s 577.6 NllARRRS 2009 1 Assessment of the Red Rock River Subbasin and Wetlands of the Centennial Valley Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management, Montana / Dakotas State Offices By: Linda K. Vance, Karen Newlon, Jessica Clarke and David M. Stagliano Montana Natural Heritage Program Natural Resource Information System Montana State Library June 2009 MONTANA kiPl^ Natural Heritage Program Montana State Library 3 0864 005 8517 6 Assessment of the Red Rock River Subbasin and Wetlands of the Centennial Valley Prepared for: i Bureau of Land Management. Montana / Dakotas State Offices Agreement Number: L08AC 14562 By: Linda K. Vance. Karen Newlon, Jessica Clarke and David M. Stagliano / U^l MONTANA l^y)^ Natural Heritage ^^^^ ^1^ MONTANA //4^^ MONTANA ^l^l-fMitHte /||*^ Natural Resource ^^ Library \^/ information System © 2009 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: Vance. Linda K.. Karen Newlon. Jessica Clarke and David M. Stagliano. 2009. Assessment of the Red Rock River Subbasin and Wetlands of the Centennial Valley. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana / Dakotas State Offices. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Hel- ena, Montana 43 pp. plus appendices. u Executive Summary This report summarizes results from a multi-scale ecological assessment of fourteen watersheds in the Red Rock River subbasin in southwestern Montana, and an in-depth assessment of wetlands on BLM-managed lands in the Red Rock Creek and Lima Reservoir watersheds of the Centen- nial Valley. The goal of the project was to provide landscape-level assessments of watershed health and integrity, as well as site-specific evaluations of wetland and aquatic condition, using a probabilis- tic survey approach. This was accomplished using both broad-scale CIS analysis and field sampling. The value of watershed-level assessments lies in identifying areas where impacts are currently occurring or may occur, rather than merely docu- menting effects that have already occurred. By combining both site-level and watershed-level assessments, it is possible to select areas where management can make a substantial diflFerence in future wetland and aquatic health. Our broad-scale GIS assessment examined under- lying biological diversity, measured current condi- tions, and evaluated potential threats. Several key findings emerged from the GIS data analysis: • The assessment area lies in a sparsely- populated part of Montana, where most of the land is in public ownership. Across the Red Rock River subbasin area, the BLM Dillon Field Office owns or manages appro.ximately 4 II. 977 acres (206.497 hectares). The BLM State Office owns an additional 21,328 acres (8,631 hectares) in the Centennial Mountains Wilderness Study Area. Altogether, the BLM has responsibility for 433,305 acres (175.352 hectares) in the Red Rock River subbasin, almost 29% of the area. The Forest Service is the next largest public land owner, managing 391.924 acres (158.606 hectares). In the two watersheds containing the Centennial Valley (Lima Reservoir and Red Rock Lakes), the BLM owns or manages approximately 1 06.2 13 acres (42.983 hectares). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages almost 100,000 acres (40.469 hectares) in these two watersheds, and both the Nature Conservancy and Montana Land Reliance have substantial easements on private lands in the Centennial. • Across the subbasin as a whole, 45% of the land cover is grassland, 3 1% is shmbland. 1 7% is forest, and 4% is agriculture. Wetlands make up less than 2% of the land cover. In the Centennial Valley, 35% of the land cover is grassland. 37% is shrubland. 16% is forest, 8% is wetland and 2.5% is open water. Throughout the subbasin. both public and private grass- lands and shrublands are used primarily for cattle grazing. • In terms of hydrology, topography, and vegetation communities, the Red Rock Lakes 5th code hydrologic unit has the most complex- ity of the watersheds we evaluated, while the Muddy Creek 5th code hydrologic unit has the least. • Watershed condition, as measured by a broad landscape integrity index and a separate stream corridor integrity index, was relatively high. The Red Rock Lake 5th code hydrologic unit had the highest score on our Composite Watershed Integrity Index, while Lower Horse Prairie Creek had the lowest score. These indices are based on the amount and density of landscape level disturbances (roads, stream diversions, mines, etc.), and do not necessarily reflect site-specific impacts. However, land- scape disturbance is often correlated with site- specific disturbance. For example, in the Lower Horse Prairie Creek watershed, floodplains have been altered by agriculture and associated water e-xtraction. • The primary human-caused threat to wetland and watershed integrity in the subbasin as a whole is riparian grazing. The highest poten- tial threat is in the Lima Reservoir watershed, where most streams and waterbodies are on land used primarily for grazing. However, this potential threat can be offset by proper grazing management practices. Ill Our fine-scale assessments focused on wetlands and streams in the Red Rock Lakes and Lima Reservoir watersiieds in the Centennial Valley. We conducted Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) as- sessments at 1 03 lentic and lotic sites, and found: • 74 in Proper Functioning Condition; • 19 Functional at Risk with a downward trend; • 3 Functional at Risk with an undetennined trend; • 7 Nonfiinctional All lotic sites sampled (8) were in Proper Function- ing Condition. Of 83 sampling sites on or immediately adjacent to BLM-managed lands, we found: • 56 in Proper Functioning Condition with a stable trend; • 1 7 Functional at Risk with a downward trend; • 3 Functional at Risk with an undetermined trend; • 7 Nonfunctional. We also carried out aquatic assessments at 37 sites using macroinvertebrate-based metrics. Because the streams in the Centennial Valley exhibited characteristics of both foothill-valley streams and mountain streams, we used two multimetric indices to interpret our findings. With the Montana DEQ's Foothill-Valley index. 15 of the 16 lotic sites sam- pled were ranked non-impaired (good to excellent biological integrity) and 1 was slightly impaired. Using the DEQ Mountain index, 6 of 1 5 were non- impaired, 5 slightly impaired and 4 moderately to severely impaired. In both cases, the macroinver- tebrate index scores showed little correlation with riparian and instream habitat assessments. The best opportunities for wetland protection in the Centennial Valley involve grazing management. Upland condition in the Centennial Valley indicates that good grazing practices are the norm. We sug- gest two specific strategies for wetlands: identifi- cation of clusters of high-quality or restorable fens and/or carrs where exclusion could be an option, and identification of areas with high concentrations of seasonally flooded wetlands, where seasonality of grazing could be adjusted to prevent damage to wet soils. IV Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Montana State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, especially Mike Phiibin. for funding assistance for the overall wa- tershed assessment. Our work benefited from the field assistance of Cobum Currier. Natalie Byars, and Cat Mclntyre. Report formatting was provided by Cobum Currier. All photographs were taken by MTNHP personnel unless otherwise noted. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Scope of the Report 1 The Ecological Setting: Level III and IV Ecoregions 1 Hydrology 5 Natural Communities 8 Ecological Systems 8 Special Status Plants 13 Wildlife and Fish 13 Methods 15 Broad-scale Remote Sensing Analysis 15 Natural Complexity Index 15 Composite Wetland Condition Index 15 Composite Riparian Threat Index 16 Field Data Collection and Assessment 16 Results and Discussion 18 Overview 18 Current Conditions 18 Factors and Magnitude of Change 18 Broad-scale Assessment Indices 23 Composite Natural Complexity Index 23 Composite Watershed Condition Index 26 Riparian Grazing Threat Index 29 Interpreting the Broad-scale Assessment Composite Indices 31 Fine-scale Assessments 31 Wetland and Riparian Assessments 32 Aquatic Assessments 33 Relationship Between Broad-scale and Fine-scale Assessments 36 Management Opportunities 39 Literature Cited 41 Appendix A. Montana Species of Concern in the Assessment Area Appendix B. MTNHP Rapid Ecological Integrity Assessment Forms Appendix C-1 . Site Information, Wetland Assessment Appendix C-2. PFC and EI A Scores Appendix C-3. Site Comments Appendix D. Species Richness at BLM Sites List of Figures Figure 1. Red Rock River subbasin 2 Figure 2. Level IV ecoregions of the Red Rock River subbasin 3 Figure 3. Centennial Valley wetlands 4 Figure 4. 5th code HUCs in the assessment area 6 vi List of Figures (Con't) Figure 5. Ecological systems in the assessment area 10 Figure 6. Centennial Valley sampling locations 17 Figure 7. Land stewardship. Red Rock Subbasin 19 Figure 8. Land cover and land use 20 Figure 9. Hydrographs for Red Rock River gauging stations, 2000-2008 21 Figure 10. Pugging and hummocking in a Centennial Valley wetland 22-23 Figure 11. Composite Watershed Condition Index score 30 Figure 12. Land use adjacent to a fen 32 Figure 1 3. A proper functioning condition riparian site 33 Figure 14. A functional at risk site with a downward trend 33 Figure 15. A nonfunctional site 33 Figure 16. MMl scores vs. BLM habitat scores (functional condition) 36 Figure 1 7. Odonata larval species richness by functional condition 37 Figure 18. Centennial Valley PFC scores 38 Figure 19. Centennial Valley saturated wetlands 40 List of Tables Table 1. 303(d) impaired waters 7 Table 2. Major ecological systems in the assessment area 9 Table 3. Natural Community Complexity Index 24 Table 4. Hydrologic Complexity Index 25 Table 5. Topographic Complexity Index 25 Table 6. Composite Natural Complexity Index 25 Table 7. Landscape Integrity Index 26 Table 8. Stream Corridor Integrity Index 27 Table 9. Riparian Loss Index 28 Table 10. Composite Watershed Condition Index 29 Table 11. Riparian Grazing Threat Index 31 Table 12. Impairment determinations from the MMl 34 Table 13. Centennial Valley dragonfly and damselfly species 35 Vll Introduction Scope of the Report This assessment covers fourteen 5th code hydrologic units (HUCs) or watersheds' (Figure I) encompassing roughly 1 .5 million acres (600.000 hectares) in Beaverhead and Madison counties in southwestern Montana The watersheds are all part of the Red Rock River subbasin (4th code HUC) that drains into the Beaverhead River, a tributary of the Jefterson River, and ultimately, the Missouri. The goal of this project was to provide site-specific evaluations of riparian areas, wetlands, and aquatic resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Centennial Valley, and a broad GIS-based assessment of the Red Rock River subbasin. Field sampling of wetland and aquatic sites provided detailed information on the composition and distribution of plant and invertebrate communities in sites under BLM management. We conducted a broad GIS analysis to evaluate watershed condition across the contributing watersheds, using indices of watershed integrity developed in earlier watershed assessments (Vance and Stagliano 2007, 2008). The Ecological Setting: Level III and IV Ecoregions The assessment area lies within the Middle Rockies Level III ecoregion (Omemik 1987). Five Level IV ecoregions dominate: the Barren Mountains; the Centennial Basin; the Dry-Gneissic-Schistose- Volcanic Hills; the Dry Intermontane Sagebrush Valleys; and the Forested Beaverhead Mountains (Figure 2). Small portions of the Western Beaverhead Mountains, the Eastern Gravelly Mountains, and the Alpine Zone occur near the perimeter of the subbasin. The Barren Mountains ecoregion consists of dry, partially forested slopes with a sparsely grassy understory and barren outcrops, overlaying carbonate-rich sedimentary rock. Douglas-fir (Pseudorsuga menziesii) is the dominant tree species at lower elevations, while subalpine fir {Abies lasiocarpa) is more common above 8,000 feet and on north-facing slopes. The shmb layer is generally not well developed. Pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens) is the characteristic grass species. Winters are typically cold and long. The cold, low-relief Centennial Basin is distinctively subirrigated with extensive grasslands, wet and mesic meadows, lakes, shrub carrs, and herbaceous wetlands. Wetlands within the Basin vary from tree-dominated Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and quaking aspen {Populus tremuloides) habitats to willow-dominated swamps and carrs to emergent herbaceous types such as sedge-dominated marshes and fens. Additionally, subirrigated areas with sodic soils support black greasewood {Sarcobatus verniicii/afus), NuttalFs alkaligrass {Puccinellia nuttalliana), and inland saltgrass (Distichlis i/7/ca/o)-dominated communities. Some of the most extensive wetlands are those dominated by hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), baltic rush {Junciis balticus). Northwest Territories sedge {Carex utriculata) and northern reedgrass {Calamagrostis stricta). On the northern edge of the basin, the Centennial Sandhills form a unique regional environment supporting a number of sensitive plant species and rare natural communities. In addition to the stable vegetation comprised of basin big sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), three-tip sagebrush {Artemisia tripartita) and needle-and-thread {Hesperostipa comata) or Idaho fescue {Festiica idahoensis), the Centennial Sandhills include vegetation that depends on active sand dunes and blowouts, such as green rabbitbrush {Chrysothamnus viscidijlorns) and thickspike wheatgrass / silverleaf phacelia {Elymus lanceolatus I Phacelia hastata) communities. The shrubby, semi-arid Dry Gneissic-Schistose- Volcanic Hills ecoregion occurs above 4.800 feet, where average annual precipitation is higher than in the dry sagebrush valleys and the basin. Here ' HUC nomenclature correspond to common usage as follows: 4th code HUCs are subbasins; 5th code HUCs are watersheds, and 6th code HUCs are subwatersheds < OQ (0 liJ > o o Q m + o _ o _ CM ^ O _ >s ro — (u ni i: c w c i_ Q) .0 ■£ ro 0) S 0 R b^ o + X y ^ in in C o '5) S o u ILI o o U T3 ro ra c (A 01 V) c (0 ■5 1 n m T3 0) w 0) 0 > 0} c o N lU c Q. c O c m m c c c 0) o tA in - lU ^ u I- z o ^t 4 ' V { s'tH D S,'^ , UJ o. T3 c m ? i 0) 0) t:' (o 0) 0) E o LU Li. 15 fo 5 5 c o Q. 5 a> c (0 (o (0 9J 0) 5? 0) 0) QJ -Jg >_ ■_ (0 2 1^ 1^ 1^ > £ q: o UJ Di| c I*: too, vegetation is primarily sagebrush steppe. Shrub cover can be high for a steppe system due to greater moisture found at mountain elevations; the canopy cover is usually between 20 to 80 percent. The herbaceous layer is usually well represented, but bare ground may be common in particularly arid or disturbed occurrences. The Dry Intermontane Sagebrush Valley ecoregion occurs on stream terraces, fans, and floodplains mostly composed of alluvium and valley fill deposits. The vegetation is primarily sagebrush steppe, dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridenlata ssp. vaseyana) and Idaho fescue and related taxa such as basin big sagebrush and three tip sagebrush. Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridenlata) may codominate or even dominate some stands. Most stands have an abundant perennial herbaceous layer (over 25% cover, in many cases over 50% cover). The growing season is typically short (70 to 1 10 days), although it is longer than in the low-lying Centennial Basin. The glaciated Forested Beaverhead Mountains are characterized by gentle lower slopes, pothole lakes, and marshy areas. Average annual precipitation ranges from 20 to just over 40 inches. Underlying geology is composed of Precambrian argillite, quartzite, carbonates, and shales. At the lower treeline immediately above valley grasslands or sagebrush steppe and shrublands, vegetation includes extensive Douglas-fir forests, occasionally mixed with limber pine (Pinus flexilis) on calcareous substrates, and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) at higher elevations. In the upper montane and subalpine zones, Engelmann spruce appears. Subalpine areas are dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Hydrology The Red Rock River subbasin includes fourteen 5th code HUCs (Figure 4), with streams and rivers that drain into the Beaverhead River. The longest of these is Red Rock River, formed by Odell and Hellroaring Creeks, which originate on the north flank of the Centennial Mountains. Horse Prairie Creek, Sheep Creek, and Medicine Lodge Creek drain the western mountains. The National Hydrography Data.set (NHD) shows 1,573 miles of perennial streams and rivers in the assessment area, and 4,3 1 5 miles of intermittent streams and rivers. The Lima Reservoir and Red Rock Lakes 5th code HUCs have the most perennial .stream miles; the Bloody Dick Creek and Red Rock Lakes HUCs have the highest density of perennial streams and creeks per square mile of watershed. There are 1,579 lakes, pond, and reservoirs in the assessment area. Of these, 1, 133 are in the Red Rock Lakes and Lima Reservoir watersheds. Many are shallow, and most lower-elevation water bodies have been created or enhanced by human structures. For example. Upper and Lower Red Rock Lakes are remnants of more extensive ancestral lakes that formed in the pluvial climates of the Pleistocene and early Holocene epochs. Current depth is approximately 8 feet. Although there is a water control structure on Lower Red Rock Lake, it has been open for several years, allowing water to flow through. Downstream from the lakes, the Red Rock River flows into the 4,422 acre Lima Reservoir, one of the major irrigation reservoirs in Montana. Several streams and reservoirs in the assessment area are on Montana's 2006 list of waters that are impaired within the meaning of section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The beneficial uses that are most frequently impaired are aquatic life and coldwater fisheries. Table I lists the water bodies on the 2006 303(d) list and the pollutant(s) underlying the impairment. Wetland mapping is only complete for portions of the Lima Reservoir and Red Rock Lakes watersheds, the part of the study area where wetlands are most abundant. The National Wetlands Inventory shows some 5,675 wetlands in the Centennial Valley and surrounding hills. Of these, 3,467 are herbaceous emergent wetlands (32,567 acres), 1,487 are aquatic bed wetlands associated with lakes and ponds (12,185 acres), 565 are forested or scrub-shrub wetlands (2,356 acres). The remaining 1 56 wetlands are riverine wetlands along the banks of perennial rivers, or seasonally flooded, sparsely vegetated basins. Riparian shrub communities that are not wet enough to be mapped 1 c 2 2 c Z C 2 i a> ■5 (7 3 3 en o ra CO C T^ OJ OJ o 2 Q. n. IS z c c £ OJ £ c CO D. E ■5 c , c c 'n O C c c E 3 o o b s .2 .2 .2 (/) im M 'S 3 b- 2 2 2 M u O c CO '« OJ :^ "^ 1) J= 2 Vi cyi en o D. n. E C/1 s "c "c VZ 2 ^ ~C ~C ^— ^ E o o > _2 2 ^2 en u •T3 ■— "■♦-» 3 3 2 CO ^*C 2 2 2 O fU c c c C CO c c c JZ o u u , r c U U I) D. 2 £ £ Z c o 2 _E .