Assessing the Natural Range of
Variability in Minimally Disturbed
Wetlands Across the Rocky
Mountains: the Rocky Mountain
ReMAP Project
Prepared for:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Joanna Lemly, and George Jones
Montana Natural Heritage Program
a cooperative program of the
Montana State Library and the University of Montana
May 2012
MONTANA
Natural Heritage
Program
Assessing the Natural Range of
Variability in Minimally Disturbed
Wetlands Across the Rocky
Mountains: the Rocky Mountain
ReMAP Project
Prepared for:
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency
National Wetland Program
Washington, D.C.
Agreement Number:
RM-83379601
Prepared by:
Linda Vance 1 , Karen Newlon 2 , Joanna Lemly 3 , and George Jones 4
'Montana Natural Heritage Program;
corresponding author to whom all review comments should be addressed
2 Montana Natural Heritage Program
3 Colorado Natural Heritage Program
4 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
MONTANA
Natural Heritage
Program
rotate ffc ffijKSSg*
Library Jy Montana
© 2012 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, Karen Newlon, Joanna Lemly, and George Jones. 2012. Assessing the Natural
Range of Variability in Minimally Disturbed Wetlands Across the Rocky Mountains: the Rocky
Mountain ReMAP Project. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Montana
Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 40 pp. plus appendices.
11
Executive Summary
In Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah,
extremes of mountain climate, high elevations
and characteristic geology produce a large
range of natural variability within ecological
systems. Even under minimal human distur-
bance regimes, environmental gradients can
result in wetlands with very low vegetation
cover, low species diversity and unpredictable
hydrologic shifts. Documenting the range of
variability found under minimally disturbed
conditions can help distinguish signal from
noise when assessing more altered occur-
rences, and aid in the calibration of assessment
metrics.
The project was a collaboration between the
Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP),
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program
(CNHP) and the Wyoming Natural Diversity
Database (WYNDD). It had three objectives:
1) identify reference standards for four wetland
ecological systems across four Rocky Moun-
tain ecoregions; 2) assess the range of natural
variability of these ecological systems; and
3) produce a regionally standardized Level 1,
2 and 3 method for assessing and monitoring
wetland condition, including quality assurance
project plans, sampling strategies, and metrics
calibrated to the four different wetland eco-
logical systems. This report summarizes our
approach, activities, and conclusions.
Objective 1 summarizes the approach we used
to identify wetlands in minimally disturbed
condition. We built a regional landscape integ-
rity model based on distance from stressors,
and used this to select minimally disturbed
landscapes. Within this landscape, we used a
spatially balance random sampling approach
to select a sample of wetlands for assessment.
The initial landscape model performed well in
terms of identifying sites with minimal distur-
bance, especially when it was used in conjunc-
tion with photo interpretation of more recent
imagery. However, our random sampling did
not produce equal numbers of all wetland eco-
logical systems included in the study. Marshes
were significantly underrepresented, and we
think it is likely that our sample did not rep-
resent the full range of fens found across the
region.
Objective 2 describes the attributes, indicators
and metrics we used to determine the range
of natural variability found in the minimally
disturbed sites we sampled. We found con-
siderable variability in the vegetation of our
study sites. Analysis of intensive vegetation
plots and derived metrics showed clear patterns
of regional and typological variability. The
Southern Rockies and Wasatch-Uinta Moun-
tains had consistently higher metric values than
the Middle Rockies and Canadian Rockies for
all Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) calcu-
lations except exotic species richness. Riparian
shrublands had the highest species richness
across all Level III Ecoregions, followed by
wet meadows. Fens had the lowest species
richness in the Middle Rockies, Southern
Rockies, and Wasatch-Uinta Mountains, while
emergent marshes had the lowest richness in
the Canadian Rockies. Riparian shrublands
and wet meadows also had the highest Shan-
non-Wiener diversity indices, whereas marshes
had the lowest across all Level III Ecoregions.
Results for Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
values followed similar patterns, with riparian
shrublands and wet meadows having the high-
est FQI values across Level III Ecoregions.
Emergent marshes had the lowest FQI values
in all Level III Ecoregions except the Middle
Rockies, where fens had the lowest FQI values.
Objective 3 discusses our draft protocol and its
performance. Because we were only looking at
reference standard sites we could not evaluate
in
whether or not individual metrics were sensi-
tive to human disturbance. Instead, we wanted
level 2 metrics that had either had a consistent
value across all wetlands in the study, or met-
rics whose variable response was easily cor-
related to specific wetland types. Unlike the
Level 3 FQA metrics, which were intended to
capture a range of natural variation that could
be used to calibrate Level 3 protocols to spe-
cific wetland types and ecoregions, any Level
2 metric that had a wide range of unexplained
scoring values when applied to reference stan-
dard sites was considered unsuitable for inclu-
sion in a future protocol. We saw little varia-
tion among sites in terms of landscape context,
hydrology, and physiochemical/soil metrics.
However, regeneration of native woody spe-
cies, vertical overlap of vegetation strata,
horizontal interspersion of vegetation zones,
and number of structural patch types had wide
ranges of response, leading us to conclude that
these would not be good metrics for detecting
the results of human disturbance.
The report concludes with our overall conclu-
sions and recommendations. In particular, we
conclude that the random sampling approach
used in this study was preferable to targeted
sampling of reference wetlands, avoiding
the tendency to identify the largest and most
diverse examples of wetlands, and thus more
accurately capturing the range of diversity. The
representativeness of the sites can be used to
establish reasonable performance standards for
voluntary and compensatory mitigation. Our
findings that there are regional and typological
differences in the range of natural variability
are of particular importance. Marshes, with
their low species richness and relatively low
FQI scores, do not compensate for the loss of
wet meadows or fens. In contrast, if a marsh is
an appropriate choice for mitigation and/or res-
toration, then performance standards for FQA
values should be based on what a marsh can be
expected to attain, not on values observed in
fens. Finally, we lay out a number of sugges-
tions for future study. These include the need
for a more nuanced understanding of the geo-
graphic and temporal scales at which landscape
level disturbances affect wetland integrity; a
reevaluation of the appropriate use of structural
diversity metrics as an indicator of habitat suit-
ability rather than condition; research into the
underlying causes of the regional variability
we observed; and further analysis of the fac-
tors that drive species richness and diversity at
individual wetland sites.
IV
Acknowledgements
This report reflects the collective work of many
people. Without Rich Sumner of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), the project
never would have begun. Joe Rocchio, former-
ly of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program
and now part of the Washington Natural Heri-
tage Program, was the guiding force behind the
initial proposal. Tony Olson of the EPA pro-
vided guidance and support on GRTS design.
Bob Ozretich of the EPA offered helped with
QA/QC activities. The Nature Conservancy
allowed us to use its Red Canyon Ranch in
Wyoming as a field testing site to work out our
draft assessment protocols. Those protocols,
in turn, incorporate and build on work led by
Don Faber-Langendoen of NatureServe and
his many collaborators; Josh Collins of the San
Francisco Estuary Institute and Martha Su-
tula of the Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, who pioneered the California
Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM); and John
Mack, now of Cleveland Metroparks, whose
Ohio Rapid Assessment Method (ORAM) has
inspired may similar efforts.
The project also benefited greatly from the
exchange of information and ideas with EPA
scientists involved in the National Wetlands
Condition Assessment, which was designed
and carried out during the same time period. In
particular, we acknowledge the input, advice
and other help from Mike Scozzafava, Gregg
Serenbetz, Teresa Magee, Mary Kentula, Regi-
na Poeske, Mary Ann Theising, Teresa Magee
and Kathleen Drake. We owe particular thanks
to Jill Minter and Toney Ott from Region 8 of
the EPA, whose support and encouragement
over the years were critical to the development
of wetland science in the Rocky Mountain
West.
In Montana, Colorado and Wyoming, many
people participated in the design and imple-
mentation of this study. Claudine Tobalske of
MTNHP located and put together data layers
from four states for the Landscape Integrity
Model, which required a great deal of sleuthing
and persistence. Cat Mclntyre, formerly of the
MTNHP, was tireless in planning, coordinat-
ing and managing field work in Montana, and
offered astute insights into protocol develop-
ment. Denise Culver of CNHP shared her
botanical expertise and experience with the
entire team. And of course, this project would
never have come to fruition had it not been for
the field ecologists who braved bad weather,
abandoned roads, deep water and voracious
insects to find and assess the study wetlands:
Nick Smith, Joe St. Peter, Karissa Ramstead,
Tara Luna, Kyla Zaret, Sam Isham, Hannah
Varani, Elin Franzen, Cat Sever and Sean
Ryder. Sam Isham and Karissa Ramstead also
tackled the job of entering all the field data.
Tara Luna and Karissa Ramstead combed
through the field notes and data to describe the
plant communities and to prepare the sentinel
site descriptions.
We also thank Neil Snow for his patient edit-
ing, and Coburn Currier for formatting the
final version. If any errors remain despite the
efforts of all these people, they are the authors'
alone.
This is publication no. 2012-02 of the Montana
Natural Heritage Program.
Table of Contents
Project Description 1
Objective 1. Identify reference standard for four wetland ecological systems across
four ecoregions 2
Background 2
Methods 4
Results 6
Discussion 8
Objective 2. Assess the natural range of variability for these four ecological systems 12
Background 12
Methods 13
Results 14
Discussion 17
Objective 3. Produce a regionally standardized method for assessing and monitoring
wetland condition, including quality assurance project plans, sampling strategies, and
metrics calibrated to the different wetland ecological systems 23
Background 23
Methods 24
Results 27
Discussion 30
Summary and Recommendations 33
Literature Cited 35
Appendix A: Brief descriptions of Ecological Systems covered in this study
Appendix B: Parameters and weighting used in Landscape Integrity Model
Appendix C: Screening Process for Site Selection in the Rocky Mountain ReMAP Project
Appendix D: Field Key
Appendix E: Draft Protocol
Appendix F: Terminology, description and calculation of the floristic quality assessment metrics
Appendix G: Frequency histograms
Appendix H: Redundancy test of Pearson correlation coefficients among FQA metrics
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study ecoregions, Rocky Mountain Remap Project 3
Figure 2. Flexible-plot layout 13
Figure 3. Box plots summarizing a) plant species richness, b) Shannon- Wiener
Diversity, and c) floristic quality index across Level III Ecoregions and
ecological systems 20-21
Figure 4. Horizontal interspersion of vegetation zones diagram 28
List of Tables
Table 1 . Minimum acceptable distance for disturbance in the landscape screening 5
Table 2 Landscape context stressors 7
Table 3. Vegetation stressors 8
vi
List of Tables (Continued)
Table 4. Physiochemical stressors 9
Table 5. Number of assessed wetlands by Level III Ecoregion and wetland
ecological system 15
Table 6. Average elevation (in meters) of wetlands assessed as part of the Rocky
Mountain ReMAP project 15
Table 7. Percent of sites by wetland ecological system with portions of their assessment
area comprised of at least three overlapping vertical vegetation strata, two
overlapping vertical vegetation strata, and one vertical vegetation stratum,
respectively 15
Table 8. Most frequently occurring species by ecological system 16
Table 9. Most frequently occurring plant species by Level 3 ecoregion 17
Table 10. Means and standard deviations of all Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA)
metrics by wetland ecological system 18
Table 1 1 . Means and standard deviations of all Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA)
metrics by Level III Ecoregion 19
Table 12. Scope and severity ratings for all stressors 26
Table 13. Number of sites and percentage classes of assessment area with one
vegetation stratum, two overlapping vegetation strata, or three or more
overlapping vegetation strata 28
Table 14. Number of sites by wetland ecological system and their corresponding degree
of horizontal interspersion of vegetation zones 29
Table 15. Number of sites (n), average number of patch types (± 1 SD), and range 29
Table 16. Pearson's correlation coefficients relating the number of structural patch
types present at a site with FQAmetrics 29
vn
Project Description
The Rocky Mountain West has a unique geography,
population distribution, and concentration of
public land ownership. In Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado and Utah, extremes of mountain
climate, high elevations and characteristic geology
produce a large range of natural variability within
ecological systems. In previous field projects,
we have observed that even under minimal human
disturbance regimes, environmental gradients can
result in wetlands with very low vegetation cover,
low species diversity and unpredictable hydrologic
shifts. However, there have been no systematic
studies addressing whether, and to what extent,
these differences represent natural variability
among wetland ecological systems. Because
wetland assessment protocols are predicated on
an assumption that there are distinct, measurable
indicators of wetland condition that will respond
in predictable ways to human disturbance,
documenting the range of variability found under
minimally disturbed conditions can help distinguish
signal from noise in more altered occurrences, and
aid in the calibration of metrics.
The project was a collaboration between the
Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP),
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)
and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
(WYNDD). It had three objectives: 1) identify
reference standards for four wetland ecological
systems across four Rocky Mountain ecoregions;
2) assess the range of natural variability of these
ecological systems; and 3) produce a regionally
standardized Level 1 , 2 and 3 method for assessing
and monitoring wetland condition, including
quality assurance project plans, sampling strategies,
and metrics calibrated to the four different wetland
ecological systems. This report summarizes our
approach, activities, and conclusions. Objective
1 summarizes the approach we used to identify
wetlands in minimally disturbed condition.
Objective 2 describes the attributes, indicators and
metrics we used to determine the range of natural
variability found in the minimally disturbed sites
we sampled. Objective 3 discusses our draft
protocol and its performance. This is followed
by a summary of our overall conclusions and
recommendations.
Objective 1. Identify reference standards for four
WETLAND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ACROSS FOUR ECOREGIONS
Background
The Rocky Mountain West is unusual in having an
abundance of land that has been withdrawn from
(or never available to) intensive human use, thus
escaping all but generalized or indirect distur-
bances (e.g. native ungulate grazing, high-intensity
fires caused by suppression of periodic low inten-
sity fires, etc.). In many cases, even landscapes
disturbed by grazing or logging have had sufficient
time to recover (Stoddard et al. 2006). Therefore,
we believed it would be possible to identify a
set of wetlands in minimally disturbed condition
(MDC) across the region, 5 and describe their biotic
and abiotic attributes in such a way that we could
determine their natural range of variability. We
expected that these minimally disturbed sites would
exhibit a range of natural variability even though
they have been exposed to widespread anthropo-
genic change vectors, such as atmospheric deposi-
tion, and that these sites could be used to describe
reference conditions. A secondary goal was to
create a network of well-documented "sentinel"
wetlands that could be revisited over time to evalu-
ate impacts of climate change, human land uses, or
other natural or anthropogenic factors.
We recognized that some of the variability in wet-
land attributes is predictable based on wetland
type; for example, the calcium-rich groundwater
characteristic of rich fens will often result in great-
er species diversity than is found in wet meadows
or marshes (Chadde et al. 1998). Therefore, we
decided to do an a priori classification of our target
population, both to constrain the variability and to
ensure even representation of wetland types. For
our typology we chose the ecological system clas-
sification developed by NatureServe (Comer et al.
2003).
Ecological systems are groupings of biological
communities occurring in similar physical environ-
ments, and influenced by similar ecological pro-
cesses such as flooding, fire, wind, and snowfall.
Systems typically occur on a landscape at scales of
tens to thousands of acres, and generally persist in
a recognizable state for 50 or more years. By in-
tegrating biotic and abiotic features, the ecological
system concept incorporates elements of the Hy-
drogeomorphic Method (HGM) and the vegetation-
based National Vegetation Classification Standard.
Furthermore, ecological systems are mappable
units that can be classified from aerial or satellite
imagery, and are easily identifiable in the field by
land managers, resource specialists, and planners
(Comer et al. 2003).
Although over 30 wetland/riparian ecological sys-
tems are found in the four states (Montana, Wyo-
ming, Utah and Colorado) included in this study,
only six occurred in all states. Although more
detailed classification possibilities exist, e.g., the
National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVC)
macrogroup level (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2009b),
and could be used to constrain variability, the rela-
tively small sample size that we anticipated (-100
wetlands) required a coarser classification. Of the
six wetland ecological systems occurring in the
four states, two were not suitable for inclusion. One
(the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Montane Riparian
Woodland) occurs only in narrow bands along high
Because human alteration of the landscape has occurred at different times and with different intensity across the U.S. and
other parts of the world, it has been suggested that the term "reference condition" has lost its meaning, and should be replaced
by a new set of terms more accurately describing the various expected conditions against which an assessed site can be ranked
(Stoddard et al. 2006). For example, Minimally Disturbed Condition (MDC) can be used for sites occurring in the absence of
significant human disturbance. Such sites exhibit a range of natural variability even though they have been exposed to widespread
anthropogenic change vectors, such as atmospheric deposition. Historical Condition (HC) can describe sites at some point in
history prior to large-scale change, e.g., European settlement of North America. Least Disturbed Condition (LDC) can indicate
sites that are the best in the area or region in terms of physical, chemical, biological, or hydrological properties. Here we
continue to use the term "reference condition" to mean "Minimally Disturbed Condition, in accordance with common practice;
when we refer to historic or least-disturbed conditions, we will use those terms.
order streams, and typically has little true wetland
habitat. The other (Rocky Mountain Lower Mon-
tane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland) is
largely found in the wildland-urban interface, and
initial field reconnaissance indicated that we would
be unable to find sufficient examples of this system
in minimally disturbed areas to meet our goals.
The four systems retained in our study were the
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen; Rocky
Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow; North
American Arid West Emergent Marsh; and Rocky
Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland.
See Appendix A for descriptions of these ecological
systems.
We further limited our sampling by choosing the
four largest and most mountainous Level III ecore-
gions (Omernik 1987) within our four-state area:
The Canadian Rockies, the Middle Rockies, the
Wasatch and Uinta Mountains and the Southern
Rockies (See Map 1). Level III ecoregions are
delineated on the basis of common geology, soils,
hydrology, topography, climate, vegetation, water
quality, and wildlife. 6
Canadian Rockies
| Middle Rockies
| Southern Rockies
I Wasatch and Uinta Mountains
Figure 1. Study ecoregions, Rocky Mountain Remap Project.
" The National Wetlands Condition Assessment is using the aggregated ecoregions developed for the Wadeable Streams
Assessment. This aggregated approach rolls up Level III ecoregions into 9 broad ecoregions. Our four ecoregions roughly
correspond to the portions of the "Western Mountains" broad ecoregion lying within the four states of our study area.
Methods
Montana, Colorado and Wyoming all have docu-
mented examples of the high quality wetland eco-
logical systems in this study However, we elected
a probabilistic rather than targeted survey approach
(Herlihy et al. 2008) because we were concerned
that the previously documented sites might be bi-
ased to the largest, most diverse, or most interest-
ing examples of the systems, instead of reflecting
the range of variability that we believed existed
across the region.
We used a two-stage survey design. First, we used
a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratification
(GRTS) sampling design within the package spsur-
vey (Kincaid et al. 2009) in the statistical software
R (R Development Core Team 2009) to select 50
two mile by two mile grid cells within each Level
III Ecoregion, and created a grid of points at 100
meter intervals within each selected cell. The
GRTS design is discussed in greater detail under
Objective 3. Given our primary interest in describ-
ing reference standard wetlands, we needed to limit
potential sample sites to minimally disturbed land-
scapes. Additionally, we needed to ensure that sites
were reasonably accessible without excessive travel
on foot. To determine the portions of the study
area that were most likely to feature minimally dis-
turbed landscapes, a landscape integrity model de-
veloped for Montana (Vance 2009) was adopted for
the entire project area. This is an inverse weighted
distance model premised on the idea that ecosys-
tem processes and functions achieve their fullest
expression in areas where human activities have the
least impact. In the case of wetlands, it presumes
that reference standard wetlands are mostly likely
to be found in areas well removed from roads,
commercial or industrial development, urban areas,
resource extraction sites, or hydrologic modifica-
tions. Although GIS data quality varied among the
four states, we were able to identify sufficiently
comparable data sets to build a Rocky Mountain
Landscape Integrity Model that could be used as
an initial predictor of minimally disturbed areas.
Appendix B includes a list of the parameters and
weighting used in the model. We determined which
points in our grid fell within the high integrity land-
scape using Spatial Analyst inArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI
2008). From the selected points, we eliminated any
points not falling on publicly owned lands or were
greater than 10 miles from a four-wheel drive road.
We used GRTS to order the remaining points for
additional evaluation. We then used aerial photo-
graphs in a GIS to visually examine each of these
points and determine if it occurred within one of
the targeted wetland ecological systems. We also
inspected each point to ensure that there were no
landscape disturbances (e.g., outfitter camps, heavy
livestock use, recent logging or wildfire) that had
been undetected in the GIS data layers. Appendix
C includes the instructions developed for using the
screening parameters and the digital data layers to
select sites from aerial photographs. We selected
points until we had up to three points representing
each wetland system within each grid cell.
Trained field crews navigated with a GPS to the se-
lected sample points. Upon arrival at the point, the
crew first conducted a site evaluation to determine
if the site met the criteria of the target population.
To determine if a wetland was one of the four target
ecological systems, crews used a field key devel-
oped for wetland and riparian ecological systems
of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado by the
MTNHP and CNHP (Appendix D). Next, field
crews determined if the site met the criteria defined
for reference standard. These criteria were based
on the parameters used in the initial landscape
integrity model screening, and acted as a final vali-
dation of the model and its assumptions. Table 1
shows the minimum acceptable distance for each
disturbance; if any one of these occurred in closer
proximity, the site was dropped from the sample.
Once the site was verified, an assessment area
(AA) was established, 7 and crews collected site
information on field forms following the instruc-
tions in the Draft Protocol. 8 After basic site data
were recorded, crews assessed the four wetland at-
' The standard AA was half a hectare (5000 square meters) in size; see the Draft Protocol (Appendix E) for more information
on non-standard layouts and sizes.
° The Draft Protocol is discussed in more detail under Objective 3.
Table 1. Minimum acceptable distance for disturbance in the landscape screening.
Roads and Highways
• 4x4, dirt > 200 m
• local, city > 300 m
• highways > 500 m
Hydrologic Modification
• canals, ditches > 200 m
• reservoirs > 1,000 m downstream
• water right point of use (wells, diversion points, impoundments) > 200 m
Land Cover
• high density residential > 2,000 m
• low density residential / high use recreation > 300 m
• crop agriculture / hay pastures > 500 m
• timber harvest > 2,000 m
Land Use
• abandoned mines / tailings piles > 500 m
• active gravel pit, open pit, strip mining > 1,000 m
• evidence of heavy livestock use > 200 m
tributes examined in this study: landscape context,
vegetation, physical-chemical features, and hydrol-
ogy. In addition to the condition metrics (discussed
in detail under Objective 2), each attribute had an
associated set of stressor metrics.
For example, crews conducted an assessment of
the landscape context in which the site was found
and identified stressors within a 500 m envelope.
This assessment covered the larger envelope in
which the site occurred, and acted as a validation
of the site selection methodology, providing a final
set of data that could be reviewed during analysis
to ensure that the wetland was indeed reference
standard. Metrics included landscape connectiv-
ity, buffer area and condition and percent natural
cover. Crews also identified landscape stressors in
and around the site. Disturbance thresholds for the
condition assessment were more stringent than for
site selection. For example, a dirt road 300 m from
the AA did not disqualify a site from inclusion in
the sample; however, the road did affect landscape
connectivity measurements. Similarly, while a
fence near the AA would not affect the site's inclu-
sion in the sample, the fence would be considered
as an anthropogenic impact within the buffer if it
restricted wildlife movement.
Other landscape context metrics also provided us
with an opportunity to verify that the sites retained
in the study met the criteria for minimal disturbed
condition:
Landscape Connectivity: This metric evaluated
the percent unfragmented area within a 500 m
envelope surrounding the AA. For non-riparian
wetlands, crews identified the largest unfragmented
block that contained the AA and estimated its per-
centage of the total area within the 500 m envelope.
For riparian sites, the metric required them to iden-
tify the largest unfragmented area within the geo-
morphic floodplain beginning 500 m above the AA
and extending 500 m downstream. Fragmentation
occurred whenever connectivity was interrupted,
e.g., by heavy grazing, roads, agriculture, residen-
tial development or managed recreational sites.
Buffer extent: This was defined as a buffer of at
least 30 m in width and at least 5 m in length
around the AA. Unpaved, lightly used trails (bike,
foot or horse), natural upland habitats, nature
parks, lightly grazed rangeland, vegetated swales
and ditches, open water and vegetated levees all
were considered to be buffering land covers, while
land cover types such as corrals, horse paddocks
or heavily used trails were not. Buffer width was
defined as the width of uninterrupted buffer (up
to 200 m) around the AA. Buffer condition was
evaluated within a 200 m envelope surrounding the
AA. Condition metrics included the percent native
plant cover, evidence of human visitation, and soil
disturbances within the buffer area defined by ex-
tent and width.
Landscape stressors were ranked based on their
scope (amount of the envelope affected) and sever-
ity (likelihood that the stressor, if continued, would
degrade wetland function or condition). A full list
of stressors and scope/severity rankings can be
found in the Draft Protocol.
Results
The initial landscape model performed well in
terms of identifying sites with minimal distur-
bance. In Montana, 9% of the sites selected with
the model were disqualified based on disturbances
detected during aerial photo inspection. Additional
sites were disqualified in the field (9 of 45 visited,
or 20%). Two of these were disqualified because
of heavy livestock grazing and invasive species
that were not detectable with the GIS model or the
aerial photos. The remaining sites were disqualified
for reasons unrelated to disturbance because they
did not meet the 0.5 ha minimum sampling size
(3); were too deep to be sampleable (2); were not
wetlands (2); or, in one case, because the wetland
was the same system type as a previously sampled
wetland in the same cell.
For the sites that passed all screening the field as-
sessments further validated the relative absence
of stressors. In the landscape context assessment,
within the 500 m envelope surrounding the AA,
nearly all (90%) non-riverine sites (n = 70) had
100% landscape connectivity; one site had 99%
connectivity; one site had 95% connectivity; three
sites had 90% connectivity; and two sites had 70%
connectivity. All riverine sites (22 sites) had 1 00%
landscape connectivity. Similarly, nearly all sites
(97%) had a buffer extent of 100%; 96% had a
buffer width of at least 1 87 m. Only one site had
a buffer width less than 150 m. Within the 200 m
envelope surrounding the AA, 96% of selected sites
had > 95% native vegetation cover and < 5% cover
of non-native plants. 9 The remaining sites had >
75% native vegetation cover and 5 to 25% cover of
non-native plants.
Assessment of stressors affecting the other attri-
butes — vegetation, hydrology, and physicochemical
factors — confirmed the identification of the select-
ed sites as minimally disturbed. Tables 2 through
4 list the anthropogenic and environmental stress-
ors considered for each attribute. Each table shows
the number of sites at which a particular stressor
was observed as well as the range of scope and
severity ratings. No hydrology stressors were ob-
served at any wetland site within the project area.
The most common stressors observed across the
study area were related to grazing by livestock or
native ungulates. Crews examined woody veg-
etation for evidence of browsing, and looked for
soil compaction or pugging, as well as wallows.
If ancillary evidence (cowpies, hoofprints, cattle
presence) was available, crews noted that cattle
were the common grazers. Otherwise, we felt it
was impossible to determine what animal (e.g.,
elk, moose, deer, mountain goats or bighorn sheep)
was the dominant herbivore. However, based on
the infrequency of cattle evidence, it appears that
It should be noted that most of the non-native plants in the assessments were nearly ubiquitous, non-native species as
dandelion and Kentucky bluegrass; dandelion was, in fact, one of the most commonly encountered species in the study.
Table 2. Landscape context stressors
Range of Range of
Stressor Number Scope Severity
of Sites Ratings Ratings
Paved roads / parking lots 2 0-1 1
Unpaved Roads (e.g., driveway, tractor trail,
4-wheel drive roads) 8 0-2 1
Domestic or commercially developed
buildings 1 1 1
Intensively managed golf courses, sports
fields
Gravel pit operation, open pit mining, strip
mining
Mining (other than gravel, open pit, and strip
mining), abandoned mines
Resource extraction (oil and gas)
Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling,
rotochopping, clearcut) 1 2 1
Logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees
>50 cm dbh removed
Selective logging or tree removal with <50%
of trees >50 cm dbh removed 1 1
Agriculture - tilled crop production
Agriculture - permanent crop (hay pasture,
vineyard, orchard, nursery, berry field)
Agriculture - permanent tree plantation
Haying of native grassland
Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow
lands dominated by exotic species
Heavy grazing/browsing by livestock or native
ungulates 2 3-4 2
Moderate grazing/browsing by livestock or
native ungulates 11 1-4 1-2
Light grazing/browsing by livestock or native
ungulates 55 0-4 1
Intense recreation or human visitation (ATV
use / camping / popular fishing spot, etc.) 5 0-2 1
Moderate recreation or human visitation
(high-use trail) 16 0-3 1-2
Light recreation or human visitation (low-use
trail) 27 1-2
Dam sites and flood disturbed shorelines
around water storage reservoirs
Beetle-killed conifers 45 0-4 1-4
Evidence of recent fire (<5 years old) 6 0-4 1-4
2
3-4
11
1-4
55
0-4
5
0-2
16
0-3
27
0-3
...
45
0-4
6
0-4
Table 3. Vegetation stressors
Stressor
Number
of Sites
Range of
Scope
Ratings
Range of
Severity
Ratings
Unpaved Roads (e.g., driveway, tractor trail,
4-wheel drive roads)
Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling,
rotochopping, clearcut)
Logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees
>50 cm dbh removed
Selective logging or tree removal with <50%
of trees >50 cm dbh removed
Heavy grazing/browsing by livestock or native
ungulates
Moderate grazing/browsing by livestock or
native ungulates
Light grazing/browsing by livestock or native
ungulates
Intense recreation or human visitation (ATV
use / camping / popular fishing spot, etc.)
Moderate recreation or human visitation
(high-use trail)
Light recreation or human visitation (low-use
trail)
Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow
lands dominated by exotic species
Haying of native grassland
Beetle-killed conifers
Evidence of recent fire (<5 years old)
Other:
—
—
—
—
4
1-4
6
0-4
53
0-4
1
1
1
4
0-2
...
—
8
1-4
4
4
3
1-4
1-3
1-2
1-2
1
1
1-2
1-4
4
1
the most frequent herbivores were native species.
Where herbivory occurred, it was mostly light in
both scope and severity.
The next most common stressor was light recre-
ation, largely in the form of hiking/horse trails,
which was partially an artifact of our decision to
select sites with reasonable access. Scope and se-
verity for these stressors were generally low.
Discussion
The approach used to select reference condition
wetlands was satisfactory, yielding a set of sites
that can be considered minimally disturbed by di-
rect human impacts. Nonetheless, we recognize
that the non-human impacts - in particular, native
ungulate grazing and beetle -killed conifers - are
linked to human manipulation of wildlife popula-
tions and to forest management practices. There-
10 The lack of high resolution mapping such as the NWI mapping also affected our ability to stratify our sampling by
ecological system. This is discussed in more detail under Objective 3.
Table 4. Physiochemical stressors
Stressor
Number
of Sites
Range of
Scope
Ratings
Range of
Severity
Ratings
Erosion
Sedimentation
Current plowing or disking
Historic plowing or disking (evident by abrupt
A horizon boundary at plow depth)
Substrate removal (excavation)
Filling or dumping of sediment
Trash or refuse dumping
Compaction and soil disturbance by livestock
or native ungulates
Compaction and soil disturbance by human
use (trails, ORV use, camping)
Mining activities, current or historic
0-2
0-1
—
—
—
1
0-1
41
0-4
5
0-2
1-3
1
1
1-2
1-2
fore, few sites, even in the most remote areas,
could be considered as reflecting historic condition.
Visually inspecting aerial photos to verify the sites
chosen by the model was a critically important fac-
tor in the success of our approach, as it substantial-
ly reduced the error associated with the data quality
of GIS inputs. However, the most difficult obstacle
was the lack of National Wetlands Inventory map-
ping across most of the study area. This required
photointerpretation for each cell selected by the
GRTS design, which added considerable cost and
time to the project. 10 Even in areas where 1980s-
era N WI mapping was available, it was incom-
plete, as older mapping generally excludes riparian
woodlands and shrublands unless they experience
annual flooding. Moreover, the quality of the im-
agery available during the first round of N WI map-
ping resulted in frequent errors concerning flood-
ing regimes, so that it was not possible to create
reliable crosswalks between the old NWI mapping
and ecological systems. New mapping from 2005
imagery by the MTNHP was more useful, but that
only covered parts of Montana.
We caution anyone considering the adoption of
this approach in a state without NWI mapping that
photointerpretation is a learned skill. In our Results
section, we report only Montana's experience with
the GIS and photointerpretation process. While all
the teams were able to detect landscape impacts on
aerial photos, they encountered varying degrees of
difficulty determining whether a site was a sample-
able wetland. The MTNHP had a cadre of skilled
wetland photointerpreters to assist with this proj-
ect, and although they were more familiar with the
Cowardin classification than with ecological sys-
tems, they were confident in their ability to identify
wetlands, and to crosswalk between systems. By
contrast, CNHP and WYNDD staff, who were less
experienced with photointerpretation, faced a steep
learning curve that required them to do much more
field reconnaissance in the initial project stages to
verify whether a site qualified as a wetland, and if
so, to determine the class into which it fell. Even
the MTNHP photointerpreters were not always suc-
cessful in correctly identifying sites as wetlands or
accurately estimating their sizes. Furthermore, all
teams found it impossible to determine in advance
if open water in wetlands was deeper than our
maximum sampleable depth of 1 meter. Therefore,
although the methodology we used was successful
in screening for impacts around sites, consider-
able uncertainty was associated with determining
whether a potential site was even part of the target
population.
Field sampling also was difficult due to a lack of
reliable spatial information about roads. Although
the data layers for frequently-travelled roads were
good, there was no single source of GIS data de-
picting accessible 4WD roads or pedestrian and
horse trails. Many 4WD roads on topographic
maps or in the TIGER GIS database were gated
and locked, and several of the trails on topographic
maps were abandoned, resulting in several false
starts for crews. We encourage anyone using a sim-
ilar approach to locate the best available local data.
In Montana, road and trail data were available from
Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service, which made
accessibility screening much smoother. However,
even those data were not accurate across all Na-
tional Forests and local districts, and on several
occasions crews were unable to locate trailheads or
identify critical trail junctions. Similarly, while we
had access to high-resolution aerial imagery, trails
in wooded areas were difficult to detect.
We recommend initial field reconnaissance when-
ever possible to ascertain accessibility and to
ensure the accuracy of aerial photo interpretation
of wetland classes. Study design restricted crews
to sampling one example of a given wetland eco-
logical systems per grid cell. However, in aerial
photos, it was often difficult to distinguish sedge-
dominated fens with open water areas from marsh-
es, or to distinguish between the drier herbaceous
peatlands and wet meadows. Consequently, crews
sometimes navigated to a site only to discover it
was not sampleable within the protocol (e.g., it
was the second fen within the grid cell). This ex-
tra travel time dramatically reduced the number
of sites that were sampled and led to considerable
crew frustration. However, field reconnaissance
might not always be cost effective, particularly
when safety considerations require it be done by a
two-person team, or when sites are so remote that
several person-days would be added to the project
budget. Another solution, which might eliminate
some of the problem, would be a modified study
design. In smaller areas, where environmental
gradients are not as variable as they were across
this extremely large study area, it might not be as
important to eliminate the risk of spatial autocor-
relation. In that case, crews should be allowed to
sample more than one wetland of a particular sys-
tem within a grid cell.
Our approach had other shortcomings that were
not anticipated during the study design phase. For
example, random sampling did not produce equal
numbers of all wetland ecological systems included
in the study. Marshes were significantly underrep-
resented. High- integrity landscapes meeting our
suitability screens tend to be clustered at medium-
to-high elevations, where edaphic factors and geo-
morphology do not always support development
of marsh wetlands (Baker, 1989). Despite going
to our oversample GRTS panels, we were not able
to find as many marsh sites as we wanted in any
of the four study states. We attempted a targeted
approach to marsh site selection in Montana, but
although we were able to find marshes that did pass
the initial screens, the presence of long-term im-
pacts from historic logging in most cases were such
that we did not consider these marshes to represent
MDC.
We also note that the study design's emphasis
on roadless areas with reasonable access biased
the sample towards popular recreation areas and
routes. High elevation and low elevation sites were
probably underrepresented, as were slope wetlands
at the mountain-to-valley transition where public
lands typically abut private lands. We also believe
that our sample did not represent the full range of
fens found across the region. In general, fens are
categorized as "extremely rich," "rich" or "poor"
(Chadde et al. 1998) based on vegetation composi-
tion and water chemistry. Poor fens are generally
acidic, and dominated by sphagnum mosses, with
a limited number of vascular plants species, while
rich and extremely rich fens are more alkaline, and
have higher vascular plant cover. Both poor fens
and extremely rich fens are uncommon across most
of the study area, with most fens having moder-
ate vascular plant diversity and a fairly neutral
pH. Although our sample did reflect the relative
distribution of these types across the study area, in
terms of simple numbers, we did not have enough
poor or extremely rich fens to really represent their
range of natural variability. Underrepresentation
of uncommon types will always be a drawback of
probabilistic survey design (Jones 2004).
10
Despite the success achieved with this model we
have not fully evaluated it as a Level 1 assessment
tool across the entire condition gradient. In previ-
ous work in Montana, Level 1 assessment results
did not show strong correlations with Level 2 and
3 results for disturbed sites (Vance 2009, Newlon
and Vance 201 1). In part this is because roads in
the West do not necessarily integrate multiple hu-
man stressors to the extent that they do in more
populated areas, so that while roadless condition
is a strong indicator of a lack of disturbance, road
density is not necessarily a predictor of degrada-
tion (Vance 2009). However, Lemly et al. (2011)
reported correlations between Level 1 and Level 2
scores for wetlands in the Upper Rio Grande, and
studies in progress in Montana suggest that where
human populations are more concentrated, land-
scape level disturbance is more predictive of site
disturbance. Nonetheless, considerably more work
will be necessary to calibrate the Landscape Integ-
rity Model as a true Level 1 assessment tool.
11
Objective 2. Assess the natural range of variability for
THESE FOUR ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Background
The concept of natural range of variability reflects
the ecological understanding that the climatic,
topographic, geological and biogeographic fac-
tors that shape ecosystems differ across space and
time, and that these differences will lead to dispa-
rate expressions of individual wetlands. Although
some of these differences can be captured with
wetland classification, so that riverine wetlands in
the Rocky Mountains are only compared with other
riverine wetlands in the Rocky Mountains (e.g.,
Brinson et al. 1995, Shafer et al. 2007, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 2010, Williams et al. 2010, Kli-
mas et al. 2011, Nobel et al. 2011), distinct differ-
ences may be present even within a wetland class.
,. For example, localized dispersal factors or water
chemistry can result in marked differences in plant
species composition (Magee et al. 1999, Peterson-
Smith et al. 2009). Similarly, natural disturbances
such as fire or other ecological processes occur
stochastically across the landscape such that indi-
vidual wetlands may be at dramatically different
points in terms of successional dynamics.
This spatial and temporal variability can make it
difficult to determine whether the values of the in-
dicators being measured at an assessment site are
outside the range of values that occur naturally. In
theory, at least, probabilistic sampling schemes
will result in assessments being conducted across
the full spectrum of human disturbance, eventually
producing "an ecological dose-response curve"
(Rocchio and Crawford 2011) that links each indi-
cator to each stressor, thus allowing identification
of those wetlands in the dataset that can be said
to represent a reference standard (Jones 2004).
Nevertheless, it has been noted in other contexts
that probabilistic sampling tends to underrepresent
both undisturbed and highly disturbed occurrences
(Fore 2003), so that it may take years of probabi-
listic sampling before enough reference condition
sites are found to accurately portray the variability
that exists within and between wetland ecological
systems. Therefore, one of the central goals of this
project was to identify regionally representative
examples of wetlands in Minimally Disturbed Con-
dition (Stoddard et al. 2006) and describe the range
of values we measured with a standard assessment
protocol.
The Colorado and Montana Natural Heritage Pro-
grams have both been developing Level 1 , 2, and
3 protocols (Kentula et al. 2007) to evaluate the
ecological integrity of wetland ecosystems. These
protocols are based on a conceptual model of in-
tegrity linking key ecosystem attributes, such as
biotic structure and composition, to stressors or
other change agents (Karr 1991, Parrish et al. 2003,
Andreason et al. 2001, Rocchio 2006, Faber-Lan-
gendoen et al. 2008, Hargiss et al. 2008, Lemly and
Rocchio 2009). This model is premised on an as-
sumption that key attributes will respond in a mea-
surable and predictable way to stressors and com-
mon indicators of response can be assessed through
well-crafted metrics. Level 1 metrics operate at a
landscape level and tend to focus on the presence
of disturbance. Level 2 are rapid, semi-quantita-
tive field metrics and often infer integrity from the
absence of disturbance. Level 3 metrics are based
on intensive sampling of an attribute or attributes in
the field, typically vegetation.
In this study we relied primarily on Level 3 sur-
veys, collecting data to support a floristic quality
assessment (FQA). The FQA combines measures
of species diversity (including native and exotic
species) with measures of individual plant spe-
cies' tolerance of, and sensitivity to, disturbance
(Cronk and Fennessy 200 1 , Miller and Wardrop
2006). Over the past decade FQA metrics and
derived indices such as the Floristic Quality Index
have emerged as effective and reliable methods for
evaluating wetland condition (Lopez and Fennessy
2002).
We posited that any natural variability within and
between minimally disturbed examples of wetland
ecological systems would be best detected by a
Level 3 approach. Level 1 metrics (e.g., landscape
fragmentation, buffer zone intrusions) are designed
to detect human impacts rather than natural vari-
12
ability. However, some Level 2 metrics, particu-
larly those related to vegetation structure and topo-
graphical complexity, did appear to have potential
for capturing variability For example, wetland as-
sessment metrics often include the abundance, type
and interspersion of patches. If values for these
metrics vary widely among minimally disturbed
wetlands and the variability is linked to wetland
class or region, this would be an important factor
to consider in designing wetland assessments. By
contrast, if the variable responses exist but can-
not be linked to wetland class or region, then these
metrics may not lend themselves to describing a
dose-response relationship between stressors and
condition.
Because a related goal of this project was to refine
the Level 1 , 2 and 3 indicators and methods so that
they could be standardized into a regional assess-
ment protocol, we decided to combine the Montana
and Colorado Ecological Integrity Assessment
(EIA) methods into a full draft protocol (Appendix
E), carrying out complete assessments at every site.
This allowed us to test the reliability of all metrics,
establish baseline values for Level 2 metrics at ref-
erence sites, and use selected Level 2 and Level 3
vegetation metrics to fully assess the range of natu-
ral variability in our target sites.
we collected information on multiple ground cover
variables including standing water, bare ground, lit-
ter, woody debris, and nonvascular plant species. In
these intensive modules we identified all vascular
plants to species and estimated each species abso-
lute cover for the 1 00 m2 module.
10 METERS
Figure 2. Flexible-plot layout (adapted from
Peetetal. 1998).
Methods
Field sampling: Field crews established an assess-
ment area (AA) of 0.5 ha centered on the selected
sample point, gathered site data, and then assessed
landscape context, hydrology, vegetation, and phys-
icochemical indicators and stressors at the Level 1
and 2 scales. Detailed accounts of these indicators
and stressors can be found in our Draft Field Proto-
col (Appendix E). For the Level 3 assessment we
collected data on vegetation composition and cover
using an approach adapted from the flexible-plot
method developed by Peet et al. (1998). Each plot
measured 20 m x 50 m (1,000 m 2 = 0.1 ha), con-
sisting often lOmx 10m(100 m 2 ) modules typi-
cally arranged in a 2 x 5 array (Figure 2). The plot
was subjectively placed within the AA to maximize
abiotic/biotic heterogeneity, capturing micro-site
variations produced by hummocks, water tracks,
side-channels, pools, wetland edge, and microto-
pography Within four of these 1 00 m2 modules
After sampling each of the intensive modules the
field crews walked through the remaining, or re-
sidual, modules to document presence of any spe-
cies not recorded in the intensive modules. Percent
cover of these species was estimated over the entire
1,000 m2 plot. We used cover class midpoints to
calculate average values for each taxon in each
plot. Vegetation sampling was conducted from late
June through early September in 2009 and 2010,
and from late August through early September of
2011.
At each AA we also dug two to four soil pits 40cm
in depth. Pits were located in or near the vegetation
plot; the number of pits depended on the heteroge-
neity of the AA. We collected information on soil
texture, the color of the soil matrix and any redoxi-
morphic features, and any hydric soil indicators ob-
served based on the U.S. ACOE Regional Supple-
13
ment. The depth to saturated soil and free water, if
present, were recorded for each pit.
Analysis: In development of FQA metrics, or a
Floristic Quality Index (FQI), coefficients of con-
servatism (C-values) are assigned to taxa identi-
fied to species, typically by panels of botanists
and ecologists. The C-values reflect the relative
tolerance of a species to disturbance, ranging from
to 10 (after Andreas et al. 2004). Native species
exhibiting high degrees of ecological specificity
and sensitivity to disturbance have C-values of
9-10. Native species that are typical of well-estab-
lished communities that have undergone minimal
disturbance have C-values of 6-8. Native species
that have some degree of habitat specificity but can
tolerate moderate disturbance have C-values of 3-5.
Widespread native species that occur in a variety
of communities and are common in disturbed sites
have values of 1-2. Exotic species are typically
given a score of 0. Lower FQI and mean C-values
indicate that the site is dominated by plants that are
frequently found in disturbed areas, whereas higher
values indicate a greater floristic quality (Lopez
and Fennessy 2002). Although the FQI is usually
computed only for native species it is also useful to
calculate an FQI that includes non-native species,
as their presence in a site is often a response to a
disturbance (Lopez and Fennessy 2002, Miller and
Wardrop 2006, Bourdaghs et al. 2006, Milburn et
al. 2007).
For species that occurred across the project area we
averaged C-values for Colorado (Rocchio 2007)
and Montana (Jones 2004) when values differed by
less than two. For C-value differences greater than
three, a panel of botanists and ecologists from the
Montana and Colorado Natural Heritage Programs
reassigned C-values.
We calculated multiple vegetation metrics (Ap-
pendix F) to support a floristic quality assessment
(FQA). Metrics in the FQA included native spe-
cies richness, non-native species richness, total
species richness, mean C-value of all plants, mean
C-value of just native plants, and a cover weighted
mean C-value for both native species and total spe-
cies and a Floristic Quality Index (Appendix F for
complete list of formulas).
A cover-weighted FQI was also calculated using
the relative average cover of a species in the entire
plot as a weighting factor (Milburn et al. 2007).
The FQI typically is sensitive to species richness,
so species poor sites will receive a lower FQI value
despite being in or close to a natural state. We
therefore calculated an adjusted FQI (Miller and
Wardrop 2006) that incorporates a "maximum at-
tainable FQI score" based on the highest possible
value, as well as both native and non-native species
scores, into the final index. The cover-weighted
FQI was also calculated for native species alone
and for the adjusted FQI. A cover-weighted adjust-
ed FQI was also produced for each site using the
relative average cover of a species in the entire plot
as a weighting factor. Finally, we also calculated
descriptive statistics and assessed the range and
distribution of each metric by examining frequency
histograms.
Results
The number of wetlands assessed within each eco-
logical system varied across Level III Ecoregions
(Table 5). The average elevation of ecological
systems varied by Level III Ecoregion as well, but
elevation varied little across ecological systems
within a Level III Ecoregion (Table 6). Sites in the
Southern Rockies were generally higher; however,
given the rule of thumb that treeline rises 100 m
in proportion to each degree of latitude southward
(Barbour and Billings 2000), the Southern Rockies
sites were not as much higher than the Canadian
Rockies sites (+/- 1 degrees of latitude apart) as
the raw elevation data might suggest.
We found considerable variability in the vegeta-
tion of our study sites, both with metrics measured
onsite and in the FQA metrics calculated from plot
data. This was true for both Level 2 vegetation
metrics and Level 3 plot-based metrics 11 . For ex-
ample, one Level 2 metric assessed vertical overlap
Other Level 2 metrics, most of which are designed to identify response to stressors, did not show much range of variability
because our sites were chosen to be as stressor-free as possible.
14
Table 5. Number of assessed wetlands by Level III Ecoregion and wetland ecological system.
Level III Ecoregion
North American
Arid West
Emergent Marsh
Rocky Mountain
Alpine-Montane
Wet Meadow
Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane
Fen
Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane
Riparian Shrubland
Canadian Rockies 7
Middle Rockies 10
Wasatch-Uinta
Mountains 1
Southern Rockies 3
4
15
3
4
7
15
4
7
5
11
3
6
Table 6. Average elevation (in meters) of wetlands assessed as part of the Rocky Mountain ReMAP project.
Level III Ecoregion
North American
Arid West
Emergent Marsh
Rocky Mountain
Alpine-Montane
Wet Meadow
Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane
Fen
Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane
Riparian Shrubland
Canadian Rockies
1,532
1,617
1,493
1,320
range
(941-2,005)
(1,169-1,834)
(1,111-1,813)
(1,050-1,817)
Middle Rockies
2,339
2,478
2,398
2,475
range
(1, 73 7-2, 922)
(1,831-3,308)
(1,872-3,003)
(1,870-3,161)
Wasatch-Uinta
Mountains
3,343
3,126
3,033
3,105
range
(2,787-3,361)
(2,690-3,347)
(2,703-3,325)
Southern Rockies
3,074
3,185
3,256
3,239
range
(2,607-3,509)
(3,108-3,324)
(3,134-3,403)
(2,767-3,424)
of vegetation strata. Some of the variability in the
results was explained by differences between eco-
logical systems, with shrublands being the most
likely to have overlapping strata and marshes being
the least likely. However, even within individual
assessment areas, vegetation overlap was variable
(Table 7). Another Level 2 metric, horizontal inter-
spersion of vegetation zones, also showed a wide
range of variability, as did the metric assessing the
number of structural patch types.
When a Level 2 metric uncovers wide variability in
minimally disturbed wetlands, its utility for mea-
suring condition comes into question unless the
variability is correlated to particular wetland types
or regions. In this study we did not see any such
correlation. Therefore, we revisited these metrics
in the context of our regionally standardized pro-
tocol. This will be discussed in more detail under
Objective 3.
