Aquatic Surveys and Assessment within the Middle Powder River Watershed Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Miles City FO ESA010009 Task Order #28 by David M. Stagliano Aquatic Ecologist April 2006 Heritage •am Natural Resource Information System Montana State Library Aquatic Assessment Executive Summary Project goals of the Aquatic Surveys and Assessment of the Middle Powder Watershed were to: 1) set up integrator sites, 2) assess aquatic community baseline data, 3) identify and interpret key watershed indicators (against reference condition standards) to determine aquatic condition status and trends before the development of CBM wells in the immediate watershed (Pers. comm. with Joseph Platz, 3/5/2005). This report represents the local reach-scale, aquatic portion of the larger watershed assessment that will use an ecological community context to help qualify watershed health and to identify focal concerns in the region. Inventory work occurred on BLM lands where possible to enable informed management decisions at a watershed planning scale. Fish, water quality parameters, habitat and macroinvertebrate samples were taken at 5 mainstem Powder River and one tributary site in the Middle Powder Watershed in Montana for this BLM assessment. One mainstem site was sampled twice temporally for fish and an additional macroinvertebrate sample was collected from a spring- supported reach of Bloom Creek. Macroinvertebrate Communities: Overall, 59 taxa were reported from all mainstem sites. Average macroinvertebrate taxa richness per site was 23.4. Paired macroinvertebrate samples taken at each mainstem site using two EMAP sampling protocols were in agreement for ranking all five Powder River sites as non-impaired, with the DEQ MMI index scores >37. However, the two protocols yielded very different community composition measures and the within-site sampling method variability was greater than similar-method across site variability. Within-site percent and taxa similarity values between the two EMAP protocols were low and ranged from 40% to 77.6%. To achieve less site/protocol-influenced variability, higher macroinvertebrate numbers and consistency in future biomonitoring, we recommend the EMAP Targeted-Riffle Protocols. Although, the Reach- Wide EMAP samples did pick up 2 of the 5 species of rare sand-dwelling mayflies not sampled with the Targeted-Riffle Protocols. Fish Communities: Fish surveys were accomplished using the 300m seining protocols developed by Bramblett (2003) for MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This protocol seemed to cover most macrohabitats in a reach, but due to the large size of the Powder, rarely encompassed more than one series of riffle/run/pools. Overall, we captured and identified 1299 individuals of 13 fish species (1 1 natives). Native fish averaged 7 species per site (7.5 is the expected reference condition), and 2 sites had the exotic carp and introduced plains killifish, respectively. Fish communities scored relatively low using the IBI (averaging 59.5-fair integrity range), but when using the derived Observed vs. Expected (O/E) values, 4 of 5 sites fell within the 1.2-0.8 unimpaired/good community threshold ranking, one was on the border (0.8) and Site 6 showed some impairment in the community with an O/E of 0.66. The fish O/E scores also correlated with the MMI scores across sites better than the IBI. The Sturgeon Chub, a MT species of concern, was only collected at one site and only represented 2 individuals. We recommend including at least 2 riffle/run complexes (skip portions of long monotonous sand reaches) in the 300m seining and using the O/E scores for integrity analysis. Community Integrity results from the fish, habitat and macroinvertebrate surveys combined to rank the Powder River reach upstream of Rough Creek (Site 5) the most biologically intact, followed by the Powder River reach @ the Wyoming border (Site 1) and Site (2), the Dry Creek reach. We recommend choosing these as integrator and future monitoring sites. Acknowledgements We would like to thank The Montana State Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), especially Gayle Sitter, and Joe Platz of the Miles City Field Office for support and funding for the Aquatic Program of the Montana Natural Heritage Program. This project was also partially funded by the ongoing BLM Watershed Assessment Project. We wish to thank those who assisted us with this project in the water, including field help from Coburn Currier, Support Biologist of the MTNHP and Trixi B. Smith, volunteer helper from Michigan State University. Additional on-site field and logistics help were supplied by Linda Vance and Greg Kudray. All photos in the report were taken by MTNHP personnel, unless otherwise noted. Table of Contents Introduction 5 Study Sites 6 Study Site Map 7 Methods 8 Habitat and Water Quality Collection 8 Fish Communities 9 Macroinvertebrate Communities 10 Results and Discussion 11 Habitat and Water Quality Results 11 Fish Community Analysis 12 Macroinvertebrate Communities 16 Conclusions and Recommendations 18 Literature Cited 19 Appendix A. Raw data and IBI metric calculation from fish data collected from Middle Powder Watershed. Appendix B. Frequencies of fish species occurrence (F of O) across different segments of the Powder River. All sites includes 2 Wyoming sites @ river mile 225 and 235, all MT sites includes from river mile 220 to the confluence with the Yellowstone Appendix C. Macroinvertebrate taxa list and abundance at each site, and plains MMI calculation table. Appendix D. Macroinvertebrate protocol comparisons with Percent Community Similarity and Taxa Similarity per site. Appendix E. Fish and Macroinvertebrate Community Group Descriptions List of Figures Map 1. Aquatic Sample sites in the Middle Powder River Watershed 7 Figure 1 . Seining the Powder River near the WY border 8 Figure 2. Kick Seining a riffle on the Powder River 8 Figure 3. Fish IBI and O/E comparisons at the Powder River sites. Sites 5tl & 5t2 are June and July samples at Site 5, respectively 13 Figure 4. Cluster analysis of relativized macroinvertebrate abundance data taken with the two EMAP protocols 16 Figure 5. Relationship between the habitat scores, Fish O/E and the macroinvertebrate MMI index scores. Impairment thresholds are lines @ 0.8 (O/E) and 37 (MMI) 17 List of Tables Table 1 . Fish metrics and classification of fishes captured on the Powder River (2005) 9 Table 2. Impairment determinations from the MMI and O/E (RIVPACS) models 10 Table 3. Habitat quality scores, physical & water quality parameters of Middle Powder River sites 11 Table 4. Fish collected from the mainstem Powder River, IBI and O/E index scores 12 Table 5. Temporal variability in fish samples from Site 5 12 Table 6. Powder River fish samples @ the Wyoming border taken 30 years apart 14 Table 7. Cumulative species list and percentage of site occurrences of fish collected on the main-stem Powder River in Montana (0-220 river miles). Asterisk (*) indicates fish species that have not been collected since the 1970' s collections 15 Table 8. Overall macroinvertebrate results, sample date, percent