£ .£ en O t/i •T3 •T3 oo n. o a c c .2 c w E -5 in -a c _2 •a u en c 2 c 2 c 2 c .2 c I r- o CO CO CO ^ CO CO CO E "O ■*-» ■*-' ■^ CO CO CO o 73^ cl> CO CO CO — — — g g 3 E g o CO g g en g 'en 2 *en 'en u v« 2 1 2 2 2 O 2 £ yi ir CO CJ trt CO 60 crt en e/l ■«-» "ra 3 3 3 2 T^ 3 3 2 3 2 _op « 2 2 •5 o O _^ O < c c p O Urn o c ^ O c ^ CO c 'c c t/i J= J= -o _o J= [/5 o !> 2 J= .s (U j5 x: U 15 en u U (U Q. Q. 'E Q. u^ • — E Q. o. £ Q. £ en E E £ TS t/i c/l Id (i> on '1' to o en en IS en X) (U 03 O O k. t/i O a " ■5 O O •5 u O ■5 b- CJ ■5 ■5 ■5 1» j: j: 3 ^ J= X j= x: JZ U 3 JZ u 3 X UJ OJ a> J a. o. h- < Q. UJ C/5 u 0. 0- C/5 h- 0- C/5 h- UJ C/5 C/5 C/5 .2 .^ c ^ '5 o o c U b. O a. oi b« > CO CO Oi '5 £ CO 0) en o ■T3 oi CO U 0- OJ > > o U O a: o o DC •a oi > Q X J^ CO 5 c5 k. U f •«-• k. (L) i:5 i 5 o 1 (1> c o >^ c CO U o E ca Q £ ce:' UJ > :^ u o Qi o CO .£ 'Jj o CO J .:<: o o oi -a U O oi Q MEDICINE LODGE CREEK, headwaters to mouth i Creek) MUDDY CREEK, headwaters to mouth (Sheep Cree River) iRSE PRAIRIE CREEK, headwaters to mouth (CI Res) OODY DICK CREEK, headwaters to mouth (Hor Creek) tJ O Oi -a 3 O E o ■*-» u -o 3 UJ UJ U O. UJ UJ u o a: ■o 3 O E u o 1) ■^-' CO CO UJ UJ Di U UJ U u u 1 3 O £ (U ■«-» CO ■o CO 1) UJ UJ oi u X o o Qi T3 U w ■*-» 3 O £ o CO -o CO a j= UJ UJ oi u < oi oi ST FORK CLOVER CREEK, headwaters to mou Creek) > U O -o 3 O E 2 en JZ W UJ oi u O -a Oi o j= 3 O £ o U CO CO U JZ U w UJ Qi u -J UJ Q > O Oi -o 3 o E o en k. U CO u UJ UJ Oi U f- UJ -a oi 0) Q. Q. 3 o £ u .3 O en U T3 CO (U JZ U UJ UJ oi u D ROCK CREEK, headwaters to the mouth (Uppi Lake) U _o en C ■^ O ■♦-* en OJ T3 CO UJ UJ Qi U c/o UJ Z o CJ O q: T3 OJ Oi -3 3 O x: 2 en b. U to ? T3 CO 0) x: :i UJ UJ Qi u z < UJ < u o Qi Q UJ Qi Qi UJ UJ < -J 1^ U O oi Q UJ oi q: UJ O- -2; UJ UJ o -J I 5 C/2 o < O UJ O UJ UJ O 0. (2 a: :^ X CD t/5 0. 1 1 U UJ 1 -J b o. h- oi CQ -J ZD as wetlands are extensive along the upper reaches of Red Rock River and its tributaries. Natural Communities Ecological Systems Management of biological diversity rests on our ability to understand how the individual components of that diversity -species, natural communities, ecosystems, and landscapes — are distributed across the landscape, and how they intersect each other. In particular, successftil conservation or restoration of individual species depends on the integrity of the biological communities in which they live. Consequently, land managers need to be able to link species to mid- scale ecological units that can be easily identified, evaluated, and managed. In response to this need. Natural Heritage Programs across the country have put forward the concept of ecological systems (Comer et al. 2003), which represent "recurring groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes." Ecological systems offer a classification unit that is easily mappable and identifiable in the field and can be crosswalked to other classification systems in use by land management agencies. These ecological communities are the mapping units of the new regional Gap Analysis Program maps (ReGAP), produced under the auspices of the United States Geological Survey. The ReGAP maps are based on classification of 30-m satellite images, using a massive field data set, and incorporating the input of ecologists and land managers with intimate knowledge of specific landscapes. In Montana, where ReGAP maps have just become available, the Montana Natural Heritage Program has committed itself to further correction and refinement of the classification. Therefore, we consider the current ReGAP layer to be a working draft. However, while the distribution and extent of less common systems need to be verified, the broad characterization of landscapes is reasonably accurate, and we were comfortable relying on it to interpret the ecological systems in the assessment area. Table 2 has a complete list of ecological systems greater than 1 ,000 acres in size found in the study area; the most prevalent ones are described below. The most extensive ecological system in the area is Intermountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe, which thrives on cool and semi-arid slopes and ridgetops away from the valley floors (Figure 5). In general, this system is most common in areas of mild topography, fine soils, and more mesic sites where there is subsurface moisture, above- average precipitation, or snow accumulation. It is composed primarily of mountain big sagebrush, silver sagebrush {Artemisia carta ssp. viscidula), and related taxa such as basin big sagebrush and threetip sagebrush. Antelope bitterbrush may codominate or even dominate some stands. Little sagebrush {Artemisia arbuscula ssp. arbusculd) dominated shrublands commonly occur within this system on rocky or windblown sites. In more mesic mountain big sagebrush communities, canopy cover is generally 20-30%, with grasses — typically dominated by basin wildrye {Leymus cinereus) and Idaho fescue — making up 60-70% of the canopy. Forb diversity tends to be low to moderate. On south-facing slopes, mountain big sagebrush cover ranges from 1 0-40%), with grass canopy in the 40-70% range. Grass communities are generally dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass {Pseudoroegneria spicata), needle-and-thread and Sandberg bluegrass {Poa secunda). The next most common ecological system is Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland. This Douglas-fir dominated system thrives in a dry to sub-mesic continental climate, typically occurring at the lower treeline immediately above valley grasslands, or sagebrush steppe and shrublands. It includes extensive Douglas-fir forests, occasionally with limber pine on calcareous substrates, and lodgepole pine at higher elevations. Engehnann spruce occurs in some stands within the upper montane zone. Understory shrubs include mallow ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), common juniper (Juniperus communis), white spirea {Spiraea betulifolia), snowberry species (Symphoricarpos spp.), buffaloberry {Shepherdia canadensis), and creeping barberry {Mahonia repens). Bilberry ( Vaccinium caespitosum) and huckleberry Table Major ecological systems in the assessment area. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM ACRES (approx) Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 870159 Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland 88314 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 59323 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 58668 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 55059 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 50279 Pasture/Hay 38259 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 34448 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 32551 Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane. Foothill, and Valley Grassland 28500 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 23941 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 20916 Rocky Mountain Alpine Turf 19527 Open Water 13757 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 11396 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 11363 Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland 9748 Cultivated Crops 9207 Developed. Open Space 8397 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 6782 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 5334 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 3121 Developed, Low Intensity 2937 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 2853 Harvested forest-grass regeneration 2688 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual and Biennial Forbland 2144 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 2106 Developed. Medium Intensity 1239 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 1057 ( Vaccinium membranaceum) are found on colder, mesic sites. Common grasses include pinegrass, Ross' sedge {Carex rossii), and Geyer's sedge (Carex geyerii). Bluebunch wheatgrass is common on some sites adjacent to upper elevation montane grasslands. Common forbs include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), broad leaf arnica (Arnica latifolia), pussytoes (Antemiaria spp.), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), western rattlesnake plaintain (Goodyera oblongifolia), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Penstemon (Penstemon spp.) and upland paintbrush species (Castilleja spp.) are found on drier, open sites. Other upland forest ecological systems common to the assessment area include Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forests and Rocky Mountain Mesic and Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland. -^ Z^i''^ ! i i ^ £ ? i? I I " •i ? e 3 o 5 i S S w f f 15 5 fl A fl a 1) a < JIIIIIIJII IIDDIIDaDDDDnDDIDDIIODDIIIIDiaDDDQDnilOIDIIIiQDDD uj 10 The Rocky Mountain Aspen Forests and Woodlands system occurs in patches throughout the assessment area, usually as small to large patches within wetlands, sagebrush steppe, and Douglas-fir forests. Jean et al. (2002) found the most extensive quaking aspen stands on lower slopes of the northern flank of the Centennial range, particularly on old mass wasting features (earthfiows and landslides). In most of the Intermountain west, the distribution of aspen is limited mostly by the soil moisture it needs to meet its heavy evapotranspiration needs (Mueggler 1988); these lower slope locations tend to have more subsurface moisture, allowing the aspen to prosper. Within the assessment area, aspen stands are generally rich in forbs. Tall forbs include Engelmann's aster (Eucephalus engelmannii), western larkspur (Delphinium occidentale), showy stickseed {Hackelia floribunda), cowparsnip (Heracleum maximum), western sweet-cicely {Osmorhiza occidenlalis), Fendler's meadowrue {Thalictrum fendleri), or western meadowrue (Thalictrum occidentale). tall ragwort (Senecio serra), and western valerian ( Valeriana occidenlalis) in the Centennial region. The more common forbs, easily overlooked amongst the luxuriant graminoids, include silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteus), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), sticky geranium (Geranium viscosissimum). sweet-cicely (Osmorhiza berterois), and woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca). Grasslands are also extensive through the assessment area, with the most common upland ecological systems being Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow, and Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grassland. •Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadows occupy a slightly drier environment and fall into two broad categories: grass-domi- nated or forb-dominated. Grass-dominated meadows are typically characterized by tufted hairgrass, showy oniongrass (Melica spectabi- lis), mountain brome (Bromus carinatus). blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris). and sedges. Forb-dominated mead- ows are restricted to sites from lower montane to subalpine elevations where finely textured soils, snow deposition, or windswept dry con- ditions limit tree establishment. Many occur- rences are small patch in spatial character and are often found in mosaics with woodlands, more dense shrublands. or Just below alpine communities. Important forbs include com- mon camas (Camassia quamash), aspen daisy (Erigeron speciosus), aster (Eucephalus and Symphyotrichum species), fireweed (Chamer- ion angustifolium), small flowered penstemon (Penstemon procerus), harebells (Campanula rotundifolia), Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), mountain deathcamas (Zigadenus elegans), and western meadowrue (Thalictrum occidentale). •Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grasslands occur across the study area. They are found at elevations from 1,000 to 5,000 feet, ranging from small meadows to large open parks surrounded by conifers in the lower montane zone, to exten- sive foothill and valley grasslands below the lower treeline. Many of these valleys may have been primarily sage-steppe with patches of grassland in the past, but because of land-use history post-settlement (herbicide, grazing, fire suppression, pasturing, etc.), they have been converted to grassland-dominated areas. Soils are relatively deep, fine-textured, often with coarse fragments, and non-saline, and may have a microphytic cmst. This system is typified by cool-season perennial bunch grasses and forbs (>25% cover), with a sparse (<10% cover) shrub cover. Rough fescue (Festuca campestris) and Idaho fescue are usually dominants, and bluebunch wheatgrass occurs as a co-dominant. In the assessment area, these grasslands range from the needle-and-thread / blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) communities found in valley floors and alluvial fans to blue- bunch wheatgrass / Sandberg bluegrass com- munities on warm aspect, moderate to steep slopes to Idaho fescue / bluebunch wheatgrass grasslands on moderate to steep, predominantly southerly-facing slopes at 6,000-7,500 feet. Wetlands and riparian areas occur throughout the assessment area, with especially high concentrations in the Centennial Valley. There, the 11 most abundant wetland types are Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadows, Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fens, and Western North American Freshwater Marshes. •Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Mead- ows are moderate-to-high-elevation systems found throughout the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain regions, dominated by herba- ceous species found on wetter sites with very low-velocity surface and subsurface flows. Occurrences range in elevation from montane to alpine (1,000-3,600 m). This system typi- cally occurs in cold, moist basins, seeps, and alluvial terraces of headwater streams or as a narrow strip adjacent to alpine lakes (Hansen etal. 1995). They are typically found on flat areas or gentle slopes, but they may also occur on sub-irrigated sites with slopes up to 10%. In alpine regions, sites typically are small depres- sions located below late-melting snow patches or on snowbeds. The growing season may only last for one to two months. Soils of this system may be mineral or organic. In either case, soils show typical hydric soil characteristics, includ- ing high organic content and/or low chroma and redoximorphic features. This system often occurs as a mosaic of several plant associa- tions, often dominated by graminoids such as tufted hairgrass and a diversity of sedges. Forbs such as groundsels (Senecio spp.) often form high cover in these meadows. Wet mead- ows are tightly associated with snowmelt and high water tables and are usually not subjected to high disturbance events such as flooding. Salinity and alkalinity are generally low due to the frequent flushing of moisture through the meadow. Depending on the slope, topography, hydrology, soils, and substrate, intermittent, ephemeral, or permanent pools may be present. Standing water may be present during some or all of the growing season, with water tables typically remaining at or near the soil sur- face. However, fluctuations of the water table throughout the growing season are not uncom- mon. On drier sites supporting the less mesic types, the late-season water table may be one meter or more below the surface. Soils typical- ly possess a high proportion of organic matter, but this may vary considerably depending on the frequency and magnitude of alluvial de- position. Organic composition of the soil may include a thin layer near the soil surface. Soils may exhibit gleying and/or mottling throughout the profile. •Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fens oc- cur infrequently throughout the Rocky Moun- tains from Colorado north into Canada. They are confined to specific environments defined by groundwater discharge, soil chemistry, and peat accumulation. This system includes poor fens, rich fens, and extremely rich fens. Fens form at low points in the landscape or near slopes where groundwater intercepts the soil surface. Groundwater inflows maintain a fairly constant water level year-round, with water at or near the surface most of the time. Con- stant high water levels lead to accumulation of organic material. In addition to peat accu- mulation and perennially saturated soils, the extremely rich and iron fens have distinct soil and water chemistry, with high levels of one or more minerals such as calcium, magnesium, or iron. Fens are among the most floristically diverse of all wetland types, supporting a large number of rare and uncommon bryophytes and vascular plant species, as well as providing habitat for uncommon mammals, mollusks, and insects. Fens also help maintain stream water quality through denitrification and phosphorus absorption. Fens usually occur as a mosaic of several plant associations dominated by sedges (Carex spp.), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.), and rushes {Juncus spp.). Bryophyte diver- sity is generally high and includes sphagnum {Sphagnum spp.). In rich and extremely rich fens, forb diversity is equally high. In southern Montana, subalpine and alpine fens potentially occur at higher elevations (Heidel and Rode- maker 2008). These communities typically occur in seeps and wet sub-irrigated meadows in narrow to broad valley bottoms. Soils within this system are organic histosols with 40 cm or more of organic material if overlying a mineral soil. Organic histosols may be any depth, how- ever, if overlying bedrock, cobbles or gravels. Histosols range in texture from clayey-skeletal to loamy-skeletal and fine-loams. •Western North American Freshwater Marshes 12 occur throughout western North America, typi- cal Iv found in depressions surrounded by an upland matrix of forest, shrub steppe, steppe or mixed prairie vegetation. Within Montana, this system is most common from 671 to 2.256 m (2.200 to 7.400 feet). 