek 100401040101 0% 0% 0% 0% 69% 0% 0% Upper Little Suction Creek 100401040103 0% 0% 0% 0% 46% 0% 0% Lower Little Suction Creek 100401040104 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% Lower Suction Creek 100401040105 0% 0% 0% 0% 78% 0% 0% North Fork of Cow Creek 100401040201 0% 0% 0% 0% 21% 0% 0% South Fork of Cow Creek 100401040202 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% Gap Creek 100401040203 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% Upper Cow Creek 100401040205 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 0% 0% Squaw Creek 100401040207 0% 0% 0% 0% 49% 0% 0% Upper Rock Creek 100401040602 0% 0% 0% 0% 74% 0% 0% Bull Creek 100401040701 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% Upper CK Creek 100401040801 0% 0% 0% 0% 37% 0% 0% Upper Beauchamp Creek 100401040901 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% Dry Fork Creek 100401040903 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 0% 0% Appendix I - 11 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Tank Coulee 100401041201 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 0% 0% Second Creek 100401041202 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Upper Telegraph Creek 100401041204 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 0% 0% Lone Tree Coulee 100401041501 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 0% 0% Square Creek 100401041502 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% Shotgun Coulee 100401041503 0% 0% 0% 0% 78% 0% 0% Upper Timber Creek 100401041504 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 0% Plum Coulee 100401041505 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 0% 0% Upper Sutherland Creek 100401041901 0% 0% 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% Lower Sutherland Creek 100401041903 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 0% Duck Creek 100401042005 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Upper Eighth Coulee 100401042006 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 0% 0% Middle Eighth Coulee 100401042007 0% 0% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% Seventh Coulee 100401042701 0% 0% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% Sixth Coulee 100401042703 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Fifth Coulee 100401042704 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% South Fork Duck Creek 100401042707 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 0% 0% Missouri River- 100401042709 0% 0% 0% 0% 82% 0% 0% North Fork Duck Creek Upper South Fork Milk River 100500010101 0% 0% 0% 100% 84% 100% 0% Middle South Fork Milk River 100500010102 0% 0% 0% 100% 96% 100% 0% Livermore Creek 100500010103 0% 0% 0% 100% 3% 98% 2% Upper Middle Fork Milk River 100500010104 0% 0% 0% 100% 89% 97% 3% Lower Middle Fork Milk River 100500010105 0% 0% 0% 100% 5% 97% 3% Lower South Fork Milk River 100500010106 0% 0% 0% 100% 2% 95% 5% Upper North Fork Milk River 100500010201 0% 0% 0% 100% 89% 99% 1% Middle North Fork Milk River 100500010202 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 78% 22% Lower North Fork Milk River 100500010203 0% 0% 0% 100% 18% 98% 2% Milk River-Red Buttes 100500010301 0% 0% 0% 100% 97% 28% 72% Milk River-Kennedy Coulee 100500010302 0% 0% 0% 100% 15% 93% 7% Milk River-Coal Bank Coulee 100500010303 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 95% 5% Milk River- Antelope Spring 100500010304 0% 0% 0% 100% 63% 94% 6% Oil Field 100500020101 89% 11% 0% 0% 7% 93% 7% Fitzpatrick Coulee 100500020102 93% 7% 0% 0% 100% 80% 20% Rim Rock Colony 100500020103 85% 15% 0% 0% 59% 86% 14% Red River 100500020104 93% 7% 0% 0% 49% 87% 13% Sweetgrass 100500020200 100% 0% 0% 0% 38% 89% 11% Beaupre Coulee 100500020301 97% 2% 1% 0% 4% 89% 11% Police Creek 100500020302 98% 2% 0% 0% 0% 63% 37% Upper Miners Coulee 100500020401 84% 4% 13% 0% 96% 82% 18% Breed Creek 100500020402 79% 2% 19% 0% 1% 80% 20% Police Creek 100500020403 78% 22% 0% 0% 43% 86% 14% Bear Gulch 100500020404 97% 3% 0% 0% 51% 74% 26% Lower Miners Coulee 100500020405 87% 1% 12% 0% 18% 70% 30% Upper Spring Coulee 100500020501 93% 7% 0% 0% 2% 61% 39% Lower Springe Coulee 100500020502 32% 8% 60% 0% 7% 97% 3% Upper Ninemile Coulee 