A Cumulative Biological Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Sites in the Custer National Forest Ashland Ranger District A Report to the Custer National Forest, Ashland Ranger District David Stagliano Montana Natural Heritage Program Helena, Montana February 2010 * UONTASA Natural Heritage Program Natural Resource Information System Montana State Library ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Don Sasse of the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest and Darin Watschke, Custer Fisheries Biologist for support and funding of Amphibian & Aquatic Projects of MTNHP. This project was funded through an ongoing agreement USFS Region 1 Amphibian Inventory Project: 05-CS- 11015600-036 established with great foresight by Ann Carlson and Bryce Maxell. We wish to thank those who assisted us in the field during the course of this project; including Don Sasse, Matt Gates, Ryan Killackey, Kief Storrar, Eric Diallio and others on the amphibian crew. Meghan Burns produced the sample maps and Amandi Standley helped process some of the aquatic macroinvertebrate samples. All photos in the report were taken by MTNHP personnel, unless otherwise noted. Executive Summary The objectives of this study were to: 1) Compile all aquatic macroinvertebrate survey sites within the Custer National Forest (Ashland Ranger District) as a continuing baseline survey and biological assessment; 2) Complete identification and analysis of macroinvertebrate samples collected in 2005 and 2006 that were not processed, 3) test the temporal stability of small spring macroinvertebrate metrics with multiple revisits to established reference sites; 4) Compile all sites sampled from 2004 to present into a comprehensive table of impaired and non-impaired reaches based on habitat and macroinvertebrate metrics; 4) Evaluate management practices that will benefit the long-term sustainability of community integrity at these sites (i.e., cattle exclusion fences, shorter rotational grazing). The goal of this inventory work is to facilitate the Regional Restoration Strategy by filling in gaps in existing data, locating rare elements on the landscape, and identifying opportunities for restoration and management actions. Riparian habitat assessments and macroinvertebrate surveys were performed at 52 lotic (spring/stream) sites and 26 lentic (prairie pools/stock pond/reservior) sites within the Ashland District from 2004-2008. Four stream sites (3 spatially identical reaches and 1 site upstream ~50m) were revisited from 2004 to 2008 (Cow Creek upstream of the reservoir has 4 years of monitoring data) to evaluate the temporal stability of macroinvertebrate metrics for determining biological integrity. Macroinvertebrate Communities: Overall, 132 macroinvertebrate taxa were collected from all sites between 2004-2008 but no USFS species of concern (SOC) or species of interest (SOI) were discovered. A unique caddisfly, Philarctus quaeris that produces its case from snail shells was found in the Little Bear Creek pools in 2008; this permanent pool site maintains a high diversity of macroinvertebrates (32 taxa), including 5 snail species and many aquatic beetle taxa. The only stonefly taxa (Amphinemura cf. banksi) reported in the Ashland District was found at 3 of the most intact spring systems. Average macroinvertebrate taxa richness per lotic and lentic sites was 20 and 16, respectively, and the highest taxa richness reported was 53 at the Otter Creek 2004 site and 38 taxa at 2 spring sites. Using MT DEQ's macroinvertebrate multimetric index (MMI) and the Spring Reference Indicator (O/E), 4 of the 52 lotic sites were ranked non-impaired (excellent biological integrity), 12 were slightly-impaired, 24 were moderately-impaired and 11 severely degraded. Cow Creek above reservoir, Parrish Spring, Prune (Charcoal) Creek Spring and Stocker Branch contain reference condition lotic spring macroinvertebrate communities. While there is no current standardized method for analyzing lentic macroinvertebrates, Cow Creek Reservoir, Mud Turtle Reservoir, and Poker Jim Pond contain highly diverse lentic macroinvertebrate communities, including 5 dragonfly and 5 damselfly species. Cow Creek Reservoir also remains the hotspot for herpetofauna with 5 species reported. In 2008, we sampled 26 sites for macroinvertebrates: 2 of these were site revisits (Cow Creek, Stocker Branch). Taylor Creek, O'Dell, Hazel Creek and Poker Jim Reservoirs were sampled for macroinvertebrates during the 2005 field season and were processed for this report with the additional funding. Community Integrity results from the habitat and macroinvertebrate surveys combined to rank the Cow Creek reach upstream of Cow Creek Reservoir the most ecologically intact site and the reference condition Northwestern Great Plains Spring Ecological System for the Ashland area, followed by Parrish Spring (2008), Prune Spring (2005), Stocker Branch Spring (2004), and the Charcoal Creek (Prune Spring) 2004 site. Lentic (stock ponds) sites with high macroinvertebrate diversity include Cow Creek Reservoir, Mud Turtle Reservoir and Poker Jim Reservoirs. We recommend choosing these as integrator and future monitoring sites and should be managed for their high diversity and integrity as Northwestern Great Plains Perennial Spring ecosystems. Additional sites that have high ecological potential to recover if cattle exclusion occurs include lower Charcoal Creek, Cow Creek below the reservoir, Davis Prong of EF Hanging Woman, Little Brian Spring #1, Brian Spring #2, Ash Creek Spring and Black Canyon Reservoir Spring. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 STUDY SITES 5 METHODS 7 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 10 Habitat Quality 10 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities 12 Macroinvertebrate Metrics 13 Macroinvertebrate Reference Site Comparisons 20 SITE COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS 22 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 28 LITERATURE CITED 29 Appendix A. Macroinvertebrate Integrity of sites sampled within the Ashland District Custer Forest Appendix B. Macroinvertebrate Taxa Lists and MMI data for select reference sites and revisits. Appendix C. Northwestern Great Plains Perennial Spring Ecological Description. List of Figures Figure 1 . Spatial distribution of macroinvertebrate sites within the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest 7 Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled and biointegrity rankings from 2004 8 Figure 3. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled and biointegrity rankings from 2005 8 Figure 4a. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled and biointegrity rankings from 2006 8 Figure 4b. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled and biointegrity rankings from 2008 8 Figure 5. Picture of caddisfly, Philarctus queans from the Little Bear Pools 13 Figure 6. Picture of caddisfly, Hesperophylax designatus from Parrish Spring 13 Figure 7. Sites with NWGP Spring S005 Indicator Taxa 13 Figure 8. Site Revisits during the 2004-2008 study. MMI Score is the DEQ 1998 model 15 List of Tables Table la. Metrics used in 1998 MMI biocriteria and the scoring criteria 10 Table lb. Assignment of impairment classification based on metric performance 10 Table 2. Impairment determinations from the 2006 MT DEQ MMI and O/E 11 Table 3. Reference NWGP Spring indicator species taxa list 14 Table 4. Reference site macroinvertebrate metric comparisons from 2004 to 2008 16 INTRODUCTION In arid or semi-arid regions, spring ecosystems are often the only permanent water source in the uplands, providing essential habitat for myriad aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Erman 2002, Meyers and Resh 2002). They have evolved within a narrow set of environmental conditions strictly dependent on groundwater discharge (Shepard 1993), and can contain truly unique invertebrate fauna compared to surrounding habitats (Perla and Stevens 2003, Sada et al. 2005, Stagliano 2008). Riparian areas adjacent to springs can provide habitat to up to 75% of the available species diversity in arid regions (Shepard 1993). Unfortunately, in the last 200 years, cultivation, livestock grazing and other anthropogenic activities have destroyed 80% of the riparian corridors along North American and European streams and other water bodies (Naiman and Dechamps 1997). Riparian zones are not only highly diverse ecotones (Naiman et al. 1993, Manguson 1999), but present the last interface before particles and terrestrial inputs enter the aquatic ecosystem (Wenger 1999). Human-induced landscape changes may be the greatest contributing factor for the decline of our ecological resources, especially our aquatic ecosystems. Habitat destruction and alteration of the physical structure of the habitat is one of the five biggest threats to aquatic ecosystem health and biodiversity (Karr and Chu 1999). Dramatic alterations of the quality of the watershed landscape will degrade the stream ecosystem it is spatially connected with, including the biological communities (Allen et al. 1999). Within disturbed catchments, a naturally vegetated, intact riparian zone is viewed as critical to maintaining the biological integrity of the stream ecosystem (Gregory et al. 1991). Restoration of watershed conditions to a pre-human impact state is virtually impossible in most aquatic systems (USEPA 1998). A more practical water quality goal would be to reduce the frequency and intensity of disturbances in the watershed. To maintain aquatic habitat integrity, 10-30 meters (35- 100ft) of native riparian buffer should be preserved along all streams, including intermittent and ephemeral channels (Wenger 1999). In a study of Michigan rivers, the number of upstream disruptions to the riparian corridor was more important than the width of the vegetated riparian zone (Goforth et al. 2002). In heavily grazed areas of the west, fenced areas that restricted animals from the riparian zone showed improved stream bank integrity and far less bank failure, thus minimizing erosion (Beschta & Platts 1986). Aquatic macroinvertebrates and fishes are commonly used as bioindicators of ecosystem health, because their abundance, diversity, presence or absence, and community structure are greatly influenced by water and habitat quality (Barbour et al. 1999). Benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring has become a ubiquitous practice among aquatic scientists and watershed managers (EPA 2004). As our knowledge of macroinvertebrate tolerance levels to certain stressors expands, we are better able to make causal inferences when shifts in the community occur. In a Montana aquatic community classification project, Stagliano (2005) defined the Northwestern Great Plains (NWGP) Perennial Spring ecological system, and derived the expected macroinvertebrate communities of reference and degraded stream types. Many of these NWGP perennial spring sites were described from sites sampled in a study performed on the Custer National Forest in 2004 (Stagliano 2004). MT DEQ does not specifically address this ecological system in their macroinvertebrate water quality critieria (Feldman et al. 2006); therefore, an Observed/Expected Score was developed for use in springs of the Northwestern Great Plains. This current study reports on the structure, function and integrity of aquatic communities associated with selected perennial springs and other aquatic habitats of the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest. We examine macroinvertebrate communities in the context of habitat and biological integrity, and the presence of species of special concern (eg. USFS sensitive species) or reference spring ecosystem indicator species (S005 indicators, Stagliano et al. 2006). Future inventory surveys should focus on sampling other spring sites, identifying additional reference sites and monitoring sites with effective management of cattle grazing (i.e. fencing) along riparian areas. STUDY SITES Seventy-eight aquatic sites, both lotic and lentic (Figure 1, Appendix A) were visited during the course of the multi-year macroinvertebrate study; they were chosen with the help of Don Sasse and augmented with our previous experience on the forest. Sites were also screened for the presence of water and accessibility to National Forest Lands. In 2004, 12 sites were sampled (Figure 2). In 2005, 37 total sites were visited (Figure 3); of these 24 stream sites sampled, four (Charcoal, Cow Creek upper and lower, and Otter Creek) were sampled in 2004 and were compared for community stability across time (Stagliano et al. 2006). We additionally sampled Cow Creek upper in 2006 (Figure 4a) and 2008. Twenty-six sites were visited in 2008 (Figure 4b). Streams and springs flowing west and northwest to the Tongue River include Ash, Beaver, Charcoal, Davis Prong of East Hanging Woman, Parrish, Prune, and Stocker Branch. Those flowing east, Cow, Tooley, Little Bear, Brian, Paget and Stag Rock Springs, are tributaries to Otter Creek, which flows into the Tongue River (-20 river miles downstream) at the town of Ashland. Bloom Creek is a Powder River trib and Liscom Butte Sites are in the Pumpkin Creek watershed. Most sites have been described previously, but some of the newer 2008 sites sampled will be addressed in the Site Descriptions. Figure 1. Spatial distribution and biointegrity of all macroinvertebrate sites sampled (2004- 2008) within the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest. Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled in 2004 Figure 3. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled in 2005 Figure 4a. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled in 2006 Figure 4b. Macroinvertebrate sites sampled in 2008 8 METHODS Habitat Evaluation. The evaluation of habitat quality is critical to the assessment of ecological integrity; biological diversity and stream habitat integrity have been shown to be closely linked (Raven 1998). Physical habitat characterization was accomplished with BLM's Habitat Quality Index (HQI) Assessment Data Sheet (Vinson and Hawkins, website, 2002) and EPA's Rapid Habitat Assessment Form (Barbour et al. 1999). Explanations of the habitat assessment methods used on the forest have been addressed previously (Stagliano 2004, Stagliano et al. 2006). Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were intensively collected from lotic systems in targeted riffle habitats (cobble/pebble substrates) using a WildcoDipnet™ with 500-micron mesh following modified EMAP protocols (BLM Buglab website 2002). If shallow riffle areas were not present, EMAP's reach-wide protocol (Lazorchak et al. 2002) was used to sample aquatic invertebrates from all substrates and microhabitats within the reach. For lentic sites and large pools within stream systems, a multi- habitat dipnet sample was taken with 20 (Yi meter) jabs along evenly spaced transects in proportion to the habitat types with a 500 micon mesh, long-handled dip net (following Barbour et al. 1999). Sample processing and macroinvertebrate identification procedures were detailed previously (Stagliano et al. 2006). The use of dragonfly metrics has been proposed in wetland assessments based on increased species richness with aquatic habitat complexity. Therefore, in addition to the larvae, we identified adult dragonflies and damselflies opportunistically during the surveys. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Metrics The Montana DEQ Plains Multimetric Index (MMI) (Bukantis 1998, see Table 1) was previously used for analysis of Custer Forest lotic macroinvertebrate biointegrity, and we will continue to run this MMI in addition to the new 2006 DEQ Plains MMI (Feldman 2006, Table 2) for comparison. Metrics within these MMIs include: total aquatic invertebrate taxa richness (Taxa Richness) and EPT Richness (number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxa). The Montana Invertebrate Biotic Index (MTIBI) was also calculated from each sample. The MTBI calculation involves the use of tolerance values of the organisms (ranked 0-10, based on Bukantis 1998 and Barbour et al. 1999). Invertebrates intolerant or sensitive to disturbances are ranked low (0-3), while those very tolerant to degraded conditions are ranked higher (7-10). The calculation of the MTBI involves multiplying the number of individuals of taxa p) found in a sample (n 1 ) by that taxa's tolerance value (TV 1 ) and summing all ^TV 1 in the sample. Finally, the E n 1 TV 1 is divided by the total number of individuals in the sample (TN) to derive the MTBI for the sample. The MTBI was found to be the most responsive macroinvertebrate metric to habitat degradation and cattle usage, significantly correlating with 1 1 of the analyzed parameters, including the Livestock Use Index (LUI) (Stagliano et al. 2006). The other significant associations with the LUI are percent instream sediments and percent bare ground in the reach, which are typical consequences of cattle trampling in the riparian area. Other metrics and metric scoring are included in Table la. Metric scores are added for the eight macroinvertebrate metrics to obtain a final metric score, and this is compared to a known reference stream: the best possible score is 24. The percentage of the observed score to the best possible score can be used for the assignment of impairment classification (see Table lb). Table la. Metrics used as biocriteria and scoring criteria to determine impairment for the MT Plains ecoregions (Bukantis 1998). Table 2. Impairment determinations from the MT DEQ MMI and O/E (Jessup 2005, Feldman 2006). Metrics Scores 3 2 1 TAXA RICHNESS >24 24-18 18-12 <12 EPT RICHNESS >8 8-6 5-3 <3 MT BIOTIC INDEX <5 5-6 6-7 >7 % Dominant Taxa <30 30-45 45-60 >95 % Collecters <60 60-80 80-95 >95 %EPT >50 50-30 30-10 <10 % Scapers + Shredders >30 30-15 15-3 <3 # Predator taxa >5 4-5 3-4 <3 Ecoregion Mountain Low Valley Eastern Plains RIVPACS >0.8 or < 1.2 < 0.8 or > 1.2 > 0.8 or < 1.2 <0.8 or > 1.2 >0.8 or < 1.2 <0.8 or > 1.2 MMI >63 <63 >48 <48 >37 <37 Impairment Determination Not impaired Impaired Not impaired Impaired Not impaired Impaired Table lb. Assignment of impairment classifications % Comparibility to reference or BPS* Classification >75% Nonimpaired (NON) 54-74% Slightly impaired (SLI) 21-54% Moderately impaired (MOD) <20% Severely impaired (SEV) *BPS-Best Possible Score We can see that taxa richness measures such as EPT, number of Predator taxa, and percent EPT are expected to decrease with increased impairment, while the MTBI, percent Collectors, and 10 percent Dominant taxa will increase. AQUATIC COMMUNITY RESULTS & DISCUSSION Table 3. Reference NWGP Spring indicator species taxa list. Frequency of Occurrence (F of O) and the Indicator Species Analysis (ISA) significance level (++ = < 0.01, + = < 0.05) S005 Indicator Taxon FofO Habitat Evaluations. Overall, three of the 78 visited aquatic sites had no current impairment stressors because they were fenced from cattle. A number of lotic sites (11) were slightly impaired by grazing, but retained good riparian habitat quality or Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) ranked by at least one of the habitat assessment methods. Thirty-five of the sites (54%) were ranked as moderately impaired or Functional At Risk (FAR), and 29 sites (37%) had virtually non-functioning riparian areas and heavily impacted instream habitat (Figure 1). Riparian habitat quality measured by the BLM HQI varied from a low score of 6 in a heavily cow-impacted stream reach (Wilbur Creek Spring) to a perfect 24 at the Cow Creek Upper site (cover photo). The average BLM HQI score for 52 stream sites was 17.2, which indicates that most sites have slight to moderate degradation of the riparian condition. These were usually by cattle intrusions and trampling along the stream, which led to bank instability and failure, increased stream wetted width, pocking and sedimentation. The expected composition of stream benthic substrates in this ecoregion (i.e. Cow Creek, Parrish, and Prune Spring) contains a mix of shale Damselfly cobbles, pebble and gravel, with fines accumulating in depositional areas. Sites that had moderate to severe riparian impairment (Ash Creek, Cub Creek, Liscom Butte, Frary, Tooley, Wilbur Creek spring, etc.) had predominately silted substrates, but cobble and gravels are present underneath the deep depositional silt layer; these sites may improve if cattle exclusion occurs, but without a spring flushing flow, silt and anoxic benthic conditions may persist long after exclusion occurs. Sig. Level Stoneflies Amphinemura cf. banksi 0.75 ++ iviayny Baetis tricaudatus 1.0 ++ Caddisflies Hesperophylax cf. designatus 1.0 ++ Damselfly Argia 1.0 + Beetles Optioservus 0.75 ++ Hydroporus 0.75 + Oreodytes 0.75 + Diptera (True Flies) Caloparyphus 0.75 ++ Dicranota 0.75 + Dixa 0.75 + Heleniella 0.75 ++ Odontomesa 0.75 ++ Ormosia 0.5 + Pedicia 0.5 + Pseudodiamesa 0.75 + Radotanypus 0.75 ++ Tipula 1.0 11 Fish Communities. Otter Creek at the CCC Camp and Beaver Creek at the state section were the only "connected" lotic sites visited that had visible fish populations. Beaver Creek had a lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) population of -70 individuals of various size classes in two large pools (15-20m long) within the reach. Numerous minnows were seen while sampling Otter Creek, but only a fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) was collected during dipnet sampling. Isolated spring-upwelling pools of Taylor Creek (Stagliano 2004) and Horse Creek (Watschke, pers. comm. 2009) contain remnant, but reproducing populations of lake chubs. These are truly unique occurrences within the Ashland District representing a multi-decadal event of colonization during a wetter climate and then an isolation event during dryer climates. Black bullheads were identified swimming in Poker Jim Reservoir, but none were collected. Further investigation into the fish species distribution