C C OEFFICIENT OF ONSERVATISM R ANKINGS FOR THE F M : P III LORA OF ONTANA ART Prepared for: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by: Andrea Pipp Montana Natural Heritage Program A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System that is operated by the University of Montana. December 15, 2017 C C OEFFICIENT OF ONSERVATISM R ANKINGS FOR THE F M : P III LORA OF ONTANA ART Prepared for: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1520 East 6th Ave; Helena MT 59620 APO# WQD17005 Prepared by: ANDREA PIPP © 2017 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 ● 1515 East Sixth Ave ● Helena, MT 59620-1800 This document should be cited as follows: Pipp, Andrea. 2017. Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III. December 15th. Report to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, Montana. Prepared by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 107 pp. Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Expert Panel .......................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Coefficient of Conservatism Values .................................................................... 2 3.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 5 4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 6 TABLES Table 1 Botanical and ecological experts serving on the 2017 Coefficient of Conservatism panel. Table 2 Summary of Coefficient of Conservatism scoring definitions used by the 2015 - 2017 Montana panels and adopted from Zomlefer et al. 2013. Table 3 Criteria used by the 2015 - 2017 Montana panel to help assign C-values more consistently. Table 4a The 312 species evaluated by the 2017 panel. Table 4b Species with 2005 assigned C-values that were re-evaluated by the 2017 panel. Table 5 Montana vascular plants with 2005 and 2015 – 2017 (revised) origins C-values. APPENDICES Appendix A Species Reviewed by the 2017 C-value Panel Appendix B Dichotomous Key for Coefficient of Conservatims Rankings Appendix C Montana Vascular Plant Checklist with C-values and Origins COVER PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS (left to right) Castilleja exilis, C-value 6: Photographed by Larry Urban. Balsamorhiza sagittata, C-value 3: Photographed by Scott Mincemoyer. Artemisia tridentata, C-value 3: Photographed by Scott Mincemoyer. Chamerion latifolium, C-value 7: Photographed by Sue Crispin. Scheuchzeria-palustris, C-value 9: Photographed by Maria Mantas. Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Species and land conservation requires the ability to assess natural areas. The Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) is a tool that uses plants to make standardized comparisons among open land areas, to set conservation priorities, to monitor project areas, and to restore habitats. The basic component of the FQAI is the assignment of a coefficient of conservatism (C-value) to individual plant species. For a given geography, C-values reflect the plant’s tolerance to natural and/or human disturbance and its affinity to a specific, unimpaired habitat. The Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part I report detailed the process, methodology, and results used by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) in 2004-2005 and 2015 to assign C-values to 1,412 plant taxa. The Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part II report detailed the process, methodology, and results used by MTNHP in 2016 to assign C-values to 316 plant taxa (species, varieties, subspecies, or hybrids) listed on the 2014 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Regional Wetland Plant Lists for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast; Arid West; and Great Plains. This report is Part III in the process of assigning C-values to Montana’s vascular plants. In 2017 the expert panel evaluated 312 plant species of which most occur in upland habitats or are common and widespread in Montana. The panel also re-evaluated about 100 species assigned C-values by the 2005 panel. In addition, the MTNHP Botanist re-evaluated the remaining list of plant taxa that lacked C-values, in order to determine their presence and if enough information might be available for assigning a value. In the process these species were also re-examined to determine their origin (native or exotic) in Montana. Overall, 1,056 plant taxa were examined in 2017. Of the 1,056 plant taxa (species, varieties, subspecies, or hybrids) known, reported, or previously documented in literature to occur in Montana: a) 416 plants were assigned a C-value, b) 137 species were not assigned a C-value because of insufficient information, c) 355 taxa are subspecies or varieties that are not assigned a C-value, d) 90 species were not assigned a C-value because they are reported to occur in Montana, have taxonomic problems, or are hybrids, and e) 58 species were not assigned a C-value because they are not present (at this time) in Montana. In Montana 477 plant species that likely have sufficient information remain without a C-value. From a status perspective, approximately half of them are currently categorized as Species of Concern, Potential Species of Concern, or Status Under Review. From a habitat perspective, most of them occur in the montane to alpine zones or in grasslands. i Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ) using 319 Non-Point Source funds. Thank you to the Ecologists and Botanists who passionately share their knowledge of and experiences with our vascular plants in Montana: Drake Barton, Stephen Cooper, Peter Husby, Marc Jones, Peter Lesica, Tara Luna, Mary Manning, Scott