100500020601 90% 10% 0% 0% 86% 35% 65% Middle Ninemile Coulee 100500020602 68% 31% 1% 0% 90% 55% 45% Lower Ninemile Coulee 100500020603 22% 0% 78% 0% 95% 90% 10% Dry Lake Coulee 100500020701 79% 9% 12% 0% 17% 98% 2% Upper Chain of Lakes Coulee 100500020702 82% 2% 16% 0% 66% 90% 10% Milk River-Kennedy Coulee 100500020801 95% 5% 0% 0% 1% 87% 13% Appendix I - 12 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Milk River-Lost River 100500020802 94% 6% 0% 0% 20% 73% 27% Milk River-Spring Coulee 100500020803 27% 3% 71% 0% 10% 98% 2% 100500020804 100500020804 90% 10% 0% 0% 0% 63% 37% 100500020805 100500020805 90% 9% 1% 0% 100% 74% 26% Archie Coulee 100500020806 47% 2% 51% 0% 40% 65% 35% Milk River-Upper Fresno Reservoir 100500020807 7% 1% 92% 0% 15% 64% 36% Cottonwood Coulee 100500020808 86% 4% 10% 0% 65% 70% 30% Milk River-Lower Fresno Reservoirl00500020809 72% 5% 24% 0% 100% 61% 39% Wild Horse Lake 100500030100 99% 0% 0% 0% 5% 99% 1% Upper Beaver Creek 100500040101 43% 0% 0% 41% 8% 85% 15% Middle Beaver Creek 100500040102 53% 2% 0% 0% 62% 76% 24% Lower Beaver Creek 100500040103 96% 1% 0% 0% 5% 62% 38% Upper Little Boxelder Creek 100500040201 100% 0% 0% 0% 33% 97% 3% Lower Little Boxelder Creek 100500040202 98% 2% 0% 0% 43% 74% 26% Upper Clear Creek 100500040301 98% 2% 0% 0% 1% 93% 7% Middle Clear Creek 100500040302 100% 0% 0% 0% 26% 83% 17% Lower Clear Creek 100500040303 95% 3% 2% 0% 57% 87% 13% Fresno Coulee 100500040401 99% 1% 0% 0% 6% 43% 57% Milk River-Nelson Coulee 100500040402 86% 14% 0% 0% 77% 30% 70% Bullhook Creek 100500040403 99% 1% 0% 0% 15% 55% 45% Milk River-Havre 100500040404 57% 43% 0% 0% 8% 73% 27% Milk River-Davey Coulee 100500040405 74% 26% 0% 0% 52% 75% 25% Dog Coulee 100500040501 95% 5% 0% 0% 29% 74% 26% Staton Coulee 100500040502 94% 6% 0% 0% 6% 65% 35% Lohman Coulee 100500040503 97% 1% 1% 0% 1% 91% 9% Upper Redrock Coulee 100500040504 88% 12% 0% 0% 8% 56% 44% Coal Coulee 100500040505 79% 21% 0% 0% 38% 48% 52% Middle Redrock Coulee 100500040506 93% 1% 5% 0% 0% 87% 13% Lower Redrock Coulee 100500040507 75% 1% 25% 0% 0% 63% 37% Black Coulee 100500040601 95% 5% 0% 0% 0% 60% 40% Lone Tree Coulee 100500040602 100% 0% 0% 0% 86% 48% 52% Milk River- Sixteen Mile Creek 100500040603 98% 2% 0% 0% 0% 87% 13% Fifteen Mile Creek 100500040604 68% 8% 24% 0% 0% 66% 34% Milk River-Harlem Canal 100500040605 90% 4% 6% 0% 11% 92% 8% Little Box Elder Coulee 100500040701 45% 55% 0% 0% 40% 73% 27% Upper Box Elder Creek 100500040702 91% 9% 0% 0% 71% 55% 45% Lower Box Elder Creek 100500040703 98% 2% 0% 0% 2% 52% 48% Upper Snake Creek 100500040801 95% 5% 0% 0% 92% 64% 36% Middle Snake Creek 100500040802 93% 4% 3% 0% 0% 49% 51% Bean Creek 100500040803 97% 3% 0% 0% 22% 72% 28% Lower Snake Creek 100500040804 97% 3% 0% 0% 95% 61% 39% Northwest Fork Thirtymile Creek 100500040901 83% 5% 11% 1% 8% 70% 30% Upper Thirtymile Creek 100500040902 75% 2% 23% 0% 15% 79% 21% East Branch Thirtymile Creek 100500040903 73% 11% 15% 1% 4% 74% 26% Lower Thirtymile Creek 100500040904 59% 14% 27% 0% 5% 80% 20% West Fork Wayne Creek 100500041001 88% 0% 12% 0% 0% 78% 22% East Fork Wayne Creek 100500041002 93% 3% 4% 0% 78% 97% 3% Wayne Creek 100500041003 69% 19% 12% 0% 0% 88% 12% Black Creek 100500041101 82% 5% 13% 0% 18% 78% 22% Upper Savoy Creek 100500041102 78% 19% 2% 0% 73% 75% 25% Lower Savoy Creek 100500041103 84% 0% 16% 0% 0% 93% 7% Upper White Bear Creek 100500041201 28% 39% 0% 33% 45% 77% 23% Appendix I - 13 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Upper Fifteen Mile Creek 100500041202 16% 14% 0% 70% 8% 83% 17% Lower Fifteen Mile Creek 100500041203 0% 0% 0% 100% 96% 91% 9% Lower White Bear Creek 100500041204 0% 0% 0% 100% 33% 58% 42% Forgey Creek 100500041301 74% 10% 16% 0% 95% 52% 48% Milk River-Harlem 100500041302 45% 0% 0% 54% 51% 92% 8% Threemile Creek 100500041303 6% 0% 0% 94% 24% 61% 39% Milk River -Threemile Reservoir 100500041304 58% 1% 1% 40% 90% 95% 5% Milk Creek 100500041305 78% 11% 10% 0% 0% 74% 26% Milk River-Milk Creek 100500041306 52% 1% 1% 46% 1% 52% 48% 100500041401 100500041401 59% 1% 39% 0% 0% 69% 31% Upper Dodson Creek 100500041402 83% 3% 14% 0% 39% 88% 12% Lower Dodson CreeK 100500041403 96% 2% 1% 0% 100% 75% 25% Spring Coulee 100500041501 99% 0% 1% 0% 0% 88% 