Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
029- Appendix W.2 - Wildlife Memo
1 | Page Technical Memo To: Parker Lange, YTI Development, Matt Ekstrom, PE From: Faith Doty, Environmental Scientist and Christine Pearcy, Sr. Environmental Scientist Date: January 8, 2024 Job: 5659.021 Re: Wildlife Assessment at North South Range Crossing (NSRX) This memo documents the presence or absence of wildlife resources and Endangered Species Act (ESA) federally listed threatened and endangered species on an approximately 35-acre parcel located northeast of the intersection of South 19th Avenue and East Graf Street in Bozeman, MT. A suite of maps is attached to this memo for reference. Field visits to the subject property, conducted by a Morrison-Maierle Environmental Scientist in June and September 2023 contributed observations to this report. A photo log from the field investigation is attached and the results of our investigation are presented below. A summary of our data sources is provided at the end of this memo. General Habitat The investigation area, historically used for agriculture, is currently open/undeveloped land. Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek runs perennially on the western edge of the property, and a man-made ditch lateral currently used for stormwater conveyance borders the east edge. Large trees and a riparian area along the ditch and former ditch create a riparian area and potential habitat for birds and medium sized mammals. The subject property is within Western Cool Temperate Close Grown Crop and Pasture and Hayland land cover/use (MSDI 2015). See Figure 5 in the attachments of this memo for a vegetative land cover map of the subject property. Observed Species We observed the following species on the subject property: Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Black bear sign (Ursus americanus) Unidentified bird species Various small insects, spiders Experience and observations in similar landscapes within the Bozeman area indicate coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and chipmunk species (e.g., Neotamias minimus or amoenus) are also likely be present on the subject property. Elk (Cervus canadensis) may 2 | Page occasionally graze or pass through the subject property, primarily in the winter. Occurrences of these species are becoming more uncommon as development pressure increases. Threatened and Endangered Species There is no critical habitat for any Endangered Species Act (ESA) threatened or endangered (T&E) species at the investigation area (USFWS 2023). Furthermore, the investigation area does not contain typical habitat for any threatened or endangered species. While it is possible for the monarch butterfly to migrate through the investigation area, the lack of milkweed plant communities and other useful forbs make it an unlikely stop for this Candidate species. Table 1 Species ESA Status Present? Critical Habitat? Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened Has potential to be present, not typical habitat No Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) Threatened Has potential to be present, not typical habitat No North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) Proposed Threatened Has potential to be present, not typical habitat No Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Candidate Has potential to be present No Nearby Observed Species Species documented within one mile of the investigation area are summarized in Table 2 (MNHP 2023). Most species listed here are unlikely to have habitat on the subject property due to habitat constraints. The subject property is primarily agricultural field, bordered to the east and west by a narrow treed riparian area along the ditches. Based on habitat, the species that have higher potential to occur on the subject property are the little brown myotis, bobolink, long-billed curlew, and the Suckley cuckoo bumble bee. Table 2 Common Name Scientific Name Species Group Habitat Distribution Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Mammals Riparian and forest Migratory Summer Breeder Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Mammals Generalist Resident Year Round Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Mammals Conifer forest Resident Year Round Veery Catharus fuscescens Birds Riparian forest Migratory Summer Breeder Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Birds Conifer forest Resident Year Round Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Birds Moist grasslands Migratory Summer Breeder Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Birds Grasslands Migratory Summer Breeder Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Birds Riparian forest Migratory Summer Breeder Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Birds Moist conifer forests Resident Year Round 3 | Page Common Name Scientific Name Species Group Habitat Distribution Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Birds Shrub woodland Migratory Summer Breeder Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii Birds Drier conifer forest Resident Year Round Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Birds Sagebrush Migratory Summer Breeder Brown Creeper Certhia americana Birds Moist conifer forests Resident Year Round Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Birds Conifer forest Resident Year Round Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Birds Sagebrush Migratory Summer Breeder Flammulated Owl Psiloscops flammeolus Birds Dry conifer forest Migratory Summer Breeder Monarch Danaus plexippus Invertebrates Milkweed Migratory Summer Breeder Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee Bombus suckleyi Invertebrates Montane/steppe grassland and shrubland Resident Year Round A Mayfly Cinygmula gartrelli Invertebrates Mountain Streams Resident Year Round Hooked Snowfly Isocapnia crinita Invertebrates Mountain Streams to Rivers Resident Year Round Small Dropseed Sporobolus neglectus Vascular Plants Grasslands (low-elevation) Present Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Vascular Plants - Present Rocky Mountain Twinpod Physaria saximontana var. dentata Vascular Plants Gravelly slopes/talus (Montane/subalpine) Present Slender Wedgegrass Sphenopholis intermedia Vascular Plants Mesic sites (low-elevation) Present Golden and Bald Eagle Occurrences There are no documented eagle nests or range areas that intersect with the greater area around the investigation area (MNHP 2023). Sage Grouse Habitat Review The subject property does not contain sage grouse habitat (MNHP 2023). See Figure 5 attached to this memo for a map of sage grouse habitat in the greater subject property area. Wetland and Riparian Areas The project area contains 3.28 acres of PEM wetland, much of which are new and developing wetland areas caused by man-induced artificial hydrology (municipal stormwater discharged onsite). Morrison-Maierle completed a wetland delineation utilizing the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). A wetland delineation map is attached to this Memo (Figure 7) and the report is available upon request. 4 | Page Data Sources This memo is informed by science-backed data sources, our expertise, and firsthand observations conducted on the subject property. The two key data sources described below provide the much of the data presented above and inform our analysis. The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) collects and manages data on species occurrences, biological communities, and habitat across the state. Data is aggregated into a model and customized reports for a specified project area are provided from the MTNHP upon request. For these reports, the project area is buffered up to one square mile in all directions, and the data is summarized to allow for “consistent and rapid delivery of summaries based on a uniform grid that has been used for planning efforts across the western United States” (MTNHP 2023). Thus, a species listed in a MTNHP data set as occurring within the project area may in fact have habitat in the larger, buffered, search area, and does not necessarily indicate habitat on the subject property. Three categories of data are presented in this report: 1. Species occurrences for species of concern (this includes special status species and important animal habitat) 2. Other observed non-species of concern, or species of concern lacking enough data to be completely mapped 3. Other species that have not been documented in the buffered project area, but that could be present based on habitat distribution The MNHP Environmental Survey Report (ESR) is summarized in Table 2 and attached to this memo. The USFWS manages the Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) database, which provides information about federally protected plants, animals, and designated critical habitats that might be impacted by a proposed project. The IPaC report generates a list of species and resources such as critical habitats that are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and are known or expected to be present in or around the project area. This list may also include resources that are outside the project area but could potentially be affected by activities within the project area (USFWS 2023a). The results of this report are summarized in Table 1, the full report is attached to this memo. Summary There are a) no direct observations of, and b) no critical habitat for, T&E species on the subject property. Occurrences of several “species of concern” defined by the MNHP are documented in the greater project area. However, most of these species are unlikely to occur on the subject property due to inadequate habitat. 5 | Page References Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). 2015. This statewide land cover theme is a baseline digital map of Montana's natural and human land cover. This version was last updated December 2015. Please see http://geoinfo.msl.mt.gov/msdi/land_use_land_cover for more information. Accessed October 2023. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). 2023. Environmental Summary Report for NSRX (2023) and Sage Grouse Habitat GIS layers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). 2023. IPaC Resource List for location in Gallatin County, Montana. Accessed December 2023. Attachments 1) Figures 2) IPaC Resource List 3) MNHP Environmental Summary Report (ESR) Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 1,500 3,000750Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX VICINITY MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 12023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property MONTANA PROJECT LOCATION Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 650 1,300325Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig2_Topo.