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. Wetland marshes are clas- sified as either seasonal, semipermanent, or permanent based on the dominant vegetation found in the deepest portion of the wetland. The type of vegetation that occurs in these marsh systems is representative of their hy- droperiod. where some basins dry to bare soil after seasonal flooding while others will have a variety of wetland types in a zoned pattern dependent on seasonal water table depths and salt concentrations. A central shallow marsh zone dominated by graminoids and sedges characterizes seasonal wetlands. Semiperma- nent and permanent wetlands are continually inundated with water up to 2 m deep and have a deeper central marsh zone typically domi- nated by cattails {Typha species) and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus species). In semipermanent systems, the drawdown zone is t\ pically dominated by Northwest Territories sedge and Nebraska sedge {Carex nebrascensis). Water sedge (Carex aquatilis) and/or awned sedge {Carex atherodes) are frequently co-dominant. Inflated sedge (Carex vesicaria) is sometimes intermixed with Northwest Territories sedge or occurs as a co-dominant, especially in ripar- ian marshes associated with beaver activity. Water chemistry may include some alkaline or semi-alkaline situations, but the alkalinity is highly variable even within the same complex of wetlands. Marshes have distinctive soils that are typically mineral, but they can also accu- mulate organic material. Soils have character- istics that result from long periods of anaerobic conditions in the soils (e.g.. gleyed soils, high organic content, redoximorphic features). Special Status Plants The assessment area supports at least 74 vascular plant Species of Concern. These are listed along with vertebrate and invertebrate species in Appendix A. Wildlife and Fish The extensive sagebrush steppe habitat found throughout the assessment area supports several sagebrush obligates, including pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). Sage Thrasher (Oreoscopte.s montaniis). Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri), and Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Greater Sage- Grouse are found throughout the assessment area, with multiple leks. The abundant small mammal population in sagebrush steppe and grasslands also support concentrated populations of raptors, notably Ferruginous Hawk (Biiteo regalis). Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus). Swainson"s Hawk (Buteo SM'ainsoni). and Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Similarly, broadly distributed forests support forest-dependent species like as Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus). Dusky Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus). Ruflfed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus). Northern Goshawk {Accipiter gentilis), Red-naped Sapsucker (Splryrapiciis nuchalis). and snowshoe hare (Lepiis americanus). The Centennial Sandhills, a unique habitat in the Centennial Valley region, support an exceptionally diverse array of invertebrates and vertebrates. A 1999 survey found 18 mammal species. 29 bird species, 3 amphibian and reptile species, 4 tiger beetle species, and 14 butterfly and skipper species (Hendricks and Roedel 2001). Similarly, the extensive wetlands in the Centennial Valley support breeding populations of numerous bird and amphibian Species of Concern, including Trumpeter Swan {Cygnus buccinator). Black- crowned Night-Heron {Nycticorax nycticorax). White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). Franklin's Gull (Lands pipixcan). Forster's Tern (Sterna forsterii), and boreal toad (Bufo boreas). In addition to the Species of Concern, these wetlands also support breeding populations of western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Columbia spotted frog (Rana hiteiventris), and tiger salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum). Beaver are present in low numbers along the Red Rock River. Clark Canyon Creek, and Sheep Creek (BLM 2007). Terrestrial gartersnakes ( Thaninophis elegans), common gartersnakes (Thaninophis sirtalis), and western 13 rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) are common. Gopher snakes {Pituophis catenifer) and rubber boas (Charina bottae) have not been documented but are Ukely to occur. Several streams support coldwater fisheries, primarily cutthroat trout {Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Red Rock Lakes and the upper stretches of Red Rock River contain Arctic grayling {Thymallus arcticus), burbot {Lota lota), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), longnose sucker {Catostomus catostomus), and mottled sculpin {Cottus bairdi). The assessment area also has extensive populations of habitat generalists. Both migratory and resident elk {Cervus elephus) are common throughout the region. Pronghom {Antelocapra americana) inhabit the sagebrush habitats and agricultural fields throughout the area. Mule deer {Odocoileus hemionus) are resident year round. Moose {Alces alces) are plentiful in willow bottoms, especially in and around the willow flats in the eastern Centennial Valley. Black bear {Ursus americanus) use both forested and riparian areas. Mountain lions {Felis concolor), while not common, are seen occasionally. Bighorn sheep {Ovis canadensis) were introduced in the Tendoy Mountains in the late 1980's and early 1990's, and have moved both southward and northward into suitable habitat. Gray wolves {Canis lupus) and grizzly bears ( Urstds horribilis) have both been sighted in the assessment area (BLM 2007), and suitable habitat exists for both wolverine {Gulo gulo) and lynx {Lynx canadensis). 14 Methods Broad-scale Remote Sensing Analysis For this analysis, we use a modified version of a broad-scale landscape assessment approach that was developed in prior watershed studies (Vance and Stagliano 2007. Vance and Stagliano 2008) to provide a landscape perspective on the natural diversity, current conditions, and potential threats to wetland and riparian habitats. We began by separating the assessment area into component landscape units so that effective comparisons could be made between units. Based on topography, land cover, and field observations, we decided to analyze the landscape by individual 5th code hydrologic units. We calculated a number of metrics to allow overall comparisons and provide managers with a basis for planning. We conducted a GIS analysis using geographic and statistical data to summarize potential and actual watershed condition, and to compare watershed conditions and threats among the landscape units. The analysis was divided into three parts. The first part assessed "background" or natural conditions in the watershed by evaluating ecological diversity and hydrologic and topographic complexity. The second part addressed current conditions and disturbances, including land use, ownership patterns, and alterations and impacts to riparian areas. The third part focused on the primary threat to watershed integrity in the assessment area: riparian grazing. In each part, indices were created or used to facilitate comparison between watersheds. This index-based approach follows a method initially developed by the Northeast Region of the National Wetland Inventory Program (Tiner et al. 2000). modified and expanded by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (Vance 2005. Vance et al. 2006) to address some of the unique conditions in western ecosystems (e.g., grazing impacts, energy development, etc.). This methodology is explained in greater detail in subsequent sections. National Wetland Inventory photointerpretations dating from the 1980's have only been digitized or turned into hard-copy maps for the USGS quadrangles in the Centennial Valley. The Montana Natural Heritage Program is currently producing wetland and riparian maps for Southwestern Montana, but mapping of this subbasin is incomplete, so no subbasin-wide calculation can be made. The geographic data used in the assessment and in calculating the sub-indices were derived as follows: 1. Natural Complexity Index a) Hydrologic Complexity Index • Using the high-resolution National Hydrography Dataset. identity springs, intermittent and perennial streams, and intermittent and perennial lakes, and sum the number and length/area, as appropriate, for each category. b) Topographic Complexity Index • Create a topography polygon layer by reclassifying 10-meter USGS Digital Elevation Maps into 25 elevation classes, and sum acreage in each elevation class. c) Ecological Diversity Index • From ReGAP maps, calculate the diversity of ecological systems in each 5th code HUC. 2. Composite Wetland Condition Index a) Landscape Integrity Index • Using an inverse weighted distance model that integrates land cover, road density, hydrological modification, and extractive resources such as mining, calculate an integrity score for each pixel in the subbasin. and average the score for each 5th code HUC. h) Stream Corridor Integrity Index • Buffer stream segments in the 1 : 1 00,000 USGS National Hydrography Dataset streams layer; 15 • Overlay the buffered stream segments on the 200 1 National Land Cover Dataset; • Sum the acreage of land cover categories within the buffered areas. 3. Riparian Grazing Threat Index • Create a layer of private grazing lands from cadastral records (parcels listed as having grazing as their major land use); • Create a layer of public grazing lands from cadastral records (parcels listed as having BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks or the Montana Department of Natural Resources as the owner); • Overlay the public and private grazing lands layer on the buffered stream layer. Field Data Collection and Assessment During the summer of 2008, MTNHP ecologists carried out Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments at 103 sites in the Centennial Valley (Figure 6), using the methods described in Pritchard et al. (1999). At 94 of those sites, MTNHP ecologists also conducted ecological integrity assessments, using protocols developed by the MTNHP (See Appendix B). During all phases of data collection, wetlands were classified with the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) system (Cowardin et al. 1979). We also assigned wetlands to broad ecological systems, using the classifications and descriptions developed by NatureServe and the MTNHP. For both wetland and upland plants, our principle floristic references were Dom (1984) and the Flora of the Great Plains (1977, 1986). All plant nomenclature follows Kartesz(1999). Riparian habitat assessments, water quality parameter measurements, and macroinvertebrate surveys were performed at thirteen sites. Biological community integrity was calculated at all sites using the Montana Macroinvertebrate Multimetric Index (MT MMI). 16 + 0) in (0 r c o n o F O) OT r c OJ L— E T) Q. E (TJ ro E ro CO C a) -4-» 16 o 15 < TJ C TO i E Q) •4-' 'E c 0) (D a. ^ C: 17 Results and Discussion Overview Current Conditions The assessment area lies in a sparsely-populated part of Montana, where most of the land is in public ownership. Across the Red Rock River subbasin area, the BLM Dillon Field Office owns or manages approximately 4 1 1 ,977 acres (206,497 hectares). The BLM State Office owns an additional 21,328 acres (8,631 hectares) in the Centennial Mountains Wilderness Study Area. Altogether, the BLM has responsibility for 433,305 acres ( 1 75,352 hectares) in the Red Rock River subbasin, almost 29% of the area. The Forest Service is the next largest public land owner, managing 391,924 acres (158,606 hectares). In the two watersheds of the Centennial Valley (Lima Reservoir and Red Rock Lakes), the BLM owns or manages approximately 106,213 acres (42,983 hectares). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages almost 1 00,000 acres (40,469 hectares) in these two watersheds-, and both the Nature Conservancy and Montana Land Reliance have substantial easements on private lands. Across the subbasin as a whole, 45% of the land cover is grassland, 31% is shrubland, 17% is forest, and 4% is agriculture. Wetlands make up less than 2% of the landcover. In the Centennial Valley, 35% of the land cover is grassland, 37% is shrubland, 16% is forest, 8% is wetland, and 2.5% is open water. Throughout the subbasin, both public and private grasslands and shrublands are used primarily for cattle grazing. Most of the agricultural use is along the valley bottoms adjacent to Red Rock River and Horse Prairie Creek. The assessment area encompasses 1 ,48 1 ,484 acres (599,535 hectares), of which 44,225 acres (17,897 hectares) are lakes, ponds, or manmade reservoirs. There are 1,573 miles (2,53 1 kilometers) of perennial streams and rivers, and 4,315 miles (6,944 kilometers) of intermittent streams. Some of these intermittent streams are headwater streams that flow only during snowmelt; others, especially in more arid portions of the subbasin, are in fact ephemeral, flowing only in response to heavy rain events. Factors and Magnitude of Change Since Euro- American settlement, three human activities have impacted watershed health and integrity in this part of Montana: extraction, diversion, and impoundment of water; conversion of riparian floodplains to agriculture; and livestock grazing. Associated impacts such as road- building, and secondary impacts, such as low- intensity residential development, have also altered natural conditions. Extraction, diversion, and impoundment of water Flows in Red Rock River are moderated by major upstream and downstream impoundments, and influxes from many tributary streams are reduced by diversion and impoundment. Nonetheless, flows prior to irrigation season are sufficient to maintain a more-or-less natural hydrologic regime, with floods and peak flows occurring at regular intervals. The hydrographs for Red Rock River above Red Rock Lake and below Lima Dam have similar peak discharge intervals, although base flows from the dam are lower during summer months than they would be in the absence of the reservoir (Figures 9a and 9b). Across the assessment area, small dams, diversions, and impoundments on headwater and mainstem streams tend to minimize temporal variability in stream flows. By eliminating flood peaks, these dams, diversions, and impoundments lead to narrowing and firming of channel beds over time, and to the loss of bare substrate on streambanks that is necessary for successful regeneration of woody vegetation. Some of the streams in the assessment area have also downcut significantly over time, and in many areas, only remnant (and decadent) cottonwoods remain. While our onsite investigations were restricted to streams in and around the Centennial Valley, we noted that the ■ The USFWS lands include the 45.000 acre Red Rocks National Wildlife Refuge in the Centennial Valley. 18 X f 1 > \ o — , -n^ 'W^^ t' -M w^ m mA ib)'\ '^'S ^V^l^ > ^^ ^P^^« jse or snow pen space w intensity ledium intens igh intensity nd/Clay rest (0 T3 c ra 11 ^^F ,^8o°E^ra£ o V) J3 >• iS coooo2 = S 3 O "D C CO re/Hs y wel iceou |£S?a;?a;£l ■o 5< 3 3 0) -n TO « o g -2 ua.g) £ Ir (0 >:: £ (1) "OQ-QQQQCQQ UJ i « O Q. O S X iin .11 II III 2 20 ^USGS USGS 06006000 Red Rock Cr ab Lakes nr Lakeview MT 286.8 ■D C 8 lee.e ■Z^ 18. B 5.8 »- \ 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2888 2887 2888 Daily nean discharge ^— Period of approved data Estinated daily nean discharge lUSGS USGS 06012500 Red Rock R bl Lima Reservoir nr Monida MT ■o c o u t) v> L. V a. *j u u ■H U o B0 u 888 588 488 388 288 188 2881 2882 2883 2884 1 1 1 ^ 1 i n r h \ 1 1 1 1 1 h L ~-v / I PL. 1 L ^ t Daily nean discharge Estinated daily nean discharge 2885 2886 2887 2888 ^^ Period of approved data Figure 9a and 9b. Hydrographs for Red Rock River gauging stations, 2000-2008. 