Mincemoyer, Karen Newlon, John Pierce, Ken Scow, and Steve Shelly. Any errors or omissions in the report are entirely the responsibility of the author. ii Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III 1.0 INTRODUCTION Conservation of our species and landscapes is accomplished through land preservation, habitat restoration, and development of effective management techniques. Species and land conservation requires the ability to assess natural areas. The Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) is a tool that uses plants to make standardized comparisons among open land areas, to set conservation priorities, to monitor project areas, and to restore habitats (Wilhelm and Masters 1995). A key component of using FQAI is to assign a Coefficient of Conservatism (C-) value to an individual plant species that is specific to a defined geography. This report is part III in the process for assigning Coefficient of Conservatism values to Montana’s plants. It outlines the practical uses of FQAI, defines the process used by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) to assign C-values to plants in Montana, and provides the full C-value data-set. It is commonly accepted that plants and animals occupy habitats to which they are adapted (Wilhelm and Masters 1995). European settlement in North America has resulted in large and rapid changes to our native biological systems and processes. These changes include: a) the loss of conservative plants, those species that co-occur (to create diversity) and are suited to long- term inhabitancy, and b) the increase of exotic species that perpetuate with catastrophic disturbance or cultural activities. As a result, landscapes in Montana are a mosaic of intact systems and fragmented lands in varying states of degradation. Plants exhibit varying degrees of tolerance to disturbance and also display varying degrees of affinity (or fidelity) to a specific habitat integrity (i.e., the state of being an unimpaired habitat) (Wilhelm and Masters 1995). For a given geography, the C-value reflects the plant species’ tolerance to natural and/or human disturbance and its fidelity to a habitat, and is scaled from 0 to 10. Plants assigned a value of 0 are habitat generalists that respond positively to disturbance while plants assigned a value of 10 occur in very specialized habitats and are intolerant of disturbance. The assigned C-value is not a reflection of the plant’s density, apparent dominance, or frequency within the defined geographical area (Wilhelm and Masters 1995). Collectively, C-values are incorporated into community-based site assessment methods, such as FQAI (Zomlefer et al. 2013). The FQAI method is used by government agencies and private consulting firms to: 1) identify natural areas, 2) facilitate comparisons among different sites (regardless of the habitat type), 3) conduct long- term monitoring of the quality of remnant lands, and 4) guide restoration efforts (Zomlefer et al. 2013; Wilhelm and Masters 1995). Government agencies and private consulting firms have also used assessment methods based on FQAI to monitor wetland conditions in compliance with Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (Bernthal et al. 2003; Herman et al. 2006; Taft et al. 1997; USEPA 2012). Organizations are also using FQAI and C-values in long-term ecological inventories, to develop baseline conditions, and to set habitat or vegetation targets in restoration projects. To facilitate the use of FQAI and C-value indices in Montana, it is necessary to develop C-values that reflect the species’ response to environmental conditions in Montana. In 2004-2005, 2015, 2016, and 2017 the MTNHP Botanist assembled a panel of botanical and ecological experts to assign C-values to Montana’s plant species. The emphasis prior to 2017 was to rank plants listed on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List, other wetland, and exotic species. The 2017 process focused on ranking upland plants, particularly the more common or widespread species. Montana Natural Heritage Program 1 Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III This project supports the primary objective of the Clean Water Act, which is to “maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”, including wetlands (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500). To date, the C-value process in Montana has assessed approximately 2,666 plant taxa. The Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part I report specifically details the process, methodology, and results used in 2004-2005 and 2015. The Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part II and Part III provides the methods used in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and the results across all years. 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Expert Panel The standard methodology for assigning C-values uses an expert panel of botanists and ecologists familiar with the flora in question (Jones 2005; Rocchio 2007; and Zomlefer et al. 2013). In 2017, the MTNHP Botanist assembled a panel of botanical and ecological experts with field-based knowledge of Montana’s flora (Table 1). The emphasis in 2017 was to review all plants that lacked a C-value, are known or reported to occur in Montana, or are upland species (particularly if more common or widely distributed). The process also allowed the panel to re- examine the individual species’ presence in Montana and its probable origin (native or exotic in Montana). Table 1. Botanical and ecological experts serving on the 2017 Coefficient of Conservatism panel. 