Table 7. Percent of sites by wetland ecological system with portions of their assessment area comprised of at least three
overlapping vertical vegetation strata, two overlapping vertical vegetation strata, and one vertical vegetation stratum,
respectively.
Ecological System
> 3 overlapping
vertical vegetation
strata
2 overlapping
vertical vegetation
strata
1
vegetation
strata
Total
number
of sites
Emergent Marsh
7%
21%
93%
14
Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
25%
54%
96%
24
Subalpine-Montane Fen
24%
52%
76%
29
Subalpine-Montane
Riparian Shrubland
72%
100%
76%
25
15
The variability in Level 3 metrics, by comparison,
did appear to be linked to regional and typological
differences in our target population of wetlands.
Overall, we encountered 6 1 3 vascular plant species
across 105 sites. Of these, 564 were identified to
species and 49 were identified to genus. Of the 613
total taxa, 228 species were observed only once
and another 101 species were observed twice, indi-
cating relatively high species diversity in wetlands
across the project area. The average number of
species per site was 27 (range 2-70 species). Carex
was the most diverse genus, with 52 species posi-
tively identified. The most frequently occurring
species was Carex utriculata, occurring at 70 of
105 sites. The most frequently encountered species
are listed by ecological system and ecoregion in
Tables 8 and 9.
Frequency histograms for FQA metrics across all
systems and ecoregions show a relatively broad
range of values with the exception of metrics relat-
ed to exotic species (Appendix G), with large stan-
dard deviations around the mean. However, when
metric values are analyzed by geography and typol-
ogy, clear patterns of regional and typological vari-
ability emerge (Tables 10 and 11). The Southern
Rockies and Wasatch-Uinta Mountains had consis-
tently higher metric values than the Middle Rock-
ies and Canadian Rockies for all FQA calculations
except exotic species richness, suggesting a strong
regional range of natural variability. We also found
a strong typological association for most FQA met-
rics. Riparian shrublands had the highest species
richness across all Level III Ecoregions, followed
by wet meadows. Fens had the lowest species rich-
ness in the Middle Rockies, Southern Rockies, and
Wasatch-Uinta Mountains, while emergent marshes
had the lowest richness in the Canadian Rockies.
Riparian shrublands and wet meadows also had the
highest Shannon- Wiener diversity indices, whereas
marshes had the lowest across all Level III Ecore-
gions. Results for FQI values followed similar
patterns, with riparian shrublands and wet mead-
ows having the highest FQI values across Level III
Ecoregions. Emergent marshes had the lowest FQI
values in all Level III Ecoregions except the Mid-
Table 8. Most frequently occurring species by ecological system.
Ecological System
Number
of Site
Plant Species
C-
Value
Nativity
Emergent Marsh
14
Carex utriculata
4
Native
8
Calamagrostis canadensis
6
Native
7
Carex aquatilis
6
Native
6
Deschampsia cespitosa
6
Native
5
Salix planifolia
7
Native
Wet Meadow
18
Carex aquatilis
6
Native
16
Calamagrostis canadensis
6
Native
15
Pedicularis groenlandica
8
Native
14
Phleum alpinum
7
Native
13
Senecio triangularis
6
Native
Fen
21
Carex aquatilis
6
Native
21
Carex utriculata
4
Native
12
Calamagrostis canadensis
6
Native
10
Carex canescens
8
Native
10
Pedicularis groenlandica
8
Native
10
Salix planifolia
7
Native
Riparian Shrubland
21
Achillea millefolium
4
Native
20
Calamagrostis canadensis
6
Native
18
Carex aquatilis
6
Native
15
Senecio triangularis
6
Native
14
Carex norvegica
8
Native
16
Table 9. Most frequently occurring plant species by Level 3 ecoregion.
Ecoregion
Number
of Site
Plant Species
C-
Value
Nativity
Canadian Rockies
14
14
11
10
9
9
Carex utriculata
Potentilla gracilis
Petasites frigidus
Equisetum fluviatile
Calamagrostis canadensis
Fragaria Virginia
4
4
8
6
6
5
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Middle Rockies
34
30
26
20
19
Carex aquatilis
Carex utriculata
Calamagrostis canadensis
Senecio triangularis
Phleum alpinum
6
4
6
6
7
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Wasatch-Uinta
Mountains
11
10
Carex aquatilis
Salix planifolia
Calamagrostis canadensis
Rhodiola rhodantha
Deschampsia cespitosa
Pedicularis groenlandica
Veronica wormskjoldii
Viola macloskeyi
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Southern Rockies
18
15
14
14
13
13
Carex norvegica
Carex aquatilis
Caltha leptosepala
Deschampsia cespitosa
Calamagrostis canadensis
Salix planifolia
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
die Rockies, where fens had the lowest FQI values.
The box plots in Figure 3 show the typology by
ecoregion scores on selected metrics.
Discussion
In our protocol, as in most wetland assessment ap-
proaches, Level 1 metrics evaluate human distur-
bance rather than natural variability. For example,
metrics focus on fragmentation of natural cover by
human impacts rather than looking at the structure
and composition of the natural cover in the land-
scape envelope. Because the emphasis is on distur-
bance, there is no "natural" variability.
Level 2 metrics assess indicators that are believed
to be sensitive to disturbance. If these metrics
work as they should, there will be little variability
in scores between and among minimally disturbed
sites. The exception to this would be in metrics
that are predicted to vary between different wet-
land systems. In this project, as expected, Level
2 metrics generally showed consistency across the
study area, except for number of vegetation strata,
degree of horizontal interspersion, and patchiness.
However, in the case of these metrics, the range of
variability occurs both between and within wetland
ecosystems. For example, even in the case of ripar-
ian shrublands, which had the highest likelihood
of overlapping vegetation strata, there were more
sites with a single stratum (76%) than with three or
more strata (73%). We discuss the implications of
this under Objective 3.
We did find a substantial range of variability in
Floristic Quality Assessment metrics. FQA metrics
are in wide use as a "gold standard" for Level 3
assessment because of their well-documented sen-
sitivity to human disturbance (Lopez and Fennessy
2002, Andreas et al. 2004, Miller and Wardrop
2006, Bourdaghs et al. 2006, Milburn et al. 2007,
Mclntyre et al. 2011) and their relative ease of ap-
17
~3
5
"a
5
_5j
3
-a
Q
1/3
_3
3
in
Xfl
tl
a
S
'G
a
<~
re
Oh
OJ
5
s
w
Q
C/3
« 8
Q
V)
OJ
On
(N
Q
!/3
a
[in
-s=
in
l>
SO
-3-
i/"s
CO
o
ro
O
n
^o
©
o
o
o
r~
i>
r~
SO
SO
c~
-
rO
^o
o
^o
CO
Os
vd
vd
i/"i
*s"
rO
Os
(X,
o _
c -
OS
rl
~s=
c -
m _^
ss"
c -
1^1
ss"
c -
rl
SO
rl
Os
rO
in
^o
o
^o
in
o
i/"i
o
^o
o
^o
^o
OS
^o
Os
in
CN
en
rs
rO
n
o
©'
©'
©'
©'
^d
^d
'•■6
^d
in
'•JD
Os
O
in
o
o
rN
^o
rN
^r
-*
Os
rl
o
rs|
O
rN
r~
r~
Os
in
©'
in
rN
oo
'd-
in
in
Os
VO
^f
00
oo
r~
in
rO
o
VO
rN
Os
OO
vd
'•JD
in
in
Os
in
oo
©
o
^o
oo
— i
OS
Os
rN
ro
oo
o
^d
^d
^d
ZJ
OJ
OJ
_3
j=
o
Gfl
cfl
d>
"c3
"c3
CD
."
a.
>
>
w
'3
OJ
Oh
o
u
U
OJ
M
^y
OJ
oj
•s
'o
OJ
ft
>
C
O
a
re
OJ
s
-T3
s
ere
OJ
s
-T3
.OJ
OJ
'o
OJ
Oh
H3
a,
Xfl
OJ
>
OJ
OJ
OJ
61
OJ
61
o
'3
OJ
Oh
OJ
>
OJ
Oh
3
OJ
ft
OJ
>
-t-J
c
i
c
S
1
C
o
Z
>
1
u
s
re
>
1
u
a
re
'S
1
OJ
>
.OJ
o
OJ
a.
'53
i
OJ
>
OJ
Oh
OJ
13
q-i
o
'ts
c
o
o
H
Si
z
o
Z
OJ
s
OJ
s
o
U
13
o
U
re
C
On
rN
oo
SO
rl
o
Os
rN
in
in
oo
rN
in
oo
rN
rN
ro
O
rO
O
rO
sO
in
m
o
Os
^O
o
o
oo
Os
rj
^o
so
in
SO
O
'-D
in
rl
in
rN
rl
rl
^O
o
^O
CJ
OJ
ft
OJ
>
a
a
[in
b
-a
-a
OJ
OJ
-*-J
-t--
J3
J3
bO
b-D
OJ
OJ
s
S
»H
tH
OJ
OJ
>
>
o
o
U
U
a
tin
-a
OJ
+J
Jl
ba
'S
S
}H
a
OJ
>
o
[in
OJ
•a
-a
OJ
OJ
£*
-»--
t/J
in
3
3
^
T3'
<
<
r/1 yJ yJ
OJ
OJ
18
ft)
5
a
ft,
"3
•5
3
Q
<Sl
Q
OJ
VI
3
o
s
o
cN
£
II
u
s
■3
3
d
O
«
00
u
Q
cfl
C/3
OJ
13
o
o
en
g
II
OJ
-a
"*-
-a
Q
C/j.
b
oo ,_,
C-;
co
(N
©
O
©
— <
o
ri
in
m
IT)
ri
rj
c-i
oo
yD
oo
Os
yd
Os
OS
rs|
~s=
Cs|
f-;
fsj
yD
fsj
yd
sd
yd
yd
o
CO
r-
m
CO
f-;
f-;
oo
o
ri
CO
ri
CO
co
sc
fsj
f- _
-
m
m
o
in
l/"s
r-
oo
r-
in
rj
oo
1-1 ,-,
ss"
C -
ri
-3-
in
Os
o
ys
o
yd
yd
^d
yd
Os
CO
CO
o
ri
yD
m
Os
Os
m
yD
in
m
o
o
o
o
o
yD
r^
o
1-;
oo
rj
yD
Os
o
O
— !
— !
oo
oo
oo
OO
V~i
Os
in
-*
Os
•~D
CO
oo
oo
in
^ H
CO
yD
rs|
yD
oo
rj
rj
CO
in
yd
in
in
oo
ri
Os
rj
rj
ri
o
yD
m
-s?
-3-
"fl-
yD
CO
m
oo
ed
cd
cd
cd
rj
CO
ri
oe
in
in
cd
cd
cd
cd
o
oo
o
r]
rj
C -
co
r-
oo
oo
o
m'
yd
yD
yD
m
OS
r]
yd
ri
rj
Os
yd
O
r-
ri
ri
r I
oo
Os
in
o
m
«
CB
CJ
oj
13
i
.*
p,
>
CB
OJ
EB
OJ
u
OJ
a
Oh
C3
s
OJ
a
^3
'd
OJ
p,
OJ
"3
o
OJ
d
O
OJ
s
•a
OJ
«
>
3
^
.£
OJ
ft
OJ
13
13
61
o
OJ
Oh
>
c
1
cS
d
1
d
o
>
i
u
d
...
i
U
d
'S
1
13
o
H
z
d
o
Z
Z
OJ
s
C3
OJ
s
>
o
U
Oh
ca
>
U
a
c-
EB
OJ
OJ
s
^
'3
OJ
•a
OJ
a.
OJ
'3
f/^
61
'5
OJ
o
OJ
Oh
OJ
Oh
CB
13
OJ
.>
d
i
t,H
C4H
OJ
OJ
>
o
o
>
o
cS
a
a
U
d
b
El,
cj
OJ
OJ
CB
>
—
C3
a
<4H
^H
o
o
^
__l
a
a
El,
b
•a
-a
OJ
OJ
,--
^3
J3
bO
M
OJ
OJ
>
>
o
o
U
U
o
OJ
a
b
-a
OJ
-*-
J3
ba
'S
?
^H
a
OJ
>
o
b
OJ
•a
-a
OJ
OJ
■^j
+J
cfl
m
3
3
^
T3'
<
<
19
a
6C ■
Southern Rockies
Wasatch/Uintah
1
1
i
m
!
•
1
t
1
■
s
— i —
•
— m —
__!__.
Canadian Rockies
Middle Rockies
__ 1
1
*
— i —
--i — 1 ■ 1
i
_ _ 1
____.
■
______ --^--
■
a
L-i-J
Ei5
m
i
__J
*
__J
Fer
32
Lflansh Riparian StiniriandWel Meadow Fen
Ecological System
March Riparian ShnilandWet Meadow
S
s
Southern Rockies
Wasatch/Uintah
T
— T __
i
i
B
1 ; 1
i
' — T — ' L-J.-J
i
"
*
i
B
B
i
i
1 B 1
i
i
__ j
Canadian Rockies
Middle Rockies
3 -
1
— i —
2 -
T
1
1
1
-i 1
■
■
1
i-!— i
1
*
1
B
1 -
1
i
B
1
■
B
1
1
□ -
I
Marsh Rpa-ar S^rLblandWei Meadow
Mai5Ji Riparian ShfiibLanc Wet Meadow
Ecological System
Figure 3. Box plots summarizing a) plant species richness, h) Shannon- Wiener Diversity, and c)floristic
quality index (FQI-see Appendix F for equation) across Level III Ecoregions and ecological systems. In
each box plot the dot is the mean, the bottom and top of the box are the lower and upper quartiles, and the
whiskers are the minimum and maximum values.
20
Southern Rockies
Wasatch/Uintah
D
r
■
■
A
L__
■
•
;
__.!__
— ,__
m
,
"
1 • 1
|
<
1
Canadian Rockies
Middle Rockies
EC -
---[--
4C -
1
1
■
!
?.r -
,__
•
■
]
.
■
■
2£l -
I
_J_.
m
ir -
_J__
___!__
___i__
Riparian Shnjsland Wet Meadow Fen
Ecological System
Riparian Shrubland Wet Meadow
Figure 3. Box plots summarizing a) plant species richness, b) Shannon-Wiener Diversity, and c) floristic
quality index (FQI-see Appendix F for equation) across Level III Ecoregions and ecological systems. In
each box plot the dot is the mean, the bottom and top of the box are the lower and upper quartiles, and the
whiskers are the minimum and maximum values.
plication. Although several researchers have evalu-
ated FQA metrics in individual states and/or for
individual wetland types, we are unaware of other
studies that have examined FQA scores across such
a large study area using an a priori classification
such as we use here.
Two patterns were apparent here: First, the regional
pattern, with higher FQA scores observed in the
Southern Rockies and Wasatch-Uinta Mountains
compared to the Middle Rockies and Canadian
Rockies; and second, the typological pattern with
higher values seen in riparian shrublands and fens
across all regions. 12 The regional pattern may
be explained by the fact that species diversity in-
creases along a north-to-south gradient between
the North Pole and the equator (Hildebrand 2004).
Almost 1 1 degrees of latitude separate our north-
ernmost and southernmost study sites. The South-
ern Rockies have approximately 3,625 recognized
native vascular plant species (Snow 2009), whereas
Montana has only 2,262 (Mincemoyer 2012). Giv-
en the influence of species diversity measures on
floristic quality assessment scores, regional differ-
ences in FQA scores are expected when one region
is floristicaHy richer than another. 13
12 The sample size was too small for a statistically meaningful comparison of FQA values for wetland type by region.
13 We have considered the possibility that regional differences arise from the initial assignments of coefficients of conservatism
values. As noted in the Methods section, when species on both the Colorado and Montana vascular plant lists had different C
of C values, we averaged the values, or, when the difference was more than 3, we assigned new values. However, if only one
state had assigned a C of C value to a species, that value was used in the study. On average, Montana's C of C assignments for
vascular plants are lower than Colorado's (5.25 vs. 5.99). For the 27 cases where there was a difference of more than 3 in the
assigned C of C value, the average Colorado value was 7.04, while the average value assigned by Montana was 4.23. It may
be, then, that species endemic to the Southern Rockies had slightly more "generous" C of C values than those found only in the
Northern or Middle Rockies. As noted by Bourdaghs et al. (2006), coefficients of conservatism -and indeed "floristic quality" in
general - are not inherent ecosystem properties. The subjectivity involved in assigning C of C values may thus account for some
regional differences in FQA scores. This possibility needs to be explored in more depth.
21
The typological variability observed in this study,
which is repeated across the study ecoregions,
confirms earlier observations by Rocchio (2006,
2007), who found that a priori ecological system
classification explained more variation in his refer-
ence plots than HGM or soil-based classifications.
Because the ecological systems classification
incorporates both hydrologic and vegetation char-
acteristics we believe it is also preferable to Cow-
ardin-based classification for these purposes. At
the system-class level, wet meadows and fens (and
some marshes) are all generally classified as Palus-
trine Emergent; only their water regime would
distinguish them. However, fens and wet meadows
separate out quite distinctly on the FQA metrics.
In Lemly and Rocchio 's (2009) development of
a Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) for
headwater wetlands in Colorado, ordination of veg-
etation data further suggested that fens be further
subdivided into two categories, representing fens
and "extremely rich fens," while wet meadows
separated into riparian wet meadows and slope wet
meadows. 14 Our results showed a wide range of
values for species richness and the FQI for both
wet meadows and fens in the Southern Rockies.
While insufficient data points existed to make an
independent conclusion that separate reference
standards were warranted for subtypes of wet
meadows and subtypes of fens, that range of val-
ues, coupled with the earlier work, seem to support
this.
By contrast, we saw less variability in the richness
or FQI values within fens or within wet meadows
in the Canadian Rockies. Indeed, FQI values for
fens in the Canadian Rockies are so similar to FQI
values for wet meadows that we could make a case
for using the same FQI reference standard across
the two systems. We expect this is because most
of the sampled fens in the Canadian Rockies were
sedge-dominated and lacked a diverse forb com-
ponent. While extremely rich fens do sometimes
occur in this area they are not common and so had
little impact on our FQI scores. If we were to ana-
lyze a larger sample of fens (or wet meadows) and
ordinate vegetation data we might find distinct sub-
types within each system. However, this was not
apparent in our sample.
Another option for identify subtypes would be
teasing out expected FQA metric values based on
plant dominance; preliminary community analysis
of fens in the Middle Rockies suggested that Carex
aquatilis-dommatQdi sites had significantly higher
FQA metric scores than sites dominated by other
Carex communities. However, a full analysis of
community dominance influence on FQA metrics
was beyond the scope of this study and may be
more appropriate in the context of research than
protocol development.
14 Lemly and Rocchio did not encounter classic sphagnum-dominated "poor" fens in their study.
22
Objective 3. Produce a regionally standardized method
for assessing and monitoring wetland condition, including
quality assurance project plans, sampling strategies, and
metrics calibrated to the different wetland ecological
SYSTEMS.
Background
Although many individual agencies and tribes
across the Rocky Mountain West have adopted
Rapid Assessment Methods (RAMs) or use HGM-
derived approaches for wetland assessment, only
the Colorado and Montana Natural Heritage Pro-
grams have been developing Level 1-2-3 Ecologi-
cal Integrity Assessment (EIA) protocols. One of
our goals was to standardize methods used in the
two Heritage Programs and make them available
for adoption by other interested agencies, tribes and
private stakeholders, thereby enabling comparison
among results from different states.
As discussed earlier, both Colorado and Montana
relied on a conceptual model of ecological integrity
that links key ecosystem attributes, such as biotic
structure and composition, to stressors or other
change agents (Karr 1991, Parrish et al. 2003, An-
dreason et al. 2001, Rocchio 2006, Faber-Langen-
doen et al. 2008, Hargiss et al. 2008, Lemly and
Rocchio 2009). This conceptual model is premised
on an assumption that key attributes will respond in
a measurable and predictable way to these stress-
ors, and that there will be common indicators of
response that can be assessed through well-crafted
condition metrics. When coupled with metrics that
evaluate the scope and severity of stressors, these
response metrics will allow inferences about the re-
lationship between stressors and effects (Tierney et
al. 2009). This conceptual model formed the basis
for the draft 15 protocol developed in this study.
Metrics can be applied at three different levels
of intensity depending on the purpose and design
of the data collection effort (Brooks et al., 2004,
Kentula 2007, Wardrop et al. 2007). Level 1 Re-
mote Assessments rely on Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) and remote sensing data to obtain
information about landscape integrity and the dis-
tribution and abundance of ecological types in the
landscape or watershed. By combining land cover
data with similar datasets that identify and depict
roads, water features, and topography, Level 1 ap-
proaches can produce synoptic maps that broadly
predict wetland impairment (Brooks et al. 2004). 16
Level 2 Rapid Assessments are generally field-
based, focusing on physical or biological attributes
that can be measured by one or two people during
a half day in the field and a maximum of half a day
in the office (Fennessy et al. 2007). These methods
typically combine qualitative and narrative-based
ratings with quantitative or semi-quantitative rat-
ings. Level 3 Intensive Assessments generally
use quantitative, plot-based protocols, and may
include detailed surveys of vegetation, collection of
water and soil samples for chemical analysis, and
sampling of algae and phytoplankton (Mclntyre et
al. 201 1). Because Level 3 assessments are time-
consuming and costly, their use is often restricted
to detailed assessments and documentation of par-
ticularly important sites that will be visited over a
period of time to evaluate status and trends. Level
3 assessments can also be used to validate and cali-
brate the results of Level 1 and 2 assessments.
Our overarching goal in protocol and indicator
development was to establish a reasonably rapid
assessment approach (i.e., Level 2 method) that
trained crews could use across a wide range of
15 One of the objectives in this study was to evaluate the usefulness of individual metrics based on their field performance;
therefore, the protocol used in field data collection was considered to be a draft, subject to revision after data analysis.
The term Level 1 is also sometimes used to describe landscape patterns that can be evaluated in the field, such as the
presence of roads or human structures (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2008).
23
wetlands. However, while we understand the need
for methods that can be carried out in less than a
day and do not require special skills, we were not
convinced that rapid assessments without detailed
vegetation data collection can provide the level
of detail needed to draw robust conclusions about
wetland condition. We were also concerned that
Level 2 crew members who lack botanical knowl-
edge may miss indicators of disturbance that a
plant ecologist or botanists would see immediately.
Therefore, we were willing to sacrifice some speed
for greater accuracy and precision and aimed for an
integrated Level 2-3 approach that a trained bota-
nist and one other person could implement in the
field in six hours or less.
We note here that this study was not intended to
yield a set of metrics that are fully calibrated to
the entire spectrum of human disturbance for each
system in each ecoregion. Rather, we were looking
for metrics that have a reliable and consistent sig-
nal when applied to minimally disturbed wetlands.
Methods
Site selection
We used a generalized random tessellation strati-
fied (GRTS) procedure for discrete objects with
reverse hierarchical randomization (Stevens 1997)
to select sites. Spatially balanced sampling has
several advantages (Stevens and Jensen 2007).
First, it accounts for the spatial patterning inherent
in ecological systems, as sites in close proximity
tend to share similar environmental characteristics.
Second, spatially balanced sampling reduces the
likelihood that multiple, proximate sites are includ-
ed in the sample, which can result in the collection
of redundant information. Finally, it allows for an
increase or decrease in the number of samples se-
lected without compromising the spatial balance of
the design.
A spatially balanced sampling approach typically
is used in aquatic resource surveys to estimate the
condition of resources or the cumulative amount
of wetland area representing any given condition
across an area of interest (e.g., watershed). Al-
though our objectives focused on describing the
natural range of variability to describe reference
standard for specific ecological systems, it is also
critical to capture the spatial patterning inherent in
different system types when trying to represent the
full condition gradient. The GRTS method also
ensures that the sample was well distributed over
the extent of the resource. Additionally, it is im-
portant to retain the ability to add or remove sites
from the sample while maintaining spatial balance,
either because a site may not prove to be within the
target population, or because access is impossible
or denied.
Stratification within a GRTS approach depends on
the objectives of the survey. In national surveys,
particularly those with a water quality component,
survey design and selection of reference sites ac-
count for regional environmental variables by
clustering geographic data to identify regions with
similar climate, geology and hydrology. We at-
tempted to use multivariate analysis to cluster 6th
code HUCs in the study area into distinct groups
with similarities in hydrology, geology, climate,
dominant land cover, elevation, etc., using both hi-
erarchical and non-hierarchical cluster approaches.
However, we did not find any statistically meaning-
ful clusters. The use of Level III ecoregions was
suggested by EPA statistician Tony Olsen.
We used the GRTS script within the package spsur-
vey (Kincaid et al. 2009) in the statistical software
R (R Development Core Team 2009) to select 50
two mile by two mile grid cells within each Level
III Ecoregion, and created a grid of points at 100
meter intervals within each selected cell. Once
we eliminated points that did not meet our criteria
(e.g., on public land, accessible by foot, within a
high-integrity landscape), we used GRTS to order
the remaining points for additional evaluation. We
then used aerial photographs in a GIS to visually
examine each of these points and determine if it
occurred within one of the targeted wetland eco-
logical systems. We selected points until we had at
least three points representing each wetland system
within each grid cell. This was done to minimize
travel time between cells.
Metric selection
Potential metrics were identified from previous ef-
forts that used either expert knowledge, data-based
24
calibration, or a combination of the two. These
were then filtered through selection criteria to de-
termine suitability for this study:
a) useful at multiple spatial scales and across
broad geographical gradients;
b) unambiguous, well grounded in natural
history, and ecologically relevant;
c) relevant and understandable for managers,
decision-makers, and the public;
d) flexible but mutually exclusive;
e) feasible to implement and measure; and
f) predicted to be responsive to stressor-
induced change.
We selected four key attributes of wetlands that
are generally agreed to define and reflect condi-
tion: landscape context, vegetation, hydrology, and
soils/physiochemical factors. For each attribute we
identified the factors which can be seen as indica-
tors of condition.
Landscape context describes the larger habitat
matrix in which a wetland occurs. Measures of
landscape connectivity assess whether the land-
scape pattern facilitates or hinders the movement of
species between habitat patches (Haig et al. 1998,
Lehtinen et al. 1999, Naugle et al. 2001, Taylor
et al. 2003). Buffers operate at a smaller spatial
scale and perform both habitat and wetland protec-
tion functions. Therefore, we selected landscape
connectivity, buffers and human land uses as our
indicators of landscape context. Landscape context
was measured at all three levels of assessment.
Vegetation data are relatively easy to collect and
can be used to derive many other metrics and indi-
ces (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2011).
In an undisturbed setting vegetation will have a
structure and composition characteristic of the wet-
land type and location and there will be evidence
of regeneration. This characteristic structure and
composition reflects local environmental condi-
tions, including climate and geology, and integrates
species interactions and local (non-human) distur-
bance factors. We collected vegetation data at both
Level 2 and Level 3. Our Level 3 plot sampling
approach is described in detail under Objective 2.
We used plot data collected from our field surveys
to calculate floristic quality assessment metrics.
Wetland hydrology affects all other wetland func-
tions (Zeller 2000). Water chemistry and hydro-
period, both a function of water source, drive plant
species distribution and abundance (Goslee et al.
1997, Kurtz et al. 2007). Unfortunately, wetland
hydrology is the most difficult attribute to evaluate
in a single site visit. Therefore, most wetland as-
sessment methods approximate hydrologic condi-
tions through qualitative indicators, e.g., evidence
of inundation and sources of inflow or outflow,
which some critics contend do not accurately re-
flect wetland hydrology (Ehrenfeld 2002). While
we recognize that full instrumentation and repeated
site visits would be needed to thoroughly describe
wetland hydrology, we were committed to methods
that would yield the best results in a "snapshot-in-
time" visit. Wetland hydrology was assessed at
Levels 1 and 2.
Soils were our primary physiochemical attributes
and filled some of the gaps left by our hydrologic
indicators. Soil characteristics are useful indica-
tors of the frequency, duration, and seasonality of
hydrology in wetlands (Bisel-Machung et al. 1996).
For example, morphological changes occurring
in saturated soils include accumulation of organic
matter on the wetland surface, low chroma color,
and formation of redoximorphic features (Richard-
son and Vesprakas 2001, Brooks et al. 2005). Ma-
trix chroma can therefore be used as an indicator
of soil saturation. We selected several metrics to
capture soil indicators, including depth of organic
layer, soil texture, soil color, and depth of standing
water below ground surface. We also added met-
rics for structural patch composition and distribu-
tion (e.g., rocks, woody debris, animal mounds).
Because regional soils maps are too generalized to
yield good information at Level 1 , soils were only
assessed at Levels 2 and 3.
Each attribute also included metrics to evaluate
stressors. While the site selection approach was
intended to eliminate most stressors, we recognized
that there would be circumstances in which some
stressors would be present, but not with the scope
25
Attribute
Level
Assessed
Indicator
Example Metrics
Landscape Context
1,2
Connectivity
% unfragmented landscape within 500m
Buffer
Extent, width and condition of buffer
Surrounding Land Use
% natural cover within 100m
Vegetation
2,3
Structure
Vertical/horizontal interspersion
Composition
% native; floristic quality index
Regeneration
Age classes present; browse
Hydrology
1.2
Water Source
Hydroperiod
Water Quality
Inflow and outflow
Evidence of inundation
Algal blooms, turbidity
Soils/Physiochemical
2.3
Soil structure
Texture
Physical structure
Depth, layers, redox features
% organic, dominant texture
Patch type and distribution
and severity to exclude the site from consideration.
It was important to document these "acceptable"
stressors and to find a way to verify the absence of
stressors as a quality assurance method. Stressors
included both human (e.g., resource extraction,
logging, roads) and nonhuman (e.g., beetle-killed
conifers, recent fires) factors. For a complete list
of stressors, refer to the field forms included in
the Protocol (Appendix E). For all stressors, we
included scope and severity ratings (Table 12).
Stressors were primarily evaluated at Levels 2 and
3.
The raw field data were transferred from paper
into a Microsoft Access database. We used plot
data collected from the Level 3 assessments and
numeric criteria assessed in the field to calculate
Table 12. Scope and severity ratings for all stressors
descriptive statistics, and assessed the range and
distribution of each metric by examining frequency
histograms. Correlation matrices using Spearman's
correlation coefficients were used to investigate re-
lationships and to evaluate any redundancy among
metrics.
Quality assurance/quality control
We drafted a quality assurance project plan to help
ensure data integrity throughout the study. This was
submitted to the EPA, and based on their feedback,
was revised and resubmitted. Additional quality
control measures included a joint protocol tested
by all project investigators, a site visit by EPA staff
at the beginning of field sampling to observe crews
using the protocol, and annual reports to the EPA
detailing quality control issues.
Scope of Disturbances
5 Pervasive - Affects nearly all (>75%) of the buffer or AA.
4 Large - Affects most (>50-75%) of the buffer or AA.
3 Moderate - Affects much (>25-50%) of the buffer or AA.
2 Restricted - Affects some (> 10-25%) of the buffer or AA.
1 Small - Affects a small ( 1 - 1 0%) portion of the buffer or AA.
Nil - Little or no observed effect (<1%) on the buffer or AA.
Severity of Disturbances
4 Extreme - likely to extremely degrade, destroy, or eliminate the wetland.
3 Serious - likely to seriously degrade or reduce wetland function or condition.
2 Moderate - likely to moderately degrade or reduce wetland function or condition.
1 Slight - likely to only slightly degrade or reduce wetland function or condition.
26
Results
As discussed earlier, wetland ecological systems
were not represented uniformly across the study
area using a GRTS approach. Marshes were under-
represented, and despite going to our oversample,
we were unable to identify enough marshes for
sampling using a random approach. However, we
believe this was due to stratification by high-integ-
rity landscape units rather than random sampling
per se.
Metric performance at Level 2 was generally good.
Because we were only looking at reference stan-
dard sites we could not evaluate whether or not
individual metrics were sensitive to human distur-
bance. Instead, we wanted level 2 metrics that had
either had a consistent value across all wetlands in
the study, or metrics whose variable response was
easily correlated to specific wetland types. Unlike
the Level 3 FQA metrics, which were intended
to capture a range of natural variation that could
be used to calibrate Level 3 protocols to specific
wetland types and ecoregions, any Level 2 met-
ric that had a wide range of unexplained scoring
values when applied to reference standard sites
was considered unsuitable for inclusion in a future
protocol. We saw little variation among sites in
terms of landscape context, hydrology, and physio-
chemical/soil metrics, which was expected. These
indicators, while couched in terms of condition,
generally reflect degrees of disturbance. Because
our sites were undisturbed we expected values for
these metrics to be comparable. All sites had only
natural water sources and no anthropogenic outlets
or impediments; all but one site had either no vi-
sual evidence of turbidity or only slightly cloudy
water with no obvious source of sedimentation.
The one site with cloudy water due to sedimenta-
tion was attributable to runoff from a nearby steep
slope. Similarly, all but two sites had clear water
with minimal algal growth or algal growth limited
to small, localized areas of the wetland. One site
had extensive algal mats but no obvious causal fac-
tors. One site had large patches of algal growth ob-
served in a portion of the AA, but again, no reason
for the growth was evident. Eighty-three percent
of sites had intact soils and little or no trash or
refuse, whereas 15% had intact or moderately dis-
rupted soils, moderate or lesser amounts of trash, or
minor intensity of human visitation or recreation.
Only one site had moderate or extensive soil dis-
ruption, moderate or greater amounts of trash, or
moderate intensity of human use; this was due to
an abandoned two-track road and evidence of light
recreation.
Several metrics that did show a range of variability
are discussed individually below.
Regeneration of Native Woody Species
This metric pertained primarily to riparian shrub-
lands. Most (76%) riparian shrublands had all age
classes of woody species present. One site had the
middle age groups absent, but all other age classes
present. Twenty percent of sites had stands com-
prised mainly of mature individuals with all other
age classes absent. The confounding factor for
this metric was browsing. Although these were all
reference standard sites, estimates of the extent of
browsing by native ungulates ranged from 1 to
70%.
Vertical Overlap of Vegetation Strata
Results for this metric varied widely, although for
most herbaceous sites, a single vegetation stratum,
or two overlapping strata, dominated the AA (Table
13). Across the study area, riparian shrubland sites
consistently had a portion of their AA comprised of
multiple vegetation strata, but they were also con-
sistent in having a portion of their AA comprised of
a single vegetation strata. By contrast, few marshes
had overlapping strata. The underlying assump-
tion of this metric, that sites with a higher degree of
ecological integrity have more structural complex-
ity, is not corroborated by our data. Wet meadows,
fens and riparian shrublands had highly variable
responses, unrelated to any human or natural im-
pacts.
Horizontal Interspersion of Vegetation Zones
The degree of horizontal interspersion of vegeta-
tion zones was assessed using the following cat-
egories and diagram (Figure 4):
• Nl/Rl: High degree of horizontal
interspersion: AA characterized by a very
complex array of nested or interspersed
vegetation zones with no single dominant
zone.
27
Table 13. Number of sites and percentage classes of assessment area with one vegetation stratum, two overlapping vegetation
strata, or three or more overlapping vegetation strata.
Percent of AA with
Number
Percent of AA with
Number
Percent of AA
Number
three or more
of Sites
two overlapping
of Sites
with one
of Sites
overlapping strata
vegetation strata
vegetation
strata
>=75
4
>=75
8
>=75
44
<75 to 50
2
<75 to 50
11
<75 to 50
10
<50 to 25
4
<50 to 25
11
<50 to 25
11
<25 to 5
13
<25 to 5
23
<25 to 5
12
<5
9
<5
3
<5
Figure 4. Horizontal interspersion of vegetation zones diagram
• N2/R2: Moderate degree of horizontal
interspersion: AA characterized by a moderate
array of nested or interspersed vegetation
zones with no single dominant zone.
• N3/R3: Low degree of horizontal
interspersion: AA characterized by a simple
array of nested or interspersed vegetation
zones. One zone may dominate others.
• N4/R4: No horizontal interspersion: AA
characterized by one dominant vegetation
zone.
In general, riparian shrublands had the highest de-
gree of horizontal interspersion (Table 14). Emer-
gent marshes had low to no horizontal intersper-
sion. Most wet meadow sites also showed low to
no horizontal interspersion, although about a third
were split between high and moderate intersper-
sion. Fens ranged primarily from moderate, low, to
no horizontal interspersion. No clear ecoregional
patterns were evident.
Structural Patch Types
Many rapid assessment methods have metrics deal-
ing with patch number and/or patch interspersion.
The metrics assume that high quality wetlands are
naturally patchy and that patchiness is lost as hu-
man disturbance intensifies. However, in our study,
the number of structural patch types by ecological
system varied widely and showed no strong pat-
terns (Table 15.)
We also investigated the correlation between the
number of structural patches at a site and the FQA
metrics calculated for that site. Correlations were
generally weak (Table 16), with only FQI metrics
having moderate correlations with the number of
patch types. We consider this metric to be too vari-
able to retain for Level 2 condition assessments.
Floristic quality assessment metrics
We found redundancy (r > 0.8) for several FQA
metrics across all ecological systems indicating that
several of the metrics related to FQA may not nec-
28
Table 14. Number of sites by wetland ecological system and their corresponding degree of horizontal interspersion of vegetation
zones.
Ecological System
Degree of
Horizontal
Interspersion
North American
Arid West
Emergent Marsh
Rocky Mountain
Alpine-Montane
Wet Meadow
Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane
Fen
Rocky Mountain
Subapline-Montane
Riparian Shrubland
Nl/Rl
4
2
10
N2/R2
2
4
8
2
N3/R3
6
9
8
6
N4/R4
5
6
6
7
Table 15. Number of sites (n), average number
of patch types (± 1 SD), and
range.
North American
Arid West
Emergent Marsh
Rocky Mountain
Alpine-Montane
Wet Meadow
Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane
Fen
Rocky Mountain
Subapline-Montane
Riparian Shrubland
n=14
3(1), 1-6
n = 24
4 (2), 1 - 8
n = 29
4 (2), 1 - 9
n = 35
5 (3), - 12
Table 16. Pearson s correlation coefficients relating the number of structural patch types present
at a site with FQA metrics.
Variables
Pearson's correlation coefficient
Number of patch types
Total species richness
Native species richness
Non-native species richness
% Non-native species
Mean C-value of all species
Mean C-value of native species
Cover-weighted Mean C-value of all species
Cover-weighted Mean C-value of native species
FQI of all species
FQI of native species
Cover-weighted FQI of all species
Cover-weighted FQI of native species
Adjusted FQI
Adjusted cover-weighted FQI
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.04
-0.01
0.21
0.24
0.17
0.19
0.41
0.41
0.38
0.39
0.22
0.20
29
essarily provide additional information (Appendix
H). For example, both total species richness and
native species richness are strongly correlated with
the FQI metrics. In contrast, the mean C-value of
all species, while still positively correlated with
Adjusted Cover-weighted FQI (r=0.7), may be
worth retaining for its potential sensitivity to hu-
man disturbance.
Discussion
Stratification based on Level III ecoregions was
useful in this study, and allowed us to tease out
significant geographic variability in FQA metric
scores. However, while ecoregions, biomes or
hydrologic landscape units (Winter 2001) are valu-
able stratifying parameters for national or regional
studies, additional research is needed to determine
the best biogeographic stratification unit over
smaller geographies. It should be noted, too, that
it is sometimes desirable to stratify by political
boundaries and/or ownership, depending on the
study questions being asked, especially in areas
with large tracts of public land where managers are
prepared to address findings.
Probabilistic sampling in this study did not pro-
duce sufficient examples of each target population
to fully assess the range of natural variability in
each wetland ecological system. As noted earlier,
this was largely a result of our landscape integrity
model limiting us to higher-elevation areas where
marshes are less common. However, this could be
an issue whenever a probabilistic study design is
used by researchers hoping to find a definite num-
ber of an uncommon class of wetlands. In the Mid-
dle Rockies, for example, Rocky Mountain Conifer
Swamp ecosystems occur infrequently; any attempt
to find a fixed number of these with probabilistic
sampling would be unlikely to succeed unless the
sample frame was extremely large. Even then, the
number of the uncommon type found through the
sampling would be in proportion to their frequency
in the whole population.
This was another area in which we were chal-
lenged by the lack of wetland mapping. Although
both Landfire and ReGAP maps use ecological
systems as mapping units, the small size of most
Rocky Mountain wetlands means they are either
unmapped or incorrectly mapped at the 30 m reso-
lution used in these map products. Had wetland
mapping been available with its higher degree of
spatial accuracy and precision, stratification based
on ecological systems could have been crosswalked
between the Cowardin classification and the eco-
logical systems classification. However, such
crosswalking has challenges even for experienced
photointerpreters. For example, while the Palus-
trine Emergent Saturated (PEMB) class often in-
dicates a fen, fens with predominantly herbaceous
vegetation - the most frequently encountered in
our study - are often given a "Seasonally Flooded"
(PEMC) water regime, as are many very wet mead-
ows. While it was important to use the ecological
system classification to capture the range of natural
variability, we suggest that large-scale probabilistic
surveys are best reserved for populations where a
clear sampling frame - e.g., the USFWS's Status
and Trends plots, or wetland maps for the entire
area of interest - is clearly denned, even if that
means accepting that frame's classification scheme
(e.g., the Cowardin classification). The additional
steps involved in creating the sampling frame, se-
lecting the grids, photointerpreting them, screening
them, and then verifying the selected site's type in
the field, all add substantial time and cost to the
project.
This study used a Level 1 tool for initial screening
of sites, selecting the sites that were most likely
to be in minimally disturbed condition. In assess-
ments of ambient condition it would be inappro-
priate to stratify selection based on a priori deter-
minations of human landscape context. However,
we think our Landscape Integrity Model could be
used in a metric development context to establish
preliminary condition strata for sampling, although
much more research is needed to identify how in-
dividual landscape stressors affect wetland condi-
tion, and the scale at which they operate. When we
applied a targeted approach to finding marshes, we
were able to meet almost all of the landscape cri-
teria in our screen, but many of our sites were less
than 2 kilometers (the cutoff distance in our model)
from an earlier timber harvest. Even when harvest
had been completed ten or twenty years before and
roads had been decommissioned, we noted impacts
on the buffer and assessment area, particularly a
30
high percentage of exotics and tolerant native spe-
cies. 17 Unfortunately, not enough sites were avail-
able to establish a distance from logging at which
these impacts diminish (e.g. 500 m, 1000 m), nor
were we able to identify a time frame over which
logging impacts dissipate. These and similar ques-
tions will need to be examined before a Level 1
tool can be a reasonable alternative to field-based
sampling.
Many Level 2 condition metrics are designed to
detect the results of some unseen (or past) stressor
or disturbance, e.g., evidence of turbidity or sheen
in water that is not explained by visible natural
factors such as landslides. Because sites were cho-
sen for their minimally disturbed state, we cannot
address the performance of these metrics beyond
noting that they did not vary in any important way.
Therefore, we will retain most of the metrics cho-
sen for our protocol until they can be tested across
a full disturbance gradient. However, some metrics
were frequently found in Level 2 protocols have
such a high degree of "noise" that they should not
be relied on as signals. In particular, structural
complexity metrics, such as regeneration of woody
species, overlapping vegetation strata, horizontal
interspersion, and number of patches all had a high
range of natural variability. While some of this
variability can be constrained with classification
-for example, riparian shrublands were the most
likely to have multiple strata- too much variability
remains. This is not to say that the metrics should
be abandoned. For example, we observed that
some of the lack of woody regeneration in riparian
shrublands was attributable to high levels of native
ungulate browsing. In a management or restoration
context this might provide valuable information
about the success of exclusion fences. However,
without an ability to distinguish between brows-
ing by native ungulates and domestic livestock,
this metric is not useful for tracking anthropogenic
change. The other metrics that measured vegeta-
tion structure were not noticeably influenced by
wildlife and were too variable, even within specific
systems, to be useful. We suggest that additional
research to investigate whether other structurally
based metrics are similarly variable. For example,
the protocol did not include a microtopography or
roughness metric, although such metrics have been
proposed in other assessment tools (e.g., Collins et
al. 2008). The lack of signal found in our study for
structural metrics may extend to similar metrics;
however, this remains to be documented.
We want to stress that even metrics with a wide
range of response may have some utility in wetland
assessment. A well-established principle of conser-
vation biology holds that larger and more complex
habitats, islands, ecosystems, or conservation areas
have more habitat available to more species, and
are better able to withstand and recover from dis-
turbance, than are smaller and more simple areas
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967). As a simple matter
of fact, wet meadows and riparian shrublands with
multiple overlapping natural strata or high patchi-
ness may be "better" than more simple sites, at
least insofar as their habitat value is concerned. If
the objective of wetland condition assessments is
to identify wetlands that are in good condition and
have high habitat values, then there is a reason to
retain these metrics. However, if wetland assess-
ments are only intended to report on the ambient
condition of wetlands, with the intention of mea-
suring or monitoring the consequences of human
activities, then the values from structural diversity
metrics should not be included in overall assess-
ment scoring, as they are not a reliable signal of
disturbance.
Our Level 3 vegetation metrics were able to parse
out both ecoregional and typological variability in
reference standard wetlands. The sample size per
wetland ecosystem per ecoregion is too small to
establish a definitive range of values that can be ex-
pected in reference quality wetlands in each region;
other reference standard sites might have higher
or lower metric values. However, we believe that
these values can be used to validate and calibrate
other FQA metrics from similar wetlands being as-
sessed in the study area, whether by individual state
programs or the NWCA.
Because we have only reference standard wet-
lands in this study, we are not recommending that
17
Because they represented such a departure from reference standard, we excluded these sites from our analysis.
31
redundant metrics (e.g. total and native species
richness) be discarded at this time; it could be that
one or both of these metrics is more sensitive to
human disturbance than the overall adjusted cover-
weighted FQI. However, this should be a focus of
analysis for the NWCA dataset and other Rocky
Mountain surveys.
Finally, while Level 1 , 2 and 3 assessment metrics
in this study are discussed as though they were dis-
tinct and even severable from one another, we want
to emphasize that this was not true. Because our
sample only had reference standard wetlands we
were unable to identify and calibrate any thresh-
olds for Level 2 metrics. For example, one Level
2 metric requires calculations of buffer width and
extent. Because almost all sites had a buffer extent
of close to 100% and a buffer width of 150m or
more, we had no way to measure the correlation
between loss of buffer and FQA metrics. 18 Simi-
larly, in the absence of human disturbance, we
were unable to identify the metrics that are most
sensitive to human disturbance. Ideally, the three
assessment levels should be nested; while Level 1
assessments can stand alone under circumstances
where a quick, desktop summary is needed, Level
2 assessments should be complemented by Level
1 assessments, and Level 3 assessments should in-
clude the full suite of Level 1 and Level 2 metrics
as well, including disturbance metrics. A full wet-
land assessment needs to be multimetric in nature,
so that changes in FQA metrics can be linked to
observable disturbances that are within the control
of land managers.
These analyses are, however, part of the work currently being done by both the MTNHP and the CNHP in other wetland
research projects.
32
Summary and Recommendations
This study achieved its main objectives: to identify
reference standard examples of four wetland
ecological systems across the Canadian Rockies,
Middle Rockies, Wasatch-Uinta Mountains and
Southern Rockies; to describe the range of natural
variability found between systems and between
ecoregions; and to develop methods, approaches
and protocols that can be used for assessment of
ambient condition. As a result of the study,
• Region 8 states and tribes have access to a
landscape integrity model that can be used as
is or adapted to identify areas where high-
quality reference sites are likely to be found;
• There are tested field protocols, field forms,
keys, crosswalks and a QAPP that can be used
or adapted by states and tribes;
• There is a documented reference standard for
floristic quality in Rocky Mountain
Subalpine-Montane Fens; Rocky Mountain
Alpine-Montane Wet Meadows; North
American Arid West Emergent Marshes; and
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian
Shrublands;
• The strengths and limitations of GRTS-
based probabilistic sampling for identification
of reference sites have been evaluated;
• There are over 1 00 documented reference sites
representing a range of natural variability for
the four ecological systems in Montana,
Wyoming, Utah and Colorado that can be used
for long-term monitoring and/or future
protocol development.
Occurrence is believed to be, on a global or range-
wide scale, among the highest quality examples with
respect to major ecological attributes functioning
within the bounds of natural disturbance regimes.
Characteristics include: the landscape context
contains natural habitats that are essentially
unfragmented (reflective of intact ecological
processes) and with little to no stressors; the size
is very large or much larger than the minimum
dynamic area; vegetation structure and composition,
soil status and hydrologic function are well within
natural ranges of variation; exotics (non-natives)
are essentially absent or have negligible negative
impact; and, a comprehensive set of key plant and
animal indicators are present (Faber-Langendoen et
al. 2009).
The distinction between "the highest quality
examples" and "sites in minimally disturbed
condition" may appear semantic at first inspection,
but when the actual data from our study are
examined, it becomes evident that many of
our randomly chosen sites are small and not
especially diverse. Some may barely cover a
"minimum dynamic area", may be fairly transitory
as landscape elements, and probably would not
be chosen as "the best of the rest." However,
because many of the wetlands in our ambient
condition surveys were themselves not "the
highest quality examples" of their kind even in
their undisturbed state, to assess them against that
standard is misleading. By identifying the real
range of variability found in minimally disturbed
landscapes, this study offers a set of reference
standard wetlands that can form the basis for
assessments that make sense to all end-users, not
just conservation professionals.
The strength of this study, we believe, lies in
its probabilistic sampling design. As Heritage
Programs, we tend to focus on those landscapes
and populations that The Nature Conservancy
describes as "the last of the least and the best of the
rest" (Moore 201 1). For example, NatureServe's
ecological integrity scorecard describes A-ranked
sites in these terms:
We also believe that the sites described in this study
can be used to establish reasonable performance
standards for voluntary and compensatory
mitigation. Here, our findings that there are
regional and typological differences in the range
of natural variability are of particular importance.
Marshes, with their low species richness and
relatively low FQI scores, do not compensate for
the loss of wet meadows or fens. In contrast, if a
marsh is an appropriate choice for mitigation and/
33
or restoration, then performance standards for FQA
values should be based on what a marsh can be
expected to attain, not on values observed in fens.
