Montane Wet Meadow and Marsh
Global Name:
Vancouverian-Rocky Mountain Montane Wet Meadow & Marsh
Global Rank:
G4G5
State Rank:
S4
(see reason below)
External Links
State Rank Reason
These montane habitats have decreased in condition and to a lesser degree their overall extent due to invasion by non-native species and livestock grazing. They are also negatively impacted by warming and drying trends and drought. However, they are widespread and relatively common in some areas.
General Description
This National Vegetation Classification Group includes wet meadows and marshy habitats found in the montane and subalpine zones. Sites occur on both sides of the Continental Divide in open, wet depressions, basins and flats with still or low-velocity surface and subsurface flows. They occur as large meadows in montane and subalpine valleys, or as narrow strips bordering ponds, lakes and streams, and along toeslope seeps. They are typically found on flat areas or gentle slopes but may also occur on subirrigated sites with slopes up to 10%. Sites are usually seasonally wet, often drying by late summer, and many occur in a zone between perennial wetlands and uplands, where water tables fluctuate. They may have surface water for part of the year, but depths rarely exceed a few centimeters. Snowmelt is important for many of these sites. Soils are mostly mineral and show typical hydric soil characteristics such as low chroma and redoximorphic features; some areas may have high organic content as inclusions or pockets. Vegetation of this group can manifest as a mosaic of several plant associations, or be a monotypic stand of a single association which is dominated by graminoids or forbs. Dominant species include graminoids such as Sedges (Carex spp), Rushes (Juncus spp), Spikerushes (Eleocharis spp), Water Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Tufted Hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), and Blue-joint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis). Common forbs include Arrow-leaf Groundsel (Senecio triangularis) and Lewis' Monkeyflower (Mimulus lewisii).
This group includes portions of the Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow, Emergent Marsh and the Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool Ecological Systems.
Diagnostic Characteristics
Wetlands; Marsh and Wet Meadow; Herbaceous Dominated; Rocky Mountain Region; Montane and Subalpine Zones; Seasonally, Vernally or Permanently Saturated; Hydric Soils
Typical Dominants: Sedges (Carex spp), Rushes (Juncus spp), Spikerushes (Eleocharis spp), Water Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Tufted Hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Blue-joint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), Mannagrass (Glyceria spp), Arrow-leaf Groundsel (Senecio triangularis), Lewis' Monkeyflower (Mimulus lewisii)
Similar Systems
Range
This wetland group occurs in the montane and subalpine zones of all the major mountain ranges of the state on both sides of the Continental Divide. East of the divide, this group occurs in all of the higher elevation island ranges.
In MT, G521 occurs within these Level III Ecoregions: 15 (Northern Rockies), 16 (Idaho Batholith), 17 (Middle Rockies), and 41 (Canadian Rockies).
In Montana, G521 occurs primarily within these Major Land Resource Areas: 43A - Northern Rocky Mountains, 43B - Central Rocky Mountains, and in limited extent within 44A - Northern Rocky Mountain Valleys, 44B - Central Rocky Mountain Valleys, and 46 - Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Foothills.
Density and Distribution
Based on 2025 land cover layer. Grid on map is based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map boundaries.
Mapped Distribution by County
Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Chouteau, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Phillips, Pondera, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Wheatland
Based on 2025 land cover layer.
Spatial Pattern
Small Patch
Environment
Wet meadows are typically found on flat areas or gentle slopes but may occur on subirrigated sites with slopes up to 10%. Sites are usually seasonally wet, often drying by late summer, and many occur in a zone between perennial wetlands and uplands, where water tables fluctuate. They may have surface water for part of the year, but depths rarely exceed a few centimeters. Wet meadows can be tightly associated with snowmelt and typically are not subjected to high velocity disturbance but can be flooded by slow-moving waters. Moisture for these wet meadow community types is acquired from groundwater, stream discharge, overland flow, overbank flow, and on-site precipitation. Salinity and alkalinity are generally low due to the frequent flushing of moisture through the meadow. Depending on the slope, topography, hydrology, soils and substrate, intermittent, ephemeral, or permanent pools may be present.
