Evaluation of Salmonflies in Montana's Rivers: Are Statewide Populations
Really Declining?
David Stagliano, Montana Natural Heritage Program
The fabled salmonfly hatch on Montana's rivers can be an exciting and frustrating angling
experience all rolled into one; exciting because huge trout can be coaxed to the surface by
giant dry flies (size 4 or 6's) and frustrating because, oftentimes, this sporadic hatch coincides
with spring run-off, murky water and less than ideal fishing conditions. To add to the
exasperation, a thousand like-minded fishermen from all parts of Montana and adjacent states
are invading your favorite stretch of river. Successfully "hitting" the salmonfly hatch is both
an art and a science; mixed with a lot of luck. Arrive too early and the fish are still focused
on underwater nymphs; too late and the trout have stuffed themselves silly, already seen a
thousand artificial stoneflies float overhead and are now extra selective when deciding to eat
one more "floating steak", as I've heard these insects referred.
Background: Montana's rivers provide habitat for three salmonfly species: the famous,
giant salmonfly (Pteronarcys californica), the lesser known American salmonfly
(Pteronarcys dorsata) and the smaller, least salmonfly (Pteronarcella badia) which can
tolerate warmer water temperatures than the other two species. Ideal water temperature
for P. californica development is 55.4-58° F, while P. badia is a presumably a few
degrees warmer. These salmonfly species occur in many rivers across the state and co-
occur in some (Figures 1 & 2, Appendix A & B), but only in a few rivers are they
abundant enough to present anglers a worthwhile hatch. All three species have
conservation ranks of G5 (NatureServe 2010), which means they are globally common
and are yet to be ranked at the state level. Gaufin et al. (1972) cite the Missouri River in
Cascade Co. as Montana's only distribution of the American salmonfly, but more recent
studies report this species present in the lower Smith River as well (Bollman 2000).
Salmonflies are easy to identify mostly by their tremendous size; these stoneflies (Order
Plecoptera: Family Pteronarcyidae) often measure nearly three inches in length. As
adults, they have a bright orange or red band behind the head and the underside of
abdomen with broad wings containing dark veins. Salmonfly nymphs live on the
bottom, crawling around on cobbles and feeding on large organic materials (leaves) in
the spaces between rocks for three to sometimes four years. They require well-
oxygenated water, so they thrive in swift, bouldery, riffly stretches of the river; narrow
canyon reaches such as Yankee Jim Canyon of the Yellowstone, Alberton Gorge of the
Clark Fork River, Big Hole Canyon between Glen and Wise River or Bear Trap Canyon
of the Madison are ideal habitat.
Last season's tremendous salmonfly hatch on the Big Hole River surprised a lot of anglers in
its extent and duration. "Many of our customers experienced their best success fishing the
hatch in decades." said Roger Oettli of Great Divide Outfitters. Before this past spring's great
hatch on the Big Hole, anecdotal and perhaps some scientific evidence exists that have lead
many fishermen and fishing guides to declare that the salmonfly hatches occurring recently:
"Are not what they used to be"and "in decline". Mark Canfield, a former fishing guide on
the Smith and Missouri Rivers, as well as having a background in aquatic biology, reported to
Figure 1. Salmonfly (Pteronarcys californica and P. dorsata) locations across Montana with
abundance determined by numbers in benthic samples.
Salmonfly Sites
• Abundant
• Common
Rare
Figure 2. Least Salmonfly {Pteronarcella badia) locations across Montana with abundance
determined by numbers in benthic samples.
Pteronarcella badia
•
Abundant
•
Common
O
Rare
me recently that many stonefly populations have undergone significant shifts since his years
of guiding. "I used to regularly sample insect densities in repeated locations along the Smith
River", Mark recounts "There have been some fairly radical changes on this river since
"peak health" in 1992", not the least of which is the steady decline in the populations of the
salmonfly. By Mark's sampling data, salmonfly densities in the upper Smith are now less
than 10% of what they were in 1992-93 and in some reaches have disappeared altogether (see
Smith River section). This apparent reduction of salmonflies has also been theorized to be
occurring in many of our famous trout rivers including the Big Hole, Madison and Rock
Creek. Are these reductions scientifically significant and credible or are they merely naturally
occurring fluctuations and cyclical events overstated in their severity? It is not debatable that
the cumulative effects of drought, dewatering and warmer water temperatures are surely
implicated in the cause of many of the biological changes seen in rivers across the state (i.e.
