S lllir l°MT*i^n^^ '■'^''*''^

4^nwliliiiii|iii|||||||i|(||||j)||

333.955

E30AMSP - . I 3 08M"'o014''' 946l"9

1997 ===_=======_

I --7^/

AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY

STREAMS OF THE PLAINS ECOREGIONS OF MONTANA

1995

^'^^^c^Wfwrs

Prepared for the '^^'■^^S mo JF'^Vl'''*'^^'

'^^'^^ 59620

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Planning, Prevention and Assistance Division

P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MX 59620-0901

^"tifcr/CY

prepared by

Wease Bollman and Kate Parkin

Aquatic Biologists

Missoula, Montana

and

Rebecca Spawn, Aquatic Biologist

BlueStem Incorporated, P.O. Box 2432

Bismarck, ND 58502

August, 1997

INTRODUCTION

Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are known to be key indicators of stream ecosystem health (Hynes 1960). Life spans for some of these creatures are as long as three years, and their complex life cycles and limited mobility mean that there is ample time for the community to respond to cumulative effects of environmental perturbations. The analysis of macroinvertebrate communities can thus be related to a stream's biological health, or integrity, defined by Karr and Dudley (1981) as "the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region."

The multimetric approach to bioassessment using benthic macroinvertebrates uses attributes of the assemblage in an integrated way to reflect overall biotic condition. Community attributes which can contribute meaningfully to bioassessment include assemblage structure, sensitivity of community members to stress or pollution, and fimctional traits. Each metric component contributes an independent measure of the biotic integrity of a stream site; combining components into an overall score reduces variance and increases precision of the assessment (Foreetal. 1995).

This report presents multimetric bioassessment data fi-om four streams of the Plains Ecoregions of north-central Montana. The streams were sampled for the first time in 1995 in an attempt to form a baseline against which to compare the data resulting fi-om future collections.

METHODS

Aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled by personnel of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from four Plains Ecoregions streams on July 19 and 20, 1995. The traveling kick-net method described by Bukantis (1997) was utilized. Single samples fi-om six reaches were collected; the resulting samples are described and dated as follows:

1. Corral Creek, near mouth. July 19, 1995.

2. Corral Creek, at mouth of headwaters. July 19, 1995.

3. Marias River, upstream of Dead Indian Coulee. July, 19, 1995.

4. Pondera Coulee, south of Cheek's bridge. July 20, 1995.

5. Pondera Coulee, '/2 mile fi-om Marias River. July 20, 1995.

6. Sage Creek, near headwaters. July 20, 1995.

Macroinvertebrate Sample Processing and Identiflcation

Laboratory and data analyses were contracted to BlueStem Incorporated. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were processed by BlueStem Incorporated personnel using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's techniques for RBP III (Plafkin et al. 1989). Taxonomic identification of benthic macroinvertebrates was subcontracted by BlueStem Incorporated to EcoAnalysts, Incorporated. Chironomidae and Oligochaeta identifications were subcontracted to Michael J. Mcbride.

Sample processing consisted of obtaining approximately a 300-organism subsample and was consistent with RBP III (Plafkin et al. 1989). Organisms were enumerated and identified whenever possible to the taxonomic level specified in the Montana DEQ SOP (Bukantis, 1996).

The SOP requirements for subsampling and taxonomic resolution were strictly adhered to, deviating only when the quality of the specimen was lacking due to missing body parts needed for identification. When organisms were too immature to confidently take to the taxonomic level outlined in the SOP, they were more conservatively identified.

Following is a description of the subsampling procedure: Each sample was rinsed in a 0.5 mm sieve to remove preservative. The washed sample was then transferred to an appropriate size invertebrate sorting tray marked into square quadrants. Water was added to the tray to allow complete dispersion of the sample and even distribution of the organisms. Quadrants were randomly selected and organisms removed from each quadrant until the total number of organisms fell within the range of 270 to 330 (±10% of 300 organisms), or until there were no more invertebrates to remove, whichever occurred first. Any organism lying over a line separated by two quadrants was considered to be in the quadrant containing its head.