sub-sampled, total taxa richness, number of individuals in the sample, multimetric index score, and impairment status for each stream site 16 Introduction The Powder River is a vast drainage representing one of the last undammed, large prairie river systems in the United States. In this part of southeastern Montana, the landscape through which the Powder flows resembles a virtually natural condition- state of a large prairie river with sweeping meanders across the valley bottom, side channels, oxbows, shifting islands and functional connectedness to the floodplain. The Powder River aquatic ecosystem supports many elements of community function and biological diversity associated with its physical setting, including 25 native fish species (19 in Montana) and numerous species of rare invertebrates. With its specialized aquatic life, the Powder River supports not only a diverse community but represents the sole remnant of a once widespread Great Plains riverine community of fish and invertebrates (Hubert 1993). Prairie rivers and streams are one of the most understudied and endangered aquatic systems in North America (Dodds et al 2004). Furthermore, the Powder River provides substantial habitat for the declining sturgeon chub (MTSOC, species of concern), a species that has been extirpated from much of its historic range (Werdon 1994). In Wyoming, the Powder River was identified by Patton et al. (1998) as supporting an abundance of species adapted to turbid rivers (the flathead chub, Platygobio gracilis', plains minnow, Hybognathus placitus\ western silvery minnow, Hybognathus argyritis\ river carpsucker, Carpoides carpio, and the channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus) that have been greatly reduced or eliminated from other drainages. In a previous report, Stagliano (2005) identified the Powder River as the reference standard in its Large Prairie River classification; no other large prairie system in the ecoregion contains the quality and biological integrity of its communities and habitats. The Powder River has been identified as the primary spawning area for the lower Yellowstone River sauger (MTSOC) population (Rehwinkel 1978), as well as other species that migrate from the Yellowstone River to these tributaries to spawn (the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus), shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus), burbot, and channel catfish)(Backes 1994, Riggs and Gardner 2000). The invertebrate communities in the Powder River are as rare and specialized as the fishery. Rehwinkel (1978) concluded that the Powder River supported the most unique community of benthic invertebrates in Montana. More recent investigations (2000-2002) by Dan Gustafson (pers comm. 01/12/2006) and this study (2005) indicate that some of these specialized mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are not only rare, but are in decline. Six of these globally rare to uncommon mayfly species (Analetris eximia, Anepeorus rusticus, Raptoheptagenia cruentata, Ametropus neavei, Homoeoneuria alleni, Lachlania saskatchewanensis) will now be included on the 2006 Montana species of concern list (unpublished, Montana Natural Heritage Program 2006). These species were probably once quite common in prairie rivers in the northern Great Plains, but have been eliminated throughout most of their historic range due to impoundments and other anthropogenic river alterations. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is currently undergoing one of the world's largest coalbed natural gas (CBNG) developments with about 12,000 wells in place in 2003, 14,200 in 2005, and up to 70,000 projected over the next 20 to 30 years (Davis and Bramblett, 2006). Coal bed methane mining has the potential to severely disrupt the ecosystem and harm its biota, both in the riparian zone and within the stream itself. The interconnectedness of rivers with their watershed renders any lotic ecosystem vulnerable to threats from human activities anywhere in the landscape (Allan et al.l997). Numerous aquatic and fisheries professionals have commented on the consequences of CBM mining within the watershed in an EIS report to the BLM. See expert evaluations at http://www.powderriverbasin.org/cbm/expert allan.shtml for potential ecological consequences of unrestricted CBM development within the immediate watershed. A recent aquatic task group (ATG) was convened by the BLM to address some of the monitoring and research issues and will undoubtedly perform rigorous scientific investigations before proceeding on a path that will endanger a rare ecosystem. Powder River Sites Per conversation with Joe Platz (5/5/2005), we chose sites along the main-stem Middle Powder River with BLM in-holdings that were easily accessible and would complement USGS monitoring sites (see Map 1): 1) *Large parcels upstream of Moorhead near the WY border where Bradshaw, Bitter and Dry Creeks enter the Powder (either side access, 2 reaches). 2) Downstream of Moorhead where Jenkins Creek enter the Powder (south side access). 3) ^Across and downstream from where Bloom Creek enters the Powder (south-side access. Buttermilk Creek). 4) Upstream from where Rough Creek (north) enters the Powder (north-side access) Site No. Description Latitude Longitude Elev (ft) Date Sampled Powder River 1 Powder River @ WY border 45.015037 -105.90618 3415 7/11/2005 Powder River 2 Powder River @ Dry Creek 45.037712 -105.88085 3391 7/11/2005 Powder River 3 Powder River @ Jenkins Creek 45.106189 -105.83847 3314 7/11/2005 Powder River 6 Powder River @ Buttermilk Creek 45.225601 -105.69058 3185 7/12/2005 Powder River 5tl Powder River ups Rough Creek 45.346674 -105.53329 3105 6/3/2005 Powder River 5t2 Powder River ups Rough Creek 45.346674 -105.53329 3105 7/12/2005 Bloom Creek downstream Hailstone Spring 45.233325 -105.89855 3757 5/20/2005 Joe Platz and I did site recon in early June and established the 5 mainstem Powder River reaches (with GPS points, flagging and site photos at the 0, 300 and 450m points). Numerous tributary sites on BLM lands were visited (-19 stream miles) in the watershed for possible lotic sampling, but were consistently dry. Intermittent Prairie Stream reaches that were visited, but not sampled, included Bitter, Buttermilk, Jenkins, Rough (north & south), Buffalo, Dry and Maverick Prong of Bloom Creek (see Map 1). One mainstem site (166.2 RM, Site 5 near Rough Creek) was sampled twice temporally for fish. Methods Aquatic communities (fish & macroinvertebrates) and riparian areas were inventoried and assessed using a combination of FWP (fish) and BLM / EPA (macroinvertebrates and habitat assessments) protocols and methodology. Reach lengths were set as a standard 300m, but to encompass an additional set of riffle macrohabitats for the macroinvertebrate targeted-riffle sampling protocols were extended to 450m. Information and results from previous inventories, such as those conducted by FW&P (fish) and the BLM (e.g. PFC Lotic riparian areas) will be integrated into the final Watershed Assessment report. This report will provide a valuable baseline of current watershed health and recommendations for future monitoring efforts. Map 