Similarly, while wetlands in the Canadian Rockies
ecoregion may occasionally be highly diverse, with
populations of endemic species having very high C
o f C scores, this study shows that these are not the
norm; in general, wetlands in that ecoregion appear
to have lower FQA scores than do wetlands in
the Southern Rockies, and performance standards
should reflect that.
This study also identifies a number of questions for
future work. Notably:
• We used best professional judgment to
establish minimum acceptable distances to a
number of potential disturbances. Results
indicated that disturbances beyond that
distance were not impacting our sites.
However, from a management perspective
it is important to understand the geographic
(and temporal) scales at which these
disturbances do have an impact. For example,
our sites were all at least 500 m from a
highway and 2,000 m from any timber harvest.
Would we see impacts on wetlands from a
highway 250 m away? A past timber harvest
1,000 m away?
• We found that Level 2 metric values for
vertical overlap of vegetation strata, horizontal
interspersion of vegetation zones, and the
number of structural patch types varied
widely within and between wetland types,
with no apparent correlation to disturbance. If,
however, structural complexity is important
from a habitat perspective, or to provide more
inherent resistance or resilience should
disturbance occur, what is the best way to
measure and document it?
• The study showed clear bioregional variation
in floristic quality metric scores. Is this best
explained by a latitudinal diversity gradient?
Do state-specific Coefficients of Conservatism
vary enough from state to state to influence
FQA values? If so, does this reflect a
biogeographic reality (i.e., a genuine
difference in tolerance to disturbance for
species in one state vs. another) or is it an
artifact of subjectively assigning those values?
In either case, how do we compare wetland
condition across regions? Does this call for
developing regional or national Coefficients of
Conservatism?
• Within individual wetland classes, what are
the factors that drive natural variability of
species richness and diversity? What are
the factors that operate between wetland
classes? We observed that wet meadows and
riparian shrublands have some of the highest
FQA values across our study region. Wet
meadows and riparian shrublands tend to
have more variable flooding regimes than
fens or marshes. Are there unmeasured
hydrologic variables that account for observed
differences in richness and diversity?
Finally, this study, while separate from the National
Wetlands Condition Assessment and the rotating
basin assessments being carried out in Colorado
and Montana, is conceptually linked to them. In
addition to establishing a reference standard against
which condition can be assessed, this study also
presents an opportunity to begin evaluating the
results of those assessments at multiple geographic
scales. By establishing reference standards for
these four wetland systems, and identifying
regional variation, this study makes it much easier
to extract the "dose-response curve" for human
disturbance and wetland condition from other
survey work. It establishes a framework within
which data from Montana can be meaningfully
compared to data from Colorado. Absent the
finding that reference standard wetlands in northern
Montana have lower FQA values than those in
the Southern Rockies, it would have been easy to
conclude that all assessed wetlands in northern
Montana were just in "worse" shape than their
southern counterparts. In the future, we would
like to see more opportunities for collaboration
that focus on other parts of Montana, Wyoming
and Colorado, particularly the plains and grassland
areas.
34
Literature Cited
Andreas, B. K., J. J. Mack, and McCormac. 2004.
Floristic quality assessment index (FQAI)
for vascular plants and mosses for the State
of Ohio. In D. o. S. W. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Group,
editor., Columbus, OH.
Andreasen, J. K., R. O. O'Neill, R. Noss, and N. C.
Slosser. 2001. Conditions for the development
of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity.
Ecological Indicators 1:21-35.
Baker, W. L. 1989. Macro- and Micro-scale Influ-
ences on Riparian Vegetation in Western Colo-
rado. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 79:65-78.
Barbour, M. G., and W. D. Billings. 2000. North
American Terrestrial Vegetation. 2nd ed. New
York : Cambridge University Press. 708 pp.
Bishel-Machung, L., R. P. Brooks, S. S. Yates, and
K. K. Hoover. 1996. Soil properties of refer-
ence wetlands and wetland creation projects in
Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16:532-541.
Bourdaghs, M., C. Johnston, and R. Regal. 2006.
Properties and performance of the Floristic
Quality Index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Wetlands 26:718-735.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Clas-
sification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS.
Brinson, M. M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nut-
ter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, and D. F.
Whigham. 1995. A Guidebook for Application
of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine
Wetlands. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Brooks, R, D. Wardrop, and J. A. Bishop. 2004.
Assessing wetland condition on a watershed
basis in the Mid-Atlantic region using synoptic
land cover maps. Environmental Monitoring &
Assessment 94:9-22.
Brooks, R P., D. Wardrop, C. A. Cole, and D. A.
Campbell. 2005. Are we purveyors of wetland
homogeneity? A model of degradation and res-
toration to improve wetland mitigation perfor-
mance. Ecological Engineering 24:331-340.
Chadde, S. W, J. S. Shelly, R J. Bursik, R. K.
Moseley, A. G. Evenden, M. Mantas, R. Rabe,
and B. Heidel. 1998. Peatlands on National
Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains:
ecology and conservation. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RMRS-GTR-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. 75 pp.
Collins, J. N., E. D. Stein, M. Sutula, R Clark,
A. E. Fetscher, L. Grenier, C. Grosso, and A.
Wiskind. 2008. California Rapid Assessment
Method (CRAM) for Wetlands. Version 5.02.
151pp.
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.
Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United
States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terres-
trial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
Cowardin, L. M., V Carter, F C. Golet, and E. T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Cronk, J. K. and M. S. Fennessy 2001. Wetlands
plants: biology and ecology. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
35
Ehrenfeld, J., H. B. Cuway, R. Hamilton IV, and
E. Stander. 2002. Hydrologic description of
forested wetlands in Northwestern New Jersey,
USA - an urban/suburban region. Wetlands
23:685-700.
Faber-Langendoen, D., G. Kittel, K. Schulz, E.
Muldavin, M. Reid, C. Nordman, and P. Comer.
2009. Assessing the condition of ecosystems to
guide conservation and management: Nature-
serve's Level 1 Ecological Integrity Assessment
Method. Natureserve, Arlington, VA.
Faber-Langendoen, D., G. Kudray, C. Nordman,
L. Sneddon, L. Vance, E. Byers, J. Rocchio,
S. Gawler, G. Kittel, S. Menard, P. Comer, E.
Muldavin, M. Schafale, T. Foti, C. Josse, and J.
Christy. 2008. Ecological performance stan-
dards for wetland mitigation: an approach based
on ecological integrity assessments. Nature-
Serve, Arlington, VA.
Faber-Langendoen, D., R. Lyons, and P. Comer.
2009b. Developing options for establishing ref-
erence conditions for wetlands across the lower
48 states. A report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, NatureServe, Arlington,
VA.
Fennessy, M. S., A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Kentula.
2007. An evaluation of rapid methods for as-
sessing the ecological condition of wetlands.
Wetlands 27:543-560.
Goslee, S. C, R. P. Brooks, and C. A. Cole. 1997.
Plants as indicators of wetland water source.
Plant Ecology 131:199-206.
Haig, S. M., D. W Mehlman, and L. W. Oring.
1998. Avian Movements and Wetland Connec-
tivity in Landscape Conservation. Conservation
Biology 12:749-758.
Hargiss, C. L. M., E. S. DeKeyser, D. R Kirby,
and M. J. Ell. 2008. Regional assessment of
wetland plant communities using the index of
plant community integrity. Ecological Indica-
tors 8:303-307.
Herlihy, A. T., S. G. Paulsen, J. Van Sickle, and J.
L. Stoddard. 2008. Striving for consistency in a
national assessment: the challenges of applying
a reference-condition approach at a continental
scale. Journal of the North American Ben-
thological Society 27:860-877.
Hillebrand, H. 2004. On the generality of the latitu-
dinal diversity gradient. The American Natural-
ist 163:192-211.
Kentula, and A. T. Herlihy. 2010. Developing an in-
dex of wetland condition from ecological data:
An example using HGM functional variables
from the Nanticoke watershed, USA. Ecological
Indicators 10:703-712.
Jones, W. M. 2004. Using vegetation to assess
wetland condition: a multimetric approach for
temporarily and seasonally flooded depres-
sional wetlands and herbaceous-dominated
intermittent and ephemeral riverine wetlands
in the northwestern glaciated plains ecoregion,
Montana. Report to the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, MT.
Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-ne-
glected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications 1:66-84.
Kentula, M. E. 2007. Foreword: Monitoring wet-
lands at the watershed scale. Wetlands 27:412-
415.
Kincaid, T. M., A. R Olsen, D. L. Stevens, Jr.,
C. Piatt, D. White, and R. Remington. 2009.
spsurvey: Spatial Survey Design and Analysis.
R package version 2.1.
Klimas, C. V, E. O. Murray, J. Pagan, H. Langston,
and T. Foti. 20 1 1 . A Regional Guidebook for
Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to
Assessing Functions of Forested Wetlands in
the Delta Region of Arkansas, Lower Mississip-
pi River Alluvial Valley, Version 2.0. U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
36
Lehtinen, R., S. Galatowitsch, and J. Tester. 1999.
Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation
for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands
19:1-12.
Lemly, J. and J. Rocchio. 2009. Field Testing of
the Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrublands
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) on the
Blue River Watershed, Colorado. Report to the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Lemly, J., L Gilligan and M. Fink. 2011. Statewide
Strategies to Improve Effectiveness in Protect-
ing and Restoring Colorado's Wetland Resource
Including the Rio Grande Headwaters Pilot
Wetland Condition Assessment. Report to the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Luna, T, C. Mclntyre, and L. Vance. 2010a. Emer-
gent Marsh-North American Arid West Emer-
gent Marsh. Montana Field Guide.
Luna, T, L. K. Vance, and C. Mclntyre. 2010b.
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen. Mon-
tana Field Guide.
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The
Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Mack, J. 2009. Development issues in extending
plant-based IBIs to forested wetlands in the
Midwestern United States. Wetlands Ecology &
Management 17:117-130.
Mack, J. J. 2006. Landscape as a predictor of wet-
land condition: an evaluation of the Landscape
Development Index (LDI) with a large refer-
ence wetland dataset from Ohio. Environmental
Monitoring & Assessment 120:221-241.
Mack, J. J. 2007. Developing a wetland IBI with
statewide application after multiple testing
iterations. Ecological Indicators 7:864-881.
Mack, J. J., N. H. Avdis, E. C. Braig, and D. L.
Johnson. 2008. Application of a Vegetation-
Based Index of Biotic Integrity for Lake Erie
coastal marshes in Ohio. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health & Management 11:91-104.
Magee, T. K., T. L. Ernst, M. E. Kentula, and K. A.
Dwire. 1999. Floristic comparison of freshwater
wetlands in an urbanizing environment. Wet-
lands 19:517-534.
Mclntyre, C, K. R. Newlon, L. K. Vance, and M.
D. Burns. 2011. Milk, Marais and St. Mary
Monitoring: Developing a Long-term Rotat-
ing Basin Wetland Assessment and Monitoring
Strategy for Montana. Report to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Mon-
tana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Ml
Mclntyre, C, L. K. Vance, and T. Luna. 2010.
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian
Shrubland. Montana Field Guide.
Milburn, S. A., M. Bourdaghs, and J. J. Husveth.
2007. Floristic Quality Assessment for Min-
nesota Wetlands. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul, MN.
Miller, L. M. and D. H. Wardrop. 2006. Adapting
the floristic quality assessment index to indicate
anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylva-
nia wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6:313-326.
Miller, S. J., D. H. Wardrop, W. M. Mahaney, and
R. P. Brooks. 2006. A plant-based index of bio-
logical integrity (IBI) for headwater wetlands
in central Pennsylvania. Ecological Indicators
6:290-312.
Mincemoyer, S. 2012. Checklist of Montana Vascu-
lar Plants. Helena, Ml http://mtnhp.org/about/
announce . asp#plant2 .
37
Moore, J. 2011. People and nature: a modest
proposal. Science Chronicles. Conservation
Gateway, http://www.conservationgateway.org/
news/people-and-nature-modest-proposal .
MRLC. 2006. National Land Cover Database.
National Research Council. 200 1 . Compensating
for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Naugle, D., R. Johnson, M. Estey, and K. Higgins.
200 1 . A landscape approach to conserving wet-
land bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of
eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21:1-17.
Newlon, K. R. and M. D. Burns. 2009. Wetlands
of the Gallatin Valley: Change and Ecological
Functions. A Report to the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. 32 pp. plus ap-
pendices. Montana Natural Heritage Program,
Helena, Montana.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the contermi-
nous United States. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 77:118-125.
Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White.
1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for
recording vegetation composition and structure.
Castanea 63:262-274.
Peterson- Smith, J., D. H. Wardrop, C. A. Cole, C.
P. Cirmo, and R. P. Brooks. 2009. Hydrogeo-
morphology, environment, and vegetation asso-
ciations across a latitudinal gradient in highland
wetlands of the northeastern USA. Plant Ecol-
ogy 203:155-172.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K.
Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bio-
assessment protocols for use in streams and
rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, editor. EPA/404/4-89-001, Washington,
DC.
Newlon, K. R. and L. K. Vance. 201 1 . A Reference
Wetland Network for Assessment and Monitor-
ing of Montana's Herbaceous Wetlands. Report
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena,
MT.
Nichols, J. D., J. E. Perry, and D. A. DeBerry.
2006. Using a Floristic Quality Assessment
Technique to Evaluate Plant Community In-
tegrity of Forested Wetlands in Southeastern.
Natural Areas Journal 26:360-369.
Noble, C. V, E. O. Murray, C. V. Klimas, and W
Ainslie. 2011. Regional Guidebook for Apply-
ing the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assess-
ing the Functions of Headwater Slope Wetlands
on the South Carolina Coastal Plain. U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Norton, J., L. Jungst, U. Norton, H. Olsen, K. Tate,
and W Horwath. 2011. Soil Carbon and Nitro-
gen Storage in Upper Montane Riparian Mead-
ows. Ecosystems 14:1217-1231.
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language
and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria.
Richardson, J. L. and M. J. Vepraskas. 2001. Wet-
land Soils. CRC Press, New York, NY.
Rocchio, J. 2006. Ecological Integrity Assessment
Scorecards for Southern Rocky Mountain Fens,
Wet Meadows, Freshwater Marshes, Inter-
mountain Basin Playas, Riparian Shrublands,
and Riparian Woodlands. Report submitted to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Head-
quarters, Washington, D.C., Colorado Natural
Heritage Program, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO.
38
Rocchio, J. 2007. Assessing ecological condition
of headwater wetlands in the Southern Rocky
Mountains Using a Vegetation Index of Biotic
Integrity (Version 1.0). 98pp. plus appendices
Prepared for Colorado Department of Natural
Resources and the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region 8. Colorado Natural
Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO.
Rocchio, J. and R. Crawford. 201 1. Applying
NatureServe's ecological integrity assessment
methodology to Washington's ecological sys-
tems. Washington Natural Heritage Program,
Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia, WA.
Scozzafava, M., M. E. Kentula, E. Riley, T. K.
Magee, G. Serenbetz, R. Sumner, C. Faulkner,
and M. Price. 2011. The National Wetland Con-
dition Assessment: National Data on Wetland
Quality to Inform and Improve Wetlands Pro-
tection. National Wetlands Newsletter 33:1 1-13.
Shafer, D. J., T. H. Roberts, M. S. Peterson, and K.
Schmid. 2007. A Regional Guidebook for Ap-
plying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to As-
sessing the Functions of Tidal Fringe Wetlands
Along the Mississippi and Alabama Gulf Coast.
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Develop-
ment Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Shafer, D. J. and D. J. Yozzo. 1998. National
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomor-
phic Assessment of Tidal Fringe Wetlands. U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartholdus, and
M. M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for As-
sessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeo-
morphic Classification, Reference Wetlands,
and Functional Indices. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS. Stander, E. and J. Ehrenfeld. 2009. Rapid
Assessment of Urban Wetlands: Do Hydrogeo-
morphic Classification and Reference Criteria
Work? Environmental Management 43:725-
742.
Snow, N. 2009. Checklist of Vascular Plants of the
Southern Rocky Mountain Region. (Version 3).
3 1 6 pp. http://www.swcoloradowildflowers.
com/PDF/Plant%20Kevs/SRMRChecklist Ver-
sions 2009 Final.pdf.
Stevens, D. L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-
based sampling designs for continuous spatial
populations. Environmetrics 8:167-195.
Stevens, D. L., Jr. and S. F. Jensen. 2007. Sample
design, execution, and analysis for wetland as-
sessment. Wetlands 27:515-523.
Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. K.
Johnson, and R. H. Norris. 2006. Setting expec-
tations for the ecological condition of streams:
the concept of reference condition. Ecological
Applications 16:1267-1276.
Tierney, G. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, B. R. Mitch-
ell, W G. Shriver, and J. P. Gibbs. 2009. Moni-
toring and evaluating the ecological integrity of
forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 7:308-316.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Operational
Draft Regional Guidebook for the Functional
Assessment of High-gradient Ephemeral and
Intermittent Headwater Streams in Western
West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky. U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011.
National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field
Operations Manual. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, DC.
USGS GAP. 201 1. Land Cover Data Set.
Vance, L., C. Mclntyre, and T. Luna. 2009. Al-
pine-Montane Wet Meadow-Rocky Mountain
Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow. Montana Field
Guide.
39
Vance, L. K. 2009. Assessing wetland condition
with GIS: A Landscape Integrity Model for
Montana. Report to the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, MT.
Wakely, J. S., R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
2008. Interim regional supplement to the Corps
of Engineers delineation manual: western
mountains, valleys, and coast region. U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L. Stevens Jr, S.
F. Jensen, and R. P. Brooks. 2007. Assessment
of wetland condition: An example from the
upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA
Wetlands 27:416-431.
Williams, H. M., A. Miller, R. S. McNamee, and
C. V. Klimas. 2010. A Regional Guidebook for
Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to
the Functional Assessment of Forested Wetlands
in Alluvial Valleys of East Texas. U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Winter, T. C. 2001. The concept of hydrologic
landscapes. Journal of the American Water Re-
sources Association 37:335-349.
40
Appendix A. Brief Descriptions of Ecological Systems
Covered in This Study
Brief descriptions of Ecological Systems covered in this study.
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fens (hereinafter "fens") occur infrequently throughout
the Rocky Mountains from Colorado north into Canada. They are confined to specific environ-
ments defined by groundwater discharge, soil chemistry, and peat accumulation. Fens form at
low points in the landscape or near mountain-to-valley transitions 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. Constant high water levels lead to accumulation of
organic material, usually greater than 40 centimeters (15 inches), except on sites underlain by
limestone bedrock. In addition to peat accumulation and perennially saturated soils, extremely
rich and iron fens have distinct soil and water chemistry, with high levels of one or more miner-
als 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, and provide habitat for uncommon mammals, mollusks and insects. Fens usually oc-
cur as a mosaic of herbaceous and woody plant communities. The surrounding landscape may
be ringed with other wetland systems: fens often grade into marshes, wet meadows or riparian
shrublands, and can be surrounded by conifer swamps or wet to mesic coniferous forests.
Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadows are found at moderate to high elevations
throughout the Rocky Mountains, dominated by herbaceous species found on wetter sites with
very low-velocity surface and subsurface flows. This system typically occurs in cold, moist
basins, seeps and alluvial terraces of headwater streams or as a narrow strip adjacent to alpine
lakes. Wet meadows are typically found on flat areas or gentle slopes, but may also occur on
sub-irrigated sites with slopes up to 10 percent. In alpine regions, sites are typically 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, including high organic content and/or low chroma and
redoximorphic features. This system often occurs as a mosaic of several plant associations, often
dominated by graminoids such as tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), and a diversity of
montane or alpine sedges. High elevation bluegrasses (Poa arctica and Poa alpina) are often
present. Moisture for these wet meadow community types comes from groundwater, stream dis-
charge, overland flow, overbank flow, and precipitation. Salinity and alkalinity are generally low
due to the frequent flushing of moisture through the meadow. Depending on the slope, topogra-
phy, hydrology, soils and substrate, intermittent, ephemeral, or permanent pools may be present,
and standing water may be found during some or all of the growing season, with water tables
typically remaining at or near the soil surface. Fluctuations of the water table throughout the
growing season are not uncommon, although wet meadows are rarely subjected to high distur-
bance events such as flooding. On drier sites supporting the less mesic types, the late-season wa-
ter table may be one meter or more below the surface. Soils typically possess a high proportion
of organic matter, but this may vary considerably depending on the frequency and magnitude of
alluvial deposition. Organic composition of the soil may include a thin layer near the soil surface.
Soils may exhibit gleying and/or mottling throughout the profile.
Appendix A - 1
North American Arid West Emergent Marshes are found throughout the arid and semi-arid
regions of North America, often in depressions surrounded by an upland matrix of mixed prairie,
shrub steppe, or steppe vegetation. 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 ripar-
ian marshes. Marshes are classified as either seasonal or semipermanent based on the dominant
vegetation found in the deepest portion of the wetland; vegetation is representative of the hydro-
period. A central shallow marsh zone dominated by graminoids and sedges characterizes sea-
sonal wetlands, while semipermanent wetlands are continually inundated, with water depths up
to 2 meters (6.5 feet) and a deeper central marsh zone dominated by cattails (Typha species) and
bulrushes (Schoenoplectus species). Water chemistry may be alkaline or semi-alkaline, but the
alkalinity is highly variable even within the same complex of wetlands. Marshes have distinctive
soils that are typically mineral, but can also accumulate organic material. Soils characteristics
reflect long periods of anaerobic conditions. Wet-drought year climatic cycles, often in 10 to 20
year cycles, influence the ecological communities in these systems. During this climatic cycle,
wetlands go through a dry marsh, regenerating marsh, degenerating marsh and a lake phase that
is regulated by periodic drought and deluge. During drought periods, seeds from annuals and
perennials germinate and cover exposed mud flats, but when precipitation floods the depressions,
the annuals drown and the perennials survive, regenerating the marsh. Over a series of years,
perennials dominate and submersed and floating-leaved hydrophytes return. After a few years of
the regenerating phase, emergent vegetation begins to decline and eventually the marsh reverts
to an open water system. Muskrats may play an important role in the decline of emergent vegeta-
tion in some of these systems.
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrublands are found at montane to subalpine
elevations of the Rocky Mountains. Shrubs dominate this seasonally flooded system, with total
shrub cover ranging from 20 to 100 percent. Shrublands occur as linear bands of shrub vegeta-
tion lining streambanks and alluvial terraces in narrow to wide, low-gradient valley bottoms and
floodplains with sinuous stream channels. Flooding creates and destroys sites for the establish-
ment of vegetation through the transport and accumulation of coarse sediment. Sediment accu-
mulating in these systems can form gravel bars at or near the surface of the river, creating bands
of mixed vegetation that occupy different stages of succession (Melanson and Butler, 1991).
Ground water seepage from snowmelt may create shallow water tables or seeps that vegetation
depends on for a portion of the growing season. This system often occurs as a mosaic of mul-
tiple communities that are shrub and herb dominated. Vegetation structure varies depending on
latitude, elevation and climate. Flooding in these systems influences vegetative communities by
transporting sediments and creating establishment sites for colonization. Many plants in these
high-energy systems that experience large disturbances from floods have acquired adaptive traits.
Some have flexible, resilient stems and specialized cells to hold oxygen so that they can survive
large flood events. These species also have reproductive adaptations such as water-dispersed
seeds and are able to sprout quickly from flood damaged stumps. In sites where there is pro-
longed disturbance, willow coverage will decrease, resulting in a more open canopy. Herbaceous
vegetation will transition to a grass-dominated system. Shrubland riparian systems are important
for bank stabilization, organic inputs to the adjacent stream, shade cover and wildlife habitat
values.
Appendix A - 2
Appendix B. Parameters and Weighting used in Landscape
Integrity Model
The Landscape Integrity Model used in our initial screening was built from the following GIS
data layers:
Roads:
We used the road data from Tiger 2008 ( ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2008 ) across the
entire region.
Data were downloaded, merged, projected to Albers Equal Area Conic Projection, and assigned
to one of three classes:
g) Highways: MTFCC SI 100 (primary road); and S1200 (secondary road) if the secondary
road name contains "Hwy" or "Highway". Also S1630 (ramp).
h) Four-wheel-drive roads: MTFCC SI 500 (vehicular trail) and SI 740 (private road for
service vehicles: logging, oil field, ranches, etc). Also S1640 (service drive usually along
a limited access highway) if they were actually logging roads (Name = ").
i) Other roads: MTFCC S1200 (if name does not contain "US Hwy"), S1400 (local
neighborhood road, rural road, city street), S1780 (parking lot road), and SI 640 that are
not logging roads (service drive usually along a limited access highway; name attribute is
filled).
Each shapefile was buffered and converted to a grid. Scores were assigned to pixels (see Table
C-l).
Hydrology:
Artificial flow. From the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) High resolution data ( http://nhd-
geo.usgs.gov/metadata/nhd high.htm ), we selected FTYPE 336
Impaired waters: Data were downloaded on a state-by- state basis from the EPA site ( http://ep-
amap32.epa.gov/radims/ ). Metadata was found at:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/303D metadata.xml
We also downloaded data for facilities that discharge to water (points): http://www.epa.gov/wa-
ters/data/PCS metadata.xml
Theses layers (points, lines and polygons) were buffered and converted to a grid.
Wetland violations (section 404): These data were downloaded from EPA region 8 webpage:
http://www.epa.gOv/Region8/gis/index.html#2
http://www.epa.gov/Region8/gis/data/r8 404.html
Points were buffered and converted to a grid.
Land cover:
Our based layers for land cover came from the Northwest ReGAP (MT and WY) and Southwest
ReGAP (CO and UT):
Appendix B - 1
http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Northwest/data.htm
http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/landcover download.html
We used the following land cover classifications to build our land cover/land use categories:
Urban: NW ReGAP codes 22, 23 and 24 (low, medium, and high intensity developed); SW
ReGap codes 111 and 112 (low and medium- high intensity developed). Clumps of pixels smaller
than 5 pixels were removed using the Eliminate command in Erdas Imagine. All pixels within
100m of a highway were also removed. Finally, remaining pixels were shrunk by 1 pixel, to
remove isolated, non-highway roads pixels.
Agriculture: NW ReGap codes 81 and 82 (hay /pasture and cropland); SW ReGap code 114 (agri-
culture). Clumps of pixels smaller than 5 pixels were removed using the Eliminate command in
Erdas Imagine.
Timber harvest: NW ReGap codes 8601, 8602 and 8603 (harvested, grass, shrub and tree regen-
eration); SW ReGap code 123 (logged). Clumps of pixels smaller than 5 pixels were removed
using the Eliminate command in Erdas Imagine.
Each grid was expanded and scores were assigned to pixels.
Mining:
In addition to ReGAP mining pixels (ESLF 31 and 8498 for MT, ESLF 117 for UT and CO, pixel
groups smaller than 1 1 removed), point locations of active and/or abandoned mines were ob-
tained from a variety of sources:
http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/deq abandoned mines.html
http://mining.state.co.us/GIS%20Data.htm
GNIS data from Daniel Smith, Utah DNR ( danielsmith @ Utah. go v )
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/active-mines.html
After being assigned scores and weights, the grids were stacked into a global integrity grid with
values ranging from 10,000 (highest integrity) to 38,925 (lowest integrity):
Pixels with the highest possible integrity: [(>200m 4- wheel drive: 15%, >300m local roads: 35%,
>500m highways: 50%) * 35%] + [(>2000m urban: 40%, >500m crop agriculture: 40%, >2000m
timber harvest: 20%) * 35%] + [(>200m artificial flow: 25%, >200m water right pt of use: 50%,
>200m section 404: 25%) * 20%] + [(>150m abandoned mines: 100%) * 10%) =
[(15 + 35 +50)*35] + [(40 + 40 + 20)*35] + [(25 + 50 + 25)*20] + [100*10] = 10,000
Pixels with the lowest possible integrity: [(<100m 4-wheel drive: 15%, <100m local roads: 35%,
<100m highways: 50%) * 35%] + [(<500m urban: 40%, <200m crop agriculture: 40%, <500m
timber harvest: 20%) * 35%] + [(<100m artificial flow: 25%, <100m water right pt of use: 50%,
<100m section 404: 25%) * 20%] + [(<60m abandoned mines: 100%) * 10%) =
[(3*35 + 4*35 + 5*50)*35] + [(5*40 + 5*40 + 5*20)*35] + [(3*25 + 3*50 + 3*25)*20] +
[(100*3)*10] =43,825
Appendix B -2
Table B-l.
Category
Buffer distance
(meters)
Score
Weight
Roads
4-wheel drive (15%)
0-100
100.01-200
>200.01
Local roads, city streets (35%)
0-100
100.01-200
200.01-300
>300.01
Highways (50%)
0-100
100.01-200
200.01-300
300-500
>500.01
Land Cover
Urban (40%)
0-500
500.01-1000
1000.01-1500
1500.01-2000
>2000.01
Crop agriculture (40%)
0-200
200.01-300
300.01-400
400.01-500
>500
Timber harvest (20%)
0-500
500.01-1000
1000.01-1500
1500.01-2000
>2000.01
Hydrology
Artificial flow (25%)
0-100
100.01-200
>200.01
Water right point of use (50%)
0-100
100.01-200
>200.01
Section 404 permit (25%)
0-100
100.01-200
>200.01
Land use
Abandoned mines (100%)
0-60
60.01-150
>150.01
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
35%
35%
20%
10%
Appendix B - 3
Appendix C. Screening Process for Site Selection in the
Rocky Mountain ReMAP Project
Essential GIS layers:
Digital Raster Graphic (topographic map)
NAIP or other aerial image
Land Ownership and Designation
Cells and Points
Other Useful Layers:
Wetland layers
Landscape-scale vegetation layers (ReGAP, Landfire, etc.)
County and state boundaries, roads, trails, river, lakes
The Cell Attribute Table:
The following fields were added to the cell attribute table: <Include>, <Dom_Owner>, and <Comments>
<Include> is marked "yes," "no," or "maybe" depending on whether points have been selected within that
cell and the confidence of those selections. The "maybe" designation is reserved for cells that need careful
consideration before spending travel time.
<Dom_Owner> contains information of who manages the land, (i.e. Private, USFS, BLM, etc).
<Comment> includes information about the first two designations and any other relevant information.
This contains the reasoning behind the "yes," "no," or "maybe" inclusion.
The Point Attribute Table:
The following fields have been added to the point attribute table: <Selected>, <EcolSyst>, <EcolSyst2>,
<Confidence>, and <Comments>
<Selected> can be only "yes" or "no"; a decision must be made.
<EcolSyst> and <EcolSyst2> can be marked as ONLY ONE Ecological System type: "Marsh," "Fen,"
"Wet Meadow," "S-M Rip Shrub," "S-M Rip Wood," "LM Rip Wood & Shrub," or "n/a" (not analyzed).
"S-M Rip Wood" is no longer a target system, but can still be included as a secondary designation.
"n/a" should be used only for points that have a selection of "no." Every point with a selection of "yes"
must also have a designation in <EcolSyst>, even if <EcolSyst2> is left blank.
We have two EcolSyst fields for points that are wetlands, but there remains some question as to which
type. <EcolSyst> is reserved for the most probable type. <EcolSyst2> can be left blank if the first designa-
tion is clear.
Points can have a selection of "no" but still have an <EcolSyst> designation if the site is too small to
sample, or if confidence is too low to sample, or another reason indicated in <Comments>.
<Confidence> is marked "high," "medium," or "low." A "high" designation indicates that the point is
clearly a sample able wetland, even if there is question as to what <EcolSyst> designation to use. A "me-
Appendix C - 1
dium" designation indicates some doubt as to whether the point should be visited or not. A "low" designa-
tion indicates a larger amount of doubt, a second opinion is needed.
<Comment> can include any useful information, and examples are "on private land," "not a wetland,"
"site too small to sample," "is this a wetland or a cloud?" etc.
Do not leave the <Comment> column blank for points where <Selected> is "no." These are easily filled in
for most points using the Field Calculator in GIS and can be surprisingly helpful. Examples include "on
private land" or "upland area, not wetland."
Methods:
Each cell/point must eventually be designated with information in every added column (except perhaps
<EcolSyst2>.
It is most efficient to first look at the Land Ownership layer so that points on private land can be discarded
immediately.
Use the DRG layer to identify the best potential sites on public land. Go to these points first at a -1:2,000
resolution).
Use the aerial image to confirm wetland presence.
Use wetland data if available, and surrounding vegetation data to further strengthen decisions to select
points. These data are sometimes too coarse but sometimes very useful.
Use the measuring tool to confirm that potential points are within 20 m of a wetland that is wider than 20
m and at least 0. 10 ha in area.
Lastly, navigate through the cell at a 1:5,000 looking for other unexpected potential wetlands.
Be critical and try to only select points that will probably be confirmed, but also be consistent across cells,
and for all points.
Finally, use county, road, river and stream layers when locating the cells within the landscape.
To make sure that selected points occur within a landscape context that meets our criteria of High Integ-
rity, the following thresholds have been set. Selected points must be at least the stated minimum distance
from the following potential stressors.
Appendix C - 2
Distance from Roads
4x4, dirt >200 m
local, city >300 m
highways >500 m
Hydrologic Modification
canals, ditches >200 m
reservoirs > 1,000 m (only if wetland is down-
stream)
water right point of use (wells, diversion points,
impoundments) >200 m
Land Cover
high density residential >2,000 m
low density residential / high use recreation >300m
crop agriculture / hay pastures >500 m
timber harvest >2,000 m
Land Use
abandoned mines / tailings piles >500 m
active gravel pit, open pit, strip mining > 1,000 m
evidence of livestock >200 m
Appendix C - 3
Appendix D. Field Key
Field Key to Wetland and Riparian Ecological Systems of
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado
la. Wetland defined by groundwater inflows and peat (organic soil) accumulation of at least 40 cm.
Vegetation can be woody or herbaceous. If the wetland occurs within a mosaic of non-peat forming
wetland or riparian systems, then the patch must be at least 0. 1 hectares (0.25 acres). If the wetland
occurs as an isolated patch surrounded by upland, then there is no minimum size criteria
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen
lb. Wetland does not have at least 40 cm of peat (organic soil) accumulation or occupies an area less
than 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres) within a mosaic of other non-peat forming wetland or riparian systems 2
2a. Total woody canopy cover generally 25% or more within the overall wetland/riparian area. Any
purely herbaceous patches are less than 0.5 hectares and occur within a mosaic of woody vegetation.
Note: Relictual woody vegetation such as standing dead trees and shrubs are included here
GO TO KEY A: Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems
2b. Total woody canopy cover generally less than 25% within the overall wetland/riparian area. Any
woody vegetation patches are less than 0.5 hectares and occur within a mosaic of herbaceous wetland
vegetation 3
3a. Total vegetation canopy cover generally 10% or more
GO TO KEY B: Herbaceous Ecological Systems
3b. Total vegetation canopy cover generally less than 10% GO TO KEY C: Sparse Vegetation
KEY A: Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems
la. Woody wetland associated with any stream channel, including ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial
(Riverine HGM Class) 2
lb. Woody wetland associated with the discharge of groundwater to the surface or fed by snowmelt or
precipitation. This system often occurs on slopes, lakeshores, or around ponds. Sites may experience
overland flow but no channel formation. (Slope, Flat, Lacustrine, or Depressional HGM Classes) 9
2a. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the montane or subalpine zone (refer to lifezone table) 3
2b. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the plains, foothills, or lower montane zone (refer to lifezone
table) 4
3a. Montane or subalpine riparian woodlands (canopy dominated by trees). This system occurs as a
narrow streamside forest lining small, confined low- to mid-order streams. Common tree species include
Abies lasiocarpa, Picea engelmannii, Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Populus tremuloides
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland
3b. Montane or subalpine riparian shrublands (canopy dominated by shrubs with sparse tree cover). This
system occurs as either a narrow band of shrubs lining the streambank of steep V-shaped canyons or as a
wide, extensive shrub stand (sometimes referred to as a shrub carr) on alluvial terraces in low-gradient
valley bottoms. Beaver activity is common within the wider occurrences. Species of Salix, Alnus, or
Betula are typically dominant Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
4a. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the foothills or lower montane zones of the Northern, Middle,
and Southern Rockies, Wyoming Basin, Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, and Great Basin 5
4b. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the Northwestern or Western Great Plains of eastern Montana,
central Wyoming, or northeastern Colorado 7
Appendix D - 1
5a. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of the
Northern Rockies in northwestern Montana. This type excludes island mountain ranges east of the
Continental Divide in Montana. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa is typically the canopy dominant
in woodlands. Other common tree species include Populus tremuloides , Betula papyifera, Betula
occidentalis, and Picea glauca. Shrub understory species include Cornus sericea, Acer glabrum, Alnus
incana, Oplopanax horridus, and Symphoricarpos albus. Areas of riparian shrubland and open wet
meadow are common
Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
5b. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands of other mountain regions 6
6a. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of the
Southern and Middle Rockies, Wyoming Basin, and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains. This type also
includes island mountain ranges in central and eastern Montana. Woodlands are dominated by Populus
spp. including Populus angustifolia, Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus deltoides, and
Populus fremontii. Common shrub species include Salix spp., Alnus incana, Crataegus spp., Cornus
sericea, and Betula occidentalis
Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
6b. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of the
Great Basin in Utah. Woodlands are dominated by Abies concolor, Populus angustifolia, Populus
balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus fremontii, and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Important shrub species
include Artemisia cana, Betula occidentalis, Cornus sericea, Salix exigua, Salix lutea, Salix lemmonii,
and Salix lasiolepis Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
7a. Woodlands and shrublands of draws and ravines associated with permanent or ephemeral streams,
steep north-facing slopes, or canyon bottoms that do not experience flooding. Common tree species
include Fraxinus spp., Acer negundo, Populus tremuloides, and Ulmus spp. Important shrub species
include Crataegus spp., Prunus virginiana, Rhus spp., Rosa woodsii, Symphoricarpos occidentalis, and
Shepherdia argentea Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine
7b. Woodlands and shrublands of small to large streams and rivers of the Northwestern or Western Great
Plains. Overall vegetation is lusher than above and includes more wetland indicator species. Dominant
species include Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus deltoides, and Salix spp 8
8a. Woodlands and shrublands of riparian areas of medium and small rivers and streams with little or no
floodplain development and typically flashy hydrology
Northwestern/Western Great Plains Riparian
8b. Woodlands and shrublands of riparian areas along medium and large rivers with extensive floodplain
development and periodic flooding Northwestern/Western Great Plains Floodplain
9a. Woody wetland associated with small, shallow ponds in northwestern Montana. Ponds are ringed by
trees including Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus tremuloides, Betula papyrifera, Abies
grandis, Abies lasiocarpa, Picea engelmannii, Pinus contorta, and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Typical shrub
species include Cornus sericea, Amelanchier alnifolia, and Salix spp
Northern Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool
9b. Woody wetland associated with the discharge of groundwater to the surface, or sites with overland
flow but no channel formation 10
Appendix D - 2
10a. Coniferous woodlands associated with poorly drained soils that are saturated year round or
seasonally flooded. Soils can be woody peat but tend toward mineral. Common tree species include
Thuja plicata, Tsuga heterophylla, and Picea engelmannii. Common species of the herbaceous
understory include Mitella spp., Calamagrostis spp., and Equisetum arvense
Northern Rocky Mountain Conifer Swamp
10b. Woody wetlands dominated by shrubs 11
11a. Subalpine to montane shrubby wetlands that occur around seeps, fens, and isolated springs on slopes
away from valley bottoms. This system can also occur within a mosaic of multiple shrub- and herb-
dominated communities within snowmelt-fed basins. This example of the system has the same species
composition as the riverine example of this system and is dominated by species of Salix, Alnus, or
Betula Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
lib. Lower foothills to valley bottom shrublands restricted to temporarily or intermittently flooded
drainages or flats and dominated by Sarcobatus vermiculatus .. Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat
KEY B: Herbaceous Wetland Ecological Systems
la. Herbaceous wetlands of the Northwestern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Great Plains, or Western
Great Plains regions of eastern Montana, central Wyoming, or northeastern Colorado 2
lb. Herbaceous wetlands of other regions 5
2a. Wetland occurs as a complex of depressional wetlands within the glaciated plains of northern
Montana. Typical species include Schoenoplectus spp. and Typha latifolia on wetter, semi-permanently
flooded sites, and Eleocharis spp., Pascopyrum smithii, and Hordeum jubatum on drier, temporarily
flooded sites Great Plains Prairie Pothole
2b. Wetland does not occur as a complex of depressional wetlands within the glaciated
plains of Montana 3
3a. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains with saline soils. Salt encrustations can occur on
the surface. Species are typically salt-tolerant such as Distichlis spicata, Puccinellia spp., Salicornia spp.,
and Schoenoplectus maritimus Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland
3b. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains with obvious vegetation zonation dominated by
emergent herbaceous vegetation, including Eleocharis spp., Schoenoplectus spp., Phalaris arundinacea,
Calamagrostis canadensis, Hordeum jubatum, and Pascopyrum smithii 4
4a. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains associated with open basins that have an obvious
connection to the groundwater table. This system can also occur along stream margins where it is linked
to the basin via groundwater flow. Typical plant species include species of Typha, Carex,
Schoenoplectus, Eleocharis, Juncus, and floating genera such as Potamogeton, Sagittaria, and
Ceratophyllum Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland
4b. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains primarily within upland basins having an
impermeable layer such as dense clay. Recharge is typically via precipitation and runoff, so this system
typically lacks a groundwater connection. Wetlands in this system tend to have standing water for a
shorter duration than Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetlands. Common species
include Eleocharis spp., Hordeum jubatum, and Pascopyrum smithii
Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland
Appendix D - 3
5a. Small (<0.1 ha) depressional, herbaceous wetlands occurring within dune fields of the Great Basin,
Wyoming Basin, and other small inter-montane basins
Inter-Mountain Basins Interdunal Swale Wetland
5b. Herbaceous wetlands not associated with dune fields 6
6a. Depressional wetlands occurring in areas of alkaline to saline clay soils with hardpans. Salt
encrustations can occur on the surface. Species are typically salt-tolerant such as Distichlis spicata,
Puccinellia spp., Leymus sp., Poa secunda, Salicornia spp., and Schoenoplectus maritimus. Communities
within this system often occur in alkaline basins and swales and along the drawdown zones of lakes and
ponds Inter-Mountain Basins Alkaline Closed Depression
6b. Herbaceous wetlands not associated with alkaline to saline hardpan clay soils 7
7a. Wetlands with a permanent water source throughout all or most of the year. This system can occur
around ponds, as fringes around lakes and along slow-moving streams and rivers. The vegetation is
dominated by common emergent and floating leaved species including species of Scirpus, Schoenplectus,
Typha, Juncus, Carex, Potamogeton, Polygonum, and Phalaris
Western North American Emergent Marsh
7b. Herbaceous wetlands associated with a high water table or overland flow, but typically lack standing
water. Sites with no channel formation are typically associated with snowmelt and not subjected to high
disturbance events such as flooding (Slope HGM Class). Site associated with a stream channel are more
tightly connected to overbank flooding from the stream channel than with snowmelt and groundwater
discharge and may be subjected to high disturbance events such as flooding (Riverine HGM Class).
Wetlands in this system have less than 40 cm of peat (organic soil) accumulation. Vegetation is
dominated by herbaceous species; typically graminoids have the highest canopy cover including Carex
spp., Calamagrostis spp., and Deschampsia caespitosa
Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
KEY C: Sparsely Vegetated Ecological Systems
la. Sites are restricted to drainages with a variety of sparse or patchy vegetation including Sarcobatus
vermiculatus, Ericameria nauseosa, Artemisia cana, Artemisia tridentata, Grayia spinosa, Distichlis
spicata, and Sporobolus airoides Inter-Mountain Basins Wash
lb. Sites occur on barren or sparsely vegetated playas that are intermittently flooded and may remain dry
for several years. Soil is typically saline, and salt encrustations are common. Plant species are salt-
tolerant and can include Sarcobatus vermiculatus, Distichlis spicata, and Atriplex spp
Inter-Mountain Basins Playa
Appendix D - 4
Appendix E. Draft Protocol
Rocky Mountain REMAP
Wetland Condition Assessment
2010 Field Manual
Ml Q NT A,
Study Ecoregions
| Canadian Rockies
| | Middle Hockiei
| Southern fiot kits
Wasatch and Uinta Mountains
yyi Natural HaritHye
■""* ; Vm;nv>s.\
i
^^^*
C SS53£
Appendix E - 1
Rocky Mountain REMAP Wetland Condition
Assessmnt 2010 Field Manual
Compiled by:
Colorado Natural Heritage Program
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Co 80523
With Input from the Montana Natural Heritage Program and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.
Funding provided by the U.S. Envrlonmental Protection Agency Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program.
June 2010
Appendix E - 2
Table of Contents
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REMAP FIELD MANUAL..
Section 1: Introduction to the Rocky Mountain REMAP Project 1
Section 2: Elements of the Study Design 3
Section 3: Introduction to Field Sampling Protocols 5
Section 4: Site Evaluation Guidelines 5
Section 5: Describing and Establishing the Assessment Area 7
Section 6: Landscape Context Assessment 15
Section 7: Vegetation Assessment 18
Section 8: Hydrology Assessment 29
Section 9: Physiochemical Assessment 32
EXAMPLE FIELD FORMS 37
APPENDICES 59
APPENDIX A: Field Key to Wetland and Riparian Ecological Systems of the Rocky Mountains 61
APPENDIX B: Ecological Systems Descriptions for Target Ecological System in Colorado and Montana 67
APPENDIX C: National Wetland Inventory Classification 87
APPENDIX D: Field Key to the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classes of Wetlands in the Rocky Mountains 89
APPENDIX E: Soil Texture Flowchart 91
APPENDIX F: Notes on Hydric Soil Indicators for the Mountain West 93
APPENDIX G: First Aid and Safety in the Field 97
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page i
Appendix E - 3
201 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page ii
Appendix E - 4
Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Section 1: Introduction to the Rocky Mountain REMAP Project
This field manual documents protocols for the Rocky Mountain Wetland Condition Assessment project
funded through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Assessment and Monitoring
Program (REMAP). This project is a collaborative effort by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP),
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNND) to
develop a standardized approach to assessing wetland condition in the mountain ecoregions of U.S. EPA
Region 8. The work we are doing will also further the objectives of the National Wetland Condition
Assessment (NWCA) scheduled for 2011 by providing an opportunity to field test proposed metrics and
protocols.
The Rocky Mountains have a unique geography, population distribution, and concentration of public land
ownership. In Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, mountain areas receive as much as ten times the
relative effective precipitation than do the eastern plains. The extremes of mountain climate, high elevations
and characteristic geology produce a large range of natural variability among wetlands. Even under minimal
human disturbance regimes, environmental gradients can result in wetlands with very low vegetation cover,
low species diversity and unpredictable hydrologic shifts. Moreover, there are distinct ecoregional differences
within the Rocky Mountain States. For example, southern areas are subjected to monsoonal weather patterns
during the summer months, while northern areas are generally dry after June. To date, there have been no
systematic studies addressing whether, and to what extent, these differences might affect natural variability
among wetland ecological systems.
Many of the wetland assessment protocols in use across the country have been designed for areas with more
moderate climates and have not been tested or calibrated in mountain ecoregions. Even though researchers
from Colorado, Montana and Wyoming have been extensively involved in developing ecoregion-specific
assessment protocols and methods, field testing and calibration of indicators and metrics is still ongoing.
While informal collaborative networks exist, there has not been the kind of systematic cooperation and
information sharing that will be necessary for consistent and effective assessment and monitoring across the
region. This project addresses the need for such cooperation by bringing researchers from all three states
together to collaborate on a standardized regional protocol and to evaluate, calibrate and validate the tools
being developed for the National Wetland Condition Survey.
Field work for the Rocky Mountain REMAP project focuses on establishing a baseline reference standard
condition. By describing the natural variability associated with reference condition wetlands, the response of
these wetlands to human-induced disturbances is more easily understood. In other words, it becomes easier
to separate the signal (response to human disturbance) from noise (natural variability) when sampling
wetlands across a human disturbance gradient. It follows that, if ecological response to stressors can be
identified, then better informed restoration, management, and protection projects can be implemented.
Practically speaking, natural variability is difficult to define empirically since long-term ecological data as well
as data on conditions prior to European settlement are rarely available (Swetnam et al. 1999). In ecological
and biological assessments, the concept of "reference standard" sites may have several meanings. At one
extreme, it means sites that have been minimally disturbed by human activities, while at the other it means
"best attainable condition" (Stoddard et al. 2006). Typically, minimally disturbed sites are found only in
near-pristine areas managed as wilderness or in similar remote and wild areas (Herlihy et al. 2008). In broad
201 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 1
Appendix E - 5
regional or national assessment contexts, selection of "minimally disturbed" as a reference standard may be
inappropriate, simply because the types of sites found in these remote, often high-elevation areas may be
biologically dissimilar to sites in less extreme locations, even in the absence of human disturbance. However,
in the Rocky Mountain West, we expect that minimally disturbed examples of most wetland ecological
systems can be found across the range of abiotic gradients occurring in the area. Therefore, we will use the
concept of Minimally Disturbed Condition (MDC). This is the biotic condition of sites in the absence of
significant human disturbance. Stoddard et al. (2006) consider the MDC to be the "best approximation or
estimate of biotic integrity." Recognizing that most sites have likely been exposed to some minimal human
stressor (e.g. atmospheric contaminants), the definition incorporates the disclaimer of "significant" human
disturbances. The natural variation of the MDC provides a baseline from which ecological indicators can be
assessed to determine their comprehensiveness, sensitivity, and their ability to distinguish highly impacted
from reference standard sites.