Data Analysis

Community structure, fianction and sensitivity to impact were characterized for each subsample using a battery of metrics developed by Montana DEQ for streams in the Plains Ecoregions of the state (Bukantis 1997). Two approaches were employed in the analysis of data for this report. The first approach relied on an ecoregional reference and scoring criteria; metric values were compared to the established Plains Ecoregions reference values (Table 1). Values and scoring criteria were derived from data from the Plains ecoregions and revised by McGuire in his review of 1995. All metrics used by McGuire were used in this analysis. The ecoregional reference approach allows comparison of these sites to plains sites elsewhere in the state.

In the second analysis, an internal reference (Table 2) was established for these streams; a reference value for each metric was established for all sites based on the performance of that metric at all sites studied. The best value, if appropriate for the analysis, was chosen as the point of comparison for each metric used. Tentative scoring criteria for the internal reference were devised from an analysis of the ranges of metric values over a data set gleaned from other sources. Data from 1992, 1993 and 1994 surveys of Plains Ecoregions reference streams (McGuire 1994a, 1994b, 1995) provided fifteen cases, while data from a 1995 survey conducted by Montana DEQ, as yet unpublished, provided nine more cases. The total of twenty-four cases is not a large database from which to establish scoring criteria for streams throughout the Plains Ecoregions; however, a wide range of biotic health was manifest in the twenty-four sites, and it was considered a usefijl starting point for the establishment of tentative scoring criteria for internal references for bioassessments of plains streams. Enlargement of the Plains Ecoregions database, a process already underway, will add reliability to this effort.

For both analyses, actual metric values were compared to the reference values to obtain metric scores (Table 4 for the ecoregional reference approach and Table 5 for the internal reference approach). Total metric scores were obtained by summing scores for all metrics, and an impairment classification and a use support category for each site was derived fi"om this total score.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Macroinvertebrate taxa lists, metric results and other information for each sample are given in the Appendix.

Flgnre 1. Bioatiewmeiit icorei. PUini ecoregloni itreamt, July 19 and 20, 1995

100

Plains Ecoregions reference

Impairment classifications ranged fi^om slight impairment at both Corral Creek sites, the Marias River site and the Sage Creek site, to moderate impairment at a Pondera Coulee site when sites were compared to the Plains Ecoregions reference. The other Pondera Coulee site was rated slight-to-moderately impaired. Figure 1 displays total bioassessment scores, based on the Plains ecoregional reference, for each site.

In this assessment, the highest biointegrity score was assigned to the Marias River site. The biotic index score (3.28) indicated a moderately sensitive community, organic or nutrient

enrichment does not seem to be much of a

problem at this site. A high proportion of the community, however, is comprised of taxa which tolerate sediment, such as Tricorythodes sp., baetid mayflies and the caddisfly Brachycentrus sp. Together, these three make up 69% of the sampled assemblage.

Slight impairment was also indicated by the data from both Corral Creek sites in this analysis, though biotic conditions differ markedly between the mouth and headwaters sites. At the mouth, a high biotic index score (6.59), and high relative abundances of lymnaeid snails and midges (10% and 73%, respectively, of the sampled community) strongly suggest organic and/or nutrient enrichment here. The midge community is comprised of tolerant forms such as Corynoneura sp. and Cricotopus spp. Only three EPT taxa occurred here, two mayflies and one caddisfly. Indeed, the total bioassessment score is deceptively high; high diversity scores and lack of dominance of a single taxon or a few taxa may make the biotic health seem better at this site than it really is. Perhaps these indicate diverse habitat, but moderate water quality and/or thermal impairment.

Near the headwaters, however, the Corral Creek benthic community, though less diverse.

C*mlClL tl beadw tiers I f Mden C»vkc t»alb tf bridge I Sigc Ck. sr. kuAvtUfi

C«nlCk.ftcarB*ilk MtfluK,.ib«veDcftdlB4kB C. FtsdcnCtakcHmLlkMi MitiuR.

is also less tolerant, suggesting that water quality is not as degraded here as it is farther downstream. Some very sensitive taxa were collected here, including a high abundance of the mayfly Cinygmula sp. (17% of the sampled community), as well asAmeletus sp. The dominant taxon is the filter-feeding blackfly Prosimulium sp.(63% of the sample), though, giving some indication that fine organic particles are suspended in a rapid flow.