in the Ashland District was not the scope of this project. Macroinvertebrate Community Diversity: Overall, 132 macroinvertebrate taxa (eleven EPT taxa) were collected from all sites and years 2004-2008, but no USFS species of concern (SOC) E™" or species of interest (SOI) were discovered. At this v9"^ V^^^^^fcjl I level of taxonomic resolution, we seemed to have reached a "plateau" of aquatic taxa richness. Twelve sites in 2004 and fourteen from 2005, yielded 118 f V? ; v- | and 111 taxa, respectively, but we have only " . ,\ accumulated -20 more taxa with the addition of -50 | sites. Additional species level taxonomic work \ | would likely add 50-100 aquatic species to this list, 1 but would require costly adult insect collections and identification. A unique caddisfly, Philarctus quaeris that produces its case from snail shells was I found in the Little Bear Creek pools in 2008, but not from the 2004 sample; this permanent pool site : maintains a high diversity of macroinvertebrates (32 taxa), including five snail species and nine aquatic beetle taxa. (Figure 5). The only stonefly taxa 12 (Amphinemura cf. banksi) reported in the Ashland District was found at the three reference condition spring systems. Amphinemura can persist in springs and intermittent streams through a long egg-diapause period during the summer months, and perform much of their growth in the fall and winter months emerging in May (Stewart and Stark 1993). The S005 reference condition indicator mayfly, Baetis tricaudatus was found at seven of the higher integrity spring sites, and in Otter Creek 2004, but not in 2005. Three mayflies, Callibaetis ferrugineus, C. fluctuans and Caenis latipennis were the most ubiquitously distributed of EPT taxa across the Ashland District, occurring at nine, eleven and 12 sites respectively; these species occupied stock pond habitats and pool areas of Figure 7. Sites with NWGP Spring S005 Indicator Taxa. Excellent = >11 species, Good 9-11, Fair 5-8, Degraded =< 5 streams with aquatic vegetation. The caddisfly, Hesperophylax cf. designatus (Figure 6), a Reference Spring Indicator Taxon (Table 4) was found at eleven springs and streams with at least some clean gravel substrate and large cobbles or woody debris present (Figure 7). Sites containing the most high-integrity spring indicator taxa were predominately in the southwestern part of the Ashland District where shale and sandstone is more prevalent (Figure 7). The maximum number of EPT taxa present in excellent condition springs was four: the stonefly {Amphinemura banksi), mayfly {Baetis tricaudatus) and two caddisflies. An interesting taxon reported from the 2005 Charcoal Creek site, was the Dryopid riffle beetle, Helichus cf. lithophilus, which has not been collected at any other spring site, while two other riffle beetles, Optioservus seriatus & O. quadrimaculatus have been reported from nine spring sites, all with high habitat integrity. Average macroinvertebrate taxa richness per lotic and lentic sites was 20 and 16, respectively, and the highest taxa richness reported was 53 at the Otter Creek 2004 site and two spring sites with 38 taxa. While there is no current standardized method for analyzing lentic 13 macroinvertebrates, Cow Creek Reservoir, Mud Turtle Reservoir, and Poker Jim Pond contain highly diverse lentic macroinvertebrate communities, including five dragonfly and five damselfly species. The damselfly species found in the high-quality springs of the Ashland District is likely Argia vivida, based on an adult identification. Cow Creek Reservoir also remains the hotspot for herpetofauna with five species reported. Macroinvertebrate Community Metrics. Using MT DEQ's macroinvertebrate multimetric index (MMI) combined with the Spring Indicator (O/E), four of the 52 lotic sites were ranked non-impaired (excellent biological integrity), 12 were slightly-impaired, 24 moderately-impaired and 12 severely degraded (Appendix A). Cow Creek above reservoir, Parrish Spring, Prune (Charcoal) Creek Spring and Stacker Branch contain reference condition lotic spring macroinvertebrate communities. In terms of multi-metric macroinvertebrate indices (MMI analysis), 26 sites were analyzed with the 1998 MMI, and most of the 2006 and 2008 sites were evaluated with the 2006 DEQ MMI or the O/E model. Cow Creek upper and Stacker Branch are reference condition sites with excellent biointegrity, while Charcoal Creek, Cow Creek lower and Brian Spring #1 were classified as non-impaired, but not in the reference condition classification. The reason Brian Spring #1 made this category was the presence of the caddisfly, Limnephilus comprising a large percentage of the EPT organisms in the sample, which artificially boosted the percent EPT measure. Slightly-impaired (good integrity) macroinvertebrate communities included Brian Spring #2, Little Bear Creek spring, Otter Creek, Beaver Creek, Paget Creek spring and Stag Rock Spring, in order of decreasing index scores (Figure 1, Appendix A). Macroinvertebrate Lotic Site Revisits. Three sites sampled in 2004 and again in 2005 showed improved macroinvertebrate taxa metrics, while Otter Creek's macroinvertebrate communtiy seems to have decreased in biointegrity (Figure 8). Charcoal Creek 2005 was further upstream from the 2004 site and the BLM HQI improved compared to the 2004 reach. Accordingly 14 additional taxa were reported, and the new site's macroinvertebrate community ranked non-impaired compared to the previous years slightly-impaired MMI rank. The other 3 sites were sampled in the exact same reach, yet still produced different macroinvertebrate taxa results (Figure 8). Cow Creek upper remained unimpaired, had similar MTBI scores, but gained 12 taxa from 2004. Cow Creek lower reported 1 1 additional taxa in 2005 and greatly improved the MTBI score from 6.37 to 4.59, therefore 14 improving biointegrtiy to the low end of unimpaired (Figure 8, Table 6). Otter Creek reported 15 fewer taxa and declined in integrity with the MMI score (18 to 15) causing a shift to slightly-impaired (Figure 8). Figure 8. Site Revisits during the 2004-2008 study. MMI Score is the DEQ 1998 model. f / ./ * * * P> <£ <£ <£ >5^ *~ *~ *~ *~ v v° v v° o* O* o° o° o° o° ,/ ,/ These temporal community changes are found in examining only two years of data. The stream reaches considered for reference sites in a biomonitoring program should be sampled annually to encompass all possible within-site variability, as they are compared to newly sampled sites elsewhere in the watershed. A new site sampled in 2008, Parrish Spring compares very favorably to the other reference macroin vertebrate sites in the Ashland and will also be considered a high biointegrity S005 spring (Table 4, Figure 9). The DEQ 2006 Plains MMI seemed upresponsive to changes in the Cow Creek macroinvertebrate communities and ranks all sites as unimpaired (>37), upstream and downstream of the reservoir despite obvious silt and instream degradation downstream of the reservior and identified by the other metrics (Table 4, Figure 9). The DEQ LowVal MMI is designed to be used in the valleys of the Middle Rockies Ecoregion and therefore is inapplicable here, but I ran the samples to evaluate the response, and this Index seemed to track the community changes better than the Plains MMI (Table 4). We believe the 1998 DEQ MMI and S005 Spring