2017 Panel Drake Barton (Botanical Consultant) Peter Lesica (Botanical Consultant and Author) Scott Mincemoyer (Botanist) Andrea Pipp (Botanist for MTNHP) Ken Scow (Botanical Consultant) 2.2 Coefficient of Conservatism Values The list of 312 plant species assessed in 2017 mostly reflected common or widely distributed upland species and was given to each panel member to review independently, prior to the meeting (Table 4a in Appendix A). The panel met on October 11, 2017 to discuss each species collectively as a group and to work it through the Dichotomous Key for Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings (Zomlefer et al. 2013) (Table 2; Figure B-1 in Appendix B). Criteria developed and agreed upon by the 2015 and 2016 panels was reviewed (Table 3). These additional criteria reflect Montana’s geography and helped improve consistency in assigning C- values across species and years (Table 3). Additional resources used included the knowledge of individual panel members for a particular species, published materials pertinent to vascular plants in Montana, and several on-line floras or databases (Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria [University of Washington 2015], PLANTS database [USDA-NRCS 2016], Flora of North America [Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+], and MTNHP Botany Database). The panel did not assign C-values to species that lacked sufficient information on distribution, habitat association, and/or tolerance to disturbance that is pertinent to Montana. In Montana Natural Heritage Program 2 Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III addition, the panel questioned some of the C-values assigned in 2005, and found some mistakes in the use of C-values 0 and 1. Therefore, about 100 species were re-evaluated by the panel (Table 4b in Appendix A). In a separate effort the remaining taxa that lacked C-values were evaluated by the MTNHP Botanist to determine the plant’s State presence/absence, potential for taxonomy problems, and if adequate information for assigning a C-value was likely available. Plant taxa determined to be absent in the State were categorized as ‘absent’. Plant taxa that are taxonomically problematic in Montana and hybrids were not assigned a C-value and categorized as ‘not applicable’. Plants with less than four herbarium collections or that lacked information on habitats or their response to disturbance were not assigned a C-value and categorized as ‘insufficient information’. Plant taxa at the variety and subspecies levels were mostly not assigned a C-value because information is usually not known or not documented well. Table 2. Summary of Coefficient of Conservatism scoring definitions used by the 2015 - 2017 Montana panels and adopted from Zomlefer et al. 2013. See Appendix A for the Dichotomous Key for Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings upon which these definitions are based. NON-NATIVE MONTANA SPECIES 0 invasive 1 relatively benign NATIVE MONTANA SPECIES Opportunistic, Broad Ecological Tolerance exhibits a broad range of ecological tolerance and is more or less restricted to areas of human 2 disturbance Non-Opportunistic, Intermediate Ecological Tolerance exhibits an intermediate range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable phase of a native 3 community, and thrives and/or persists under natural or human disturbance exhibits an intermediate range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable phase of a native 4 community, and persists but does not thrive with some natural or human disturbance exhibits an intermediate range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable phase of a native 5 community, and persists but does not thrive with a little natural or human disturbance Non-Opportunistic, Narrow Ecological Tolerance exhibits a moderate fidelity to a more or less narrow range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable 6 or near climax community, and tolerates limited natural or human disturbance (unless surrogate for fire or other natural disturbance) exhibits a moderate fidelity to a somewhat narrow range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable or 7 near climax community, and does not tolerate disturbance exhibits a moderate fidelity to a narrow range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable or near 8 climax community, and does not tolerate disturbance exhibits a high fidelity to a narrow range of ecological tolerance, typifies a stable or near climax 9 community, and does not tolerate disturbance exhibits a very high fidelity to a very narrow range of ecological tolerance that typifies a stable or 10 near climax community and does not tolerate disturbance Montana Natural Heritage Program 3 Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III Table 3. Criteria used by the 2015 - 2017 Montana panels to help assign C-values more consistently. Montana Criteria Used to Assign C-values  Panel agreed that in Montana a species found in dry, upland habitat does not signify a “narrow range of ecological tolerance” (second (d) couplet), unless it is a very specific type of dry, upland habitat. In Montana an example of a dry, upland habitat that qualifies as a “narrow range of ecological tolerance” is a ‘sand blow-out’ whereby wind erodes areas of sandy soil creating a substrate suitable for particular species.  