Sage Creek near its headwaters had a somewhat higher biotic index score, but, compared to the Plains Ecoregions reference, the site was rated slightly impaired. A high relative abundance of the stonefly Hesperoperla pacifica and the caddisfly Brachycentnis sp. suggested that water quality was not a major limitation to biotic health here. Sediment impacts, or other habitat limitations, however, can not be ruled out, almost 63% of the sampled community was comprised of midges. I'rif. ■■

Moderate impairment was indicated at the lower Pondera Coulee site; it received the lowest bioassessment score of any stream in this study (37% of reference). The mayfly Caenis sp. dominated the benthic community here, comprising 69% of the sampled assemblage, and indicating that heavy sediment deposition may severely limit the health of this portion of Pondera Coulee. Warm water temperatures are also indicated. Most of the diversity at this site comes fi"om the twelve taxa of highly tolerant midges collected here. A high biotic index score (6.90) suggests that organic and/or nutrient inputs add to the habitat limitations here.

Farther upstream, the Pondera Coulee benthic assemblage indicates slight-to-moderate impairment. Greater diversity was found here than at the downstream site, but the community was still quite tolerant (biotic index = 6.26), with midges, especially Tanytarsus sp. and Cricotopiis spp. making up 65% of the sample. Some sediment impacts are suggested by the composition of

the community, but

Figure 2. Bioassessment scores, compared to an internal reference. there IS probably a

Plains ecoregions streams, 1995. Stronger impact from

100 I organic and/or

nutrient inputs; six filter-feeding taxa were collected here, including hydropsychid caddisflies and a fairly high abundance (13%) of the blackfly Sinmlium sp.

Cotnl CIc *t hesdwaten I Pondera Coulee >. of bridge I S«ge Ck. nr he«dwatei IntemSI

ConrBl Ck. nr. mouth Mariai R. tbove Dead Indian C. Pondera Coulee V^ mi. fr. Marias R. rf^rprPliri^

Four of the six sites in this study received similar ratings when compared to an internal reference as they did when the Plains Ecoregions reference was used. Figure 2 displays total bioassessment scores for all sites, based on comparison to the internal reference derived fi"om the 1995 data for these streams reported here. Differences between the sites in terms of their overall biotic health became

more apparent when the internal reference was used.

In this analysis, the Marias River was rated non-impaired. The lowest scoring site, Pondera Coulee Vi mile from its mouth, received less than half of the score of the Marias River site. The other Pondera Coulee site, south of Cheek's bridge was rated slightly impaired in this analysis. . >

CONCLUSIONS

• Organic and/or nutrient enrichment limited biotic health at four of six of these Plains

ecoregions sites. Only the site on the Marias River and the Sage Creek site showed little impact from water quality problems. Though near its headwaters, the upstream site on Corral Creek also had some indication of water quality impairment, even though an abundance of pollution-sensitive taxa were collected there.

Sediment deposition may limit biotic health at both sites in Pondera Coulee, though data from the downstream site near the Marias River suggested this more strongly than that from the upstream site. Sediment impacts are also indicated at the Marias River site, and in Sage Creek.

The internal reference derived from the data collected from these streams provided a useful tool for comparison of the streams to each other, and seemed to provide a more discriminating assessment than did the ecoregion reference.

i1!H:,i': -T iH

TABLES

Table 1.	Metrics and	scoring criteria for Plains Ecoregions
	streams (from McCuire 1995).
melric		Scoring Criteria
3	2	I	0
Taxa riclmess	>24	24-18	18-12	<12
EPT richness	>8	8-6	5-3	<3
Biotic index	-M <9	5-6	6-7	>7
% dominaut	<30	30-45	45-60	>60
taxon
%Colleclor(g+ff)	<60	60-80	80-95	>95
%EPT	>50	50-30	30-10	<10
Shannon	>3.0	3.0-2.4	2.4-1.8	<1.8
diversity (log2)
% Shredders +	>30	30-15	15-3	<3
Scrapers _. „		.._,... ...
# predator taxa	>5	4-5	3-4	<3
% niuhivoltine	<40	40-60	60-80	>80