12% Milk River-Cow Creek 100500041502 92% 0% 8% 0% 7% 73% 27% Davison Coulee 100500041503 91% 4% 5% 0% 0% 86% 14% Exeter Creek 100500041504 88% 7% 4% 0% 0% 73% 27% Milk River-Dodson North Canal 100500041505 66% 4% 30% 0% 0% 88% 12% Upper Alkali Creek 100500041601 75% 5% 20% 0% 26% 86% 14% West Alkali Creek 100500041602 74% 2% 24% 0% 30% 67% 33% Halfway Coulee 100500041603 80% 0% 20% 0% 0% 59% 41% Middle Alkali Creek 100500041604 84% 13% 3% 0% 85% 81% 19% Lower Alkali Creek 100500041605 77% 2% 21% 0% 57% 86% 14% Upper Assiniboine Creek 100500041701 93% 6% 1% 0% 0% 82% 18% Middle Assiniboine Creek 100500041702 86% 7% 7% 0% 0% 85% 15% Lower Assiniboine Creek 100500041703 62% 5% 33% 0% 26% 65% 35% Martin Lake 100500041801 58% 7% 33% 1% 79% 90% 10% 100500041802 100500041802 90% 8% 0% 2% 0% 66% 34% Austin Coulee 100500041803 88% 4% 2% 6% 10% 87% 13% Little Cottonwood Creek 100500041804 86% 2% 10% 2% 100% 83% 17% Milk River-Malta 100500041901 90% 2% 7% 1% 0% 80% 20% Milk River-Horse Camp Coulee 100500041902 51% 1% 48% 0% 7% 92% 8% Martins Coulee 100500041903 51% 7% 34% 8% 51% 66% 34% Milk River- 100500041904 94% 0% 6% 0% 49% 97% 3% Little Cottonwood Creek Milk River-Hewitt Lake 100500041905 77% 4% 19% 0% 96% 59% 41% Upper Stinky Creek 100500042001 70% 16% 15% 0% 80% 58% 42% Eask Fork Stinky Creek 100500042002 77% 1% 22% 0% 28% 62% 38% Lower Stinky Creek 100500042003 87% 11% 2% 0% 50% 74% 26% Milk River-Dry Stinky Creek 100500042101 92% 7% 1% 0% 13% 91% 9% Milk River-Snieder Coulee 100500042102 98% 1% 1% 0% 11% 95% 5% Twelvemile Coulee 100500050101 100% 0% 0% 0% 92% 64% 36% Upper Sixmile Coulee 100500050102 93% 7% 0% 0% 44% 63% 37% Lower Sixmile Coulee 100500050103 93% 7% 0% 0% 78% 97% 3% Fourteenmile Coulee 100500050104 96% 4% 0% 0% 9% 95% 5% Twelvemile Coulee 100500050105 97% 3% 0% 0% 36% 90% 10% Lonesome Lake 100500050106 99% 0% 1% 0% 3% 96% 4% Muddy Creek 100500050201 0% 0% 0% 100% 13% 96% 4% Big Sandy Creek-Godfrey Creek 100500050202 85% 6% 0% 9% 17% 88% 12% Big Sandy Creek-Rattlesnake Butte 100500050203 84% 16% 0% 0% 5% 83% 17% Gorman Creek 100500050204 88% 3% 0% 9% 78% 79% 21% Big Sandy Creek- 100500050301 47% 22% 31% 0% 5% 75% 25% Lonesome Lake Coulee Appendix , 1-14 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Duck Creek 100500050302 66% 1% 0% 34% 1% 30% 70% Boxelder Creek 100500050303 20% 0% 0% 80% 41% 86% 14% Big Sandy Creek-Barneys Coulee 100500050304 97% 2% 0% 1% 19% 75% 25% Big Sandy Creek-Schwartz Creek 100500050401 52% 1% 0% 47% 12% 34% 66% Gravel Coulee 100500050402 23% 1% 0% 76% 10% 29% 71% Spring Coulee 100500050403 99% 0% 0% 1% 80% 33% 67% Sprinkle Coulee 100500050404 89% 11% 0% 0% 97% 58% 42% Big Sandy Creek-Antelope Coulee 100500050405 99% 1% 0% 0% 55% 71% 29% Laird Creek 100500060101 91% 7% 2% 0% 2% 68% 32% Headwaters of Sage Creek 100500060102 94% 6% 0% 0% 21% 83% 17% Sage Creek-Lost Coulee 100500060103 90% 10% 0% 0% 92% 70% 30% Sage Creek-Immanuel Church 100500060104 94% 6% 0% 0% 1% 56% 44% Sage Creek-Strode 100500060105 94% 6% 0% 0% 0% 38% 62% Laird Lake 100500060106 98% 2% 0% 0% 100% 68% 32% Rudyard Road 100500060107 99% 1% 0% 0% 3% 60% 40% Oreana School 100500060108 100% 0% 0% 0% 11% 83% 17% Sage Creek-Mckinnsey Reservoir 100500060109 96% 4% 0% 0% 92% 65% 35% Upper Little Sage Creek 100500060201 87% 13% 0% 0% 50% 84% 16% Varer Reservoir 100500060202 99% 1% 0% 0% 77% 65% 35% Big Coulee 100500060203 89% 11% 0% 0% 58% 88% 12% Lower Little Sage Creek 100500060204 82% 18% 0% 0% 20% 72% 28% Fourmile Coulee 100500060301 90% 10% 0% 0% 57% 79% 21% Upper O'Brien Coulee 100500060302 95% 5% 0% 0% 100% 34% 66% Lower O'Brien Coulee 100500060303 100% 0% 0% 0% 61% 84% 16% Middle O'Brien Coulee 100500060304 91% 9% 0% 0% 40% 85% 15% Hingham Coulee 100500060401 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 46% 54% Upper England Coulee 100500060402 100% 0% 0% 0% 8% 97% 3% Lower England Coulee 100500060403 94% 6% 0% 0% 3% 86% 14% Sage Creek- 100500060501 96% 4% 0% 0% 100% 41% 59% Burkhartsmeyer Reservoir Faulkners Coulee 100500060502 93% 7% 0% 0% 8% 80% 20% Sage Creek- Sage Lake 100500060503 80% 20% 0% 0% 53% 70% 30% Bailey Reservoir 100500060504 100% 0% 0% 0% 83% 48% 52% Halfway Coulee 100500060505 90% 10% 0% 0% 16% 93% 7% Lower Sage Creek 100500060506 