Big Hole grayling), but are they quantifiable for species of aquatic insects. Our goal of this
study is to: (1) summarize salmonfly survey locations in the state's rivers; (2) summarize
locations of long term data sets, (3) identify locations where long term trends with similar
methods could be compared to determine significantly positive, negative or no changes, (4)
survey public and professional anglers to obtain opinions on insect populations in the rivers
hey spend time on.
Data Compilation
Numerous credible macroinvertebrate data sources (monitoring of aquatic insect populations
by MT DEQ, PPL and other agencies) exist for many of our large trout streams and rivers to
provide a scientific basis of water quality changes. I surmised that if sampled consistently,
these multi-year data sets could be used to detect stonefly population trends; unfortunately
many of these data sets are not as long-term as expected, and some data was unable to be
obtained from the funding agency (PPL and BHRF) because of propriety issues or refusal.
Data that are buried in technical reports, theses or in paper form sitting in filing cabinets were
usually accessible and transcribed into the database. The goal of this effort is to mine data
and compile enough scientifically credible data sources (into one place, see Table 1) across
multiple heavily-fished, high-profile trout rivers (Big Hole, Clark Fork, Gallatin, Madison,
Rock, Smith and Yellowstone Rivers) to make the determination if salmonfly populations are
significantly increasing, declining or have remained stable. We are housing all data compiled
in a publically accessible searchable database and web-enabled framework
( http : //mtnhp . org/Tracker/NHTMap . aspx ) and added additional information to the jointly
managed (w/ MTFWP) Field Guide http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail IIPLE2V020.aspx . We
realized quickly in this process that many rivers fail to have consistent long-term data
collected at particular sites over time; large spatial and temporal gaps exist in the data to
render them useless for serious scientific analysis. One data set that is exceptional in its long-
term completeness, replication and repeatability is a data series from six sampling sites on the
Clark Fork River from 1956-2007 (Rhithron 2010-2 sites have all years included).
Taxonomic reliability is always a concern in compiling data across numerous studies, some
project efforts identified taxa to genus, others stopped at family, while others identified most
to the species level. Since there are only two species of the genus Pteronarcys in MT with
one species P. dorsata seemingly restricted to the Missouri and Smith Rivers, all reports of
Pteronarcys (left at the genus level) in macroinvertebrate samples from other locations where
upgraded to the species level for the sake of analysis. Any taxon in datasets labeled
Pteronarcella was upgraded to P. badia, since this is the only species recorded for the state
(Gustafson 2010).
Table 1. Salmonfly study data aquisition summary for the majo
* rivers investigated. DEQ= Montana
Department of Evironmental Quality, BHRF=Big Hole River Foundation, MSU=
Montana State University
projects, UM=Univerisity of Montana projects, PPL=Pennsylvania Power and Light
#of
Sample
# with >1
Years
Data
Data Source(s)
Waterbody
Sites
year data
Covered
Accessible
Big Hole River
10
8
2002-pres
yes/no
DEQ/BHRF
Clark Fork River
14
6
1957-2007
yes
Rhithron/DEQ
Gallatin River
12
6
1990-2008
yes
DEQ/Rhithron
Madison River
8
6
1997-pres
yes
DEQ/PPL consultant
Rock Creek
3
2
2000-2008
yes
DEQ/UM
Smith River
8
4
1991-pres
yes
DEQ/NHP/consultant
Yellowstone River
16
16
1971-2005
yes
DEQ/USGS/EPA/ MSU/
consultant
Seasonal Data Factors
Because salmonflies hatch in late spring to early summer, adult reproduction, egg laying and
1st instar nymph development is taking place during the protocol index time period of
macroinvertebrate sampling (June-September). Therefore, this year-class of nymphs is very
small during July or August collections and may not even be recognized as members of the
Pteronarcyidae stonefly family; this could greatly affect their recorded presence in a sample as
occupying a stream reach. Nymphs of the last 2 years hatch are large, but potentially very
low in density after being preyed upon by trout and other fish for multiple growing seasons.