Natural variability occurs both within wetland classes (e.g. wet meadows may occur at alpine and lower
montane elevations, leading to differences in plant diversity and productivity) and between different wetland
classes (e.g. fens differ in hydrology, soils, and plant communities from freshwater marshes). To constrain
the breadth of natural variability between wetlands in some way, wetlands are generally classified into
discrete types. Common wetland classification systems include the Cowardin system (Cowardin et al. 1979),
the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system (e.g. Hauer et al. 2002), the National Vegetation Classification Standard
(NVC) and the ecological systems classification (Comer etal. 2003). For the purpose of our study, we will use
the ecological systems classification. This is a spatially explicit, mappable, mid-scale classification that
integrates finer-scale plant communities (e.g. associations and alliances) with natural dynamics, soil types,
hydrology, and landscape setting. Individual wetland ecological systems can also be crosswalked to the
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system and the Cowardin system using field indicators. We have
chosen to use ecological systems as our primary classification system for several reasons: first, substantial
work has already been completed in Colorado and, to a lesser degree, in Montana to identify the key
ecological attributes and indicators of wetland ecological systems; second, comprehensive land cover maps
using ecological systems as map units are now available throughout the Rocky Mountain West; third, they
integrate the abiotic and hydrologic approach of the HGM with the vegetation and landform approach of the
Cowardin system; and fourth, they are at once broad enough and narrow enough to capture the range of
natural variability in wetlands while organizing it into similar and manageable conceptual units.
We have identified four wetland ecological systems common to mountainous regions of all four states in the
project area:
• North American Arid West Emergent Marsh
• Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen
• Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
• Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
This project will identify the key ecological attributes of each ecological system, identifying the range of
natural variability (if any) that can be expected for each attribute at reference standard sites. We expect to
identify a minimum of twenty reference standard examples of each ecological system. These will not
necessarily be evenly distributed among the ecoregions or states in the study — Utah's Wasatch and Uinta
Mountains do not have the same fen density as the Northern Rocky Mountains, for example — but we are
aiming for a broad regional spread.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 2
Appendix E - 6
Section 2: Elements of the Study Design
We will use a three-step approach to identifying reference sites: identification of landscape units; screening
for high-integrity areas with reasonable access; and selection of sites using a Generalized Random
Tessellation Stratified (GRTS] sampling design.
2.1. Stratification across Level HI Ecoregions
The Rocky Mountain West 1 is an area characterized by rugged landscapes, climatic extremes, and rivers with
snowmelt-driven hydrographs. Within the study area, seven Omernik Level III ecoregions reflect differences
in physiography, geology, vegetation, climate, soils, land use and hydrology (Omernik 1987]. However, within
these broad ecoregions, there is still considerable variability in biotic and abiotic factors. We know that this
variability affects the distribution of wetland ecological systems in the Rocky Mountain West. Playas, for
example, are primarily found in the Southern Rockies. Northern Rocky Mountain Vernal Pools tend to be
more frequent in Montana. Therefore, it follows that even when we see wetland ecological systems occurring
in all four states in the study area, there may be significant regional differences in relevant ecological
attributes as a result of environmental variables such as precipitation, temperature, geology, etc. For the
purpose of the Rocky Mountain REMAP project, we will use EPA Level III ecoregions as a grouping unit and
will focus on four ecoregions (Figure 1):
• Canadian Rocky Mountains
• Middle Rocky Mountains
• Southern Rocky Mountains
• Wasatch and Uintah Mountains
2.2. Screening for high quality sites with reasonable access.
To identify areas in minimally disturbed condition, we adapted a landscape integrity model developed for
Montana (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. In the case of wetlands, it presumes that reference standard wetlands are mostly likely to be found in
areas well-removed from roads, commercial or industrial development, urban areas, resource extraction
sites, or hydrologic modifications. When tested on a set of rapid assessments carried out in Montana's
mountain ecoregions, the model was able to accurately assign A-ranks (on an A, B, C, or D scale] in 75% of the
cases. Where measured rank differed, it was generally due to factors that were not included the model, such
as high-use backcountry recreation sites or timber harvest activities on federal lands. In most cases, these
factors can be identified visually from aerial photography. Although GIS data quality may vary among
individual Rocky Mountain states, we have identified sufficient comparable data sets to build a Rocky
Mountain Landscape Integrity Model that can be used as an initial predictor of minimally disturbed areas.
Minimally disturbed areas will, of course, include many areas with no reasonable access. Because our goal is
to identify reference standard sites that can be used in subsequent studies and research, we will limit our
search area to locations within 2 miles of a maintained footpath or trail (areas near roads will, by definition,
fall outside the MDC criterion]. We will also limit the area by ownership, selecting locations on public land,
1 The "Rocky Mountain West" is a broad geographic concept that includes the four states in the study area as
well as Idaho, and sometimes Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona. We use the term to refer to the Rocky
Mountain States in EPA Region 8: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.
20 10 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 3
Appendix E - 7
again with the intention of maintaining access over time. To delineate this search area, we will obtain GIS
layers of footpaths and trails from each National Forest, National Park, and other managed resource area
(wildlife refuges, state parks, etc]. If there are high-integrity areas with no GIS layers for trails, we will hand-
delineate trails from aerial photographs.
Study Ecoregions
Canadian Rockies
Middle Rockies
| Southern Rdckles
Wasatch and Uinta Mountains
Figure 1. Four Level III Ecoregions included in the Rocky Mountain REMAP Project.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 4
Appendix E - .
2.3. Selection of sites
Our target population will be all examples of the four wetland ecological systems within the accessible, high-
integrity area identified in step 2. We will lay a 2 mile by 2 mile grid of cells over the area and use a
Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) sampling design to choose potential sample grid cells
[Stevens 1997; Stevens and Olsen 1999; Stevens and Olsen 2004), stratifying by landscape unit (e.g.
ecoregions). After the potential sample grid cells are chosen using GRTS, each will be sequentially evaluated
to determine if it contains wetlands (using National Wetland Inventory mapping where available and digital
orthophotos when not available). We will also determine whether there are human disturbances within the
sample grid that were not identified in the GIS; if this is the case, the sample grid square will be skipped.
Within all non-disturbed grid cells, we will lay a grid of points at 100 m intervals in each direction. These
points will be ordered using GRTS and we will evaluate each point in the order assigned by GRTS. Each GRTS
point that falls within a wetland will be coded as one of the six ecological systems; wetlands that are not
within one of the six target ecological systems (e.g.conifer swamps, vernal pools, etc) will be disregarded. We
will continue to evaluate points in the GTRS order until we have selected up to five examples of each wetland
ecological system that occurs in the cell. Our goal will be to visit at least one example of each wetland type in
each cell, but we will draw oversamples in case we are unable to access sample sites. GRTS sampling will be
carried out in ArcGIS and R-package spsurvey.
Section 3: Introduction to Field Sampling Protocols
Field protocols used in this project draw from methods under development at CNHP and MTNHP through
previous and concurrent EPA funding and are based on the Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) framework
(Faber-Langendoen et al. 2008, Lemly and Rocchio 2009), which also borrow from established wetland
assessment methods such as the California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (Collins et al. 2008) and
the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method (Ohio EPA 2001). Because the goal of the Rocky Mountain REMAP project
is to gather detailed, Level 3 data at high quality, reference condition sites, the field protocols focus on
quantitative data that will inform qualitative assessments using the EIA framework. Where possible, REMAP
methods also draw heavily from the EPA's upcoming National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA)
scheduled for 2011. One stated goal of the REMAP project is to collect reference data in support of the NWCA.
However, because the NWCA methods have been under development during the course of the REMAP study,
the protocols do not match exactly. In addition, NWCA sampling will entail laboratory analysis of many
parameters that will not be collected in this REMAP project.
Section 4: Site Evaluation Guidelines
The basis of this study is the identification and establishment of an assessment area within one of four target
Ecological Systems. Sample points have been randomly selected throughout the study area within areas that
are presumed to meet the target population. Field crews will navigate to the sample points using GPS
coordinates given to them by their State field coordinator. Before any sampling can occur, the crew must
verify that the sample point is within 60 m of the target population. If so, the field crew will begin sampling
and carry out all protocols necessary for that Ecological System. If not, the field crew must reject the point
and move on to the next point within the cell. There are three elements to determining the target population
and suitability for sampling: 1) the site must be a wetland at least 0.1 ha in size with minimal water > 1 m
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 5
Appendix E - 9
deep; 2] the wetland must be one of four target Ecological Systems; and 3] the site must meet minimum
criteria for reference condition based on distance to potential disturbances.
When evaluating the area around a point, the crew may use the 2010 REMAP Site Evaluation Form. Crews
can fill out one page of this form at a sample point if all area surrounding the point is homogeneous, or they
can fill out multiple pages surrounding a sample point to capture different potential wetland areas. This form
is not necessary to fill out if there is an obvious wetland at or near the point. Much of the information on the
evaluation form is repetitive to information on the actual field form. However, the Site Evaluation Form can
be useful in two different scenarios. 1] Site evaluation on the day of sampling: If the crew is uncertain
whether the area meets the target population, they can fill out the Site Evaluation Form at various locations at
and surrounding the sample point. This form is a useful place to take notes and track whether locations
qualify as target. Once a suitable wetland area is encountered, the crew can begin data collection and the Site
Evaluation Form will be kept with the final data forms and returned to the State field coordinator. If a suitable
wetland area is not encountered within 60 m of the sample point, the Site Evaluation Form will document
why a point was rejected. 2] Site evaluation during reconnaissance visits: If the crew has time to recon
sample points before actually conducting the sampling, the Site Evaluation Form can be filled out at sample
points to document which are suitable for sampling and which are not. This information can then be used to
plan the actual sampling schedule.
Wetland Determination
Upon arrival at a sample point, the first question that the crews must answer is whether or not there is
wetland area > 0.1 ha in size at the point or within 60 m of the point. Deep water > 1 m maybe present within
the wetland, but no sampling will occur in water > 1 m deep for safety reasons. Suitable wetland area must be
> 0.1 ha in size with < 10% water > 1 m deep within the area targeted for sampling.
For the purpose of the REMAP project, wetland is defined based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS]
definition (Cowardin etal. 1979]:
"Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification
wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports
predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the
substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the
growing season of each year."
Crews will use established protocols developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE] to determine
whether the site is a wetland. Each crew will carry with them at all times the ACOE Interim Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountain, Valleys, and Coast
Region (ACOE 2008]. Wetland determinations are based on three lines of evidence: hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. However, in contrast to the ACOE methodology, crews do not have to
find all three criteria because the USFWS definition only requires one of the three. The best lines of evidence
to use are the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydric soils. Wetland hydrology alone
can be used only if the crew are certain the hydrology is long term and not present due to recent weather.
Ecological System Classification
If there is wetland area at or within 60 m of the sample point, the crew must then determine if any of that
wetland area is one of the four target Ecological Systems. To determine the Ecological System classification,
crews will use the Field Key to Wetland and Riparian Ecological Systems of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and
Colorado (Appendix A] and Ecological Systems Descriptions for Target Ecological System in Colorado and
Montana (Appendix B]. The four target Ecological Systems are:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 6
Appendix E - 10
• North American Arid West Emergent Marsh
• Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen
• Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
• Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
Crews should pay particular attention to size criteria listed in the key when dealing with mixed vegetation.
Wetlands can occur as mosaics of herbaceous and woody vegetation, but any given patch must meet a certain
size to be considered an occurrence of a separate Ecological System.
Reference Condition Criteria
If wetland area is one of the four target Ecological Systems and meets the required size, the crew must then
determine if the site meets the criteria defined for reference condition sites. The wetland must meet
minimum distances from the following stressors:
Roads and Highways
• 4x4, dirt > 200 m
• local, city > 300 m
• highways > 500 m
Hydrologic Modification
• canals, ditches > 200 m
• reservoirs > 1,000 m downstream
• water right point of use (wells, diversion points, impoundments) > 200 m
Land Cover
• high density residential > 2,000 m
• low density residential / high use recreation > 300 m
• crop agriculture / hay pastures > 500 m
• timber harvest > 2,000 m
Land Use
• abandoned mines / tailings piles > 500 m
• active gravel pit, open pit, strip mining > 1,000 m
• evidence of heavy livestock use > 200 m
Section 5: Describing and Establishing the Assessment Area
5.1. Location and General Information
On the 2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Wetland Condition Assessment Field Form, the top section
contains general information about the site. This information can be filled out once the crew determines that
a suitable wetland area is located at or near the sample point. The following guidance will assist in filling out
this section of the form.
Point Code: The code of the original sample point. This code starts with a three letter acronym for the Level 3
Ecoregion (CRM = Canadian Rocky Mountains, MRM = Middle Rocky Mountains, SRM = Southern Rocky
Mountains, WUM = Wasatch and Uintah Mountains). The second part of the point code is three-digit number
for the grid cell. The last part of the code is a five digit number for the sample point itself. As an example, a
point code might be SRM-603-01133.
Site Name: This is a name given to the site by the field crew. This name can be anything the crew wants
(excluding inappropriate language) and should reflect the location of something memorable that happened or
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 7
Appendix E - 11
was observed during sampling. The name could be something like Spring Creek Shrubland or could be Dizzy
Cloud Fen. It is helpful to include the Ecological System at the end of the name.
Date: Date of sampling, written as month, day, year (e.g., July 12, 2010 or 7/12/2010].
Surveyors: The first initial and last name of field crew members sampling the site (e.g., J. Lemly, C. Mclntyre].
Weather Conditions: The general weather on the day of sampling. It is helpful to know whether sampling
was done in sunny weather or rainy weather, either of which may impact sampling in one way or another. If
the weather changes dramatically during the course of a sample day, make sure to note that on the field form.
This will help explain why the sampling was cut short in the event of extreme weather.
Level 3 Ecoregion: Check the Level 3 Ecoregion being sampled.
State: Check the State in which the wetland occurs.
Ecological System: Check the Ecological System targeted in the survey. This information will also occur with
more detail on the following page under classification, but is included here on the first page for ease of
managing the forms.
General Location: A brief phrase describing the general location of the site, usually a creek name or other
landmark from the USGS topo map (e.g., Spring Creek, Mt Emmons, Beaver Meadows).
County: The County in which the wetland occurs.
General Ownership: A general description of the land ownership, using the following short abbreviations
and others where applicable:
• USFS = U.S. Forest Service
• BLM = Bureau of Land Management
• NPS = National Park Service
Specific Ownership: A more specific description of the land ownership, such as Rio Grande National Forest,
Mt Zirkel Wilderness, Glacier National Park, etc.
USGS Quad Name: The name of the USGS quad, found on the lower right-hand corner of the quad. Field crews
should always carry the USGS quads with them in the field.
USGS Quad Code: May also be written on the lower right-hand corner of the quad, but if not, leave blank.
Directions to Point and Access Comments: A brief description of how the crew accessed the point,
generally starting from a major road or trailhead. Should include approximate mileage traveled on dirt roads,
trails, and off trail navigation.
5.2. Establishing the Assessment Area
The assessment area (AA) represents the sample point that was defined by the random sample survey design.
Proper placement of the AA is crucial because it defines the area for most the data collection. Before heading
into the field, crews should examine aerial photos of the points within a given cells and should strategize the
most likely placement of the AA based on observed wetland features surrounding the point. Once in the field
and the area surrounding the point has been identified to be suitable for sampling (see Site Evaluation
Guidelines above), the crew will establish the AA to bound further sampling. The edge of the AA can be up to
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 8
Appendix E - 12
60 m from the original point, but the AA must be located in the closest possible suitable wetland area from
the original point.
AA establishment follows these general principles, in this order of priority:
• The AA should be established in only one target Ecological System. (Make sure to follow size criteria
within the Ecological System Key. Small patches of herbaceous or shrubby vegetation do not
necessarily mean multiple Ecological Systems. Changes in dominant soil type, however, can mean
multiple Ecological Systems.]
• The AA should be 0.5 ha (5000 m 2 ] where possible, but can be as small as 0.1 ha (1000 m 2 ] if
necessary.
• The maximum AA length is 200 m, regardless of shape.
• The minimum AA width is 20 m, regardless of shape.
• The AA should contain no more than 10% water > 1 m deep. This included water in a stream channel.
The AA can cross and contain a stream channel that is < 1 m deep (or the depth considered safe to
wade by the field crew, which may be different for different crew members and at different stream
velocities]. The AA should not cross streams that are too deep to wade.
• The AA should contain no more than 10% upland inclusions.
• The AA should be as close to the sample point as possible.
Before establishing an AA, the crew should take a GPS waypoint at the original sample point. This
waypoint is written in the center of the first page of the field form. If the AA is centered on the sample point,
this waypoint can also be written below for AA-Center. If the AA is not centered on the sample point, a new
GPS point will be taken at the approximate AA center. Make sure to note the UTM Zone of all GPS waypoints!
Standard AA Layout - 40-m radius circle
The standard AA is a 40-m radius circle surrounding the point. If the wetland area is not located exactly at the
point, the 40-m radius circle may be shifted so that the edge of the AA is up to 60 m from the sample point. If
the AA is not centered on the sample point, a GPS point will be taken at the approximate AA center and
recorded as AA-Center. To layout and mark the AA, two options may be used.
1. In open vegetation, one crew member will stand at the center of the AA holding the end of a 50-m
tape. The second crew member will walk north from the center of the AA carrying the 50-m tape
spool until they reach 40 m. Once they reach 40 m, the second crew member will walk in a circle,
flagging the boundary of the AA with either pin flags or flagging tape. At least eight flags should be
marked on the perimeter, one at each of the cardinal directions (N, E, S, W] and one at each of the
ordinal directions (NE, SE, SW, NW). More points along the boundary may be marked to aid in
visualizing the boundary of the AA, as the crew deems appropriate.
2. If vegetation is dense or difficult to walk through with a 50-m tape, the GPS unit maybe used to
layout the AA. A GPS point must first be taken at the center of the AA (either the original sample point
or the new AA center]. Once the center point is taken, the crew can use the "GO TO" function on the
GPS unit and walk away from the center point heading north until they are 40 m from the point. They
can then walk in a circle around the point, always keeping their distance from the center at 40 m, but
moving either clockwise or counter clockwise around the point. At least eight flags should be marked
on the perimeter, one at each of the cardinal directions (N, E, S, W] and one at each of the ordinal
directions (NE, SE, SW, NW]. More points along the boundary may be marked to aid in visualizing the
boundary of the AA, as the crew deems appropriate.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 9
Appendix E - 13
Alternate AA Layout 1 - Rectangle
If a 40-m radius circle does not fit within the wetland area, crews may decide to use a rectangular shape to
mark out the AA. Rectangle dimensions should reflect the target AA size of 0.5 ha [5000 m 2 ). For example, a
square AA should be 71 m on each side (71 x 71 = 5041]. If the wetland is 50 m wide, the rectangle should be
50 x 100 m. The maximum length of a rectangular AA is 200 m and the minimum width is 20 m. Beyond 200
m length, the wetland may be highly variable and too difficult to assess in one visit. Less than 20 m width is
too difficult to establish the vegetation plot. Rectangular AAs may be centered on the point or the their edges
may be up to 60 m from the point, depending on the wetland area. Rectangular AAs should only be used
where the wetland area is generally straight and the size of the AA is not compromised by bends in the
wetland boundary. The AA boundary may be marked out using either the 50-m tape or the GPS unit in a
manner similar to that listed above for circular AAs. The boundary of the AA should be flagged as often as
necessary so the boundary is easy to visualize. GPS waypoints should be taken at each of the four corners of
rectangular AAs and their coordinates should be written down on page 1 of the field form under AA-1, AA-2,
AA-3, and AA-4.
Alternate AA Layout 2 - Freeform shape
If the wetland area is smaller than 0.5 ha or if the wetland is larger than 0.5 ha, but the wetland boundaries
contain numerous bends that complicate AA establishment, the shape of the AA can be determine by the
wetland or Ecological System boundaries themselves or can be ovoid in shape. This is considered a freeform
AA shape. If the wetland or Ecological System occurrence is small, the entire wetland will become the AA. If
the wetland is larger but oddly shaped, the crew must first estimate the general dimensions of the wetland
using the aerial photos provided and strategize about the best way to lay out a 0.5 ha (5000 m 2 ] AA. Based on
this estimate, the crew will walk the perimeter of the AA with the GPS in TRACK mode, flagging the edges as
they walk. Once the perimeter is walked and the shape completed, the GPS unit will calculate the area of the
shape and the crew can adjust one edge if need be to create a 0.5 ha AA. The GPS track will be saved on the
GPS unit and named by the point code (e.g., SRM-603-01133).
Once the AA is established, the crew will check off the dimensions of the AAon the field form and whether the
point is one of the following:
• Within target population (AA centered at point)
• Within target population (AA not centered at point)
• Within 60 m of target population (AA shifted, point outside)
The crew should make any notes necessary to describe how the AA was established and the reasoning behind
the AA shape in the box for AA Placement and Dimensions Comments. This will be particularly important
for freeform AAs in the event that the GPS track is lost.
5.3. Photos of the Assessment Area
For every AA, regardless of shape, four photographs will be taken on the edge of the AA looking in. The
photos can be taken while walking the perimeter of the AA, if both crew members are walking the edge at the
same time (i.e., if they are using the GPS unit to establish the boundary). If one crew member is holding the
end of the 50-m tape, the crew must take the photos once the AA boundary is established. It is essential that
two people participate in taking the photographs.
A photo placard will be held in all four of the official AA photo (Figure 2). Photo placards will be placed in the
very corner of the photo, taking up only a small portion of the frame, with as little arm or body visible as
possible. The point code should be written on in full on the first line of the placard (e.g., SRM-603-01133). The
second line of the placard will contain the aspect that the photo is facing and the location of the photo (e.g.,
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 10
Appendix E - 14
140°/AA-4; 300°/AA-l; 90°/AA-l). Aspect should be rounded to the nearest 5 degrees in all photo points
[note first photo in example below should be rounded to 140°]. Make sure to set the declination of your
compass. Date should be written as month / day / 2010 (e.g., 7/7/2010; 6/24/2010].
Figure 2. Example AA photos. Note placement of photo placard in corner and information written on placard.
For each of the four photos taken, the crew will record the photo number on the field form (AA-1, AA-2, AA-
3, AA-4] and the aspect that the photo is taken. The photo number is visible on the camera's screen when it is
placed in view or playback mode and when data about the photos are shown. Remember that the photo
number is NOT the sequential number based on the count of photos taken since the camera was last erased. The
photo number often starts with a three digit number, a dash, and then a four or five digit number. Only the last
four or five digit number is necessary to write down on the form. Each State field coordinator should ensure that
the crews are familiar with the actual photo number. If sequential numbers are written on the field form, this
data will be meaningless. In addition to the photo number, the crew will take a GPS waypoint at each photo
location. These will also be recorded on the field form under GPA Coordinates of Target Point and Assessment
Area. Additional photos will be taken as need to document the wetland and surrounding landscape. These
do not need to contain the placard, but should be noted on the form with a GPS waypoint and comment.
Additional details based on the AA layout are explained below.
For a standard 40-m radius circle AA, the photographs will be taken facing the cardinal directions [N, E, S,
W). The order of the photos does not matter. Waypoints should be taken along with the photos.
For a rectangular AA, the photos will be taken at the four corner points looking in at an angle across the AA.
If AA establishment took place before taking photos, the four GPS waypoints will have already been taken
because they mark the corners of the AA. If photos are taken during AA establishment, the GPS points and
photos will be taken at the same time. For long skinny rectangular AAs, two additional AA photos can be
taken on the long sides of the AA looking across, since the end corner points will be located in two close sets
of points separated from each other by a long distance. These photos should be noted as additional photos
and GPS waypoints should be taken.
For freeform AAs, the four photos and GPS waypoints should be taken at evenly spaced intervals in locations
that best fit the shape of the AA. Where possible, these can be placed on the cardinal directions, but do not
need to be. If the shape is ovoid, the photos should be at the approximate ends and sides.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 11
Appendix E - 15
5.4. Environmental Description and Classification of the Assessment Area
The top of the second page of the field form contains environmental descriptors and classification
information. Guidance is given below. For any environmental descriptor or classification where there is
doubt, ambiguity, or further explanation is necessary, use the comment field at the bottom of the page.
GPS Elevation: One elevation reading for the AA, taken from the GPS unit. It may be useful to write the
elevation on the front of the form when taking waypoints of the AA. If not, turn the unit on again and
record the elevation.
Topographic position: Pick one from the list below that best matched the site.
Slope Intermediate slope position, not the toe of the slope but actually on a sloping face. (Low,
mid or high slope.)
Toeslope Outermost gently inclined surface at base of a slope. In profile, commonly gentle and linear
and characterized by alluvial deposition. (Alluvial toeslope.)
Channel wall Sloping side of above a channel. (Bank.)
Channel bed Bed of single or braided watercourse commonly barren of vegetation and formed of
modern alluvium. (Narrow valley bottom, gully arroyo.)
Low level Valley floor or shoreline representing the former position of an alluvial plain, lake, or
shore. (Terrace, low flat.)
Basin floor Nearly level to gently sloping, bottom surface of a basin. (Depression.)
Slope and Aspect 1 and 2: The field form contains two places to record slope for assessment areas that have
two general slopes (e.g., for a riparian area, the wetland might slope down to the river channel and might also
slope with the general gradient and direction of the river.) The first slope and aspect are mandatory, the
second set are optional. Both are recorded in degree, not percent. Slope is measured either with a clinometer
or a compass; aspect is measured with a compass. Make sure to set the declination on your compass.
Ecological System: Select the Ecological System targeted in the survey. This information also occurs on the
first page of the form, but here there is a place to note the percent of the AA occupied by upland inclusions
and areas of deep water > 1 m. Circle High, Med, or Low to denote confidence in classification and explain in
the comments section below.
Cowardin Classification: Record the appropriate Cowardin classification codes, using the definitions
provided in Appendix C. The Cowardin classification should be applied to patched larger than 0.1 ha (1000
m 2 ), but no smaller. This area should also upland inclusions. The final total of percentages should equal 100%
of the AA. Circle High, Med, or Low to denote confidence in classification and explain in the comments section
below.
HGM Class: Select the appropriate HGM Class using the key provided in Appendix D. Try to pick only one
dominant HGM Class. Circle High, Med, or Low to denote confidence in classification and explain in the
comments section below. Note that additional classification and metrics apply to AAs in the Riverine HGM Class.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 12
Appendix E - 16
5.5. Riverine Specific Classification of the Assessment Area
Specific classification is applied to AAs in the Riverine HGM class. Some Riverine Class AAs will include the
channel or be located adjacent to a channel. Others may be in a floodplain, but not located near the channel.
Answer all questions possible based on available evidence in a surrounding the AA. These questions should
be answered based on best professional judgment and do not require exact measurements.
Confined vs. Unconfined Valley Setting: Streams in confined [Figure 3) and unconfined [Figure 4) settings
behave very differently. There are two pieces of information necessary to determine whether a stream is in a
confined or unconfined setting. This first is bankfull width, the second is valley width. It is not necessary to
measure either one precisely in order to make a determination about confined or unconfined status of a
stream. Estimate these widths as precisely as is necessary to determine whether the valley width is greater or
less than 2x the bankfull width. Bankfull width is the width of a stream channel at the point where over-bank
flow begins during a flood event. Bankfull indicators may include: the lower limit of perennial vegetation,
stain lines, moss or lichen, a change in particle size, etc. Valley width is the width of the topographic
floodplain, the extent of the area where water could easily flood. In confined valley setting, valley width is less
than 2x bankfull width. In unconfined valley settings, valley width is greater than 2x bankfull width. See
Figure 5 for a graphical illustration of these components.
Hydrologic Regime: Select perennial, intermediate, or ephemeral based on best professional judgment and
evidence observed onsite.
Wadable vs. Non-wadable stream: Note whether the AA is located on both sides of a wadable stream (< 1 m
deep], on one side of a non-wadable stream, or is located on one side of a stream but not adjacent to the
channel.
Figure 3. Example of a confined valley setting.
Figure 4. Example of an unconfined valley setting.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 13
Appendix E - 17
topographic floodplain
bankfull
' elevation
bankfull depth
Figure 5. Graphical illustration of bankfull width and the topographic floodplain.
5. 6. Vegetation Zones within the Assessment Area
Identify and describe the major vegetation zones within the AA. Vegetation zones often consist of more than
one plant species, but some zones can be mono-specific. A vegetation zone should be described if it meets the
following rules:
la. The plant zone is dominated by a stratum distinctly different from the stratum that dominates other
plant zones; OR
lb. The plant zone is dominated by the same stratum as other plant zones, BUT each plant zone is
dominated by different species AND the average height of the dominant species differs by > 1 m
(e.g., Typha latifolia vs.Juncus balticus).
2. The plant zone makes up more than 5% of the AA (e.g., 250 m 2 for an AA of 0.5 ha).
3. Each individual patch of the plant zone is greater than 10m 2 .
For each zone identified, note the physiognomy of the dominant stratum, the dominant species (one or two,
use abbreviates if need to fit more than one species on the form), and the percent of the AA it occupies.
Percents should total 100% of the AA. Use the following major physiognomic classes:
• Forest/Woodland (trees or shrubs > 5 m tall occupy > 30% cover)
• Shrubland (shrubs 0.5-5 m tall occupy > 30% cover)
• Dwarf Shrubland (shrubs < 0.5 m tall occupy > 30% cover)
• Herbaceous (e.g., graminoides, forbs, ferns dominate)
• Nonvascular (bryophytes, cryptogrammic crusts dominate)
• Submerged / Floating (rooted or floating aquatics dominant, this does not include emergent veg)
• Sparsely Vegetated (including bear ground or vegetation cover < 5 %)
5.7. Assessment Area Drawing and Description
Provide a drawing of the assessment area, including major vegetation zones, direction of drainage into
wetland, soil pit placement, and vegetation plot placement. Anthropogenic features like culverts, berms, or
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 14
Appendix E - 18
impoundments should also be included in the sketch. Also, indicate any major vegetation zones on the aerial
photo of the AA.
For the assessment area description and comments, describe the wetland type, dominant vegetation, general
location, any notable feature about the wetland that may not have been captured in the classification or other
information on the first two pages. Also note surrounding vegetation and land use. This is the best place to
sum up the major characteristics of the site in paragraph form.
Section 6: Landscape Context Assessment
la. Landscape Connectivity: This metric measures the percent of unfragmented landscape within 500
meters of the AA [non-riverine) or the degree to which the riverine corridor above and below a floodplain
area exhibits connectivity with adjacent natural systems (riverine). Use either metric la. or metric lb.
depending on the HGM class.
la. Non-riverine wetlands : The intensity of human activity in the landscape often has a proportionate impact
on the ecological processes of natural systems. The percentage of altered landscape (e.g., anthropogenic
patches) provides an indirect estimate of connectivity among natural ecological systems. To assess this
metric, estimate the percent unfragmented area within a 500 meter envelope surrounding the AA. Identify
the largest unfragmented block that contains theAA and estimate its percentage of the total area within the
500 m envelope. Well traveled dirt roads count as fragmentation, but hiking trails can be included in
unfragmented blocks. Estimate the landscape connectivity and enter the percent on the form.
lb. Riverine wetlands (where the channel is within or adjacent to the AA): For Riverine wetlands, landscape
connectivity is the continuity of the riparian corridor 500 m upstream and 500 m downstream of the AA. Of
special concern is the ability of wildlife to enter the riparian area at any place within 500 m of the AA and to
move easily through adequate cover along the riparian corridor from either upstream or downstream. Refer
to maps provided to estimate the percent of anthropogenic, non-buffer patches within the riparian corridor
(the width of the geomorphic floodplain) 500 m upstream and downstream of the AA. Anthropogenic patches
include heavily grazed pastures, roads, bridges, urban/industrial development, agriculture fields, and utility
right-of-ways. To determine, identify any non-buffer patches (Table 1) within the riparian corridor both
upstream and downstream of the AA. Record their lengths in the table provided on the field form and sum all
patches. Specify if the patch occurs on the right or left bank (R/L). For one-sided AAs, only consider one side
of the channel.
lb, lc, and Id. Buffer Index: This metric calculates the overall area and condition of the buffer immediately
surrounding the AA using three measures: percent of AA with buffer (buffer extent), average buffer width,
and buffer condition. Wetland buffers are vegetated, natural (non-anthropogenic) areas that surround a
wetland (Table 1).
lb. Buffer Extent : This metric can be assessed first using aerial photography but must be verified in the field.
Visually estimate the total percentage of the AA perimeter that adjoins land cover types that provide buffer
functions (Table 1). To be considered as a buffer, a suitable land cover type must be at least 30 m wide. For
Riverine wetlands, do not include the area immediately upstream or downstream as part of the buffer. Only
consider areas on one side of the channel or the other. If the AA only represents one side of a channel, only
consider the buffer on that side of the channel. Enter the estimate in the space provided on the form.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 15
Appendix E - 19
lc. Buffer Width : This metric can be assessed first using aerial photography but must be verified in the field.
Where buffers exist, visually estimate the average distance between the edge of the AA and the edge of the
buffer at eight evenly spaced intervals (up to 200 m from the AA]. For Riverine wetlands, do not include the
area immediately upstream or downstream as part of the buffer. Only consider areas on one side of the
channel or the other. If the AA only represents one side of a channel, only consider the buffer on that side of
the channel. See Table 2 for land covers included and excluded from buffers. Enter the estimates in the table
on the form and calculate the average.
Id. Buffer Condition : Check one statement from each column on the form that best describes the buffer
condition. Only consider buffer areas from lb and lc above.
Table 1. Land covers that should be included and excluded from wetland buffer calculations.
Examples of Land Covers
Examples of Land Covers
Included in Buffers
Excluded from Buffers
> Additional wetland/riparian area
• Commercial developments
< Natural upland habitats
• Residential developments
> Nature or wildland parks
• Paved roads
> Bike trails
• Dirt roads
> Foot trails
• Railroads
• Horse trails
• Parking lots
> Open rangeland with light grazing
• Fences that interfere with the movements of
> Swales and ditches
wildlife
• Open water
• Sound walls
> Vegetated levees
• Intensive agriculture (row crops, orchards,
vineyards)
• Dryland farming
• Horse paddocks, animal feedlots
• Rangeland with intensive grazing
• Lawns
• Golf courses
• Sports fields
• Urbanized parks with active recreation
• Paved or heavily used pedestrian/bike trails
(frequent traffic]
le. Natural Cover within a 100 m Envelope: The complexity and composition of surrounding vegetation
can help to buffer a wetland from potential impacts. Using the table on the form, estimate the total percent of
natural cover within a 100 m envelope of the AA, then break that percent down by the various types listed.
Estimate the total combined cover then wetland and upland covers separately. This measure applies to the
entire 100 m envelope and not just buffer land covers.
If. Landscape Stressors within a 500 m Envelope: Stressors within the landscape can have a strong effect
on wetlands. Using the table on the form, estimate the scope and severity of each landscape stressor within a
500 m envelope of the AA. See Table 2 for scope and severity ratings.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 1 6
Appendix E - 20
Table 2. Scope and severity ratings for all stressor categories.
Scope of Disturbances
5
Pervasive - Affects nearly all (>75%) of the buffer or AA.
4
Large - Affects most (>50-75%) of the buffer or AA.
3
Moderate - Affects much (>25-50%) of the buffer or AA.
2
Restricted - Affects some (>10-25%) of the buffer or AA.
1
Small -Affects a small (1-10%) portion of the buffer or AA.
Nil - Little or no observed effect (<1%) on the buffer or AA.
Severity of Disturbances
4
Extreme - likely to extremely degrade, destroy, or eliminate the wetland.
3
Serious - likely to seriously degrade or reduce wetland function or condition.
2
Moderate - likely to moderately degrade or reduce wetland function or condition.
1
Slight - likely to only slightly degrade or reduce wetland function or condition.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 1 7
Appendix E - 21
Section 7: Vegetation Assessment
7.1. Determining Placement of the Vegetation Plot
Intensive assessments involve the collection of plant species cover and composition data. The vegetation plot
used for the REMAP project is adapted from the flexible-plot method developed by Peet et al. (1998]. The
entire plot measures 20 m x 50 m (1,000 m 2 = 0.1 ha]. The plot is comprised often 10 m x 10 m modules (100
m 2 = 0.01 ha]. In general, an AA area consisting of a 0.5 ha circular plot will hold a standard vegetation plot,
consisting of a two by five array of ten 10 mx 10 m modules (Figure 6]. For the purposes of the REMAP
project, we are only measuring vegetation in four intensive modules.
XP2
m
#10
#9
#8
#7
#6
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
50 m
XP1
50 m
Figure 6. Schematic of the 20 m x 50 m vegetation plot with a two by five array often 10 m x 10 m modules.
Note the location of the and 50 m ends and XP1 and XP2 for cross plot waypoints and photos.
The location and layout of the vegetation plot within the AA is based on the AA size and site characteristics.
In most AAs, a single standard vegetation plot will be used to assess the vegetation of the AA. For situations
where AAs are not 0.5 hectare circular plots, alternate plot configurations may be required, such as changing
the shape of the plot array. The plot will be subjectively placed within the AA to maximize abiotic/biotic
heterogeneity. Capturing heterogeneity within the plot ensures adequate representation of local micro-
variations produced by such things as hummocks, water tracks, side-channels, pools, wetland edge, micro-
topography, etc. in the floristic data. The following guidelines will be used to determine plot locations within
theAA 2 :
• The plot should be located in a representative area of the AA which incorporates as much
microtopographic variation as possible.
• If the AA is homogeneous and there is no direction or orientation evident in the vegetation, the plot
should be centered within the AA and laid out either N-S or E-W using the second hand on a watch to
determine which direction (00-29 seconds = N-S orientation; 30-59 seconds = E-W orientation].
Simply look at the watch and the first number you see will determine the orientation. This ensures
the decision is made in a random fashion.
• If the AA is not homogeneous, is oddly shaped, or is directional (i.e. follows a stream], the plot should
be oriented so it adequately represents the wetland features. In the case of a riparian area, this may
mean along the stream bank or cutting across the stream obliquely.
• If the wetland has an irregular shape and the 20 m x 50 m plot does not "fit" within the AA, the 2x5
array of modules can be restructured to accommodate the shape of the AA. For example, a 1 x 5 array
2 Many of the guidelines are based on (Mack 2004a; Mack 2004b).
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 18
Appendix E - 22
of 100-m 2 modules can be used for narrow, linear areas and a 2 x 2 array of 100-m 2 modules can be
used for small, circular sites.
• The plot should attempt to capture the range of diversity within the AA, but should avoid crossing
over into the upland. No more than 10% of the plot should be in upland areas beyond the wetland. If
end modules do cross into the upland, these should not be sampled as intensive modules.
• If a small patch of another wetland type is present in the AA (but not large enough to be delineated as
a separate ecological system type], the plot should be placed so that at least a portion of the patch
was in the plot.
Detailed examples of how to place the vegetation plot based on these rules are provided in Figures 7 through
13 to aid in decision making. These diagrams show examples of how to locate standard or alternate plots
within different kinds of AAs based the placement rules described above. Alternate plot configurations are
used only when the standard plot will not fit into the AA. Note for clarity that the leading text for each
diagram, or set of related diagrams, begins with the plot placement rule. The symbols depicted in the legend
below are used in all of the plot placement diagrams (Figure 6). All diagrams and accompanying text courtesy
of Teresa Magee, US EPA Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon.
Forb or Graminoid
Shrub
Tree
Water
Figure 7. Legend for Figures 8 through 13.
Standard plot, centered in AAfor homogeneous vegetation or mosaic. When the vegetation and abiotic features
are homogeneous or distributed in a uniform or random mosaic pattern, a standard plot should be centered
in the AA (Figure 8). For example, shrub-scrub, cattail marsh, grass-sedge wetlands, wet prairie, fen, forest
communities, etc.
Standard Plot
j/ r ^C ^*
BE* _jl VSaSp i
5* <T ■wm/T Bf>E
-— " ^~^-^
AA Y\
1
\ 1 J
\ \(
POINT
k. V- r* "
4 =-»■■**■ V ,' i. fir
A^Li , ^'"L^^^P
Wetland Boundary
fc*&B
100 m
Figure 8. Standard plot centered in AA in homogeneous or mosaic vegetation.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 19
Appendix E - 23
Standard plot, placed within AA to include as many vegetation or community patch types as possible. When the
vegetation is organized in distinct patches, lay out the plot so that it proportionally represents patch types for
the AA as much as possible (Figure 9). Example situations include patches of shrub-scrub or trees in
emergent wetlands, a variety of distinct emergent or shrub plant communities interspersed in the AA, etc.
Wetland Boundary
Standard plot
Figure 9. Standard plot placed in AA to include multiple vegetation or community patches.
A = Circular AA, B= Rectangular AA.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 20
Appendix E - 24
Standard plot, placed within AA so long axis parallels primary environmental gradient or is perpendicular to
vegetation zonation. If the AA occurs along an environmental gradient, like a lake shore or the zones of a marsh,
lay out the standard vegetation plot so the long axis follows the gradient and cuts across multiple vegetation
zones. In the examples below, the vegetation plot is lay out so the long axis captures the gradient from close to
the lake edge to farther from the lake edge (Figure 10] or from high marsh to low marsh (Figure 11].
Figure 10. Standard plot placed in AA so long axis of plot parallels primary environmental gradient.
jfflhJjL
\ \ a
\
*3?S
^te ■
3f^fQ^]fugU\ Wetland Bour
dary
— POINT
~~~~ AA
Standard Plot
-
1
■;i"
•1
rrrp IL
ft IV.
PS^^iM
DD m
Figure 11. Standard plot placed in AA with long axis of plot perpendicular to vegetation zonation.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 21
Appendix E - 25
Placement of an alternate plot within theAA. If the AAhas an irregular shape (e.g., long narrow riparian strip,
lake edge, wetland smaller than 0.1 ha) that is incompatible with the standard plot configuration, an alternate
plot configuration must be selected. For example, modules may be placed individually or in groupings other
than the 2x5 array of the standard plot. Modules may be disarticulate to fit in a free-form shaped AA (Figure
12) or arranged as one long row in a narrow riparian area (Figure 13). To facilitate comparisons among AAs,
the number of modules making up a standard plot or any alternate plot configuration should, normally, be the
same (four 100-m 2 intensive modules and up to ten modules in total) so that equal levels of sample effort are
maintained across AAs.
POINT
Wetland Boundary = Assessment Area
Alternate plot with 10
disarticulated
modules
Figure 12. Alternate plot placed in AA that is the boundary of wetland that is < 0.1 ha. For this situation, the
alternate plot configuration is defined by arranging as many 100-m 2 modules as will fit into the shape of AA,
which is equivalent to the wetland boundary.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 22
Appendix E - 26
Figure 13. Alternate Plot placed in rectangular AA in a narrow riparian wetland.
7.2 Laying Out and Documenting the Vegetation Plot
To lay out the vegetation plot, begin by stretching the 50-m tape down the center line of the plot. One crew
member will hold the end of the 50-m tape and the second will walk in the direction both crew members
decide best captures the vegetation. It will be easy to walk a straight line in open vegetation, but in dense
woody vegetation, this will require constant checking to ensure the line is straight and on bearing. The tape
should then be staked in place with landscaping staples.
Once the center line is established, the 10-m rope will be used to mark out the modules. Starting at one
end of the tape, one crew member holds the end of the 10-m rope on the center line while the other walks out
perpendicular to the center line. The direction of this 10-m line should be check by the crew member along
the center line. Once at 10 m and perpendicular to the center line, the second crew member will place a pin
flag or use flagging tape to mark the corner of the plot. Both crew members can then walk down length of the
plot, one crew member along the center line and one 10 m from the center line, and flag the boarders of the
plot at 10-m intervals. This is easy in open vegetation, but in dense woody vegetation, the second crew
member may have to return to the center line and walk along the center line until the next 10-m interval. Pin
flags or flagging tape should be used both along the center line and along the outside edge to mark the
modules. After one side of the plot is laid out, the crew then walks back towards the beginning, laying out the
second side of the plot.
Once the vegetation plot is laid out, GPS waypoints and photos should be taken of the plot in four locations:
the m end, the 50 m end and two cross plot locations called XP1 and XP2. These photos and waypoints
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 23
Appendix E - 27
should be taken in a manner consistent with the AA photographs (see Section 5.3 and Figure 2). Additional
photos can be taken of the vegetation plot, but must be recorded on the field form with notations about their
location, either using a GPS waypoint or noting the module being photographed.
After taking photos and waypoints, the crew will decide which four of the ten modules will be selected for
intensive sampling. If the vegetation is homogeneous, intensive modules will be #s 3, 7, 9, and either 1 or 5,
giving the broadest spread of modules. If there are patches in the vegetation, the crew can decide which
should be sampled to best capture the range of vegetation. Crew members should note any pertinent
information about the plot layout on the form, including whether the plot was a standard 20 x 50 m plot was
used or whether an alternative configuration was needed. Crews should circle the intensive models selected
on the provided graphic. Lastly, crews should document whether the plot is representative of vegetation
within the AA and why the specific location was chosen.
7.3. Vegetation Plot Ground Cover and Vertical Strata
Within each of the four intensive modules, in depth information on the ground cover and vertical vegetation
strata will be recorded. This page comes before the species table within the field form, but is easier to fill out
after the module has been searched for species. The reason it is presented first is so the two pages of the
species table are facing each other, which is much easier for use in the field. There are several aspects of
ground cover to record per module. Guidance is provided below.
Cover of standing water of any depth, vegetated or not: This field is for any and all water within the
module, whether it is 0.5 cm or 70 cm deep. Using the cover classes provided at the top of the form, estimate
total cover of water. This total cover will then be broken down the two ways.
Cover of shallow vs. deep standing water, average depth of both classes: These fields are to separate the
cover of shallow standing water (< 20 cm or 0.2 m] from the cover of deep standing water (>20 cm or 0.2 m).
Using the cover classes provided, estimate the cover of both depth categories separately. For each depth
category, take up to four measurements of the water (in cm] and average those measurements to record the
average depth of shallow water and the average depth of deep water. Both pieces of information will fit in one
cell, separate by the slash.
Cover of open water with no vegetation, with emergent vegetation, and with submerged or floating
vegetation: These fields are to separate the cover of standing water into three categories, water with no
vegetation, water dominated by emergent vegetation, and water dominated by submerged or floating aquatic
vegetation. There will likely be places where both emergent and floating vegetation occurs in the same water.
Try to include areas dominated by one or the other. Using the cover classes provided, estimate the cover of
the three classes separately.
Cover of bare ground: Cover of bear ground will be estimated using cover classes for three separate
categories of bare ground: 1) soil, sand, or sediment; 2) gravel or cobble ~2-250 mm in diameter; and 3]
bedrock, rock, or boulders > 250 mm in diameter.
Cover of litter: Cover of little will be estimated using cover classes. This includes litter than is hidden
beneath vegetation. In some cases, this is an easy estimate. In cases where dense herbaceous vegetation
covers the plot, this is more difficult to determine, as this year's herbaceous vegetation may be completely
intermixed with litter from previous years. Litter can also include standing dead herbaceous vegetation,
particularly annual vegetation, which would become litter once it fell over.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 24
Appendix E - 28
Depth of litter: This is an average of the depth (in cm) of litter at four locations where litter occurs. The litter
should not be matted down first, but should reflect the height at which it occurs naturally.
Predominant litter type: Select the predominant litter type (C = coniferous, E = broadleaf evergreen, D =
deciduous, S = sod/thatch, F = forb). Sod/thatch is used for graminoid litter.
Cover of standing and downed woody debris: The cover of woody debris is estimated based on whether it
is standing or downed, and the diameter either at breast height or the average diameter of the debris. To
differentiate down debris from standing debris, use the 45° rule. If a tree is leaning more that 45° from
upright, it is considered downed woody debris. If it is leaning less that 45° from upright, it is considered a
standing dead tree or snag.
Cover of nonvascular species: The cover of non-vascular species ground will be estimated using the cover
classes. For each species group, make sure to look underneath vegetation. The cover of these species groups
is often underestimated because people do not look for them hiding among the leaves of graminoids or under
shrubs. Microalgae refers only to large algae like Chara spp. and not to single celled algae.
Vertical vegetation strata: The overall cover and average height class of each vertical stratum will be
estimated for the module. This is best done after all species have been identified and cover estimated. Any
given stratum can have up to 100% cover, but the overlaps within the stratum are ignored. The following
strata, which are based on both life form and height classes, will be used.
Tl = Dominant canopy trees (>5m and > 30% cover)
T2 = Sub-canopy trees (> 5 m but < dominant canopy height) or trees with sparse cover
51 = Tall shrub s or older tree saplings (2-5 m)
52 = Short shrubs or young tree saplings (0.5-2 m)
53 = Dwarf shrubs or tree seedlings (< 0.5 m)
HT = Herbaceous total
HI = Graminoids
H2 = Forbs
H3 = Ferns and fern allies
AQ = Submerged or floating aquatics
7.4. Vegetation Plot Species Table
Floristic measurements including presence/absence and abundance (i.e.., cover) of all vascular plant
species will be made within the four intensive modules. Sampling will begin in one 1-m 2 corner of the module
to focus the field crew's search. Once all species in that corner have been identified, the crew can move
throughout the entire module and each species identified will receive a check (V) or a one (1) in the
"Presence" column if it is encountered in the module. Nomenclature for all plant species will follow the
accepted standard for the State, which will be decided by the State field coordinator. All species will be
recorded on the field form using the fully spelled out scientific name.
Any unknown species will be entered on the field form with a descriptive name. If the genus of the species is
known, the descriptive name should include the genus name (e.g., Carex sp. or Aster sp). The descriptive
name should also include some identifiable characteristics to distinguish multiple unknown species from the
same genus (Carex sp. elongate back head or Carex sp. clustered brown head). If the genus is not known, the
descriptive name should include any descriptors necessary (fuzzy round basal leaves or purple united
corolla). All unknown species will be collected by the field crew either when the species is encountered or at
the end of the vegetation plot. If the species is not collected until the end of the plot, a marker or pin flag
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 25
Appendix E - 29
should be left to mark the spot of the unknown species for later collection. Even if the species appears to be
unidentifiable, the crew should still collect. The crew may find the same species further developed at a later
site and can compare the further developed specimen with the earlier voucher. The only species the crew
should not collect are those identified as or suspected to be federally or state listed species. All crew members
should be aware of the listed species in their State and should document occurrences with photographs.