1 . Aquatic sample sites in the Middle Powder River Watershed. Sample Sites in the Middle Powder Watershed Legend Ownership Middle Powder Watershed ^^ Streams • Sample Sites BLM Bureau of Reclamation US Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service US Porest Service other USD A (ag research stations) I Army Corps of Engineers I Other Department of Defense Undifferentiated state DNRC{state trust lands) 10 Kilometers Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks University, Institutions, MDT DNRC (water project lands) Local Government Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust Tribal Lands Undifferentiated Private Plum Creek Pnvate Land Trusts Water Habitat and Water Quality Collection and Analysis A visual rapid habitat assessment (Barbour et al. 1999) based on 10 habitat variables (instream fish cover, epifaunal substrate, pool substrate characterization, pool variability, channel alteration, sediment deposition, channel sinuosity, channel flow status, bank condition, bank vegetative protection, riparian vegetated zone width) was completed for each sampled reach. The habitat quality scoring is based on a maximum score of 200. Additional physical habitat: channel wetted width (in meters), channel depths recorded at Va, Vi and % wetted width at all transects (in centimeters), and substrate (in % size-class coverage per transect) based on WoUman size-classes were measured at 10 transects spaced 30 meters apart perpendicular to the stream channel. Specific conductivity, pH, water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration were measured on-site prior to biological sampling with a Yellow Springs Instruments, Inc. model 85 water quality meter calibrated to the higher conductivity level. Fish Collection and Analysis Fish surveys were performed using the 300m seining protocols developed by Bramblett (2003) for MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This protocol calls for block nets at the upstream and downstream ends of the reach, but the width of the Powder River precluded the use of these. Instead, shallow riffle areas were used as barriers and probably sufficient to prevent fish from escaping while the run & pool areas were being seined (Figure 1). Shallow riffle areas unable to be seined in the normal fashion because of rock obstructions were "kick-seined" (Figure 2) to capture fish inhabitating this macrohabitat. We used 30ft, Va inch mesh seines to cover most areas across the channel and all macrohabitats within the reach. Fish were transferred to holding buckets, identified to species, enumerated in the field, examined for external anomalies (e.g. deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors), and then released. Young-of-the-year fish less than 20 millimeters in length were noted on the field sheet (not included in the totals), and released. Voucher specimens were only taken in the case of uncertain field identifications of the silvery minnows, Hybognathus spp., which were preserved in 10% buffered formalin and identified in the lab. Vouchers will be submitted to the Montana State University fish collection. Figure 1. Seining the Powder River @ the WY border Figure 2. Kick Seining a riffle on the Powder River Analysis of the sampled fish communities used Integrated Biotic Indices (IB I) (Bramblett et. al 2005) and derived Observed/Expected (O/E) Fish Models (Stagliano 2005) to detect impairment in the biological integrity of the sites. The IBI involved calculation of a series of metrics evaluating different attributes of the community (Table 1). Because fish taxa richness is expected to be directly proportional to watershed size, we used an average catchment area for this reach (20,962 km^) based at the Moorehead gaging station. The metrics allowed calculation of an overall score between and 100. Bramblett et al. (2005) did not propose threshold criteria for good, fair, and poor biological integrity for these scores. Therefore, we applied commonly used criteria 75 to 100 indicating good to excellent biological integrity, 25 to 74% indicated fair biological integrity, and <25% indicating poor biological integrity. Table 1. Fish metrics and classification of fishes captured on the Powder River (2005). Species Scientific Name Trophic* Feeding Habitatt Litho-obligate Reproductive Guild* Tol** Origin tt Hiodontidae Goldeye Hiodon alosoides IN Catostomidae River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio OM Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macroledidotum IN Cyprinidae Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis IN Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae IN Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus HB Western silvery Hybognathus argyritis HB minnow Sand shiner Notropis stramineus OM Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida IN Cyprinidontidae Plains Killifish Fundulus kansae OM Ictaluridae Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus IC Stonecat Noturus flavus IC WC BE BE BE GE BE BE BE GE BE GE BE BE LO LO LO LO LO LO TR^ LO INT TOL MOD INT N MOD N MOD N TOL I MOD N INT N MOD N MOD N MOD N INT N N N HB = herbivore (> 90% plants or detritus); IC = invertivore/carnivore (>25% both invertebrates and vertebrates); IN = invertivore; OM = oninivore(25-90% plants or detritus) t BE = benthic; GE = generahst; WC = water column: Brown (1971); Scott and Crossman (1973); Becker (1983) X Scott and Crossman (1973); Pflieger (1997); Barbour et al. (1999) § Tolerant reproductive strategists are not litho-obligates, use parental care @ spawning site: Scott and Crossman (1973); Pflieger (1997) ** INT = intolerant; MOD = moderately tolerant: TOL = tolerant; Barbour et al. (1999); tt N = native; I - introduced; Brown (1971); Holton and Johnson (2003) Derivation of the expected fish communities is performed by identifying the frequency of occurrence that a species has at a site classified in a reference condition and summing the frequencies across all fish species of the community (see Appendix B). The O/E (Observed taxa of an evaluated site/Expected Taxa for a reference site) model is a direct measure of the biological community. It compares the taxa that are expected at a site (carp and introduced fish are never "expected" and given zeros) with the actual taxa that were found when the site was sampled. In some cases, it is more ecologically meaningful than the IBI, but not always. Macroinvertebrate Collection and Analysis Paired macroinvertebrate samples taken at each site allowed a comparison of two differing sampling protocols. The two methods utilized were the EMAP_Targeted Riffle (8 composited surbers) and the EMAP_Reach-Wide Multi-habitat. These samples were taken in July 2005 following the standard EMAP protocols (Lazorchak 1998), and processed (sorting, identification, and data analysis) by David Stagliano at the Montana Natural Heritage Program Helena lab. Macroinvertebrates were identified to the taxonomic level specified by Montana DEQ and biological metrics were calculated from the data. Montana Department of Environmental Quality's newest multimetric macroinvertebrate (MMI) protocols (Jessup et al. 2005, DEQ 2006) were