Table 2.	Internal reference values and tentative criteria for assigning scores to metrics based on percent comparability to reference values.
metric	Plains streams internal reference 1995		Scoring Criteria'		*
3	2	I	0
Taxa richness	23	> 85%	85-75%	75-60%	<60%	a
EPT richness	11	> 80%	80-50%	50-35%	<35%	a
Ijiolic index	3.28	> 90%	90-80%	80-70%	<70%	b
% dominant	22	> 75%	75-60%	60-50%	< 50%	b
laxon
%Collector(g+ff)	76	> 90%	90-75%	75-60%	<60%	b
%EPT	85	> 85%	85-75%	75-40%	<40%	a
Shannon diversity (iog2)	3.56	>90%	90-80%	80-70%	<70%	a
% Scrapers + Shredders	21	>70%	70-50%	50-25%	<25%	a
it predator taxa	3	>60%	60-50%	50-40%	<40%	a
% multivoltine	15	>35%	35-25%	25-15%	<15%	b
'1996 Internal reference values are the "best" appropriate values among those calculated from 1995 plains ecoregions streams in (his study. ^ Scoring criteria are based on an analysis of metric ranges for 33 Plains Ecoregions sites in four years of data collected by the Montana Department of Environmental Quahty.
* a = score is ratio of study site to reference x 100.
* b = score is ratio of reference to study site x 100.

'. '>.'

, .^^

8

Table 3a- Criteria for the assignment of support classifications / standards violation thresholds (from Bukantis, 1997)
% Comparability to reference	Use support
>75 25-75 • i . i	FuU support-standards not violated Partial support-moderate impairment-standards violated Non-support-severe impairment-standards violated
Table 3b. Criteria for the assignment of impairment classifications (from Plafkin et al. 1989).
% Comparability to reference	Classiiication
>83 54-79 , .. , , . „ .. ,-. 21-50 r , <17	nonimpaired slightly impaired moderately impaired severely impaired

( ,

4>

a

"«

a e

■&

e u

a e

"2

es

e

*&

e w U

.2

es

a

9i

V)

e

•o a

CM

00 00

— ^roOOOO^ — '^-i

fsmmc-i — mrvi — — >

— O

«b

C/}

2 «^ f^ 2

OS O ON — _

r^ ro ^ <s

"- fo n

On				I~
<ri		^	—		S	m
VO				c»i

^ ON

IS

I

^

a e

*5ii «>

u o w

ja

fi o

•a

V V]

.0

o

u e u

ft)

en

a 4^

00

CO

es ^o

'Ja

TS

a

•c

s a

V5

ON

•S3

I

a e w

s

H

a

J*

w

O ;«

SI

•C

ca

u

o ^

<^ Z:

^^S^s;^^--

rs

00

o

II

u

.a

I B

i a I

O O I

>

H W CQ ^ ^ S^

+

e

V

u O

2 a

(NJNnJNr^lrsm — 0<s

<Nio— "O— 'm — oom

2 S

r-)rv| — m — — r^O — js

E

c

*^ *i

e o

•c

n a

E e w

' e e

•o v

es

M

e e

Sf

e w

U '«

o

(A

E

es

s

V3

e E

v> M

««

O

»; s

"S

>

ON

■o c «

•c

o

•a s

es

V)

es H

3 B

mr^mfSmncNtsnto

^^nmomoomofo

mOOc-)mOfSrom<s

H W DQ

a 00

o|

goo. •5 U w

^ ^ ^

d

Q

^:t'

fs S £^ ^

VO r^ J 05

- "^ ^ -5

00 O "j Oi

- vo E^ -5

r8-2t

S S « 9 c o

■a a S

S.I

UJ

O o .5

fScs — <Smo<SOmr-i

is:

UJ

ill

fSOOOr-lfMOOron

CO <

cu

\ \

r^rJOrocNOmomivi

o S! x

•c I -l i

is

•6 U

■•3 §

S

HW5^^^S^=^^

-« Ol,

a.

P a 5 O

_, u wi "> - o S H 2 ^ o 3

1

!

^

i

LITERATURE CITED

Bukantis, Bob. 1997. Rapid bioassessment macroinvertebrate protocols: sampling and sample analysis SOP's. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Water Quality Division. Working draft. July, 1997.

Fore, Leska , JR. Karr and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. Jounal of the North American Benthological Society. 15:212-231.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1960. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press.

Karr, JR. and DR. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management. 11:249-256.

McGuire, D.L. 1995. Montana Reference Streams Annual Summary: 1994 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data and RBP Criteria Evaluation. Report prepared for the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. May, 1995.

McGuire, D.L. 1994. Montana Nonpoint Source Water Quality Investigations: 1992 Macroinvertebrate Assessments. Report prepared for the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau. April 1994.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter and S.K. Gross. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. EPA. 444/ 4-89-001.