21 BLM watershed assessment of the downstream portions of the subbasin found many riparian areas to be functioning at risk (BLM 2007). Conversion of riparian floodplains to agriculture Floodplain conversion can affect watershed health and integrity in a number of ways. First, it is generally accompanied by water withdrawal for agricultural use; second, it eliminates or impedes regrowth of native vegetation while facilitating invasion by weedy species; and third, erosion from tillage and farm roads contributes to increased sedimentation of streams and rivers (Power et al. 1995). In the assessment area, agricultural conversion of floodplains along the Red Rock River and Horse Prairie Creek is extensive. In the subbasin as a whole, 4 1 6,446 acres are private agricultural uses, with 370,222 acres reported as having grazing as their primary use, 30,787 acres reported as irrigated agriculture, and 7,454 as wild hay. Over 20,000 acres of irrigated agriculture and 4,600 acres of wild hay land lie within a mile of Red Rock River, Horse Prairie Creek, Red Rock Lakes, Lima Reservoir, or Canyon Creek Reservoir. Both publicly and privately owned grasslands in the subbasin are used for grazing. While this is not strictly a conversion, both grazing and crop production put heavy demands on water supplied by wells and surface water diversions. Agricultural conversion also puts aquatic resources at risk through increased erosion and sedimentation, while overgrazing can lead to invasion of grasslands by non-native plant species. During our field surveys, we observed widespread Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Kentucky bluegrass {Poa pratensis) in grazed grassland areas. Livestock grazing As noted earlier, livestock grazing is the dominant agricultural use in the assessment area. Cattle are the most common grazing animals, although sheep are still present in small numbers. Although many ecosystems east of the Continental Divide evolved under grazing pressures from hoofed ungulates, the seasonality and intensity of bison and elk grazing differ from current systems. If not managed optimally or effectively, cattle and sheep grazing can cause soil compaction, nutrient enrichment, vegetation trampling and removal, habitat disturbance, and, depending on the season and intensity of use, reproductive failure for native plants and animals. Grazing in riparian areas can cause stream and river bank destabilization, loss of riparian shade, and increased sediment and nutrient loads in the aquatic ecosystem (George et al. 2002). Stock watering tanks can contribute to dewatering of streams and aquifers, and may concentrate livestock movement and congregation in sensitive areas. During hot summers, cattle and sheep prefer to loaf in shady areas, trampling understory vegetation. In our field surveys, we saw several instances where cattle had free access to riparian and wetlands areas, and some cases where pugging and hummocking had severely impacted both the soil and the vegetation (Figures 10a and 10b). Springs and seeps were also frequently impacted. While we saw individual instances of fencing and exclusion, most of the aquatic resources were unprotected. Figure lOa. Pugging in a Centennial Valley wetland. 22 ■'^ 'v.a., bigurc Itlb. lluniniockiit^ in a C enteniiiul Icilley wctLind- Broad-Scale Assessment Indices In previous watershed assessments (Crowe and Kudray 2003. Vance 2005. Vance et al. 2006). the Montana Natural Heritage Program developed a method for broad-scale assessment of wetlands based on a procedure originally developed by the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory Program (Tiner et al. 2000). We have continued to refine this method by adding new metrics, dropping redundant or insensitive metrics, and refining scoring for land use categories. We believe that these ongoing refinements provide a better baseline for assessment, and more accurately evaluate the stressors found in western watersheds. This assessment procedure has three components. First we generated a Composite Natural Complexity Index, based on underlying vegetation, hydrologic. and elevation factors, to capture the extent and variation of natural conditions within the overall assessment area and the individual watersheds. Each of the sub-indices is scaled fi-om 0.0 to 1 .0. with higher scores reflecting greater complexity.' Next we used a landscape integrity index and a stream corridor integrity index to produce an overall Composite Watershed Condition Index (CWCI). This index gives a sense of how much pre-settlement habitat remains in the assessment area watersheds, emphasizing riparian systems and adjacent upland habitat, i.e. buffers. The landscape integrity index integrates several disturbance factors including roads, agricultural development, hydrologic alterations, and mines. The stream corridor integrity index synthesizes the extent of human land uses within a riparian corridor. These indices are added together to create the Composite Watershed Condition Index (CWCI) for each 5th code HUC. In the final step, we calculated a Riparian Grazing Threat Index. Grazing has both current and long term impacts, so we have designated it as an ongoing threat. However, it is easily mitigated by the adoption of grazing management practices. By indicating where potential threats occur, appropriate management plans can be identified and implemented. Here, higher scores signal a higher level of threat. One criticism of indices of biological integrity is that individual characteristics of the system being assessed are blurred by the act of collapsing multiple metrics into a single number (Moyle and Marchetti 1999). To offset this effect, we have chosen to keep the three overall indices separate. This way, characteristics of each watershed can be compared without significantly diminishing the magnitude of specific disturbances or threats. Composite Natural Complexity Index The Composite Natural Complexity Index measures the richness and extent of vegetation, hydrologic features, and topography. It has three subindices, the Natural Community Complexity Index, the Hydrologic Complexity Index, and the Topographic Complexity Index, explained below. Natural Community Complexity Index (INC) The Natural Community Complexity Index is a simple measure of the number of ecological systems in individual watersheds relative to the total number of ecological systems across the study ^ In earlier assessments, we were also able to evaluate wetland diversity as part of this index; in this assessment area, wetland mapping was not complete by the time of this report so this part of the assessment could not be performed. However, our field surveys indicated that there is considerable wetland diversity in these watersheds, and large numbers of natural wetlands. 23 area. Ecological systems are defined as groups of plant community types that tend to co-occur within areas that have similar ecological processes, substrates, and/or environmental gradients (Comer et al. 2003). Spatially, ecological systems occur at the scale of less than an acre to tens of thousands of acres; temporally, they persist for 50 to 150 years. This temporal scale allows typical successional dynamics to be integrated into the concept of each ecological system. Because individual ecological systems themselves may contain multiple community types, system richness is a good indicator of complexity*. There are 40 different natural ecological systems in the assessment area as a whole. Natural community complexity was calculated by dividing the number of ecological systems in each 5th code HUC by the number of systems in the assessment area. The results were relativized by dividing all scores by the highest score. Table 3. Natural Communit}' Complexity Index Red Rock Lakes 1.00 Lima Reservoir 0.95 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 0.95 Nicholia Creek 0.92 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 0.89 Bloody Dick Creek 0.87 Medicine Creek 0.87 Junction Creek 0.84 Little Sheep Creek 0.84 Red Rock River 0.79 Big Sheep Creek 0.76 Sage Creek 0.66 Cabin Creek 0.61 Muddy Creek 0.58 The Red Rock Lakes, Lima Reservoir, and Lower Horse Prairie Creek watersheds had the highest Natural Community Complexity scores, indicating that they have the greatest ecological diversity. These three watersheds all cross several ecological subsections and have a considerable range of elevations. The Muddy Creek watershed scored lowest. It is primarily a lower-elevation watershed characterized by shrub and steppe ecological systems with limited forest cover. Hydrologic Complexity Index (IHC) The Hydrologic Complexity Index describes the number and density of hydrologic features in a watershed (springs, seeps, perennial lakes and streams, and intermittent lakes and streams). By characterizing the number and extent of these features, this subindex allows managers to prioritize watersheds for management efforts or further assessment. Although many of the lakes and ponds are manmade, we have included them in the analysis because they provide significant habitat when managed for those values. We calculated this index by summing 1 ) the number of springs and seeps 2) the number of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs per 100 square miles of watershed; 3) the number of wetlands per 100 square miles of watershed 4) the density of perennial streams (in miles of stream per square miles of watershed); 5) and the density of intermittent streams (in miles of stream per square miles of watershed). Each of the 14 watersheds received a rank of 1-14 in each category (springs, lake density, wetland density, perennial stream density, and intermittent stream density). Low scores in a category meant that the watershed had the lowest density of the feature in question. Scores were summed across the categories, and averaged for each watershed. This was then relativized by taking the highest score, and dividing all other scores by that score. Based on this analysis, the Red Rock Lakes watershed has the most Hydrologic Complexity while the Little Sheep Creek watershed has the least. The Red Rock Lakes watershed is a headwaters area with numerous lakes, ponds, springs, seeps, wetlands, and perennial streams. Little Sheep Creek, which is also considerably smaller is size, is located in the Dry Gneissic- Schistose Volcanic Hills and Barren Mountains * It is possible that ecological systems richness is a function of patchiness resulting from human land uses. However, in the assessment area, our field observations led us to conclude that this was not the case, but rather that ecological system richness did in fact reflect more natural conditions. 24 ecological subsections, both characteristically arid, with few perennial streams, wetlands, and springs. Table 4 shows the individual scores on this metric. Table 5. Topographic Complexify Index Table 4 Hydrologic Complexity Index Red Rock Lakes 1 Lima Reservoir 0.89 Bloody Dick Creek 0.89 Nicholia Creek 0.84 Junction Creek 0.82 Big Sheep Creek 0.78 Medicine Lodge Creek 0.73 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 0.71 Sage Creek 0.60 Cabin Creek 0.56 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 0.47 Red Rock River 0.47 Muddy Creek 0.44 Little Sheep Creek 0.35 Topographic Complexity Index (ITC) Topography influences plant community composition and habitat availability for animal populations. Increased topographic diversity within a watershed increases the availability of niches and microhabitats, which in turn provides habitat for rare species with unique habitat requirements while also ensuring suitable habitat for a broad suite of species. Elevations in the assessment area range from 1,688 to 3,397 meters (5,538 to 1 1,145 feet) above sea level. Scores on this sub-index were calculated by using a GIS to create 25 equal elevation bands across the assessment area. We summed the number of elevation bands in each watershed, took the log of that sum, and relativized the scores by dividing each log score by the highest log score. Table 5 shows the scores on this metric. The Little Sheep Creek watershed has the highest Topographic Complexity score, while the Muddy Creek watershed has the lowest. Composite Natural Complexity Index (CNCI) We combined the three sub-indices into a Composite Natural Complexity Index. This index Little Sheep Creek 1.00 Junction Creek 0.99 Big Sheep Creek 0.99 Medicine Lodge Creek 0.97 Nicholia Creek 0.96 Lower Prairie Horse 0.96 Cabin Creek 0.94 Upper Prairie Horse Creek 0.94 Red Rocks River 0.94 Sage Creek 0.91 Red Rock Lakes 0.90 Lima Reservoir 0.90 Bloody Dick Creek 0.90 Muddy Creek 0.84 has a maximum possible score of 3.00. which would mean the watershed had a score of 1 .00 on each of the three complexity metrics. Table 6 shows the scores on this composite index. As the scores indicate, the Red Rock Lakes 5th code HUC has the highest natural complexity among the assessment area watersheds, while the Muddy Creek 5th code HUC, which had the lowest scores on the Natural Community Complexity and Hydrologic Complexity sub-indices, has the lowest complexity. Table 6. Composite Natural Complexity Index. Red Rock Lakes 2.85 Lima Reservoir 2.69 Nicholia Creek 2.67 Bloody Dick Creek 2.62 Junction Creek 2.60 Lower Prairie Horse 2.56 Medicine Lodge Creek 2.52 Big Sheep Creek 2.49 Upper Prairie Horse Creek 2.26 Red Rocks River 2.16 Little Sheep Creek 2.15 Sage Creek 2.14 Cabin Creek 2.08 Muddy Creek 1.83 25 Composite Watershed Condition Index The Composite Watershed Condition Index is made up of three sub-indices. The first is a Landscape Integrity Index, derived from a model developed by Vance (2009). This is an inverse weighted distance model premised on the idea that ecosystem processes and functions achieve their fullest expression in areas where human activities have the least impact. It was specifically developed as a broad-scale method for assessing wetland health. It presumes that wetland condition will be highest when wetlands are isolated from roads, commercial or industrial development, urban areas, resource extraction sites, or hydrologic modifications. The second, the Stream Corridor Integrity Index, measures the amount of natural land cover within a set buffer on either side of all perennial and intermittent streams. The third index is the Riparian Loss Index. This estimates the amount of riparian vegetation that has been lost since European settlement. To calculate the Composite Watershed Condition Index, scores on the two integrity indices are summed, and the loss index score is subtracted. Landscape Integrity' Index (ILI) The model uses four categories of human impacts. The first, land cover and land use. identifies urban areas, croplands, and timber harvest areas as stressors. The second, roads, is broken into three classes: four-wheel drive roads, local roads, and state/federal highways. The third categor\ is hydrologic modification. This consists of dammed stream and river segments, w ater rights points of use, and Clean Water Act section 404 permits. The fourth category is resource extraction and consists of energy wells (gas, oil. coalbed methane) and current or abandoned mines. The four categories of impacts are weighted and summed into a single raster layer, with a pixel size of 30 meters by 30 meters, or 900 square meters. To calculate mean values for a given assessment area (in this case. 5th code HUCs) we used the zonal statistics tool in ArcGIS 9.3. Mean scores were converted to a 0 to 1 scale with the formula 1 -Log 10 (raw landscape integrit\ score). The resulting scores were relativized to obtain the final results, shown in Table 7. Table 7. Landscape Integrity Index. Muddy Creek 1.00 Sage Creek 1.00 Nicholia Creek 0.99 Cabin Creek 0.99 Red Rock Lakes 0.98 Medicine Lodge Creek 0.98 Lima Reser\oir 0.98 Big Sheep Creek 0.95 Bloody Dick Creek 0.94 Junction Creek 0.93 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 0.91 Little Sheep Creek 0.90 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 0.87 Red Rock River 0.87 In general, the watersheds in the study area have not been heavily disturbed by human activities: human impacts are relatively concentrated, and at the watershed scale, are offset by large roadless areas with no permanent development. The Muddy Creek and Sage Creek watersheds have the highest scores on the Landscape Integrity Index, while the Red Rock River and Lower Horse Prairie Creek watersheds, where most agricultural land use is concentrated, have the lowest scores. Stream Corridor Integrity Index (ISCI) The Stream Corridor Integrity' Index measures the amount of natural land cover within a set buffer on either side of all perennial and intermittent streams. It was calculated by creating a 60-meter buffer on each side of the stream segments in the 1:100.000 National H\'drography Dataset and assessing land cover and land use from the NLCD. Although higher resolution stream data are available and were used in other calculations (e.g., the Hydrologic Complexitv' Index), these data include many ephemeral streams and drainages where transport of sediment, runoff, and pollution may be minimal. By using lower-resolution data, we hoped to capture perennial and intermittent streams while avoiding ephemeral drainages. This index offers a way to determine whether areas adjacent to streams are contributing more 26 than natural amounts of sediment, runoff, and pollution. Croplands and fallow fields will produce higher sedimentation rates than naturally vegetated areas (Wilkin and Hebel 1982). and activities that create impermeable cover (particularly roads and commercial, industrial, or residential development) will lead to elevated ninoff levels, as well as overland transport of chemical pollutants. The Stream Corridor Integrity Index, as developed by Tiner et al. (2000). is generally a simple ratio of naturally vegetated stream corridor to total stream corridor area, with no allowance made for either grazing impacts or types of non-vegetation cover. Accordingly, we weighted the various land uses in terms of their assumed impacts on riparian systems. We assumed, for example, that grazing pressure would be better characterized as "moderate" than as "light" in riparian grasslands, as cattle are prone to congregate near sites offering shade and water, but that riparian grasslands would be more lush and therefore somewhat more resilient to grazing than more water-stressed uplands. Following Hauer et al. (2002), we therefore gave grasslands in the stream corridor (which we assumed were all grazed) a weight of 0.6. Again following the weights assigned by Hauer et al. (2002) for riparian corridors, we changed the weight assigned to Hay or Pasture from a 0.6 to a 0.5 to reflect the higher risk of erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient enrichment from agricultural activities near a stream. The weights we used for individual activities in the calculation of the Stream Corridor Index were: Use Weight Other 0.5 Open Water 1.0 Low intensity residential 0.0 Commercial, industrial, transportation 0.0 Bare rock, sand or clay 1.0 Deciduous forest 1.0 Evergreen forest 1.0 Mixed forest 1.0 Shrubland 1.0 Grassland or herbaceous 0.6 Pasture or hay 0.5 Cultivated crops/fallowed land 0.2 Developed, open space 0.4 Herbaceous wetlands 1 .0 Woody wetlands 1 .0 We then calculated this index as: ISCI=ALCWt/ATC, where ALCWt = the sum of the weighted scores for land cover in acres and ATC = total stream corridor area, in acres. We report 60 meters as the buffer width on each side of the streams ( 1 00 meters total) because many of the tributary corridors are in relatively confined valleys, but we found little difference between scores calculated with 60. 