These areas may support species more representative of purely aquatic environments. Standing water may be present during some or all of the growing season, with water tables typically remaining at or near the soil surface. Fluctuations of the water table throughout the growing season are not uncommon, however. On drier sites supporting the less mesic types, the late-season water table may be 1 m or more below the surface.
Soils are mostly mineral and show typical hydric soil characteristics such as low chroma and redoximorphic features; some areas may have high organic content as inclusions or pockets. Soils may have organic soils inclusions. The presence and amount of organic matter may vary considerably depending on the frequency and magnitude of alluvial deposition (Kittel et. al. 1999). Organic composition of the soil may include a thin layer near the soil surface or accumulations of highly sapric material of up to 120 cm thick. Soils may exhibit gleying and/or mottling throughout the profile. Wet meadows provide important water filtration, flow attenuation, and wildlife habitat functions. Environmental information is compiled from Hansen et al. 1995, Nachlinger (1985), Kovalchik (1987, 1993), Padgett et al. (1988a), Manning and Padgett (1995), Sanderson and Kettler (1996), Crowe and Clausnitzer (1997), Kittel et al. (1999b), and MacKenzie and Moran (2004).
Vegetation
This group is most common in the montane and lower subalpine and may be dominated by a variety of herbaceous communities. Vegetation communities within this group can manifest as a mosaic of several plant associations within an individual wetland, or as a monotypic stand of a single association which is dominated by graminoids or forbs. Most commonly, communities are dominated by Sedges (Carex spp), Rushes (Juncus spp), Spikerushes (Eleocharis spp), Water Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Tufted Hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), and Blue-Joint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis). Common sedge communities include the Carex aquatilis Wet Meadow, Carex utriculata Marsh, Carex vesicaria Wet Meadow, Carex microptera Wet Meadow and the Carex scopulorum Wet Meadow. In areas that have received moderate to heavy grazing pressure, conversion to a Carex nebrascensis Wet Meadow is commonplace within specific habitat within this group. In the Seeley Lake area and the Swan Valley, the Equisetum fluviatile Marsh plant association is common in some wetlands with standing water or within particular zones within a wetland. Spikerush communities classified as Eleocharis palustris Marsh in shallow, standing water are common though often localized in some wetlands. Grass dominated types are also common, including the Deschampsia cespitosa Wet Meadow, the Calamagrostis canadensis Wet Meadow and in more localized settings within a wetland the Glyceria grandis Wet Meadow.
Streamside communities dominated by Senecio triangularis, Saxifraga spp or Mimulus lewisii occur as narrow zones, particularly within the Northern Rocky Mountains. Wet meadow communities are generally 1 to 3ft in height. They may be large and occupy an entire valley floor, or they can be very small patches or narrow linear strips. They also occur in complex mosaics of meadows intermixed with patches shrublands and more continuous areas of dense, coniferous forest. Bryophytes are abundant in some of these wetland communities, while lichens are mostly absent or occur only within microsites. Non-native species are rare in many of these wetlands though some habitats within this group may have non-natives represented, esp around the margins or in drier settings. Within some marshy sites, Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceous) is a problematic species that can spread and outcompete the native communities.
In Montana, this group is represented by 4 Alliances and 21 Associations within the National Vegetation Classification. The range of variation in vegetation types found within Montana within this group is mostly covered by the described types, though some additional associations likely should be attributed to the state. A4427 - Heracleum maximum - Carex scopulorum var. bracteosa - Veratrum viride Wet Meadow Alliance and its 2 Associations are probably better placed in G271.