Therefore, the best sampling period to increase the potential of collecting and detecting
salmonfly nymphs would be pre-runoff months of April or May.
Public & Professional Opinion Survey
I randomly identified 15 professional fishing guide/outfitter operations, 10 general public
anglers and 10 fisheries biologists in the river basins of interest and emailed them a short
survey questionnaire. If any participant that was contacted replied back to "opt out", either by
saying that they do not fish anymore or that they couldn't add any information to the study, I
selected another person and that "opt out" was not included in the response rate. We wanted
to gauge the correlation of responses to the actual data for particular rivers in the state.
Questions included:
1) How many years have you been fishing? How many in Montana?
2) Which do you consider is your "home" river in Montana, where you spend the
most time fishing?
3) Do you target the salmonfly hatch on this river?
4) If not, why?
5) If yes, in your opinion, has the salmonfly hatch numbers on this river decreased,
increased, stayed about the same?
6) Do you travel to another Montana River to target the salmonfly hatch, if so which
river?
7) In your opinion has the salmonfly hatch numbers on this river decreased,
increased, stayed about the same?
8) Some fisherman say the salmonfly hatches 15-20 years ago on the Big Hole,
Madison and Yellowstone were more abundant, "epic" even. Have you heard
this? Do you agree or disagree?
9) What are some biological (insect or fish) related changes you have noticed on
your home river since you've been fishing?
10) What factor do you contribute most to these changes? Drought, climate change,
fishing pressure, or some other factor.
Big Hole River
The salmonfly hatch on the Big Hole is nationally famous and generally occurs earlier than
the hatch on the Madison River, so it seems that this river gets an inordinate amount of
attention from outfitters and guides. The hatch moves upstream from the confluence with the
Beaverhead all the way up to Wisdom by about four to five miles a day depending on the
weather, although the heaviest densities are in the canyon reach from Glen to Wise River.
Roger Oettli of Great Divide Outfitters reported the first salmonflies started emerging at
Brownes Bridge on June 14, 2010 (GDO website). Long term benthic macroinvertebrate data
for the Big Hole is surprisingly spotty and altogether lacking in sections for such a famous
river. MT DEQ has data collected for ten sites from the upper to lower mainstem, but these
collections only occurred in 2002 for 9 of these and 2003 & 2004 for the one site in Wise
River. Five of the 10 DEQ sampling stations collected the salmonfly (avg. 1.4 individuals per
sample). A study funded by the Big Hole River Foundation in 2002 sampled 8 sites along the
Big Hole from High Road Fishing Access to Wisdom Bridge (McGuire 2002). That study
was renewed in 2007 and now they have added additional sites and 4 years of
macroinvertbrate data at the same sites as the 2002 study (Mike Bias, pers. comm., did not
provide data). This data set will be beneficial to acquire to determine if populations of
salmonflies have recovered from the effects of the drought. Despite this optimistic view of
the last couple of good water years and subsequent abundant salmonfly hatches, the last 10+
years of drought have taken a serious toll on the Big Hole's aquatic communities. In sections
where habitat has not been altered and where the effects of drought are tempered by reduced
demands for irrigation water and hydrogeology (canyons), the quantity of salmonflies that
hatch appear fairly stable from year to year. A fisheries professional commented, "In sections
where sediment deposition has occurred and interstitial spaces are now filled (Melrose to
Browns Bridge, in particular) the hatch has been diminished. The 'marginal' low-gradient
habitats (downstream of Melrose) that used to consistently produce hatches now produce
hatches that are sporadic and inconsistent. Consequently, the hatch appears limited or
restricted to river sections where habitat is ideal and stable - with the canyon section being
the best."