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 22023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property Rock/gravel deposit Concrete outfall 0 150 30075Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS\Exhibits\Fig3_Aerial.mxd; Plotted: 9/29/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX 2021 AERIAL MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 32023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 09/2023 Legend Subject Property PROJECT NO. 5659.013MNHP LAND COVER MAP DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:12/15/2023 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX.aprx NORTH SRX FIG.4 Legend Subject Property Land Cover Rock Outcrop, Scree or Rubble Land Major Road Other Road Developed and Urban Vegetation Developed - Low and Medium Intensity Western Cool Temperate Row Crop - Close Grown Crop Western Cool Temperate Pasture and Hayland Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill-Valley Grassland Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland Open Water Developed-High Intensity Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland ± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet 346 FrontageRd Central Park Clarkston Menard Wye Edilou Menard 290 345 Fr o n t ag e R d Fr ontage Rd GallatinRdFour Corners Vincent Belgrade Church Hill Gallatin Gateway Cowan Anceney Gilroy Belgrade Junction Kerns 191 191 G all ati n R d Gallatin GallatinRdBig Sky BridgerCanyon RdSpringhill Sedan 86 345 Fr o n t ag e R d West End Busch Patterson Bisel Chestnut Catron Camona Bozeman Merriman Chimney Rock Hoffman Chico Kotke Dailey 89 Clyde Park Wilsall Shields USHighway 10 W Hoppers EastRiverRdUS Highway89 S Pray Chicory Brisbin Emigrant White City PROJECT NO. 5659.013MNHP SAGE GROUSE HABITAT MAPDRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: CP APPR. BY: CP DATE:12/15/2023 N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX.aprx NORTH SRX FIG.5 Legend Subject Property Sage grouse habitat (current distribution)± COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2023a 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 0 20,000 40,00010,000 Feet WDP8 UDP4 WDP7 WDP6 WDP5 UDP3 WDP4 WDP3 UDP2 UDP1 WDP2 WDP1 UDP8 UDP5 WDP9 UDP7 UDP6 WDP10 WDP12 WDP11 0 100 20050Feet ± N:\5659\013 Aquatic\2023 Delineation - N SRX\GIS - N SRX\ArcPro\N_SRX.aprx; Plotted: 12/5/2023 COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2880 Technology Blvd. WBozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721 NORTH SRX 2023 WETLAND DELINEATION MAPGALLATIN CO.MT FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5659.018 FIG. 72023 DRAWN BY: FD CHK'D BY: FD APPR. BY: CP DATE: 12/2023 Legend Investigation Area Wetland Man-made channel (stormwater) Middle Creek Ditch/Mandeville Creek Ditch lateral Stormwater pond Data Points Upland Wetland Wetland A (2.53 acres) Wetland B (0.40 acres) Wetland C (0.35 acres) Head gate Page 1 of 34 Environmental SummaryThe Montana Natural Heritage Program is part of the Montana State Library’s Natural Resource Information System. Since 1985, it has served as a neutral and non-regulatory provider of easily accessible information on Montana’s species and biological communities to inform all stakeholders in environmental review, permitting, and planning processes. The program is part of the NatureServe network that is composed of over 60 member programs across North America that work to provide current and comprehensive distribution and status information on species and biological communities. 1201 11th Ave ▫ P.O. Box 201800 ▫ Helena, MT 59620-1800 ▫ fax 406-444-0266 ▫ phone 406-444-3989 mtnhp.org Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Suggested Citation Montana Natural Heritage Program. Environmental Summary Report. for Latitude 45.62145 to 45.68143 and Longitude -111.01874 to -111.09304. Retrieved on 12/15/2023. Page 2 of 34 Introduction to Environmental Summary Report Environmental Summary Reports from the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) provide information on species and biological communities to inform all stakeholders in environmental review, permitting, and planning processes. For information on environmental permits in Montana, please see permitting overviews by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Index of Environmental Permits for Montana and our Suggested Contacts for Natural Resource Management Agencies. The report for your area of interest consists of introductory and related materials in this PDF and an Excel workbook with worksheets summarizing information managed in the MTNHP databases for: (1) species occurrences; (2) other observed species without species occurrences; (3) other species potentially present based on their range, presence of associated habitats, or predictive distribution model output if available; (4) structured surveys that follow a protocol capable of detecting one or more species; (5) land cover mapped as ecological systems; (6) wetland and riparian mapping; (7) land management categories; and (8) biological reports associated with plant and animal observations. If your area of interest corresponds to a statewide polygon layer (e.g., watersheds, counties, or public land survey sections) information summaries in your report will exactly match those boundaries. However, if your report is for a custom area, users should be aware that summaries do not correspond to the exact boundaries of the polygon they have specified, but instead are a summary across a layer of hexagons intersected by the polygon they specified as shown on the report cover. Summarizing by these hexagons which are one square mile in area and approximately one kilometer in length on each side allows for consistent and rapid delivery of summaries based on a uniform grid that has been used for planning efforts across North America. In presenting this information, MTNHP is working towards assisting the user with rapidly assessing the known or potential species and biological communities, land management categories, and biological reports associated with the report area. Users are reminded that this information is likely incomplete and may be inaccurate as surveys to document species are lacking in many areas of the state, species’ range polygons often include regions of unsuitable habitat, methods of predicting the presence of species or communities are constantly improving, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species and biological communities in a report area will always be an important obligation of users of our data. Users are encouraged to only use this environmental summary report as a starting point for more in depth analyses and are encouraged to contact state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies for additional data or management guidelines relevant to your efforts. Please see the Appendix for introductory materials to each section of the report, additional information resources, and a list of relevant agency contacts. Table of Contents • Species Report • Structured Surveys • Land Cover • Wetland and Riparian • Land Management • Biological Reports • Invasive and Pest Species • Introduction to Montana Natural Heritage Program • Data Use Terms and Conditions • Suggested Contacts for Natural Resource Agencies • Introduction to Native Species • Introduction to Land Cover • Introduction to Wetland and Riparian • Introduction to Land Management • Introduction to Invasive and Pest Species • Additional Information Resources Page 3 of 34 Native Species Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Filtered by: Native Species reports are filtered for Species with MT Status = Species of Concern, Special Status, Important Animal Habitat, Potential SOC Species Occurrences Global: G5 State: S1S2 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Delineation Criteria Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any pre-defined distance. Individualclusters of plants mapped at fine spatial scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50 meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distinctareas of habitat or terrain features. Point observations are buffered to encompass any locational uncertainty associated with the observation.(Last Updated: Jan 29, 2021) Predicted Models: 22% Suitable (native range) (deductive) Global: G4 State: S2S3 USFWS: C USFS: Sensitive - Migratory in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT) Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age/stage. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 2,000meters in order to encompass documented travel distances of some butterfly species as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by thelocational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Nov 02, 2023) Predicted Models: 33% Optimal (inductive), 56% Moderate (inductive), 11% Low (inductive) Global: G2G3 State: S1 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 1700 meters inorder to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 22, 2022) Predicted Models: 89% Moderate (inductive), 11% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home ranges andotherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023) Predicted Models: 33% Moderate (inductive), 67% Low (inductive) USFWSSec7 # SO # Obs PredictedModel Range 1 1 V - Sporobolus neglectus (Small Dropseed)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 I - Danaus plexippus (Monarch)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 4 1 I - Bombus suckleyi (Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 6 10 +B - Veery (Catharus fuscescens)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Native / Year-round Summer Winter Migratory Non-native Historical Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 4 of 34 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 1,000 meters in order to encompass the maximum foraging distance from nests reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertaintyassociated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 30, 2023) Predicted Models: 33% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 150 meters in order to conservatively encompass male territory size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 30, 2023) Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S3B BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy based on the documented presence (mistnet captures, definitively identified acoustic recordings, and definitively identified roostingindividuals) of adults or juveniles during the active season. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 3,500 meters in order to be conservative about encompassingthe maximum reported foraging distance for the congeneric Lasiurus borealis and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximumdistance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jul 06, 2023) Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 200 meters in order to approximate the breeding territory size reported for the species in Idaho and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associatedwith the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023) Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home ranges andotherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 30, 2022) Predicted Models: 89% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S3 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT)FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy based on the documented presence (mistnet captures, definitively identified acoustic recordings, or definitively identified roostingindividuals) of adults or juveniles. Point observation location is buffered by a distance of 1,600 meters in order to encompass the greater than 1,500 meters foraging distance reported forthe species in New Brunswick, Canada and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters. When cavelocations are involved, point observations are mapped in the center of a one-square mile hexagon to protect the exact location of the cave entrance as per the Federal Cave ResourceProtection Act and associated regulations (U.S. Code Title 16 Chapter 63, Code of Federal Regulations Title 43 Subtitle A Part 37). The outer edges of the hexagon are then buffered by a distance of 1,600 meters and otherwise by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters. All of the one-square mile hexagons intersecting this buffered area are presented as the Species Occurrence record.(Last Updated: Jul 06, 2023) Predicted Models: 33% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S2S3 USFWS: LT BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3 Delineation Criteria Species Occurrence polygons represent areas delineated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that encompass both home ranges and potential transitorymovements based on verified sightings. Within these areas, the USFWS wants project proponents to consider whether the species “may be present†when evaluating the potentialimpacts of a project and to work with the USFWS to develop and implement best management practices to minimize or eliminate project effects on the species.