1 20, and 1 80 meter buffers.' As can be seen from Table 8, the Red Rock Lakes watershed retains the highest amount of stream corridor integrity, while the Lower Horse Prairie Creek watershed appears to have the greatest amount of disturbance along the corridor. Table 8. Stream Corridor Integrity Index. Red Rock Lakes 0.96 Lima Reservoir 0.84 Muddy Creek 0.81 Bloody Dick Creek 0.80 Cabin Creek 0.80 Medicine Lodge Creek 0.79 Sage Creek 0.77 Nicholia Creek 0.76 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 0.76 Big Sheep Creek 0.76 Little Sheep Creek 0.71 Red Rock River 0.70 Junction Creek 0.69 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 0.69 Riparian Loss Index (IRL) Land use activities within the stream and river corridor are one measure of the departure from natural conditions; another is direct loss of riparian - We used 60m rather than 50 because the NLCD is based on 30m grids. 27 vegetation. This is especially true along the major streams and rivers in the region of the assessment area, where cottonwoods, mixed forests, or willow shrublands should be dominant land cover features. To approximate riparian loss, we used the 200 1 National Land Cover Dataset to create a vegetation layer that includes forests and woody wetlands. Willow-dominated shrublands are generally classified as woody wetlands in the NLCD, while cottonwoods are usually assigned to the deciduous forest class. Because there are some evergreen forests along higher elevation streams, we included all forest types (deciduous, evergreen and mixed) in this calculation. We buffered all streams from the 1 : 1 00,000 National Hydrography Dataset by 60 meters on each side, and calculated the acres of riparian vegetation. To be on the conservative side, and recognizing the inaccuracies inherent in land cover data at this resolution, we calculated that under natural conditions, the riparian corridor area would include at least 30% forest and woody wetland vegetation. Any departure from that was held to be a loss. The index was calculated as: IRL = 1 - (ARV)/ (0.50 *ATR), where ARV = the acreage of riparian vegetation within the buffered corridor, and ATR = the total riparian corridor area, in acres. Table 9 shows the Riparian Loss scores for each watershed; high scores indicate a greater level of disturbance, while low scores equal a lower level. Negative scores mean that the current riparian corridor is more than 30% forested. There was a large spread between scores, ranging from a high of 0.45 for the Junction Creek and Lower Horse Prairie Creek watersheds to a low of -0. 1 8 for the Red Rock Lakes watershed. Although many of the watersheds with less than 30%) woody cover in the riparian corridor are in semi-arid areas, in the absence of stream incision and diversion of stream flows, we would expect more willows and other riparian shrubs. Therefore, we suggest that there has been significant loss of woody riparian vegetation since pre- settlement times in several of the assessment area watersheds. However, we also note that ten of the fourteen watersheds still have close to, or more than, an average of 30% woody cover along their streams and rivers. Table 9. Riparian Loss Index. Red Rock Lakes -0.18 Muddy Creek -0.04 Bloody Dick Creek -0.03 Medicine Lodge Creek -0.03 Cabin Creek 0.02 Lima Reservoir 0.10 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 0.13 Big Sheep Creek 0.13 Sage Creek 0.14 Nicholia Creek 0.17 Little Sheep Creek 0.26 Red Rock River 0.37 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 0.45 Junction Creek 0.45 Composite Watershed Condition Index (CWCI) The Composite Watershed Condition Index is calculated by subtracting the Riparian Loss Index from the Landscape Integrity Index and the Stream Corridor Integrity Index. CWCI = (ILI + ISCI)- (IRL) The highest possible score would be 2.00, assuming scores of 1 .00 (best) on each of the integrity indices and 0.00 (best) on the Riparian Loss Index. Because we had negative scores on the Riparian Loss Index, we had one CWCI score over 2.00, so all scores were converted to a range of 0.00 to 2.00 by dividing them by 0.5 of the high score. A score of 2.00 represents the sort of conditions associated with remote, undeveloped areas with little history of mining, agriculture, or other human land use other than grazing . For inhabited areas, scores will be much lower and could be a negative number when integrity indices are low and riparian loss is high. We would expect to see scores between 1 .00 and 1 .50 in inhabited rural watersheds. 28 The Composite Watershed Condition scores are shown in Table 10 and in Figure 1 1. All the watersheds received positive scores, ranging from highs of 2.00 for the Red Rock Lakes watershed to a low of 1 .05. Half of the watersheds in the assessment area scored higher than 1 .50. and two were very close ( 1 .49). In general, this indicates that there are relatively few landscape- level disturbances affecting watershed health and integrity, and that they tend to be concentrated in a handful of watersheds. The highest-scoring Red Rock Lakes watershed has a high percentage of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nature Conservancy, and BLM- and Forest Service- managed land, and is sparsely populated. By contrast the lowest scoring watersheds (Lower Horse Prairie Creek. Junction Creek, Red Rock River) have more population, and concentrations of agriculture on riparian floodplains. Table 10. Composite Watershed Condition Index. Red Rock Lakes 2.00 Muddy Creek 1.74 Medicine Lodge Creek 1.70 Bloody Dick Creek 1.67 Cabin Creek 1.66 Lima Reservoir 1.62 Sage Creek 1.54 Big Sheep Creek 1.49 Nicholia Creek 1.49 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 1.46 Little Sheep Creek 1.27 Red Rock River 1.14 Junction Creek 1.11 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 1.05 Riparian Grazing Threat Index In past watershed assessments, we have calculated a Composite Watershed Condition Index based on multiple threats: residential and recreational development, oil and gas extraction, conversion of prairie grasslands to agriculture, riparian grazing, etc. Energy transmission lines and facilities may be routed through this area in the future, and the area south of Dillon may see some population growth, but neither of these possibilities is certain enough for us to assess the scope of the threat at this time. Similarly, although agriculture and water diversions have certainly affected the natural environment in the past, we do not foresee major new agricultural initiatives or water projects. However, grazing around wetlands and riparian areas is a current threat that we e.xpect will continue. Therefore, we have calculated a Riparian Grazing Threat (IRGT) for the assessment area watersheds. Cattle grazing can cause soil compaction, nutrient enrichment, vegetation trampling and removal, habitat disturbance, and, depending on the season and intensity of use, reproductive failure for both plants and animals. In riparian areas, grazing can cause stream bank destabilization, loss of riparian shade, and increased sediment and nutrient loads (George et al. 2002). To assess this threat, we used the same 60 meter buffers that we used in the calculation of the riparian loss index, but here we measured the percentage of those buffers which were either under public land ownership (assumed to be available for grazing) or were private but listed in cadastral records as having grazing as a primary use. These buffers are narrow to capture the most intense riparian grazing effects (bank collapse, loss of vegetation filtering function, etc.) and to allow a cross-comparison to the Riparian Loss Index. The Riparian Grazing Threat Index was then calculated as: IGT = ARG/ART, where ARG is the area of public and private grazing land in the sfream buffers and ART is the total buffer area, in acres. These scores were then relativized by dividing all scores by the highest score. Table 1 1 has a breakdown of Riparian Grazing Threat scores for each of the 5th code watersheds. Two caveats are in order here. First the scores represent a potential threat and not necessarily an existing threat. For instance, riparian areas in the Lima Reservoir watershed, which have the highest scores on this metric, are not necessarily in worse 29 30 condition than any other 5th code watershed: management practices may limit riparian grazing, and the land itself may be unsuitable for grazing, or may not be grazed at all. Rural land with no other agricultural use is typically designated as grazing land for tax purposes, regardless of whether it is actually grazed. Moreover, management practices and stocking rates will determine actual condition. Second, scores only indicate potential grazing threats, not impacts that may have already occurred. However, based on our field observations, the two watersheds with the highest scores, Lima Reservoir and Sage Creek, do have widespread grazing. Similarly, the Red Rock River watershed, which had the third highest score on this inde.x, also had a relatively high score on the Riparian Loss Index, suggesting that grazing may have had negative impacts in the past. Table 11. Riparian gazing threat index Lima Reservoir 1.00 Sage Creek 0.79 Red Rock River 0.69 Red Rock Lakes 0.62 Lower Horse Prairie Creek 0.46 Medicine Lodge 0.42 Upper Horse Prairie Creek 0.38 Junction Creek 0.37 Cabin Creek 0.26 Bloody Dick Creek 0.22 Big Sheep Creek 0.17 Little Sheep Creek 0.17 Muddy Creek 0.16 Nicholia Creek 0.15 Interpreting the Broad-scale Assessment Composite Indices Although the composite assessment indices could be reduced to a single number, we have kept them separate because each represents a distinct and important piece of the watershed assessment. The Composite Natural Complexity Index provides a basis for assessing the raw material; the range of natural variability within the individual watersheds, which can be used as a surrogate for natural or background conditions. From a management standpoint, watersheds with high natural complexity are those where unique natural features are likely to occur, and may therefore warrant more detailed assessment. The Composite Watershed Condition Index represents overall change in natural conditions, allowing comparisons between individual watersheds and identification of factors that impact overall condition. The Riparian Grazing Threat Index is a measure of what can still be lost. This last index should be interpreted on its own, or at most in relation to the Composite Watershed Condition Index. For example, the Red Rock Lakes watershed has a high Composite Watershed Condition Index score, but also ranks fairly high on the Riparian Grazing Threat Index. This could indicate that high quality habitat values are at risk of being compromised by grazing, although on- site investigation would be needed to determine if this has been or can be offset by management. By contrast the Muddy Creek watershed has low Natural Complexity, but a high Watershed Condition Index and a low Riparian Grazing Threat score. Fine-scale Assessments During the summer of 2008 MTNHP wetland ecologists surveyed 1 03 lentic and lotic sites in the Centennial Valley, using standard BLM protocols (PFC) for assessing function in wetlands and riparian areas. An additional 37 sites were surveyed as part of the aquatic assessments using a separate BLM protocol designed for use in macroinvertebrate-based evaluations; these results are reported separately below. Of the 103 sites visited by the wetlands team, 83 were on land managed in whole or in part by the BLM; the remainder were on the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The Centennial Valley was chosen as the focus for these assessments by the BLM field office in Dillon. Unlike the rest of the assessment area, the Centennial Valley is especially rich in wetlands, and wetlands have been mapped as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. Sampling sites were selected by drawing a spatially distributed random sample, stratified by most common wetland classes, from the National Wetlands Inventory. Individual rankings and comments are found in Appendices C-1 to C-3. 31 The results are summarized below. Wetland and Riparian Assessments Of the 103 lentic and lotic sites assessed with PFC methodology, we found: •74 in Proper Functioning Condition; • 1 9 Functional at Risk with a downward trend; •3 Functional at Risk with an undetermined trend; •7 Nonfunctional. All lotic sites sampled (8) were in Proper Functioning Condition. Of 83 sampling sites believed to be or immediately adjacent to BLM-managed lands, we found: water, trap sediments, and filter nutrients. If the hummocking and pugging increase, we anticipate loss of function within less than a decade in many cases. We also note that several of the FAR wetlands where we saw severe impacts are fens, a relatively uncommon wetland type in southwestern Montana. In four cases where wetlands were found to be functional at risk, we found that the factors affecting the wetlands were beyond BLM management control. In one case, adjacent private land use is severely impacting a fen (Figure 12); in the other three, the factors ranged from road encroachment to dredging to the effects of drought. Most of the Nonfunctional wetlands were also the result of factors beyond management control: drying out of old beaver ponds, drainage by roads, or succession from wet to dry meadows. •56 in Proper Functioning Condition with a stable trend; • 1 7 Functional at Risk with a downward trend; •3 Functional at Risk with an undetermined trend; •7 Nonfunctional Overall, we found that the wetlands in the Centennial Valley exhibit a good degree of ecological integrity. Species richness is reasonably high (Appendix D), although most plant communities are dominated by plants with a high tolerance for disturbance. Most of the sites that were found to be in PFC were ranked as A or B in the ecological integrity assessments, and even those sites ranked as FAR were typically ranked B or C. In almost every case where a wetland was assessed as functional at risk, the reason was hydrologic modification, generally by livestock. With long winters and high moisture. Centennial Valley wetlands tend to have wet soils well into the grazing season, and are especially susceptible to pugging and hummocking . In many of the organic soils found in the Valley and its surroundings, hummocking and pugging create channels that drain water away from the wetlands. In many of these FAR wetlands, the hummocking is so severe that a person cannot walk through the wetland without great difficulty. Although these wetlands still support hydrophilic plants, they are gradually losing their ability to intercept and store surface Figure 12. Land use adjacent to a fen. In our initial wetland sample draw, we identified 100 wetlands from the National Wetlands Inventory mapping. Less that 80 of these were wetlands when we located them. In most cases, we attributed this to mapping errors: sites were more mesic than wet. In other cases, the loss appeared to be attributable to drought rather than to human factors, although soil compaction and heavy grazing may have played a factor in some instances. We also noted that in general, invasive weeds are not common in assessment area. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) was the most common invasive. However, exotic grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome {Bromus inermis) have become widespread, and appear to be outcompeting native species in many riparian areas. 