13

1 1 . « J

. it,..; '. .'»

APPENDIX

Streams of the Plains Ecoregions

July 19 and 20, 1995

A-1

Macroinvcrtebrate Taxonomic Data

CORRAL CREEK: near mouth. July 19, 1995.

Taxou

%

BI^

FFG'

Pristiua

Tubificidae \

Lymnaeidae

Physidae

Planorbidae

TOTAL: MISC. TAXA

Sympelnuii

Archilestes

TOTAL: ODONATA

Callibaetis

SiphlouunLS

TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA

Polycentropus

TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA

Dytiscus

TOTAL: COLEOPTERA

Epliydridae

Prosiniuliutn

TOTAL: DIPTERA

Corynoneura

Cricotopus

Limnopliyest

Micropsectra >

Orthocladiinae

Paratauytarsus

Pentaneurini

Polypedilum

Psectrocladius

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE

GRAND TOTAL

	0.37	8	CG
	0.37	10	CG
28	10.26	6	SC
14	5.13	t	SC
	1.10	6	SC
47	17.22
	1.10	10	PR
12	4.40	9	PR
15	5.49
	0.37	9	CG
	0.37	2	CG
	0.73
1 .	0.37	>::i^' .:	CF
	0.37	r
	0.37	5	PR
	0.37
	2.20	6	CG
	0.73	4	CF
	2.93
34	12.45	6	^^ CG
92	33.70	7	CG
	0.73	6	, CG
16	5.86	4	CG
38	13.92	6	CG
	1.10	6	UN
	0.37	6	UN
	0.37	6	CG
12	4.40	8	CG
199	72.89
273	100.00

1 .FilKtioni] feeding fvoup dciignilioni are 9vcn in TABLE A.

3. Bio&c index KotM for individual twtA,u9v«n in Bukanbi, 1997. '"'

I This taxon is not known to occur in Montuit.

I:

IX^

A-2

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data: CORRAL CREEK near mouth. July 19,1995. '^ «^*^^

% of sample used; - — - - 35

Subsample size .^ . --- 273

Taxa richness ■^' ^^ 21

HPT richness " , 3 «

Biotic index . V! ;, 6.59

% Dominant taxon 34

%EPT 1

% Collectors (g+f) ' '; ' 76 '

% Scrapers + Shredders 16

% HydropsychinaeofTrich *viiV 0

Metals tolerance index i 5.78

Shannon Diversity (log2) 3.17

EPT/Chironomidae .02

CTQa 99.82

%BaetidaeofEphemeroptera t 50

% Coleoptera *» ' ' <1

%Diptera ' ; -^ ^* 3

% Chironomidae ^^ ' '^= / ;. ;?.^- =.:, 73

% Ephemeroptera - , , 1

%Plecoptera ^ ; ' 0

% Trichoptera ' ^ <1

% multivoltine ,^7,. *. tAvLM 55

%univoltine v, '«; 43

% semivoltine 1

Functional Feeding Grp. %RA # taxa

Filterers

Collector-Gatherers

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

Est. total number of organisms Est. number collected per foot Est. number collected per minute

'v A-3

1	2
75	12
0	0
16	3
6	3
771
unknown
unknown

Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Data

CORRAL CREEK at mouth of headwaters. July 19, 1995.

Taxon

Nais simplex

TOTAL: MISC. TAXA

Baetis tricaudatus

Diphetor hageni

Cinygmula

Epeonis lougimanus

Ameletus

TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA

Perlidae

Pteronarcella

TOTAL: PLECOPTERA

Lcpidostoma

Psychoglyplia

TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA

Optioservus

TOTAL: COLEOPTERA

Prosimulium

Simulium

TOTAL: DIPTERA

Micropsectra

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE

GRAND TOTAL

%

BI

FFG

16	5.90	8	CO
16	5.90
5	1.85	4	CO
7	2.58	5	CG
46	16.97	0	SC
8	2.95	1	SC
11	4.06	0	CG
77	28.41
1	0.37	1	PR
1	0.37	4	SH
2	0.74
1	0.37	1	SH
1	0.37	0	CG
2	0.74
1	0.37	5	CG
1	0.37
170	62.73	4	CF
2	0.74	5	CF
172	63.47
1	0.37	4	CG
1	0.37
271	100.00		, If

V .•-

A-4

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data: CORRAL CREEK at mouth of headwaters. July 19, 1995.