(Last Updated: Jul 06, 2023) Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 1,500 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home rangesand otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023) Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 125 meters in order to encompass the breeding home range size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with theobservation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023) Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing the courtship andforaging distance from nesting areas and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 30, 2023) Predicted Models: 11% Low (inductive) 81 181 +B - Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 17 23 +B - Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 M - Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 1 B - Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 1 +B - Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 +M - Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 M - Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 9 26 B - Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 4 2 +B - Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 14 44 +B - Cassin's Finch (Haemorhous cassinii)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species Page 5 of 34 Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 75 meters in order to encompass the maximum breeding territory size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associatedwith the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023) Predicted Models: 11% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home ranges andotherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA USFS: Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (FLAT)FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Observations with direct evidence of breeding activity or indirect evidence of breeding activity between early March and mid-July within forested habitatscontaining Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis), Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis), or Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa). Observations are buffered by a minimum distance of 1,000 meters in orderto encompass the spring/summer breeding territory size reported for the species or the locational uncertainty of the observation to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jan 12, 2023) Global: G2G3 State: SNR Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age/stage. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 300 metersin order to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associatedwith the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 16, 2022) Global: G5 State: S2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 100 meters inorder to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Mar 22, 2016) Global: G5 State: S3S4 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO) Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG, HLC) Global: G3T3 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats CCVI: Moderately Vulnerable Delineation Criteria Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any pre-defined distance. Individualclusters of plants mapped at fine spatial scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50 meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distinctareas of habitat or terrain features. Point observations are buffered to encompass any locational uncertainty associated with the observation.(Last Updated: Aug 09, 2023) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 100 meters in order to encompass the maximum territory size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with theobservation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO) Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (FLAT, HLC)BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 300 meters in order to encompass the maximum breeding territory size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023) Global: G5 State: S3S4 Delineation Criteria Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any pre-defined distance. Individualclusters of plants mapped at fine spatial scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50 meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distinctareas of habitat or terrain features. Point observations are buffered to encompass any locational uncertainty associated with the observation.(Last Updated: Aug 23, 2017) Global: GNR State: SNR Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy based on the documented presence of adults or juveniles of any bat species at non-cave natural roost sites (e.g. rock outcrops,trees), below ground human created roost sites (e.g. mines), and above ground human created roost sites (e.g., bridges, buildings). Point observation locations are buffered by a distance of 4,500 meters in order to encompass the 95% confidence interval for nightly foraging distance reported for Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (a resident Montana bat Species of Concern) and otherwise by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Oct 22, 2019) 1 1 B - Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 8 94 Not AssessedB - Brown Creeper (Certhia americana)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 30 +Not AssessedB - Clark's Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 1 Not AssessedI - Cinygmula gartrelli (A Mayfly)SSS View in Field Guide View Range Maps Special Status Species - Native Species 1 +Not AssessedI - Isocapnia crinita (Hooked Snowfly)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedV - Cypripedium parviflorum (Small Yellow Lady's-slipper)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 +Not AssessedV - Physaria saximontana var. dentata (Rocky Mountain Twinpod)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 4 3 Not AssessedB - Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 1 Not AssessedB - Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 +Not Assessed V - Sphenopholis intermedia (Slender Wedgegrass)PSOC View in Field Guide Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 4 Not Assessed O - Bat Roost (Non-Cave) (Bat Roost (Non-Cave))IAH View in Field Guide Important Animal Habitat - Native Species Page 6 of 34 Native Species Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Filtered by: Native Species reports are filtered for Species with MT Status = Species of Concern, Special Status, Important Animal Habitat, Potential SOC Other Observed Species Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 44% Optimal (inductive), 44% Moderate (inductive), 11% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 22% Optimal (inductive), 44% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 22% Optimal (inductive), 44% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: PS: LT; MBTA BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 78% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 44% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 33% Moderate (inductive), 67% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 89% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Predicted Models: 78% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 78% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 67% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 56% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 44% Low (inductive) USFWSSec7 # Obs PredictedModel Range 5 B - Broad-tailed Hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 18 B - American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 9 +B - Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species +B - Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 3 B - White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 3 B - Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 4 B - Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 31 B - Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 7 +B - Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Native / Year-round Summer Winter Migratory Non-native Historical Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 7 of 34 Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: S3S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: BGEPA; MBTA USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO)BLM: SENSITIVE PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 11% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SX,S4 FWP SWAP: SGCN1 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 11% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN Predicted Models: 11% Low (inductive) Global: G5T4 State: S2 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 Predicted Models: 33% Suitable (introduced range) (deductive) Global: G3G4 State: S4 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G4 State: S2 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN2, SGIN PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 3 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: BGEPA; MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 3 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G3 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Global: G4 State: S2 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT, LOLO)BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 Global: G5T4 State: S2 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT, LOLO) Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG, HLC)BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 Global: G5 State: S3S4 Global: G3 State: S3 1 B - Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 3 B - Western Screech-Owl (Megascops kennicottii)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 98 B - Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)SSS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Special Status Species - Native Species 9 B - Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species +R - Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) +F - Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) +Not AssessedM - Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 24 Not AssessedB - American Goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Black Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte atrata)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species +Not AssessedB - Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 20 Not AssessedB - Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 3 +Not AssessedB - Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Pacific Wren (Troglodytes pacificus)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 3 Not AssessedB - Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 +Not AssessedA - Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species +Not AssessedF - Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) 1 Not AssessedI - Aeshna eremita (Lake Darner)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 2 Not AssessedI - Agapetus montanus (An Agapetus Caddisfly)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species Page 8 of 34 Global: G5 State: S2S3 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BRT)Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG)Plant Threat Score: High - Low CCVI: Extremely Vulnerable Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Global: G5 State: S2 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN2, SGIN Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO)FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3S4B USFWS: MBTA Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 +Not AssessedV - Mimulus nanus (Dwarf Purple Monkeyflower)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Franklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Sagebrush Sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species +Not AssessedB - Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 4 Not AssessedB - Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species +Not AssessedB - Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 +Not AssessedB - Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Common Loon (Gavia immer)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Common Tern (Sterna hirundo)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Tennessee Warbler (Leiothlypis peregrina)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not Assessed B - Nelson's Sparrow (Ammospiza nelsoni)SOC View in Field Guide Species of Concern - Native Species Page 9 of 34 Native Species Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Filtered by: Native Species reports are filtered for Species with MT Status = Species of Concern, Special Status, Important Animal Habitat, Potential SOC Other Potential Species Global: G4 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats CCVI: Highly Vulnerable Predicted Models: 11% Optimal (inductive), 22% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 78% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S2S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3 Predicted Models: 67% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Predicted Models: 67% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: LT; CH BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 56% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2S3 Plant Threat Score: Low Predicted Models: 56% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 56% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 44% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 Predicted Models: 44% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 78% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) USFWSSec7 PredictedModel Range V - Potentilla plattensis (Platte Cinquefoil)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species B - Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species M - Dwarf Shrew (Sorex nanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Impatiens aurella (Pale-yellow Jewel-weed)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Carex crawei (Crawe's Sedge)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Uinta Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus armatus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species M - Merriam's Shrew (Sorex merriami)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Wyoming Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus elegans)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species M - North American Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species V - Ranunculus hyperboreus (High Northern Buttercup)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species V - Stellaria crassifolia (Fleshy Stitchwort)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Native / Year-round Summer Winter Migratory Non-native Historical Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 10 of 34 Global: G5 State: S2S3 Plant Threat Score: Unknown Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2S3 USFS: Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG)Plant Threat Score: High - Medium Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFS: Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG, FLAT, HLC)Plant Threat Score: Unknown CCVI: Less Vulnerable Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 USFS: Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (HLC) BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S2 Plant Threat Score: Low CCVI: Highly Vulnerable Predicted Models: 89% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN Predicted Models: 56% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: S3 Predicted Models: 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SU FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G2G4 State: S3S4 Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2 CCVI: Moderately Vulnerable Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, KOOT, LOLO) Sensitive - Migratory in Forests (BRT)FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 1 Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO)BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 11% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 V - Dichanthelium acuminatum (Panic Grass)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Sidalcea oregana (Oregon Checker-mallow)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Eleocharis rostellata (Beaked Spikerush)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species B - Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Castilleja gracillima (Slender Indian Paintbrush)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species R - Western Milksnake (Lampropeltis gentilis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species I - Rhyacophila betteni (A Caddisfly)SSS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Special Status Species - Native Species V - Rubus arcticus (Nagoonberry)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species B - Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species B - Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Wolverine (Gulo gulo)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species Not AssessedB - Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species Page 11 of 34 Structured Surveys Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) records informa on on the loca ons where more than 80 different types of well-defined repeatable survey protocols capable of detec ng an animal species or suite of animal species have been conducted by state, federal, tribal, university, or private consul ng biologists. Examples of structured survey protocols tracked by MTNHPinclude: visual encounter and dip net surveys for pond breeding amphibians, point counts for birds, call playback surveys for selected bird species, visual surveys of migra ng raptors, kick net stream reach surveys for macroinvertebrates, visual encounter cover object surveys for terrestrial mollusks, bat acous c or mist net surveys, pi all and/or snap trap surveys for small terrestrial mammals, track or camera trap surveys for large mammals, and trap surveys for turtles. Whenever possible, photographs of survey loca ons are stored in MTNHP databases. MTNHP does not typically manage informa on on structured surveys for plants; surveys for invasive species may be a future excep on. Within the report area you have requested, structured surveys are summarized by the number of each type of structured survey protocol that has been conducted, the number of species detec ons/observa ons resul ng from these surveys, and the most recent year a survey has been conducted. E-Eastern Heath Snail (Eastern Heath Snail Survey)Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: Recent Survey: 2012 E-Noxious Weed, Road-based (Noxious Weed Road-based Visual Surveys)Survey Count: 4 Obs Count: 6 Recent Survey: 2004 F-Fish Other Survey (Fish Other Survey (FWP Survey Type))Survey Count: 4 Obs Count: 2 Recent Survey: 1961 I-Aquatic Invert Lotic Dipnet (Invertebrate Lotic Site Dipnet and Visual Encounter Survey)Survey Count: 18 Obs Count: 47 Recent Survey: 2010 I-Bumble Bee (Bumble Bee Collection Surveys)Survey Count: 33 Obs Count: 49 Recent Survey: 2015 I-Crayfish (Crayfish Survey)Survey Count: 2 Obs Count: 2 Recent Survey: 1981 I-Mussel (Stream Mussel Survey)Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: Recent Survey: 2007 I-Odonates/Butterfly VES (Visual Encounter Survey for Damselfly/Dragonfly/Butterfly)Survey Count: 25 Obs Count: 27 Recent Survey: 2007 P-Algal scraping (Algal Scraping)Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: 51 Recent Survey: 2004 A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 12 of 34 No Image Land Cover Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) 24% (1,392Acres) Grassland Systems Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grassland This grassland system of the northern Rocky Mountains is found at lower montane to foothill elevations in mountains and valleys throughout Montana. These grasslands are floristically similar to Big Sagebrush Steppe but are defined by shorter summers, colder winters, and youngsoils derived from recent glacial and alluvial material. They are found at elevations from 548 - 1,650 meters (1,800-5,413 feet). In the lower montane zone, they range from small meadows to large open parks surrounded by conifers; below the lower treeline, they occur as extensive foothill and valley grasslands. Soils are relatively deep, fine-textured, often with coarse fragments, and non-saline. Microphytic crust may bepresent in high-quality occurrences. This system is typified by cool-season perennial bunch grasses and forbs (>25%) cover, with a sparse shrub cover (<10%). Rough fescue (Festuca campestris) is dominant in the northwestern portion of the state and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) is dominant or co-dominant throughout the range of the system. Bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) occurs as aco-dominant throughout the range as well, especially on xeric sites. Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) is consistently present, often with appreciable coverage (>10%) in lower elevation occurrences in western Montana and virtually always present, with relatively high coverages (>25%), on the edge of the Northwestern Great Plains region. Species diversity ranges from a high of more than 50 per 400square meter plot on mesic sites to 15 (or fewer) on xeric and disturbed sites. Most occurrences have at least 25 vascular species present. Farmland conversion, noxious species invasion, fire suppression, heavy grazing and oil and gas development are major threats to thissystem. 22% (1,281Acres) Human Land Use Agriculture Cultivated Crops These areas used for the production of crops, such as corn, soybeans, small grains, sunflowers, vegetables, and cotton, typically on an annual cycle. Agricultural plant cover is variable depending on season and type of farming. Other areas include more stable land cover of orchards andvineyards. 14% (826Acres) Human Land Use Developed Other Roads County, city and or rural roads generally open to motor vehicles. 10% (603Acres) Human Land Use Developed Low Intensity Residential Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-50% of total cover. These areasmost commonly include single-family housing units in rural and suburban areas. Paved roadways may be classified into this category. A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 13 of 34 No Image 8% (485Acres) Human Land Use Developed Developed, Open Space Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. This category often includes highway and railway rights of way and graveled rural roads. 8% (456Acres) Human Land UseDeveloped High Intensity Residential Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-80% of the total cover. These areasmost commonly include single-family housing units in urban areas. Paved roadways, parking lots, and other large impervious surfaces may be classified into this category. 6% (342Acres) Human Land UseDeveloped Commercial / Industrial Businesses, industrial parks, hospitals, airports; utilities in commercial/industrial areas. 4% (246Acres) Human Land Use Agriculture Pasture/Hay These agriculture lands typically have perennial herbaceous cover (e.g. regularly-shaped plantings) used for livestock grazing or the production of hay. There are obvious signs of management such as irrigation and haying that distinguish it from natural grasslands. Identified CRP lands are included in this land cover type. Additional Limited Land Cover 1% (51 Acres)Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual and Biennial Forbland 1% (41 Acres)Major Roads <1% (27 Acres)Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland <1% (2 Acres)Big Sagebrush Steppe <1% (2 Acres)Montane Sagebrush Steppe <1% (1 Acres)Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow <1% (1 Acres)Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow <1% (0 Acres)Aspen Forest and Woodland <1% (0 Acres)Emergent Marsh Page 14 of 34 22 Acres (no modifier)<1 Acres PABF h - Diked/Impounded 6 Acres PABFh x - Excavated 16 Acres PABFx F - Semipermanently Flooded AB - Aquatic Bed P - Palustrine, AB - Aquatic BedWetlands with vegetation growing on or below the watersurface for most of the growing season. 89 Acres (no modifier)89 Acres PEMA A - Temporarily Flooded 1 Acres (no modifier)<1 Acres PEMC h - Diked/Impounded 1 Acres PEMCh C - Seasonally Flooded <1 Acres (no modifier)<1 Acres PEMF F - Semipermanently Flooded EM - Emergent P - Palustrine, EM - EmergentWetlands with erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation presentduring most of the growing season. 13 Acres (no modifier)13 Acres PSSA A - Temporarily Flooded SS - Scrub-Shrub P - Palustrine, SS - Scrub-ShrubWetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters(20 feet) tall. Woody vegetation includes tree saplings andtrees that are stunted due to environmental conditions. P - Palustrine <1 Acres x - Excavated <1 Acres R3UBFx F - Semipermanently Flooded UB - Unconsolidated Bottom R - Riverine (Rivers), 3 - Upper Perennial, UB -Unconsolidated BottomStream channels where the substrate is at least 25% mud, siltor other fine particles. 