National Vegetation Classification
Download the complete NVC hierarchy for Montana
TP1 B08 Palustrine Wetland
TP1.b S70 Emergent Open Wetland
TP1.b1 F137 Marsh, Wet Meadow and Shrub Wetland
TP1.b1.Ne D031 Western North American Temperate Freshwater Marsh, Wet Meadow and Shrubland
TP1.b1.Ne.4 M893 Western North American Montane Marsh, Wet Meadow and Shrubland
TP1.b1.Ne.4.b G521 Pacific-Rocky Mountain Montane Wet Meadow and Marsh
A4424 Senecio triangularis - Saxifraga spp. - Mimulus spp. Streamside Wet Meadow Alliance
CEGL001987 Senecio triangularis Wet Meadow
A4425 Carex utriculata - Calamagrostis canadensis Wet Meadow and Marsh Alliance
CEGL001559 Calamagrostis canadensis Western Wet Meadow
CEGL001562 Carex utriculata Marsh
CEGL001569 Glyceria borealis Marsh
CEGL001599 Deschampsia cespitosa Wet Meadow
CEGL001802 Carex aquatilis Wet Meadow
CEGL001803 Carex aquatilis - Carex utriculata Wet Meadow
CEGL001809 Carex pellita Wet Meadow
CEGL001813 Carex nebrascensis Wet Meadow
CEGL001823 Carex scopulorum - Caltha leptosepala Wet Meadow
CEGL001833 Eleocharis palustris Marsh
CEGL002661 Carex vesicaria Wet Meadow
CEGL002746 Equisetum fluviatile Marsh
CEGL003429 Glyceria grandis Marsh
CEGL005825 Argentina anserina Wet Meadow
A4426 Danthonia californica - Deschampsia cespitosa - Camassia quamash Wet Grassland Alliance
CEGL001792 Carex microptera Wet Meadow
CEGL001838 Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis Wet Meadow
CEGL001889 Deschampsia cespitosa - Potentilla diversifolia Wet Meadow
A4427 Heracleum maximum - Veratrum viride Wet Meadow Alliance
CEGL001822 Carex scopulorum Wet Meadow
CEGL001940 Heracleum maximum - Rudbeckia occidentalis Wet Meadow
CEGL005857 Heracleum maximum Wet Meadow
*Disclaimer: Some Alliances and Associations are considered provisional. Some require further documentation to verify their occurrence in the state
and some may be modified or deleted in future revisions after collection of additional data and information.
Dynamic Processes
Communities associated with this group are adapted to soils that may be flooded or saturated throughout the growing season. They may also occur in areas with soils that are only saturated early in the growing season, or intermittently during heavy convective storms in the summer. Most appear to be relatively stable types, although in some areas these may be impacted by intensive livestock grazing.
Management
Non-native species are uncommon in many of these wetlands though some habitats within this group may have non-native species such as Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and Fowl Bluegrass (Poa palustris) represented, esp around the margins or in drier settings. Within some marshy sites, Reed Canarygrass, Creeping Foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus) or Meadow Foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) are problematic species that can spread and outcompete the native communities. Some montane sedge meadows within this group that have a moderate to extensive grazing history may have been converted to a Carex nebrascensis Wet Meadow.
Herbaceous wet meadows that have experienced disturbance like excessive grazing or heavy recreational pressure are often invaded by non-native vegetation and are difficult to restore. To minimize disturbance, light to moderate grazing can be restricted to periods when the soil is completely dry and can be timed to occur after the maturation of native seedheads (Hansen et al. 1995). Recreational use should be diverted away from these meadows.
Restoration Considerations
Small scale restoration projects may occur in areas of heavy recreational use or areas of past intensive grazing. Efforts may include removing foot traffic or grazing through fencing or other means. Weed control efforts may be necessary in areas where Reed Canarygrass or Creeping Foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus) have established.