97% 3% 0% 0% 41% 78% 22% Creedman Coulee 100500070101 97% 1% 3% 0% 46% 57% 43% Upper Lodger Creek 100500070102 91% 9% 0% 0% 3% 47% 53% Middle Lodge Creek 100500070103 94% 4% 2% 0% 0% 54% 46% Hay Coulee 100500070104 40% 30% 30% 0% 100% 50% 50% Lower Lodger Creek 100500070105 87% 2% 11% 0% 33% 74% 26% Upper East Fork Battle Creek 100500080101 36% 39% 25% 0% 15% 80% 20% Middle East Fork Battle Creek 100500080102 50% 4% 46% 0% 6% 22% 78% Lyons Coulee 100500080103 67% 1% 32% 0% 13% 79% 21% Corral Coulee 100500080104 62% 5% 33% 0% 29% 58% 42% 100500080105 100500080105 54% 2% 44% 0% 80% 29% 71% Lower East Fork Battle Creek 100500080106 66% 2% 32% 0% 0% 55% 45% Upper Battle Creek 100500080201 66% 15% 19% 0% 93% 47% 53% Middle Battle Creek 100500080202 84% 0% 16% 0% 1% 20% 80% Chouteau Creek 100500080203 68% 3% 28% 1% 91% 58% 42% Dry Fork Battle Creek 100500080204 74% 9% 16% 0% 62% 66% 34% Coal Creek 100500080205 82% 3% 16% 0% 0% 60% 40% Lower Battle Creek 100500080206 94% 5% 2% 0% 61% 47% 53% Appendix I - 15 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Duck Creek Little Peoples Creek Jim Brown Creek Lodge Pole Creek South Fork Peoples Creek Peoples Creek- South Branch Peoples Creek Peoples Creek- Nicholson Bluff Creek Peoples Creek-Maggie Creek Peoples Creek-Saint Johns Coulee Fogarty Coulee Peoples Creek- Wildhorse Butte Upper Lone Tree Coulee Lower Lone Tree Coulee Mud Creek Peoples Creek-Corral Coulee Peoples Creek- Willow Coulee Upper Murray Coulee Lower Murray Coulee Turner Buckley Creek Woody Island Coulee- Silverbow Lake Woody Island Coulee- 100500100302 Woody Island Coulee-Alkali Lake Middle Woody Island Coulee Woody Island Coulee- Buckley Creek Woody Island Coulee-Big Butte Woody Island Coulee- 100500100307 Lower Woody Island Coulee Little Jewel Coulee Coburg Coulee Black Coulee Headwaters Cottonwood Creek Upper Cottonwood Creek Middle Cottonwood Creek Lambing Coulee Lower Cottonwood Creek Garland Creek Pea Lake Lester Reservoir Upper East Fork Whitewater Creek Lower East Fork Whitewater Creek 100500110201 Headwaters Cottonwood Coulee Whitewater Creek- Cottonwood Coulee 100500090101 18% 0% 0% 82% 58% 74% 26% 100500090102 0% 0% 2% 98% 31% 84% 16% 100500090103 0% 0% 0% 100% 94% 84% 16% 100500090104 0% 0% 0% 100% 88% 75% 25% 100500090105 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 83% 17% 100500090201 80% 20% 0% 0% 51% 76% 24% 100500090202 95% 5% 0% 0% 25% 64% 36% 100500090203 51% 49% 0% 0% 35% 90% 10% 100500090204 5% 16% 0% 79% 3% 90% 10% 100500090205 31% 11% 0% 58% 0% 73% 27% 100500090206 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 82% 18% 100500090301 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 95% 5% 100500090302 10% 0% 0% 90% 45% 43% 57% 100500090401 0% 0% 0% 100% 7% 56% 44% 100500090402 65% 0% 9% 25% 42% 94% 6% 100500090403 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 82% 18% 100500100101 96% 3% 0% 1% 100% 98% 2% 100500100102 97% 3% 0% 0% 4% 100% 0% 100500100201 95% 5% 0% 0% 96% 100% 0% 100500100202 95% 5% 0% 0% 89% 100% 0% 100500100301 91% 2% 2% 4% 65% 95% 5% 100500100302 84% 5% 0% 11% 100% 96% 4% 100500100303 87% 1% 8% 4% 67% 99% 1% 100500100304 37% 3% 59% 0% 100% 99% 1% 100500100305 90% 3% 7% 0% 2% 93% 7% 100500100306 74% 3% 23% 0% 36% 99% 1% 100500100307 82% 3% 16% 0% 21% 98% 2% 100500100308 65% 6% 29% 0% 4% 91% 9% 100500100401 78% 6% 16% 0% 99% 93% 7% 100500100402 62% 1% 37% 0% 35% 80% 20% 100500100403 67% 1% 31% 0% 29% 92% 8% 100500100501 33% 9% 58% 0% 24% 86% 14% 100500100502 71% 2% 27% 0% 100% 89% 11% 100500100503 87% 2% 12% 0% 9% 91% 9% 100500100504 27% 13% 60% 1% 59% 65% 35% 100500100505 82% 4% 14% 0% 20% 88% 12% 100500100506 71% 17% 13% 0% 70% 87% 13% 100500110101 20% 1% 80% 0% 11% 92% 8% 100500110102 62% 14% 24% 0% 57% 89% 11% 100500110103 58% 10% 32% 0% 99% 83% 17% 100500110104 61% 6% 31% 2% 80% 95% 5% 100500110201 62% 4% 35% 0% 5% 96% 4% 100500110202 70% 3% 26% 1% 3% 97% 3% 100500110203 24% 3% 71% 3% 100% 94% 6% Appendix I - 16 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Whitewater Creek- 100500110204 39% 3% 58% 0% 2% 94% 6% Lone Tree Coulee Dibble Creek 100500110205 59% 1% 39% 2% 14% 93% 7% Whitewater Creek- Austin Lake 100500110206 75% 2% 20% 2% 90% 92% 8% Whitewater Creek-Clark Coulee 