2 Acres (no modifier)1 Acres R4SBA x - Excavated 1 Acres R4SBAx A - Temporarily Flooded SB - Stream Bed R - Riverine (Rivers), 4 - Intermittent, SB - Stream BedActive channel that contains periodic water flow. R - Riverine (Rivers) 3 - Upper Perennial 4 - Intermittent Wetland and Riparian Mapping Wetland and Riparian Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 15 of 34 <1 Acres x - Excavated <1 Acres R4SBCx C - Seasonally Flooded (no modifier)40 Acres Rp1SS SS - Scrub-Shrub Rp - Riparian, 1 - Lotic, SS - Scrub-ShrubThis type of riparian area is dominated by woody vegetationthat is less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. Woody vegetationincludes tree saplings and trees that are stunted due toenvironmental conditions. (no modifier)51 Acres Rp1FO FO - Forested Rp - Riparian, 1 - Lotic, FO - ForestedThis riparian class has woody vegetation that is greater than 6meters (20 feet) tall. (no modifier)4 Acres Rp1EM EM - Emergent Rp - Riparian, 1 - Lotic, EM - EmergentRiparian areas that have erect, rooted herbaceous vegetationduring most of the growing season. Rp - Riparian 1 - Lotic Page 16 of 34 Land Management Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Land Management Summary Ownership Tribal Easements Other Boundaries(possible overlap) Public Lands 705 Acres (12%) State 598 Acres (10%) Montana University System 598 Acres (10%) MUS Owned 598 Acres (10%) Local 107 Acres (2%) Local Government 107 Acres (2%) Local Government Owned 107 Acres (2%) Conservation Easements 3 Acres (<1%) Private 3 Acres (<1%) Gallatin Valley Land Trust 3 Acres (<1%) Private Lands or Unknown Ownership 5,048 Acres (88%) A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 17 of 34 Biological Reports Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Within the report area you have requested, cita ons for all reports and publica ons associated with plant or animal observa ons in Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) databases are listed and, where possible, links to the documents are included. The MTNHP plans to include reports associated with terrestrial and aqua c communi es in the future as allowed for by staff resources. If you know of reports or publica ons associated with species or biological communi es within the report area that are not shown in this report, please let us know: mtnhp@mt.gov Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. GYA Weed Mapping Update and Database Augmentation. 2000-04. Hodgson, J.R. 1970. Ecological distribution of Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus in an area of geographic sympatry in southwestern Montana. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 65 p. Seipel, T.F. 2006. Plant species diversity in the sagebrush steppe of Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 87 p. Skaar, P. D., D. L. Flath, and L. S. Thompson. 1985. Montana bird distribution. Montana Academy of Sciences Monograph 3(44): ii-69. A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 18 of 34 Invasive and Pest Species Summarized by: 24PRVT0153 (Custom Area of Interest) Aquatic Invasive Species Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 33% Optimal (inductive), 67% Moderate (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 44% Suitable (introduced range) (deductive) Global: G5 State: S5 Global: G5 State: SNA Noxious Weeds: Priority 1A Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 56% Optimal (inductive), 44% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 56% Optimal (inductive), 22% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 44% Low (inductive) Noxious Weeds: Priority 1B Global: GNRTNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 56% Optimal (inductive), 44% Moderate (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 33% Optimal (inductive), 33% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 22% Optimal (inductive), 78% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNA State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Optimal (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Noxious Weeds: Priority 2A # Obs PredictedModel Range 2 V - Iris pseudacorus (Yellowflag Iris)N2A/AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species V - Potamogeton crispus (Curly-leaf Pondweed)N2B/AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species V - Nymphaea odorata (American Water-lily)AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species 2 Not AssessedI - Faxonius virilis (Virile Crayfish)AIS View in Field Guide View Range Maps Aquatic Invasive Species - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) 1 Not Assessed I - Potamopyrgus antipodarum (New Zealand Mudsnail)AIS View in Field Guide Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species V - Isatis tinctoria (Dyer's Woad)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species V - Centaurea solstitialis (Yellow Starthistle)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species V - Taeniatherum caput-medusae (Medusahead)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species 1 V - Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese Knotweed)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Lythrum salicaria (Purple Loosestrife)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Echium vulgare (Blueweed)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Polygonum x bohemicum (Bohemian Knotweed)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Cytisus scoparius (Scotch Broom)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Non-native Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 19 of 34 Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 67% Optimal (inductive), 33% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 67% Optimal (inductive), 22% Moderate (inductive), 11% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 33% Optimal (inductive), 67% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 44% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 89% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 78% Low (inductive) Noxious Weeds: Priority 2B Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 33% Optimal (inductive), 67% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Optimal (inductive), 89% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Optimal (inductive), 56% Moderate (inductive), 33% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 89% Moderate (inductive), 11% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 78% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 78% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 33% Moderate (inductive), 67% Low (inductive) V - Ranunculus acris (Tall Buttercup)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species 3 V - Rhamnus cathartica (Common Buckthorn)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species 2 V - Iris pseudacorus (Yellowflag Iris)N2A/AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species 3 V - Ventenata dubia (Ventenata)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Hieracium aurantiacum (Orange Hawkweed)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Senecio jacobaea (Tansy Ragwort)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Lepidium latifolium (Perennial Pepperweed)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species 3 V - Lepidium draba (Whitetop)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Linaria vulgaris (Yellow Toadflax)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 6 V - Berteroa incana (Hoary False-alyssum)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Centaurea diffusa (Diffuse Knapweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 4 V - Cynoglossum officinale (Common Hound's-tongue)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 3 V - Tanacetum vulgare (Common Tansy)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 1 V - Leucanthemum vulgare (Oxeye Daisy)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Linaria dalmatica (Dalmatian Toadflax)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 1 V - Euphorbia virgata (Leafy Spurge)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species Page 20 of 34 Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 78% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 89% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 67% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 44% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 33% Low (inductive) Regulated Weeds: Priority 3 Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 44% Moderate (inductive), 56% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 22% Low (inductive) Biocontrol Species Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 56% Optimal (inductive), 44% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 78% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 56% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 44% Moderate (inductive), 11% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 22% Moderate (inductive), 22% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 11% Moderate (inductive), 44% Low (inductive) 13 V - Centaurea stoebe (Spotted Knapweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Potamogeton crispus (Curly-leaf Pondweed)N2B/AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species 10 V - Cirsium arvense (Canada Thistle)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 6 V - Convolvulus arvensis (Field Bindweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 5 V - Potentilla recta (Sulphur Cinquefoil)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 1 V - Hypericum perforatum (Common St. John's-wort)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Tamarix ramosissima (Salt Cedar)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Acroptilon repens (Russian Knapweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 2 V - Bromus tectorum (Cheatgrass)R3 View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Regulated Weed: Priority 3 - Non-native Species 2 V - Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian Olive)R3 View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Regulated Weed: Priority 3 - Non-native Species I - Mecinus janthinus (Yellow Toadflax Stem-boring Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Mecinus janthiniformis (Dalmatian Toadflax Stem-boring Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Aphthona lacertosa (Brown-legged Leafy Spurge Flea Beetle)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Oberea erythrocephala (Red-headed Leafy Spurge Stem Borer)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Aphthona nigriscutis (Black Dot Leafy Spurge Flea Beetle)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Cyphocleonus achates (Knapweed Root Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species Page 21 of 34 Introduction to Montana Natural Heritage Program PO Box 201800 ⚫ 1201 11th Avenue ⚫ Helena, MT 59620-1800 ⚫ fax 406.444.0266 ⚫ phone 406.444.3989 ⚫ mtnhp.org INTRODUCTION The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is Montana’s source for reliable and objective information on Montana’s native species and habitats, emphasizing those of conservation concern. MTNHP was created by the Montana legislature in 1983 as part of the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) at the Montana State Library (MSL). MTNHP is “a program of information acquisition, storage, and retrieval for data relating to the flora, fauna, and biological community types of Montana” (MCA 90-15-102). MTNHP’s activities are guided by statute as well as through ongoing interaction with, and feedback from, principal data source agencies such as Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Montana University System, the US Forest Service, and the US Bureau of Land Management. Since the first staff was hired in 1985, the Program has logged a long record of success, and developed into a highly respected, service-oriented program. MTNHP is widely recognized as one of the most advanced and effective of over 60 natural heritage programs that are distributed across North America. VISION Our vision is that public agencies, the private sector, the education sector, and the general public will