used to analyze the macroinvertebrate samples. Metric results were then scored using the Montana DEQ bioassessment criteria and each sample categorized as non-impaired or impaired according to threshold values. The macroinvertebrate MMI score is based upon a series of metrics that measure attributes of benthic macroinvertebrate communities regarding condition changes to a stream system (in the form of pollution or pollutants). The invertebrate metrics include: EPT Taxa Richness (Score = EPT richness/14*100): Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera &Trichoptera taxa; Percent Tanypodinae (Score = PercentTanypodinae/10 *100): Tanypodinae is a subfamily within the family Chironomidae; Percent Orthocladiinae of Chironomidae (Score = (100-percent Orthocladiinae of Chironomidae/100)*100); Predator Taxa Richness (Score = number of predator taxa/9*100); Percent Collectors and Filterers (Score = (100 - percent collectors and filterers/65)*100): This metric measures the relative abundance of collector and filterer taxa in the sample. The index score represents the condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the time the sample was collected within that past year. If the index score is below the impairment threshold, the individual metrics can be used to provide insight as to why the communities are different from the reference condition (Barbour et. al 1999, Jessup et. al. 2005). The results from the eastern plains index metrics are averaged to obtain the final index score. The impairment threshold set by MT DEQ is 37 for the eastern plains stream index (Table 2). Table 2. Impairment determinations from the MMI and O/E (RIVPACS) models (taken from Jessup 2005, Feldman 2006). Ecoregion Mountain Low Valley Eastern Plains RIVPACS >0.8 or < 1.2 <0.8 or > 1.2 >0.8 or < 1.2 <0.3 or > 1.2 >0.3 or < 1.2 <0.8 or > 1.2 >63 <63 >48 <43 >37 <37 Impairment Determination Not impaired Impaired Not impaired Impaired Not impaired Impaired 10 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Habitat and Water Quality Results and Analysis Powder River Sites 1 and 5 scored highest in habitat quahty with both the BLM and EPA RBP assessment protocols, representing 70% & 85% of the best possible score, respectively (Table 3). Site 5 also had the highest number of recorded channel depths >50cm indicating ample deep holding areas for fish. Powder River Site 3 scored lowest in both habitat assessment scores despite having the second highest number of channel depths >50cm, unfortunately many of these deep areas had unsuitable, unconsolidated substrate (silt, fine sand) to be considered optimum fish habitat. Temperature increases and dissolved O2 (DO) decreases progressing through the day can be seen with sites 1, 2 & 3. Site 1 was sampled in the morning and by the time Site 3 was sampled in the late afternoon water temperatures increased >8 degrees C and DO decreased by >lmg/l. With dissolved oxygen levels already fairly low, a 1 mg/1 decrease through the day can probably become stressful to some fish species. Table 3. Habitat quality scores, physical & water quality parameters of Middle Powder River sites. Site No. BLM Site Score EPA RBP Score Avg wetted widtii (m) Avg ctiannel deptti (cm) >50cm H2O Temp (°C) ph Cond* DO'^ Powder River 1 17 170 42.4 38.2 8.0 19.8 8.5 1120 4.4 Powder River 2 15 164 38.5 38.5 7.0 24.5 8.5 1140 3.7 Powder River 3 14 139 44.0 43.5 15.0 27.9 8.6 1130 3.3 Powder River 6 14 146 45.0 30.8 7.0 21.9 8.4 1222 4.8 Powder River 5tl 16 172 41.0 na na 15.3 8.2 1180 8.0 Powder River 5t2 16 172 37.0 39.5 16.0 27.7 8.4 1350 4.7 Bloom Creek 12 137 1.9 10.5 0.0 16.5 8.1 680 4.0 CD "channel depths reflecting deep run or pool areas *Conductivity~microsiemens/cm ^Dissolved Oxygen — mg/1 na-data not taken on this date Fish Community Results and Analysis Thirteen species of fish (11 natives) were identified from 1299 individuals across the 6 samples at 5 mainstem Powder River sites (Table 4). No fish were observed or collected at the Bloom Creek upstream site. Native fish averaged 7 species per site and represented members of 2 species group assemblages, the Medium Warmwater River and the Core Prairie Stream Assemblage (Stagliano 2005, Appendix E). Sites 1 and 5 had the highest average species richness with 8, and no non-native species were sampled. Site 5 was also the only site where we collected the Sturgeon Chub (MT SOC) on both sampling periods, June and July, represented by 2 and 1 individuals, respectively (Table 5). 11 Table 4. Fish collected from the mainstem Powder River, IBI and O/E index scores. Powder River Sitel Site 2 Sites Site 6 Site 5t1 Site 5t2 River Mile Collection date: 219 7/11/05 215.4 7/11/05 206.6 7/11/05 186.9 7/12/05 166.2 6/3/05 166.2 7/12/05 Channel Catfish 3 4 1 11 2 Common Carp 2 Flathead Chub 96 47 30 26 116 46 Goldeye 3 2 3 Longnose Dace 3 2 3 62 1 Plains Minnow 12 3 1 5 1 Plains Killifish 2 River Carpsucker 1 1 3 Sand Shiner 305 97 19 47 97 224 Shorthead Redhorse 1 Stonecat 2 Sturgeon Chub* 2 1 Western Silvery Minnow 2 2 1 6 1 Total # species 8 7 7 6 7 9 Native Species 8 6 7 5 7 9 Total Individuals 424 156 60 78 299 282 IBI 64 56 57 52 61 67 O/E converted to % 107 80 93 66 93 120 At Site 5, we can view the temporal shift in fish communities from June to July with substantial decreases in the longnose dace, flathead chubs and channel catfish and an increase in sand shiners, goldeyes and river carpsuckers (Table 5). This widely fluctuating community structure (with only 51% similarity between dates) is characteristic of variable flow conditions and migratory spawning fish species. The longnose dace, flathead chubs, sand shiners and channel catfish all showed signs of spawning (e.g. male spawning colors, pregnant females) during the June sampling date, but not in July. Since this site (Site 5) had extensive gravel runs, it was likely being used by most litho-obligate reproductive species in the vicinity. Sand shiners have become the dominant minnow species in the July sample, and it seems as though this is occurring at other mainstem sites in the watershed. The dominant community indicator species by percentage across all sites were the sand shiner (61%), flathead chub (28%), and longnose dace (5%), followed by the channel catfish (2%), plains minnow (2%), goldeneye (1%), and western silvery minnow (1%). Table 5. Temporal variabilitv in fish samples from Site 5 Powder River (Site 5) 6/3/2005 7/1 1/2005 Channel Catfish 11 1 Goldeye 3 Longnose Dace 62 1 Flathead Chub 116 46 Sturgeon Chub* 2 1 Sand Shiner 97 224 River Carpsucker 3 Plains Minnow 5 1 Western Silvery Minnow 6 1 % Community Similarity 50.6 Taxa Similarity 77.8 12 IBI vs. 0/E For the Middle Powder River assessment of fish communities, the Fish IBI (Bramblett 2005) was inadequate to determine the fish community integrity, although it did correlate strongly with the habitat quality index (r=0.74, p<0.05). IBI values continually ranked the sites as having fair biological integrity. On two sites with long stretches of monotonous sandy-glide habitat, we failed to capture 100 fish individuals which may have affected the fish community metrics. Since this IBI assesses biotic integrity relative