All collected unknown species will receive a collection number, which will be a running sequential series of
numbers that starts at every site. This collection number will be written on the field form in the column "Coll
#". This number will also be written on a piece of tape along with the Point Code ID (e.g., SRM-603-01133)
and the date of collection. Fully written out, this tag will look like: SRM-603-01133 #4 6/25/10. The piece of
tape can be folded over slightly at both ends so that is does not completely stick to itself for ease of removal.
All unknown species should be properly collected for later identification and should include portions of the
roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits to the full extent possible. Proper collection technique will be
demonstrated in field training.
When all species within a module have been identified, cover will be visually estimated for the module using
the following cover classes (Peet et al. 1998). The visual aid provided in Figures 14 and 15 for estimating
cover can be helpful in the field.
1 =
trace (one or two individuals)
2 =
0-1%
3 =
>l-2%
4 =
>2-5%
5 =
>5-10%
6 =
>10-25%
7 =
>25-50%
8 =
>50-75%
9 =
>75-95%
10 =
>95%
Though noting presence in the first module may seem redundant (every species on the list will be within the
module), this column will be increasingly important as the crew moves on to the second, third, and forth
modules. Starting with the second module, the crew will record each of the species from the first module that
they encounter in the second module by placing a check (V) or a one (1) in the "Presence" column. The crew
may also add to the species list if additional species are encountered in the second module. This will also
receive a mark in the "Presence" column. Once the crew feels confident that all species have been identified,
the marks in this column will give the crew a list to use when estimating cover for the module.
After sampling each of the intensive modules, the remaining (i.e. residual) modules will be walked through
to document presence of any species not recorded in the intensive modules. Percent cover of these species
will be estimated over the entire 1000-m 2 plot.
Strata should be noted on the field form in the "Stratum" column for species that can occur in different strata
(primarily woody species), but is not necessary for species that can occupy only one stratum (like a
graminoid or forb species). For woody species, identify and estimate the cover of seedlings, saplings, and
mature individuals separately if they occur in different strata. This helps determine the extent of
regeneration.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 26
Appendix E - 30
Trace < 0.1%
■
1%
2%
4%
6%
■■
mi!
35%
□
75%
3
10%
45%
■
i i
W--
1 1 1
■ 1 1
85%
uB
15%
55%
95%
EEEEEE ^
■■
25%
65%
100%
Chart 1. Examples of Percent Cover Estimates. Each large square = 100 m 2
module, grid squares = 1 m 2 (i.e., one grid square = 1% cover in a module),
shaded areas represent cover of a vegetation stratum or of an individual species.
Figure 14. Examples of percent cover estimate.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 27
Appendix E - 31
• * *
• *
*
I* * •
• *
*
1%
3%
* •
• •
•• *
. t
• **
•
* •
•
■
*
*. •
•• *
*
* *
*••
* * ■
• * •
• • •
• ** *
: :*: •
• • *
* •
• •
* •
•_*'
• * • »
*
15%
20%
50%
Figure 15. Examples of percent cover estimate.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 28
Appendix E - 32
7.5. Additional Vegetation Metrics
2a. Regeneration of Native Woody Species: Select the statement on the form that best describes the
regeneration of native woody species within the AA. This is a place to give a more qualitative assessment of
regeneration.
2b. Extent of Browse on Woody Species: Estimate the extent of browse on woody species throughout the
entire AA. Using the table provided on the form, estimate browse on each species separately. Only include
woody species with >5% cover within the AA. After estimating individual species, estimate the extent of
browse on all woody species together.
2c. Vertical Overlap or Vegetation Strata: Based on the strata listed on the preceding page, estimate the
percent of the AA with vertically overlapping strata. Each strata must cover >5% of the AA to be counted.
Enter percents in the space provided on the form. The four values should total 100%.
2d. Horizontal Interspersion of Vegetation Zones: Refer to diagrams below (Figure 16) and circle the code
that best describes the horizontal interspersion of vegetation zones within the AA. Use the vegetation zones
identified on page 2 of the field form. Rules for defining vegetation zones are on page 10 of this field manual.
Along with vegetation zones, include zonesofopen water when evaluating interspersion.
1 /®if /
Rl R2
Figure 16. Diagrams of various levels of horizontal interspersion.
2e. Vegetation Stressors within the AA: Specific stressors within a wetland can have impact wetland
vegetation. Using the table on the form, estimate the scope and severity of each vegetation stressor within the
AA. See Table 2 on page 13 of this manual for scope and severity ratings.
Section 8: Hydrology Assessment
8.1. General Hydrology Metrics for All Wetland Types
3a. Water Inflow: Water inflow encompasses the forms or places of direct inputs of water to the AA. Inputs
of water affecting conditions during the growing season are especially important because these strongly
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 29
Appendix E - 33
influence structure and composition of wetland plant and animal communities. The water source metric,
therefore, focuses on conditions that affect growing season hydrology.
Natural water sources include precipitation, groundwater discharge, and flooding of the AA due to naturally
high flows, seasonal runoff, etc. Examples of unnatural sources include storm drains that empty directly into
the AA or into an immediately adjacent area. Identify all major water sources feeding the AA during the
growing season in the table provided on the form. Rank the top sources (up to three] as 1, 2, 3. Mark all
others present as 4 and those not present as NA. For discrete inlets (stream channels, springs, ditches, etc.],
count the number of each within the AA and a 100 m envelope of the AA. Enter NA for those not present. Mark
all inlets on the aerial photo and those within the AA on the site sketch. If there is an indication that inflow
during the growing season is controlled by artificial water sources, please explain in comments.
3b. Water Outflow: Whether or not water can leave the wetland and where is goes can also influence the
wetland composition and structure. Identify all major pathways through which water leaves the AA during
the growing season in the table provided on the form. Rank the top pathways (up to three] as 1, 2, 3. Mark all
others present as 4 and those not present as NA. For discrete outlets (stream channels, culverts, ditches, etc.],
count the number of each within the AA and a 100 m envelope of the AA. Enter NA for those not present. Mark
all outlets on the aerial photo and those in the AA on the site sketch. If there is an indication that outflow is
modified by anthropogenic disturbance, please explain in comments.
3c. Indicators of Inundation at Seasonal High Water: The characteristic frequency and duration of
inundation or saturation of a wetland during a typical year is a major driver of species composition.
Depressional, Lacustrine, and Riverine wetlands can have daily variations in water height that are governed
by diurnal increases in evapotranspiration and seasonal cycles that are governed by wet season rainfall and
runoff. Slope wetlands that depend on groundwater may have relatively slight seasonal variations in
hydroperiod. Walk the AA and identify all indicators of inundation at seasonal high water. Mark all indicators
present with a check. Mark those absent with NA. Refer to the ACOE Regional Supplement for indicator
descriptions. Use only indicators from the B group within the Regional Supplement. Based on the height of the
indicators, estimate the percent of the AA that is covered in standing water at the seasonal high (up to 100%
of the AA] as well as the percent of the AA that is covered with surface water at the time of sampling.
3d. Surface Water Turbidity: Select the statement on the form that best describes the turbidity of surface
water within the AA.
3e. Algal Growth: Select the statement on the form that best describes algal growth within surface water in
theAA.
3f. Hydrology Stressors within 500 m of the AA: Hydrology stressors can occur at scales far larger than the
0.5 ha AA. For that reason, hydrology stressors should be identified when possible, from the entire 500 m
envelope. Certain stressors have more effect upstream tan downstream, while others are more damaging
downstream. Using the table on the form, estimate the scope and severity of each hydrology stressor within a
500 m envelope of the AA. See Table 2 on page 13 of this manual for scope and severity ratings.
8.2. Riverine Specific Hydrology Metrics
Two additional metrics will be collected in Riverine wetlands, where possible. The first is channel stability
and the second is entrenchment ratio. Channel stability can be filled out for AAs in Riverine wetlands that
include a channel or are adjacent to a channel. The stream does not have to be waded to assess many of the
variables in this metric. Entrenchment ration should only be measured in AAs that include a wadable channel.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 30
Appendix E - 34
3g. Channel Stability: This metric assesses the degree of channel aggradation [i.e., net accumulation of
sediment on the channel bed such that it is rising over time] or degradation (i.e., net loss of sediment from the
bed such that it is being lowered over time]. Every stable riverine channel tends to have a particular form in
cross section, profile, and plan view that is in dynamic equilibrium with the inputs of water and sediment. If
these supplies change enough, the channel will tend to adjust toward a new equilibrium form. An increase in
the supply of sediment, relative to the supply of water, can cause a channel to aggrade (i.e., the elevation of
the channel bed increases], which might cause simple increases in the duration of inundation for existing
wetlands, or complex changes in channel location and morphology through braiding, avulsion, burial of
wetlands, creation of new wetlands, spray and fan development, etc. An increase in water relative to sediment
might cause a channel to incise (i.e., the bed elevation decreases], leading to bank erosion, headward erosion
of the channel bed, floodplain abandonment, and dewatering of riparian habitats. For most riverine systems,
chronic incision (i.e., bed degradation] is generally regarded as more deleterious than aggradation because it
is more likely to cause significant decreases in the extent of riverine wetland and riparian habitats.
There are many well-known field indicators of equilibrium conditions, or deviations from equilibrium, that
can be used to assess the existing mode of behavior of a channel and hence the degree to which its
hydroperiod can sustain wetland and riparian habitats. To evaluate this metric, visually survey the AA for
field indicators of aggradation or degradation given on the form. Check "Y" for all those observed and "N" for
those not observed. Add any further explanation in the comments section.
3h. Channel Entrenchment: Entrenchment is a field measurement calculated as the flood-prone width
divided by the bankfull width. Bankfull width is the channel width at the height of bankfull flow. The flood-
prone channel width is measured at the elevation of twice the maximum bankfull depth. The process for
estimating entrenchment is outlined in Table 3 below and illustrated in Figure 17.
Table 3. Steps for estimating entrenchment ratio.
1. Estimate bankfull width.
This is a critical step requiring experience. If the stream is entrenched,
the height of bankfull flow is identified as a scour line, narrow bench, or
the top of active point bars well below the top of apparent channel banks.
If the stream is not entrenched, bankfull stage can correspond to the
elevation of a broader floodplain with indicative riparian vegetation.
Estimate or measure the distance between the right and left bankfull
contours.
2. Estimate max bankfull
depth.
Imagine a line between right and left bankfull contours. Estimate or
measure the height of the line above the thalweg (the deepest part of the
channel].
3. Estimate flood prone height.
Double the estimate of maximum bankfull depth from Step 2.
4. Estimate flood prone width.
Imagine a level line having a height equal to the flood prone depth from
Step 3. Note the location of the new height on the channel bank. Estimate
the width of the channel at the flood prone height.
5. Calculate entrenchment.
Divide the flood prone width (Step 4] by the max bankfull width (Step 1].
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 31
Appendix E - 35
Figure 17. Elements of calculating entrenchment ration. Illustration from Collins etal. 2008. California Rapid
Assessment Method for Wetlands v 5.0.2
Section 9: Physiochemical Assessment
9.1. Physiochemical Metrics
4a. Structural Patch Types within the AA: Using the worksheet on the form, mark all structural patch types
that occur within the AA. Check "Y" for all those observed and "N" for those not observed. See Table 4 for
patch type definitions. For patch types present in the AA, estimate their overall cover class in the AA. Photos
and comments are optional, but very helpful.
4b. Surface Water Turbidity: Select the statement on the form that best describes the turbidity of surface
water within the AA.
4c. Sediment Deposition: Walk the AA and estimate the extent of fresh sediment covering the AA, regardless
of source. Enter the estimate in the space provided on the form.
4d. Physiochemical Stressors within the AA:. Using the table on the form, estimate the scope and severity
of each physiochemical stressor within the AA. See Table 2 on page 13 of this manual for scope and severity
ratings.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 32
Appendix E - 36
Table 4. Descriptions of physical patch types potentially found within the AA.
Patch Type
Description
Open water - river / stream
Areas of flowing water associated with a sizeable channel.
Open water - tributary / secondary
channels
Areas of flowing water entering the main channel from a secondary source.
Open water - swales on floodplain
or along shoreline
Swales are broad, elongated, vegetated, shallow depressions that can sometimes help to
convey flood flow to and from vegetated floodplains. They lack obvious banks, regularly
spaced deeps and shallows, or other characteristics of channels. Swales can entrap water
after flood flows recede. They can act as localized recharge zones and they can sometimes
receive emergent groundwater.
Open water - oxbow / backwater
channels
Areas that hold stagnant or slow moving water from that has been partially or completely
disassociated from the primary river channel.
Open water - rivulets / streamlet
Areas of flowing water associated with a small, diffuse channel. Often occurring near the
outlet of a wet meadow or fen or at the very headwaters of a stream.
Open water - pond or lake
Medium to large natural water body.
Open water - pools
Areas that hold stagnant or slow moving water from groundwater discharge but are not
associated with a defined channel.
Open water - beaver pond
Areas that hold stagnant or slow moving water behind a beaver dam.
Active beaver dams
Debris damming a stream, clearly constructed by beaver (note gnawed ends of branches).
Beaver canals
Canals cut through emergent vegetation by beaver.
Debris jams / woody debris in
channel
Aggregated woody debris in stream channel deposited by high flows.
Pool / riffle complex
Deep, slow-moving pools alternating with shallow, fast-moving riffles along the relatively
straight course of a stream or river.
Point bars
A low ridge of sediment (sand or gravel) formed on the inner bank of a meandering stream.
Interfluves on floodplain
The area between two adjacent streams or stream channels flowing in the same general
direction.
Bank slumps or undercut banks in
channel or along shoreline
A bank slope is the portion of a stream or other wetland bank that has broken free from the
rest of the bank but has not eroded away. Undercuts are areas along the bank or shoreline
of a wetland that have been excavated by waves or flowing water.
Adjacent or onsite seeps/springs
Localized point of emerging groundwater, often on or at the base of a sloping hillside.
Animal mounds or burrows
Many vertebrates make mounds or holes as a consequence of their forage, denning,
predation, or other behaviors. The resulting disturbance helps to redistribute soil nutrients
and influences plant species composition and abundance.
Mudflats
An accumulation of mud of the edge of shallow waters, such as a lake or pond. Often
intermittently flooded and exposed.
Salt flats / alkali flats
Dry open areas of fine grained sediment and accumulated salts. Often wet in the winter
months or with heavy precipitation.
Hummock / tussock
In fens, a mound composed of organic material (peat) either created by Sphagnum, other
moss, or formed by sedges and grasses that have a tussock growth habit as they raise
themselves on a pedestal of persistent rhizomes and roots.
Water tracks / hollows
In fens, a depression found between hummocks or mounds which remains permanently
saturated or is inundated with slow moving surface water.
Floating mat
Mats of peat held together by roots and rhizomes of sedges. Floating mats are found along
the edges of ponds and lakes and are slowing encroaching into open water. The mats are
underlain by water and/ or very loose peat.
Marl/Limonite beds
Marl is a calcium carbonate precipitate often found in calcareous fens. Limonite forms in
iron fens when iron precipitates from the groundwater incorporating organic matter.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 33
Appendix E - 37
8.2. Soil Profile Descriptions and Groundwater Chemistry
At least two soil pits will be dug within the AA. The pits should be placed in or near the vegetation plot within
vegetation types captured by the plot. If the vegetation and soil surface appears relatively homogenous, only
two pits are necessary. If there is variability within the vegetation and soil, up to four soil pits should be dug
to capture the range of variation within the site. If the pit is dug within the vegetation plot, mark the module
number of the form. If the pit is dug outside the vegetation plot, take a GPS waypoint and record the waypoint
number. Mark all soil pits on the map. The pits can be dug before or after the vegetation plot is conducted
depending on the flow of the sampling day.
Soil pits should be dug with a 40-cm sharp shooter shovel. The pit should be only slightly larger than the
width of the soil on all sides to minimize disturbance to the ground surface. Pits will be dug to one shovel
length depth (35 to 40 cm] when possible. The core removed should be set down next to the pit, taking care
to keep all horizons intact and in order. A bucket auger can be used to examine the soil deeper in the profile if
needed to find hydric soil indicators. It is difficult to dig soil pits in areas with deep standing water.
Concentrate on areas near the water's edge if standing water is a significant part of the AA.
Following guidance in the ACOE Regional Supplement and the National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS] Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS 2010], identify and describe each distinct
layer in the soil pit. It is not necessary to name the layers with horizon designations unless you feel
comfortable with soil taxonomy. Measure and record the depth of each distinct layer. For each layer, record
the following information: 1] color (based on a Munsell Soil Color Chart] of the matrix and any redoximorphic
concentrations (mottles and oxidized root channels] and depletions; 2] the soil texture (using Appendix F];
and 3] any specifics about the concentration of roots, the presence of gravel or cobble, or any usual features
to the soil. Based on the characteristics, identify which, if any, of the hydric soil indicators occur at the pit. See
Appendix G for notes on hydric soil indicators commonly found in the Rocky Mountain region. If soil survey
information is known for the assessment area, write down the soil survey unit name and note whether the pit
matched the soil survey description.
Groundwater parameters will be measures in pits where groundwater is visible. Allow the pit to sit at least 15
minutes and up to one hour before measuring groundwater parameters. Once the pit has equilibrated as
much as possible, measure the distance to saturated soil and to free water. Saturated soil can be identified by
a sheen on the soil surface or water seeping an oozing into the pit. Free water is an approximation of the
groundwater table, but in some cases may not represent the true groundwater table because it can take many
hours for the water table to equilibrate. If free water is not observed, note whether the pit is dry or if it
appears to be slowly filling. If groundwater is evident in the pit, take a pH, EC, and temperature reading using
a handheld meter. Be sure to calibrate the meter periodically and keep the electrode clean at all times. A small
squirt bottle is helpful to carry in the field to keep the electrode clean before and after using it.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 34
Appendix E - 38
References
Brinson, M.M. (1993] A Hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers Technical
Report WRP-DE-4, Washington DC.
Comer, P. etal. (2003] Ecological Systems of the United States: a working classification of US terrestrial
systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
Collins, J.N. et al. (2008] California rapid assessment method (CRAM] for wetlands. Version 5.0.2. San
Francisco Estuary Institute. San Francisco, California. Available online at: http://www.cramwetlands.org/
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States, U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biological
Services, Washington D.C.
Faber-Langendoen, D. et al. (2009] NatureServe Level 2 and Level 3 Ecological Indicator Assessments:
Wetlands. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Faber-Langendoen, D. et al. (2008] Ecological performance standards for wetland mitigation: an approach
based on Ecological Integrity Assessments. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Hauer, F. R., et al. (2002]. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing
Wetland Functions of Riverine Floodplains in the Northern Rocky Mountains. ERDC/EL TR-02-21 , U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
Lemly, J. and J. Rocchio. (2009a] Field testing of the subalpine-montane riparian shrublands Ecological
Integrity Assessment (EIA] in the Blue River watershed, Colorado. Unpublished report prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Colorado Natural
Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Lemly, J. and J. Rocchio. (2009b] Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI] for headwater wetlands in the
Southern Rocky Mountains. Version 2.0: Calibration of selected VIBI models. Unpublished report prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Colorado
Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Mack, J.J. (2004a] Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 4: Vegetation index of biotic integrity (VIBI]
and tiered aquatic life uses (TALUs] for Ohio wetlands. Ohio Technical Report WET/2004-4. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio.
Mack, J.J. (2004b] Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 9: Field manual for the vegetation index of
biotic integrity for wetlands v. 1.3. Ohio Technical Report WET/2004-9. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000]. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77(1]:118-125
Peet, R.K. et al. (1998] A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure.
Castanea, 63: 262-274.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations.
Environmetrics, 8:167-95.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 35
Appendix E - 39
Stevens, D.L., Jr. and A.R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys overtime for aquatic resources. Journal of
Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 4:415-428.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. and A.R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources in the presence of
frame imperfections. Journal of American Statistical Association 99: 262-278.
Stoddard, J.L., D.P. Larsen, C.P. Hawkins, R.K. Johnson, and R.H. Norris. 2006. Setting Expectation for the
Ecological Condition of Streams: The Concept of Reference Condition.
Swetnam, T.W., CD. Allen, and J.L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied Historical Ecology: Using the Past to Manage for
the Future. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1189-1206.
Vance, L.K. 2009. A Landscape Integrity Model for Level I Wetland Assessment. Report to the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Helena, MT. xx pp. plus
appendices.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 36
Appendix E - 40
Example Field Forms
1. 2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REMAP SITE EVALUATION FORM
2. 2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REMAP WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT FIELD FORM
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 37
Appendix E - 41
2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REMAP SITE EVALUATION FORM
REMAP POINT CODE:
SURVEY DATE:
PAGE
OF
GPS COORDINATES AND PHOTOS
Point WP#:
UTM E:
UTM N:
Error (+/-):
Photo #s:
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES
Dominance of hydrophytic vegetation □ Yes □ No
List dominant species in each stratum. Refer to ACOE Regional Supplement for guidance on determining dominance.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Presence of hydric soils □ Yes □ No
Depth
(cm)
Matrix
Redox Concentrations
Color (moist)
Redox Depletions
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
%
Texture/ Remarks
SITE HYDROLOGY
Evidence of wetland hydrology □ Yes □ No
List any indicators of wetland hydrology. Refer to ACOE Regional Supplement for guidance on indicators.
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM AND HGM CLASSIFICATION
Ecological System Conf: High Med Low
SM Riparian Shrubland Fen Other:
Freshwater Marsh Wet Meadow Not wetland
HGM Class Conf:
Riverine
Depressional
High Med Low
Lacustrine
Slope
REFERENCE CONDITION CRITERIA
Does site meet reference condition criteria? □ Yes □ No
Roads and Highways
— 4x4, dirt >200m
— local, city >300 m
— highways >500 m
Hydrologic Modification
— canals, ditches >200 m
— reservoirs >1,000 m (only if wetland is downstream)
— water right point of use (wells, diversion points,
impoundments) >200 m
Land Cover
— high density residential >2,000 m
— low density residential / high use recreation >300 m
— crop agriculture / hay pastures >500 m
— timber harvest >2,000 m
Land Use
abandoned mines / tailings piles >500 m
active gravel pit, open pit, strip mining >1,000 m
evidence of heavy livestock use >200 m
COMMENTS ON SITE EVALUATION
Appendix E - 42
2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REMAP WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT FIELD FORM
LOCATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION
Point Code:
Site Name:
Date:
Surveyors: Weather Conditions:
Level 3 Ecoregion
Can Rockies
Mid Rockies
_South Rockies
_Wasatch/Uintah
State
Montana Colorado
Wyoming Utah
Ecological System
Wet Mdw
Marsh
Rip Shrub
Fen
General Location:
General Ownership:
USGSQuad Name:
County:
Specific Ownership:
USGS Quad Code:
Directions to Point and Access Comments:
GPS COORDINATES OF TARGET POINT AND ASSESSMENT AREA (NAD SI
UTM Zone )
Point WP#:
UTME:
UTM N: Error (+/-):
Point is:
Within target populat
Within target populat
Within 60 m of target
on (AA centered at point)
on (AA not centered at point)
population (AA shifted, point outside)
Dimensions of AA:
40 m radius circle
Rectangle, width length:
Other, describe below and take a GPS Track
AA-Center WP #:
UTME:
UTM N: Error (+/-):
UTM N: Error (+/-):
UTM N: Error (+/-):
UTM N: Error (+/-):
UTM N: Error (+/-):
Comments:
AA-1 WP #:
UTME:
AA-2 WP #:
UTME:
AA-3 WP #:
UTME:
AA-4 WP #:
UTME:
AA-Track Track Name:
AA Placement and Dimensions Comments:
PHOTOS OF ASSESSMENT AREA (Taken at four points on edge of AA looking in. Record WPsof each photo in table above.)
AA-1 Photo #:
Aspect:
Additional AA Photos and Comments:
AA-2 Photo #:
Aspect:
AA-3 Photo #:
Aspect:
AA-4 Photo #:
Aspect:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 1
Appendix E - 43
Point Code
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT AREA
GPS Elevation (m):
Slope l(deg):
Slope 2 (deg):
Topographic Position (see manual for list):
Aspect 1 (deg): Comment: _
Aspect 2 (deg): Comment: _
Ecological System (see manual for key and rules on inclusions)
Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
Subalpine-Montane Fen
Upland inclusion (% of AA: )
Conf: High Med Low
North American Arid West Emergent Marsh
Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
Open water > 1 m deep (% of AA: )
Cowardin Classification (see manual for list) Conf: High Med Low
Code % of AA Code % of AA
HGM Class (see manual for key and pick one) Conf: High Med Low
Riverine* Lacustrine Fringe
Depressional Slope
Flats Unknown
^Specific classification and metrics apply to the Riverine HGM Class
fi/l/£/?//V£SP£C/F/C CLASSIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Confined vs. Unconfined Valley Setting
Estimated Bankfull Width (m):
Estimated Valley Width (m):
_Confined Valley Setting (valley width < 2x bankfull width)
JJnconfined Valley Setting (valley width > 2x bankfull width)
Hydrologic Regime Conf: High Med Low
Perennial (streams that hold water throughout the year; water
in channel ~80% of the time)
Intermittent (stream that holds water during wet portions of the
year; water in channel 10-80% of the time)
Ephemeral (channel that holds water only during and
immediately after rain events; water in channel <10% of the
time)
Wadable vs. Non-wadable Stream:
AA represents:
Two sides of wadable stream
One side of non-wadable stream with channel
One side without channel
VEGETATION ZONES WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA (See manual for rules and definitions. Mark each zone on the site sketch.)
Zone 1 Physiognomy _
Zone 2 Physiognomy _
Zone 3 Physiognomy _
Zone 4 Physiognomy _
Zone 5 Physiognomy _
Dom spp: _
Dom spp: _
Dom spp: _
Dom spp: _
Dom spp: _
%of AA:_
% of AA: _
%ofAA:_
% of AA: _
%of AA:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 2
Appendix E - 44
Point Code
ASSESSMENT AREA DRAWING
Add north arrow and approx scale bar. Document vegetation zones, inflows and outflows, and indicate direction of drainage. Include sketch of
vegetation plot and soil pit placement.
ASSESSMENT AREA DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Note wildlife species observed:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010 Page 3
Appendix E - 45
Point Code
1. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ASSESSMENT
la. LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: NON-RIVERINE WETLANDS
For non-riverine wetlands, estimate the landscape connectivity within a 500 m envelope surrounding the AA. To determine,
identify the largest unfragmented block that includes the AA within the 500 m envelope and estimate its percent of the total
envelope. Well traveled dirt roads and major canals count as fragmentation, but hiking trails and small ditches can be included
in unfragmented blocks. Enter the estimate in the space provided at right. ►
la. LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: RIVERINE WETLANDS
For riverine wetlands, estimate the landscape
connectivity within 500 m upstream and
downstream of the AA. To determine, identify any
non-buffer patches (see field manual, Table XX)
within the riparian corridor both upstream and
downstream of the AA. Record their length in the
tables to the right and sum all patches. Specify if
the patch occurs on the right or left bank (R/L).
For one-sided AAs, only consider one side of the
channel.
Upstream
(R/L) Length (m)
Total:
Downstream
(R/L) Length (m)
Total:
Upstream:
Downstream:
Total length:
Landscape connectivity comments:
lb. BUFFER EXTENT
Estimate the extent of buffer land cover surrounding the AA (see field manual, Table XX, for buffer land covers). Each segment
must be > 30 m wide and > 5 long. For riverine wetlands, do not include the area immediately upstream or downstream within
the channel. For one-sided AAs, only consider one side of the channel. Enter the estimate in the space provided at right. ^
lc. BUFFER WIDTH
Estimate the buffer width (up to 200 m from AA) at eight evenly
spaced intervals where buffer land cover exists. For riverine wetlands,
do not include the area immediately upstream or downstream within
the channel. For one-sided AAs, only consider one side of the channel.
Average
width:
Id. BUFFER CONDITION
Check one statement from each column that best describes the buffer condition. Only consider buffer areas from lb and lc above.
Intact soils and little or no trash or refuse.
Abundant (>95%) cover native vegetation and little or no (<5%)
cover of non-native plants.
Substantial (75-95%) cover of native vegetation and low (5-25%)
cover of non-native plants.
Moderate (50-75%) cover of native vegetation.
Low (>50%) cover of native vegetation.
Intact or moderately disrupted soils, moderate or lesser amounts
of trash, OR minor intensity of human visitation or recreation.
Moderate or extensive soil disruption, moderate or greater
amounts of trash, OR moderate intensity of human use.
Barren ground and highly compacted or otherwise disrupted soils,
moderate or greater amounts of trash, moderate or greater
intensity of human use, OR no buffer at all.
Buffer comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 4
Appendix E - 46
Point Code
le. NATURAL COVER WITHIN A 100 M ENVELOPE
Using the table below, estimate the percent cover of each natural cover type within a 100 m envelope of the AA. This measure applies to the entire
100 m envelope and not just buffer land covers. Estimate the total combined cover then wetland and upland cover separately.
Natural Cover Type
Total
% Cover
Upland
% Cover
Wetland
% Cover
Total natural cover (breakdown by type below, note dominant species by type)
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Broadleaf evergreen forest
Mixed forest type
Shrubland
Perennial herbaceous
Annual herbaceous or bare (generally weedy and disturbed)
Natural cover comments (if different, note the dominant upland vegetation surrounding the entire wetland):
If. LANDSCAPE STRESSORS WITHIN A 500 M ENVELOPE
Using the table below, estimate the scope and severity of each landscape stressor within a 500 m envelope of the AA. See the field manual for scope
and severity ratings.
Landscape stressor categories
Scope
Seventy
Paved roads, parking lots, railroad tracks
Unpaved roads (e.g., driveway, tractor trail, 4-wheel drive roads)
Domestic or commercially developed buildings
Intensively managed golf courses, sports fields
Gravel pit operation, open pit mining, strip mining
Mining (other than gravel, open pit, and strip mining), abandoned mines
Resource extraction (oil and gas)
Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling, rotochopping, clearcut)
Logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees >50 cm dbh removed
Selective logging or tree removal with <50% of trees >50 cm dbh removed
Agriculture - tilled crop production
Agriculture - permanent crop (hay pasture, vineyard, orchard, nursery, berry field)
Agriculture - permanent tree plantation
Haying of native grassland
Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow lands dominated by exotic species
Heavy grazing/browse by livestock or native ungulates
Moderate grazing/browse by livestock or native ungulates
Light grazing/browse by livestock or native ungulates
Intense recreation or human visitation (ATV use / camping / popular fishing spot, etc.)
Moderate recreation or human visitation (high-use trail)
Light recreation or human visitation (low-use trail)
Dam sites and flood disturbed shorelines around water storage reservoirs
Beetle-killed conifers
Evidence of recent fire (<5 years old)
Other:
Landscape stressor comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 5
Appendix E - 47
Point Code
2. VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
VEGETATION PLOT
GPS COORDINATES OF VEGETATION PLOT (NAD 83 UTM Zone .
Om WP#:_
XP1 WP#:_
50 m WP#:_
XP2 WP#:
UTM E:_
UTME:.
UTME:.
UTM E:
UTM N:_
UTMN:_
UTMN:_
UTM N:
Error (+/-):_
Error (+/-):_
Error (+/-):_
Error (+/-):_
PHOTOS OF VEGETATION PLOT
m Photo #:
XP1 Photo #:
50 m Photo #:
XP2 Photo #:
Aspect:
Aspect:
Aspect:
Aspect:
Additional AA Photos and Comments:
LAYOUT OF VEGETATION PLOT
Plot layout (circle intensive modules and note any changes to the plot layout, i.e. 1x5 or 2x2 plot)
XP2
#10
#9
#8
#7
#6
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
E
50 m o
XP1
50 m
Plot representativeness (discuss decisions for placement and whether the plot is representative of AA)
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 6
Appendix E - 48
Point Code
VEGETATION PLOT GROUND COVER AND VERTICAL STRATA
Module ->
R
Cover Classes 1: trace 2: 0-<l% 3: l-<2% 4: 2-<5% 5: 5-<10% 6: 10-<25% 7: 25-<50% 8: 50-<75% 9: 75-<95% 10: >95%
Height Classes 1: <0.5 m 2: 0.5-lm 3: 1-2 m 4: 2-5 m 5: 5-10 m 6: 10-15 m 7: 15-20 m 8: 20-35 m 9: 35-50 m 10: >50 m
Cover Class (unless otherwise noted) -^
C
C
C
C
C
Ground Cover
Cover of standing water of any depth, vegetated or not
Cover of shallow standing water < 0.2 m / average depth shallow water (cm)
/
/
/
/
/
Cover of deep standing water > 0.2 m / average depth deep water (cm)
/
/
/
/
/
Cover of open water with no vegetation
Cover of water with emergent vegetation
Cover of water with submerged or floating aquatic vegetation
Cover of bare ground - soil / sand / sediment
Cover of bare ground - gravel / cobble (~2-250 mm)
Cover of bare ground - bedrock / rock / boulder (>250 mm)
Cover of litter
Depth of litter (cm) - average of 4 locations where litter occurs
Predominant litter type (C = coniferous, E = broadleaf evergreen, D = deciduous,
S = sod/thatch, F = forb)
Cover of standing dead trees (> 5 cm diameter at breast height)
Cover of standing dead shrubs or small trees (< 5 cm diameter at breast height)
Cover of downed coarse woody debris (fallen trees, rotting logs, > 5 cm diameter)
Cover of downed fine woody debris (< 5 cm diameter)
Cover bryophytes (all cover, including under vegetation or litter cover)
Cover lichens (all cover, including under vegetation or litter cover)
Cover macroalgea (all cover, including under vegetation or litter cover)
Height / Cover ■>
H
C
H
C
H
C
H
C
H
C
Vertical Vegetation Strata
(Tl) Dominant canopy trees (> 5 m and > 30% cover)
(T2) Sub-canopy trees (> 5 m but < dominant canopy height) or trees with sparse cover
(SI) Tall shrubs or older tree saplings (2-5 m)
(S2) Short shrubs or young tree saplings (0.5-2 m)
(S3) Dwarf shrubs or tree seedlings (< 0.5 m)
(HT) Herbaceous total
(HI) Graminoids
(H2) Forbs
(H3) Ferns and fern allies
(AQ) Submerged or floating aquatics
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 7
Appendix E - 49
Point Code
, ,
module and estimate percent cover for the module. List any species found in the remaining modules in the
residual "R" column and estimate percent cover for the entire plot. Mark intensive modules on map for
#10
#9
#8
#7
#6
For woody species, estimate seedling, sapling, and mature trees/shrubs separately if they occur in
different strata. Use strata codes from previous page.
#1
»2
#3
#4
#5
VEGETATION PLOT SPECIES TABLE
Module ->
R
Presence / Cover -^
P
C
P
C
P
c
p
c
P
C
Cover Classes 1: trace 2:0-<l% 3: l-<2% 4: 2-<5% 5: 5-<10% 6: 10-<25% 7:25-<50% 8: 50-<75% 9:75-<95% 10: >95%
Stratum
Species
Coll #
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 8
Appendix E - 50
Point Code
VEGETATION PLOT SPECIES TABLE
Module ->
R
Presence / Cover ->
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
Cover Classes 1: trace 2: 0-<l% 3: l-<2% 4: 2-<5% 5: 5-<10% 6: 10-<25% 7: 25-<50% 8: 50-<75% 9: 75-<95% 10: >95%
Stratum
Species
Coll #
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 9
Appendix E - 51
Point Code
2a. REGENERATION OF NATIVE WOODY SPECIES
Select the statement that best describes the regeneration of native woody species within the AA.
All age classes of native woody riparian species present OR woody species are naturally uncommon or absent.
Middle age group(s) absent. Other age classes (mature individuals/saplings and seedlings) well represented.
Seedlings, saplings, and middle age groups absent. Stand comprised mainly of mature individuals.
Woody species predominantly consist of decadent or dying individuals or AA has >20% canopy cover of Russian Olive and/or Salt Cedar.
Regeneration comments:
2b. EXTENT OF BROWSE ON WOODY SPECIES
Estimate the extent of browse on woody species throughout the entire AA. Using the table below, estimate each species separately. Only include
woody species with >5% cover within the AA. After estimating individual species, estimate the extent of browse on all woody species together.
Species
% Cover in AA
% Browsed
All woody species
Extent of browse comments:
2c. VERTICAL OVERLAP OF VEGETATION STRATA
Estimate the percent of the AA with
vertically overlapping strata. Each
strata must cover >5% of the AA.
See field manual for definition of
strata by height and life form. Enter
percents in the space provided at
right. Four values should total 100%.
Percent of AA that supports 3 or more overlapping of strata.
Percent of AA that supports 2 overlapping strata.
Percent of AA with only one stratum.
Percent of AA with open water, bare ground, or sparsely vegetated.
Vertical overlap comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 10
Appendix E - 52
2d. HORIZONTAL INTERSPERSION OF VEGETATION ZONES
Refer to diagrams below and circle
the code that best describes the
horizontal interspersion of
vegetation zones within the AA.
Rules for defining vegetation zones
are on page X in the field manual.
Include zones of open water when
evaluating interspersion.
High degree of horizontal interspersion: AA characterized by a very complex array of
nested or interspersed vegetation zones with no single dominant zone.
Moderate degree of horizontal interspersion: AA characterized by a moderate array of
nested or interspersed vegetation zones with no single dominant zone.
Low degree of horizontal interspersion: AA characterized by a simple array of nested or
interspersed vegetation zones. One zone may dominate others.
No horizontal interspersion: AA characterized by one dominant vegetation zone.
N4
R4
9> 3 (3D
N4
Horizontal interspersion comments:
2e. VEGETATION STRESSORS WITHIN THE AA
Using the table below, estimate the scope and severity of each vegetation stressor within the AA. See the field manual for scope and severity
ratings.
Vegetation stressor categories
Scope
Severity
Unpaved Roads (e.g., driveway, tractor trail, 4-wheel drive roads)
Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling, rotochopping, clearcut)
Logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees >50 cm dbh removed
Selective logging or tree removal with <50% of trees >50 cm dbh removed
Heavy grazing/browse by livestock or native ungulates
Moderate grazing/browse by livestock or native ungulates
Light grazing/browse by livestock or native ungulates
Intense recreation or human visitation (ATV use / camping / popular fishing spot, etc.)
Moderate recreation or human visitation (high-use trail)
Light recreation or human visitation (low-use trail)
Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow lands dominated by exotic species
Haying of native grassland
Beetle-killed conifers
Evidence of recent fire (<5 years old)
Other:
Vegetation stressor comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 11
Appendix E - 53
Point Code
3. HYDROLOGY ASSESSMENT
3a. WATER INFLOW
Identify all major water sources feeding the AA during the growing season in the table below. Rank the top sources (up to three) as 1, 2, 3. Mark all
others present as 4 and those not present as NA. For discrete inlets (stream channels, springs, ditches, etc.), count the number of each within the
AA and a 100 m envelope of the AA. Enter NA for those not present. Mark all inlets on the aerial photo and those within the AA on the site sketch. If
there is an indication that inflow during the growing season is controlled by artificial water sources, please explain in comments.
Overbank flooding from adjacent channel
Alluvial storage / hyporheic flow
Natural surface (overland) flow
Groundwater discharge
Snowmelt
Precipitation
Urban run-off / culverts
Irrigation run-off / ditches
Pipes (directly feeding wetland)
Other:
Count of Discrete Inlets:
Stream channels
Visible spring sources
Culverts
Ditches
Pipes
Other:
Water inflow comments:
3b. WATER OUTFLOW
Identify all major pathways through which water leaves the AA during the growing season in the table below. Rank the top pathways (up to three)
as 1, 2, 3. Mark all others present as 4 and those not present as NA. For discrete outlets (stream channels, culverts, ditches, etc.), count the number
of each within the AA and a 100 m envelope of the AA. Enter NA for those not present. Mark all outlets on the aerial photo and those in the AA on
the site sketch. If there is an indication that outflow is modified by anthropogenic disturbance, please explain in comments.
Pathways:
Channelized flow (headwater wetland)
Recharge to adjacent stream
Non-channelized flow to contiguous wetland area
Culverts under roadways/ trails
Ditches established to drain wetland
No natural outlet
Natural outlet blocked / bermed
Other:
Count of Discrete Outlets:
Channels
Culverts
Ditches
Other:
Water outflow comments:
3c. INDICATORS OF INUNDATION AT SEASONAL HIGH WATER
Walk the AA and identify indicators of inundation at seasonal high water. Mark all indicators present with a check. Mark those absent with NA.
Refer to the ACOE Regional Supplement for indicator descriptions. Based on the height of the indicators, estimate the percent of the AA that is
covered in standing water at the seasonal high.
Indicators:
Water marks / stains (Bl)
Sediment deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal mats or crust (B4)
Iron deposits (B5)
Surface soil cracks (B6)
Sparsely vegetated concave surfaces (B8)
Water stained leaves (B9)
Salt crust (Bll)
Aquatic invertebrates (B13)
Other:
Extent of surface water:
Seasonal high
Indicators of inundation comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 12
Appendix E - 54
Point Code
3d. SURFACE WATER TURBIDITY
Select the statement that best describes the turbidity of surface water within the AA.
No visual evidence of turbidity.
Water is slightly cloudy, but there is no obvious source of sedimentation.
Water is cloudy, but the bottom is still visible. Sources of sedimentation or other inputs are apparent (identify in comments below).
Water is milky and/or muddy. The bottom is no longer visible. There are obvious sources of sedimentation or other inputs (identify in
comments below).
Surface water turbidity comments:
3e. ALGAL GROWTH
Select the statement that best describes algal growth within surface water in the AA.
Water is clear with minimal algal growth.
Algae is limited to small and localized areas of the wetland. Water may have a greenish tint or cloudiness.
Algal growth occurs in large patches throughout the AA. Water may have a moderate greenish tint or sheen.
Algal mats are extensive, blocking light to the bottom. Water has a strong greenish tint, sheen, or turbidity. The bottom is difficult to see.
Algal growth comments:
3h. HYDROLOGY STRESSORS WITHIN A 500 M ENVELOPE
Using the table below, estimate the scope and severity of each hydrology stressor within a 500 m envelope of the AA. If known alteration occurs
further upstream than 500 m, please explain in comments below. See the field manual for scope and severity ratings.
Hydrology stressor categories
Scope
Severity
Upstream dam / reservoir
Upstream impoundment/ stock pond
Upstream spring box diverting water from wetland
Pumps, diversions, ditches that move water out o/the wetland
Downstream berms, dikes, levees that hold water in the wetland
Weir or drop structure to impound water and control energy of flow
Pumps, diversions, ditches that move water into the wetland
Observed or potential agricultural runoff
Observed or potential urban runoff
Flow obstructions into or out of wetland (roads without culverts)
Dredged inlet or outlet channel
Engineered inlet or outlet channel (e.g., riprap)
Other:
Hydrology stressor comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 13
Appendix E - 55
Point Code
3. RIVERINE SPECIFIC HYDROLOGY ASSESSMENT
3g. CHANNEL STABILITY: FILL OUT FOR RIVERINE WETLAND AAs THAT INCLUDE A CHANNEL OR ARE ADJACENT TO A CHANNEL
Walk the AA for field indicators of channel equilibrium, aggradation or degradation listed in the table below. Check "Y" for all those observed and
"N" for those not observed.
Condition
Field Indicators
Indicators of
Channel
Equilibrium
Y N
□ □ The channel (or multiple channels in braided systems) has a well-defined usual high water line or bankfull stage that
is clearly indicated by an obvious floodplain, topographic bench that represents an abrupt change in the cross-
sectional profile of the channel throughout most of the site.
□ □ The usual high water line or bank full stage corresponds to the lower limit of riparian vascular vegetation.
□ □ Leaf litter, thatch, wrack, and/or mosses exist in most pools.
□ □ The channel contains embedded woody debris of the size and amount consistent with what is available in the
riparian area.
□ □ There is little or no active undercutting or burial of riparian vegetation.
□ □ There is little evidence of recent deposition of cobble or very coarse gravel on the floodplain, although recent sandy
deposits may be evident.
□ □ There are no densely vegetated mid-channel bars and/or point bars.
□ □ The spacing between pools in the channel tends to be 5-7 channel widths.
□ □ The larger bed material supports abundant periphyton.
Indicators of
Active
Aggradation
□ □ The channel through the site lacks a well-defined usual high water line.
□ □ There is an active floodplain with fresh splays of sediment covering older soils or recent vegetation.
□ □ There are partially buried tree trunks or shrubs.
□ □ Cobbles and/or coarse gravels have recently been deposited on the floodplain.
□ □ There is a lack of in-channel pools, their spacing is greater than 5-7 channel widths, or many pools seem to be filling
with sediment.
□ □ There are partially buried, or sediment-choked, culverts.
□ □ Transitional or upland vegetation is encroaching into the channel throughout most of the site.
□ □ The bed material is loose and mostly devoid of periphyton.
Indicators of
Active
Degradation
The channel through the site is characterized by deeply undercut banks with exposed living roots of trees or shrubs.
There are abundant bank slides or slumps, or the banks are uniformly scoured and unvegetated.
Riparian vegetation may be declining in stature or vigor, and/or riparian trees and shrubs may be falling into the
channel.
Abundant organic debris has accumulated on what seems to be the historical floodplain, indicating that flows no
longer reach the floodplain.
The channel bed appears scoured to bedrock or dense clay.
The channel bed lacks fine-grained sediment.
Recently active flow pathways appear to have coalesced into one channel (i.e. a previously braided system is no
longer braided).
There are one or more nick points along the channel, indicating headward erosion of the channel bed.
Channel stability comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 14
Appendix E - 56
Point Code
3h. ENTRENCHMENT RATIO: FILL OUT FOR RIVERINE WETLAND AAs THAT INCLUDE A WADABLE CHANNEL
Using the following worksheet, calculate the average entrenchment ratio for the channel. The steps should be conducted for each of three cross
sections located in the AA at the approximate mid-points along straight riffles or glides, away from deep pools or meander bends. Do not attempt to
measure this for non-wadeable streams!
Steps
i- , k
1
2
3
6. Estimate bankfull width.
This is a critical step requiring experience. If the stream is entrenched, the
height of bankfull flow is identified as a scour line, narrow bench, or the top
of active point bars well below the top of apparent channel banks. If the
stream is not entrenched, bankfull stage can correspond to the elevation of a
broader floodplain with indicative riparian vegetation. Estimate or measure
the distance between the right and left bankfull contours.
7. Estimate max bankfull depth.
Imagine a line between right and left bankfull contours. Estimate or measure
the height of the line above the thalweg (the deepest part of the channel).
8. Estimate flood prone height.
Double the estimate of maximum bankfull depth from Step 2.
9. Estimate flood prone width.
Imagine a level line having a height equal to the flood prone depth from
Step 3. Note the location of the new height on the channel bank. Estimate
the width of the channel at the flood prone height.
10. Calculate
entrenchment.
Divide the flood prone width (Step 4) by the max bankfull width (Step 1).
11. Calculate average
entrenchment
Average the results of Step 5 for all three cross-sections and enter it here.
Entrenchment ratio comments:
Illustration from Collins et al. 2008. California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v 5.0.2
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 15
Appendix E - 57
Point Code
4. PHYSIOCHEMICAL ASSESSMENT
4a. STRUCTURAL PATCH TYPES WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Using the following worksheet, mark all structural patch types that occur within the AA. Check "Y" for all those observed and "N" for those not
observed. See the field manual for patch type definitions. For patch types present in the AA, estimate their overall cover class in the AA. Photos and
comments are optional, but very helpful.
Cover Classes 1: trace 2:0-<l% 3: l-<2% 4: 2-<5% 5: 5-<10% 6: 10-<25% 7: 25-<50% 8: 50-<75% 9: 75-<95% 10: >95%
Patch type
Present
inAA?
Y N
Cover
within
AA
Photos
Comments
Open water - river / stream
□ □
Open water - tributary / secondary channel
□ □
Open water - swales on floodplain or along
shoreline
Open water - oxbow / backwater channel
□ □
Open water - rivulets / streamlet
C C
Open water - pond or lake
Open water- pools
Open water - beaver pond
Active beaver dam
Beaver canal
Debris jams/ woody debris in channel
Pools in stream
Riffles in stream
Point bar
□ □
Interfluve on floodplain
□ G
Bank slumps or undercut banks in channel or
along shoreline
Adjacent or onsite seep / spring
G G
Animal mounds or burrows
□ □
Mudflat
Salt flat /alkali flat
Hummock / tussock
Water tracks / hollow
□ □
Floating mat
G G
Marl / Limonite bed
Other:
Other:
Structural patch types comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 16
Appendix E - 58
Point Code
4b. SUBSTRATE / SOIL SURFACE INTEGRITY
Select the statement that best describes substrate / soil surface integrity within the AA.
No soil surface disturbance is observed or soil is naturally bare.
Minimal soil surface disturbance is observed, primarily due to native ungulate use (light game trails, wallows) or light flood deposition.
Moderate soil surface disturbance is observed due to native ungulates, flood deposition, frost heave, or other natural processes.
Significant soil surface disturbance is observed. Cause may be natural or anthropogenic. (Please explain in comments below.)
Substrate / soil comments:
4c. SEDIMENT DEPOSITION
Walk the AA and estimate the extent of fresh sediment covering the AA, regardless of source. Enter the estimate in the space
provided at right. ►
Sediment deposition comments:
4d. PHYSIOCHEMICAL STRESSORS WITHIN THE AA
Using the table below, estimate the scope and severity of each physiochemical stressor within the AA. See the field manual for scope and severity
ratings.
Physiochemical stressor categories
Scope
Severity
Erosion
Sedimentation
Current plowing or disking
Historic plowing or disking (evident by abrupt A horizon boundary at plow depth)
Substrate removal (excavation)
Filling or dumping of sediment
Trash or refuse dumping
Compaction and soil disturbance by livestock or native ungulates
Compaction and soil disturbance by human use (trails, ORV use, camping)
Mining activities, current or historic
Other:
Physiochemical stressor comments:
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Form, May 2010
Page 17
Appendix E - 59
2"
-C
u
u
>-
>■
01
0)
JC
ui
TJ
^
ui
T3
V)
<u
c
QJ
Ul
I/)
0)
c
a>
Ul
"In
C
E
E
OJ
Q.
a.
'L7i
c
E
E
a
a.