trust and rely upon MTNHP as the source for information and expertise on Montana’s species and habitats, especially those of conservation concern. We strive to provide easy access to our information to allow users to save time and money, speed environmental reviews, and make informed decisions. CORE VALUES • We endeavor to be a single statewide source of accurate and up-to-date information on Montana’s plants, animals, and aquatic and terrestrial biological communities. • We actively listen to our data users and work responsively to meet their information and training needs. • We strive to provide neutral, trusted, timely, and equitable service to all of our information users. • We make every effort to be transparent to our data users in setting work priorities and providing data products. CONFIDENTIALITY All information requests made to the Montana Natural Heritage Program are considered library records and are protected from disclosure by the Montana Library Records Confidentiality Act (MCA 22-1-11). INFORMATION MANAGED Information managed at the Montana Natural Heritage Program is botanical, zoological, and ecological information that describes the distribution (e.g., observations, structured surveys, range polygons, predicted habitat suitability models), conservation status (e.g., global and state conservation status ranks, including threats), and other supporting information (e.g., accounts and references) on the biology and ecology of species and biological communities. Page 22 of 34 Data Use Terms and Conditions • Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) products and services are based on biological data and the objective interpretation of those data by professional scientists. MTNHP does not advocate any particular philosophy of natural resource protection, management, development, or public policy. • MTNHP has no natural resource management or regulatory authority. Products, statements, and services from MTNHP are intended to inform parties as to the state of scientific knowledge about certain natural resources, and to further develop that knowledge. The information is not intended as natural resource management guidelines or prescriptions or a determination of environmental impacts. MTNHP recommends consultation with appropriate state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies and authorities in the area where your project is located. • Information on the status and spatial distribution of biological resources produced by MTNHP are intended to inform parties of the state-wide status, known occurrence, or the likelihood of the presence of those resources. These products are not intended to substitute for field-collected data, nor are they intended to be the sole basis for natural resource management decisions. • MTNHP does not portray its data as exhaustive or comprehensive inventories of rare species or biological communities. Field verification of the absence or presence of sensitive species and biological communities will always be an important obligation of users of our data. • MTNHP responds equally to all requests for products and services, regardless of the purpose or identity of the requester. • Because MTNHP constantly updates and revises its databases with new data and information, products will become outdated over time. Interested parties are encouraged to obtain the most current information possible from MTNHP, rather than using older products. We add, review, update, and delete records on a daily basis. Consequently, we strongly advise that you update your MTNHP data sets at a minimum of every four months for most applications of our information. • MTNHP data require a certain degree of biological expertise for proper analysis, interpretation, and application. Our staff is available to advise you on questions regarding the interpretation or appropriate use of the data that we provide. See Contact Information for MTNHP Staff • The information provided to you by MTNHP may include sensitive data that if publicly released might jeopardize the welfare of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or biological communities. This information is intended for distribution or use only within your department, agency, or business. Subcontractors may have access to the data during the course of any given project, but should not be given a copy for their use on subsequent, unrelated work. • MTNHP data are made freely available. Duplication of hard-copy or digital MTNHP products with the intent to sell is prohibited without written consent by MTNHP. Should you be asked by individuals outside your organization for the type of data that we provide, please refer them to MTNHP. • MTNHP and appropriate staff members should be appropriately acknowledged as an information source in any third- party product involving MTNHP data, reports, papers, publications, or in maps that incorporate MTNHP graphic elements. • Sources of our data include museum specimens, published and unpublished scientific literature, field surveys by state and federal agencies and private contractors, and reports from knowledgeable individuals. MTNHP actively solicits and encourages additions, corrections and updates, new observations or collections, and comments on any of the data we provide. • MTNHP staff and contractors do not enter or cross privately-owned lands without express permission from the landowner. However, the program cannot guarantee that information provided to us by others was obtained under adherence to this policy. Page 23 of 34 Suggested Contacts for Natural Resource Management Agencies As required by Montana statute (MCA 90-15), the Montana Natural Heritage Program works with state, federal, tribal, nongovernmental organizations, and private partners to ensure that the latest animal and plant distribution and status information is incorporated into our databases so that it can be used to inform a variety of permitting and planning processes and management decisions. We encourage you to contact state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies in the area where your project is located and review the permitting overviews by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Index of Environmental Permits for Montana for guidelines relevant to your efforts. In particular, we encourage you to contact the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks for the latest data and management information regarding hunted and high-profile management species and to use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information Planning and Consultation (IPAC) website regarding U.S. Endangered Species Act listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. For your convenience, we have compiled a list of relevant agency contacts and links below: Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Fish Species Zachary Shattuck zshattuck@mt.gov (406) 444-1231 or Eric Roberts eroberts@mt.gov (406) 444-5334 American Bison Black-footed Ferret Black-tailed Prairie Dog Bald Eagle Golden Eagle Common Loon Least Tern Piping Plover Whooping Crane Kristian Smucker KSmucker@mt.gov (406) 444-5209 Grizzly Bear Greater Sage Grouse Trumpeter Swan Big Game Upland Game Birds Furbearers Brian Wakeling brian.wakeling@mt.gov (406) 444-3940 Managed Terrestrial Game Data Cara Whalen– MFWP Data Analyst cara.whalen@mt.gov (406) 444-3759 Fisheries Data and Nongame Animal Data Ryan Alger – MFWP Data Analyst ryan.alger@mt.gov (406) 444-5365 Wildlife and Fisheries Scientific Collector’s Permits https://fwp.mt.gov/buyandapply/commercialwildlifeandscientificpermits/scientific Kristina Smucker for Wildlife ksmucker@mt.gov (406) 444-5209 Dave Schmetterling for Fisheries dschmetterling@mt.gov (406) 542-5514 Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development Charlie Sperry csperry@mt.gov (406) 444-3888 See https://fwp.mt.gov/conservation/living-with-wildlife/subdivision-recommendations Regional Contacts • Region 1 (Kalispell) (406) 752-5501 fwprg12@mt.gov • Region 2 (Missoula) (406) 542-5500 fwprg22@mt.gov • Region 3 (Bozeman) (406) 577-7900 fwprg3@mt.gov • Region 4 (Great Falls) (406) 454-5840 fwprg42@mt.gov • Region 5 (Billings) (406) 247-2940 fwprg52@mt.gov • Region 6 (Glasgow) (406) 228-3700 fwprg62@mt.gov • Region 7 (Miles City) (406) 234-0900 fwprg72@mt.gov Page 24 of 34 Montana Department of Agriculture General Contact Information: https://agr.mt.gov/About/Office-Locations/Office-Locations-and-Field-Offices Noxious Weeds: https://agr.mt.gov/Noxious-Weeds Montana Department of Environmental Quality Permitting and Operator Assistance for all Environmental Permits: https://deq.mt.gov/Permitting Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Overview of, and contacts for, licenses and permits for state lands, water, and forested lands: https://dnrc.mt.gov/Permits-Services Stream Permitting (310 permits) and an overview of various water and stream related permits (e.g., Stream Protection Act 124, Federal Clean Water Act 404, Federal Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10, Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity 318 Authorization, etc.). https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting Wildfire Resources: https://dnrc.mt.gov/Forestry/Wildfire Bureau of Land Management Montana Field Office Contacts: Billings (406) 896-5013 Butte (406) 533-7600 Dillon (406) 683-8000 Glasgow (406) 228-3750 Havre (406) 262-2820 Lewistown (406) 538-1900 Malta (406) 654-5100 Miles City (406) 233-2800 Missoula (406) 329-3914 United States Army Corps of Engineers Montana Regulatory Office for federal permits related to construction in water and wetlands https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program/Montana/ (406) 441-1375 United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental information, notices, permitting, and contacts https://www.epa.gov/mt Gateway to state resource locators https://www.envcap.org/srl/index.php United States Fish and Wildlife Service Information Planning and Conservation (IPAC) website: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov Montana Ecological Services Field Office: https://www.fws.gov/office/montana-ecological-services (406) 449-5225 United States Forest Service Regional Office – Missoula, Montana Contacts Wildlife Program Leader Tammy Fletcher tammy.fletcher2@usda.gov (406) 329-3086 Wildlife Ecologist Cara Staab cara.staab@usda.gov (406) 329-3677 Aquatic Ecologist Justin Jimenez justin.jimenez@usda.gov (435) 370-6830 TES Program Lydia Allen lydia.allen@usda.gov (406) 329-3558 Interagency Grizzly Bear Coordinator Scott Jackson scott.jackson@usda.gov (406) 329-3664 Regional Botanist Amanda Hendrix amanda.hendrix@usda.gov (651) 447-3016 Regional Vegetation Ecologist Mary Manning marry.manning@usda.gov (406) 329-3304 Invasive Species Program Manager Michelle Cox michelle.cox2@usda.gov (406) 329-3669 Page 25 of 34 Tribal Nations Assiniboine & Gros Ventre Tribes – Fort Belknap Reservation Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes – Fort Peck Reservation Blackfeet Tribe - Blackfeet Reservation Chippewa Creek Tribe - Rocky Boy’s Reservation Crow Tribe – Crow Reservation Little Shell Chippewa Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe – Northern Cheyenne Reservation Salish & Kootenai Tribes - Flathead Reservation Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in Surrounding States and Provinces Alberta Conservation Information Management System British Columbia Conservation Data Centre Idaho Natural Heritage Program North Dakota Natural Heritage Program Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre South Dakota Natural Heritage Program Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Invasive Species Management Contacts and Information Aquatic Invasive Species Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Aquatic Invasive Species staff Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation's Aquatic Invasive Species Grant Program Montana Invasive Species Council (MISC) Upper Columbia Conservation Commission (UC3) Noxious Weeds Montana Weed Control Association Contacts Webpage Montana Biological Weed Control Coordination Project Montana Department of Agriculture - Noxious Weeds Montana Weed Control Association Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks - Noxious Weeds Montana