only to conditions as they currently exist; we can not go back pre- settlement and do an IBI assessment during those conditions. But by using the expected fish community given that the Powder River is a reference large prairie river, we can derive the fish species list of the best possible conditions given minimal anthropogenic stressors. The best expected overall fish community in the upper reaches consisted of 7.5 native species. Figure 3. Fish IBI and O/E comparisons at the Powder River sites. Sites 5tl & 5t2 are June and July samples at Site 5, respectively. >120 Site1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 6A Site 5t1 Site 5t2 WY border > Broad us Even when Powder River sites had their full fish community present (Site 5), they still ranked low (fair) in biointegrity using the IBI (Figure 3). This can be explained in part, because the lowest scoring metrics were those with adjustments for catchment area, such as number of native species and number of native families. The Powder River is a diverse system, but not considering the fish community that has evolved within this unique system, and just assuming a linear increase in fish species to watershed area is not a valid assumption. This factor brings into question the suitability of this index to a watershed of this size. The largest catchment area of sites used by Bramblett et al. (2005) in developing the fish IBI was less than 14,000 km^ while catchment areas for our sites on the Powder River ranged from -'20,000km^ to well over 23,000 km\ Historical Perspectives To truly evaluate the fisheries potential of the Powder River, a historical and riverwide data compilation was conducted to determine: what a native Montana Powder River fish community looked like? The Montana section of the river from the Wyoming border to the confluence with 13 the Yellowstone River is highlighted in this study, although a report from Confluence Consulting (Endicott 2004) for WY, supplies us with additional main-stem sites to review. These data were compiled from the MT Fish Wildlife & Parks MFISH database of fish collections reported in the Powder River over the past 30 years, including the MTNHP and USGS collections in 2005 from sites in the Middle Powder sub-watershed from the WY border to Broadus. The initial results are surprising. Using sites from 1975, 19 species offish (17 natives) were present in the Montana's Powder River, while a cumulative look at samples since then show 18 fish species (15 native) (Table 7). Lake Chubs {Couesius plumbeus) that were reported by Bruce Rehwinkel (BR) from 4 of 7 sites in 1975 and 1976 seem to have disappeared from the entire Powder River System. Two species also reported in 1975 that have not been reported since are the brassy minnow and the green sunfish; both species were represented by 1 individual at the Locate, MT site. Given the ecological requirements of these species, they are presumably "wash-ins" from Mizpah Creek which joins the Powder River -5 km upstream of this sampling site. Mizpah Creek provides more suitable habitat for these smaller stream species. The creek chub was reported once (2 individuals) in 1975, and has not been reported in Montana's mainstem Powder since, but Confluence (2004) reported one creek chub collected -15 miles from Montana at river mile 235. If we examine just one of the shared collection sites (Wyoming border sitel) at river mile 219, thirty years later (Table 6), we notice that the Percent Community Similarity is very low at 24%, but more surprisingly, the taxa similarity is only 58%. Five of the 12 species were not shared between the samples, and 2 common taxa collected in 1975, lake and sturgeon chubs were absent from the 2005 samples, and in fact sturgeon chubs have not been collected within 30 miles of this site in the past 5 years. We see a shift from a flathead chub dominated community to a dominance of sand shiners. This pattern may have to be further investigated to see if sand shiners are in fact more tolerant and their increasing numbers represents declining water quality. The one bright point of this site review is that there were no carp collected during 2005 sample. Table 6. Powder River fish samples @ the Wyoming border taken 30 years apart. Taxa 15-Oct-75 11-Jul-05 Channel Catfish 1 3 Common Carp 4 Goldeye 10 3 Long nose Dace 3 3 Flathead Chub 965 96 Lake Chub* 33 Sturgeon Chub* 25 Sand Shiner 5 305 River Carpsucker 3 1 Shorthead Redhorse 7 1 Sauger* 1 Plains Minnow 12 0/E 1.27 1.07 Percent Community Similarity 24.6% Taxa Similarity 58.3% 14 Table 7. Cumulative species list and percentage of site occurrences of fish collected on the main- stem Powder River in Montana (0-220 river miles). Asterisk (*) indicates fish species that have not been collected since the 1970's collections 1975 2005 (n=7) (n=28) Brassy Minnow* 14.3 0.0 Burbot 28.6 12.0 Channel Catfish 100.0 96.0 Common Carp 28.6 24.0 Creek Chub* 14.3 0.0 Flathead Chub 100.0 96.0 Goldeye 57.1 64.0 Green Sunfish* 28.6 0.0 Lake Chub* 57.1 0.0 Longnose Dace 71.4 48.0 Longnose Sucker 0.0 8.0 Plains Minnow 42.9 44.0 Plains KiUifish 0.0 8.0 River Carpsucker 57.1 56.0 Sand Shiner 14.3 40.0 Sanger 28.6 40.0 Shorthead Redhorse 28.6 48.0 Shovelnose Sturgeon 14.0 24.0 Stonecat 14.3 12.0 Sturgeon Chub 100.0 48.0 Walleye 0.0 20.0 Western Silvery Minnow 71.4 60.0 Total Species 19 18 Total Native Species 17 15 Sturgeon chubs, MT SOC and former ESA candidate species, had a percent occurrence in BR's samples of 100% and averaged 5% of the species community. In the past 5 years, the sturgeon chub has been collected at less than 50% of the main-stem Powder River sites sampled and is usually represented by only 1 or 2 individuals per sample (<1% of the community). The rarity of sturgeon chub is alarming for a river that presumably provides the most substantial habitat for this declining species. Walleye were not found in BR samples and today occur in about 20% of sites sampled. Plains killifish, an introduced fish, has also appeared in the Powder River samples more recently, usually representing a couple of individuals, but any noticeable increases in the numbers of this species could be indicative of decreasing water quality. The plains killifish is tolerant of high salinities and alkalinities and is able to withstand extremes in these water chemical parameters long after other fish are gone (Baxter and Stone 1995). Sand shiners are being collected more frequently now (40% vs. 14% of sites) and comprise a much higher percentage of the fish community that they did in the 1970's. 15 Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis Macroinvertebrate taxa lists and abundances are presented for each sample in Appendix B. Overall, 59 taxa were reported from all sites with indicator species from 3 species assemblages (Appendix E). Average macroinvertebrate taxa richness per site is 23.4 taxa. The Species of Special Concern (SOC) mayfly: Raptoheptagenia cruentata (G4, S2) was found at all sampled sites, being more abundant in the targeted-riffle samples. The other rare mayflies: Anepeorus rusticus (Gl, SI) and Homoeoneuria alleni (G4, S2) were only found at the Dry Creek site 2 in the Reach- Wide sample, represented by 2 individuals each, respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of taxa sampled in the targeted riffle (TR) vs. reach- wide (RW) EMAP samples (F test, p=0.68). The number of individuals obtained in a sample was significantly higher in the TR vs. RW EMAP samples (F test, p<0.0001). Two TR samples had to be sub-sampled to reduce the number of organisms to obtain the targeted 500 count. Targeted- riffle samples across all sites were more similar to each other than they were to the same site reach- wide EMAP samples (Figure 4). In fact, samples using the reach wide protocols produced 2 distinct community clusters (Figure 4, species groups 2 & 4), representing the different macrohabitats being sampled. Figure 4. Cluster analysis of relativized macroinvertebrate abundance data taken with two EMAP protocols. 