100500110207 75% 1% 23% 1% 18% 88% 12% Whitewater Creek-Hymer Coulee 100500110208 78% 3% 19% 0% 18% 90% 10% Lime Creek 100500120101 80% 3% 18% 0% 24% 30% 70% Bear Creek 100500120102 87% 1% 11% 0% 95% 72% 28% Upper Buggy Creek 100500120201 26% 40% 34% 0% 1% 56% 44% Canyon Creek 100500120202 30% 0% 70% 0% 30% 20% 80% Lower Buggy Creek 100500120203 59% 32% 9% 0% 8% 31% 69% Hardscrabble Creek 100500120301 92% 0% 8% 0% 10% 20% 80% Upper Antelope Creek 100500120302 46% 9% 44% 0% 99% 20% 80% Lower Antelope Creek 100500120303 86% 1% 13% 0% 8% 28% 72% Milk River-Hinsdale 100500120401 97% 2% 1% 0% 92% 86% 14% Milk River-Buffalo Coulee 100500120402 97% 0% 3% 0% 0% 54% 46% Mooney Coulee 100500120403 41% 0% 59% 0% 5% 42% 58% Milk River- Tampico 100500120404 80% 16% 4% 0% 93% 89% 11% Upper Brazil Creek 100500120501 9% 3% 88% 0% 100% 20% 80% Lower Brazil Creek 100500120502 84% 1% 14% 0% 0% 0% 100% Upper Cherry Creek 100500120601 31% 64% 5% 0% 0% 68% 32% Upper East Fork Cherry Creek 100500120602 75% 2% 23% 0% 9% 45% 55% Lower East Fork Cherry Creek 100500120603 76% 14% 10% 0% 100% 49% 51% Lower Cherry Creek 100500120604 88% 1% 11% 0% 0% 74% 26% South Fork Lone Tree Creek 100500120701 68% 0% 32% 0% 100% 0% 100% North Fork Lone Tree Creek 100500120702 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 5% 95% Lone Tree Creek 100500120703 26% 4% 71% 0% 100% 8% 92% Upper Little Beaver Creek 100500120801 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 4% 96% Middle Little Beaver Creek 100500120802 0% 6% 94% 0% 94% 3% 97% South Fork Little Beaver Creek 100500120803 5% 0% 95% 0% 11% 1% 99% Lower Little Beaver Creek 100500120804 0% 8% 92% 0% 1% 1% 99% Headwaters Willow Creek 100500120901 2% 11% 87% 0% 1% 3% 97% Desert Coulee 100500120902 84% 0% 16% 0% 0% 2% 98% Hard Pan Creek 100500120903 0% 0% 100% 0% 64% 7% 93% Willow Creek-Collins Reservoir 100500120904 25% 8% 67% 0% 82% 0% 100% Willow Creek-Pearson Coulee 100500120905 11% 0% 89% 0% 0% 0% 100% Willow Creek- Wilderness Coulee 100500120906 0% 0% 100% 0% 14% 0% 100% Willow Creek- Archambeault Flats 100500120907 15% 0% 85% 0% 48% 1% 99% Willow Creek-Dry Lake 100500120908 94% 3% 4% 0% 73% 89% 11% Milk River-Glasgow 100500121001 100% 0% 0% 0% 97% 77% 23% Milk River-Nashua 100500121002 98% 2% 0% 0% 0% 96% 4% Milk River Coulee 100500121003 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 95% 5% Lower Milk River 100500121004 7% 0% 0% 93% 30% 93% 7% Frenchman Creek-Canada 100500130101 74% 3% 23% 0% 0% 85% 15% Frenchman Creek-Peck Coulee 100500130102 67% 20% 14% 0% 38% 85% 15% Cottonwood Creek 100500130103 41% 11% 49% 0% 0% 52% 48% Corral Coulee 100500130104 77% 0% 23% 0% 0% 61% 39% Frenchman Creek- 100500130105 93% 3% 4% 0% 75% 78% 22% Frenchman Reservoir Frenchman Creek- 100500130106 95% 4% 1% 0% 3% 71% 29% Panhandle Coulee Lower Frenchman Creek 100500130107 88% 11% 0% 1% 19% 90% 10% Appendix , J- 17 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Upper Big Warm Creek Middle Big Warm Creek Little Warm Creek Chicken Coulee Tressler Coulee Wild Horse Creek White Rock Coulee Lower Big Warm Creek Beaver Creek-Bear Gulch Beaver Creek-Cobum Butte Veseth Reservoir Beaver Creek-Holzhey Reservoir Beaver Creek- 100500 140205 Beaver Creek-Nelson Coulee Beaver Creek-Horse Pasture Coulei First Creek Sun Prairie Flats Sheep Coulee Flat Creek Sage Creek Little Sevenmile Creek Tallow Creek Spring Creek Flat Creek DHS Creek Beaver Creek-Grove Coulee Beaver Creek-Pickhandle Sevenmile Creek Moss Coulee Beaver Creek-Guston Coulee Beaver Creek-Lenoir Coulee Black Coulee Lake Bowdion Larb Creek-Ten Trees Creek Larb Creek-Craig Coulee Larb Creek-Grant Coulee Larb Creek-Box Elder Coulee Larb Creek- Whites Coulee Larb Creek-Lost Coulee Square Creek Fourth Creek McNab Coulee Second Creek First Creek Larb Creek-Third Creek Beaver Creek-Gilbertson Coulee Nelson Reservoir Beaver Creek-Hay Coulee Beaver Creek-Nelson South Canal Beaver Creek-Limekiln Coulee Morgan Creek Upper Rock Creek 100500140101 12% 0% 3% 85% 100% 65% 35% 100500140102 72% 0% 7% 21% 100% 45% 55% 100500140103 76% 10% 7% 8% 6% 74% 26% 100500140104 8% 0% 0% 92% 0% 72% 28% 100500140105 86% 6% 6% 2% 21% 78% 22% 100500140106 80% 1% 8% 11% 96% 49% 51% 100500140107 58% 3% 39% 0% 5% 57% 43% 100500140108 56% 