% of sample used:

29

Subsample size

271

Taxa richness

EPT richness

Biotic index

% Dominant taxon

% EPT

% Collectors (g+f)

% Scrapers + Shredders

% Hydropsychinae of Trich

Metals tolerance index

Shannon Diversity (log2)

EPT/Chironomidae

CTQa

%Baetidae of Ephemeroptera

14

9 3.31

63

30

79

21

0

1.80

1.91

81.00

61.43

16

% Coleoptera % Diptera % Chironomidae % Ephemeroptera % Plecoptera % Trichoptera

<1 63 <1 28

1

1

% multivoltine % univoltine % semivoltine

4

96

I

Functional Feeding Grp.

%RA

# taxa

Filterers

Collector-Gatherers

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

Est. total number of organisms Est. number collected per foot Est. number collected per minute

63	2
16	7
1	2
20	2
<1	1
929
unknown
unknown

A-5

Macroinvcrtebratc Taxonomic Data

MARIAS RIVER upstream of Dead Indian Coulee. July 19, 1995.

Taxon

%

BI

FFG

Liinnodrilus hoflmeisteri

Lymnaeidae

TOTAL: MISC. TAXA

Ophiogomphus

TOTAL: ODONATA

Baetidae

Acentrella

Lpbcinerclla

I Icplngcuiidac

Slenonenia

Leucrocuta

Tricorythodes

TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA

Corixidae

TOTAL: HEMIPTERA

Bracliyceutrus

Hydropsychidae

Clieuraatopsyche

Oecetis

TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA

I leterlimnius

Oplioservus

Hydrophilidae

TOTAL: COLEOPTERA

Simulium

TOTAL: DIPTERA

Ablabesmyia

Cladotanylarsus

Rheotanytarsus

Thienemanoimyia

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE

GRAND TOTAL

8	3.24
1	0.40
9	3.64
3	1.21
3	1.21
16	6.48
2,	0.81
19.	7.69
3	1.21
1	0.81
4	1.62
69	27.94
US	46.56
1	0.81
2	0.81
86	34.82
1	0.40
2	0.81
6	2.43
95	38.46
1	0.40
6	2.43
1	0.40
8	3.24
2	0.81
2	0.81
1	0.40
6	2.43
3	1.21
3	1.21
13	5.26
247	100.00

10 6

4 4 2 4 4 1 4

1

4 5 8

3 5 5

8 7 6 6

CG SC

PR

CG CG SC SC SC SC CG

PH

CF CF CF PR

CG CG PR

CF

CG CG CF CG

2

• f ■ ■ M

A-6

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data: MARIAS RIVER upstream of Dead Indian Coulee. July 19,

1995.

71

- ' 247

' 23 . 11

' 3.28

35

85

83

12

3

3.75

2.98

16.15

86.52

16

3 1 5

47 0 38

10 51 39

% of sample used;

Subsample size ■ - ,

1- - '■ Taxa richness »><

EPT richness

Biotic index ^^ ,

% Dominant taxon

% EPT !

% Collectors (g+f)

% Scrapers + Shredders ^

% Hydropsychinae of Trich ,!

Metals tolerance index

Shannon Diversity (log2) v

EFT/Chironomidae ■'' '

CTQa '^

%Baetidae of Ephemeroptera

% Coleoptera ,..;;.;

%Diptera '^ ■'

% Chironomidae

% Ephemeroptera ! .,

% Plecoptera , ,

% Trichoptera • •<

% multivoltine

% univoltine

% semivoltine

Functional Feeding Grp.

%RA

#taxa

Filterers

Collector-Gatherers

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

Est. total number of organisms Est. number collected per foot Est. number collected per minute

38		5
45		^
0		9
12		s
4	349 7 233

A-7

Macroinvcrtcbrate Ta\onomic Data

PONDERA COULEE south of Cheek's bridge. July 20, 1995.

Taxnii U % BI FFG

Nais variabilis

Sphaeriidae

Hyallela azteca

TOTAL: MISC. TAXA

Droniogoinphust

TOTAL: ODONATA

Caeuis

TOTAL: EPl EMEROPTERA

Hydropsychidae

Cheumatopsyche

Hydropsyche

Hydroptila

Ithytrichia

TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA

Ceralopogonidae

Siniulium

TOTAL: DIPTERA

Cladotauytarsus

Cricotopus

Crico(opus Bicinctus Gr.