8.3E-03 Distance (Objective Function) 1.7E-01 3.3E-01 4.9E-01 6.6E-01 100 I YL SFW1Q A YL~SFVV2Q A YL SFW3Q YL~SFW5Q YL~SFVV6Q YL SFWIq YL~SFVV3q YL SPWEq YL SFVV2q YL~SPW5q A A A A A V V Information Remaining (%) 75 50 25 i 1 1 EMAP_Targeted Riffle c-Drrr^DD-^ iKtL-tjKKJ 1 A 1 A 2 V 4 1 1 1 EMAP_Reach-Wide 1 1 Despite clear separation of the 2 EMAP methods in a cluster analysis (PC-ORD, relatived abundance), the Montana multi-metric scores (MMI) did not significantly vary and the sites were all classified in the non-impaired category (Table 8). Even though all sites ranked unimpaired, there is a 20 point scoring spread from the lowest MMI score 45.5 (Site 2 RW) to 65.4 (Site 5 RW). Thus site 5 (RW and TR) and site 3 targeted-riffle scores seem to represent sites with the highest macroinvertebrate community integrity (Table 8). Although, the metrics chosen for this plains MMI do not seem to represent the unique invertebrate community of the Powder River very well, as indicated by 2 of the metrics: % Tanypodinae & % Orthocladiinae of Chironomidae having no representative scores in 8 of the 10 samples evaluated (Appendix C). An evaluation of other metrics for the Powder River should be investigated to obtain more robust community measures, or further develop an invertebrate O/E, as we did with the fish communities in the Powder Watershed. 16 Table 8. Overall macroinvertebrate results, sample date, percent sub-sampled, total taxa richness, number of individuals in the sample, multimetric index score, and aquatic impairment status for each stream site. Site site_code Method Date % Sample Used T_Taxa #Ind MMI Status Powder River 1 YL_SPW1Q EMAP_Targeted Riffle (8 comp) 07/11/2005 66.67 26 597 57.0 Non- Impaired Powder River 1 YL_SPWlq EMAP_Reach-wide 07/11/2005 100 28 296 58.1 Non- Impaired Powder River 2 YL_SPW2Q EMAP_Targeted Riffle (8 comp) 07/11/2005 50 26 613 52.3 Non- Impaired Powder River 2 YL_SPW2q EMAP_Reach-wide 07/11/2005 100 25 257 45.5 Non- Impaired Powder River 3 YL_SPW3Q EMAP_Targeted Riffle (8 comp) 07/11/2005 100 25 235 60.2 Non- Impaired Powder River 3 YL_SPW3q EMAP_Reach-wide 07/11/2005 100 19 234 46.4 Non- Impaired Powder River 6 YL_SPW6Q EMAP_Targeted Riffle (8 comp) 07/12/2005 100 19 224 49.0 Non- Impaired Powder River 6 YL_SPW6q EMAP_Reach-wide 07/12/2005 100 23 265 57.3 Non- Impaired Powder River 5 YL_SPW5Q EMAP_Targeted Riffle (8 comp) 07/12/2005 100 23 426 60.5 Non- Impaired Powder River 5 YL_SPW5q EMAP_Reach-wide 07/12/2005 100 20 261 65.4 Non- Impaired -MMI(TR) -MMI(RW) -HBI -FishO/E # # # O/E Threshold Figure 5. Relationship between the habitat scores, Fish O/E and the macroinvertebrate MMI index scores. Impairment thresholds are lines @ 0.8 (O/E) and 37 (MMI). 200 T ^T 1-2 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 MMI Threshold 0.8 0.6 i? 0.4 0.2 # fe^ # 17 EMAP Targeted Riffle samples correlated with the fish O/E scores more closely than the reach- wide samples (TR x O/E, r=0.87 p<0.01 vs. RW x O/E, r=0.41 p>0.05) (Figure 5). The Bloom Creek site reported 22 macroinvertebrate taxa and was dominated by highly tolerant organisms with a MT biotic index of 8.21 and an old DEQ metric score of 1 1 of 24 (Bukantis 1998) which indicates moderate impairment. This site was highly impacted by cattle intrusions into the stream channel and riparian zone, as indicated by low HQI scores (BLM-12 / EPA- 137). CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . All sites of the mainstem Powder River within the Middle Powder ranked unimpaired with the MMI, but by incorporating the fish O/E and habitat scores, a clearer designation of biological integrity can be made. Fish O/E analysis ranked site 6 as impaired and Site 2 as borderline impaired, but taking all data into account, including the presence of 3 of 5 SOC mayflies. Site 2 could be moved into the unimpaired category using Best Professional Judgement. Community Integrity results from the fish, habitat and macroinvertebrate surveys combined to rank the Powder River reach upstream of Rough Creek (Site 5) the most biologically intact, followed by the Powder River reach @ the Wyoming border (Site 1) and finally Site (2), the Dry Creek reach. We recommend choosing these as integrator and future monitoring sites. 2. Results for macroinvertebrate samples show that the EMAP Targeted Riffle samples produce more bugs, track the fish O/E closer, evaluate more consistently across sites and are an easily repeatable protocol for less variability in field operations. Therefore, we recommend the EMAP Targeted-Riffle Protocols for future monitoring efforts. 3. Sturgeon chubs are obviously declining. Patton et al. (1998) found sturgeon chubs at half of the eight sites sampled in the Wyoming portions of the Powder River, Confluence Consulting (2004) found sturgeon chubs (2) in 2002 at only 1 WY site close to the MT border, MTNHP and the USGS (2005) did not capture a single sturgeon chub within 40 miles of the WY border despite sampling 6 reaches. The rarity of the sturgeon chub is alarming for a river that is supposed to provide the most substantial habitat for this species. We recommend additional work on the distributional status and tolerance to water chemistry changes of the sturgeon chub and the SOC mayflies as a component of any biomonitoring approach for CBM development in the immediate Powder River basin. 18 Literature Cited Allan, J. D., D. L. Erickson and J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149-162. Barbour, M., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish,Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water: Washington, D.C.. Backes, K.M. et al. 1994. Lower Yellowstone River Pallid Sturgeon Study. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks & Bureau of Reclamation. 19pp. Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bramblett, R. G., T. R. Johnson, A. V. Zale, A. V., and D. Heggem. 2005. Development and Evaluation of a Fish Assemblage Index of Biotic Integrity for Northwestern Great Plains Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:624-640, 2005. Bukantis, R. 1998. Rapid bioassessment macroinvertebrate protocols: Standard Operating Procedures. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, Montana. Confluence Consulting. 2004. Powder River Biological Survey and Implications for Coalbed Methane Development prepared for Powder River Basin Resource Council. 