32 Figure 13. A proper functioning condition riparian site. Figure 14. AJunciional ui risk ulc with a downward trend. Figure 15. A nonfunctional site. In areas where cattle congregate or loaf along stream banks, we saw bare batches and examples of bank sheer. Still, in areas where grazing is light and water supplies are abundant, willows are well- established along most of the perennial creeks, and recruitment is generally good. Browsing by all species —cattle, moose and elk— appears to be relatively limited. Aquatic Assessments As a second component of our fine-scale assessment work, we sampled and assessed aquatic community integrity based on macroinvertebrate and habitat sampling at lotic sites near where PFC assessments were carried out. Our goal was to identify and interpret key community indicators found at the sites using standardized protocols and biotic thresholds, and compare these against reference condition standards at the watershed- level and local-reach scale. On-site habitat assessments were conducted using the rapid assessment protocol by the National Aquatic Assessment of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Buglab (scores 0-24) (http://www 1 .usu.edu/buglab/fonns/ Bu2%20Protocol%20form.pdn. Following the BLM assessment protocols, the reach was divided into ten equally spaced transects. At each transect, we measured wetted width, bankfull width, channel depth at three locations, and amount of large woody debris and riparian shading. Basic water chemistry parameters (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved O^ ) were recorded prior to sampling at the downstream end of the reach using a Horiba H- 10 water monitor. These measurements allow characterization of local reach geomorphology, riparian and in-stream habitat, and other qualities that influence aquatic community integrity. Sites ranking higher using these protocols are determined to have higher quality local-scale habitat. Habitat assessments were performed during the same visit as the biological sampling. Habitat assessment scores greater than 20 are considered intact and properly functioning, while those with scores at or below 20 have one or more habitat / riparian impairments. Macroinvertebrates were collected in lotic sites from 10 evenly spaced transects across the reach with a 500-micron D-frame net. The method utilized was the EPA EMAP Reach- Wide Multi- 33 habitat protocol outlined in Lazorchak et al. (1998). All 10 samples taken within the designated transects were composited into a bucket, and the organisms were washed onto a 500-micron sieve, transferred to a one liter Nalgene bottle, labeled and preserved in 95% ethanol, and brought to the MTNUP lab in Helena for processing. Lentic site macroinvertebrates were sampled using the multi-habitat, dipnet protocols outlined in the EPA RBP Assessment Manual (Barbour et al. 1999). This involved 20 (1/2 m) dipnet jabs partitioned in accordance to the dominant habitat types of the wetland (i.e., emergent vegetation, submerged vegetation, unconsolidated bottom, etc.). These samples were processed (sorting, identification, and data analysis) by David Stagliano at the Helena NHP lab. Processing of samples from lotic sites followed MT Department of Environmental Quality's protocols (MT DEQ 2005). Macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest taxonomic level, and data were imported into EDAS (Jessup 2006). Biological metrics were calculated from the data using the newest multimetric macroinvertebrate (MMI) protocols (Jessup et al. 2005, Feldman 2006). The macroinvertebrate MMI score is based upon a series of metrics that measure attributes of benthic macroinvertebrate communities that are sensitive to anthropogenic changes in streams and rivers. There are currently no MT DEQ or EPA approved metrics for wetland macroinvertebrate assessments, so interpretation of invertebrate samples from lentic sites was largely informed by best professional judgment, given knowledge of expected communities, individual taxon tolerances, and assemblage metrics known to respond to anthropogenic stressors (species richness, taxa dominance, etc.) (Barbour et. al. 1999). We also analyzed a subset of lentic samples with the macroinvertebrate MMI to determine whether metrics developed for lotic sites might provide useful information. For both lentic and lotic sites, metric results were scored using the Montana DEQ bioassessment criteria and each sample was categorized as non- impaired or impaired according to threshold values (Table 12). The impairment threshold set by MT DEQ is 63 for the Mountain Stream Index, and 48 for the Low Mountain/ Valley Index; any scores above this threshold are considered unimpaired. Although all lotic sites in the Centennial Assessment Basin fall within the mountain elevation class, the streams themselves have characteristics of the Foothills/Valleys ecoregion and the Small Foothills River Aquatic Ecological System (AES COOl). Consequently, both MMI scores are reported and interpreted. We caution the reader to evaluate these scores in the context of the habitat assessments performed for this part of the study. Because of the mix of mountain and foothill features, the MMI FV may assign some mildly impaired Mountain streams an unimpaired score, while the Mountain MMI may falsely assign impaired rankings to unimpaired Foothills streams. In our analysis of habitat condition, we found that 14 of the 37 (38%) aquatic assessment wetland sites had good habitat quality (i.e.. Proper Functioning Condition) ranked by at least one of the habitat assessment methods (Table 13). Twenty of the sites (54%) were ranked impaired (Functional At Risk); six of these had a downward trend and four appeared to be improving. Three sites were impaired to the point of being Nonfijnctional wetlands (S%). Highest site habitat scores using both BLM habitat assessment methods were measured at West Fork Corral Creek, where we sampled 3 lotic sites and 1 lentic wetland. Highest deductions to the riparian assessment scores were m stream sediments, bare ground, and Table 12. Impairment determinations from the MMI. Ecoregion RTVPACS MMI Impairment Determination Mountain > 0.8 or < 1.2 >63 Not impaired <0.8or> 1.2 <63 Impaired Low Valley >0.8or< 1.2 >48 Not impaired <0.8or> 1.2 <48 Impaired 34 Table 13 Centennial Valley dragonfly and damselfJy species. n 1 n m z 1 r 'n vn Z (J CD r- 1 n m z 1 to DD C 1 O m z 1 to DD r- 'o m Z 1 to CTv DD r- 1 o m z 1 to DD n 1 n n 3 1 DD r- 1 n n 3 1 1>J to DD r- 1 n n> 3 1 UJ DD r- 1 n a> 3 1 OJ *> CD r- n ft 3 1^ DD r- n ft 3 1 OS DD r- 1 o fl 3 1 to CD r- 'n ft 3 1 to DD n 1 n ft 3 1 to CD t- 1 n ft 3 1 to Damselflies Argia (Larvae) X X Amphiagrion abbreviatiim X testes congener X X X X X X testes disjimctus X X X X X X X testes dryas X X X Enallagma (Larvae) X X X X X X X X Enallcig/tici cmncxuni X X X X X X X X Enallagma horeale X X X X Dragonflies Aeshna constricta X X X Aeshna palmata X X X X X X Aeshna interrupt a X Sympetrum (Larvae) X X Sympetrum internum X X X X X X X Sympetrum danae X X X Sympetrum pallipes X X X teucorrhinia proximo X X X X X Ophiogomphus severus X Somatochlora semicircularis X Total Odonata 3 6 4 3 6 2 10 9 10 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 bank trampling by cattle intrusions into the riparian zone. These intrusions were specifically measured using the Livestock Use Index (LUI), which was very high for multiple streams and wetlands including East Fork Corral Creek and wetlands in the West Creek . Overall, 1 1 8 macroinvertebrate taxa were reported from the BLM 2008 aquatic assessment sites. Average macroinvertebrate taxa richness per site was 22, and the highest taxa richness reported at 2 sites was 46 taxa. Using the Montana DEQ FV MMI, 15 of the 16 lotic sites sampled were ranked non-impaired (good to excellent biological integrity) and 1 was slightly impaired. Using the DEQ Mountain MMI, 6 of 1 5 were non- impaired, 5 slightly impaired and 4 moderately to severely impaired. The Foothills MMI may not be as sensitive to degraded conditions and changing macroinvertebrate communities. The macroinvertebrate communities ranked with the mountain MMI index seemed to correlate with riparian condition better, with slightly impaired macroinvertebrate communities reported more often at riparian areas ranked FAR. However, no significant relationship was detected between the lotic BLM Habitat Assessment Scores and either the DEQ MT MMI or FV metric scores (Figure 16). In fact, two of the highest macroinvertebrate MMI Scores (>70) were collected from lotic 35 80.00 70.00 60.00 1 50.00 u < 0.5 A A ^^^^1 - ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^y A' .'' BFAR ■ PFC #0(lanafe Larvae Spp, Figure 1 7. Odonata larval species richness by functional condition. measure cumulative effects (Johnson 2005). Impacts may occur at a significant distance from their effects, as is often the case with upstream- downstream relationships observed in aquatic systems, or they may occur in close proximity. For example, impacts from land use activities in upstream watersheds may have effects downstream. Typically, the value of watershed-level assessments lies in identifying areas where impacts are currently occurring or may occur, rather than merely documenting effects that have already occurred. By combining both site-level and watershed-level assessments, it is possible to select areas where management can make a substantial difference in future wetland and aquatic health. Even when there are similar findings between the two levels of assessment, they need to be examined less for correlation than for the different perspectives they provide. In this case, the correlation is quite pronounced. In our broad-scale assessment, both the Red Rock Lakes and Lima Reservoir watersheds had the highest overall scores on the Composite Natural Complexity, indicating similarities in baseline condition. However, the Red Rock Lakes watershed had a markedly higher score on the Composite Wetland Condition Index, suggesting that impacts were occurring across a broad scale. This is borne out by the fine-scale assessments. As can be seen in Figure 1 8, the wetlands assessed in the Red Rock Lakes watershed were mostly in Proper Functioning Condition, while many of the wetlands in the Lima Creek Reservoir watershed showed some level of impairment. From our field surveys, it appears that landscape level stressors and site-specific stressors are related in these two watersheds. The Red Rock Lakes watershed is the more remote of the two, has fewer roads, and has been grazed less intensively over the past decades. The Lima Creek Reservoir watershed, by contrast, has more private land and more livestock operations, and consequently more roads to facilitate the movement of cattle. As noted above, most of the functional impairments we observed were associated with the timing and/or intensity of livestock use. On the positive side, however, this provides clear management opportunities for the BLM. 37 CD w" T3 C 0} 5 T3 0) CO I a. U 38 Management Opportunities The BLM owns and administers a substantial proportion of land within the assessment area, and can play an important role in conserving or restoring natural functioning. Based on our broad- scale and fine-scale assessments in the Centennial Valley, we think that grazing management provides the best opportunity for protecting and restoring wetland function. Although wetlands and some riparian areas have been negatively impacted by grazing, our field surveys indicated that rangelands across the assessment area are in generally good to very good condition, and reflect conscientious grazing management. In an area rich with wetlands, general exclusion of cattle through fencing is impractical. We would recommend instead that the BLM carry out wetland landscape profiling and targeted surveys to identify specific examples of sensitive wetland habitats, and develop grazing management strategies on a case-by-case basis. For example, we used a GIS to identify NWl-mapped wetlands with a "'saturated" designation (PEMB or PSSB) on BLM lands in the Centennial Valley. These saturated wetlands are often fens or carrs, which are noted for their high diversity and potential for rare plant occurrences. Figure 19 shows two distinct clusters of saturated wetland along Long Creek and Clover Creek, with other examples scattered throughout Centennial Valley BLM lands. Inspection of these areas on aerial photos, followed by field evaluation, could determine if these areas are indeed significant wetlands in good or restorable condition. If this is the case, exclusion might be warranted. A similar exercise could identify seasonally flooded wetlands, where soils are more sensitive to grazing disturbance in the spring than later in the season. If there are concentrations of high-qualify seasonally flooded wetlands, then grazing plans limiting early season access would be a good protection strategy. These management practices, coupled with frequent utilization monitoring, would provide effective protection of wetland ftinctions and values in the area. 39 40 Literature Cited Barbour. M., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Pro- tocols For Use In Streams And Wadable Riv- ers: Periphvlon. Benthic Macroinvertebrates And Fish. Second Edition. Epa 841-B-99-002. United States Environmental Protection Agen- cy; Office of Water: Washington. D.C. BLM Dillon Field Office. 2007. Red Rock and Lima Watershed Assessment. Dillon, MT. Available at: http://\v\vvv.blm.gov/mt/en/fo/dil- lon field office/redrock. html. Comer. P.. D. Faber-Langendoen. R. Evans, S. Gawler. C. Josse. G. Kittel. S. Menard. M. Pyne, M. Reid. K. Schulz. K. Snow, and J. league. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 83pp. George, M.R., R.E. Larsen, N.K. McDougald, K.W. Tate, J.D. Gerlach, Jr., and K.O. Fulgham. 2002. Influence of grazing on channel morphol- ogy of intermittent streams. J. Range Manage- ment. 55:551-557. Great Plains Flora Association. 1 977. Atlas of the Flora of the Great Plains. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, KS. 1392 pp. Hansen, Paul L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J.Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classi- fication and Management of Montana's Ripar- ian and Wetland Sites. Miscellaneous Publica- tion No. 54. School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Crowe. E. and G. Kudray. 2003. Wetland Assess- ment of the Whitewater Watershed. Report to U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Malta Field Office. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. MT. 34 pp. plus appendices. Cowardin L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T LaRoe. 1979. Classification Of Wetlands And Deepwater Habitats of The United States. US- FWS, Office of Biol. Sen (FWS/OBS-79/31), December 1979. 103 pp. Dom, R. D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY. 276 pp. Feldman. D. 2006. Interpretation of New Macro- invertebrate Models by WQPB. Draft Report. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Planning Prevention and Assistance Division, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Water Quality Standards Section. 1 520 E. 6* Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. 14 pp. Hauer, F. R., B.J. Cook, M.C. Gilbert, E.C. Clai- rain, Jr., and R.D. Smith. May 2002. A Region- al Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomor- phic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Intermontane Prairie Pothole Wetlands in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Special Publica- tion ERDC/El'tR-02-7. WES, USCOE, Vicks- burg, MS. 1 1 8 pp. plus appendices. Hendricks, P. and M. Roedel. 200 1. A Faunal Survey Of The Centennial Valley Sandhills, Beaverhead County. Montana. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. MT. 44 pp. Heidel, B. and E. Rodemayer. 2008. Inventory of Peatland Systems in the Beartooth Mountains. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, WY. 43 pp. 41 Jean, C, P. Hendricks, M. Jones, S.V. Cooper and J. Carlson. 2002. Ecological Communities on the Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refiige; Inventory and Review of Aspen and Wet- land Systems. Report to the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refiige. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 33 pp. plus appendices. Jessup, B., J. Stribling; and C. Hawkins. 2005. Biological Indicators of Stream Condition in Montana Using Macroinvertebrates. Tetra Tech, Inc. November 2005 (draft). Jessup, B. 2006. Ecological Data Application System (EDAS) Version MT 3.3.2k A User's Guide. Tetra Tech, Inc. Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Green- land. In J.T. Kartesz and C.A. Meacham, edi- tors. Synthesis Of The North American Flora, Version 1 .0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Lazorchak, J.M., Klemm, D.J., and D.V. Peck (editors). 1998. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, Washington, D.C. Mueggler, W.F. 1988. Aspen Community Types Of The Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report rNT-250. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 135 pp. Moyle, RB. and M.R Marchetti. 1999. Applica- tions of indices of biotic integrity to California streamsand watersheds. Pages 367-382 in T.P. Simon, editor. Assessing The Sustainability And Biological Integrity Of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 671 pp. Omemik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the contermi- nous United States (map supplement). Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p.118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. Power, M.E. G. Parker, W.E. Dietrich, and A. Sun. 1995. How does floodplain width affect flood- plain river ecology? A preliminary exploration using simulations. Geomorphology 13:301- 317. Pritchard, D., F. Berg, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M. Manning, C. Noble, and J. Staats. 1999. Riparian Area Manage- ment: A User Guide To Assessing Proper Func- tioning Condition And The Supporting Science For Lentic Areas. Technical Reference 1737- 16. USDI Bureau of Land Management Service Center. Denver, Colorado. USA. 1 09 pp. Tiner, R., M. Starr, H. Bergquist, and J. Swords. 2000. Watershed-Based Wetland Character- ization For Maryland's Nanticoke River And Coastal Bays Watersheds: A Preliminary As- sessment Report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Program, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Program (pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration award). NWI technical report. Vance, L.K. 2005. Watershed Assessment Of The Cottonwood And Whitewater Watersheds. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 57 pp. plus appendices. Vance, L., D. Stagliano, and G. M. Kudray. 2006. Watershed Assessment of the Middle Powder Subbasin, Montana. A Report To The Bureau Of Land Management, Montana State Ofiice. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 6 1 pp. plus appendices. 42 Vance. Linda K. and David M. Stagliano. 2007. Watershed Assessment of Portions of the Lower Musselshell and Fork Peck Reservoir Sub- basins. Report to the Bureau of Land Man- agement. Lewistown Field Office. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 41 pp. plus appendices. Vance. Linda K. and David M. Stagliano. 2008. Watershed Assessment of Portions of the Clark's Fork Yellowstone. Bighhom Lake, and Shoshone Subbasins. Montana and Wyoming. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana / Dakotas State Offices. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. Montana. 45 pp. plus appendices. Vance. Linda K. 2009. Assessing Wetland Condi- tion with GIS: A Landscape Integrity Model for Montana. A Report to The Montana Depart- ment of Environmental Quality and The Envi- ronmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 23 pp. plus appendices. Wilkin. D.C.. and S.J. Hebel. 1982. Erosion, rede- position and delivery of sediment to Midwest- em streams. Water Resources Research (18)4 pp. 1278-1282. 