Species Associated with this Community
- How Lists Were Created and Suggested Uses and Limitations
Animal Species Associations
Please note that while all vertebrate species have been systematically associated with vegetation communities, only a handful of invertebrate species have been associated with vegetation communities and invertebrates lists for each vegetation community should be regarded as incomplete. Animal species associations with natural vegetation communities that they regularly breed or overwinter in or migrate through were made by:
- Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Werner et al. 2004, Adams 2003, and Foresman 2012);
- Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each vegetation community relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
- Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each vegetation community;
- Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each vegetation community relative to the percent of Montana covered by each vegetation community to get a measure 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. Species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species are listed as associated with a vegetation community if it contains structural characteristics known to be used by the species. However, species are not listed as associated with a vegetation community if we found no support in the literature for the species’ use of structural characteristics of the community even if point observations were associated with it. If you have any questions or comments on animal species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
Plant Species Associations
Please note that while diagnostic, dominant, or codominant vascular plant species for a vegetation community have been systematically assigned to those communities and vascular plant Species of Concern were systematically evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities, the majority of Montana’s vascular plant species have not been evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities and no attempt has been made to associate non-vascular plants, fungi, or lichens with vegetation communities. Plant species associations with natural vegetation communities were made in a manner similar to that described above for animals, but with review of Lesica et al. (2022) and specimen collection data from the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. If you have any questions or comments on plant species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Program Botanist.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with vegetation communities should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species or predicted habitat suitability models (this information can be requested at: https://mtnhp.mt.gov/requests/), or systematic surveys for species and onsite evaluations of habitat by trained biologists. Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on satellite imagery from 2016 and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales. Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the vegetation communities 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). Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular vegetation community within its known geographic range, portions of that vegetation community may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.
Literature Cited
- Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 289 p.
- Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. https://www.pnwherbaria.org/ Last accessed May 30, 2025.
- Dobkin, D. S. 1992. Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34. Missoula, MT.
- Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 429 pp.
- Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 1302 p.
- Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32. 72 p.
- Lesica P., M. Lavin, and P.F. Stickney. 2022. Manual of vascular plants, 2nd Edition. Brit Press. 779 p.
- Maxell, B.A. 2000. Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana. 161 p.
- Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
- Species of Concern Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Mammals
Birds
Amphibians
Invertebrates
- Diagnostic, Dominant, or Codominant Plant Species for this Community
Vascular Plants
- Other Native Species Commonly Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
- Other Native Species Occasionally Associated with this Community
Amphibians
Original Concept Authors
P. Comer, G. Kittel and C. Chappell (2015)
Montana Version Authors
S. Mincemoyer, L. Vance, C. McIntyre, T. Luna
Version Date
12/6/2024
References
- Literature Cited AboveLegend:
View Online Publication- Crowe, E. A., and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetland plant associations of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman national forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97.
Hansen, P. L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy, and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. 646 pp. + posters.- Kittel, G., E. Van Wie, M. Damm, R. Rondeau, S. Kettler, A. McMullen, and J. Sanderson. 1999. A classification of riparian and wetland plant associations of Colorado: A user's guide to the classification project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO. 70 pp. plus appendices.
- Kovalchik, B. L. 1987. Riparian zone associations - Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema national forests. USDA Forest Service Technical Paper 279-87. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 171 pp.
- Kovalchik, B. L. 1993. Riparian plant associations on the national forests of eastern Washington - Draft version 1. USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, WA. 203 pp.
- MacKenzie, W. H., and J. R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: A guide to identification. Land Management Handbook No. 52. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands, Victoria, BC. 287 pp.
- Manning, M. E., and W. G. Padgett. 1995. Riparian community type classification for Humboldt and Toiyabe national forests, Nevada and eastern California. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 306 pp.
- Nachlinger, J. L. 1985. The ecology of subalpine meadows in the Lake Tahoe region, California and Nevada. Unpublished thesis, University of Nevada, Reno. 151 pp.
- Padgett, W. G., A. P. Youngblood, and A. H. Winward. 1988b. Riparian community type classification of Utah. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region Publication R4-ECOL-88-01. Ogden, UT.
- Sanderson, J., and S. Kettler. 1996. A preliminary wetland vegetation classification for a portion of Colorado's west slope. Report prepared for Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Ft. Collins, CO. 243 pp.
- Additional ReferencesLegend: View Online Publication
Do you know of a citation we're missing?- Cooper, D. J. 1986b. Community structure and classification of Rocky Mountain wetland ecosystems. Pages 66-147 in: J. T. Windell, et al. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(11). 298 pp.
- Hansen, P. L., S. W. Chadde, and R. D. Pfister. 1988b. Riparian dominance types of Montana. University of Montana Miscellaneous Publication 49. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula. 411 pp.
- Web Search Engines for Articles on "Vancouverian-Rocky Mountain Montane Wet Meadow & Marsh"