67 pp. + appendicies. Davis, W. and B. Bramblett. 2006. Effects of Coalbed Natural Gas Development on Fish Assemblages in the Powder River Basin. Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit Fact Sheet, Montana State Univeristy. 3pp. Dodds, W. K., K. Gido, M. R. Whiles, K. M. Fritz, and W. J. Matthews. 2004. Life on the edge: The ecology of Great Plains prairie streams. BioScience 54: 205-216. Feldman, D. 2006. Interpretation of New Macroinvertebrate Models by WQPB. Draft Report. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Planning Prevention and Assistance Division, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Water Quality Standards Section. 1520 E. 6* Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. 14 pp. Gustafson, D. Entomologist, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Personal communication. Jan 2006. Holton, G. D., and H. E. Johnson. 2003. A field guide to Montana fishes, 3rd edition. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena. 19 Hubert, W.A. 1993. The Powder River: a relatively pristine stream on the Great Plains. In: Restoration Planning for Rivers of the Mississippi Ecosystem. US National Biological Survey Biological Report 19 Jessup, B., J. Stribling, and C. Hawkins. 2005. Biological indicators of stream condition in Montana using macroin vertebrates. Tetra Tech, Inc. November 2005 (draft). Lazorchak, J.M., Klemm, D.J., and D.V. Peck (editors). 1998. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Patton, T.M, F.J. Rahel, and W.A. Hubert. 1998. Using historical data to assess changes in Wyoming's fish fauna. Conservation Biology 12:1 120-1 128. Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri, revised edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Rehwinkel, B.J. 1978. Powder River aquatic ecology report. Report prepared for Utah International, Inc. Montana Department of Fish and Game. Riggs, V. and B. Gardner. 2000-2004. MFISH (Montana Fisheries Information System) survey reports. Accessed Jan 2006. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184, Ottawa. Stagliano, David, M. 2005. Aquatic Community Classification and Ecosystem Diversity in Montana's Missouri River Watershed. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 65 pp. plus appendices. Werdon, S.J. 1992. Population status and characteristics of Macrhybopsis Gelida, Platygobio Gracilis and Rhinichthys Cataractae in the Missouri River Basin. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. M.S. Thesis, 55pp. 20 Appendix A. Raw data and IBI metric calculation from fish data collected from Middle Powder Watershed Site1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Sites Site 5t1 Channel Catfish 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 11.0 Common Carp 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flathead Chub 96.0 47.0 30.0 26.0 46.0 116.0 Goldeye 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Longnose Dace 3.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 62.0 Plains Minnow 12.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 Plains Killifish 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 River Carpsucker 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 Sand Shiner 305.0 97.0 19.0 47.0 224.0 97.0 Shorthead Redhorse 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stonecat 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sturgeon Chub* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Western Silvery Minnow 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 Total # species 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 7.0 Native Species 8.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 9.0 7.0 Total Individuals 424.0 156.0 60.0 78.0 282.0 299.0 # Minnow Species Thrive 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Proportion of tolerant individuals 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 # Sucker + Catfish Species 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 % Insectivorous Minnows 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 # Benthic Invertivore Species 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 % Litholphilic Spawners 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 % Parental Care 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04 % Native to Montana 100.0 98.7 100.0 97.4 100.0 100.0 # Long Lived Species 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 Site1 Site 2 Sites Site 4 Site 5t2 Site 5t1 Adjust Adjust Adjust Adjust Adjust Adjust Metrics Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Number of Native Fish Species to Montana 6.9 38.1 4.9 27.0 5.9 32.6 3.9 21.5 7.9 43.7 5.9 32.6 Number of Native Fish Families to Montana 3.8 70.6 1.8 33.7 2.8 52.1 1.8 33.7 3.8 70.6 1.8 33.7 Proportion of tolerant individuals 8.0 91.5 1.0 98.9 0.0 100.0 3.0 96.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Number of Sucker and Catfish Species 2.4 26.4 1.4 15.5 0.4 4.6 0.4 4.6 1.4 15.5 1.4 15.5 Proportion out of the Total Number of Fish That 24.0 33.0 31.0 42.6 58.0 79.7 33.0 45.3 18.0 24.7 60.0 82.4 Were Insect eating Minnows Total Number of Species That Prefer to Eat 3.6 60.5 2.6 43.5 1.6 26.5 1.6 26.5 3.6 60.5 2.6 43.5 Insects That Live on the Stream Bottom Proportion of the Total Number of Fish That 73.0 88.0 65.0 78.4 37.0 44.6 62.0 74.8 81.0 97.7 54.0 65.1 Require Rocks to Lay Eggs Proportion of the Total Number of Individuals 1.0 98.9 3.0 96.6 2.0 97.7 0.0 100.0 1.0 98.9 4.0 95.5 That Do Not Require Rocks, But Have Parental Care of Eggs Proportion of the Total Number of Fish Sampled 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.7 100.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 That Were Native to Montana Number of Long-Lived Native Species 3.3 33.9 640.9 2.3 23.7 558.6 3.3 33.9 571.8 2.3 23.7 523.9 5.3 54.4 665.9 4.3 44.2 612.4 IBI Score 64 56 57 52 67 61 21 Appendix B. Frequencies of fish species occurrence (F of O) across different segments of the Powder River. All sites includes 2 Wyoming sites @ river mile 225 and 235, all MT sites includes sites from river mile 220 downstream to the confluence with the Yellowstone. FofO FofO FofO FofO FofO All Sites AllMT Lower All Sites 1975 BR (n=30) Sites 20rm >20rm sites (n=28) (n=10) (n=18) (n=7) Brassy Minnow' 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.14 Burbot 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.29 Channel Catfish 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.94 1.00 Common Carp' 0.20 0.21 0.38 0.17 0.29 Creek Chub 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.14 Flathead Chub 0.97 0.96 0.88 1.00 1.00 Goldeye 0.60 0.61 1.00 0.44 0.57 Green Sunfish' 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.29 Lake Chub 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.22 0.57 Longnose Dace 0.50 0.46 0.00 0.83 0.71 Longnose Sucker 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.00 Plains Minnow 0.47 0.50 0.00 0.67 0.43 Plains Killifish' 0.17 0.14 0.00 0.28 0.00 River Carpsucker 0.57 0.57 0.38 0.61 0.57 Sand Shiner 0.50 0.46 0.00 0.67 0.14 Sanger 0.33 0.36 1.00 0.06 0.29 Shorthead Redhorse 0.40 0.43 0.88 0.32 0.29 Shovelnose Sturgeon 0.20 0.21 0.75 0.00 0.00 Stonecat 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.22 0.14 Sturgeon Chub* 0.50 0.54 0.13 0.61 1.00 Walleye 0.17 0.18 0.63 0.00 0.00 Western Silvery Minnow 0.60 0.57 0.50 0.67 0.71 Total # Expected Species 7.70 7.79 8.00 7.53 8.57 Total # species >50% 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 'Species not included in the sum for total expected species. 