7% 37% 0% 0% 76% 24% 100500140201 32% 17% 1% 51% 5% 47% 53% 100500140202 51% 1% 48% 0% 0% 60% 40% 100500140203 62% 1% 37% 0% 21% 23% 77% 100500140204 48% 2% 50% 0% 12% 59% 41% 100500140205 84% 4% 12% 0% 51% 77% 23% 100500140206 76% 4% 20% 0% 6% 86% 14% 100500140207 53% 7% 40% 0% 63% 80% 20% 100500140301 47% 7% 46% 0% 59% 52% 48% 100500140302 79% 2% 20% 0% 9% 65% 35% 100500140303 56% 1% 43% 0% 0% 64% 36% 100500140304 92% 0% 8% 0% 100% 88% 12% 100500140305 74% 7% 19% 0% 19% 0% 100% 100500140306 65% 1% 34% 0% 67% 85% 15% 100500140307 86% 0% 14% 0% 93% 0% 100% 100500140308 40% 6% 54% 0% 0% 19% 81% 100500140309 83% 0% 16% 0% 97% 59% 41% 100500140401 90% 5% 5% 0% 54% 58% 42% 100500140402 69% 1% 30% 0% 97% 68% 32% 100500140403 76% 3% 21% 0% 98% 71% 29% 100500140404 98% 2% 0% 0% 2% 86% 14% 100500140405 96% 0% 3% 0% 4% 65% 35% 100500140406 77% 8% 15% 0% 100% 92% 8% 100500140407 89% 4% 7% 0% 0% 74% 26% 100500140501 36% 1% 62% 0% 46% 81% 19% 100500140502 33% 2% 65% 0% 77% 99% 1% 100500140601 41% 3% 55% 0% 59% 29% 71% 100500140602 30% 6% 65% 0% 74% 22% 78% 100500140603 19% 1% 80% 0% 0% 18% 82% 100500140604 53% 0% 47% 0% 23% 54% 46% 100500140605 46% 0% 54% 0% 11% 54% 46% 100500140606 71% 6% 23% 0% 4% 42% 58% 100500140607 82% 0% 18% 0% 32% 26% 74% 100500140608 88% 1% 11% 0% 0% 8% 92% 100500140609 66% 0% 34% 0% 20% 41% 59% 100500140610 52% 0% 48% 0% 34% 32% 68% 100500140611 66% 3% 31% 0% 2% 29% 71% 100500140612 93% 4% 4% 0% 0% 56% 44% 100500140701 95% 2% 2% 0% 100% 89% 11% 100500140702 63% 3% 34% 0% 68% 98% 2% 100500140703 58% 6% 36% 0% 35% 93% 7% 100500140704 97% 1% 2% 0% 0% 77% 23% 100500140705 94% 5% 1% 0% 43% 95% 5% 100500150101 96% 0% 4% 0% 0% 19% 81% 100500150102 28% 0% 72% 0% 58% 59% 41% Appendix I - 18 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered North Fork South Creek 100500150201 44% 2% 54% 0% 100% 14% 86% South Creek 100500150202 30% 0% 70% 0% 0% 17% 83% East Fork Crow Creek 100500150301 11% 12% 77% 0% 54% 48% 52% Crow Creek 100500150302 47% 4% 49% 0% 74% 39% 61% Jack Creek 100500150401 79% 1% 20% 0% 45% 44% 56% Big Snake Creek 100500150402 58% 2% 40% 0% 86% 52% 48% Upper Willow Creek 100500150501 65% 3% 32% 0% 4% 17% 83% Lone Tree Coulee 100500150502 0% 2% 98% 0% 4% 3% 97% Middle Willow Creek 100500150503 15% 15% 70% 0% 19% 23% 77% Deep Creek 100500150504 16% 11% 73% 0% 0% 20% 80% Bitter Creek 100500150505 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 23% 77% Chisholm Creek 100500150506 32% 2% 66% 0% 1% 15% 85% Eagle Creek 100500150507 8% 8% 85% 0% 0% 22% 78% Lower Willow Creek 100500150508 87% 8% 6% 0% 0% 26% 74% McEachern Creek 100500150601 86% 0% 14% 0% 0% 24% 76% Bluff Creek 100500150602 39% 2% 59% 0% 99% 45% 55% Rock Creek-Thoeny School 100500150603 47% 0% 52% 0% 54% 72% 28% Rock Creek-Lake Grable 100500150604 34% 2% 64% 0% 9% 56% 44% Rock Creek-Rock Creek Canyon 100500150605 58% 2% 40% 0% 0% 75% 25% Cache Coulee 100500150606 86% 8% 6% 0% 45% 74% 26% Lower Rock Creek 100500150607 74% 8% 18% 0% 0% 67% 33% Bog Coulee 100500160101 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 80% 20% Headwaters of Snow Coulee 100500160102 87% 0% 0% 13% 90% 76% 24% East Fork Snow Coulee 100500160103 79% 0% 0% 20% 0% 85% 15% Lower Snow Coulee 100500160104 5% 0% 0% 95% 4% 96% 4% Upper Middle Fork 100500160201 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% 40% Porcupine Creek Middle Middle Fork 100500160202 94% 3% 1% 2% 0% 67% 33% Porcupine Creek Lower Middle Fork 100500160203 7% 1% 0% 92% 27% 86% 14% Porcupine Creek Upper West Fork Porcupine Creek 100500160301 18% 11% 72% 0% 13% 60% 40% Lower West Fork Porcupine Creek 100500160302 24% 55% 3% 18% 0% 91% 9% Upper East Fork Porcupine Creek 100500160401 0% 0% 0% 100% 33% 80% 20% Lower East Fork Porcupine Creek 100500160402 0% 0% 0% 100% 49% 86% 14% Dry Fork Creek 100500160501 8% 91% 1% 0% 7% 88% 12% Porcupine Creek-Olson Spring 100500160502 24% 54% 3% 18% 0% 74% 26% Porcupine Creek-Enright Coulee 100500160503 64% 15% 3% 18% 0% 86% 14% Porcupine Creek- Johnson Coulee 100500160504 3% 0% 8% 89% 18% 86% 14% Sargent Creek 100500160505 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 88% 12% Lower Porcupine Creek 100500160506 2% 0% 0% 98% 0% 92% 8% Galpin Coulee 100600010101 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Missouri