Cricotopus Trifascia Gr.

Cryptochironomus

Eukiefferiella

Micropsectra

Peutaneurini

Rheotanytarsus . '

Tanylarsus

Thtenemanniella

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE

GRAND 1 OTAL

t Thi( tnon is no) knomi k) oocur in Montara.

:e

3	1.26
5	2.10
1	0.42
9	3.78
I:	0.42
f	0.42
I«	5.88
14	5.88
2	0.84
f	2.94
2	0.84
7	2.94
2	0.84
20	8.40
10	4.20
30	12.61
40	16.81
1	0.42
39	16.39
27	11.34
16	6.72
3	1.26
1	0.42
1	0.42
1	0.42
4	1.68
52	21.85
9	3.78
154	64.71
238	100.00

10	CG
8	CG
8	CG
•4-..	PR
7	CG
4 '	CF
5w:: ■	CF
,5.s '	CF
6	CG
4	SC
6	PR
5	CF
7	CG
7	CG
7	CG
6	CG
8	PR
8	CG
4	CG
?	UN
I	CF
6	CF
6	CG

A-8

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data: PONDERA COULEE south of Cheek's bridge. July 20,

1995

% of sample used: 10

Subsample size 238

Taxa richness .; 21

EPT richness ■ ' -- ' '6

Biotic index 6.26

% Dominant taxon " ' ' 22

%EPT ; ' 14

% Collectors (g+0 i ■ 93

% Scrapers + Shredders * 1

%HydropsychinaeofTrich 55

Metals tolerance index 5.43

Shannon Diversity (log2) , 3.56

EPT/Chironomidae 22

CTQa 106.43

%BaetidaeofEphemeroptera ; 0

% Coleoptera , 0

% Diptera 17

% Chironomidae 65

% Ephemeroptera ' ' 6

% Plecoptera 0

% Trichoptera 8

% multivoltine 53

% univoltine . f- . ^g

% semivoltine 1

Functional Feeding Grp. %RA # taxa

Filterers

Collector-Gatherers

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

Est. total number of organisms Est. number collected per foot Est. number collected per minute

41	6
52	12
0	0
1	1
6	3
2285
unicnown
unknown

A-9

;»(?>)'/'

Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Data . -

PONDERA COULEE 'A mile from Marias River. July 20, 1995.

Taxnn M. % BI FFfi

Nais variabilis

Tubificidae

Physidae

TOTAL: MISC. TAXA

Caenis 179 69.38 ..^ . 7 CG

TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA

Corixidae 11 4.26 8 PH

TOTAL: HEMIPTERA

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

Simulium

TOTAL: DIPTERA

Cricolopus

Cricotopus Bicinclus Gr.

Cryptochironomus

Micropsectra

Parakiefferiella

Paralauterbomiella

Potthastia Longimana Gr.

Pseudochironomus

Pseudosniittia

Rbeotauytarsus

Tanytarsus

Thieuemamiimyia

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE

GRAND TOTAL

f ■■

. U

*■)

0 V)

! i>

	1.16
	2.71
	0.39
11	4.26
179	69.38
179	69.38
n	4.26
11	4.26
	0.39
	1.16
	1.16
	2.71
	1.16
	3.10
	2.33
11	4.26
	0.39
	0.39
	0.39
	3.10
	0.39
	0.39
	3.10
f ' ''	0.39
50	19.38
258	100.00

10	CG
10	CG
8	SC

li	UN
6	PR
5	CF
7	CG
7	CG
8	PR
4	CG
6	CG
8	CG
2	CG
5	CG
6	CG
6	CF
6	CF
6	CG

A-10

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data: PONDERA COULEE V^ mile from Marias River. July 20, 1995.

% of sample used:

79

Subsample size

258

Taxa richness

EPT richness

Biotic index

% Dominant taxon

% EPT

% Collectors (g+f)

% Scrapers + Shredders

% Hydropsychinae of Trich

Metals tolerance index

Shannon Diversity (log2)

EPT/Chironomidae

CTQa

%Baetidae of Ephemeroptera

('-V

■-;' ■!