22 Appendix C. Macroinvertebrate taxa lists, abundance and plains MMI table calculations on the last page for each Powder River site. 23 Appendix C. Powder River, Site 1 @ Wyoming border. Targeted-! Riffle EMAP Order FinallD Individuals TolVal FFG Habit Coleoptera Helichus 2 5 sc "CN/75%, CM/25%" Coleoptera Microcylloepus pusillus 7 5 CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Coleoptera Stenelmis 6 5 SC/CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Polypedilum 7 6 SH CN Diptera Hemerodromia 5 6 PR SP Diptera Cricotopus 1 8 CG/SH CN Diptera Simulium 78 5 CF CN Epiiemeroptera Traverella albertana 234 2 CF CN Ephemeroptera Raptoheptagenia cruentata 8 2 PR CN Ephemeroptera Acentrella turbida 1 4 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeroptera Acerpenna 2 4 SC "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeroptera Cercobrachys 3 6 CG "SP/75%, CM/90%" Epiiemeroptera Fallceon quilleri 22 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeroptera Hexagenia limbata 5 6 CG BU Epiiemeroptera Isonychia 15 2 CF SW/CN Epiiemeroptera Leucrocuta 8 1 SC CN Epiiemeroptera Tricorythodes 44 4 CG CN/SP Hapiotaxida Tubificidae 2 10 CG BU Hemiptera Ambrysus mormon 5 3 PR unl^ Odonata Odonata Ophiogomphus severus Stylurus intricatus 2 1 5 PR PR unl^ unl^ Piecoptera Acroneuria abnormis 2 2 PR CN Triciioptera Hydropsyche confusa 4 uni< CN Triciioptera Brachycentrus occidentalis 6 2 CF CN Triciioptera Cheumatopsyche 124 5 CF CN Triciioptera Hydropsyche morosa gr. 3 6 unl< CN 24 Appendix C. (cont.) Powder River Site 1 @ Wyoming border. Reach-wide EMAP Order FinallD Individuals TolVal FFG Habit Coleoptera Dubiraphia 1 6 SC/CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Coleoptera Microcylloepus pusillus 10 5 CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Coleoptera Stenelmis 4 5 SC/CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Potthastia gaedii Gr. 1 3 CG SP Diptera Polypedilum 18 6 SH CN Diptera Hemerodromia 6 6 PR SP Diptera Simulium 5 5 CF CN Epiiemeroptera Raptoheptagenia cruentata 13 2 PR CN Ephemeroptera Traverella albertana 19 2 CF CN Epiiemeroptera Acentrella insignificans 1 4 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeroptera Acerpenna 2 4 SC "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeroptera Caenis latipennis 1 7 CG "SP/75%, CM/90%" Epiiemeroptera Cercobrachys 6 6 CG "SP/75%, CM/90%" Epiiemeroptera Fallceon quilleri 3 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeroptera Heptagenia 6 4 SC CN Epiiemeroptera Hexagenia limbata 3 6 CG BU Epiiemeroptera Leucrocuta 4 1 SC CN Epiiemeroptera Tricorythodes 38 4 CG CN/SP Hapiotaxida Lumbricina 1 4 CG BU Hemiptera Corixidae 1 9 PH/PR SW Hemiptera Ambrysus mormon 4 3 PR unl^ Non-Insect Nematoda 2 5 unk BU taxa Plecoptera Acroneuria abnormis 1 2 PR CN Triciioptera Cheumatopsyche 130 5 CF CN Triciioptera Hydropsyche morosa gr. 7 6 unl^ CN Triciioptera Ithytrichia 1 4 SC unk Triciioptera Nectopsyche 7 2 SH CM/SP/CN 25 Appendix C. (cont.) Powder River Site 2 @ Dry Creels. Targeted-Riffle EMAP Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Name: Powder River@drycreek Benthic Sample ID: 14902 Station ID: YLBLMPW2T5 Rep. Num: Reference STORET Activity ID: PW2T5-M Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/11/2005 Latitude: Collection EMAP_T500 Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: Sample Taxa List Order: OTUname: FinallD: Individuals Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Coleoptera Heiiciius Heiiciius 1 5 sc "CN/75%, CM/25%" Coleoptera iViicrocyiioepus iViicrocyiioepus pusiiius 3 5 CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Coleoptera Steneimis Steneimis 2 5 SC/CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Ciiironominae Poiypediium 5 6 SH CN Diptera Hemerodromia Hemerodromia 5 6 PR SP Diptera Ortiiociadiinae Ortiiociadius 1 7 CG SP/BU Diptera Ortiiociadiinae Parai^iefferieiia 1 6 CG SP Diptera Simuiiidae Simuiium 125 5 CF CN Epiiemeropte Raptoiieptagenia cruentata 14 2 PR CN Ephemeropte Travereiia aibertana 244 2 CF CN Epiiemeropte Acentreiia Acentreiia turbida 1 4 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeropte Cercobraciiys Cercobraciiys 3 CG "SP/75%, CM/90%" Epiiemeropte Faiiceon Faiiceon quiiieri 12 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeropte Hexagenia Hexagenia iimbata 12 6 CG BU Epiiemeropte Isonyciiia Isonyciiia 8 2 CF SW/CN Epiiemeropte Leucrocuta Leucrocuta 4 1 SC CN Epiiemeropte Tricorytiiodes Tricorytiiodes 38 4 CG CN/SP Hapiotaxida Oiigociiaeta Tubificidae 2 10 CG BU Hemiptera Naucoridae Ambrysus mormon 2 3 PR unk Odonata Gompiiidae Opiiiogompiius severus 3 5 PR unk Piecoptera Acroneuria Acroneuria abnormis 2 2 PR CN Triciioptera Hydropsyclie confusa 1 6 unk CN Triciioptera Braciiycentrus Brachycentrus occidentalis 1 2 CF CN Triciioptera Ciieumatopsyciie Clieumatopsyche 105 5 CF CN Triciioptera Hydropsyciie_Cer Hydropsyclie morosa gr. 16 6 unk CN TRICHOPTE Potamyia POTAMYIA FLAVA 2 4 CF 26 Appendix C. (cont.) Powder River Site 2 @ Dry Creel(. Reacli-Wide EMAP Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Name: Powder River@drycreek Station ID: YLBLMPW205 Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/11/2005 Sample Taxa List Order: OTUname: FinallD: Individuals Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Coleoptera Dubirapiiia Dubirapiiia 1 6 SC/CG "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Ciiironominae Cryptociiironomus 3 8 PR BU/SP Diptera Ciiironominae Poiypediium 1 6 SH CN Diptera Ciiironominae Robacl^ia 2 4 CG unl< Diptera Hemerodromia Hemerodromia 3 6 PR SP Diptera Ortiiociadiinae Cricotopus bicinctus Gr. 2 9 CG/SH CN Diptera Simuiiidae Simuiium 21 5 CF CN Epiiemeropte Homoeoneuria aiieni 2 2 CF BU Ephemeropte Raptoiieptagenia cruentata 9 2 PR CN Ephemeropte Travereiia aibertana 35 2 CF CN Ephemeropte Acentreiia Acentreiia insignificans 1 4 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeropte Anepeorus Anepeorus rusticus 2 1 PR CN Epiiemeropte Cercobraciiys Cercobraciiys 41 CG "SP/75%, CM/90%" Epiiemeropte Faiiceon Faiiceon quiiieri 9 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Epiiemeropte Heptagenia Heptagenia 3 4 SC CN Epiiemeropte Hexagenia Hexagenia iimbata 4 6 CG BU Epiiemeropte Isonyciiia Isonyciiia 1 2 CF SW/CN Epiiemeropte Leucrocuta Leucrocuta 4 1 SC CN Epiiemeropte Tricorytiiodes Tricorytiiodes 56 4 CG CN/SP Hapiotaxida Oiigociiaeta Tubificidae 1 10 CG BU Odonata Gompiiidae Opiiiogompiius severus 2 5 PR unl< Odonata Gompiiidae Styiurus intricatus 4 2 PR unl< Triciioptera Ciieumatopsyciie Ciieumatopsyciie 30 5 CF CN Triciioptera Hydropsyciie_Cer Hydropsyciie morosa gr. 16 6 uni^ CN Triciioptera Nectopsyciie Nectopsyciie 4 2 SH CM/SP/CN 27 Appendix C. (cont.) Powder River Site 3 @ Jenl