Q.
o
o
nj
o
o
ra
J£
u
J£
u
TO
nj
E
c
Q.
o
E
c
Q.
O
ro
E
OJ
TO
£
0)
Q.
>-
a.
>■
LU
h-
^
5
_o
X
LU
H
^
5
_o
o
z
E
OQ
c
o
-z.
E
QO
c
□
a
~
a
a
=
a
Ul
a>
a
J2
>-
o
>
o
c
□
TJ
c
a
T3
o
OJ
'o
a
Q.
TO
Q.
ro
>
±i
OJ
>
a
TO
u
a.
nj
U
a.
g
c
3
LU
a.
g
c
LU
Q.
TO
(/>
>»
LO
>■
Q.
>
'5.
Q.
0)
>
'5.
3
3
o
OJ
O
Ul
a
a
O
o
tt
o
o
<u
c
0)
c
3
VI
3
Ul
■D
a
'5.
-a
0)
'a.
o
-C
o
_c
s
u
c
s
u
c
£
TJ
E
T3
OJ
a
X
>
X
>
'o.
Q.
a
'a.
Q.
a
o
t/1
a)
a
3
o
o
LT)
a)
nj
a
3
JO
O
o
o
T3
C
3
a
h-
c
T3
C
3
a
c
o
o
a
a
<5
id ra
<5
J5 to
c 5
■a
E <u
■a
a
E a
>
s^
E 4=
>
s°
E 4=
ai
o a=
0)
O ^J=
Ul
c
u *
Ul
c
u *
O
_o
O
_o
a
a
o
z
Q
a
Ul
'o
o
z.
Q
a
Ul
'o
a
Q
a
Q
X
o
E
X
o
E
T5
a
"~"
CO
T3
"~"
CO
o
u_
o
u_
o
o
> < sa t
> < sa £
(D J^ ^ o w
■E — ' -c t- o
x £; c ■—
— "Z ro a a
ro +-i >s^ u —
n (N ^j C LD
« "c 3 .2 *a
£ — ' ■£ +- O
x £; c ■—
— "Z ro a a
ro +-i >sr u —
^ nj <^- c Q.
e"
u
Ul
C
s^
u
C
nj
s°
aj
a
aj
a
u
<J ^ "a o ^
u
U ^T3 OO
c
a a u Q
c
a a u Q
a
o
U
X
Ul
'o
E
-C TJ -M v >>
u a _o g g
tj st a -a -a
c -= a a a
5
a
o
u
X
Ul
'o
E
<J ^J _Q g g
c -= a a a
O
o
TJ
nj <j Q a: a:
TJ
m O a cc cc
o
a
DC
o
c
o
a
cc
o
£
-C
o
O '
-C
o
O '
u
u
Q.
g.
Q.
_Q.
OJ
OJ
a
U
Ul
Q
U
Ul
a
a
tj
T3
t-l
'o
E
o
(N
'o
E
O
1-
Q.
X
3
Q.
X
TO
3
_l
nj
C
_l
ro
C
o
t/1
2
o
o
E _
o
2
o
o
E _
u
-a 3
O
■a 3
1
■^ <
1
■^ <
z
o
e"
o , , ■ — ■
*- m ■ — ■ *-
Z
o
e"
aj , , ■ — -
<4- m ■ — - »-
a ^^ H- T3
X g > O
ii — 12. "J
<J
w g > o
K — S2. «"
1-
Q.
o
H
Q.
'o
u
t/1
Ul
TJ
s."e
a u
2 o ™ «=
c — q. ^ a
u
LU
T3
a. If
a u
2 O 2 M=
=5 <.9-| c
o
LU
'E
3
Q — '
D
LU
'E
3
Q —
_l
3
_l
3
O
>
0)
>
O
c "5
— O LU ^ on
^ o u -^ £
Wl to to D 5,
Ll_
o
>■
0)
>
Ul
O
c "S
— O UJ ^ 0X3
VI to to 3 P
Q.
3
Ul
-C
o c
.^ o
.y x x 5 i
Q.
3
^
o c
.^ o
.y x x ^ x
Q.
Q.
O
o
a
O Q.
■o '
o
'6
0)
O Q.
■D i
t/i
t/1
Q
x 3
X 1 1 1 1
l/l
t/i
Q
x 3.
>■
X 1 1 1 1
Appendix E - 60
£
^
(J
<J
>-
>■
01
OJ
JC
ui
■D
J£
"D
V)
01
c
0)
ro
OJ
c
OJ
ro
c
£
£
OJ
a.
a.
£
£
a
a.
Q.
o
o
ro
o
o
ro
J£
u
-*£
u
TO
c
'■Z
ro
c
£
E
c
o.
o
E
c
a.
o
TO
£
0)
ro
£
Q.
>-
a.
>■
LU
F
^
5
_o
X
LU
F
^
5
_o
O
ro
£
o
z
ro
£
□
a
CC
~
a
a
c=
0)
a
CJ
OJ
J3
>
o
>
O
c
□
T3
c
a
■D
o
OJ
o
CJ
Q.
ro
a.
ro
>
QJ
>
a
TO
u
Q.
TO
u
a.
g
c
LU
a.
ro
g
c
LU
a.
ro
t/1
>■
LO
>
Q.
0)
>
'5.
Q.
CJ
>
'a.
3
D
o
OJ
O
w»
a
tt
:=
o
a
=
o
01
O
c
OJ
O
c
3
\A
3
VI
■D
0)
'5.
-a
a
'5.
o
-C
o
.c
S
U
c
^
u
c
£
T3
ro
£
■o
OJ
CJ
i
>
X
>
'a.
Q.
OJ
'o.
Q.
0)
o
0>
ro
5
-Q
O
'o
0)
ro
CJ
o
o
o
T3
C
X
a
F
c
■D
C
X
a
F
c
o
o
a
a
<5
J2 ro
<J
J2 ro
c 5
■a
0)
g OJ
£ cj
T3
a
g OJ
£ a
>
s°
£ £
>
s°
E <i=
a
o sz
OJ
o a=
Ul
c
u *
Ul
c
u *
O
_o
J3
O
o
a
a
O
-z.
a
CD
'o
O
Z.
a
a
'o
a
o
a
Q
X
o
£
X
o
£
T3
a
"~"
CO
T3
a
"~"
CO
o
LL.
o
u_
o
u
Q- i^ £
3 3 ^~
o
> 3 £.£
> < sat
m 4^ < .2 !£.
*^ X ■£ c ■ —
= I ro 0) m
ro +-- -^ u -=
_^ ro .=£ c Q.
ro it < .2 £.
■£ — ' -z +- o
*^ X +3 C ■ —
= 'Z ro a qj
tD 4- ^ O —
•j ro ^ c o.
e"
u
C
o
so
1=
u
C
ro
s°
c
c
0)
CJ
OJ
OJ
u
u 5-d o m
u
U ^ T3 O CJ
c
cj o u o
c
CJ OJ <_) o
5
a
QJ
o
u
X
'o
£
U CJ _0J g g
T3 fit Q- T3 "a
c -= a a a
5
a
a
o
o
X
'o
£
U CJ _Q g g
T3 St °- ~0 T3
c -Si a a a
o
o
T3
ro (J Q t£ cd
T3
ro (J Q a: a:
O
OJ
o
^
o
a
cc
o
m 1 1 1 1
c
-C
o
.2
-C
o
°
o
u
Q.
_Q.
Q.
_Q.
01
a
Q
U
Q
U
a
a
T3
T3
m
"o
E,
O
^>
'o
£,
O
F
Q.
X
ro
Q.
X
ro
_l
ro
C
_l
ro
C
o
t/1
s
o
o
ro
E _
o
2
o
o
ro
E _
u
-a 3
u
•a 3
1
■^ <
1
■^ <
z
o
*E
Q , , ■ — ■
Z
o
"e
o , , ■ — -
u
« 5 £ -S
CJ ^^ H- T3
% g > o
S c — S
2 o ro ^*-
8 h-S» =
=5 5. .9-| c
c — a. ^ a
(J
a ^^ H- T3
M S.J2. aj
S c — S
2 o ro ^*-
=5 < .9- 1 c
c — a. -^ a
F
Q.
LU
o
T3
0)
JZ , .
a E
a u
H
Q.
u
LU
'o
T3
OJ
-JZ , ,
a E
a u
O
LU
'E
ro
Q —
D
LU
"E
ro
Q —
_l
D
_l
D
LL.
O
>■
0)
>
o
c ra
— O m ^ M
^ o u -^ £
Wl to to D ?
LL.
o
>■
OJ
>
O
c "S
— O LU ^ QO
^ o u -^ 2
O id -41; u -b
Ifl « M 3 ?
Q.
-C
o c
.^ o
.a i i 2 i
Q.
D
^
o c
.^ o
.a iiSi
o.
>- 1 1 1 1
Q.
*- 1 1 1 1
O
'6
OJ
a
■Q ;
o
'o
OJ
O Q.
"°
t/i
i/i
Q
x -°
X 1 1 1 1
LO
LO
Q
x 3.
X 1 1 1 1
Appendix E - 61
201 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 58
Appendix E - 62
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Field Key to Wetland and Riparian Ecological Systems of Montana, Wyoming, Utah,
and Colorado
APPENDIX B: Ecological Systems Descriptions for Target Ecological System in Colorado and Montana
APPENDIX C: National Wetland Inventory Classification Modified from Cowardin et al. 1979
APPENDIX D: Field Key to the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classes of Wetlands in the Rocky Mountains
APPENDIX E: Soil Texture Flowchart
APPENDIX F: Notes on Hydric Soil Indicators for the Mountain West
APPENDIX G: First Aid and Safety in the Field
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 59
Appendix E - 63
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 60
Appendix E - 64
APPENDIX A: Field Key to Wetland and Riparian Ecological Systems of
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado
la. Wetland defined by groundwater inflows and peat (organic soil] accumulation of at least 40 cm.
Vegetation can be woody or herbaceous. If the wetland occurs within a mosaic of non-peat forming wetland
or riparian systems, then the patch must be at least 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres]. If the wetland occurs as an
isolated patch surrounded by upland, then there is no minimum size criteria
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen
lb. Wetland does not have at least 40 cm of peat (organic soil] accumulation or occupies an area less than 0.1
hectares (0.25 acres] within a mosaic of other non-peat forming wetland or riparian systems 2
2a. Total woody canopy cover generally 25% or more within the overall wetland/riparian area. Any
purely herbaceous patches are less than 0.5 hectares and occur within a matrix of woody vegetation.
Note: Relictual woody vegetation such as standing dead trees and shrubs are included here
GO TO KEY A: Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems
2b. Total woody canopy cover generally less than 25% within the overall wetland/riparian area. Any
woody vegetation patches are less than 0.5 hectares and occur within a matrix of herbaceous wetland
vegetation 3
3a. Total vegetation canopy cover generally 10% or more
GO TO KEY B: Herbaceous Ecological Systems
3b. Total vegetation canopy cover generally less than 10% GO TO KEY C: Sparse Vegetation
KEY A: Woodland and Shrubland Ecological Systems
la. Woody wetland associated with any stream channel, including ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial
(Riverine HGM Class] 2
lb. Woody wetland associated with the discharge of groundwater to the surface or fed by snowmelt or
precipitation. This system often occurs on slopes, lakeshores, or around ponds. Sites may experience overland
flow but no channel formation. (Slope, Flat, Lacustrine, or Depressional HGM Classes] 9
2a. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the montane or subalpine zone (refer to lifezone table] 3
2b. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the plains, foothills, or lower montane zone (refer to lifezone
table] 4
3a. Montane or subalpine riparian woodlands (canopy dominated by trees]. This system occurs as a narrow
streamside forest lining small, confined low- to mid-order streams. Common tree species include Abies
lasiocarpa, Picea engelmannii, Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Populus tremuloides
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland
3b. Montane or subalpine riparian shrublands (canopy dominated by shrubs with sparse or no tree cover].
Within the Riverine HGM Class, this system occurs as either a narrow band of shrubs lining streambanks of
steep V-shaped canyons or as a wide, extensive shrub stand on alluvial terraces in low-gradient valley
bottoms (sometimes referred to as a shrub carr]. Beaver activity is common within the wider occurrences.
Species of Salix, Alnus, or Betula are typically dominant
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
4a. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the foothills or lower montane zones of the Northern, Middle,
and Southern Rockies, Wyoming Basin, Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, and Great Basin 5
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 61
Appendix E - 65
4b. Riparian woodlands and shrublands of the Northwestern or Western Great Plains of eastern
Montana, central Wyoming, or northeastern Colorado 7
5a. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of the
Northern Rockies in northwestern Montana. This type excludes island mountain ranges east of the
Continental Divide in Montana. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa is typically the canopy dominant in
woodlands. Other common tree species include Populus tremuloides, Betula papyifera, Betula occidentalis, and
Picea glauca. Shrub understory species include Cornus sericea,Acer glabrum, Alnus incana, Oplopanax
horridus, and Symphoricarpos albus. Areas of riparian shrubland and open wet meadow are common
Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
5b. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands of other mountain regions 6
6a. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of
the Southern and Middle Rockies, Wyoming Basin, and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains. This type also
includes island mountain ranges in central and eastern Montana. Woodlands are dominated by Populus
spp. including Populus angustifolia, Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus deltoides, and Populus
fremontii. Common shrub species include Salix spp., Alnus incana, Crataegus spp., Cornus sericea, and
Betula occidentalis Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
6b. Foothill or lower montane riparian woodlands and shrublands associated with mountain ranges of
the Great Basin in Utah. Woodlands are dominated by Abies concolor, Populus angustifolia, Populus
balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus fremontii, and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Important shrub species
include Artemisia cana, Betula occidentalis, Cornus sericea, Salix exigua, Salix lutea, Salix lemmonii, and
Salix lasiolepis Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
7a. Woodlands and shrublands of draws and ravines associated with permanent or ephemeral streams, steep
north-facing slopes, or canyon bottoms that do not experience flooding. Common tree species include
Fraxinus spp., Acer negundo, Populus tremuloides, and Ulmus spp. Important shrub species include Crataegus
spp., Prunus virginiana, Rhus spp., Rosa woodsii, Symphoricarpos occidentalis, and Shepherdia argentea
Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine
7b. Woodlands and shrublands of small to large streams and rivers of the Northwestern or Western Great
Plains. Overall vegetation is lusher than above and includes more wetland indicator species. Dominant
species include Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus deltoides, and Salix spp 8
8a. Woodlands and shrublands of riparian areas of medium and small rivers and streams with little or no
floodplain development and typically flashy hydrology
Northwestern/Western Great Plains Riparian
8b. Woodlands and shrublands of riparian areas along medium and large rivers with extensive
floodplain development and periodic flooding Northwestern/Western Great Plains Floodplain
9a. Woody wetland associated with small, shallow ponds in northwestern Montana. Ponds are ringed by
trees including Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa, Populus tremuloides, Betula papyrifera, Abies grandis,
Abies lasiocarpa, Picea engelmannii, Pinus contorta, and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Typical shrub species include
Cornus sericea, Amelanchier alnifolia, and Salix spp Northern Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool
9b. Woody wetland associated with the discharge of groundwater to the surface, or sites with overland flow
but no channel formation 10
10a. Coniferous woodlands associated with poorly drained soils that are saturated year round or
seasonally flooded. Soils can be woody peat but tend toward mineral. Common tree species include
Thuja plicata, Tsuga heterophylla, and Picea engelmannii. Common species of the herbaceous understory
include Mitella spp., Calamagrostis spp., and Equisetum arvense
Northern Rocky Mountain Conifer Swamp
10b. Woody wetlands dominated by shrubs 11
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 62
Appendix E - 66
11a. Subalpine to montane shrubby wetlands that occur around seeps, fens, lakes, and isolated springs on
slopes away from valley bottoms. This system can also occur within a mosaic of multiple shrub- and herb-
dominated communities within snowmelt-fed basins. Vegetation dominated by species of Salix.AInus, or
Betula. Within Slope, Flat, Lacustrine, or Depressional HGM Classes, this system has a similar species
composition as occurrences within the Riverine HGM Class, but occurs in different landscape settings
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
lib. Lower foothills to valley bottom shrublands restricted to temporarily or intermittently flooded
drainages or flats and dominated by Sarcobatus vermiculatus Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat
KEY B: Herbaceous Wetland Ecological Systems
la. Herbaceous wetlands of the Northwestern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Great Plains, or Western Great
Plains regions of eastern Montana, central Wyoming, or northeastern Colorado 2
lb. Herbaceous wetlands of other regions 5
2a. Wetland occurs as a complex of depressional wetlands within the glaciated plains of northern
Montana. Typical species include Schoenoplectus spp. and Typha latifolia on wetter, semi-permanently
flooded sites, and Eleocharis spp., Pascopyrum smithii, and Hordeum jubatum on drier, temporarily
flooded sites Great Plains Prairie Pothole
2b. Wetland does not occur as a complex of depressional wetlands within the glaciated plains of
Montana 3
3a. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains with saline soils. Salt encrustations can occur on the
surface. Species are typically salt-tolerant such as Distichlis spicata, Puccinellia spp., Salicornia spp., and
Schoenoplectus maritimus Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland
3b. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains with obvious vegetation zonation dominated by
emergent herbaceous vegetation, including Eleocharis spp., Schoenoplectus spp., Phalaris arundinacea,
Calamagrostis canadensis, Hordeum jubatum, and Pascopyrum smithii 4
4a. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains associated with open basins that have an obvious
connection to the groundwater table. This system can also occur along stream margins where it is linked
to the basin via groundwater flow. Typical plant species include species of Typha, Carex, Schoenoplectus,
Eleocharis, Juncus, and floating genera such as Potamogeton, Sagittaria, and Ceratophyllum
Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland
4b. Depressional wetlands in the Western Great Plains primarily within upland basins having an
impermeable layer such as dense clay. Recharge is typically via precipitation and runoff, so this system
typically lacks a groundwater connection. Wetlands in this system tend to have standing water for a
shorter duration than Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetlands. Common species
include Eleocharis spp., Hordeum jubatum, and Pascopyrum smithii
Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland
5a. Small [<0.1 ha) depressional, herbaceous wetlands occurring within dune fields of the Great Basin,
Wyoming Basin, and other small inter-montane basins
Inter-Mountain Basins Interdunal Swale Wetland
5b. Herbaceous wetlands not associated with dune fields 6
6a. Depressional wetlands occurring in areas with alkaline to saline clay soils with hardpans. Salt
encrustations can occur on the surface. Species are typically salt-tolerant such as Distichlis spicata,
Puccinellia spp., Leymus sp., Poa secunda, Salicornia spp., and Schoenoplectus maritimus. Communities
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 63
Appendix E - 67
within this system often occur in alkaline basins and swales and along the drawdown zones of lakes and
ponds Inter- Mountain Basins Alkaline Closed Depression
6b. Herbaceous wetlands not associated with alkaline to saline hardpan clay soils 7
7a. Wetlands with a permanent water source throughout all or most of the year. Water is at or above the
surface throughout the growing season, except in drought years. This system can occur around ponds, as
fringes around lakes and along slow-moving streams and rivers. The vegetation is dominated by common
emergent and floating leaved species including species oiScirpus, Schoenoplectus, Typhajuncus, Carex,
Potamogeton, Polygonum, and Nuphar. Western North American Emergent Marsh
7b. Herbaceous wetlands associated with a high water table or overland flow, but typically lacking standing
water. Sites with no channel formation are typically associated with snowmelt and not subjected to high
disturbance events such as flooding (Slope HGM Class). Sites associated with a stream channel are more
tightly connected to overbank flooding from the stream channel than with snowmelt and groundwater
discharge and may be subjected to high disturbance events such as flooding (Riverine HGM Class). Vegetation
is dominated by herbaceous species; typically graminoids have the highest canopy cover including Carex spp.,
Calamagrostis spp., and Deschampsia caespitosa Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
KEY C: Sparsely Vegetated Ecological Systems
la. Sites are restricted to drainages with a variety of sparse or patchy vegetation including Sarcobatus
vermiculatus, Ericameria nauseosa, Artemisia cana, Artemisia tridentata, Grayia spinosa, Distichlis spicata, and
Sporobolus airoides Inter-Mountain Basins Wash
lb. Sites occur on barren or sparsely vegetated playas that are intermittently flooded and may remain dry for
several years. Soil is typically saline, and salt encrustrations are common. Plant species are salt-tolerant and
can include Sarcobatus vermiculatus, Distichlis spicata, and Atriplex spp
Inter-Mountain Basins Playa
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 64
Appendix E - 68
-a
o
-a
X!
-a
S
o
o
S
o"
-a
re
c 2
3 43
o
o
N
2
0)
D,
^
a
S-
ac
re
o
rH «
a> 04)
w ra
D. O 3
c iS
5 £
o o
in o
V) <*>"
04)
O o
2 o
LT) ^£]
4J ai
S °
O o
O o
c .5 jo
'S. & 2P
a) en o
■3 £ Q
O ° w
.2 a. as
o
o
in
o
o
o
CO
043
3
O O
o ^o
u
O
aj"
a
u
<U
3
CUD
s-
T3
Pu
o
Cfl
O o
= a
IS a! B
P 5 «
it)
o->~
A
_□ M)
' O
2 o
■a s
o
o
CO
co"
D.
S
-C
o
re
c
o
p.
3^
C
o
c
p.
3
X!
aj
04)
re
vi
in
o
a
o
o
0)
-a
c
o
a
re
04)
3
O
Q
s
re
04)
3
O
a
—
o
sx
0)
043
T3
_o
O
o
in
c
aj
a
re
"re "a
S 04:
3 <a
i/i cq
O
o
o
o
in
co"
"T
^h"
o
o
in
in
6
o
o
co"
6
O
in
rr\~
g
'3.
a.
o
o
o
o"
g °
O o
o_ CO
MD 00
A
o
o
a,
<
a
5
s;
a,
1
a;
o
as
Appendix E - 69
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 66
Appendix E- 70
APPENDIX B: Ecological Systems Descriptions for
Target Ecological System in Colorado and Montana
The following Ecological System Descriptions were prepared by CNHP and MTNHP. Descriptions for Colorado
include Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow and Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian
Shrubland. Descriptions for Montana include all four target systems. The descriptions can also be applied to
Wyoming and Utah, but should be done so with a knowledge of local flora and ecology.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 67
Appendix E- 71
Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
Ecological System Description for the state of Colorado
NatureServe Identifier: CES306.812
Summary: Moderate- to high-elevation herbaceous-dominated wet meadows are found throughout the
Rocky Mountains and Intermountain regions. Occurrences in Colorado range in elevation from montane to
alpine (2,130-3,960 m or 7,000-13,000 ft]. These types occur as large meadows in montane or subalpine
valleys, as narrow strips bordering ponds, lakes, and streams, and near seeps and springs. They are typically
found on flat areas or gentle slopes, but may also occur on sub-irrigated sites with slopes up to 10%. In alpine
regions, sites typically are small depressions located below late-melting snow patches or on snowbeds. Soils
of this system are mineral but may have large amount of organic matter. Soils show typical hydric soil
characteristics, including high organic content and/or low chroma and redoximorphic features. This system
often occurs as a mosaic of several plant associations, and may be found adjacent to a variety of willow
shrublands. Wet meadows are often dominated by graminoids, although forb cover may be substantial in
areas at higher elevations. Characteristic species at the highest elevations include mountain sedge {Carex
scopulorum), sheep sedge (C. illotd], hair-like sedge (C. capillaris), black alpine sedge (C. nigricans],
Drummond's rush (Juncus drummondii], marsh marigold {Caltha leptosepala], and brook saxifrage [Saxifraga
odontoloma). At subalpine to upper montane elevations, water sedge {Carex aquatilis], and beaked sedge (C.
utriculata], either separately or in combination, form a broadly distributed characteristic community. Other
common species of this zone include smallwing sedge (C. microptera], analogue sedge [C. simulata], tufted
hairgrass [Deschampsia cespitosa], fewflower spikerush {Eleocharis quinqueflora), bluejoint reedgrass
[Calamagrostis canadensis), heartleaf bittercress [Cardamine cordifolia], tall fringed bluebells [Mertensia
cilliatd], arrowleaf ragwort [Senecio triangularis), elephanthead lousewort {Pedicularis groenlandicd), and
large leaf avens {Geum macrophyllurri). At mid to lower montane elevations woolly sedge [Carex pellita),
Nebraska sedge (C. nebrascensis), clustered field sedge [C. praegracilis), common spikerush {Eleocharis
palustris), and mountain rush [juncus balticus var. montanus) are typical dominants.
Environment: In Colorado, this system is largely confined to the Southern Rocky Mountains, a landscape of
generally high topographic relief shaped by the effects of glaciation and the movement of water. Elevations
are usually between 7,000-13,000 ft, and are found in a variety of settings including: large open meadows in
high montane valleys; openings in willow carrs or subalpine coniferous forests; small to moderate size
patches in very shallow, still to slow-moving water; on saturated soils near low-order streams, lakes, and
backwater areas of larger rivers; as narrow strips bordering ponds and streams at lower elevations; or in and
near running water of small streams, seeps, and springs. Hydrologic regime is a key factor defining wet
meadows and distinguishing them from other wetland types. Wet meadows occur were the soil is seasonally
saturated and may be seasonally flooded, but high water tables do not persist throughout the growing season
as they do in fens. Though wet meadows can be found in riparian corridors and on floodplains, they generally
do not experience the high velocity surface flows, scouring, and sediment deposition that occurs in the active
riparian zone. Wet meadows have more stable water tables than marshes and do not experience deep
inundation, though fluctuations throughout the growing season are not uncommon. Water tables are typically
high early in the growing season and drawdown by the end of the season (Gage and Cooper 2007]. On drier
sites supporting the less mesic vegetation, the late-season water table may be one meter or more below the
surface.
Moisture for wet meadow community types comes from groundwater, stream discharge, overland flow,
overbank flow, and precipitation. Wet meadows in the alpine are closely associated with snowmelt and
typically not subjected to high disturbance events such as flooding, while seasonal flooding is more common
in the montane. 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, open water pools or standing
water may be present and may be intermittent, ephemeral, or permanent. Soils typically possess a high
proportion of organic matter, but this may vary considerably depending on the frequency and magnitude of
alluvial deposition and water table depth. Organic composition of the soil often includes a thin layer near the
soil surface. Because high water tables do not persist throughout the growing season, organic matter
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 68
Appendix E- 72
accumulation in wet meadows is always less than 40 cm. Soils may exhibit gleying and/or mottling
throughout the profile.
Vegetation: Community composition of wet meadows varies with elevation. This system is characterized by
an herbaceous layer dominated by perennial graminoids, especially sedges. Significant forb cover may be
present in some areas, especially at higher elevations. Alpine-montane wet meadows in Colorado commonly
occur as part of a riparian or wetland mosaic, and may be found interspersed with patches of planeleaf willow
[Salixplanifolia), barrenground willow [S. brachycarpa), Wolf's willow [S. wolfii), Booth's willow [S. boothii),
mountain willow [S. monticola), or S. geyeriana [Geyer's willow) shrublands. In many situations, however,
these communities form large, essentially shrubless meadows, which maybe a mosaic of herbaceous types.
The graminoid herbaceous layer may form a scattered to dense overstory. Characteristic graminoid species at
the highest elevations include mountain sedge [Carex scopulorurri), sheep sedge [C illota), hair-like sedge [C.
capillaris), black alpine sedge [C nigricans), and Drummond's rush {juncus drummondii). At subalpine to
upper montane elevations, water sedge [Carex aquatilis), and beaked sedge [C utriculata), either separately
or in combination, form a broadly distributed characteristic community. In perennially saturated
environments at higher elevations, instances of these herbaceous communities can have significant organic
matter accumulation and would therefore be classified as within the Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen
system. Other common graminoids of this zone include smallwing sedge [C. microptera), analogue sedge [C
simulata), tufted hairgrass [Deschampsia cespitosa), fewflower spikerush [Eleocharis quinqueflora),and
bluejoint reedgrass [Calamagrostis canadensis]. Tufted hairgrass grasslands often occur on drier margins. At
mid to lower montane elevations, woolly sedge [Carex pellita), Nebraska sedge [C nebrascensis), clustered
field sedge [C. praegracilis), common spikerush [Eleocharis palustris), and mountain rush [Juncus balticus var.
montanus) are typical dominants. These lower montane species also form communities of the North
American Arid West Emergent Marsh system.
In the alpine to upper subalpine, marsh marigold [Caltha leptosepala) is the most widespread and
characteristic dominant forb, while brook saxifrage [Saxifraga odontoloma) forms a less frequent, but easily
recognized alpine community as well. At subalpine to montane elevations, combinations of heartleaf
bittercress [Cardamine cordifolia), tall fringed bluebells [Mertensia cilliata), and/or arrowleaf ragwort
[Senecio triangularis) form a common forb type within the matrix. Forb cover is variable and may also include
elephanthead lousewort [Pedicularis groenlandica), large leaf avens [Geum macrophyllum), American
speedwell [Veronica americana), alpine leafy bract aster [Symphyotrichum foliaceum var. foliaceum), western
mountain aster [Symphyotrichum spathulatum var. spathulatum), stinging nettle [Urtica dioica), willowherb
[Epilobium spp.), fringed grass of Parnassus [Parnassia fimbriata), American bistort [Polygonum bistortoides),
and field horsetail [Equisetum arvense).
Twenty-one plant alliances have been described for these systems in Colorado. These include:
Betula nana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Calamagrostis canadensis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Caltha leptosepala Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Cardamine cordifolia Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Carex (lachenalii, capillaris, illota) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex (utriculata, rostrata) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex aquatilis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex nebrascensis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex nigricans Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex pellita Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex praegracilis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex saxatilis Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex scopulorum Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex simulata Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Carex vesicaria Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Dasiphora fruticosa Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 69
Appendix E- 73
Deschampsia cespitosa Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Eleocharis palustris Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Eleocharis quinqueflora Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Juncus balticus Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Saxifraga odontoloma Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Dynamics: Communities associated with this ecological system are adapted to soils that may be flooded or
saturated throughout the growing season. They may also occur on areas with soils that are only saturated
early in the growing season, or intermittently during heavy convective storms in summer. Most appear to be
relatively stable types, although in some areas these may be impacted by intensive livestock grazing.
Non-native species can displace native species, alter hydrology, alter structure, and affect food web dynamics
by changing the quantity, type, and accessibility to food for fauna (Zedler and Kercher 2004]. Wetland
dominated by non-native, invasive species typically support fewer native animals (Zedler and Kercher 2004].
Wet meadows are susceptible to invasion by many non-native species, especially pasture grasses such as
Kentucky bluegrass {Poa pratensis] and timothy {Phleum pratense] as well as exotics species common to
other wetland types such as Canada thistle {Cirsium arvense] and dandelion {Taraxacum officinale]. Reed
canary grass {Phalaris arundinacea) and giant reed {Phragmites communis] are also common exotics in wet
meadows. Native increasers such as mountain rush {Juncus arcticus], wild iris {Iris missouriensis], silverweed
{Argentea anserina], and shrubby cinquefoil {Dasiphora floribunda] often increase with overgrazing and or
changes in the water table (Cooper 1990; Johnson 1996].
Range: This system is found throughout the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain West regions, ranging in
elevation from montane to alpine (1,000-3,600 m]. In Colorado, this system occurs throughout the
mountainous portion of the state. Similar occurrences at lower elevations (below 2,130 m or 7,000 ft] and
those not in the Southern Rocky Mountain ecoregion are likely to belong to the North American Arid West
Emergent Marsh system.
Cowardin Wetland Classification:
System: Palustrine
Class: Emergent Wetland
Subclass: Persistent
Water regime: Seasonally, temporarily, or intermittently flooded, or (less commonly], saturated.
References
Cooper, D.J. (1990] Ecology of wetlands in Big Meadows, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(15].
Gage, E. and D.J. Cooper. (2007] Historic Range of variation assessment for wetland and riparian ecosystems,
U.S. Forest Service Region 2. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region. Department of Forest, Range and Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
CO.
Johnson, J.B. (1996] Environmental function, vegetation, and the effects of peat mining on a calcareous fen in
Park County, Colorado. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8 and Park County Department of Public Health. Department of Biology, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO.
Zedler, J.B and S. Kercher. (2004] Causes and Consequences of Invasive Plants in Wetlands: Opportunities,
Opportunists, and Outcomes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23(5]: 431-452.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 70
Appendix E- 74
Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
Ecological System Description for the state of Montana
Natureserve Identifier: CES306.812
Summary: These moderate-to-high-elevation systems are found throughout the Rocky Mountains and
Intermountain regions, dominated by herbaceous species found on wetter sites with very low-velocity
surface and subsurface flows. Occurrences range in elevation from montane to alpine (1000-3600 m). This
system typically occurs in cold, moist basins, seeps and alluvial terraces of headwater streams or as a narrow
strip adjacent to alpine lakes (Hansen et al., 1996]. They are typically found on flat areas or gentle slopes, but
may also occur on sub-irrigated sites with slopes up to 10%. In alpine regions, sites typically are small
depressions located below late-melting snow patches or on snowbeds. The growing season may only last for
one to two months. Soils of this system maybe mineral or organic. In either case, soils show typical hydric soil
characteristics, including high organic content and/or low chroma and redoximorphic features. This system
often occurs as a mosaic of several plant associations, often dominated by graminoids such as tufted hairgrass
{Deschampsia caespitosa), and a diversity of alpine sedges such as small-head sedge {Carex illota], small-
winged sedge {Carex microptera], black alpine sedge {Carex nigricans], Holm's Rocky Mountain sedge {Carex
scopulorum) shortstalk sedge {Carex podocarpa) and Payson's sedge {Carex paysonis). Drummond's rush
{[uncus drummondii), Merten's rush {Juncus mertensianus), and high elevation bluegrasses {Poa arctica and
Poa alpind] are often present. Forbs such as arrow-leaf groundsel {Senecio triangularis), slender-sepal marsh
marigold {Caltha leptosepald], and spreading globeflower {Trollius laxus] often form high cover in these
meadows. Wet meadows are tightly associated with snowmelt and are usually not subjected to high
disturbance events such as flooding.
Environment: Moisture for these wet meadow community types comes from groundwater, stream discharge,
overland flow, overbank flow, and precipitation. 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 surface.
Fluctuations of the water table throughout the growing season are not uncommon, however. On drier sites
supporting the less mesic types, the late-season water table may be one meter or more below the surface.
Soils typically possess a high proportion of organic matter, but this may vary considerably depending on the
frequency and magnitude of alluvial deposition. Organic composition of the soil may include a thin layer near
the soil surface. Soils may exhibit gleying and/or mottling throughout the profile.
Vegetation: A variety of plant communities are found within this system in Montana. Many alpine wet
meadows throughout the state are dominated by tufted hairgrass {Deschampsia caespitosa), forming a dense
stand of tussocks. The Deschampsia caespitosa Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance has been found at
elevations as high as 10,100 ft, but is much more common at lower elevations where it often occupies low
gradient areas and slopes less than 15 percent facing north to northeast (Cooper et al., 1997]. This alliance is
thought to be found in relatively undisturbed sites (Hansen et al., 1996], while more disturbed sites are
dominated by Kentucky bluegrass {Poa pratensis], fowl bluegrass {Poa palustris], redtop {Agrostis stolonifera]
and Baltic rush {Juncus balticus).
In southwestern Montana, wet meadow communities are dominated by species more characteristic of the
Middle Rocky Mountains ecoregion, such as Holm's Rocky Mountain sedge {Carex scopulorum, Cooper et al,
1999]. Drier sites, especially those where soils and/or hydrology have been disturbed, may be characterized
by Baltic rush and clustered field sedge communities {Juncus balticus-Carex praegracilis). In the Northern
Rocky Mountains, shortstalk sedge {Carex podocarpa] or Payson's sedge {Carex paysonis) are dominant
(Lesica, 2002], often found on slopes that range from zero to eight percent where the growing season lasts
only for one to two months. In these northern occurrences, other common graminoids include small-head
sedge {Carex illota), lens sedge {Carex lenticularis), smallwing sedge {Carex microptera), black alpine sedge
{Carex nigricans), beaked sedge {Carex utriculata), Drummond's rush {Juncus drummondii), Merten's rush
{Juncus mertensianus), arctic bluegrass {Poa arctica), and alpine bluegrass {Poa alpina). Common forbs
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 71
Appendix E- 75
include woolly pussytoes [Antennaria lanata), spreading globeflower [Trollius laxus), slender-sepal marsh
marigold [Caltha leptosepala), arrow-leaf groundsel [Senecio triangularis), elephant's head [Pedicularis
groenlandica), small flowered anemone [Anemone parviflora), alpine bistort [Polygonum viviparum), Buek's
groundsel [Packera subnuda), and Rocky Mountain goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata). Sibbaldia [Sibbaldia
procumbens) often occurs in open areas within the turf or open peat. At more montane elevations, extensive
shrubby cinquefoil [Dasiphora fruticosa) shrublands are frequently found adjacent to this system.
Thirty-five plant alliances have been described for this system in Montana. These include:
Betula nana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Calamagrostis canadensis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Calamagrostis stricta Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Caltha leptosepala Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Carex (lachenalii, capillaris, illota) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex (rostrata, utriculata) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex aperta Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Carex aquatilis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex nebrascensis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex nigricans Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex pellita Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex praegracilis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex saxatilis Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex scopulorum Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Carex simulata Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Carex spectabilis Herbaceous Alliance
Carex vesicaria Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Dasiphora fruticosa Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Deschampsia caespitosa Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Deschampsia caespitosa Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Deschampsia caespitosa Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Eleocharis (palustris, macrostachya) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Equisetum fluviatile Semi-permanently Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Geum rossii Herbaceous Alliance
Glyceria (grandis, striata) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Glyceria borealis Semi-permanently Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Heracleum maximum Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Juncus balticus Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Juncus drummondii Herbaceous Alliance
Juncus parryi Herbaceous Alliance
Poa palustris Semi-natural Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Senecio triangularis Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance
Trollius laxus Saturated Herbaceous Alliance
Valeriana sitchensis Herbaceous Alliance
Dynamics: Communities associated with this ecological system are adapted to soils that may be flooded or
saturated throughout the growing season. They may also occur on areas with soils that are only saturated
early in the growing season, or intermittently during heavy convective storms in summer. Most appear to be
relatively stable types, although in some areas these may be impacted by intensive livestock grazing.
Range: This system is found throughout the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain West regions, ranging in
elevation from montane to alpine (1000-3600 m). In Montana, high-elevation wetlands are found in the
colder and wetter mountains of the Beartooth-Absaroka range and in northwestern Montana.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 72
Appendix E- 76
Cowardin Wetland Classification:
System: Palustrine
Class: Emergent Wetland
Subclass: Persistent
Water regime: Seasonally, temporarily, or intermittently flooded, or (less commonly], saturated.
References:
Asebrook, J. 2006. Monitoring Report for Going to Sun Road Revegetation Projects. Unpublished report. U.S.
Department of the Interior. Glacier National Park.
Brown RW, and J.C. Chambers. 1990. Reclamation practices in high-mountain ecosystems. In: Schmidt,
Wyman C; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings— symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems:
ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. General
Technical Report. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Intermountain
Research Station: 329-334.
Brown R.W., J.C. Chambers, and R.M. Wheeler. 1988. Adaptations of Deschampsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass]
for revegetation of high elevation disturbances: some selection criteria. In: High altitude revegetation
workshop no. 8: Proceedings; 1988 March 3-4; Fort Collins, CO. Information Series No. 59. Fort Collins,
CO: Colorado Water Resources Research Institute: 147-172.
Brown R.W., and R.S., Johnston. 1978. Rehabilitation of a high elevation mine disturbance. In: Kenney, S.T., ed.
Proceedings: High altitude workshop no. 3. Environmental Res. Cent. Inf. Series No. 28. Fort Collins, CO:
Colorado State University: 116-130.
Buckner D.L., and J.W. Marr. 1990. Use of sodding in alpine vegetation. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen,
Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management challange: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the
Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration: 501-508.
Chambers J.C, J.A. MacMahon, and R.W. Brown. 1987. Germination characteristics of alpine grasses and forbs:
a comparison of early and late serai dominants with reclamation potential. Reclamation and Revegetation
Research 6:235-249.
Chambers J.C; J.A. MacMahon, and R.W. Brown. 1990. Alpine seedling establishment: the influence of
disturbance type. Ecology 71(4]:1323-1341.
Cooper S.V., C Jean, and B.L. Heidel. 1997. Plant associations and related botanical inventory of the
Beaverhead Mountains section, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 243 p.
Cooper, S.V., P. Lesica., and D. Page-Dumroese. 1997. Plant community classification for alpine vegetation on
the Beaverhead National Forest, Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-362. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 61.
Cooper, D.J. 1986. Community structure and classification of Rocky Mountain wetland ecosystems. Pages 66-
147 in J.T. Windell, B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. Knud-Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Kiladis,
editors. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C 103 pp.
Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1996. Classification and Management of
Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of
Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 73
Appendix E- 77
Kittel, G., E., M.Van Wie, R. Damm, S. Rondeau, A. Kettler, A. McMullen, and J. Sanderson. 1999. A classification
of riparian and wetland plant associations of Colorado: A user's guide to the classification project.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO. 70 pp. plus appendices.
Kovalchik, B. L. 1987. Riparian zone associations - Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema national forests.
USDA Forest Service Technical Paper 279-87. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 171 pp.
Lesica, P. 2002. Flora of Glacier National Park. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 515 p.
Van de Grinten M., and L.L Gregory. 2000. Vegetated erosion control mats for site stabilization. Native Plants
Journal. 1(2): 121-123.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 74
Appendix E- 78
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
Ecological System Description for the state of Colorado
NatureServe Identifier: CES306.832
Summary: This riparian system is a seasonally flooded shrubland found at montane to subalpine elevations
in Colorado (2,280-3,410 m or 7,500-11,200 ft]. These are short to tall willow, or occasionally birch, alder, or
other shrub dominated communities of subalpine and montane lower order streams and slopes. Community
structure is variable, and may appear as narrow to wide bands of shrub vegetation lining streambanks and
alluvial terraces, or as extensive carrs (willow shrublands] of valley bottoms and slopes. These shrublands
are typical of ex-glaciated valleys of higher elevations in Colorado. At subalpine elevations (above 9,000 ft],
short shrub communities dominated by planeleaf willow [Salix planifolia), barrenground willow [Salix
brachycarpa), Wolfs willow [Salix wolfii], or bog birch [Betula nana) are characteristic and widespread
throughout the mountain ranges of the southern Rockies. With the transition to montane zone elevations,
taller willows and shrubs become dominant. Drummond willow [Salix drummondiana] is found at low
subalpine to upper montane elevations, while Geyer's willow [Salix geyeriand] and/or mountain willow [Salix
monticola) dominate a broad variety of associations ranging from the mid subalpine to lower montane zones.
In the lower montane, non-willow tall shrubs such as thinleaf alder [Alnus tenuifolia], water birch [Betula
occidentalis], red-osier dogwood [Cornus sericed], and tall-willow species including Bebb willow [Salix
bebbiana), strapleaf willow [S. liguifolia), and shining willow [S. lucidd] may dominate associations within this
system. The herbaceous layer maybe graminoid or forb dominated, and include many of the species that are
also common in riparian forests and woodlands of similar elevations.
Environment: This riparian system consists of seasonally flooded shrublands found at montane to subalpine
elevations of the Rocky Mountains. In Colorado, this system typically occurs at elevations between 2,280-
3,410 meters (7,500-11,200 feet]. This system can occur as narrow to wide bands of shrub vegetation lining
streambanks and alluvial terraces, or as extensive carrs (willow shrublands] of valley bottoms and slopes.
The distribution of this systems in Colorado has been greatly influenced by the history of glaciation in the
Southern Rocky Mountains. Many high elevation river valleys (known locally as "parks"] experienced
glaciation during the Pleistocene; terminal moraines extend to about 2,550 m in the north and 3,000 m in the
southern part of the region (Baker 1987, 1989; Windell et al. 1986]. High elevation streams of the glaciated
(U-shaped] valleys are low-gradient and typically dominated by riparian shrublands. Though most commonly
associated with distinct riparian corridors, this system can also occur as dense, low shrublands on broad,
open slopes in the subalpine and alpine. In these instances, the shrub wetlands are fed by snowmelt and
groundwater discharge that eventually accumulates into channelized flow downslope, forming the very
headwaters of mountain streams.
Alluvial soils within riparian shrublands are of variable thickness and texture and often exhibit
redoximorphic features such as mottling and gleying, indicating a fluctuating water table. Organic matter is
also of variable thickness and the depth and degree of decomposition varies according to the stability of the
water table, quality of detritus, and soil temperatures. However, shrub wetlands with 40 cm or greater
organic matter accumulations are indicative of permanent saturation from groundwater input and not fluvial
processes and should be classified as Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fens.
Vegetation: These are short to tall willow, or occasionally birch, alder, or other shrub dominated
communities of subalpine and montane lower order streams and slopes. The structure of vegetative
communities in these systems varies depending on latitude, elevation and climate. At subalpine elevations
(above 9,000 ft], short shrub communities dominated by planeleaf willow [Salix planifolia), barrenground
willow [Salix brachycarpa), wolf willow [Salix wolfii), or bog birch [Betula nana) are characteristic and
widespread throughout the mountain ranges of the southern Rockies. Instances of these short shrub
communities with greater than 40 cm of organic matter accumulation are equally as common as mineral soil
occurrences, but belong to the Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen system. With the transition to lower,
montane zone elevations, taller willows and shrubs become dominant. Drummond willow [Salix
drummondiana) is found at low subalpine to upper montane elevations, while Geyer's willow [Salix
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 75
Appendix E- 79
geyeriana) and/or mountain willow [Salix monticola) dominate a broad variety of associations ranging from
the mid subalpine to lower montane zones. In the lower montane, non-willow tall shrubs such as thinleaf
alder [Alnus tenuifolia), water birch [Betula occidentalis), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea], and tall-willow
species including Bebb willow [Salix bebbiana), strapleaf willow [S. liguifolia), and shining willow [S. lucida)
may dominate associations within this system, or, at even lower elevations, belong to the Rocky Mountain
Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland system.
The herbaceous layer may be graminoid or forb dominated, and include many of the species that are also
common in riparian forests and woodlands of similar elevations. Wet meadow or emergent marsh community
types may occur as inclusions in this system. Common graminoids include water sedge [Carex aquatilis),
beaked sedge [C. utriculata), smallwing sedge [C. microptera), woolly sedge [C. pellita), fowl mannagrass
[Glyceria striata), bluejoint reedgrass [Calamagrostis canadensis], smallflowered woodrush [Luzula
parviflora), mountain rush {juncus balticus var. montanus], slimstem reedgrass [Calamagrostis stricta), tufted
hairgrass [Deschampsia cespitosa), American mannagrass [Glyceria grandis), and rough bentgrass [Agrostis
scabra). Common forbs include Jacob's ladder [Polemonium sp.], tall fringed bluebells [Mertensia ciliata),
willowherb [Epilobium sp.], common cowparsnip [Heracleum maximum), starry false lily of the valley
[Maianthemum stellatum), bluntseed sweetroot [Osmorhiza depauperata), angelica [Angelica spp.],
monkshood [Aconitum columbianum), Parry's clover [Trifolium parryi], American bistort [Polygonum
bistortoides], alpine bistort [P. viviparum), heartleaf bittercress [Cardamine cordifolia), Fendler's meadow-rue
[Thalictrum fendleri), marsh marigold [Caltha leptosepala), elephanthead lousewort [Pedicularis
groenlandica), Rocky Mountain hemlock parsley [Conioselinum scopulorum), Porter's licorice root [Ligusticum
porteri), alpine meadow-rue [Thalictrum alpinum), common yarrow [Achillea millefolium), American vetch
[Vicia americand], Richardson's geranium [Geranium richardsonii), arrowleaf ragwort [Senecio triangularis),
Fendler's cowbane [Oxypolis fendleri), Virginia strawberry [Fragaria virginiana), largeleaf avens [Geum
macrophyllum), Fendler's waterleaf [Hydrophyllum fendleri), brook saxifrage [Saxifraga odontoloma),
subalpine larkspur [Delphinium barbeyi), bedstraw [Galium spp.], field horsetail [Equisetum arvense),
scouringrush horsetail [Equisetum hyemale), and felwort [Swertia perennis).
Nineteen plant alliances have been described for these systems in Colorado. These include:
• Alnus incana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Alnus incana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Betula nana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Betula occidentalis Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Betula occidentalis Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Cornus sericea Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Dasiphora fruticosa Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix bebbiana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix boothii Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix brachycarpa Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix drummondiana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix geyeriana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix geyeriana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix ligulifolia Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix monticola Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix planifolia Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix planifolia Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix wolfii Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix wolfii Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Dynamics: Riparian shrubland development is driven by the magnitude and frequency of flooding, valley and
substrate type, and beaver activity. Seasonal and episodic flooding erodes and deposits sediment resulting in
complex patterns of soil development that exerts a strong influence on the distribution of riparian vegetation
(Gregory et al. 1991; Poff et al. 1997]. Bare alluvium provides suitable substrate for the germination of willow
seedlings and is a critical patch type for continued regeneration of riparian shrublands (Poff et al. 1997;
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 76
Appendix E - 80
Woods 2001]. Valley geomorphology and substrate dictate the types of riparian shrublands which typically
develop. For example, thinleaf alder (AInus incana), Drummonds willow [Salix drummondiana), and red-osier
dogwood [Cornus sericea) are often dominant shrublands on steep and/or gravelly streams whereas a variety
of willows [Salix sp.] occupy more gently sloped streams with finer sediment or peat substrates. However,
riparian shrublands in the Southern Rocky Mountains are most commonly found in wide glaciated valleys or
open parks where they often occupy a substantial portion of the valley floor.
Beaver have historically been an important hydrogeomorphic driver of Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane
Riparian Shrublands. The activities of beaver create a heterogeneous complex of wet meadows, marshes and
riparian shrublands and increases species richness on the landscape. The continuing consequences of
wholesale removal of beaver from many streams during the height of the fur trade are evident, but largely
unquantified.