Conclusion: There are no long term macroinvertebrate data sets available pre-2000 within
the Big Hole River Section between Wise River and Melrose to definitively conclude that
populations of the giant salmonfly are fluctuating beyond normal natural variability. The
macroinvertebrate sample sites above Wise River were ranked as impaired and had minimal
salmonfly populations (McGuire 2003), likewise the five DEQ sample sites reporting
salmonflies averaged 1.4 individuals per site, but these data collection years (2002-2004)
were at the height of the drought, which may have caused temporary population reductions of
these intolerant, long-lived stoneflies.
Clark Fork River
Until 1972 the Clark Fork River was plagued by severe water pollution that often made the
water run red in color; all the aquatic life was wiped out in the upper river for about 100 miles
downstream of Butte. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the entire
upper Clark Fork River a Superfund Site and from Butte to Milltown Dam it is the nation's
largest pollution abatement project. The ecology of the Clark Fork has been gradually
improving since then and now boasts respectable trout fishing and some trophy-class brown
trout, especially downstream of Missoula. Tributary streams with good water quality (ex.
Little Blackfoot, Rock Creek) have mediated the detrimental, chronic effects of mining as you
proceed downstream. Despite improvements in some sections, fishing in the Clark Fork River
from Beavertail State Park past Rock Creek to Schwartz Creek Bridge has declined in the last
number of years; however, with the right conditions, this section can be outstanding during
the salmonfly hatch (RCO website). MT FWP data document this low fish density in the
section (Saffel et al. 2010). In the past, non-degraded tributary streams and rivers provide
macroinvertebrate colonization pools to "restock" the mainstem Clark Fork River when a
chemical or metals pollution spike occurs from a summer deluge or other sediment washing
event. A couple of fairly recent (70' s and 80' s) fish kills in the river have undoubtedly had
similar drastic effects on the recovering sensitive benthic macroinvertebrate fauna. During
the years of 1974, 1978 & 1979, we see negative population shifts by salmonflies at four
separate sampling locations above and below Missoula (see Figures 3-5); some of these
populations have not recovered to the present. Salmonflies have been shown to be very
sensitive to chemical pollutants, but one would think that given all these years a recovery
would have happened. This suggests a continual source of pollution or something else that
prevents their establishment. The least salmonfly has not appeared to have been affected as
dramatically as the giant salmonfly (Figure 3 & 4). Salmonflies are not the best fliers, so
dispersal would likely be slow, but after 30 years they should have made some inroads into
reestablishing the populations from downstream or tributary streams. Having this long-term
dataset (1956-2007) that utilized the same sampling protocols across all years was vital in
detecting these changes. Therefore, I think we can conclude without a doubt that the Clark
Fork River's salmonflies have significantly decreased in numbers since data has been
collected at sites above and below Missoula. Without the long-term data, we would've never
known the numbers of salmonflies were improving in river sections and then wham;
populations got reduced drastically by a dose of something from upstream, never to return
again.
Conclusion: Clark Fork salmonfly populations from Butte to Missoula were initially wiped
out 100 years ago during the rampant mining days. In the Missoula area, salmonflies
appeared to have been making a comeback in the reach from about Rock Creek downstream
until the 1970's, when additional chemical/toxic pollution washed in from upstream and may
be the reason populations were decimated again. Populations of salmonflies in the Alberton
Gorge seem to be holding steady with review of the limited DEQ data collected in this river
section.
Figure 3. Giant salmonfly (top) and Least salmonfly (bottom) sampling data below Missoula
14
12
Pteronacys californica @ Clark Fork River nr Frenchtown
o# o.<3* oS? c& <& <& JP
ns
"3
15
■D
>
■D
C
10
Year
Figure 4. Giant salmonfly (top) and Least salmonfly (bottom) sampling data above Missoula
8
7
« 6
Q.
E
re c
CO 5
L.