River-Fort Peck Dam 100600010102 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Upper East Fork Little 100600010201 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Porcupine Creek West Fork Little Porcupine 100600010203 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Tomato Can Creek 100600010301 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% Upper Charley Creek 100600010302 0% 0% 0% 100% 2% 100% 0% Lower Charley Creek 100600010303 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lower Little Porcupine Creek 100600010304 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Missouri River-Lost Creek 100600010802 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lower Roanwood Creek 100600040101 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Appendix , 1-19 Wetland Landscape Profiling of Palustrine Wetlands: Sixth-Code Hydrological Unit 6th Code HUC Name HUC Number Private State Federal Tribal Protected Natural Altered Upper Roanwood Creek 100600040102 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% West Fork Poplar River- 100600040201 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Happy Valley Spring Coulee 100600040204 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% West Fork Poplar River- 100600040205 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% Dolson Coulee Upper Hell Creek 100600040301 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Strawberry Creek 170102070101 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Middle Fork Flathead River- 170102070102 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Trail Creek Bowl Creek 170102070103 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 0% 0% Cox Creek 170102070104 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Morrison Creek 170102070201 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Granite Creek 170102070203 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Middle Fork Flathead River- 170102070301 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bear Creek Ole Creek 170102070303 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Park Creek 170102070304 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 0% Upper Nyack Creek 170102070401 0% 0% 0% 0% 92% 0% 0% Harrison Creek 170102070403 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lincoln Creek 170102070404 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% McDonald Creek Headwaters 170102070501 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% McDonald Creek 170102070502 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Appendix 1-20 The Milk, Marias, and Saint Mary Rivers Sixth-code Hydrologic Units Acre* of Mipp«> 400 e CD = 300 o - CD £ 200 100 -\ Level 1 Transportation Attribute Score at 1000 Meters 1000 900 800 >, 700 c 600 = 500 S" 400 "■ 300 200 100 2 3 4 Scores Appendix J - I Level 1 Land Cover Attribute Scores at 100 Meters Level 1 Land Cover Attribute Score at 300 Meters ■=■ 3 Scores Level 1 Land Cover Attribute Scores at 1000 Meters Appendix J - 2 Level 1 Hydrology Attribute Scores at 100 meters 1200 -i 1000 >> 800 e S 600 o- a> £ 400 200 Level 1 Hydrology Attribute Scores at 300 Meters 1200 Level 1 Hydrology Attribute Scores at 1000 Meters 1200 Appendix J- 3 Level 1 Resource Use Attribute Scores at 100 Meters Level 1 Resource Use Attribute Scores at 300 Meters 700 12 3 4 Scores Level 1 Resource Use Attribute Scores for 1000 Meters 700 t 12 3 4 Scores Appendix J - 4 Level 1 Overall Site Scores at 100 Meters 1200 1000 >• 800 e = 600 o- a £ 400 200 Level 1 Overall Site Scores at 300 Meters 3 Scores 1200 1000 >- 800 e 0) = 600 o- 0) £ 400 200 Level! Overall Site Scores at 1000 Meters 3 Scores Appendix J - 5 Appendix K. Level 2 Attribute Frequency Histograms Landscape Context 35 30 25 S" 20 0) 3 T a is LL. 10 5 10 20 90 100 Relative Patch Size Appendix K- 1 Biotic Condition " 20 Hydrologic Condition Appendix K- 2 Appendix K- 3 Appendix L. Level 2 Scores for Each Ecological System Great Plains Prairie Pothole N=19 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA North American Arid West Emergent Marsh N=5 83.6 14.5 55.6 100.0 82.9 26.4 25.0 100.0 79.5 11.3 52.8 94.4 89.9 12.6 66.7 100.0 82.2 19.7 