O/E better reflect the "true conditions" on the ground and within the 15 macroinvertebrate communities responding to in- stream and/or riparian conditions (Table 6). The MTBI also tracks habitat conditions better than the 2006 MMI with scores less than 4.5 unimpaired and those >4.5 slightly impaired and scores >6.0 moderately to severely impaired (Table 4). Table 4. Reference site macroinvertebrate metric comparisons from 2004 to 2008. Bold/underlined values are below the impairment threshold for integrity measure (see Table 3) WaterbodyName: Coll_Date Totaljnd DEQ Plains Index DEQ LowVal Index MTIBI DEQ 1998 MMI O/E Parrish Spring 13-May-08 488 63.96 49.84 4.25 22 0.93 Cow Creek above Res t1 20-May-04 491 46.02 31.75 4.45 18 0.79 Cow Creek above Res t2 20-May-05 569 67.70 44.45 4.38 22 1.00 Cow Creek above Res t3 19-May-06 319 76.19 67.76 4.16 19 0.86 Cow Creek above Res t4 12-May-08 600 64.51 40.07 4.38 20 0.93 Cow Creek below Res t1 20-May-04 340 54.03 35.17 6.37 16 0.36 Cow Creek below Res t2 20-May-05 594 64.38 63.01 4.69 17 0.43 Figure 9. DEQ MMI Scores converted to % of reference or best possible score for 2006 MMI (top) and the 1998 model (bottom). Threshold line is 75%. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 X 1=N m E s I KHNff & I I i s § % of Reference Score 1998 MMI Score 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 tfrl I" H u jf o v cr cr cr r d p r 90%) of these have been impaired through a legacy of human activities (i.e. wells, dams, grazing). We recommend that the few unaltered or restored spring systems under USFS management should be further protected and managed to conserve the unique invertebrate fauna that these systems bring to the aquatic diversity of the forest. These specific reference quality sites include: Cow Creek upper, Parrish Spring, Stocker Branch and Charcoal (Prune Spring) Creek. These sites are recommended candidates for reference stream status against all small spring streams (l st -2 n order) in the Custer Forest and should be compared with sites where restoration activities occur to document if management actions are improving the ecological integrity of the system. The Spring Indicator O/E and 1998 DEQ MMI far outperformed the new 2006 DEQ MMI Model and are the recommended methods of assessing spring sites on the Ashland District or elsewhere in the Northern Great plains ecoregion. The reference sites were highest in overall macroinvertebrate and plant community and habitat integrity, except for the some cattle usage in the Charcoal Creek and Stocker Branch riparian areas. Revisits to these sites from 2004 to 2005 revealed a fairly consistent macroinvertebrate community that is stable across most water quality macroinvertebrate measures evaluated. These sites are inhabited by macroinvertebrate taxa found nowhere else in the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest. They represent isolated meta-populations that could recolonize other spring sites as restoration projects improve the habitat preferred by these more intolerant taxa. Furthermore, the only SOC plant species surveyed in 2006 were found at these sites. Additional sites that have high ecological potential to recover to a biologically intact condition, if cattle exclusion and stream restoration occur, include Cow Creek below the reservoir, Little Brian Spring #1, Brian Spring #2, Ash Creek Spring down, and 2004 sites, Davis Prong, Black Canyon Reservoir Spring and South Fork Poker Jim Creek. Perennial spring stream sites with high riparian habitat quality and macroinvertebrate and plant biodiversity were not conducive to amphibians breeding, or their presence. Only after high-impact livestock use causes increased stream wetted width, more emergent in- stream vegetation and increased sedimentation do amphibians begin to use these spring areas, which naturally have narrow, single-thread channels and cobble substrate (see Appendix C). Numerous stock ponds and reservoirs (Cow Creek Reservoir for example) provide ample 18 aquatic habitat and breeding areas for the propagation and life-cycle completion of the herpetofauna of the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest. Additionally, new beaver-ponded areas (Stocker Branch and Cow Creek below the reservoir) will significantly contribute to amphibian breeding areas and could be managed for cattle watering access. Spring seeps and streams in their natural condition were probably always unattractive breeding areas for amphibians, and thus should be managed for their naturally occurring lotic biota. Unfortunately, these macroinvertebrate species are intolerant to disturbance, and unless effective riparian management is performed (e.g. cattle fencing, bank stabilization and riparian buffer planting), eventually there may be no biologically intact Northwestern Great Plains Perennial Spring Ecosystem type left in the Ashland District. 19 Literature Cited Allen, 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: 149-161. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water. Washington, D.C. Beschta, R.L. and W.S. Platts. 1986. Morphological features of small streams: significance and function. Water Resources Bulletin 22:369-380. Bukantis, B. 1998. Rapid bioassessment macroinvertebrate protocols: sampling and sample analysis SOP's. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Helena MT Erman NA. 2002. Lessons from a long-term study of springs and spring invertebrates (Sierra Nevada, California, USA) and implications for conservation and management. In: Sada DW,Sharpe SE, editors; 2002; Las Vegas, NV. 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. 6th Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. 14 pp. Goforth, R.R., D.M. Stagliano, J. Cohen, M. Penskar, Y.M. Lee, J. Cooper. 2002. Biodiversity analysis of selected riparian ecosystems within a fragmented landscape. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes. Report # 2001-06. 148 pages. Karr J. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Lazorchak, J.M., Klemm, D.J., and D.V. Peck (editors). 2002. 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. MTDEQ. 2005. Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning Bureau Standard Operating Procedure WQPBWQM-009. April 2005. Myers, M. 1995. Aquatic Insects in the Springs of the Great Basin. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, UC Berkeley. Myers, M. and V. Resh 2002. Trichoptera and other macroinvertebrates in springs of the Great Basin: Species composition, richness, and distribution. Western N. Am. Nat. Vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1-13. Naiman, R. J. and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 28, 621-658. Perla, B. and Stevens L.E. 2003. Biodiversity and productivity of an undisturbed spring compared with adjacent grazed riparian and upland habitats. In: Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ, editors. Every last 20 drop: Ecology and conservation of springs ecosystems. Flagstaff, AZ: Univ. of Arizona Press. Raven, P.J. et al 1998. River Habitat Quality: The physical characters of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man. Environmental Agency. ISBN 1 873760 42 9. Bristol, England. Sada DW, Fleishman E, Murphy DD. 2005. Associations among spring-dependent aquatic assemblages and environmental and land use gradients in a Mojave Desert mountain range. Diversity and Distrubutions 11:91-99. Stagliano, D. M. 2008. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Inventory & Assessment of Springs and Seeps within Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (BICA). A report to the Western Parks Association and the National Parks Service 16p plus appendices. http://mtnhp.org/reports/BICASprings.pdf Stagliano, D.M., S.A.Mincemoyer and B.A. Maxell. 2006. An Integrative Biological Assessment of Sites in the Custer National Forest Ashland Ranger District. A Report to the Custer Forest Ashland District. http://mtnhp.org/Reports/Custer_Forest_Proiect_2006.pdf 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. Stagliano, D. M. 2004. A Biological Assessment of Sites in the Custer National Forest (Ashland Ranger District) Using Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Stag Benthics, Helena, Montana. 19 pp. plus appendices. Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1993. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). University of North Texas Press, Denton, Texas. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters. USEPA (EPA-840-R-98-001) Washington, D.C. 21 Appendix A. Location, year sampled, biointegrity and quality of S005 indicator species for macroinvertebrate sites sampled within the Ashland District Custer Forest. A=excellent, D=degraded Overall S005 Description Ash Cr north nr. Cook Mtn Ash Cr north nr. Cook Mtn Ash Spring Main Beaver Creek state section Blacks Sawmill Pond Blacks Sawmill Pond below Bloom Cr. In the Powder Drainage Brian Spr. North Nr. King Mtn Brian Spr.North Nr. King Mtn Brian Spr.South Nr. King Mtn Brian Spr.South Nr. King Mtn Brian Spring # 2 Charcoal Creek abv res. Charcoal Creek abv res. 2 Charcoal Prune Spring Charcoal Reservoir Chromo Spring, 1 .1 miles WSW of Ch Cow Creek Cow Creek above reservoir Cow Creek above reservoir Cow Creek below reservoir Cow Creek below reservoir Cow Creek Bog, 0.77 miles ESE of C< Cow Creek Reservoir Cow Creek Spring Cub Creek Spring Cy Spring Davis Prong Hanging Woman Drop Tube Reservoir East Spring below Wilbur Creek Res. Experimental Pasture Reservoir Fairy Shrimp Pools near Antelope Cre Fly Creek Reservoir Fray Pond Fray Spring Hansen Reservoir Hansen Spring Hansen Spring South Hazel Creek Reservoir Liscom Mountain Spring, 0.6 miles Nh Liscom Mtn Spring above rd Liscom Mtn Spring below rd Little Bear Creek Little Bear Creek spring Little Brian Spring Mud Turtle Reservoir Mud Turtle Spring O'Dell Creek Spring O'Dell Reservoir Otter Creek @ old CCC camp Otter Creek, 5.9 miles N of Stag Rock Paget Creek Paget Creek spring Parrish Spring Phillips Butte Reservoir Pierce Reservoir Poker Jim Pond Beaver Pools Poker Jim Reservoir Red Rock Reservoir No. 1 Reservoir, 0.2 km W of Hansen Resei Rocky Crossing Res. Nr. Diamond Bu Latitude Longitude 2004 2005 2006 2008 biointerjritv indicators 45.660655 -106.105216 D D E 45.679935 -106.117189 C C C 45.679952 -106.117693 C C C 45.756660 -106.103550 B B E 45.347543 -106.286742 C B B E 45.348882 -106.285233 C C E 45.233199 -105.899529 C C D 45.406520 -106.219066 C C D 45.406547 -106.218589 D D D 45.405798 -106.218637 B B D 45.40631 1 -106.218395 C C D 45.406094 -106.218378 B B B 45.317911 -106.402658 B A B A 45.318059 -106.402041 B A B A 45.319837 -106.399196 B B B B 45.317060 -106.408480 E E E E 45.429750 -106.216080 C C D 45.307131 -106.234462 D D E 45.309066 -106.249827 A A 1 3 A A A 45.309079 -106.249839 A A 1 3 A A A 45.307470 -106.230170 B C B 45.307730 -106.231400 C C C 45.308049 -106.230963 D D E 45.310392 -106.247343 B B A B E 45.308347 -106.249952 B B B 45.238449 -106.224792 D D E 45.280320 -106.204800 D C E 45.295666 -106.345527 C B B B B 45.392260 -106.173580 C C E 45.590050 -105.934190 D D E 45.312830 -106.315630 C D C E 45.218251 -105.944184 C C E 45.564790 -105.937800 D D E 45.590444 -105.963960 B B E 45.590030 -105.962610 D D E 45.336720 -106.367780 C C E 45.601530 -105.944260 D D E 45.600430 -105.944660 D D E 45.225877 -105.922728 D D E 45.751454 -105.970064 C C D 45.752082 -105.972766 C C D 45.753133 -105.973243 c C D 45.185591 -106.230022 C C C D 45.186390 -106.230027 B B B 45.406730 -106.220385 c C C 45.281280 -105.969480 B B E 45.281920 -105.969510 C D D 45.330964 -106.267876 C C E 45.330590 -106.343830 c C E 45.402940 -106.142320 B c B B 45.405345 -106.143620 c C C 45.367560 -106.217330 B B B 45.366530 -106.214230 c C C 45.301841 -106.343440 A A A 45.263240 -105.964570 D D E 45.285650 -105.955060 D C D E 45.300639 -106.343037 C C E 45.300910 -106.342930 C C E 45.296650 -106.326320 C C E 45.336840 -106.369500 D B C E 45.251301 -105.959518 C C E 22 Appendix A. cont. Overall S005 Description Latitude Lonqitude 2004 2005 2006 2008 biointeqritv indicators Rocky Crossing Reservoir 45.252179 -105.960803 E E E Slough Grass Reservoir 45.262410 -105.954680 D D E South Fork of Poker Jim Creek 45.336810 -106.36488 C C C C Spring off N Taylor Creek 45.270476 -106.080392 C C E Spring, 0.3 miles ESE of Cow Creek F 45.308365 -106.240907 B B B Spring, 3.2 km on South Fork of Poke 45.374360 -106.41264 D D D Stag Rock Creek 45.330117 -106.18471 B B B Stacker Branch 45.335517 -106.326889 C C C Stacker Branch 2004 45.341480 -106.312500 A B A A B Stocker Branch spring on O'dell Creel 45.344694 -106.321021 C C D Taylor Creek Reservoir 45.226416 -105.958564 C C E Timber Creek Basin Reservoir 45.324880 -106.403310 C c E Tongue River 45.365696 -106.49367 C c E Tongue River 45.366777 -106.491162 C c E Tongue River 45.406356 -106.457246 B B E Tongue River 45.411542 -106.457579 B B E Tooley Creek pools sec 1 9 Otter 45.216450 -106.266860 C C c E Tooley Creek Seep 45.211429 -106.237619 C c C Tooley Creek Spring, 0.8 miles ESE c ] 45.215313 -106.271235 c c E Upper Brian Spring 45.404250 -106.226310 D D E Wetland, 0.6 miles N of Yankee Sprin 45.232677 -105.903873 C D E Wilbur Creek Reservior 45.598538 -105.945966 D D E Wilbur Creek Spring 45.590883 -105.965029 D D E 23 Appendix B. Taxa lists and MMI metric information for selected macroinvertebrate sites sampled within the Ashland District Custer Forest. Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Parrish Spring 05/13/200E 1 Total Number of Individuals in 488 Order: OTU name: FinallD Indi vidua Coleoptera Agabus Agabus 9 Coleoptera Hydrobius Hydrobius 5 Coleoptera Hydroporus Hydroporus 6 Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 37 Diptera Ceratopogoninae Bezzia/Palpomyia 1 Diptera Ceratopogoninae Culicoides 9 Diptera Chironominae Micropsectra 16 Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 Diptera Diamesinae Pseudodiamesa 5 Diptera Dixa Dixa 1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Heleniella 1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Paramethocnemus 2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Paraphaenocladius 1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella 1 Diptera Pericoma/Telmat Pehcoma 2 Diptera Prodiamesinae Odontomesa 7 Diptera Prodiamesinae Prodiamesa 2 Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 21 Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 6 Diptera Tipula Tipula 7 Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 176 Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Lumbricina 2 Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Tubificidae 1 Neotaeniogl Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 1 Non-Insect Nematoda Nematoda 12 Odonata Argia Argia 2 Plecoptera Amphinemura Amphinemura banksi 2 Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 123 Trichoptera Psychoglypha Psychoglypha 5 Trombidifor Acarina Lebertia 1 Veneroida Pisidiidae Pisidium 23 Collection Date: ' Val: FFG: Habit: 5 PR "CM(la), Dl.SW(ad)" PR "CM (la), Dl, SW 5 SC "CN/50%, BU/50%" 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP 4 CG sp 4 CG SW CG/SC SP/BU CG/SC SP/BU CG/SC SP/BU CG/SC SP/BU 4 CG BU 5 CG BU/SP 5 CG BU/SP PR SP/BU PR SP/BU 4 SH BU 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" 8 CG BU 8 CG BU SC CN 5 unk BU 7 PR CN 2 SH CN 3 SH SP/CN CG SP 5 PR "SW/1 0%, CN/90%" 8 CF BU 24 Appendix B. cont. Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Cow Creek above Res Benthic Sample ID:17215 Collection Date: 05/20/2004 Total Number of Individuals in 491 Sample Taxa List Order: OTU name: FinallD Individuals Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Basommato Physa_Physella Physella 53 8 CG CN Coleoptera Agabus Agabus 8 5 PR "CM(la), DI,SW(ad)" Coleoptera Hydrobius Hydrobius 3 5 Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 39 5 SC "CN/50%, BU/50%" Coleoptera Oreodytes Oreodytes 1 5 PR "CM (la), Dl, SW Diptera Ceratopogoninae Bezzia/Palpomyia 1 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Chironominae Micropsectra 1 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Dicranota Dicranota 5 PR SP Diptera Dixa Dixa 6 4 CG SW Diptera Orthocladiinae Heleniella 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 3 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Tvetenia Bavarica Gr. 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Pedicia Pedicia 2 6 PR BU Diptera Prodiamesinae Prodiamesa 2 5 CG BU/SP Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 9 PR SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 3 PR SP/BU Diptera Tipula Tipula 6 4 SH BU Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 279 5 CG "SW/1 0%, CN/90%" Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Lumbricina 3 8 CG BU Neotaeniogl Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 1 SC CN Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche 3 5 CF CN Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 49 3 SH SP/CN Trichoptera Psychoglypha Psychoglypha 9 CG SP Veneroida Pisidiidae Pisidium 3 8 CF BU 25 Appendix B. cont. Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody 05/20/2005 Cow Creek above Res t2 Collection Date: Total Number of Individuals in 569 Order: OTU name: FinallD Smittia/Psuedosmittia Individuals 1 Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Basommato Physa_Physella Physella 1 8 CG CN Coleoptera Agabus Agabus 8 5 PR "CM(la), Dl.SW(ad)" Coleoptera Agabus Agabus sp 2 9 5 Coleoptera Hydrobius Hydrobius 5 Coleoptera Hydroporus Hydroporus 6 PR "CM (la), Dl, SW Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 102 5 SC "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Ceratopogoninae Bezzia/Palpomyia 1 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Ceratopogoninae Ceratopogon 1 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Ceratopogoninae Culicoides 4 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Chironominae Micropsectra 8 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 2 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Diamesinae Pseudodiamesa 1 4 CG sp Diptera Dixa Dixa 1 4 CG SW Diptera Empididae Empididae 1 6 PR SP Diptera Orthocladiinae Heleniella 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Paramethocnemus 2 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Paraphaenocladius 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Pericoma/Telmat Pericoma 1 4 CG BU Diptera Prodiamesinae Odontomesa 6 5 CG BU/SP Diptera Prodiamesinae Prodiamesa 2 5 CG BU/SP Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 31 PR SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 6 PR SP/BU Diptera Tipula Tipula 6 4 SH BU Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 149 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Lumbricina 1 8 CG BU Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Tubificidae 1 8 CG BU Neotaeniogl Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 1 SC CN Non-Insect Nematoda Nematoda 7 5 unk BU Plecoptera Amphinemura Amphinemura banksi 1 2 SH CN Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 146 3 SH SP/CN Trichoptera Psychoglypha Psychoglypha 5 CG SP Trombidifor Acarina Lebertia 1 5 PR "SW/10%, CN/90%" Veneroida Pisidiidae Pisidium 48 8 CF BU 26 Appendix B. cont. Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Cow Creek above Res t3 Collection Date: 05/19/2006 Collection MTkick500 Total Number of Individuals 319 Order: OTU name: FinallD Individuals Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Coleoptera Agabus Agabus 1 5 PR "CM(la), DI,SW(ad)" Coleoptera Cymbiodyta Cymbiodyta 1 unk unk Coleoptera Laccobius Laccobius 1 unk unk Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 52 5 SC "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Ceratopogoninae Culicoides 1 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 3 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 2 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Tanytarsus 2 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Pedicia Pedicia 4 6 PR BU Diptera Prodiamesinae Prodiamesa 7 5 CG BU/SP Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 24 PR SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 2 PR SP/BU Diptera Tipula Tipula 10 4 SH BU Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 103 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Tubificidae 3 8 CG BU Odonata Argia Argia 2 7 PR CN Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 101 3 SH SP/CN Waterbody Cow Creek above Res t4 Collection Date: 05/1 2/2008 Total Number of Individuals 600 Order: OTU name: FinallD Individuals Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Smittia/Psuedosmittia 1 Basommato Physa_Physella Physella 1 8 CG CN Coleoptera Hydrobius Hydrobius 5 Coleoptera Hydroporus Hydroporus 6 PR "CM (la), Dl, SW Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 246 5 SC "CN/50%, BU/50%" Diptera Caloparyphus Caloparyphus 1 7 CG SP Diptera Ceratopogoninae Bezzia/Palpomyia 2 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Chelifera_Metach Chelifera 2 5 unk SP Diptera Chironominae Micropsectra 12 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 2 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Diamesinae Pseudodiamesa 3 4 CG sp Diptera Dicranota Dicranota 4 PR SP Diptera Dixa Dixa 2 4 CG SW Diptera Orthocladiinae Heleniella 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 5 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Paraphaenocladius 1 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella 2 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Pericoma/Telmat Pericoma 4 4 CG BU Diptera Prodiamesinae Odontomesa 7 5 CG BU/SP Diptera Prodiamesinae Prodiamesa 2 5 CG BU/SP Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 23 PR SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 3 PR SP/BU Diptera Tipula Tipula 5 4 SH BU Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 120 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Lumbricina 2 8 CG BU Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Tubificidae 2 8 CG BU Neotaeniogl Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 2 SC CN Non-Insect Nematoda Nematoda 21 5 unk BU Odonata Argia Argia 2 7 PR CN Plecoptera Amphinemura Amphinemura banksi 5 2 SH CN Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 68 3 SH SP/CN Trichoptera Psychoglypha Psychoglypha 5 CG SP Trombidifor Acarina Lebertia 1 5 PR "SW/1 0%, CN/90%" Veneroida Pisidiidae Pisidium 32 8 CF BU 27 Appendix B. cont. Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Cow Creek below Res t1 Collection Date: 05/20/04 Collection MTkick500 Total Number of Individuals in 340 Sample Taxa List Order: OTU name: FinallD Individuals Tol Val: FFG: Habit: Amphipoda Hyalella Hyalella azteca 10 8 CG SW/SP Basommato Physa_Physella Physella 123 8 CG CN Basommato Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 22 6 CG CN Coleoptera Agabus Agabus 8 5 PR "CM(la), DI,SW(ad)" Coleoptera Hydrobius Hydrobius 3 5 PR "CM (la), Dl, SW Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 22 5 sc "CN/50%, BU/50%" Coleoptera Oreodytes Oreodytes 1 5 PR "CM (la), Dl, SW Coleoptera Tropisternus Tropisternus 2 PR "CN,SP,CM(la), Diptera Ceratopogoninae Bezzia 12 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Chironominae Micropsectra 6 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 5 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 3 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Orthocladiinae Paraphaenocladius 2 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 9 PR SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 3 PR SP/BU Diptera Tipula Tipula 6 4 SH BU Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 21 5 CG "SW/10%, CN/90%" Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Tubificidae 7 8 CG BU Non-Insect Turbellaria Turbellaria 32 4 CG/PR SP Not in I.T.I.S Acarina Acari 4 5 PR "SW/10%, CN/90%" Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche 8 5 CF CN Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 25 3 SH SP/CN Trichoptera Psychoglypha Psychoglypha 1 CG SP Veneroida Pisidiidae Pisidium 5 8 CF BU 28 Appendix B. cont. Montana Bioassessment Report Waterbody Cow Creek below Res t2 Total Number of Individuals in 594 Collection Date: Sample Taxa List Order: OTU name: FinallD Individuals Tol Val: FFG: 05/20/2004 Habit: Eukiefferiella claripennis grp 1 Pytchoptera 1 Amphipoda Hyalella Hyalella azteca 69 8 CG SW/SP Arhynchobd Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 1 8 PR SW Arhynchobd Glossophonidae Glossophona complanata 10 8 PR SW Basommato Physa_Physella Physella gyrina 5 8 CG CN Coleoptera Agabus Agabus 2 5 PR "CM(la), DI,SW(ad)' Coleoptera Hydrobius Hydrobius 1 Coleoptera Optioservus Optioservus 3 5 SC "CN/50%, BU/50%' Diptera Ceratopogoninae Athrichopogon 1 Diptera Ceratopogoninae Bezzia 10 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Ceratopogoninae Culicoides 33 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Ceratopogoninae Dasyhelaea 4 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Ceratopogoninae Probezzia 3 6 PR/CG SP/BU/SW Diptera Chironominae Micropsectra 44 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 11 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Rheotanytarsus 40 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Tanytarsus 58 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Chironominae Tribelos 2 7 CG/CF/PR BU/CN/SP Diptera Diamesinae Pseudodiamesa 4 4 CG sp Diptera Dicranota Dicranota 1 PR SP Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 22 CG/SC SP/BU Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 11 6 CF CN Diptera Tabanidae Chrysops 2 10 PR SP Diptera Tabanidae Tabanus 1 10 PR SP Diptera Tanypodinae Radotanypus 26 PR SP/BU Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia Gr. 12 PR SP/BU Ephemeropt Baetis Baetis tricaudatus 3 5 CG "SW/1 0%, CN/90%' Haplotaxida Oligochaeta Tubificidae 10 8 CG BU Odonata Argia Argia 13 7 PR CN Trichoptera Hesperophylax Hesperophylax designatus 5 3 SH SP/CN Trichoptera Limnephilus Limnephilus 147 3 SH CM/SP Trombidifor Acarina Lebertia 11 5 PR "SW/1 0%, CN/90%' Veneroida Pisidiidae Pisidium 27 8 CF BU 29 Appendix C. Northwestern Great Plains Perennial Spring Ecological Description (Stagliano 2005). Northwestern Great Plains Perennial Spring Ecosystem Figure A. Cow Creek (S005) reference spring example Custer National Forest. Aquatic Ecological System Type: S005 Figure B. Little Brian Creek Spring (S005) a slightly Impaired example within the Custer National Forest. Ecological Description Summary: This ecosystem is found in the moderate elevation (1000-1600m), upland hill areas of the Northwestern Great Plains. It occurs as small (0.2-2m wetted width) perennial, headwater springs with low to moderate gradient flowing through sedimentary geology. Benthic habitats in undisturbed areas are typically long riffle/ run reaches dominated by shale cobbles and gravel with some woody debris (see Figures above). Environment: Throughout its Montana range, it occurs in seeps and springs within the Custer National Forest, Wolf Mountains and the higher elevation Ponderosa pine forests of the Powder River Basin. Surface topography usually has a moderate gradient or sometimes undulating or hummocky. Disturbance by cattle is widespread, as these springs often represent the only water source in the uplands. Fish Community: This is a Ashless system. Macroinvertebrate Community: The reference condition ecological system (S005) indicator macroinvertebrates include the midges - Odontomesa, Radotanypus, Heleniella, Pseudodiamesa, diptera - Tipula, Dicranota, Ormosia, Pedicia, the snails - Hydrobiidae and Physa; the Mayfly- Baetis tricaudatus, the caddisfiy-Hesperophylax designatus, the Beetles-Oreodytes, Optioservus and Hydroporus, and the damselfly larva- Argia. Sediment impaired and cattle degraded springs will quickly lose the mayfly, caddisfly, and dipteran species (above), and form a community dominated by tolerant midges, biting dipteran larvae (Ceratopogonidae) and air breathing beetles. 30 Range: The Northwestern Great Plains Perennial Spring Community type has been collected in the Custer National Forest, Wolf Mountains and the higher elevation Ponderosa pine forests of the Powder River Basin. Management: Grazing and livestock use around these springs should be limited to a stock tank; immediate spring areas should be fenced to avoid cattle intrusions. Soils adjacent to the springs are often waterlogged and are easily trampled and hummocked by livestock, causing severe streambed degradation, sedimentation, bank failure and siltation downstream. Global Rank: GU State Rank: S3 Global Rank Comments: The number of occurrences is unknown. In Montana, this ecosystem is reported from 50 site visits within the Custer National Forest Ashland District, but only three of these sites contained a high-quality, fully functional S005 community (Stagliano 2004 & 2005, this study). In a similar ecological type, the caddisfly, Hesperophylax designatus was also found to be an indicator species of perennial springs in the Glass Mountains of the Great Basin (UT) in a 1994 survey (Myers 1995). Therefore, this ecosystem may be widespread, but because of the limited occurrence of high integrity sites in Montana, should probably be evaluated for long-term monitoring, and restoration of degraded sites. 31