Panel agreed that in Montana a species found in wetland habitat may signify a “narrow range of ecological tolerance” (second (d) couplet). Native plants that are mostly found in very wet to always wet habitats (often rated by the COE as faculatative-wet (FACW) or obligate-wet (OBL)) and are not opportunistic often will signify a “narrow range of ecological tolerance”. For wetland associated species in Montana, the range of ecological tolerance becomes narrower as the species’ requirement for being wet increases. Thus, an obligate (OBL) wetland plant often has a narrower ecological tolerance than does a facultative-wet (FACW) plant than does a facultative (FAC) plant.  Although wetland habitat may signify a "narrow range of ecological tolerance", the level of disturbance that the plant requires or tolerates could place it into the “intermediate range of ecological tolerance (first [d] couplet).  In Montana, alpine habitat could be viewed as unique or as common. Many plants require alpine and/or sub-alpine conditions, yet this general habitat type is fairly common in Montana. Panel agreed that that a species found in alpine habitat did not always signify a “narrow range of ecological tolerance” (second (d) couplet), unless it is a very specific type of habitat or ecological condition within the alpine or subalpine zones.  Panel agreed that ‘alkaline soils’ represent a more ecologically narrow condition in Montana, and will usually classify the species into the second (d) couplet of the key.  Panel felt the plant’s reproductive strategy does indicate something about its resilience to disturbance. A rhizomatous plant might tolerate disturbance better than a taprooted plant. An annual plant might require disturbance to maintain its population.  Panel felt it was usefuly to examine life history characteristics when deciding between close C-values. How does the plant reproduce (vegetatively, rhizomes, seeds, etc.) with a prolonged change in hydrology? How does the plant regenerate if disturbed? Is the plant also limited by pollinators or climatic conditions to reproduce?  Panel decided that a hybrid species will not be assigned a C-value at this time. Lots of plants hydridize, but the characteristics of a hybrid are often not captured in herbarium specimens and botanical keys. Therefore, the response to disturbance or requirement for habitat is often not known. Most people lack the observational skill-set to recognize hybrids. Exceptions to this criterion were made for particular hybrids.  Subspecies and varieties are usually not assigned a c-value because information on habitat and disturbance tolerance is often not available at that taxa level.  Panel usually did not assign a C-value to a plant that has 1-3 collections in Montana. Plants with few collections often have insufficient information to determine how the species responds to disturbance and/or what it requires for habitat.  Panel usually did not assign a C-value to a species represented only from very old collections. Plants collected from a very long time ago may no longer be present and are not observed enough to really know how the species tolerates disturbance and/or what it requires for habitat. Montana Natural Heritage Program 4 Coefficient of Conservatism Rankings for the Flora of Montana: Part III 3.0 SUMMARY In 2017, 1,056 plant taxa (species, varieties, subspecies, or hybrids) known, reported, or previously documented in literature to occur in Montana were evaluated. Of the 1,056 plants:  416 plants were assigned a C-value because they are well documented in Montana.  137 species were not assigned a C-value and categorized as ‘insufficient information’. The Montana observation records are too few, habitat information is too vague, and/or their response to disturbance is not understood.  355 taxa were not assigned a C-value and categorized as ‘insufficient information’. These are subspecies or varieties with little relevant information.  90 species were not assigned a C-value and categorized as ‘not applicable’. These species are either reported to occur in Montana but no specimens have been found and verified, or have taxonomic problems that make evaluating the species difficult, or are hybrids.  58 species were not assigned a C-value because documented research revealed they are not present (at this time) in Montana. The 2017 panel also reviewed the origin of these plant taxa in Montana. Discussions within the panel, a review of literature and on-line databases, and an examination of herbaria specimens resulted in a change for approximately 10 species. Collectively across the years (2005, 2015-2017) 2,666 vascular plant taxa have been evaluated in Montana (Table 5 in Appendix C). Of the 2,666 taxa, 1,930 taxa (3 subspecies and 1,927 species) have assigned C-values ranging from 0 to 10, 557 taxa have ‘insufficient information’ for assigning a C-value, 94 are deemed ‘not applicable’ for assigning a C-value, and 85 were determined to be absent in Montana. This leaves 477 vascular plant species for which information is likely available in need of a C-value. Roughly, half of these plants are currently designated as Species of Concern, Potential Species of Concern, or Status Under Review. From a habitat perspective, a significant number are found in the montane to alpine zones or in grasslands. The Montana Natural Heritage Botany Program has and will continue to house and maintain the C-value dataset (processes, database, and documentation). The methods, species, synonyms, and their assigned C-values are available on the MTNHP website (http://mtnhp.org/). The Montana C-Value data-set is available in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format on the MTNHP website. Future funding opportunities will continue to be explored in order to complete the assignment of C-values for the remaining approximate 477 plant species (Table 5 in Appendix B). Montana Natural Heritage Program 5