Community composition is also influenced by land use. In sites where there is prolonged disturbance, willow
coverage will decrease resulting in a more open canopy. Herbaceous vegetation is likely to include more non-
native species such as Kentucky bluegrass [Poa pratensis) and timothy [Phleum pratense) as well as exotics
species common to other wetland types such as Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense] and dandelion [Taraxacum
officinale]. Native increasers such as mountain rush {juncus arcticus], tufted hairgrass [Deschampsia
cespitosa), and shrubby cinquefoil [Dasiphora floribunda) often invade shrublands that have been artificially
drained (Cooper 1990; Johnson 1996]. Although these species are native, they can be indicative of
disturbance if they dominate areas previously occupied by willows and sedges.
Range: This system is found throughout the Rocky Mountain cordillera from New Mexico north into Montana.
In Colorado, this system is found throughout the Rocky Mountains at elevations between 2,280-3,410 meters
[7,500-11,200 feet].
Cowardin Wetland Classification:
System: Palustrine
Class: Scrub Shrub
Subclass: Broadleaved deciduous
Water regime: Temporarily to seasonally flooded
References
Baker, W.L. (1987] Recent changes in the riparian vegetation of the montane and subalpine zones of western
Colorado, U.S.A. PhD Dissertation. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.
Baker, W.L. [1989] Macro- and micro-scale influences on riparian vegetation in western Colorado. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 79(1]: 65-78.
Cooper, D.J. (1990] Ecology of wetlands in Big Meadows, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(15].
Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. (1991] An ecosystem perspective of riparian
zones. BioScience41(8]: 540-551.
Johnson, J.B. (1996] Environmental function, vegetation, and the effects of peat mining on a calcareous fen in
Park County, Colorado. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8 and Park County Department of Public Health. Department of Biology, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO.
Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Presegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromburg. (1997]
The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769-784.
Windell, J.T., B.E. Willard, and S.Q. Foster. (1986] Introduction to Rocky Mountain wetlands. Pages 1-41 in J.T.
Windell, B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. Knud-Hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.N. Kiladis, editors. An
ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Report 86.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 77
Appendix E - 81
Woods, S.W. (2001) Ecohydrology of subalpine wetlands in the Kawuneeche Valley, Rocky Mountain National
Park, Colorado. PhD Dissertation. Department of Earth Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 78
Appendix E - 82
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
Ecological System Description for the state of Montana
Natureserve Identifier: CES306.832
Summary: This riparian system is a seasonally flooded shrubland found at montane to subalpine elevations
of the Rocky Mountains. Shrubs dominate this system, with total shrub cover from 20 to 100 percent. Tree
cover is less than 15 percent, and shrubs dominate over the herbaceous species. This system consists of
narrow bands of shrub vegetation lining streambanks and alluvial terraces in narrow to wide, low-gradient
valley bottoms and floodplains with sinuous stream channels. Floristically similar communities area also
found around seeps, fens, and isolated springs on hillslopes away from valley bottoms. Along the low-order
streams most commonly associated with this system, high-energy flow events are common, driven by
thunderstorms, rain-on-snow events, or rapid snowmelt. Flooding from these events constantly creates and
destroys sites for the establishment of vegetation , by eroding, transporting and depositing coarse sediment
(Melanson and Butler, 1991]. Sediments create gravel bars at or near the surface of the river, where
vegetation colonizes. Over time, this creates bands of mixed vegetation representing different stages of
succession (Melanson and Butler, 1991]. In both streambank and hillslope systems, ground water seepage
from snowmelt may create shallow water tables or seeps that vegetation depends on for a portion of the
growing season.
This system often occurs as a mosaic of multiple shrub and herbaceous communities. The structure of
vegetation communities in these systems can vary depending on latitude, elevation and climate. In Montana,
these systems are usually dominated by willows, including Drummond willow [Salix drummondiana], Bebb
willow [Salix bebbiana], planeleaf willow [Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia), undergreen willow [Salix
commutata), Idaho willow [Salix wolfii], Booth willow [Salix boothi) and Geyer's willow [Salix geyeriana).
Typical herbaceous vegetation found in the understory includes beaked sedge [Carex utriuculata], bluejoint
reedgrass [Calamagrostis canadensis), and northern reedgrass [Calamagrostis stricta). Generally, the upland
vegetation surrounding these riparian systems are conifer-dominated forests. Shrubland riparian systems are
functionally important for bank stabilization, for providing organic inputs to the adjacent stream, and for
their shade cover and wildlife habitat values.
Environment: This riparian system is a seasonally flooded shrubland found at montane to subalpine
elevations of the Rocky Mountains. In Montana, this system typically occurs at elevations between 1,750 to
2,693 meters (5,740 to 8,830 feet]. This system consists of narrow bands of shrub vegetation lining
streambanks and alluvial terraces in narrow to wide, low-gradient valley bottoms and floodplains with
sinuous stream channels. This system is also typical around seeps, fens, and isolated springs on hillslopes
away from valley bottoms.
Vegetation: The structure of vegetative communities in these systems varies depending on latitude,
elevation and climate. For example, in southwest Montana, Drummond willow [Salix drummondiana)
occupies higher elevations while Geyer's willow [Salix geyeriana) and Booth willow [Salix boothi) are found at
more intermediate elevations. In the northwest region of Montana, Geyer's and Booth willow are barely
present and Drummond's willow dominates most riparian areas (Hansen et al, 1995]. Bebb willow [Salix
bebbiana), planeleaf willow [Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia), undergreen willow [Salix commutata) and Idaho
willow [Salix wolfii) are frequent associates. Barclay's willow [Salix barclayi), shortfruit willow [Salix
brachycarpa) and grayleaf willow [Salix glauca) become common at higher subalpine elevations. Sageleaf
willow [Salix Candida) is indicative of fens and occurs in association with other willow species to form the
shrub dominated carr layers within fen systems. Water birch [Betula occidentalis) or resin birch [Betula
glandulosa) may also be present within these shrublands.
The dominant graminoid vegetation in the herbaceous stratum of these shrubland riparian systems includes
bluejoint reedgrass [Calamagrostis canadensis), northern reedgrass [Calamagrostis stricta) and beaked sedge
[Carex utriculata). Common forbs include dwarf fireweed [Chamerion latifolium), field mint [Mentha
arvensis), glaucous willowherb [Epilobium glaberrimum), western mountain aster [Symphyotrichum
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 79
Appendix E - 83
spathulatum), and tiny trumpets {Collomia linearis). Sharptooth angelica (Angelica arguta], starry Solomon's
seal [Maianthemum stellatum), sweet-cicely {Osmorhiza species), common cowparsnip [Heracleum
maximum), clasp-leaf twistedstalk {Streptopus amplexifolius) and green false hellebore {Veratrum viride) are
frequent at higher elevations. When these systems occur in conjunction with rich fen-carr shrublands,
graminoid and forb species diversity will be much higher.
Flooding in these systems influences plant communities by transporting sediments and creating colonization
sites. Many plants in these high-energy systems have developed adaptive traits to withstand flooding,
notably flexible, resilient stems and specialized oxygen-holding cells. Similarly, many have reproductive
adaptations like water-dispersed seeds and the ability to sprout quickly from damaged stumps.
Community composition is also influenced by land use. Sites that are overly browsed will become dominated
by Bebb willow {Salix bebbiana), a shrub that is more resilient to heavy grazing. In sites where there is
prolonged disturbance, willow coverage will decrease resulting in a more open canopy. Herbaceous
vegetation will transition to a grass dominated system including fowl bluegrass {Poa palustris), Kentucky
bluegrass {Poa pratensis) and field horsetail {Equisetum arvense).
Twenty-five plant alliances have been described for these systems in Montana. These include:
• Acer glabrum Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Alnus incana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Alnus incana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Betula nana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Betula occidentalis Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Betula occidentalis Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Cornus sericea Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Dasiphora fruticosa Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix bebbiana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix boothii Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix boothii Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix Candida Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix commutata Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix drummondiana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix drummondiana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix geyeriana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix geyeriana Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix glauca Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix lucida Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix lutea Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix lutea Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix planifolia Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix wolfii Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance
• Salix wolfii Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Dynamics: Stochastic flood events and variable fluvial conditions are crucial to the development of
establishment sites for riparian plants as well as acting as a primary control on plant succession. Steep
gradients and high-energy flows controlled by precipitation and hydrological events lead to flood-driven
transportation of coarse sediments. The alternating scouring and deposition of sediments constantly creates
and destroys plant habitat (Melanson and Butler, 1991). Over time, this creates bands of mixed vegetation
representing different stages of succession (Melanson and Butler, 1991). Increasing vegetation traps even
more sediment so that the size and height of the gravel bar increases (Melanson and butler, 1990).
Eventually, the gravel bar will be sufficiently achored by vegetation to withstand or deflect flood flows,
directing the force of the water at the opposite banks, where erosion of sediments will occur.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 80
Appendix E - 84
Range: This system is found throughout the Rocky Mountain cordillera from New Mexico north into Montana.
In Montana, this system is found throughout the Rocky Mountains at elevations between 1,750 to 2,693
meters (5,740 to 8,830 feet). This system also occurs in the isolated island mountain ranges of central and
eastern Montana and in mountainous areas of the Intermountain West.
Cowardin Wetland Classification:
System: Palustrine
Class: Scrub Shrub
Subclass: Broadleaved deciduous
Water regime: Temporarily to seasonally flooded
References:
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 103 pp.
Ellis, J.H., and J. Richard. 2003. A planning guide for protecting Montana's wetlands and riparian areas.
Produced by Montana Watercourse. Available online at www.mtwatercourse.org.
Hansen, P. L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and management
of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Exp. Sta., School of
Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 54. pp.
Melanson, G.P., and D.R. Butler. 1990. Woody debris, sediment, and riparian vegetation of a subalpine river,
Montana, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research 22: 183-194.
Melanson, G.P., and D.R. Butler. 1991. Floristic variation among gravel bars in a subalpine river in Montana,
US. Arctic and Alpine Research 23: 273-278.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Riparian Ecosystems. Wetlands 3 rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
pages 377-417.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 81
Appendix E - 85
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen
Ecological System Description for the state of Montana
Natureserve Identifier: CES306.831
Summary: Subalpine-montane fens occur infrequently throughout the Rocky Mountains 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. Constant
high water levels lead to accumulation of organic material. In addition to peat accumulation 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. In Montana, 17 vascular plant species of concern inhabit fens. Many more uncommon
plant species are also confined to fens. 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 species], spikerushes
[Eleocharis species], and rushes (Juncus species]. Bryophyte diversity is generally high and includes
sphagnum [Sphagnum species]. In rich and extremely rich fens, forb diversity is equally high, often
supporting many species of orchids such as bog orchid species [Plantanthera species], giant helleborine
orchid [Epipactis gigantea), one leaf orchid (Ameorchis rotundifolia), sparrow's egg ladyslipper [Cypripedium
passerinum) and small yellow ladyslipper [Cypripedium parviflorum). Buckbean [Menyanthes trifoliata),
beautiful shooting-star [Dodecatheon pulcherrinum), elephant head [Pedicularis groenlandica], arrow-grass
(Triglochin palustris], and Siberian chives {Allium schoenoprasum) are commonly represented in rich and
extremely rich fens. The surrounding landscape may be ringed with other wetland systems, e.g., riparian
shrublands known as carrs, or a variety of upland systems from grasslands to wet forests or forest swamps.
Riparian carr shrublands, dominated by willow and bog birch [Salix species-Betu/o nana] are usually present.
In Montana, sage leaf willow (Salix Candida) is indicative of the carr environment within a fen. Fens are found
in scattered locations in the western Great Plains along the Rocky Mountain Front, in the Rocky Mountains
and the small isolated central mountain ranges, and at higher elevations on the Beartooth Plateau in the
southern portion of the state.
Environment: The montane-subalpine fen ecological system is a small-patch system comprised of mountain
wetlands that support a unique ecology of rare plants not found in other types of wetlands. These fens are
confined to specific environments defined by groundwater discharge, soil chemistry, and peat accumulation
of at least 40 cm. However, peat accumulations in areas overlain by gravel, cobble or bedrock may be less
than 40 cm. 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. Constant high water levels lead to accumulations of organic material. Rich and
extremely rich fens are found in areas underlain by limestone. Water chemistry ranges from only slightly
acidic to alkaline and is usually distinctly calcareous. Marl deposits (precipitated calcium carbonates] are
common in these systems. Tufa deposits or terraces can be seen in some rich fens and are composed of
virtually pure calcium carbonate at the soil surface, formed by continuous discharge and evaporation of
calcite saturated groundwater. In northwestern Montana, pH values usually range from 5.9 to 8.4 (Chadde et
al., 1998]. Poor fens are more common in the northern Rocky Mountains and occur in areas overlain by non-
calcareous bedrock such as argillites and granite. These are usually flat, acidic, and saturated to the surface,
sometimes with standing water.
Fens develop sucessionally through lake-filling, flow-through succession or paludification. Lake filling occurs
in depressions and is often characterized by the presence of floating mats and a ring of carr vegetation on the
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 82
Appendix E - 86
out margin of the peatland. Flow-through fens are the most common in the northern Rocky Mountains. They
occur along streams, slopes and benches with a constant inflow and outflow of calcium-rich water. They are
characterized by a series of linear hummocks oriented perpendicular to the slope. Carr shrubland is well
developed in flow-through fens due to well-aerated, nutrient-rich water near the inflow and outflow zones..
Usually there is an open, nutrient- poor community in the central portion of the fen. Paludification occurs
when fens expand due to a rise in the water table caused by peat accumulation. This process is most often
observed near seeps and springs or adjacent to closed basin peatlands where peat accumulation causes
wetter conditions along the outer edges. Higher water tables kill existing trees. In the northern Rocky
Mountains, this sucessional process is limited due to prolonged summer droughts; however it may be seen in
some fen systems at higher elevations.
In northwestern Montana, fens occur at montane to subalpine elevations, generally ranging from 762 to 1,676
m (2,500-5,500 feet], and are characterized by mosaics of plant communities. In southern Montana, subalpine
and alpine fens potentially occur at higher elevations (Heidel and Rodemaker 2008]. These communities
typically occur in seeps and wet sub-irrigated meadows in narrow to broad valley bottoms. Surface
topography is typically smooth to concave with lake-fill peatlands or with slopes ranging from to 10 percent
in flow-through fens. 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, however, if overlying bedrock, cobbles or
gravels. Histosols range in texture from clayey-skeletal to loamy-skeletal and fine-loams.
Vegetation:
Floristically, rich and extremely rich fens are the most diverse of all peatland types in the Rocky Mountains.
Extremely rich fens are characterized by high species diversity and a mosaic of plant communities. In
contrast, poor fens have scattered vascular plant cover but are characterized by a nearly continuous cover of
mosses.
The sedge layer is often dominated by beaked sedges {Carex utriculata or Carex rostratd], water sedge {Carex
aquatilis), mud sedge {Carex limosd], woolyfruit sedge {Carex lasiocarpa), spikerush {Eleocharis species]
cottongrass {Eriophorum species), rushes {Scirpus species and Trichophorum species] and bulrushes
{Shoenoplectus species]. Other species include Buxbaum's sedge {Carex buxbaumii], northern bog sedge
{Carex gynocrates], bristly-stalked sedge {Carex leptalea), pale sedge {Carex livida), poor sedge {Carex
paupercula), yellow sedge {Carex flava), hair sedge {Carex capillaris), silvery sedge {Carex canescens], lens
sedge {Carex lenticularis), Baltic rush {Juncus balticus), northern rush {Juncus alpino-articulatus), dagger leaf
rush {Juncus ensifolius), threadleaf rush {Juncus filiformis), common spike rush {Eleocharis palustris), few
flowered spike rush {Eleocharis pauciflora), simple bog sedge {Kobresia simpliciuscula), tufted clubrush
{Trichophorum pumiluni), alpine clubrush {Trichophorum alpinum), green keeled cottongrass {Eriophorum
viridicarinatum), and slender cottongrass {Eriophorum gracile). Three-way sedge {Dulichium arundinaceum),
flatstem spikerush {Eleocharis tenuis), and beaked spikerush {Eleocharis rosteUata) are found west of the
Continental Divide. Common grasses include bluejoint reedgrass {Calamagrostis canadensis), tufted hairgrass
{Deschampsia cespitosa), and fringed brome {Bromus ciliatus).
Common forbs within the open, sedge-dominated fen community include showy pussytoes {Antenarria
pulcherrima), bog orchid {Plantanthera species], buckbean {Menyanthes trifoliata), elegant death camas
{Zigadenus elegans), grass-of-parnassus {Parnassia species], beautiful shooting-star {Dodecatheon
pulcherrinum) elephant head {Pedicularis groenlandica), arrow-grass {Triglochin palustris), and Siberian
chives {Allium schoenoprasum). At subalpine elevations, common butterwort {Pinguicula vulgaris) often
occurs near seeps or springs, in areas where there is marl accumulation or on tufa deposits or terraces.
Many species of concern or uncommon species are indicators of fen systems. Northern bog violet {Viola
nephrophylla) is a common forb fen indicator throughout Montana. West of the Continental Divide, Kalm's
lobelia {Lobelia kalmii) and bulblet-bearing water hemlock {Cicuta bulbifera) are found exclusively in fens. In
Montana, yellow widelip orchid {Liparis loeselii) is found exclusively in fens. Other orchids such as giant
helleborine orchid {Epipactis gigantea) are found in open sedge-dominated portions of the fen system, while
one leaf orchid {Ameorchis rotundifolia), sparrow's egg ladyslipper {Cypripedium passerinum) and small
yellow ladyslipper {Cypripedium parviflorum) occur on raised sphagnum hummocks that form around trees
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 83
Appendix E - 87
and shrubs near the perimeter of the fen. These species are found almost exclusively in fens or forest habitats
bordering fens.
In Montana, wet, floating Sphagnum-dominated mats are associated with open water edges or depressional
areas of fen systems. Bryophyte floating mats consist of Meesia triquetra and Scorpidium species, and
Magellan's peatmoss [Sphagnum magellanicum] and brown peatmoss [Sphagnum fuscum]. The bryophyte
floating mat supports a very minor component of sedges such as mud sedge [Carex limosa), and small sedges
such as grape sedge [Carex awed], softleaf sedge [Carex disperma], inland sedge [Carex interior] and
cottongrass species [Eriophorum species]. Species of concern and fen indicators such as pale laurel [Kalmia
polifolia], rannoch rush [Scheuchzeria palustris] and sundews [Drosera species] occur on these floating mats.
Buckbean [Menyanthes trifoliata] is a late serai species from the sedge mat phase and is often present on
these floating mats.
Fens are frequently bordered by willow-bog birch [Salix species-BetuIa nana] dominated carrs. Carr
shrubland is well developed in flow-through fens due to well-aerated nutrient-rich water near the inflow and
outflow zones or the perimeter of basin fens. Sageleaf willow [Salix Candida) is an indicator species, and
sometimes the dominant willow species, especially in prairie fens. Other willow species include Bebb's willow
[Salix bebbiana], Drummond's willow [Salix drummondiana], plane-leaf willow [Salix planif olid], wolf willow
[Salix wolfii], and undergreen willow [Salix commutata] in the subalpine systems. Autumn willow [Salix
serrissima] is found in fen-carr shrublands east of the Continental Divide near the Canadian border. Other
common carr shrubs include alder [AInus species], alder buckthorn [Rhamnus alnifolia], shrubby cinquefoil
[Dasiphora fruticosa], and western Labrador tea [Ledum glandulosum). Engelmann spruce [Picea
engelmannii] is the frequent conifer species associated with fens and forested fen margins of these systems
(Hansen and others, 1996].
Associations: Carex utriculata Herbaceous Vegetation, Carex lasiocarpa Herbaceous Vegetation, Carex limosa
Herbaceous Vegetation, Carex simulata Herbaceous Vegetation, Carex utriculata Perched Wetland
Herbaceous Vegetation, Betula nana / Carex spp. Shrubland, Salix Candida / Carex utriculata Shrubland
Ten plant alliances have been described for these systems in Montana. These include:
Betula nana Seasonally Flooded Shrubland Alliance (A.995]
Carex (rostrata, utriculata) Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance (A.1403]
Carex aquatilis Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance (A.1404]
Carex buxbaumii Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance (A.1413)
Carex lasiocarpa Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance (A.1415)
Carex limosa Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance (A.1416]
Carex simulata Saturated Herbaceous Alliance (A.1469]
Dulichium arundinaceum Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance (A.1398]
Salix Candida Seasonally Flooded Alliance (A.1002]
Species of Concern associated with this system: One leaf orchid [Ameorchis rotundifolia], creeping sedge
[Carex chordorrhiza], beaked sedge [Carex rostrata], English sundew [Drosera angelica], linear leaf sundew
[Drosera linearis], crested woodfern [Dryopteris cristata], beaked spikerush [Eleocharis rostellata], giant
helleborine orchid [Epipactis gigantea], Macoun's fringed gentian [Gentianopsis macounii], hiker's gentian
[Gentianopsis simplexi], slender cottongrass [Eriophorum gracile], pale laurel [Kalmia polifolia], simple bog
sedge [Kobresia simpliciuscula], yellow widelip orchid [Liparis loeselii], autumn willow [Salix serrisissima],
bluntleaf pondweed [Potamogeton obtusifolius], rannoch rush [Scheuchzeria palustris], tufted rush
[Trichophorum cespitosum], lesser bladderwort [Utricularia minor].
Dynamics: Mountain fens act as natural filters, cleaning ground and surface water. Fens also act as sponges
by absorbing heavy precipitation, then slowly releasing it downstream, minimizing erosion and recharging
groundwater systems. The persistent groundwater and cold temperatures allow organic matter to
accumulate (forming peat],which allows classification of wetlands within this system as fens. Peat
accumulates at the rate of 8 to 11 inches per 1000 years, making peatlands a repository of 10,000 years of
post-glacial history.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 84
Appendix E - 88
Range: This system occurs infrequently throughout the Rocky Mountains from Colorado north into Canada.
In Montana, small fens are found in scattered locations in the plains and the small isolated mountain ranges of
the central part of the state. The Swan, Stillwater and Flathead valleys have numerous rich and extremely rich
fen systems due to the prevalence of limestone bedrock in the Whitefish, Mission, and Swan mountain ranges.
Similarly, rich and extremely rich fens are found along the limestone-rich Front Range east of the Continental
Divide. East of the Continental Divide, both small (20 acres or less] and a few large rich and extremely rich
prairie fens occur on the extreme western Great Plains bordering the Rocky Mountain Front. Further south in
western Montana, poor fen systems are more common in the Bitterroot, Lolo, and Beaverhead ranges.
Similarly, poor fens are found in the granitic, isolated central Montana island ranges and the Beartooth
plateau in southern Montana.
Isolated Wetland: Partially to completely isolated
Cowardin Wetland Classification:
System: Palustrine
Class: Emergent
Water regime: Saturated
References:
Smolders, A.J. P., Tomassen, H.B.M., Lamers, L.P.M., Lomans, B.P., and Roelofs, J.G.M. 2002. Peat bog restoration
by floating raft formation: the effects of groundwater and peat quality. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39:
391-401.
Chadde, S. W., Shelly, J. S., Bursik, R. J., Moseley, R. K., Evenden, A. G., Mantas, M., Rabe, F., and Heidel, B. 1998.
Peatlands on National Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains: ecology and conservation. General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-11, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Hansen, P.L., Pfister, R.D., Boggs, K., Cook, B.J., Joy, J., and Hinckley, D.K. 1996. Classification and Management
of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of
Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54.
Heidel, B. and Rodemaker, E. 2008. Inventory of peatland systems in the Beartooth Mountains, Shoshone
National Forest, Park County, Wyoming. Prepared for: Environmental Protection Agency. Wyoming
Natural Diversity database. Laramie, Wyoming.
Jones, W. M. 2003. Kootenai National Forest peatlands: description and effects of forest
management. Report to the Kootenai National Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena.
14 pp. + appendicies.
Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. 2000. Peatlands in Wetlands (3 rd Edition]. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 85
Appendix E - 89
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 86
Appendix E - 90
APPENDIX C: National Wetland Inventory Classification
Modified from Cowardin et ah 1979
Cowardin System:
Palustrine (P): All wetlands sampled within the REMAP project will fall under the Palustrine Cowardin
System because they are vegetated. This system includes all wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,
and emergent, herbaceous vegetation. Wetlands lacking vegetation are also included in this system if
they are less than 8 hectares (20 acres) and have a depth less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in the deepest
portion of the wetland.
Cowardin Classes:
Aquatic Bed (AB): Wetlands with vegetation that grows on or below the water surface for most of the
growing season.
Emergent (EM): Wetlands with erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation present during most of the growing
season.
Scrub-Shrub (SS): Wetlands dominated by woody vegetation that is less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall.
Woody vegetation includes tree saplings and trees that are stunted due to environmental conditions.
Forested (FO): Wetland is dominated by woody vegetation that is greater than 6 meters (20 feet) tall.
Unconsolidated Bottom (UB): Wetlands that have a muddy or silty substrate with at least 25% cover.
Unconsolidated Shore (US): Wetlands with less than 75% areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock
AND with less than 30% vegetative cover AND are irregularly exposed due to seasonal or irregular
flooding and subsequent drying.
Cowardin Water Regime Modifiers (in order from driest to wettest):
Intermittently Flooded (J): The substrate is usually exposed, but surface water is present for variable
periods without detectable seasonal periodicity. Weeks, months, or even years may intervene
between periods of inundation.
Temporarily Flooded (A): Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season, but the
water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the season. Plants that grow both in
uplands and wetlands are characteristic of the temporarily flooded regime.
Saturated (B): The substrate is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the growing season,
but surface water is seldom present. This modifier is applied to fen like areas with stable water
tables regardless of their connectivity.
Seasonally Flooded (C): Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing
season, but is absent by the end of the season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water
table is often near the land surface.
Semi-permanently Flooded (F): Surface water persists throughout the growing season in most years.
When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or very near the land surface.
Intermittently Exposed (G): Surface water is present throughout the year except in years of extreme
drought. This is applied to large ponds and shallow lakes where the water does not appear likely to
dry up.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 87
Appendix E - 91
Permanently Flooded (H): Water covers the land surface throughout the year in all years. Vegetation is
composed of obligate hydrophytes. Mostly applied to deepwater habitats such as lakes where there
is no chance drying.
Cowardin Special Modifiers
Beaver (b): This modifier describes wetlands that are formed within and adjacent to streams by beaver
activity.
Excavated (x): This modifier describes wetlands that were created through the excavation of soils.
Partially ditched/ drained (d): This modifier describes manmade alterations to wetlands including
ditches.
Diked/impounded (h): This modifier describes manmade alterations to wetlands where impoundments
or dikes have been added.
Farmed (f): This modifier describes wetlands that have been altered due to farming practices.
Examples of Palustrine System:
To classify Palustrine wetlands, we combine the codes for the system, class, and water regime. The following
are examples of types of wetlands and how they would be coded for wetland mapping purposes.
1. Cattail marsh that has standing water for most of the year: PEMF
2. A prairie pothole dominated by grasses and sedges that is only wet at the beginning of the growing
season: PEMA
3. A fen in the subalpine zone: PEMB
4. A small shallow pond that has lily pads and other floating vegetation and holds water throughout the
growing season: PABF
5. A small shallow pond with less than 30% vegetation and a muddy substrate that holds water for
most of the year: PUBF
6. A wetland dominated by willows adjacent to a stream that is only periodically flooded: PSSA
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 88
Appendix E - 92
APPENDIX D: Field Key to the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classes of
Wetlands in the Rocky Mountains
la. Entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the primary source (>90%) of water. Groundwater and
surface water runoff are not significant sources of water to the unit Flats HGM Class
lb. Wetland does not meet the above criteria; primary water sources include groundwater and/or surface
water 2
2a. Entire wetland unit meets all of the following criteria: a) the vegetated portion of the wetland is on the
shores of a permanent open water body at least 8 ha (20 acres) in size; b) at least 30% of the open water
area is deeper than 2 m (6.6 ft); c) vegetation in the wetland experiences bidirectional flow as the result
of vertical fluctuations of water levels due to rising and falling lake levels
Lacustrine Fringe HGM Class
2b. Wetland does not meet the above criteria; wetland is not found on the shore of a water body, water body
is either smaller or shallower, OR vegetation is not effected by lake water levels 3
3a. Entire wetland unit meets all of the following criteria: a) wetland unit is in a valley, floodplain, or along a
stream channel where it is inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river; b) overbank
flooding occurs at least once every two years; and c) wetland does not receive significant inputs from
groundwater. NOTE: Riverine wetlands can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is
not flooding such as oxbows and beaver ponds Riverine HGM Class
3b. Wetland does not meet the above criteria; if the wetland is located within a valley, floodplain, or along a
stream channel, it is outside of the influence of overbank flooding or receives significant hydrologic
inputs from groundwater 4
4a. Entire wetland unit meets all of the following criteria: a) wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual
or nearly flat); b) groundwater is the primary hydrologic input; c) water, if present, flows through the
wetland in one direction and usually comes from seeps or springs; and d) water leaves the wetland
without being impounded. NOTE: Small channels can form within slope wetlands, but are not subject to
overbank flooding. Surface water does not pond in these types ofwetlands, except occasionally in very small
and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually < 3ft diameter and less than 1 foot
deep] Slope HGM Class
4b. Wetland does not meet all of the above criteria. Entire wetland unit is located in a topographic depression
in which water ponds or is saturated to the surface at some time during the year. NOTE: Any outlet, if
present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Depressional HGM Class
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 89
Appendix E - 93
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 90
Appendix E - 94
APPENDIX E: Soil Texture Flowchart
I LOAM f**
\ LOAM J^' —
{ loam M-y
Plots 3pp-*H J«»1dy M 4 *0i in Mlfl Add nnier dr*p*n5* and kfl eod
■:hc soil to :roa4 dowr a! aqgreqalas. Sol is al (he proper consistency
w\*n plasne and moldabe Iftsuno si putty.
T"
AMtky Mil Id
soah up ta/ba
T
Does *«l f*nt(in n a ball when squeezed?
K vod Ion diy?
lunl I CO wet?
L ^>
— no-M SAND J
Place; ball of soil between tiuinb md torelnoe' gentfy pushing Hie swwrtH Ihe thumb. MjueKiig >t
icwaid nto a rbboa Form a nobon ol umlorm IfiStnasi a ltd Mdlh. 'How Hie nsbon to emeige and
e»lc«i3 ewe' he foretngcr. trealorio; from its own weight.
/„oamy\j
I SANC J*™
Does iEii Torn a ifcbor ?
Co*4 stJ make a * ea*
ribbon lets :hsn 2 5 em
long bailors breaking?
T
does soil made a medium
i*5bqn 3,5-5 cm long
before Sfeaking?
T
■.-. i
Does sol =w« a ->li -_-i- y
ribbon 5 cm or longer
setae beating?
T
■, e >
Etc* »Atrjr w<4 a smell pirch of soil in palm a no" lib wilh iorefi n gei
Dees sol fed
vwyojilty?
T
rn
Dc*i ioil Tee.
T
ro
Neil her
guinea nor
snoonhness
pr edon n jtcs
/SANCV\
V LOAM /
/silty\
[ CLAV W-,.
V LOAM J
( CLAV A^ ,
I LOAM J*'
Does soil reel
veiyorlhy?
T
I'ni
Does soil Feel
veiy snKXjih?
Neither
y It nets nor
snroolhress
Fr«dstma(«
I CLAV p
(SV«
f CLA- U
Doessalfeel
vaj onlty'?
Dees soil Peel
ve - y vinurfh?
T
no
Ne*ner
grllinessref
smooth ress
pnnJcn-mate*.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 91
Appendix E - 95
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 92
Appendix E - 96
APPENDIX F: Notes on Hydric Soil Indicators for the Mountain West
All Soil Types
Al. Histosol: Organic soil material > 40 cm think within the top 80 cm.
A2. Histic Epipedon: Organic soil material > 20 cm thick above a mineral soil layer. Aquic conditions or
artificial drainage required, but can be assumed if hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are
present.
A3. Black Histic: Very dark organic soil material > 20 cm thick that starts within 15 cm of soil surface.
Color: hue = 10YR or yellower; value < 3; chroma < 1. Aquic conditions or artificial drainage not required.
Rare in our region.
A4. Hydrogen Sulfide: Rotten egg odor within 30 cm of the soil surface due to the reduction of sulfur.
Most commonly found in areas that are permanently saturated or inundated; almost never at the wetland
boundary.
All. Depleted Below Dark Surface: Depleted (colorless] layer > 15 cm that starts within 30 cm of the
soil surface. Color: chroma < 2. Redox features required if color = 4/1, 4/2, 5/2. Layers above must be
dark. See Table 1 for specifics.
A12. Thick Dark Surface. Depleted (colorless] layer > 15 cm that starts below 30 cm of the soil surface.
Color: chroma < 2. Redox features required if color = 4/1, 4/2, 5/2. Layers above must be dark. See Table
1 for specifics. Not common in our region.
For the remaining indicators, unless otherwise indicated, all mineral layers above the indicators must have a
dominant chroma of < 2 or the layers with dominant chroma of > 2 must be < 15 cm thick.
Sandy Soil Types Sandy soil indicators are generally shallower and thinner than loamy/clayey soil
indicators.
SI. Sandy Mucky Mineral: A layer of mucky modified sandy soil material > 5 cm starting within 15 cm
of the soil surface. Limited in our region, but found in swales associated with sand dunes.
54. Sandy Gleyed Matrix: Gleyed matrix that occupies > 60% of a layer starting within 15 cm of the soil
surface. No minimum thickness required. Gley colors are not synonymous with grey colors. They are
found on the Gley page. Rare in our region; only found where sandy soils are almost continuously
saturated.
55. Sandy Redox: Redox features in a depleted (colorless] layer > 10 cm that starts within 15 cm of the
soil surface. Color: chroma < 2. See Table 1 for specifics. Most common indicator in our region of the
wetland boundary for sandy soils.
56. Stripped Matrix: A layer starting within 15 cm of the surface in which iron/manganese oxides
and/or organic matter has been stripped and the base color of the soil material is exposed. Evident by
faint, diffuse splotchy patterns of two or more colors. Stripped zones are > 10% and ~l-3 cm in diameter.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 93
Appendix E - 97
Loamy/ Clayey Soil Types Loamy/clayey soil indicators are generally deeper and thicker than sandy soil
indicators.
Fl. Loamy Mucky Mineral: A layer of mucky modified loamy or clayey soil material > 10 cm starting
within 15 cm of the soil surface. Difficult to tell without testing.
F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix: Gleyed matrix that occupies > 60% of a layer starting within 30 cm of the
soil surface. No minimum thickness required. Gley colors are not synonymous with grey colors. They are
found on the Gley page.
F3. Depleted Matrix: Depleted (colorless) layer > 5 cm thick within 15 cm or > 15 cm thick within 30
cm of the soil surface. Color: chroma < 2. Redox features required if color = 4/1, 4/2, 5/2. See Table 1 for
specifics. Most common indicator at wetland boundaries.
F6. Redox Dark Surface: A dark surface layer with redox features. Depth and location: > 10 cm thick
entirely within 30 cm of the mineral soil. Matrix color and redox features: matrix value < 3 and chroma <
1 with > 2% distinct, prominent redox concentrations OR matrix value < 3 and chroma < 2 with > 5%
distinct, prominent redox concentrations. The chroma can be higher with more redox features. Very
common indicator to delineate wetlands, though difficult to see in soils with high organic matter.
F7. Depleted Dark Surface: A dark surface layer with redox depletions. Depth and location: > 10 cm
thick entirely within 30 cm of the mineral soil. Matrix color and redox depletions: matrix value < 3 and
chroma < 1 with > 10% redox depletions OR matrix value < 3 and chroma < 2 with > 20% redox
depletions. The chroma can be higher with more redox depletions. Redox depletions themselves should
have value > 5 and chroma < 2. Rare in our region.
F8. Redox Depressions: A layer > 5 cm thick entirely within 15 cm of soil surface with > 5% distinct or
prominent redox concentrations in closed depressions subject to ponding. No color requirement for the
matrix soil, but only applies to depressions in otherwise flat landscapes.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 94
Appendix E - 98
Table 1. Comparison of indicators with depleted matrices and redox features.
All
A12
F3
S5
Depleted matrix extent
> 60%
> 60%
> 60%
> 60%
Depleted matrix color
chroma < 2
chroma < 2
chroma < 2
chroma < 2
Redox requirements
> 2% distinct or
prominent redox
concentrations
if matrix color is
4/1,4/2,5/2
> 2% distinct or
prominent redox
concentrations
if matrix color is
4/1,4/2,5/2
> 2% distinct or
prominent redox
concentrations
if matrix color is
4/1, 4/2, 5/2
> 2% distinct or
prominent redox
concentrations
Starting within
< 30 cm
>30cm
see below
> 15 cm
Min thickness
15 cm or
5 cm if
fragmental soil
material
15 cm
5 cm within 15
cm of soil surface
OR
15 cm within 25
cm of soil surface
10 cm
Color of layers above
loamy/clayey
value < 3
chroma < 2
sandy material
value < 3
chroma < 1
70% coated with
organic material
all types to 30cm
value < 2.5
chroma < 1
all types below
30 cm and above
depleted matrix
value < 3
chroma < 1
all sandy
material
70% coated with
organic material
no requirements
no requirements
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 95
Appendix E - 99
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 96
Appendix E - 100
APPENDIX G: First Aid and Safety in the Field
First Aid Considerations and Common Field Ailments
First: If you have the time and resources take a Wilderness First Aid [1 day] or Wilderness First Responder
(week] course.
Second: In any accident scenario (injury or just a flat tire] remain calm and make sure the scene around
you is safe (before attempting to help someone make sure the bear is not going to get you too or the car will
not fall on top of you as you jack it up].
Third: Pay attention to how far you are from help or your vehicle, this can have a huge impact on an injury or
weather scenario. [Always take a GPS point of the location of your vehicle before heading out into the field.) Pay
attention to the weather, sun exposure etc.
First Aid/Safety List
In your Pack:
Your car keys, ID, emergency contact info, insurance card
Sun hat and sun screen
Rain coat/pants
Plenty of water and food for the time you'll be out plus time you may be out given an injury or other
change of plans
Map and Compass (GPS units run out of batteries and lose signals]
Whistle or radio for signaling others in the group or nearby
Lighter or matches
Firestarter (e.g., cotton balls soaked in Vaseline stored in a film canister]
Tape and Gauze (Quick-clot is a new super gauze]
Mole skin and bandaids
Needle and thread
Tweezers
Anti-biotic ointment
Painkillers (make sure they do not dehydrate or compromise your ability to get out of your situation]
Knife/leatherman type tool
Salt and sugar packets (especially if low blood sugar is an issue]
Other meds or allergy equipment (epi-pen] you may want or need
Water purification (iodine one 8ppm tab per quart or filter]
Headlamp
Bandana (can double as triangular bandage]
Reflective blanket or emergency bag
In the Vehicle:
• Full size spare tire
• Jack and all the parts to the jack (including knowledge of how to use the jack]
• Lug nut wrench
• More food, water, coffee etc.
• Sleeping bag, warm clothes
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 97
Appendix E - 101
More sun block
More mole skin
Cell phone or radio
Heat Exhaustion and Heatstroke
It can get hot in Colorado, even at the higher elevations. Physical exertion at high temperatures can lead to
heat exhaustion - becoming dehydrated increases the chances of it. Insufficient water in your body inhibits
sweating, and you won't cool down to the degree that you would otherwise.
Symptoms of heat exhaustion include rapid breathing, high pulse rate, heavy sweating, paleness, fatigue,
muscle cramps, dizziness, moderately elevated temperature, headache and nausea. When it gets more severe
the symptoms may include vomiting and fainting. Some of the less severe symptoms also commonly
accompany heavy physical exertion. You have to listen to your body. One good (usually early) sign that you
are pushing yourself too hard is if you start feeling a little dizzy or woozy. If so, take a break and let your
body recoup before resuming physical activity.
If someone does appear to have heat exhaustion, have the person lay down in the shade (if possible), rest
with their feet raised a few inches and drink some water.
If heat exhaustion symptoms are ignored and the person keeps on with their physical exertion, the problem
can become more severe and lead to heatstroke. This is life-threatening. With heatstroke the ability of the
brain to regulate body temperature ceases -- the person's temperature can go up to 104 F or higher.
Heatstroke symptoms can include confusion, highly elevated temperature, strong rapid pulse, delirium,
seizures and unconsciousness.
If someone appears to have heatstroke you should do the following: remove some clothing and cool the
person with water and by fanning them. If there is a stream or pond nearby, put them in it to cool them
down. After the person appears to be getting better (with their temperature having dropped to about 101 F)
have the person assume the first aid recovery position. Get medical attention for the person as soon as
possible even if they appear to be recovering. Heatstroke involves a serious a disruption of normal body
functions, and a victim can appear to be recovering, and then go into a dangerous relapse.
Hypothermia ("exposure")
Hypothermia relates to drops in human body temperature to levels at which physical and mental abilities
deteriorate. The process is progressive and can lead to death. It is not the same thing as "freezing" -- many
instances of hypothermia in Colorado occur at temperatures around 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Hypothermia is a
modern term for a condition that used to be referred to as "exposure".
The root cause of hypothermia is simple: loss of body heat at a higher rate then it is created. The loss of body
heat is caused by things like low surrounding temperatures, wet clothes that have lost their insulation
properties, and wind creating wind-chill affects on the body. Your clothes can get wet from rain or body
perspiration. The inability of the body to make up for heat loss is amplified by factors like fatigue,
dehydration and lack of food.
Hypothermia goes through several stages defined by body temperature and symptoms. First, there is mild
hypothermia which occurs at body temperature ranging down to 96 F. Typical symptoms are involuntary
shivering and the loss of the ability to do complex motor functions. The person can still walk and converse.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 98
Appendix E - 102
Next comes moderate hypothermia, with body temperature ranging from 95 to 93 F. Symptoms include dazed
consciousness, loss of fine motor coordination (particularly in the hands), slurred speech, violent shivering
and strange behavior (including taking their clothes off). Severe hypothermia occurs with body temperature
in the 92 to 86 F range, and is life threatening. Symptoms include waves of shivering, inability to walk, taking
a fetal position to conserve heat, muscle rigidity and a major drop in pulse rate.
Victims of advanced hypothermia can appear dead but in fact still be alive with imperceptibly slow rates of
breathing and pulse. The best way to deal with hypothermia is to get the victim into dry clothes, give them
warm drinks and food, and put them in a sleeping bag, possibly with another person to speed up their
warming. Get advanced hypothermia victims to a medical professional (MD or EMT] as fast as possible, even
if they look like a goner - they may be revivable with the right procedures.
Altitude adjustment and altitude sickness
Gaining altitude has physiological effects on everyone. However, the effects vary considerably among
individuals and do not seem to correlate very much with physical condition, sex or age. A young well
conditioned athlete could find himself more set back by a substantial rise in altitude than some inactive out of
shape person.
Altitude affect is such that a fit person used to running several miles daily, who then comes up to a location
5000 feet higher than they are used to, may become exhausted after a half-mile of their usual running
workout. A week to several weeks may have to pass at the new higher altitude before the usual level of
performance ability exists again.
What causes this change? Two physiological factors have been identified as resulting from altitude gain. The
first and most obvious effect is caused by a reduction in concentration of oxygen in the air breathed. Going
from sea level to 12,000 feet results in a reduction of oxygen concentration of about 40 percent. It takes time
for the body to adjust to this reduction. The other factor involves leakage of fluid from the capillaries into the
lungs and brain.
These physiological effects result in two considerations: a reduction in physical stamina and the potential for
developing altitude sickness. Given time for adjustment, the body will compensate by such methods as
producing more red blood cells, increasing the pressure in pulmonary arteries, increasing the production of
certain enzymes and deeper breathing.
Loss of physical stamina with altitude gain is easily detected. The symptom is feeling tired after a relatively
small amount of physical exertion. The cure is to be at high-altitude until your body can make the necessary
adjustments, and to take it easy until then. In a practical way, this temporary loss of stamina can lead to bad
results if you are on a hike, and you are the only one suffering from altitude associated weakness. The best
thing you can do is to be honest with yourself and the others and slow down and take necessary rests before
(not after) you drive yourself to physical exhaustion. If you start feeling woozy - don't be ashamed to take a
break. It's harder for the body to regain strength after you drive yourself to near collapse.
Altitude sickness
The medical profession recognizes several types of altitude sickness. They go by the names of acute mountain
sickness, high altitude pulmonary edema and high-altitude cerebral edema. Mostly, they are due to fluid
buildups in the lungs or brain. It's not important for a hiker to be able to diagnose and differentiate between
them. Some of the symptoms associated with one or more of these altitude sicknesses are listed below. If you
or a member ofyour party have some of these after a gain of substantial altitude, the best first step is to come
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 99
Appendix E - 103
down and lose at least 1000 to 2000 feet of altitude. Return to town as soon as possible and get medical
attention.
Some general altitude sickness symptoms: Headache, dizziness, fatigue, shortness of breath, respiratory
symptoms worsening at night, loss of appetite, nausea, disturbed sleep, tightness in the chest, persistent
productive cough bringing up white, watery, or frothy fluid, mental confusion, loss of coordination,
disorientation, loss of memory, hallucinations, psychotic behavior, coma.
[From http://www.hence-forth.com/Colorado_Hiking/l_Hiking_topics/safety.htm]
4x4 Driving Techniques
The Basics
Wear Seatbelts: Put on your seatbelt, and instruct passengers to put them on
as well. A good belt will help restrain you when driving difficult terrain, and
can save your life in case of a rollover or other accident.
Lock the Hubs: the first thing to do when you get in the dirt is to put the
transfer case in four-wheel drive and lock the hubs — if your vehicle is so
equipped. With all four wheels hooked together, your control is increased,
braking is improved, and you won't get stuck as fast when you make a mistake.
This also spreads the tractive force over four tires instead of two, minimizing
breakage of drivetrain parts. However, with practice, flipping back and forth between 2WD and 4WD can be
advantageous for turning, sliding, and other advanced maneuvers, but it's best to learn while in four-wheel
drive.
Use 4 Low: Using low range in the transfer case is important. In low range the available power is greater, and
the speed with which you can drive is diminished. By driving slowly over obstacles rather than pretending
you're in a SUV commercial and flying over them, you're more likely to make it to the other side instead of
breaking your rig or yourself. Going downhill is also easier in low range, as compression braking from the
engine is increased. This allows you to stay off the brake more often for optimum control.
Hold the Wheel: While gripping the steering wheel, make sure that your thumbs aren't wrapped around it. If
the wheel should suddenly whip around from a tire hitting a rock, your thumbs won't get broken or mangled.
Listen to the car: Turn your stereo off, so you can hear what your vehicle is telling you. The sounds of
slipping tires, scraping metal, and engine rpm can all help you be a better driver, but not if you can't hear
them. Just like drinking and driving, distractions from what is happening with your vehicle can distract you at
the wrong time.
Know the car: Know your rig inside and out. This means being familiar with all of the controls in the cab, as
well as how to use them for what purpose. On the outside, make a mental note of what hangs down
underneath, and what side the front differential is on so you won't bang the underside on obstacles.
Don't ride the clutch: Staying off the clutch unless you need it is important in many situations. While
automatic-equipped 4x4s can have an easier time crawling over things, a manual transmission rig is capable
of outdoing an auto as long as the clutch isn't always used. Try driving with your feet on the floor for practice,
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 100
Appendix E - 104
and see what your rig can do. Once you push in the clutch you've unhooked the drivetrain, and only your
brakes will be holding you on a hill.
Lower tire pressure: Consider lowering your tire pressure according to the terrain and speed. Tire pressure
lower than the manufacturer's recommendations can provide greater tire traction, flexibility, flotation, and
smoother ride. Because the tire will tend to spread out at lower pressures, a bigger footprint is formed, but
the tire is more susceptible to sidewall damage. Never air down farther than what you are comfortable with,
and remember to air them back up before you hit the pavement.
Get a spotter: If you're unsure of what you're doing while driving an obstacle, ask someone to spot you over
the tough areas. An experienced spotter can be your best ally and can make you look like a pro. Remember,
though, that you as the driver are the one in command, and it's your decision to trust the spotter or not.
Study the area: Watch the driver in front of you and see how he makes it through. You can learn a lot on
what to do and what not to do. Get out and walk the trail or examine the obstacle before you drive through.
This allows you to get a mental picture of where you will place your tires before you go. Just as a golfer
examines the green before that game-winning putt, you need to know what's ahead of you so you don't get
into trouble. Walk ahead and look back; the view is different from the other direction, and other features of
the terrain become apparent.
Hills and Dirt
Climbing hills and going back down them is older even than four-
wheeling. Usually a steady speed with momentum is adequate, depending
on the surface. An occasional blip of the throttle can bump you over some
ledges, but rarely will a full-throttle attack do much more than break
stuff.
When climbing or descending a hill, keep straight up or down, and don't turn around on the side of a hill. The
propensity to roll is far greater, and any stored inertia can send the rig tumbling. Know when to quit and how
to back down in a straight line.
The steering seems much more sensitive (and backwards] when you are backing down a hill, and miscues
and rolls are common. If you traverse aside hill and are off camber, you need to go slowly to prevent sudden
shift of vehicle or cargo weight. A rock on the high side or a hole on the low side can tend to tip you in the
wrong direction, as in downhill.
Likewise, spinning the tires on a loose surface when on a side hill breaks traction, causing gravity to pull you
off the trail and possibly over the edge. Descending a hill is best done in the lowest gear, for maximum
compression braking. Even automatic transmissions will have some compression braking, and a light foot on
the brakes is better than locking them up and sliding.
The tires must be rolling to have control, so if you start to slide you need to give it a little gas and be easy on
the brake pedal. Easy movements of the steering wheel can help you keep directional control, while whipping
the wheel can cause the tires to slide sideways, right into what you are trying to avoid.
Rocks
Lowering the air pressure and going slowly is the best recommendation for rocky trails or hard-core
rockcrawling. Tires should be placed on top of the rocks, which allows the axle and undercarriage to avoid
hitting the boulders. On IFS rigs or Hummers, for example, the available clearance in the center of the
undercarriage is sometimes better, but straddling rocks can still get you stuck in any case.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 101
Appendix E - 105
Your lowest speed that keeps your momentum going is usually the best. If you go too fast you end up bashing
and crashing while hurting your rig and generally getting stuck. Rockcrawling is truly the home of elegant
driving as coined by the late great Granville King. By making this activity a true art form of fluid motion like a
mechanical ballet, a greater amount of obstacles can be scaled with less damage to yourself and the vehicle.