25.0 100.0 83.6 11.1 57.5 98.3 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA Northwestern Great Plains Riparian N=15 66.2 19.1 42.7 93.3 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 76.7 14.8 55.6 88.9 80.0 19.2 50.0 100.0 87.5 15.3 62.5 100.0 82.1 6.5 74.9 89.8 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow N=6 77.0 15.6 50.0 100.0 68.3 34.7 25.0 100.0 65.9 13.0 41.7 88.9 81.7 19.7 50.0 100.0 68.3 22.1 25.0 100.0 72.2 12.1 53.2 92.2 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland N=13 67.7 23.2 35.8 100.0 95.8 10.2 75.0 100.0 82.9 11.6 66.7 97.2 87.5 17.3 58.3 100.0 93.8 10.5 75.0 100.0 85.5 10.2 71.6 98.3 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA 64.8 18.7 30.2 90.3 76.9 33.0 25.0 100.0 67.3 11.6 55.6 91.7 84.6 19.5 33.3 100.0 73.1 21.6 25.0 100.0 73.4 13.7 42.7 87.7 'ix L - 1 71.3 26.1 25.0 100.0 77.0 24.1 25.0 100.0 65.5 15.8 41.7 91.7 83.2 16.7 50.0 100.0 69.9 14.8 37.5 100.0 73.4 11.7 47.7 98.3 Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland N=49 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland N=8 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland N=2 Mean S.D. Min Max Landscape Condition Patch Size Biotic Hydrologic Physiochemical Total AA 86.2 11.3 67.0 100.0 96.9 8.8 75.0 100.0 76.7 13.3 58.3 97.2 93.8 7.4 83.3 100.0 82.8 16.3 50.0 100.0 87.3 7.9 73.7 96.7 93.8 8.8 87.5 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 88.9 7.9 83.3 94.4 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 17.7 75.0 100.0 94.0 3.3 91.7 96.4 Appendix L- 2 Appendix M. Level 2 Attribute and Overall Condition Score Frequency Histograms by Wetland Ecological Systems with n = > 8 Sites Landscape Context Scores-Great Plains Prairie Pothole 90-100 Landscape Context Scores-Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 90-100 Appendix M - 1 Landscape Context Scores-Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland tu 90-100 Landscape Context Scores-Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland <70 70-79 80-8 90-100 Scores Appendix M - 2 Landscape Context Scores-Northwestern Great Plains Riparian Relative Wetland Size Scores-Great Plains Prairie Pothole 12 - 10 - ?? 8 - e 3 £ 6 4 - 2 - - <70 70-79 80- Scores 90-100 Appendix M - 3 Relative Wetland Size Scores-Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 90-100 Relative Wetland Size Scores-Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 90-100 Appendix M - 4 Relative Wetland Size Scores-Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland ^ A a 4 tu 90-100 Relative Wetland Size Scores-Northwestern Great Plains Riparian 90-100 Appendix M - 5 Biotic Composition and Structure Scores-Great Plains Prairie Pothole a 4 tu 90-100 Biotic Composition and Structure Scores-Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland <70 70-79 80- 90-100 Scores Appendix M - 6 Biotic Composition and Structure Scores-Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland tu 35 30 - 25 - 20 15 10 - <70 70-79 80- 90-100 Scores Biotic Composition and Structure Scores-Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland <70 70-79 80- 90-100 Scores Appendix M- 7 Biotic Composition and Structure Scores-Northwestern Great Plains Riparian a 5 tu 90-100 Hydrology Scores-Great Plains Prairie Pothole 90-100 Appendix M - Hydrology Scores-Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland £ 3 90-100 Hydrology Scores-Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 - - ^^^^^^^^ <70 70-79 80- Scores 90-100 Appendix M - 9 Hydrology Scores-Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland £ 3 90-100 Hydrology Scores-Northwestern Great Plains Riparian 90-100 Appendix M - 10 Physicochemical Scores-Great Plains Prairie Pothole 90-100 Physicochemical Scores-Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 90-100 Appendix M - 11 Physicochemical Scores-Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland tu 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 - - <70 70-79 80- Scores 90-100 Physicochemical Scores-Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland <70 70-79 80-8 90-100 Scores Appendix M - 12 Physicochemical Scores-Northwestern Great Plains Riparian <70 70-79 80-89 90-100 Scores Appendix M - 13