State University Integrated Pest Management Extension Integrated Noxious Weed Management after Wildfires Fire Management and Invasive Plants Page 26 of 34 Introduction to Native Species Within the report area you have requested, separate summaries are provided for: (1) Species Occurrences (SO) for plant and animal Species of Concern, Special Status Species (SSS), Important Animal Habitat (IAH) and some Potential Plant Species of Concern; (2) other observed non Species of Concern or Species of Concern without suitable documentation to create Species Occurrence polygons; and (3) other non-documented species that are potentially present based on their range, predicted suitable habitat model output, or presence of associated habitats. Each of these summaries provides the following information when present for a species: (1) the number of Species Occurrences and associated delineation criteria for construction of these polygons that have long been used for considerations of documented Species of Concern in environmental reviews; (2) the number of observations of each species; (3) the geographic range polygons for each species that the report area overlaps; (4) predicted relative habitat suitability classes that are present if a predicted suitable habitat model has been created; (5) the percent of the report area that is mapped as commonly associated or occasionally associated habitat as listed for each species in the Montana Field Guide; and (6) a variety of conservation status ranks and links to species accounts in the Montana Field Guide. Details on each of these information categories are included under relevant section headers below or are defined on our Species Status Codes page. In presenting this information, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is working towards assisting the user with rapidly determining what species have been documented and what species are potentially present in the report area. We remind users that this information is likely incomplete as surveys to document native and introduced species are lacking in many areas of the state, information on introduced species has only been tracked relatively recently, the MTNHP’s staff and resources are restricted by budgets, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Thus, field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species and biological communities will always be an important obligation of users of our data. If you are aware of observation datasets that the MTNHP is missing, please report them to the Program Botanist apipp@mt.gov or Senior Zoologist dbachen@mt.gov If you have animal or plant observations that you would like to contribute, you can also submit them via Excel spreadsheets, geodatabases, iNaturalist, or a Survey123 form. Various methods of data submission are reviewed in this playlist of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRaydtZpHu2qOHPoSPq9cnM9uXGmEXACx Observations The MTNHP manages information on several million animal and plant observations that have been reported by professional biologists and private citizens from across Montana. The majority of these observations are submitted in digital format from standardized databases associated with research or monitoring efforts and spreadsheets of incidental observations submitted by professional biologists and amateur naturalists. At a minimum, accepted observation records must contain a credible species identification (i.e. appropriate geographic range, date, and habitat and, if species are difficult to identify, a photograph and/or notes on key identifying features), a date or date range, observer name, locational information (ideally with latitude and longitude in decimal degrees), notes on numbers observed, and species behavior or habitat use (e.g., is the observation likely associated with reproduction). Bird records are also required to have information associated with date-appropriate breeding or overwintering status of the species observed. MTNHP reviews observation records to ensure that they are mapped correctly, occur within date ranges when the species is known to be present or detectable, occur within the known seasonal geographic range of the species, and occur in appropriate habitats. MTNHP also assigns each record a locational uncertainty value in meters to indicate the spatial precision associated with the record’s mapped coordinates. Only records with locational uncertainty values of 10,000 meters or less are included in environmental summary reports and number summaries are only provided for records with locational uncertainty values of 1,000 meters or less. Page 27 of 34 Species Occurrences The MTNHP evaluates plant and animal observation records for species of higher conservation concern to determine whether they are worthy of inclusion in the Species Occurrence (SO) layer for use in environmental reviews; observations not worthy of inclusion in this layer include long distance dispersal events, migrants observed away from key migratory stopover habitats, and winter observations. An SO is a polygon depicting what is known about a species occupancy from direct observation with a defined level of locational uncertainty and any inference that can be made about adjacent habitat use from the latest peer-reviewed science. If an observation can be associated with a map feature that can be tracked (e.g., a wetland boundary for a wetland associated plant) then this polygon feature is used to represent the SO. Areas that can be inferred as probable occupied habitat based on direct observation of a species location and what is known about the foraging area or home range size of the species may be incorporated into the SO. Species Occurrences generally belong to one of the following categories: Plant Species Occurrences A documented location of a specimen collection or observed plant population. In some instances, adjacent, spatially separated clusters are considered subpopulations and are grouped as one occurrence (e.g., the subpopulations occur in ecologically similar habitats, and their spatial proximity likely allows them to interbreed). Tabular information for multiple observations at the same SO location is generally linked to a single polygon. Plant SO's are only created for Species of Concern and Potential Species of Concern. Animal Species Occurrences The location of a verified observation or specimen record typically known or assumed to represent a breeding population or a portion of a breeding population. Animal SO’s are generally: (1) buffers of terrestrial point observations based on documented species’ home range sizes; (2) buffers of stream segments to encompass occupied streams and immediate adjacent riparian habitats; (3) polygonal features encompassing known or likely breeding populations (e.g., a wetland for some amphibians or a forested portion of a mountain range for some wide-ranging carnivores); or (4) combinations of the above. Tabular information for multiple observations at the same SO location is generally linked to a single polygon. Species Occurrence polygons may encompass some unsuitable habitat in some instances in order to avoid heavy data processing associated with clipping out habitats that are readily assessed as unsuitable by the data user (e.g., a point buffer of a terrestrial species may overlap into a portion of a lake that is obviously inappropriate habitat for the species). Animal SO's are only created for Species of Concern and Special Status Species (e.g., Bald Eagle). Other Occurrence Polygons These include significant biological features not included in the above categories, such as Important Animal Habitats like bird rookeries and bat roosts, and peatlands or other wetland and riparian communities that support diverse plant and animal communities. Page 28 of 34 Geographic Range Polygons Geographic range polygons are still under development for most plant and invertebrate species. Native year- round, summer, winter, migratory and historic geographic range polygons as well as polygons for introduced populations have been defined for most vertebrate animal species for which there are enough observations, surveys, and knowledge of appropriate seasonal habitat use to define them (see examples to left). These native or introduced range polygons bound the extent of known or likely occupied habitats for non-migratory and relative sedentary species and the regular extent of known or likely occupied habitats for migratory and long-distance dispersing species; polygons may include unsuitable intervening habitats. For most species, a single polygon can represent the year-round or seasonal range, but breeding ranges of some colonial nesting water birds and some introduced species are represented more patchily when supported by data. Some ranges are mapped more broadly than actual distributions in order to be visible on statewide maps (e.g., fish). Predicted Suitable Habitat Models Predicted habitat suitability models have been created for plant and animal Species of Concern and are undergoing development for non-Species of Concern. For species for which models have been completed, the environmental summary report includes simple rule-based associations with streams for aquatic species and seasonal habitats for game species as well as mathematically complex Maximum Entropy models (Phillips et al. 2006, Ecological Modeling 190:231-259) constructed from a variety of statewide biotic and abiotic layers and presence only data for individual species for most terrestrial species. For the Maximum Entropy models, we reclassified 90 x 90-meter continuous model output into suitability classes (unsuitable, low, moderate, and optimal) then aggregated that into the one square mile hexagons used in the environmental summary report; this is the finest spatial scale we suggest using this information in management decisions and survey planning. Full model write ups for individual species that discuss model goals, inputs, outputs, and evaluation in much greater detail are posted on the MTNHP’s Predicted Suitable Habitat Models webpage. Evaluations of predictive accuracy and specific limitations are included with the metadata for models of individual species. Model outputs should not be used in place of on-the-ground surveys for species. Instead model outputs should be used in conjunction with habitat evaluations to determine the need for on-the-ground surveys for species. We suggest that the percentage of predicted optimal and moderate suitable habitat within the report area be used in conjunction with geographic range polygons and the percentage of commonly associated habitats to generate lists of potential species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Associated Habitats Within the boundary of the intersected hexagons, we provide the approximate percentage of commonly or occasionally associated habitat for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state; a detailed list of commonly and occasionally associated habitats is provided in individual species accounts in the Montana Field Guide We assigned common or occasional use of each of the ecological Page 29 of 34 systems mapped in Montana by: (1) using personal knowledge and reviewing literature that summarizes the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species; (2) evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species’ range and habitat requirements; (3) examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system; and (4) calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of numbers of observations versus availability of habitat. Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system. However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system. Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in the scientific literature. The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association. We suggest that the percentage of commonly associated habitat within the report area be used in conjunction with geographic range polygons and the percentage of predicted optimal and moderate suitable habitat from predictive models to generate lists of potential species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Users of this information should be aware that land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections). Page 30 of 34 Introduction to Land Cover Land Use/Land Cover is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The layer records all Montana natural vegetation, land cover and land use, classified from satellite and aerial imagery, mapped at a scale of 1:100,000, and interpreted with supporting ground-level data. The baseline map is adapted from the Northwest ReGAP (NWGAP) project land cover classification, which used 30m resolution multi-spectral Landsat imagery acquired between 1999 and 2001. Vegetation classes were drawn from the Ecological System Classification developed by NatureServe (Comer et al. 2003). The land cover classes were developed by Anderson et al. (1976). The NWGAP effort encompasses 12 map zones. Montana overlaps seven of these zones. The two NWGAP teams responsible for the initial land cover mapping effort in Montana were Sanborn and NWGAP at the University of Idaho. Both Sanborn and NWGAP employed a similar modeling approach in which Classification and Regression Tree (CART) models were applied to Landsat ETM+ scenes. The Spatial Analysis Lab within the Montana Natural Heritage Program was responsible for developing a seamless Montana land cover map with a consistent statewide legend from these two separate products. Additionally, the Montana land cover layer incorporates several other land cover and land use products (e.g., MSDI Structures and Transportation themes and the Montana Department of Revenue Final Land Unit classification) and reclassifications based on plot-level data and the latest NAIP imagery to improve accuracy and enhance the usability of the theme. Updates are done as partner support and funding allow, or when other MSDI datasets can be incorporated. Recent updates include fire perimeters and agricultural land use (annually), energy developments such as wind, oil and gas installations (2014), roads, structures and other impervious surfaces (various years): and local updates/improvements to specific ecological systems (e.g., central Montana grassland and sagebrush ecosystems). Current and previous versions of the Land Use/Land Cover layer with full metadata are available for download from the Montana State Library’s GIS Data List More information on the land cover layer is available at: https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/land_use_land_cover/ Within the report area you have requested, land cover is summarized by acres of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Ecological Systems. Literature Cited Anderson, J.R. E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 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. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Page 31 of 34 Introduction to Wetland and Riparian Within the report area you have requested, wetland and riparian mapping is summarized by acres of each classification present. Summaries are only provided for modern MTNHP wetland and riparian mapping and not for outdated (NWI Legacy) or incomplete (NWI Scalable) mapping efforts; described here. MTNHP has made all three of these datasets and associated metadata available for separate download on the Montana Wetland and Riparian Framework web page. Wetland and Riparian mapping is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The wetland and riparian framework layer consists of spatial data representing the extent, type, and approximate location of wetlands, riparian areas, and deep water habitats in Montana. Wetland and riparian mapping is completed through photointerpretation of 1-m resolution color infrared aerial imagery acquired from 2005 or later. A coding convention using letters and numbers is assigned to each mapped wetland. These letters and numbers describe the broad landscape context of the wetland, its vegetation type, its water regime, and the kind of alterations that may have occurred. Ancillary data layers such as topographic maps, digital elevation models, soils data, and other aerial imagery sources are also used to improve mapping accuracy. Wetland mapping follows the federal Wetland Mapping Standard and classifies wetlands according to the Cowardin classification system of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Cowardin et al. 1979, FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee 2013). Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands differently than the NWI. Similar coding, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conventions, is applied to riparian areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). These are mapped areas where vegetation composition and growth is influenced by nearby water bodies, but where soils, plant communities, and hydrology do not display true wetland characteristics. These data are intended for use at a scale of 1:12,000 or smaller. Mapped wetland and riparian areas do not represent precise boundaries and digital wetland data cannot substitute for an on-site determination of jurisdictional wetlands. See detailed overviews, with examples, of both wetland and riparian classification systems and associated codes as a storymap and companion guide Literature Cited 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. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. 103pp. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 2009. A system for mapping riparian areas in the western United States. Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Branch of Resource and Mapping Support, Arlington, Virginia. Page 32 of 34 Introduction to Land Management Within the report area you have requested, land management information is summarized by acres of federal, state, and local government lands, tribal reservation boundaries, private conservation lands, and federal, state, local, and private conservation easements. Acreage for “Owned”, “Tribal”, or “Easement” categories represents non-overlapping areas that may be totaled. However, “Other Boundaries” represents managed areas such as National Forest boundaries containing private inholdings and other mixed ownership which may cause boundaries to overlap (e.g. a wilderness area within a forest). Therefore, acreages may not total in a straight-forward manner. Because information on land stewardship is critical to effective land management, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) began compiling ownership and management data in 1997. The goal of the Montana Land Management Database is to manage a single, statewide digital data set that incorporates information from both public and private entities. The database assembles information on public lands, private conservation lands, and conservation easements held by state and federal agencies and land trusts and is updated on a regular basis. Since 2011, the Information Management group in the Montana State Library’s Digital Library Division has led the Montana Land Management Database in partnership with the MTNHP. Public and private conservation land polygons are attributed with the name of the entity that owns it. The data are derived from the statewide Montana Cadastral Parcel layer Conservation easement data shows land parcels on which a public agency or qualified land trust has placed a conservation easement in cooperation with the landowner. The dataset contains no information about ownership or status of the mineral estate. For questions about the dataset or to report errors, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program at (406) 444-5363 or mtnhp@mt.gov. You can download various components of the Land Management Database and view associated metadata at the Montana State Library’s GIS Data List at the following links: Public Lands Conservation Easements Private Conservation Lands Managed Areas Map features in the Montana Land Management Database or summaries provided in this report are not intended as a legal depiction of public or private surface land ownership boundaries and should not be used in place of a survey conducted by a licensed land surveyor. Similarly, map features do not imply public access to any lands. The Montana Natural Heritage Program makes no representations or warranties whatsoever with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this data and assumes no responsibility for the suitability of the data for a particular purpose. The Montana Natural Heritage Program will not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of errors displayed here. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. Page 33 of 34 Introduction to Invasive and Pest Species Within the report area you have requested, separate summaries are provided for: Aquatic Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds, Agricultural Pests, Forest Pests, and Biocontrol species that have been documented or potentially occur there based on the predicted suitability of habitat. Definitions for each of these invasive and pest species categories can be found on our Species Status Codes page. Each of these summaries provides the following information when present for a species: (1) the number of observations of each species; (2) the geographic range polygons for each species, if developed, that the report area overlaps; (3) predicted relative habitat suitability classes that are present if a predicted suitable habitat model has been created; (4) the percent of the report area that is mapped as commonly associated or occasionally associated habitat as listed for each species in the Montana Field Guide; and (5) links to species accounts in the Montana Field Guide. Details on each of these information categories are included under relevant section headers under the Introduction to Native Species above or are defined on our Species Status Codes page. In presenting this information, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is working towards assisting the user with rapidly determining what invasive and pest species have been documented and what species are potentially present in the report area. We remind users that this information is likely incomplete as surveys to document introduced species are lacking in many areas of the state, information on introduced species has only been tracked relatively recently, the MTNHP’s staff and resources are limited, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Thus, field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species will always be an important obligation of users of our data. If you are aware of observation or survey datasets for invasive or pest species that the MTNHP is missing, please report them to the Program Coordinator bmaxell@mt.gov Program Botanist apipp@mt.gov or Senior Zoologist dbachen@mt.gov If you have animal or plant observations that you would like to contribute, you can also submit them via Excel spreadsheets, geodatabases, iNaturalist, or a Survey123 form. Various methods of data submission are reviewed in this playlist of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRaydtZpHu2qOHPoSPq9cnM9uXGmEXACx Page 34 of 34 Additional Information Resources MTNHP Staff Contact Information Montana Field Guide MTNHP Species of Concern Report - Animals and Plants MTNHP Species Status Codes - Explanation MTNHP Predicted Suitable Habitat Models (for select Animals and Plants) MTNHP Request Information page Montana Cadastral Montana Code Annotated Montana Fisheries Information System Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Subdivision Recommendations Montana GIS Data Layers Montana GIS Data Bundler Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Project Submittal Site Montana Ground Water Information Center Montana Index of Environmental Permits, 21st Edition (2018) Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Montana Environmental Policy Act Analysis Resource List Laws, Treaties, Regulations, and Agreements on Animals and Plants Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure Layers Montana State Historic Preservation Office Review and Compliance Montana Stream Permitting: a guide for conservation district supervisors and others Montana Water Information System Montana Web Map Services National Environmental Policy Act Penalties for Misuse of Fish and Wildlife Location Data (MCA 87-6-222) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (Section 7 Consultation) Web Soil Survey Tool This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.