Q)
a 4
u>
re
£ 3
>
= 2
Pteronacys californica @ Clark Fork River nr Okeefe Creek
■ .■■.■Ttm I i kj i ^M^ M
■ i MT^Tm ,
<£ J? ^ c^ # <$V ^
Year
Pteronarcella badia (5) Clark Fork River nr Okeefe Creek
30
25
/ ^ ^ ^ ^ / ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ / ^ / /
Year
Figure 5. Giant salmonfly collection data at 2 more sites below Missoula
Pteronacys californica @ Clark Fork River Harpers Bridge
<# <£* <# & <*>* <# <& ^ & A* «£* «£* <# jP' ^ «*?» J> ^ # ^
Year
1.2
Pteronarcys californica @ Clark Fork River, Sherman Gulch
Year
10
Gallatin River
The Blue Ribbon Gallatin River's June/July hatch of salmonflies is spotty and usually occurs
during the June high run-off period; thus, even Bozeman area guides said that they don't
focus on the hatch (Robin Cunningham, Outfitter, pers. comm.). This lack of interest could
also be a result of the Gallatin River from Yellowstone Park to the East Gallatin confluence
being closed to float fishing (but not recreational floating) (Big Sky Fishing website).
Of the 12 identified macroinvertebrate sample
sites along the Gallatin River only 6 of these have
multi-year datasets, and 3 of these are MT DEQ
monitoring sites further downstream near
Interstate 90 and after the East Gallatin enters the
mainstem which contain no salmonflies. Three
sites further upstream in the canyon reach focus
on monitoring changes in the Gallatin River
around the Big Sky area (Blue Water Task Force,
Rhithron 2010), but this data has such large
temporal gaps (Table 2 & 3) or doesn't go back
far enough (Table 4) that making any statements
about the salmonfly populations would be pure
speculation. The only conclusions to draw from
these data are that salmonflies are still present at
all sites and the Gallatin River near Spanish
Creek appears to have a higher density
Conclusion: We do not have sufficient data to
definitively conclude that populations of the giant
salmonfly are fluctuating beyond normal natural
variability within the Gallatin River Canyon
where data is available. There is one fairly long
term macroinvertebrate data set (2000-2008, MT
DEQ) at the downstream end of the Gallatin
River where salmonfly populations are absent.
Table 2. Pteronarcys californica in
Gallatin River nr. Jack Smith Bridge
Year
1991
2007
2008
Individuals
per Sample
1
1.5
1
#of
Samples
2
2
2
Table 3. Gallatin River up. Spanish
Creek
Year
Individuals
per Sample
#of
Samples
1990
2008
16
13.5
1
2
Table 4. Gallatin River up. Buffalo Horn
Creek
Year
Individuals
per Sample
#of
Samples
2005
2006
2007
1
3
1
1
1
1
11
Madison River
The Madison's June/July hatch of salmonflies is legendary and a major fishing event in the
west (Madison River Fishing Co. website). Runoff flows typically last from late May through
June, and the adult salmonflies begin to emerge around July 1 in the channels just above
Ennis, and the hatch works its way upstream for the next three weeks. "Fly fishers from
across the nation converge on the Madison in the hopes of catching many and large fish on the
big dry salmonfly patterns" (MRFC website).
MT DEQ maintains data for one macroinvertebrate monitoring site located downstream on
the Madison River near Interstate 90 which has recorded no salmonflies. Pteronarcys
calif omica abundance was reported at 3 sites in the Madison River in 1989-90 (Hauer et al.
1991) (Figure 6). PPL Montana (formerly Montana Power) has been sampling
macroinvertebrates since 1997 in 7 locations on the Madison River between Hebgan Lake to
the town of Ennis and downstream to the Greycliff FAS. For the upper portion of the
Madison River PPL monitoring section, "Salmonflies have been, and remain abundant ....
Densities averaged greater than 20 individuals per square meter at all sites (below Hebgen
Dam, below Quake Lake, Kirby, Varney Bridge and Ennis). No temporal trends were
evident" (Dan McGuire, pers. comm.). Salmonflies are less abundant in the lower Madison
River. Both the distribution and density appears to have declined in recent years (Figure 6).