43 Appendix A. Montana Species of Concern IN THE Assessment Area Scientific Name Common Name Amphibians Bufo hori'iis Western Toad Birds Accipiler i^i'ulilis Northern Goshawk A echmophonis chirkii Clark's Grebe A mmodnimus savunnuruni Grasshopper Sparrow Amphispiza belli Sage Sparrow Aipiilci clirvsiU'lo.s Golden Eagle Anlea herodias Great Blue Heron Asiofiammeiis Short-eared Owl Athene cunicularia Burrowing Ow 1 Bolaurus lenliginosus American Bittern Bucephala ishimlica Barrow's Goldeneye Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk Buteo s^iciinsoni Swainson's Hawk C 'alcarius mccownii McCown's Longspur C 'urpodacm cassinii Cassin's Finch C 'utharus fuscescem Veery Centrocercus urophasicnnis Greater Sage-Grouse C \'rtluci americana Brown Creeper Chlkionias niger Black Tern L 'otwiiicops novehoracensis Yellow Rail Cygiius buccinator Trumpeter Swan Empicionax alnoruni Alder Flycatcher Faico peregrinus Peregrine Falcon GcTvia immer Common Loon Grus americana Whooping Crane Haliaeetiis leucocephalm Bald Eagle Himantopm rnexicamis Black-necked Stilt Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern Leucophaeus pipixcan Franklin's Gull Leucosticte atrata Black Rosy-Finch Leiicosticte tephrocotis Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Melanerpes lewis Lewis's Woodpecker Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler Nncifraga columbiana Clark's Nutcracker Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew NycticorcLx nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron Appendix A- I Oreoscoptes montatnis Sage Thrasher Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Peleccmus erythrorhynchos American White Pelican Picoides arcticiis Black-backed Woodpecker Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis Podiceps auritus Homed Grebe Selasphorm platycerciis Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus rufiis Rufous Hummingbird Spizelki breweri Brewer's Sparrow Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Sterna hirundo Common Tern StJ'ix nehidosa Great Gray Owl Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren Fish Lota lota Burbot Oncorhynchus clarkii hoinieri Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oucorliynchus clarkii lewisi Westslope Cutthroat Trout Salveliniis namaycush Lake Trout Thymallus arcticus Arctic Grayling Mammals Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy Rabbit Canis lupus Gray Wolf Connor hin us townsendii Townsend's Big-eared Bat Giilo gulo Wolverine Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jack Rabbit Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx Mannota caligata Hoary Marmot Myotis thysanodes Fringed Myotis Perognathus parvus Great Basin Pocket Mouse Sorex merriami Merriam's Shrew Sorex nanus Dwarf Shrew Sorex preblei Preble's Shrew Spermophilus armatus Uinta Ground Squirrel Spermophilus elegans Wyoming Ground Squirrel Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk Thomomys idahoensis Idaho Pocket Gopher Ursus arctos Grizzly Bear Invertebrates Agapetus montaints An Agapetus Caddisfly Appendix A- 2 i'aenis VDiini^i A Ma>fly Euphyiiryas gilk'ttii Gillette's Checkerspot Mar^iaritifeni fiilcahi Western Pearlshell Lichens RliizopLicci hiiydenii Wamderlust Lichen Plants Aguslache cusickii Cusick's Giant-hyssop A nuiranthus californiciis California Amaranth A quilegia furmosa Crimson Columbine Asiragaliis cenimicus var. apm Painted Milk-vetch Astragalus convallarius Timber Milk-vetch Astragalus leptaleus Park Mi Ik- vetch Astragalus scaphoides Bitterroot Milk-vetch Astragalus terminalis Railhead Milk-vetch A triplex trwicata Wedge-leaved Saltbush Balsamorhiza hookeri Hooker's Balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrophylla Cut-leaf Balsamroot Braya humilis Low Braya C 'alochortus bruueaunis Bnmeau Mariposa Lily Carex iJahoa Idaho Sedge Carex multicostata Many-ribbed Sedge Carex norwgica ssp. stevenii Scandinavian Sedge t 'asiilleja crisla-galli Greater Red Indian-paintbrush Castilleja nivea Snow Indian-paintbrush Chrysothaminis parryi ssp. montauus Parry's Rabbitbrush Cry-ptanthafendleri Fendler's Cat's-eye Cryptantha humilis Round-spike Cat's-eye Delphinium hicolor ssp. calcicola Flat-head Larkspur Delphinium glaucescens Electric Peak Larkspur Downingia laeta Great Basin Downingia Draha densifolia Denseleaf Whitlow-grass Draba glohosa Rockcress Draba Elatine americana American Waterwort Elymus fla\'escens Sand Wildrye Erigeron asperugineus Idaho Fleabane Erigeron gracilis Slender Fleabane Erigeron leiomerus Smooth Fleabane Erigeron linearis Linearleaf Fleabane Erigeron parryi Parry's fleabane Erigeron tener Tender Fleabane Eriogonum caespitosum Matted Wild Buckwheat Appendix A - 3 Eriogonum soliceps Railroad Canyon Wild Buckwheat Eiipatoriwu occidenlale Western Joepye-weed Gentiana fremorUii Moss Gentian Gentianopsis simplex One-flower Gentian Hutchinsia procumhens Prostrate Hymenolobus Ipowopsis congest a ssp. crebrifolia Compact Gilia Kobresia sinipliciusctila Simple Kobresia Kochia americana Perennial Summer-cypress Lomatiiim alleniuitiim Taper-tip Desert-parsley Lomatogonium rotatiim Marsh Felwort Oenothera pallida var. idahoensis Pale Evening-primrose Orogenia linearifolia Great Basin Indian-potato Oxy'tropis purryi Parry's Crazy weed Pedicukiris contorta var. ctenophora Coil-beaked Lousewort Pedicularis cremdata Seal lop- leaf Lousewort Penstemon lemhiensis Lemhi Beardtongue Penstemon whippleamis Whipple's Beardtongue Phacelia incana Western Phacelia Physaria pulchella Beautiful Bladderpod Plagiobothrys leptocladus Alkali Popcorn-flower Potentilla plaftensis Platte River Cinquefoil Primula alcalina Alkali Primrose Primula incana Jones Primrose Puccinellia lemmonii Lemmon's Alkali Grass Ranunculus jovis Hillside Buttercup Silene repens Creeping Catchfly Sphaeralcea munroana White-stem Globemallow Sphaeromeria argentea Nuttall's False Sagebrush Stellaria crassifolia Fleshy Stitchwort Stellaria jamesiana Sticky False-starwort Stipa lettermanii Letterman's Needlegrass Taraxacum eriophorum Wool-bearing Dandelion Thalictrum alpinum Alpine Meadowrue Thelypodium paniculatum Northwestern Thelypody Thelypodium sagittatum Slender Thelypody Thlaspi parviflorum Small-flowered Pennycress Townsendia florifera Showy Townsend-daisy Townsendia spathulata Sword Townsendia Viguiera multiflora Many-flower Viguiera Appendix A- 4 Appendix B. MTNHP Rapid Ecological Integrity Assessment Forms SITE INFORMATION SITE NAME_ SITE ID ASSESSMENT AREA SIZE IN M' OWNERSHIP HU04 HUC5 DATE OF VISIT ASSESSED by' PROJECT/PURPOSE ELEVATION GPS WAYPOINT_ Datum_ Lat: Stream order, if riverine_ Fish sampled? Macroinvertebrates sampled?_ Sample ID, if yes Long: (Use decimal degrees) General site description, including surrounding uplands Directions to site: Soil drainage: Well-drained Total wetland area covered by standing water: Moderately well-drained u Poorly drained Very poorly drained 1to25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% PHOTOS: Direction Description N W CLASSIFICATION ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM^ CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Very High_ _Hlgh_ Medium LOM DOMINANT ASSOCIATION(S):. HGM Wetland Type: (Circle one) Riverine Upper Perennial Lower Perennial Intenmittent Ephemeral Depressional Open Closed Prairie Pothole CONFIDENCE LEVEL: . Comments: Very High Lacustrine Fringe Slope Mineral Flat Open Spring Playa Rivenne Spring Fen Hanging valley Wet Meadow Seep Hiqh Medium Low COWARDIN TYPE(S): System Subsystem Class Water regime Modifier Appendix B - I Site Name_ Site ID LEVEL II ASSESSMENT-Marshes, wet meadows, potholes MFfRiC EXCELLENT(A) 666d(B) FAIR(<;) PbOR(D) SCORE LANDSCAPE CONTEXT Connectivity Non-hvehne 90-100% natural habitat within 500 m of wetland penmeter 60-90% natural habitat within 500 m of wetland penmeter 10-60% natural habitat within 500 m of wetland perimeter <10% natural habitat within 500 m of wetland penmeter Riverine 90-100% natural habitat within 500 m on either side and 500 m upstream and downstream 60-90% natural habitat within 500 m on either side and 500 m upstream and downstream 10-60% natural habitat within 500 m on either side and 500 m upstream and downstream <10% natural habitat within 500 m on either side and 500 m upstream and downstream Buffer Length Buffer IS > 75% of wetland penmeter Buffer IS > 50-75% of wetland perimeter Buffer is 25-50% of wetland perimeter Buffer is < 25% of wetland penmeter Width Average buffer width is > 200 m. adjusted for slope Average buffer width >100-200 m. adjusted for slope Average buffer vindth is 50 100 m, adjusted for slope Average buffer width is <50 m, adjusted for slope Condition Buffer IS >95% native vegetation with intact soils and little or no trash or refuse Buffer is >75-95% native vegetation with intact or slightly distrubed soils, and minor evidence of human visitation or recreation Buffer IS > 25-75% native vegetation with slightly to moderately distaibed soils, and moderate human visitation or recreation Buffer is < 25% native vegetation with severely disturbed soils, and substantial human visitation or recreation SIZE Relative Patch Size Wetland is > 95% of original size Wetland is > 80-95% of original size Wetland is 50-80% of original size Wetland is <50% of onginal size AI>solute Patch Size Wetland is very large compared to others of Its type (e g. top 10%) Wetland is large com- pared to others of its type {eg, top 10-30%) Wetland is average compared to others of its type (e.g., 30-70%) Wetland is too small to sustain full function and diversity VEGETATION STRUCTURE (BIOTA) Structure Vegetation at or near reference standard condition in structural proportions Vegetation moderately altered from reference standard condition in staictural proportions Vegetation greatly altered from reference standard condition in structural proportions Composition Vegetation at or near reference standard condition in species present and their proportions Regeneration good. Full suite of diagnostic species present Vegetation differs from reference standard condition but still largely native Tolerant or weedy natives may be present Many indicators absent Vegetation severely altered from reference standard Some strata absent or dominated by weedy species. Most indicator species absent Relative Cover of Native Plant Species >99% relative cover of native plants 95-99% relative cover of native plants 80-94% relative cover of native plants 50-79% relative cover of native plants Invasive exotic species No key invasive exotic plants present <3% invasive exotic plants present 3-5% invasive exotic plants present >5% invasive exotic plants present Organic Matter Accumulation Site has moderate amount of fine organic matter New materials more prevalent than Site IS charactenzed by small amounts of coarse organic debris, with little organic matter recuritment, OR debns is somewhat excessive Site has little coarse debris and only scant fine debns OR debns is excessive lows are thin. Appendix B- 2 site Name_ Site ID LEVEL II ASSESSMENT-Marsties. wet meadows, pottioles METRlt EXCELLENT(A) GOOD{B) FAIR(C) POOR(D) SCORE Patcti Types (See below) ■-■7 abiotic/biotic patch types present in the wetland (>6 for potholes) 5 to 7 abiotic/biotic patch types present in the wetland (5 or 6 for potholes) 3 or 4 abiotic/biotic patch types present in the wetland 1 or 2 abiotic/biotic patch types present Patch Interspersion Honzontal staicture consists of a very complex an-ay of nested or interspersed inegular biotc/abiotic patches with no single dominant type Honzontal structure consists of a moderately complex an-ay of nested or interspersed irregular biotic/abiotic patches with no single dominant type Honzontal structure consists of a simple array of nested or interspersed irregular biotic/abiotic patches with no single dominant type Honzontal structure consists of one dominant patch type with no interspersion HYDROLOGY Water Source Water source is preapitation. groundwater, natural runoff OR system naturally lacks water dunng growing season No indication of direct artifical water source or point source discharge Water source is mostly natural, but site receives occasional or small amounts of infiow from human sources e g , road runoff, storm drains, irngation) No large point source discharge into site Water source is pnmarily runoff, imgation. pumped water, impounded water, or other artficial hydrology Major point sources discharging into wetland may tie present Water flow has been substantially diminished by impoundments, diversions, or withdrawals from wetland or adjacent areas OR the water source is so altered that weUand vegetation is gone Hydroperiod Hydroperiod is characterized by natural penods of rilling/inundation and drawing down Filling or inundation is greater and of greater or lesser duration than under natural conditions, but the site is subject to natural drying Filling or inundation is natural, but drawdown and drying more rapid. OR filling/inundation is of lower than natural magnitude or duration, but site IS subject to natural drying Filling or inundation and drawdown/drying both deviate from natural regimes Hydrologic Connectivity Rising water in site has unrestricted access to adjacent upland, without levees, excessively high banks, artifiaal barners. or other obstructions to lateral movement of flood flows. Rising water has partially restncted (<50%) access to upland due to unnatural features OR flood drainage back into wetland is incomplete due to impoundments or bamers Rising water has significantly restncted (50- 90%) access to upland due to unnatural features All water stages in the wetlanc are contained by artifical banks, levees, walls, or bemns or >90% of wetland has barriers to drainage There is essentially no hydrologic connection to uplands PHYSIOCHEMICAL Soil Surface Integrity Bare soil areas are limited to naturally caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails Bare soil due to human impacts IS present but minimal Water is not ponding or channelled Unnatural areas of bare soil are common Ponding or channeling may be present in shallow disturbances Unnatural areas of bare soil are extensive and ponding or channeling is likely Surface disturbances are deep and widespread Water Quality Water is dear with no sheen, scum, or hint of green Plants that respond to enrichment are minimally present or absent Water has a minimal greenish tint, cloudiness, or sheen Plants that respond to ennchment are present but not dominant. Water has a moderate greenish tint, sheen, or turbidity with common algae Plants that respond to ennchment are common Water has a strong greenish tint, sheen, or turbidity Surface algal mats or other vegetation block light to the bottom Patch types: Lacustrine Fringe Open water-stream Oxbow/backwater Secondary channel Deep emergent plants ShallCTw emergent plants Beaver dam Trees Shrubs Springs/seeps Submergedffloating veg Transrtional meadow Pothole Open water Shallow emergent Saline meadow Hummocks or mounds Submerged or floating Transitional meadow Tall emergent Slope Open water-stream O xbow /backwater Secondary channel Deep emergent plants Shallow emergent plants Hummocks or mounds Shrubs Spnngs/seeps Submerged/floating veg Transitional meadow Flat Open water Mud/salt flat Salt flat Deep emergent plants Shallow emergent plants Saline meadows Greasewood Hummocks or mounds Submerged or floating vegetation Appendix B ~ 3 Site Name_ Site ID STRESSORS 1 Land use within 300m of wetland edge Percent land use Urban residential Industrial/commercial Military/airport Dryland farming Crop agriculture Orchards/nurseries Logging operation/timber removal Feedlot Dairy Enclosed livestock grazing Open range grazing Sports field or park Active recreation (OHV, mountain biking, shooting) Resource extraction Recent fire (<5 years) Boating (motonzed) Transportation with 500m of wetland edge Distance from edge Lightly travelled road Moderately travelled road Heavily travelled road Pedestnan trail Horse trail Railroad Land use within site % of site Mowing Livestock grazing Excessive herbivory Excessive human visitation Tree cutting/sapling removal Pesticide or herbicide application Recent fire (<5 years) Recent flood Invasive animals or plants Hydrology within 300m Impact (High/Medium/Low) Point source discharge Non-point source discharge Flow diversion or unnatural inflow Dams Flow obstructions Weirs, headgates Dredged inlet or channel Engineered channel Dike/levee Groundwater pumping Ditches Soil disturbance witin 300m Impact (High/Medium/Low) Filling or dumping Grading/compaction/roadwork Plowing or discing Logging or clearing Unnatural areas of bare soil Trash or refuse Pugging, hummocking, or erosion Appendix B - 4 LEVEL III ASSESSMENT-Marshes, wet meadows, potholes Procedure: 1. In each inundation zone, you will identify all species in 15 1 meter x 1/2 meter plots a. If there is only 1 inundation zone (eg, a wet meadow), place the plots in a concentric circle from the middle of the wetland to the outer edge. b. If there are two inundation zones, pace the circumference (or length) of the outer zone, and divide by 15 to get plot spacing Then place an additional 15 plots in a concentric circle from the inside edge of the outer zone to the innermost extent of emergent vegetation. 2. In each square plot, identify all plant species and record its cover using the following cover classes: Range Class Solitary or few 1 Oto1% 2 1-2% 3 2-5% 4 5-10% 5 10-25% 6 25-50% 7 50-75% 8 75-95% 9 95-100% 10 3. Draw the approximate shape of the assessment area and the distribution of plots on the aerial photograph, if available. If not, sketch it below. Appendix B - 5 SITE ID:. ZONE: _ PLOT# OF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Appendix B - 6 SITE ID: ZONE: _ PLOT# OF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Appendix B- 7 Appendix C-1. Site Information, Wetland Assessments le a. k. s E a £ ■o >-. X c Q c OJ Q. U 0 2 c c u 0 c a. c E 0. n c5 c a. "a c 0 OJ Q. c u 0. c 0 2 c c 0 -J 1> c u c5 2 c c 0 i £5 E _c c w V £ c is c -J c OJ E OJ -C CL k (5 1 OJ c 5 c c a. 0 _l c5 c OJ a. c 0 ij c s. 0 c 0 1) Q. 5 £ a. 0 C (5 c E c CO 5 c Cl O. c 9-' (0 £ c D D- is c _l i> c o5 c w E C (5 c u. c CO c Cl "cO c 0 u D- a c CL 0 "« 1= 0 a. Q u CL 0 "cO c 0 c. Q u CL "cO c 0 4J Q c O- 0 Id c 0 Q. "cO 1 u a. 1* D -0 0 "cO c 0 Ul If CL U « 1 r-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5? *n 0 0 0 0 0 0 in 5; «n 0 0 i NO rt 0 0 IT) in S 0 0 •n r4 0 'n r) 0 0 ,0 ■n in 0 0 0 B 2 "S c -0 0 -a u c -0 1 T3 C 2 -0 1 OJ 0 u c -0 1 u -0 0 c c5 ■0 "C ?►. i> flj -0 0 2 T3 OJ C 1 -0 0 -0 W C 2 -0 1 OJ -a 0 c 2 -0 1 2 u -0 0 -0 c -0 1 w -0 0 c 2 -0 8 CL -a u c 2 X) 1 u -0 0 -0 c 2 1 U 0 2 "S c 5 t3 _>. 