18 1

6.90

69

69

91

<l

n.a. 3.53 2.04 3.58 106.11

0

% Coleoptera % Diptera % Chironomidae % Ephemeroptera % Plecoptera % Trichoptera

% multivoltine % univoltine % semivoltine

0 3 19 69 0 0

85

0

Functional Feeding Grp.

%RA

# taxa

Filterers

Collector-Gatherers

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

Est. total number of organisms Est. number collected per foot Est. number collected per minute

5		3
S7		12
0		0,
<1		1,
3	326 unknown unknown	1.

A-11

Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Data

SAGE CREEK near headwaters. July 20, 1995.

Taxon

%

_BL

FFP,

Acari

TOTAL: MISC. TAXA

Baetis tricaudatus

Diphelor hageni

TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA

Aniphinemura

I Icspcropcria pacifica

Pteroiiarcella

TOTAL: PLECOPTERA

Bracliycentrus

TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA

Curculioiiidae

Heterlimuius

TOTAL: COLEOPTERA

Pericoma

Prosimuliuin

Antocha

Dicranota

TOTAL: DIPTERA

Cricolopus

Diamesa

EukiefTeriella

Orthocladiinae

Orthocladius

Tvetenia

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE

GRAND TOTAL

1	0.37
1	0.37
8	3.00
1	0.37
9	3.37
3	1.12
44	16.48
5	1.87
52	19.48
18	6.74
18	6.74
3	1.12
4	1.50
7	2.62
1	0.37
I	0.37
3	1.12
7	2.62
12	4.49
29	10.86
15	5.62
11	4.12
91	34.08
19	7.12
3	1.12
158	62.92
267	100.00

PA

4^'	CO
5	CO
2	SH
1	PR
4	SH

OF

11	SH
3	CG
4	CG
4	CF
3	CG
3	PR
7	CG
5	CG
8	CG
6	CG
6	CG
5	CG

IT-V

A-12

•

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Data: SAGE CREEK near headwaters. July 20, 199S.

% of sample used: 1 5

Subsample size _ 267.

Taxa richness i » ' ' ' 19

EPT richness 6

Biotic index 4.63

% Dominant taxon 34

% EPT " 30

% Collectors (g+f) .' > 76

% Scrapers + Shredders • ': '4

% Hydropsychinae of Trich 0

Metals tolerance index ' . 5.31

Shannon Diversity (log2) \ '- 3.16

EPT/Chironomidae .47

CTQa 70.44

%Baetidae of Ephemeroptera ' 100

r

% Coleoptera '3

% Diptera 4 ^

% Chironomidae 63

% Ephemeroptera ^ '.''. . ^

%Plecoptera "' 19

% Trichoptera , 7

% multivoltine ,, , , 50

% univoltine 7$

% semivoltine 15

Functional Feeding Grp. %RA # taxa

Filterers

Collector-Gatherers

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

Est. total number of organisms Est. number collected per foot Est. number collected per minute

7	2
m	tl
4	J
0	0
19	%
1831
unknown
unknown

A-13

TABLE A. Functional Feeding Groups

Abbreviation	Description
CF	Collector - filterer
CG	Collector - gatherer
OM	Omnivore
PA	Parasite
PR	Predator
SC	Scraper
UN	Unknown |
1 SH	Shredder |

A- 14

Acceptable v Needs revision Reject

Contractor Report Evaluation Form date: ^ / ^^-pif 'J

Contractor: h 1 k^^ Sir^iy\

Report Title: S-Jn-c^^^^ i>'^'(i^.>^^ Pilcoro^o^co^ j / ? ?S^ Report Date: A-^^ ^93^ reviewed by: ♦Vftr-- I^l^L-^^^j ^ QUESTIONS, REVISION JffiC^lJ^MENTS:

LC-

Subsampling

1 . Did the contractor follow the specified sub-sampling procedures? y^

2. Are subsamples in the range of 270-330 organisms? /---^

3. Is the proportion of the sample that the contractor subsampled documented? J^

Taxonomy - — — — .---

3. Is the taxonomic resolution consistent with the SOP's?

U-

Data Analysis

4. Is the correct set of metrics used for impairment rating? i^

5. Was an appropriate reference used for the analysis? l^

6. Did the contractor use replicate information in evaluating the level of resolution if appropriate? /i^j4-

7. For reports where time trends are being evaluated: Did the contractor account for any differences in taxonomic resolution between years, etc? , ^