Likewise, raw power and speed can jet you over the boulders, but the hopping and flopping action of bashing
and crashing your way through a canyon of boulders is in no sense of the word elegant, and it'll cost you more
in the long run. One way to stay in control with an automatic transmission is to use one foot on the brake and
one on the gas. On a stick-equipped rig the engine compression braking gives you greater control, but using
the two-foot method on an auto will mimic this action.
Sand
Higher gears are great for sand, as speed and momentum keeps you flying on top rather than sinking in.
Depending on the type of sand — from fine to coarse and from wet to dry — different speeds and gears may
need to be used. Usually, spinning the tires is needed since wheel speed is a factor to keep on top of the sand.
Lowering air pressure and running wide tires help in the flotation department as well.
Sand dunes can have steep drop-offs and other obstacles, so being alert is extremely important. If you're
climbing a sand hill and realize you've run out of engine power, downshift quickly, and floor it without losing
momentum. This is where automatic transmissions excel — virtually instant downshifts with no loss of
momentum. Shifting a manual truck usually means the momentum is gone before the clutch is ever let back
out. Side hilling in the sand or running a bowl is great if you have enough speed and power, but turn downhill
as soon as you start to bog down. Point your ride straight down, and if the nose starts to go sideways give it a
little gas to straighten it out.
Water Crossings
Driving through water can be as hazardous as any other terrain. The swift current, unknown bottom
conditions, and possibility of engine damage can ruin a nice 4x4 outing. Check the depth and bottom
conditions before you attempt to drive across a stream. Look to see where others have made it, and imagine
what happens if your rig floats or gets washed downstream.
Cross streams and rivers at an angle upstream to prevent the force of the water from pushing the vehicle
downstream. This helps you keep going in a more controlled manner without getting moved downstream.
Know where your engine air intake is, and be sure that it is not lower
than the deepest part of the stream you are crossing. Many new
vehicles have the air intake lower than the front bumper or in the
fender. If water gets into the cylinders of a running engine it will
hydrolock the engine, stopping it cold, and probably damaging the
engine. Avoid spinning tires when they are wet, as wet rubber cuts as
easily on sharp rocks.
Mud
Different consistencies of mud call for different styles of driving. Some
mud responds to fast driving with a lot of wheelspin, while others may
do better with a slower gate with just enough spin to clean out the
tires.
Like in snow, skinny tires can dig down to the hard stuff, while wide
flotation tires can keep you on top of the goo. Regardless of what the
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 102
Appendix E - 106
mud is like, a steady forward progress is needed. In other words, keep your momentum up. If you get off the
gas, you can risk losing the momentum needed to traverse the slop. Be aware that spinning the tires while
stopped may get you going, but quite often you'll simply dig down and get stuck to the gills.
It's always easier to extricate your 4x4 from deep mud before it's resting on the framerails. So if the rig's not
moving forward as you spin tires, it's probably going down. Don't be afraid to back out of a sticky situation
either; the ruts are already there and you may escape without getting stuck.
Hiking during hunting season
During field work you should be aware of the potential for hunting on the lands in which you are working
The best thing to do is to be aware of the hunting dates and to wear orange when necessary.
Working around wildlife
Black Bears
The following is from the Yosemite National Park Website,
(http://www.nps.gov/yose/wilderness/bsafety.htm].
"Never approach a bear regardless of its size. If you encounter a bear, act immediately: throw small stones or
sticks toward the bear from a safe distance. Yell, clap hands, and/or bang pots together. If there is more than
one person, stand together to present a more intimidating figure, but do not surround the bear. Use caution if
you see cubs, as a mother may act aggressively to defend them.
"When done immediately, these actions have been successful in scaring bears away. Never try and retrieve
anything once a bear has it."
The group Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management has a good web page with tips for handling a bear
encounter. Check it out if you want more information.
(http://www.responsiblewildlifemanagement.org/bear_safety.htm)
Mountain Lions
The following is from the Yosemite National Park Website,
(http://www.nps.gov/yose/wilderness/bsafety.htm].
Although lion sightings and attacks are rare in the area, they are possible, as is injury from any wild animal.
We offer the following recommendations to increase your safety: Avoid walking alone, especially around
dawn and dusk. Be aware of your surroundings and how you appear if you are being stalked.
"What should you do if you meet a mountain lion?"
Never approach a mountain lion, especially one that is feeding or with kittens. Most mountain lions will try to
avoid confrontation. Always give them a way to escape. Don't run. Stay calm. Hold your ground or back away
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 103
Appendix E - 107
slowly. Face the lion and stand upright. Do all you can to appear larger. Grab a stick. Raise your arms. If the
lion behaves aggressively, wave your arms, shout and throw objects at it. The goal is to convince it that you
are not prey and may be dangerous yourself. If attacked, fight back!
"Generally, mountain lions are calm, quiet, and elusive. The chance of being attacked by a mountain lion is
quite low compared to many other natural hazards. There is, for example, a far greater risk of being struck by
lightning than being attacked by a mountain lion."
Moose
The following is from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game website,
(http://alaska.org/anchorage/advice-moose-courtesy.htm].
Moose Courtesy
• Never feed moose
• Give moose at least 50 feet. If it doesn't yield as you approach, give it the trail. (Either retreat or walk
way around.]
• If its ears lay back or its hackles (the hairs on its hump] rise, it's angry or afraid and may charge; back
off pronto
• Moose kick with their front as well as hind feet
• Don't corner moose into fences or houses
• If a moose charges, get behind a tree. You can run around the trunk faster than the gangly creature.
• Never get between a cow and her calf
The following is from the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve website,
(http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/moose-safety.htm].
Moose aren't inherently aggressive, but will defend themselves if they perceive a threat. When people don't
see moose as potentially dangerous, they may approach too closely and put themselves at risk.
Give Moose plenty of room! Enjoy viewing them from a distance. Cow moose are extremely defensive of
their young so use extra caution around cows with calves.
In the summer months, moose blend in well to their environment and can be surprisingly hard to see for such
large animals. They are likely to stand their ground even when they hear people approaching, so pay close
attention to your surroundings, especially in prime moose habitat such as willow thickets or around streams
or ponds.
If you do find yourself close to a moose: If it hasn't detected you yet, keep it that way. If it knows you're
there, talk to it softly and move away slowly. Don't be aggressive - you want to convince the moose that you
aren't a threat. If you think the moose is going to charge you, take cover or run away.
Watch for signs that the moose is upset. If its ears are laid back and hackles are up it is likely to charge.
Most of the time, when a moose charges it is a 'bluff, or warning for you to get back - a warning you should
take very seriously! Once a moose bluff charges it is already agitated. If possible, get behind something solid
[like a tree or a car).
Unlike with bears, it is okay to run from a moose. They usually won't chase you and if they do, it's unlikely
that they'll chase you very far. If a moose knocks you down, curl up in a ball and protect your head with your
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 104
Appendix E - 108
arms and keep still. Fighting back will only convince the moose that you may still be a threat. Only move once
the moose has backed off to a safe distance or it may renew its attack.
Snakes
(From: http://lomalindahealth.org and http://www.hence-forth.com/Colorado_Hiking/ and
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/safety/critters/snakes.shtml)
Wear boots not sandals or running shoes when hiking - the higher the boot tops the better. Wear long
trousers instead of shorts. Bare legs increase the probability of a successful strike. Loose trousers might
result in a strike to the wrong spot, or a deflected strike.
Use a hiking stick. Often, the first thing to come close to a rattler will be your stick instead of your leg. When
stepping over a log or a fallen tree you can plant the stick first and perhaps stir up the snake before exposing
your leg. The snake's first strike may be at the stick versus your leg.
When you come across a rattlesnake that has been startled and is rattling, the first thing to do is stop and hold
still, visually locate the snake, let the snake calm down, then move away from it to at least ten feet. Next, take
a look around just to make sure there aren't any others nearby, but stay aware of the original snake's location
and movements. Then work out a safe route around it, and leave. Unless there is some overriding reason to
do it, don't mess around with the snake - that is actually how most bites occur.
Basic first-aid measures for rattlesnake bites:
If you are bitten by a snake, get away from it as fast as you can to avoid any further bites.
You should try not to panic and minimize activity if possible. However, if you are alone in the wilderness or
far from access to medical care, you may have to hike out to the nearest phone.
Use a cell phone to call for help or send somebody out, or hike out using a slow measured pace with a crutch if
necessary. In some cases the most sensible approach will be to notify a medical facility of what has happened
(if you can) and to arrange for an EMT vehicle to meet you at the trail head, perhaps with antivenin. The
sooner the MD's know they will need antivenin the better - not all medical facilities have it on hand. It is
highly desirable to get medical attention within two hours of the bite.
Keep the injured body part motionless and just below heart level.
Remove jewelry and tight-fitting clothes in anticipation of severe swelling.
Do not cut across fang marks and do not try to suck out the venom with your mouth or a suction device. This
could lead to complications and infections. Cutting the bite wounds is NOT RECOMMENDED as this increases
damage to the tissue and has not been shown to be beneficial.
A tourniquet is not recommended because it could cut off circulation. However, an ace wrap and splint may
delay the time to death in the rare event of a fatal bite, but could risk further injury to an arm or leg. If the
victim won't be able to reach medical care within 30 minutes, as will normally be the case in a hiking
situation, then slow the venom movement from the bite area by applying a bandage wrap 2 to 4 inches above
the bite. This is NOT a tourniquet - it should not cut off the flow of blood - the band should be loose enough to
slip a finger under it.
Do not take aspirin or ibuprofen after snakebite. Many snake venoms can thin the blood and these medicines
may compound this effect, leading to bleeding.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 105
Appendix E - 109
Other first aid that does not help or that is potentially more harmful than the snakebite includes applying
electric shock, drinking alcohol, and placing ice directly on the wound. Avoid further injury by staying away
from the snake.
Mosquitoes and West Nile virus
(From: http://www.hence-forth.com/Colorado_Hiking/)
The West Nile virus problem is best dealt with by reducing the number of mosquito bites by wearing long
sleeved shirts and trousers. Spraying DEET on your clothes and skin works well in keeping mosquitoes and
other bugs away. You can also like to wear a baseball cap sprayed with DEET which seems to keep the
mosquitoes away from my face and neck. It should be applied to skin and clothing only -- keep it out of open
wounds, scrapes, eyes, nostrils or mouth.
If you use a water bladder and tube instead of water bottles - avoid spraying DEET on the end of your drinking
tube.
The following info is taken from the CDC's rundown on West Nile virus.
Most people who are infected with the West Nile virus will not have any type of illness.
It is estimated that 20% of the people who become infected will develop West Nile fever with mild symptoms
including fever, headache, and body aches, occasionally with a skin rash on the trunk of the body and swollen
lymph glands.
It is estimated that about 0.67 percent (less than 1 out of 100) of persons infected with the West Nile virus
will develop the severe form of the disease. The symptoms of severe infection (West Nile encephalitis or
meningitis) include headache, high fever, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, convulsions,
muscle weakness, and paralysis.
If you become ill after outdoor activities and bites, make certain that your physician knows this, and can
therefore factor this in when ordering tests and making diagnoses.
Ticks
(From: http://www.hence-forth.com/Colorado_Hiking/)
Ticks attach themselves to humans and other animals in order to feed on blood. They are small roundish
dark insects that can cause illness in humans due to viruses and bacteria that they may input to the host
during feeding. Using DEET cuts down on the odds of getting ticks on you. There are two types of tick caused
illness in Colorado and both are rare.
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever is a bacterial illness which can be life-threatening. The early symptoms are
headaches, fever, nausea, abdominal pain, lethargy and a rash which develops on the extremities and spreads
to the entire body. It is a rare disease with only a couple of cases reported yearly.
Colorado Tick Fever is a viral illness which is not life-threatening. It's symptoms are headaches, fever,
nausea, abdominal pain, and lethargy. These symptoms last four or five days, followed by an apparent
recovery. Then the symptoms return for a few more days. Total recovery usually takes several weeks. The
disease is not life-threatening and infection results in lifelong immunity.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 106
Appendix E - 110
If you become ill after being outdoors, and especially if you have had ticks on your body, let your physician
know of the possibility of tick disease exposures so it can factored in when ordering tests and making
diagnoses.
As with the case for mosquitoes, the best defense is long sleeved shirts and trousers and DEET. Look over
your body for any ticks and remove them with tweezers by carefully grasping the tick's head as close to your
skin as possible. Pull the tick straight out, using firm, steady pressure. Another method is to use a credit card
or knife blade to carefully sweep down and force the tick's head out of your skin. The idea is to get the tick's
head out of your flesh without exposing the ticks fluids to your blood. Don't prick, heat, smother or crush the
tick. These methods may cause the tick to regurgitate into the bite wound which increases the chance of
infection.
Hanta Virus
(From: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hanta/hps/noframes/FAQ.htm)
What is hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS)?
Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) is a deadly disease caused by hantaviruses. Rodents can transmit
hantaviruses through urine, droppings, or saliva. Humans can contract the disease when they breathe in
aerosolized virus.
Who is at risk of contracting HPS?
Anyone who comes into contact with rodents that carry hantavirus is at risk of HPS. Rodent infestation in and
around the home remains the primary risk for hantavirus exposure. Even healthy individuals are at risk for
HPS infection if exposed to the virus.
Which rodents are known to be carriers of hantavirus that cause HPS in humans?
In the United States, deer mice, cotton and rice rats (in the Southeast), and the white-footed mouse (in the
Northeast), are the only known rodent carriers of hantaviruses causing HPS.
How is HPS transmitted?
Hantavirus is transmitted by infected rodents through urine, droppings, or saliva. Individuals become
infected with HPS after breathing fresh aerosolized urine, droppings, saliva, or nesting materials.
Transmission can also occur when these materials are directly introduced into broken skin, the nose or the
mouth. If a rodent with the virus bites someone, the virus may be spread to that person, but this type of
transmission is rare.
Can you contract HPS from another person?
HPS in the United States cannot be transmitted from one person to another. You cannot get the virus from
touching or kissing a person who has HPS or from a health care worker who has treated someone with the
disease. In addition, you cannot contract the virus from a blood transfusion in which you receive blood from a
person who survived HPS.
Can you contract HPS from other animals?
Hantaviruses that cause HPS in the United States are only known to be transmitted by certain species of
rodents. HPS in the United States is not known to be transmitted by farm animals, dogs, or cats or from
rodents purchased from a pet store.
How long can hantavirus remain infectious in the environment?
The length of time hantaviruses can remain infectious in the environment is variable and depends on
environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, whether the virus is indoors or outdoors or
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 107
Appendix E - 111
exposed to the sun, and even on the rodent's diet (which would affect the chemistry of its urine). Viability for
2 or 3 days has been shown at normal room temperature. Exposure to sunlight will decrease the time of
viability, and freezing temperatures will actually increase the time that the virus remains viable. Since the
survival of infectious virus is measured in terms of hours or days, only active infestations of infected rodents
result in conditions that are likely to lead to human hantavirus infection.
How do I prevent HPS?
Seal up rodent entry holes or gaps with steel wool, lath metal, or caulk. Trap rats and mice by using an
appropriate snap trap. Clean up rodent food sources and nesting sites and take precautions when cleaning
rodent-infested areas.
What are the recommendations for cleaning a rodent-infested area?
Put on rubber, latex, vinyl or nitrile gloves.
Do not stir up dust by vacuuming, sweeping, or any other means.
Thoroughly wet contaminated areas with a bleach solution or household disinfectant.
Hypochlorite (bleach) solution: Mix 1 and Vi cups of household bleach in 1 gallon of water.
Once everything is wet, take up contaminated materials with damp towel and then mop or sponge the area
with bleach solution or household disinfectant.
Spray dead rodents with disinfectant and then double-bag along with all cleaning materials. Bury, burn, or
throw out rodent in appropriate waste disposal system. (Contact your local or state health department
concerning other appropriate disposal methods.)
Disinfect gloves with disinfectant or soap and water before taking them off.
After taking off the clean gloves, thoroughly wash hands with soap and water (or use a waterless alcohol-
based hand rub when soap is not available).
Can I use a vacuum with HEPA filter to clean up rodent-contaminated areas?
HEPA vacuums are not recommended since they blow air around and may create aerosols.
How do I clean papers, books, and delicate items?
Books, papers, and other items that cannot be cleaned with a liquid disinfectant or thrown away should be
left outdoors in the sunlight for several hours or in an indoor area free of rodents for approximately 1 week
before final cleaning. After that time, the virus should no longer be infectious. Wear rubber, latex, or vinyl
gloves and wipe the items with a cloth moistened with disinfectant.
I do not want to bleach my clothes or stuffed animals; is there anything else I can do?
Wash clothing or stuffed animals in the washing machine using hot water and regular detergent. Laundry
detergent can break down the virus's lipid envelope, rendering it harmless. Machine dry laundry on a high
setting or hang it to air dry in the sun. CDC does not recommend simply running the clothing through the
dryer without washing first.
How do I clean rugs, carpets and upholstered furniture?
Disinfect carpets and upholstered furniture with a disinfectant or with a commercial-grade steam cleaner or
shampoo.
201 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 1 08
Appendix E - 112
What precautions should I take if I think I have been exposed to hantavirus?
If you have been exposed to rodents or rodent infestations and have symptoms of fever, deep muscle aches,
and severe shortness of breath, see your doctor immediately. Inform your doctor of possible rodent exposure
so that he/she is alerted to the possibility of rodent-borne diseases, such as HPS.
Lightning
July and August can bring heavy afternoon rainstorms with lightning. Plan to hike on the dunes in morning or
evening to avoid these storms, and to avoid the hot mid-day sand surface. See the NOLS lightning guide on the
following pages for in depth information on lightning.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual Page 109
Appendix E - 113
Safety Information - Lightning
NOLS Backcountiy Lillian 115 Safety Guidelines
Join Goakin. . KOLi Curriculum Manager
Ttis paper discusses die phenomenon Df 'iahming a: h typically tappeos; how :o seek relative safety when caugbt x a backcoumty heinuug ::onu; typical
ligitning injunes , some tps on :eaci xg LEixiue risk anna gernen: it die b>.ckrrr.iatry. an overview af firs: aid, and bcidea: reporting g.udelxes. I: tin not
bs empbastzad auougb. ria: b«ng outdoors erpo;es us t* random lightning haiard. do xntter what acf.on: we take.
How Does Lighniinj Strike?
Lightning strikES fasr :ie whole placets usually tales a few
niillijecgndj S repped leaders Leave a niTimlnnimhnic cloud and
some Leaden niove reward :ia ground. They appeal as many
braucLes. but only 1-2 branches will reach [be ground.
Approximately every f>0 merer: 1 a Dew step leaves each leader
iaud is ads in a fairly random direction. If a leadei get; 100m
from tbe gmund. positively charged streamers start rising front
:ia closest grounded objecrs [Dwarfs [be negatively cnarged
leader. As soon as the leader is close enough tD a streamer, it
shDO-s dirEc:ly :o tha: s:reau}er and "blazes a xaiF for a
significant charge (a rerun stroke) tD sioor from the ground to
toe eland 1 . Tbis leader search distance concept is important to
undersiand to avoid direct strikes.
Iiluiiraiions tyRob HacLtan
Figure 1 Left: a stepped [aider move: down in SO m steps 3nd
multiple streamers rise from "all objects neai tbe leader.
Right: a single rarjm stroke frox a n ee is the most obvious part we
see.
Note die leader CDnrjeciad with :ia streamer "hat happened 10 be
closes! "o tt during tlie final step .
Most ground strises occur immediately below a cuniulDDimbus
cioud. Rarely, a bolt of lightning can move hnrizontalty and
strike somewbeie "Dti: of the blue" (ont of tbe blue ski') as far
as 10 miles (lSkua) away. Tiese horizonral strikes are rare and
unpredicrable . so they shouldn't affect our decisions.
Using tbe SO m search distance of stepped leaders (see above)
lightning lends to hit the c Losest object wi:hin range a" the end
of the Last step. Lightning tends to bi: elevated sbarp tenain
features Like mountain taps. Lightnxg [ends to hit [all [tees in
open areas, with objects 7^ice as bigh receiving roughly 4X The
strikes*. Lightning tends to hit bushe : in the desert if tbe bush is
sucking up higher :ian :he Da: ground around it. LigLrmug
[ends to bit a boat on the water, especially if it has a tall mast.
Lightning can stj]] bit fiat ground Dr water, but more randomly
than it bits elevated objects.
Even a few less feet of heigh" can male a difference in
improving y out odds Df KOT being the struck obj eci. This is
why die first part of gettxg in-o tie ligitiinz position is
loweiiug yourself down tn decrease your height
Lightning tends to hit bog elecnica] conductors. Maul fences,
power lines, phone lines, handrails, measuring tapes, bridges
aud other long metallic objects can concentrate currents. Wet
ripe; ah: c:udu:: current aud should rs- trea:ed with the E-aiue
respect as wires Longer objects tend :o conceutra:e more
current and reach more strike pnnirs.
How Can Liglitniii™ Hurt L"5?
Lightning :brows an ensemble of deadly and injurious threats
om way. All Df these effects bappan in tie same few
milliseconds, but none of tie threats linger after each strike.
Direct strike, this means the stepped Leader connected with a
streamer coming du: of your body. :ben rLe rEr.irn 5[roke passed
rurnugh you or over you body's surface. Tbe rerun: srroke L=
the most significant electrical event of a ligbmins strike and
has a typical current nf 30.000 amps'' ilousaioLd current is li
amps). You greatly reduce :be chances Df receiving a direct
strike by being inside a substantial building oi a meral-topped
vehicle. In tbe backcountry you should avoid high places and
open ground and assume :be hgnminz position' ro decrease
list.
Streamer C orrenis: fast uigi current pulses are Launched from
the :ops of many elevated objects near each leader as it
approaches tbe ground Jsee Fig.l.) These are launched in
response ro the tremendously high elEcrric fiEld tbat exists,
momentarily under each rip of she sreppeol leader Since the tips
of several or many Leaders may approach tbe ground a: about
the same time, you dD not have to be very near tie actual
ground strike point tD be involved x a streamer current.
Streamer currents, while much smaller than the rerun stroke
current, are still Large enougi ro cause injury nr death :o
humans. You suppress the reudeuc y ro launch streamer currents
from your person by crouching in:o a rigb: ball as cL-^se ro The
gmuna as possible. Yon avoid this po ssibiblty by avoiding high
Locations.
1 Yards and me:ers can be used UTiarcLr.uEeibly Cne me:et =1.1 yards.
1 This 'strike distance' can vary by 10X according to L'xr.u in Jii
1 i°'-riTi;D:;cliar;e. L9S7.
1 F.ar.irD strokes of rhe oppasite poUtrltj - tend 1d kcut at the and of
srorms ;nd under coL'.psed anvils. In seme oralis, xultple ground
strike nDints in the same flash are comxan.
' 'Towers. 1 iglnninz fi Human Afiaits.' LG Byari?," 3rd. 'A"A Brools.
R.C Nogele A SL Cuninnns. llthlniL Conf on Auuosuliaric zle::r.:i:v.
LP9&.
5 Tiguraa van' fiaia 1-2001A, witi xnst strJses in the 10-SOkA I5nge.
'TUi.sis »rme"- hifin;:aU*J ■ . - u.-i aw. >•l.>- , . poiiioaanci
explanted later in this paper.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 110
Appendix E - 114
Ground Currents' ground currents occucwitb each. strike and
cause rouglly half of all b'ghtnxg injtuies. Ground currents are
driven by tie enormous potential differences' that appear :u tie
Eai± near the ground strilie point. Typical lightning-to-ground
su-ikes in; e;[ roughly jO.C'OO amps into [lie Earth: since [be
Eairl resists electrical flow, large potential differences wfll
appear in the ground all around 'be strike pnxt. How fa: die
current flows varus wildly since srike current and ground
conductance easily vary by order; Df ma guitude. But the closer
you are to [be direct strike, tie stronger [be ground current, If
you ate s:anding with your leg; separated, if you are on all
four;, if vdu are in a prone position ou tie ground, or if you are
touching a Long metallic ob; ec:. you maxiixLze y our expDsur e [o
potentia] differences [bat arise from ground currents. Tie
potential difference that appears between your Legs- 01 across
your prone body can drive significant c.ureu:s ±rougi aud Dver
your body. Tau can minimize yaur exposure to ground
potential differences, and ground currents by. keeping your feet
close :oge:ber. by MOT getting in 3 pnine position, by
assuming tie b'ghtnxg position ou additional hisulatinu such as
a fnam pad. and by not removing your sloes mil thick rubber
soles. These actions can lelp lniniLnize the amount of ground
current gnxg through your body, but some experts think these
efforts are moD[ compared [o gelling ro a safer location. We
need tD be careful that we don' [ give students a false sense of
security bv serins in ills defensive 'jositiDn
Figure J : Left : tree aii ?. scar.cser ?nd a. stepped leader.
Right: tree widiiar.im snake, surface arcs, and elecirosiatic field.
Surface Arcs: aigl current surface arcs appear to be associated
will some fraction of all rloud-io-giound discharges, during
"he return stroke. Tbey appear Ln photographs as bright arcs of
light radiating from a strike point lie spokes of a wheel, in rle
a:r;us: above :ie ground's surface. (See figure 2.) These long
hot honzDmal currents hate been measured up to 2 meters in
length and may get longer. If you are in :he path of a surface
arc you are likely ro conduct some of tie surface arc current
ihroiigL or over your body. Since surface arcs emanate from [be
base of trees struck by lightning, never seek shelter near a
tree.
' Poieutial difreTiccs:: if tout fee: are touching the ground in two
different spots, er.ct t'.s ?. certain electrical potential based on [he
current flawing tlisre. But i[ is :ia difference betwEsn these potentials
[tat will drive current in one fern: and ou: ilia orlier
Ra din [ion. the visible, infrared and ultraviolet radiation near
[be strike point can damage your vision.
Sound: the thunder pulse can damage hearing temporarily and
possibly permanently.
Electrostatic Field Changes: there is a large change in the
electrostatic field out to 30m from the ground strike point. If
you ate standing. :beu yon maximize tie volage across your
body, which in turn maximizes currents tlar pass [trough and
over your body. It takes very little current id interrupt heart
function. MxiLoizLug your height by assuming tie liglxiug
position is one way to minimize the field change access the
length of your body.
Car onn: During: any stage of a ihundeisionn. :be electrostatic
field can be enhanced enough around grounded objects to cause
brush at paint discharge {corona). At night, you may be able :a
sc-e corona as a faint glow from sharp rock outcrops or the tops
of busies or :rees — somE:imes even from :he fingers of your
otitsneTcbed hand. You may hear corona as a sizzlxg or
buzzing sound Even if you can't see or hear c orDua. you might
smell ozone, one of tie chemical producis of point discharge in
ah. Ozone has an irri:ating. acrid "swimming pool'' smell
On Land it is unusual tD lave optimum conditions for sensing
c Dcona. If you feel hairs on your bead, leg ot arms tingLLng aDd
standing on end. you are in an extremely high electric field. If
yau or any nieiibei Df yznr group experiences any of tlesE
signs, u should be taken as an indication of immediate and
severe daDger. The response to any of these signs slouM be to
instantly (seconds matter) drop and move away from all packs,
remove metal shoe fittings, spread out. and adopt tie lightning
position. Do not ignDce ftese signs and do not try to r.m to
safery. unless safety is hterally seennds away. If any of ftese
signs ace detected, the probability of a close discbacge is high
and every eflfDct should be made to minimize injuries and the
number Df injured.
How Can We Reduce Liskniing Risk In The
Biickcounrry?
Bacfccaunrry lightning safety data is sparse, so ftese
suggestions are "best hunches" by experts wlo study lightning
safery. Random c Lrcv.Ujs:aLic e is a significant factor m wherE
ligbining migb: s:rikE. meaning tlaT These behavinrs help
reduce your ''Las Vegas'' odds of LLglrEtag injury : but can
never make you safe. If you need to stay safe, you need :o
remain indoois in weLl protected buildings.
There are tiiti es you can iD to leduce nsk during a
ih.mdeistorm. but you can nevec geT as safe as you could be in
town. Ron Holle of the National Severe Staina Lab uses a 10-
scale for lightning safety. (G-aing xto a modem building aud
avoiding metal is as safe as it gets at 10. being in a hard-topped
car is a 5. sitting on a steel tower ai racuutaxiop is a 0.) ?.on
[hinis backc Dimtr.' precautions only move you up .1 on this
scale. OtLbi scientists say tley :hinl :hese ptecautions move
you up - pDX[s on Ron's 10-scale. Some risk reduc:ion factors,
lie tailing off a metallic belt buckle, might tednce biuns but
have Uttle to od with avoiding becoming a fatality &nm a direct
strike or ground currents. Bit tleie aire five actions that can
ceduce your nsk. in older.
■ time visits to high risk areas with weather
patterns
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 111
Appendix E - 115
•find safer terrain if yen tear thunder
• moid [rets
• avoid Lode; conductors
• ^e t in the lightning petition.
Timing activities with safe weather require; knowlEdgE of
nT5ir.il and -Eoeui local weather p ran; . Tiers Is ud such thing
as ^ surprise storm. You need to set turnaround times thai will
get you Dff of expend terrain before' storms hit. You need to
observe the than 'ins weather and discuss irs status with yuur
group. Logistical problems en route should alter whether you
complete the paddle or the rlirnb. not whether you get exposed
during a storm.
Begin your turnaround if you hear thunder (which mean;
lightning is one to ten miles away.) In calm air you can hea:
thuuder for about ten miles. In turbulent air ydu can heat the
thunder for abo.it five miles' In a driving stDim yon may only
hear it out to one mile. Some parries in rain stomas have been
struck before [bey heard any thunder at all.
Safer terrain m the backenumry can decrease your chances of
being stnirl-s. High pointed terrain attracts lisfhtmng to [lie high
points, and even [0 [be terrax around it. Avoid peaks, ridges,
and significantly higher ground duixg an electrical stDtii. If
you have a choke, descend a mountain du the side [hat has no
clouds Dver it. since strikes will be rare du that side until [he
clouds move over ir Once you ge[ down to low rolling terrain,
suites are so random yon shouldn't worry about terrain as
much. If you are exposed to lightning, you need to get x the
lightning position as sdoo as possible, which obviously means
you s[op moving to safer terrain at thai point Many people
have ched while upright and walking to safe: terrain, but no one
has died while stopped in the lightning position. Move to Eafe:
terrain as soon as you hear [blinder, udi when the storm is upon
you.
Tents may actually increase the likebhood of lighming hitthig
that spot if they are higher than nearby objects. Metal teu[ r. Dies
conduct ground current and may generate streamers Use your
understanding of terrain and lightning to select tent sites [hat
may reduce your chances of being struck 0: affected by ground
ciurent. If you are in a tent in "safer terrain" and you hear
thunder, you at least need to be in [he lightning position. But if
your tent is in ax exposed location, such as on a ridge, in a
bioad open area. 01 near a tall tree, you need to get out of fhe
tent and get mm the lightning position before the storm starts,
and stay ou[ until it has passed It would be wise to anticipate
additional hazards of gauiug ou[ of tents in fhe dark of night
during a s[orm. Determine a meeting spot, have rain gear and
flashlight accessible, and Live a plan for managing [he group
during (his lime.
In genily rolling; bills the Lower f.at areas are probably not
safe: than the higher Dai areas because none Df the gentle
terrain attracts leaders. Scribes are random in this terrain. Look
for a dry ravine 0: other significant depression to reduce risk.
Wide open ground offers high exposure during an electrical
storm Avoid mee= and bushes [hai raise above the others, since
ihe highest objecis around [end to generate sireainers. Your
besi bet is to look for an obvious ravine or depression before
[be siorm bits, but when the cloud is over you. spread Dut your
group at SO" intervals id reduce multiple injuries and assume
[he lightuxg position.
Naturally wet ground, like damp ground ne\t to a scream.
isn : t any more dangerous than dry ground, so dociu worn'
about this. It used to be said that wet ground was morE
dangerous, because 11 conducted mote giDuni ciurent. but wet
ground actually dissipates ground currem fasiET. Xeithe: wet
not dry is considered mote dangerous than the othei. landing
p'j waiei should be avoided.
Dry snow is an insulator, but wei snow is a conductor. This
should make travel on dry snow safer than on bare ground,
because it will be harder for a person to generate streamers or
conduit ground current.
Figure i: terrain with streamers and =. stepped leader.
Where do you think the =ttile will occur"
Avoid cave entrances. Small overhangs ran allow arcs to cross
the gap. Natural caves that go well xto the ground can be
struck, either via the entrance or through the ground! cavers
should avoid being inside a cave, near an entrance, during a
thunderstorm' You should never be anywhere near any metal
handrail, wire or cable during a siDtm. People who have been
sbocl-ied standing x water deep inside caves cue weak charges,
indicating that deep within a cave is safer than bexg du the
surface. If you ate near an enhance during electtical activity,
dour stand in water, avoid metal conductors, and avoid
bridging the gap between ceiling and floor. Move quickly
through the entrance (in or out) to mximizE the lime of your
exposure. If you are Etopped waiting for others near an entrance
area, assume the lighming position.
Boaters should start to get off or the water as soon as they hear
thunder. There are no reported incidents Df lightning accidents
on nvers in c any ons . probably because the hi ghet terrain above
the canyon attracts the leaders. But there is ample lightning
injury data fo: boaters on rivers in Hat terrain, on lakes, and on
the ocean vVLen you get to Eliore. look for protective terrain to
wait Dut the stonn. Be especially cautious Df trees at the edge of
the water because they might be the Tallest objects around the
body of watei. Eoats that cant get off the water in lightning-
' Use the i sec imle ;'3sec km) flash-tang rule to measure tie distance
x ideal conditions, hut this can district peapla frocs the big picr.ire
1 Tins is mecdot'l dita from Cavers" Dieest.
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 112
Appendix E - 116
prone area= should lave lightning protection: see this website
trnii:."ttnii' rdc gov nipsb. nasd docs 3s04E0C.ht3i]
Avoid trees because they are Taller than tbeir surroundings.
Tall trees are especially adept a: generating streamers that
attract strikes. If yon need id move through a forest while
seeking safer terrain, stay away from The tree trunks as you
move. You should also avoid opEn areas That are K'O m '.vide o:
wider hDue trees are especially dangerous - the laws of
probability say you -are himdrEds of tunes safer id a forest with
hundreds of trees than you are near a lone nee in an open
spate.
"Cone of protection" from trees and cliffs is an arguable
concept and has mo place in Lightning safety education
anymore. Lightning has been photographed suiting 100 n
from 200 m rowers, and surface arcs bave been photographed
esacTly where "c Does of pcotec riou" inferred we w ere all safe.
Instead we need m teach the 50 m leader SE3rr.li distance
concepr (see tie first paragraph Df this paper.) If someone is
within 50 m of a significantly higher object tbey have a greatly
rEduced chance of being struck directly. Yon can still be struck
especially indirectly, but ibe chances are reduced. The 50 m
concept works best with cliffs and oThe: steep terrain [bat
provide protection without directing thE strike toward yan. The
50 m concept does not work well for uees because the base of
the treE may send Din surface arcs, (see figure I)
Avoid long conductors. Lightning currents tend To pass ld Lous;
electrical conductors — particularly ones [hat are on or near the
surface of tie Earth. Metal fences, power lines, phone lines,
railway [racks, handrails, measuring Tapes. bridges, and other
metal objects can carry significant lightning curam even if
these objects are a: some distance from The lightning ground
suite point. Near the ground strike poin[ Df a lightning
discharge. '.ve[ ropes can conduct lethal currents During a
thundersTorin. wet. emended mpes should be regarded as
equivalent in risk and danger to metal wtres.
AssumE the lightning po sition ' * 'ivhEn at risk. This will reduce
the chances of gEring a direct shike and It may -educe the
OTher effects Df lightning, but it offers no guarantees. Some
scientists argue that it Duly moves you. up :o 0.1 on The 10-
scale: others argue that it is much more valuable because the
data says that no one in this pdslildd has Ever been hurt. This
posttiDD includes squatting {or sitting) and balling up so you are
as low as possible without getting prone. Wrap your arms
around your legs, both to offET s. safe: path than your torso fo:
electrons to flow from the ground, and tD add enough comfort
that you will choose to hold tie position longEi. Close VDur
eves.
Figure 4 The bghtning position:
scuat or sit ball up. put feet togeTJEr. wrap arms around legs.
While ±e prone position is lower, being spread out
increases potential for ground current to flow through or
across you. Keep your feet together so you don't create
potential for current id flow in oue foDt and out The Dtber
If you have any insulated objects handy, like a foam pad
or a soft pack fill of clothes, sit on them. Avoid
backpacks with frames since the frame may concentrate
correni Don : r touch metalhc DbjecTs like ice axes,
crampons. Tent poles or even jewelry. You won't get a
warning that a strike is imminent because the bghruiug
event from cloud to ground and baci occurs faster man
vdu can blink an Eye. so ETay m the lightning position
tm[il tie storm passes. The lightning position reduces the
chances of bghmmg iur.uxg you as badly as if you ware
standing, but is no substituTe for gening To safer terrain or
structure if it is nnmediaTely available. A dangerously
close strike actually offers a moment of opportunity to
move. whilE ±e electrical field rebuilds itself. Euc in wide
open country oi gEntle rolling terrain there are no simple
Terrain ad"vanTages. so use this position co reduce
exposure If you a:e concEiued Enough to assume tie
lightning position, yan should have your group dispersed
at leasi 50" apart to reduce [he chances of multiple
injuries.
Ground current may spontaneously trigger voir leg muscles to
jump whilE in the lightning position, so take rare id avoid being
near hazards when you drop inio this position
AnecdoTal injury data shows that pEisons with niEtal cleats on
then" shoes are more prone id injury. So takE crampons off
while in the hgiiming position. 3ut if rakxg crampons off will
slow your descent from a hazardous spot, leave them on So
reach safe: terrain faster, since ceirain ;s a much better pioterrai
than the lighrmng position is.
The Effecr; Of Lightning Strikes On Humrms
ThEfE are ThreE ways lightning hurts us:
1 . Electrical shock
2. Secondary heat production
J. Explosive force 11 .
Neuro-electriral Damage! Current through ThE torso or brain
can stop the hEarr or stop breathing. Hearts often restart
themselves cuickly. but it can Take the breathing control center
longer id rEcover. Cardiac or respiraToiy arrest that isnt
restarts.; nick- wi eveutua.y cause auaeroiuc conii.iiDus
that makE recovery problematic Curreni through The tissues
can also lead to numbness, paralysis or other nervous system
dysfunction.
Burns: highming victims can get burned from the high current
electricity that nuns inra heaT in conductors that resist its f.ow.
Strike victims can get Ixeai burns from head to feET along The
skin. punrtatE (spotted) burns, o: feathering skin marks (not
really bums) frnm the charge flowing ovei their siin. They can
get secondary burns from metallic objects like belt buckles and
jewelry that heat up from ThE current. Burns can also occur
from lightning-ignited cloimg.
" We used ta call t!d ; tlie liglitning SA.- ^TY positioc but this name
easily allows the illusion of safEiy.
11 Cooper, Mar," Ann, MD . Cb ": Ldghicing lcjur.es . ha Paul Auerbich
VD's ^'ilaemess Medic be: yanasenim Of Wudamass And
~TiviTn-ir-ii=ii[?.l Eni=JEencieL. i" ed l'PS5 .
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 113
Appendix E - 117
Large entry and esil burn wounds from lightning strikes are
rare. Most victims Live a flashover effect (current travels over
their skx) thaT saves [hem from the more severe wounds . these
people can geT linear or punctate bums or feathering patterns.
But flashover can also travel LttD orifices, which may Explain
tiie cnany ear and eye problems tliat result from lightning
strikes.
Wet people may carry ntDre current over their skin. instead of
through ibex bodies. ledncLug their xuuies It Is not suggested
that you intentionally get weT in case you are struck, but it does
meat; you shouldn't be scared tbat being wet will increase tbe
rist fdi yon.
Trauma The explosive force of Lightning car result x direct
oi xdirect trauma resulting in fractures Dr toft nssne injuries.
Watch for E3rplosive x;uries at tie feEt Tie high current can
also triggEr significant muscle spasms that can fracture bones.
Psychological Effect;: Electrical xuiry ecu xuue tbe 'max.
Immediate problems may include altered consciousness,
confusion. disorieutanDU or amnesia. Long term problems may
include anything from headaches and distracribiLity To
persistent psychiatric disorders and dementia 11 .
NOLS
«'!0OO The National Outdoor Leadership School
Noncommercial duplication is welcomed.
Please send feedback to:
NOLS Curriculum 388 W. Main St. Lander. WY
82520 currlculu mfrnols.edu 3Cf7.335.226d
First Aid For Lightning Victims
Medical aspects ofiitz'iming injur} ate covered in "NOLI Fieid
Medical And Brttg Protocols 2060" and in Ca 4 of the N£L1
Ttldervess First Aid ''' rex; S* ed. F^e following overview does
not supercede those documents.
All patients require a complete body survey and careful
evaluation for bead, spinal, lone bone, or cardiac injuries;
■peripheral pulses and sensory and moral status should be
assessed. Check The skin for small hidden burns. The panent in
cardiopulmonary aire =t may require prolonged CP?.. especially
revpirstory support if spontaneous pulse and blood pressure
return. Vniilte normal triage protocols, first attEntion and.
resources should be directed to those who appear dead and
those requiring LmmEdiate support of airway and breathing.
Any patlEnt who has shown any signs and symptoms of
lightning injury should be evacuated for r.utber Evaluation and
treatment.
Teaching Lightning Risk Management
Teaching back country hghtomg safety has the risk that our
students wiLL defer to these techniques when civilisation offers
significantly better options. There are two ±mgs we can do to
mitigate this possibility.
1) TVhen we are in Town, if lightning hazards present
themselves, it is important that we model thE reaction to seek
safery in buildings or vehicles ' Once inside, we need tD avoid
pipes, wrres and other meialUc objects that could conduct a
strike. If you aren't sure whether to 'dD the drill." err on the
side of caution for tbe sal-ie of having your students practice the
rontxe. fust like CP?.. emergency actions are best learned in
the kinesthetic mode rather than an intellectual Due. so they will
be more memorable in times of stress.
2) We can easily teach non-wilderness lightning safety
iKbniriues during a wilderneEE program, since the intown
cLoices are so simple and so effective . Getting in a modern
building or xside a car during an Electrical storm are tie only
reasonable opuDns when they are available Indeed, we c an use
the relative ease af gDod choice e while in town, and the
comparatively higbrisis of backcountry options, to help our
back country -student:- default an the side af conservatism when
it comes to getting up peaks by noon, getting off the water.
chooEing Eafe campsites and generally avoiding exposed terrain
when srarms threaten us.
Record Keeping For Lightning Incidents
Normal near-miss forms need to be completed quickly to
accurately document any near miss. Near misses are used to
inform others what hazards to be careful of, and to help predict
accident types Any lightning incideaT also needs a record Df
actions Taken to avoid the hazard before the xcident. weather
observations, and Thunder and lightning observations before the
incident. You should sketch who was where relative to
surrounding Terrain and vegetation with estimated distances,
heights and elevations, a North arrow, and at least one
definitive landmark. If vdu have time for a derailed sketch,
measure using paces that you can convert to meters later. Be
sure tD record people who were and were not injured by the
strike. A precise reenrd of the time''' and location of the ground
strike may help lightning scientists give you some data about
that actual strike"'.
Titan): you to Mary Ann Cooper XID, Ron Holle, Martin
L'mon and others for their tremendous contribution; so the
field and so this collection of information. Lightning
scientists do noz all agree on these adaptations of their
careful scientific studies. Any misrepresentation or
ynaiadoptation of their material is my fault, not theirs JT5
'"" 'Behavioral ;. ansequences of Lightning and Electrical Injury".
Margaret Prnueau, PhE , Gerolf EL Eneelstatter, PhE. and KinwerTf
K Bares, M.S. Seminars in Neurology. V15, NJ, Sepl 1S35.
11 s chimelpfEdg A Lindsev. NOL.^ WddamaES Firn Aid , i" ed.
Stickpole, 2002.
' See Ltrr wv.w .:ic.et.i ■.x?.cc-3T;a7 fa; I rr.n fs: rscamaendjtiBns of
the Lightning Safely Group.
11 Cieck watcteE to the nearest Eecood. then calittale them with an
atomic clock, available at any Radio Sbsck.
-' The ^"ational Liehtmng Data System records mosl strikes in the
conlinental U5 . Buy dr.ia nt wvm: ]iBlinnn;siom :cai
2010 Rocky Mountain REMAP Field Manual
Page 114
Appendix E - 118
Appendix F. Terminology, Description, and Calculation of
THE FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT METRICS
N„ = count of native species, N a = count of all species, N e = count of non-native species, C, :
index of conservatism for the i species, x t = percent cover for the i species.
Indices
Description
Calculation
Species richness Number of plant species observed
Number of native plant species observed
Native species
richness
Non-native
species richness
Percent non-
native species
Number of non-native plants
Number of native plants divided by the number (/V n /A/ a ) (1 00)
of all plants multiplied by 100
MeanC
Mean C„
Cover-weighted
MeanC
Cover-weighted
Mean C nat
FQI
FQI„a,
Cover-weighted
FQI
Cover-weighted
FQI„a,
Adjusted FQI
Adjusted cover-
weighted FQI
Average C-value of all plants
Average C-value of only the native plants
Sum of each species C-value multiplied by its
cover values, then divided by the sum of cover
values for all species
Sum of each native species C-value multiplied
by its cover values, then divided by the sum of
cover values for native species
Mean C of all plants multiplied by the square-
root of number of all plants
Mean C of native plants multiplied by the
square-root of number of native plants
Cover-weighted Mean C for all species
multiplied by the square-root of all species
Cover-weighted Mean C for native plants
multiplied by the square-root of native plants
Mean C of native plants divided by 10
multiplied by square-root of native plants
divided by the square-root of number of all
plants multiplied by 100
Cover-weighted Mean C for native plants
divided by 10 multiplied by square-root of
native plants divided by the square-root of
number of all plants multiplied by 100
lC,/A/ a
ZCi N n
ZxC/Zx
n In
X Xi Ci / X Xi
;=1 / ;=1
m N a jn
ZC N n
;=1 /
Zxc/ZxJTa^
ixiCi/ixi\JN n
ic,/N n Jn~„
;'=1
10
(100)
ixid/ix]4N~n
/=1 / 1=1
10
(100)
Appendix F - 1
Appendix G. Frequency Histograms
These histograms depict the floristic quality assessment metrics for wet meadows, fens, emergent
marshes, and riparian shrublands assessed as part of the project.
Appendix G - 1
£ 1 q
4-1
in
■6
U
E
3 in
z 1U
<1 2-3 4-5
Average Number of Exotic Species
Appendix G - 2
7fi
60
50 -
VI
•1
m 40 -
l_
u
130
3
Z
20
10
n
H
<5 6 7 >7
Mean C-Valueof Native Species
Appendix G - 3
4 5 6 7 >7
Cover-weighted Mean C -Value of All Species
5 6 7 >7
Cover-weighted Mean C-Value of Native Species
Appendix G - 4
<10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50
Average FQ of All Species
<10 11-20 21-30 31-10 A 1-50 >50
Average FQI of Native Species
Appendix G - 5
<10
11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
Average Cover-weighted FQI fcr All Species
>50
<10
11-20 21-30 31-10 A 1-50
Average Cover-weighted FQI of Native Species
>50
Appendix G - 6
60
50
40
n
55
30
20
10
t
<40 41-50 51-60 61-70 >70
Avsrage Adjusted FQI
45
40
35
30
ifl 25
f 20
3
15
10
=■
<<(0 .11-50 51-60 61-70 >70
Average Cover-weighted Adjusted FQI
Appendix G - 7
Appendix H. Redundancy Test of Pearson Correlation
Coefficients Among FQA Metrics
Adjusted cover-
weighted FQI
s
-a
s
So
©"
Cover- weighted
FQI of native
species
o
CO
©'
r i
Ci
Cover-weighted
FQI of all
species
s
CN
CN
d
r-
©
CN
©'
I
O .32
£ 1
S
©
SO
CN
©
CO
— '
co
©'
o .y
i— t u
£1
—
25
ON
©
©
SO
CN
©
*o
CO
©
CO
Cover- weighted
MeanC -value of
native species
3
CO
co
©
cN
CO
©
Q
©
©'
©'
CN
Cover-
weighted Mean
C -value of all
species
5
9\
d
o
en
ci
CN
ci
00
ci
5
ci
ci
CN.
d
MeanC-
value of
native
species
s
So
©
©
o
co
©
co
CO
©
CO
©
f»3
CN.
©'
Mean C-
value of all
species
25
«r,
cn
©"
CI
sO
— '
00
co
o
00
CI
©'
o
CO
©'
00
c\
CN
©
1
o .u
s
o
8
©
©'
s
©
S
©'
3
ci
g
ci
ci
CO
©■
CN
ci
Native
species
richness
5
s
©
©'
CO
©'
2;
ci
00
©'
CN
©
OS
©
CN
©
CN
©
©'
©
r\
©'
Total
species
richness
o
25
OS
©
©'
o
©'
r i
©
CI
©
00
©'
©
©
CN.
©'
CN.
©
CO
ci
00
©
1
■a
o
3
5
|
P-
■js
z
'3
&
aj
'is
7
o
&
U
g
s
O
O-
1
c
1
■ U
o
fi
&
J
o
d
-
-a
-a
■J
o
U
fi
P-
u
d
O
1
O
OJ
S
O
U
.2
P-
o
o
OJ
P-
aj
■5
|
o
&
Q
OJ
a.
o
&
-a
-a
&
o
U
o
aj
p-
a>
1
o
a
to
OJ
S
o
U
&
-a
3
3
&
—
S
o
-a
3
5'
Appendix H - 1
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11