0 0 c « -a i> -T3 0 c 2 -0 _>. 0 0 ■0 c 2 -0 _>. 0 0 T3 C CO 2 -D 1> C CO T3 "cO -a c 2 -a 1 -a u c CO -Q 0 a. T3 C 2 -0 _>. 0 0 CL -0 It c CO •0 _>, 0 0- -0 c 0 0 D- T3 W c cO -a 2 i> -o 5 T3 s 2 -0 13 2 OJ -0 c CO -0 0 0 CL •s c 2 13 > CO IJ -0 0 T3 c 2 •0 13 rt iJ -0 0 -0 OJ c 2 -0 0 0 0. C "S c CO •0 _>- 0 0 Cl C -a c 2 1 a. "S c 2 -0 1 CL "S c 2 -a 1 CL -0 u c 2 -a 1 "co It 1 -0 ID C 2 T3 >^ 0 0 CL -0 u c CO T3 0 0 D. -0 !> C CO T3 13 2 i> ■? 2 -a It c CO -0 0 0 0- -0 It c CO ■o 0 0 a. o I' s 0 -J CO 0 0 -J CQ 0 -J CQ 0 0 -J CQ 0 1 CQ in 0 0 s m 0 0 -J CD 0 0 m 00 0 0 CD 0 0 CQ 0 0 _] CD 0 -J CD ri 0 m 0 CQ DD 0 CD 0 -J 0 CD c» 0 CD ON 0 -J OQ 0 r4 0 CQ r\ 0 _] CQ 0 rt 0 CD rJ 0 J CD in 0 CQ ri 0 CQ 0 -J CQ 00 0 CQ ON rt 0 CQ 0 0 CQ 0 03 rj CD -J 03 -J CD m 0 03 (^ 0 2 CD 0 CD 00 0 CD 3 C O -J 0 oc a- a- r-i 0 00 ir, in 0 r) rj 0 Ci in 00 »n rs o- «n On r- 0 0 NO CA •n 00 rj cr rt 0 00 •n ON r4 00 rj rJ 0 rj in ri ■3^ rj rj in rt CJN ■a 3 00 0 5 00 irt 00 00 3 ^ •* 0 00 00 •n 3 00 'n 'n 3 in o- in in 00 «ni -^ in 'n in (N in 5 0 00 0 5 ON in ■n r4 5 m 00 0 'n 5 rJ ON in C30 CN 00 g ■^ ^ 3 -0- ON "n B 1 I r-1 in 00 r-1 0 CO 0 »n 0 0 0 0 0 (N 0 m m 0 r\ 0 cr r-x 0 oc 0 D 0 0 rt ON r4 00 0 m c-x 0 rt ri 0 rJ nC ri C7N 0 0 in in 0 rt rt 0 r-j m 0 0 rt 0 rJ "n 0 ot -* 0 rt 0 rt n ON 0 ri 0 rJ •n ON r-) fN V QQ CQ 2' 1^ CD 2 2 CQ z z" m z z 2 CQ 2 CD 2 2 CQ 2 2 CO z z CD 2 2 CQ 2 2" CQ 2 2 CQ 2 2" u CD 2 2' CQ 2 2 CD 2 2' CD 2 2 CQ 2 7: CD 2 2 2 :^ cd" 2 2 :^ CD 2 CQ 2 z cq' z 2 § z g 2 z z z z z 2 2 2 z z 2 2 00 0 (^ 00 00 00 0 0 m t30 8 S 00 00 0 0 § oo 0 0 § 00 0 0 00 0 0 s 00 0 0 CN r^ CJO 0 0 00 00 0 0 r* 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 ri 0 r«-i r- 00 0 0 r^ 0 0 0 fN 00 00 00 00 0 0 1 "0 1 ~i "0 E £ 1 a: d B -1 1 u £ -J p CO £ 0 > u CO E 0 a: £ 0 > 03 g 5 a: £ p CO i 0 > CO E 0 > u a:: CO £ s ID £ P OJ u a: CO E 0 > a: CO £ "0 > w u CO £ "5 u 0: CO £ 5 £ OJ u a: £ p CO £ '0 u u CO £ 0 It It 0; <0 £ '0 t ca £ p u £ 'J 0 a: 1) a; P It (0 £ 0 t OJ u CO £ p It ct; CO £ 0 t It OJ £ 5 w E 0 L. It ID Pi CO £ 5 OJ CO £ -J 1 u a; CQ £ -J .0. c 0 2 > 2 CQ D3 CQ CQ 5 -J CQ 2 na 2 > -J CQ 2 -J CQ CD CQ CQ CD 2 03 2 CD 2 CQ CD 2 2 OQ 2 _) CQ 2 -J 2 -J CQ 2 CQ 2 a: -J 03 2 CQ 03 CD 2 -J CD 03 2 CQ -J 03 2 _i CQ 2 2 y5 0 0 0 0 0 m ^^^ 0 0 m 1^ 0 0 CD 0 0 CQ in 0 i CD 1 0 0 5 00 CD 0 0 m 0 CQ 0 CD r\ c s -J CQ 0 -J CD 0 2 _i CQ 0 0 -J CD 0 -J CD oc 0 -J 0^ 0 2 03 0 s -J m rt 0 CD m 0 m 0 CD in r^^ 0 -J CQ NO r^ 0 m 0 -J CQ 00 0 2 3 ON rJ 0 2 CQ -J m 0 m ri d -J m d 2 CD d -J CD d 2 -J m 0 CD CD 00 m 0 2 CO Appendix C - I D. S re re re ^ a rt c3 ra K3 a n3 c3 fd 3 T3 re re re re re re re re re c c E c c E E E c c E E DO DO E E "E £ E E E E c c c c c c c c: c C c c CO c c c c c c c c c c c c _w -a u u u a> t* OJ 1* u u lU 1» (L* IL> C C u c u ii 1 u CL o u u lU Is a. o o a. 11 a. c CL 1> a. 2 f CSO c c 1 c cx c cx Cl CX W1 cx c u cx c u cx c £X i CL c Cl. c u cx CL D- L_ c: Cl CL L> i> u cu u 5 a> o. cx o o y y o o o (L> C 1 U 5 s o o ^ S § IJ u o U E ex Q. CL Q. a. Q. ex D. CL Q- a. c/^ c/: a. C c cx CX ^ S ^ ^ S n. cx CX "S ex a. CX C a. Q. Q. cx Cl CX re l-U D. c cx a. "re re re "re re o. "re Cl G o re "re o o o Cl cx "re CL o D D D D D D J D D !^ D 9 o c o > > c o c G c o D c G ^ c D -J -J c G c G ►-J -J hJ D D c o D bC u u (U u o OJ w (U aj lU u o o (Lt (5 t2 u u ^ tU p ^ > ?J jj > § O CX o IJ cx 1) cx Cl Cu D. CX Cl 1> u cx _G > > IJ CL OJ ^ 1) > u CX V X Q c5 cS c5 "^ i5 cE ci c^ c5 i5 cE C/5 t/1 cS Q Q C/1 tyn Q a Q c^ Q c5 ty] cE (5 5 Q Q c5 [5 ^ cE (5 Q cE ^ 5 ^ ^° S? ^ ^ o o ^' o O o s? i o^ ^ g ^ ^ i° in s? ^ ^ in V^ v^ tn in yn r- tn in m, ^r, •n in in in in »n in r-~ in r- «n •n ^ rN r» (N rj rj ^ -D n 'vD O ^ ^D ri n ^ ri ri r-t rj ri n o — — — — — r-i U'. IN — , r4 o (N r-- u a> 1> u -o "i -o re "i3 "S T3 -o re -a -a -o -G Im a> a> (U -D w Oy T3 -a -a •K 1) 0^ 1> u i* u TD a> TD ^ O OJ T3 tL> i> (U a> O c c c: C c c c C c c c c C C c c c c; c >s c >-. c c: >^ c c c c >-. >-. pj-. >-. >-, c5 5 "ca 5 5 5 5 re 5 re re re re re re re re re "re 're re 're re 're re re t^ O 8. o i. o "5 "5 L. L. L- L. "u G g. G g. "u U G "u T3 -o -o -o -a T3 -o ra re T3 -a T3 T3 •o -o -o -o •o -a T3 re T3 -o ^ re T3 -o •G re T3 T3 -a >> _>- >^ >. >-. >, >, u If >> >■- >-. >% >. >, >^ >^ >, >^ P-. >^ >. 1) OJ >, P-. >^ •u >^ >% >. o o 5 5 o O c- t- [^ o ■a o 2 o s -a o O c O O o o G o G o G o 2 G e- G b o 2 o o o £- c o s G G o o o a. a. i£ £ £ ^ ^ :^ s: £_ £ O cu l_ o o CL <£ o CL ^ o CL £ <£ :^ £ :^ s G CL s. :^ O CL £ £ s. a O o rj r'-. •^ ^ r- oo o o — ri r*^ ^ ir^, ^ r- QO O O __ ri m -^ tn so r- oo OS o __ ri ^ •n r- oo OS O __ r*-] ^ 'rJ- ^ ^ -T ■^ -Tf 'T tn "n m in 'n ly-i »r-. m in in ^ o \D so so ^ '^^ ^ ^ SO r^ r- r- r- r- r- r- r- oo oo 1 O o O o O C' o o O o o o O O O O o o O O O o O o O o o o o o o o o O w S 2 S 1 s 2 S 1 2 S 2 2 s S s s S S S s s 2 :s S :2 S S S s 2 S S S S :s S S s S .'t^ J J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J J J -J -J -J _3 -J _J J _J J -J -J J J ^ -J J J -J J J -J J -J J J J ^ ^ 03 m CQ CD CQ CD CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CD CQ CD CQ CQ CD P3 □a CQ CQ OQ CQ 03 CQ CQ CD OD CQ oa 03 03 03 03 CQ CQ CQ CQ 03 ■D 3 r- o ^ r- r^ 2 m rn m (^ -T ^ in in r^ o ■^ in in in OS -* m so m n t^ t oo OS o in r- n OS in •^ oo r-i o cr •^ 'T 'T ■^ m r*^ r^ ■^ •^ D n ri so r~ '^ ^ d 00 o ^ so n c r-~ 00 oo BC c^ rj r^j fN i=^ — — — — — —^ — — — — — ri — n o o f^ ri ri ri e o .J E "i •n in »>"1 tn in ■sO so in *n so so sO r- r- r- r- Tt Tj- ^ ^ ■^ -^ ^ ^ •* '^ Tj- -T Tj- -rt Tf -tT -3- -:»- ^ ^ ■^ ■^ ^ -* Tj- -rt ^ ^ ^ -^ ^ Tt -t ^ ^ ^ ^ ■^ tT ■^ "^ ^ ^ Tt :!. -T -i- -T ^ •* rt •^ -t -T -T -T -r ■^ ^ T -T tT '^ -^ ■^ •^ ^ ^ -1- ^ ^ ■^ ■^ ^ •^ 'T -r ■rt B If ^ ^ ^ o sD ^ IN ^ ■n Q rl n-i r^. rn r*-i n-i ^ ^ ^ ■^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -^ ^ -t •^ ^ in in m iri »n in in •n r*\ ^ in in ^ ^ ^ ro m r O 5 o o o o "o c "o "5 "o 5 o 5 "o G o "5 O G o O 'o o "o o o o o o O G O o o o o o V > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 > 1> (U w (U u u •u (U u !> OJ a> u W u S ai s Xj u 4> u i> 1> D IJ u 1> u it u 1> (L» u i> 1> o: Qi a: a: Di Di Di oi a: Di Qi a: a: Di q; o: a: Qi o: u a: Qi a: o: a: QL a: Of. q; a; q: Qi Di Di Di a: Qi o: C3 « ra rt a CJ ra lU « 03 re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re re i 6 £ £ £ £ £ £ E £ £ E E £ £ E E E £ E £ £ E £ E £ £ £ £ £ E £ E E £ E £ E J J -J J ^ J Jj _] _J J J _j J .J J -J -J -J -J J J J J ^ J J J ^ J J ZJ J J J J J Jj ^ u a. S S S S JS J , ] -J -J CQ CQ m ffi e 4J ^ ^ OJ ^ s S S 2 2 S S 2 S 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 S ^ 2 1 S 2 S 2 :s 2 2 2 S re > S 2 2 s re > re > S S S O J J -J -J -J -J -J ^ ^ -4 -J ^ J _J -J _J _J _J _J J ^ -J J J u J J J J wJ hJ J -J J J m 03 m m CQ CQ CQ OD CQ CD CQ CD CD DQ CQ CD CD CQ CQ ol OQ CQ CD CQ m CQ CQ CD CQ £X CQ 03 CQ 03 £ i CD CQ CD Q ON ~ Ol m ^ sO r- oo Ov o _ (N r*^ ~t in o r- oo a- ^ ~ rj rn ■^ m "so r- oo OS O — ri ^ •n r- oo OS o r^ -* -^ TT •^ ■^ ^ "^ «n in »n W-, in in »n i/". m. •n so so sO so so so sO so SO r- r- r~ t^ r- t^ r- r-~ oo oo O o C' o o o o o o o O o o o o o O o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o « 5 s s S 2 2 2 s s s s s s s 2 2 S 2 2 S s s s s s S S s s s s S S 2 S S s s s tiS -J J -J -J J __4 -J _3 J -J -J J J -J -J -J J _J -J J u ^ J -J J -J -a J ^ J -J -J J J J -J -J -J -J m oa CQ CQ CQ CD CQ CD CD CO CQ CD CQ CD CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CD CQ CD m ffl oa CQ m P3 OQ CQ CD CQ CQ CQ ffl CQ 03 CQ CD Appendix C - 2 u is a. u o E o s ■o c i c c c 1 i (5 s c c 1! a. CL a. D u c 2 c c o -J i5 c CI. o "3 c o CL. & c c rx o -J i (5 a. c I) a. O u o. o 00 c to C o o t/5 5 c c u 1 -J c cE 00 c Q. C CL o u Q. _o CO c c w w CL li a. CL •u c u c2 c a. O "5 c o (U a. •i> Q a. o I/; CO c c 1> CL a. u c > DC CO c c u OJ a. CL D u c (5 c o c o U CL SJ Q c o c o a. Q u 00 c til u. OJ c -J 00 c u c 1 -J £ c 3 u CO -J OO c c CO c 9 c o It o. Q c w c c oE c o c 2 Q o C o u 5 K 9 •3 c o u a. Q c c o a> a. Q 9 c o a. D CO c c u 1> CL U ? o -J u c cE o c o c OJ 00 c u. c CO -1 u 00 c u. ID c 3 CO -J 00 c c 3 'J c 9 lo c o a. u D c OJ CL O 13 c o VI u a. Q C CL li :f o . o s. "2 C 5 o T3 U c 1 w cd -o o s c CO T3 O s. c O ■o 1 2 -o o g. -D c 2 -a o o a. T3 C 2 T3 O O CL -o c CO -a s 1 -D C TD O O CL -a s CO T3 O o CL c 5 1 2 s 1 (L> C 2 c 2 E -s o u c CO -a o o o. -o u c 2 ■o >^ o o a. -o c 2 -a _>. o o CL -o c 2 o o CL T3 c CO c3 O T3 a> c 2 T3 w 2 u -o 1 u c 2 TD W 2 u -a o C s u -o o 2 c CO ■a o o CL T3 U C CO 2 O T3 n OO OO NO OO m NO i OO OO OO nD OO ND o OO ON ON o NO r- t^ 3 .J 5 5 o OO OO in OO 5 OO IN NO 5 IN OO CN SO IN NO NO m NO in 5 -J s 5 5 > -J 3 3 3 CD' Z od" z OD Z Z OD Z z u. OD z z' CD z 03' z OD Z z CD Z z OD z z z z z z m z z u 03 Z z z CD Z CD Z Z 1^ z m z CD Z z DO z z 03" z OO O O 5; OO o o (N (N 00 o o OO o § 5; o o OO OO 8 OO o o r^ OO o § o OO o o 1 u Q OQ o > > CO E O > u a: CO e > 1 CO E J > 1 CO § > a* a: CO e o > u a> CO § > 1 O > 1 CO § CO E > CO B O > CO E -J o > oi CO E > a: CO E -J (_» <§ -a at -J -a v ce: -J CO (J o U CO — ) o T3 U Cd (J O a: C/1 o Cei CO -J 'J o cd T3 U Cd W1 -J o cd •a w Cd -J O Cd ■o u cd CO -J o cd Cd VI U -I O O Bi -a u a: B s o -J 03 -J Z Q _! CO > cu -J OQ 2 -3 CD 03 03 2 -J CD -J > a. OD 03 -J CD 2 03 2 -J CD CD -J CD u. D CO D D on u. D CO D to D CO D CO u. CO en D CO C/1 C/1 D CO t/} D CO C/} D CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO u. CO CO D Q OO O s -J m OO O s -J 03 OC o CD sD 00 o OO o -J CD OO 00 o m o o en 0^ O -J CD s -J CD s -J en o -J CD a- o 5 -J CD sD ON o -J CD O OO S s -J OS 0^ s 5 CO 8 -J CD o -J hummocked, no true hydrophytes present BLM025 Site along Peet Creek, weedy, old 2-track road to the W BLM026 Wetland is a small depression, very few hydrophytes BLM027 Drainage of Red Rock River BLM028 Wet meadow has standing water, cows present and have been loafing in water, severe pug- BLM029 Narrow transitional meadow BLM030 Wetland small depression, likely receives most of its water from surface run-off BLM031 BLM032 Wetland part of large depression-wet meadow with standing water at W end, adjacent to drainage BLM033 Wetland is intermittent stream S of Lima Reservoir, severe hummocking has allowed for ARTCAN establishment BLM034 Wetland is dried mudflat just S of large "slough" S of Lima Reservoir BLM035 Wetland part of intermittent stream, cattle loaf in water Appendix C - 7 Site ID Site Description BLM036 BLM037 Wetland is small pond S of Shineberger Creek. N of Lima Reservoir BLM038 Wetland is small pond-u ildemess stud> area BLM039 Wetland is small pond in wilderness study area BLM040 Site is Corral Creek BLM042 Heavily grazed and ven. \veed> BLM043 Site is along Corral Creek BLM044 Corral Creek BLM046 Corral Creek BLM047 Wetland is on a trib. of Wolverine Creek, may have been a beaver pond, severe pugging and hummocking from cows BLM048 E\ idence of ver\ old beaver chews, entire area may have been influenced b\ beaver, but no current signs BLM049 Wetland along trib. of Wolverine Creek, severe pugging and hummocking from cows, may ha\ e been beaver pond long ago BLM050 Wetland along trib. of Wolverine Creek, site is drying 2-track on W side limiting the stream, no true channel BLM051 Site along West Creek, signs of old beaver activity BLM052 Site is historic wet meadow, but likeh not flooded during season BLM053 Upper end of West Creek, site may have been old beaver pond, but has not been inundated for \ears. willows hea\ il\ browsed with no regen.. site is heaviK grazed BLM054 Small pond created b> beaver, beaver dam not active, watersource spring from intermittent stream. BLM055 Along West Creek BLM056 Site is a section in Middle Creek, 2-track rd. through site, veg. heavily grazed, cutbanks severe BLM057 Small wet meadow on S side offence line BLM058 Small toe-slope wetland. severeK hummocked and degraded by cattle and 2-track rd. BLM059 Site is small toe-slope, spring-fed drainage BLM060 Did not cross fence BLM061 BLM062 Wetland is in forked drainage, sodic soils BLM063 Wetland is small depression, sodic soils BLM064 Site is small drainage, signs of cattle-trails and hummocking BLM065 Small toe-slope wetland. .75 miles to S of southside of Centennial Rd. BLM066 Small intermittent stream\ BLM067 Site is along intermittent stream, lots of moss BLM068 Depressional wetland, part of site excavated to create cattle pond-pond is pugged and mostK bare, berm to N of site restricting most w ater outflow BLM069 Depressional wetland, stream running through site, grazed, hummocking. BLM070 Wet meadow bordering Red Rock River, weedy, grazed Appendix C - 8 Site ID Site Description BLM071 Open depression N of S. Centennial Rd.. weedy, good interspersion, luiniinocking. grazed Depressional wetland along S. Centennial Rd.. deep hummocking seems to cause water pooling/channeling, culvert present under rd. BLM07: BLM074 Floodpiain adjacent to Red Rock River, inundated temporarilv, dr\ by Sept.. pugged by cattle BLM07.S Oxbow of Red Rock River, grazed, humme'icking deep in site and butTer BLM077 Recently dredged, moved soil spread and compacted along outer channel perimeter, severe- ly grazed, channel pugged by cattle, hummocking present BLM078 Stream adjacent, grazed, grasses trampled and flattened BLM079 Stream in vallev atop hills, emergents growing 0-5m awav from stream BLM080 Wet meadow on slope of hill, medium hummocking, grazed, area probably saturated in spring, though not currently BLM08I Stream wetland between two hills, good diversity, but hummocking in/around stream caus- ing altered water flow patterns, grazed BLM082 Wet meadow, stream on W edge of site maintains good wetland indicator plant diversity, grazed BLM083 Hummocking present along stream and downhill area, grazed BLM084 Rd. along N side of site BLM086 Large floodpiain. probably mostly inundated earlier in the year, saline indicators present BLM087 Open depression more of a transitional meadovv/mesic wet meadow, hummocking present and mav be worse due to cattle BLM088 Heavily grazed, severe hummocking in and adjacent to site BLM090 Spring stream at base of southern hills feeds site, opens into valley with aquatic bed and emergent veg, grazed, hummocking present BLM09I Open depression wetland, surrounded by dry, hummocked upland (40-50% bare ground), water present in Sept., lots of mass growing among hummocks, water flows out to S. BLM09: Oxbow of Red Rock River. Pugging/hummocking extensive in some areas. Good intersper- sion. BLM093 Slope wetland with peat formation: area immediately east offence has been destroyed by cattle. Adjacent area denuded, deeply hummocked. Probably affecting hydrology in site. BLM094 Good mesic/wet meadow on floodpiain of Long Creek; grazing minimal but corrals nearby. Soils undisturbed. Some redox features suggest periodic high water tables. BLM095 Appears to be drving; some soil saturation, considerable redox evidence and areas of deep organic matter. Cattle trails in and out but little pugging. BLM096 Saturated soils and peat formation, amphibian breeding observed, tadpoles evident. Exten- sive pugging and hummocking by cattle breaking down structure and draining wetland. BLM097 Very good riparian/PSS site with dense cover, little evidence of grazing, well- vegetated banks, considerable structural diversity. Depth to water <20". good hydric indicators BLM098 Good riparian wet meadow, high plant diversity with lots of FACW. little evidence of graz- ing except moose, good bank stability and soils^ BLM099 Wet meadow in small depression. Multiple seeps in area. Soils loamy clay. Gleying ev ident in pit; seasonally flooded depression in mesic uplands. Appendix C - 9 SiteJD Site Description BLMIOO Wet meadow in depression amidst alluvial fans. Lightly grazed in 2007. Soils undisturbed. Plant community indicates more grazing in past years. RRLOI Extensive marsh SE of lower Red Rock Lake-small ponds RRL02 Extensive marsh-small aquatic bed sites RRL03 Extensive marsh RRLAl Extensive CARUTR marsh RRLAIO Large wet meadow N of upper Red Rock Lake. N of large ditch RRLAl 1 Oped forest, small intermittent stream, cattle present, weedy, old earthen berm to form cattle pond no longer functioning RRLAl 2 Large wet meadow N of upper Red Rock Lake RRLAl 3 "South Tucks Pond"- Ducks Unlimited "enhancement" project, rarely holds water RRLAl 4 Small depression surrounded by wet meadow RRLA15 Wet meadow on south side of "Pintail Ditch"- heavily grazed by cattle this year (very re- cent, within past 2 weeks), lots of moss RRLAl 6 Large wet meadow RRLAl 8 Odell Creek RRLAl 9 Artificial pond RRLA2 Drier end of marsh, mesic meadow within 20m RRLA3 Extensive marsh border the Red Rock Lakes system, small pond within marsh RRLA5 Extensive marsh. Boreal chorus frogs everywhere, small pond within marsh RRLA6 Mesic wet meadow RRLA7 Wet meadow, plant spp. associated with cattle grazing. Natural hummocking pres- ent, plus some due to livestock grazing. RRLA8 Riparian area-wet meadow, very weedy RRLA9 Small wet meadow site adjacent to Centennial Sandhills Appendix C - 10 Appendix D. Species Richness at BLM Sites SitelD Number of Species SitelD Number of Species BLMOOO 4 B1.M039 12 BLMOOl 32 BLM040 14 BLM002 17 BLM042 8 BLM003 15 BLM043 19 BLM004 16 Bl,M044 15 BLM005 26 BLM046 13 BLM006 25 BLM047 3 BLM007 11 BLM048 8 BLM008 26 BLM049 7 BLMOOQ 8 BLM050 6 BLMOIO 32 BLM051 4 BLMOll 15 BLM052 10 BLM012 28 BLM053 7 BLM013 18 BLM054 3 BLM014 24 BLM055 26 BLM015 39 BLM056 11 BLM016 28 BLM057 10 BLM017 34 BLM058 6 BLM018 12 BLM059 5 BLM019 29 BLM060 9 BLM020 7 BLM061 17 BLM021 21 BLM062 11 BLM022 11 BLM063 12 BLM023 18 BLM064 15 BLM024 9 BLM065 5 BLM025 41 BLM066 10 BLM026 10 BLM067 9 BLM027 11 BLM068 7 BLM028 9 BLM069 11 BLM029 10 BLM070 15 BLM030 10 BLM071 18 BLM031 8 BLM072 17 BLM032 14 BLM073 5 BLM033 7 BLM074 11 BLM034 2 BLM075 11 BLM035 5 BLM077 8 BLM036 -> BLM078 14 BLM037 5 BLM079 13 BLM038 7 BLM080 9 Appendix D - I SitelD Number of Species SitelD Number of Species BLM081 13 BLM092 16 BLM082 17 BLM093 24 BLM083 20 BLM094 19 BLM084 26 BLM095 22 BL1V1086 23 BLM096 18 BLM087 11 BLM097 29 BLM088 12 BLM098 24 BLM090 20 BLM099 22 BLM091 12 BLMIOO 18 Appendix D - 2