Densities were relatively high below the Bear Trap Canyon (Norris Bridge and Blacks Ford)
Figure 6. Salmonfly densities in three reaches of the lower Madison River.
40
35
30
25
a.
(D
£
3
20
15
10
-♦—Madison PH/ Beartrap
-■— BlacksFord/ Norris
A Greycliff/ Three Forks
Large Data Gap
1978-1988
Large Data Gap
1991-1996
- 1 1 1 -
12
in 1977, 2000 and 2003. We have collected few salmonflies in the lower river since 2003
(Dan McGuire, pers. comm. 2010). Much of this data is collected as part of environmental
monitoring within FERC operation and relicensing reports.
The lower Madison population may be impacted by suboptimal habitat (thermal regime and
substrate) during droughts. McGuire reports that neither Fraley (1978) nor Hauer et al.
(1991) mentioned vascular plants in their site descriptions, but describes "Extensive beds
(mostly Ranunculus) have existed from Norris to Cobblestone for at least a decade. This is a
major habitat change!" McGuire's interpretation of the data and comments correlates with
what we've been hearing about the salmonfly hatches below Ennis Lake, "severely
diminished to absent." Greycliff Fishing Access has seen a "complete loss of this stonefly
taxa" from samples since the early 2000' s. This scientific evidence also lines up with
statements from long-time fisherman in our survey, "The Lower Madison and Upper Madison
river certainly seem to have lessened hatches, especially the Lower Madison, the hatch on the
stretch from Warm Springs to Blacks Ford (below Beartrap Canyon) seems almost non-
existent. The Upper Madison has been spotty, but it's a hatch that is always spotty."
According to the PPL consultant, the salmonfly populations in the Madison River below
Hebgen Lake have appeared healthier the past few years, since the water levels in the lake and
release flows have increased. The major cause of this stonefly decline in the lower Madison
reaches is the often cited compounding factors of increased sediment levels in the cobbles due
to drought or dam- induced lessened flushing flows coupled with warmer water temperatures;
USGS gaged flows below Ennis have been below normal for 24 of the last 32 years (Figure
6.2).
Conclusion: Salmonfly
populations in the Madison
River below Beartrap
Canyon downstream -20
river miles have been
severely reduced over the
past 15 years. There are
no long term
macroinvertebrate data sets
available within the
Madison River Section
upstream of Ennis to
Hebgen Lake to
definitively conclude that
populations of the giant
salmonfly are fluctuating
beyond normal natural
variability, but populations
ANNUAL
DEPARTURE
FROM MEAN
ANNUAL
STREAMFLOW,
IN CUBIC FEET
PER SECOND
1970 1960
WATEBVFAR
060+1000
Madison River bl Ennis Lake nr McAllister MT
appear to be "healthier during good flow years". Most outfitters and long time fisherman
accept the natural fluctuations of the hatch in this upper reach and mainly focused their
sentiments on the "lost salmonfly hatch" below Beartrap Canyon; PPL data confirms this
reduction and/or absence of salmonfly nymphs in this reach.
13
Rock Creek (Clark Fork Basin)
The two most important stonefly hatches on this river are the salmonfly hatch and the golden
stone hatch (Rock Creek Outfitters website). The salmonfly hatch usually occurs during the
middle of runoff, which usually runs from late May to late June, although earlier emergences
of the salmonfly have been reported (Rockwell and Newell 2009). This river has become the
salmonfly mecca for Missoula anglers and thus receives substantial fishing pressure during
this hatch period. Despite this river's fishing popularity, MT DEQ has only sampled this river
in three locations (Appendix A); one location downstream near the confluence with the Clark
Fork River has longer-term monitoring data (2000-2008 DEQ ED AS) with 3 replicates taken
in 2000 & 2001 and a single sample taken each year
between 2002-2008 (Table 5). This data reveals that
Rock Creek macroinvertebrate communities may
have felt the affects of drought events with an
apparent absence (*in actuality very low densities) of
the salmonfly (Pteronarcys californica) from 2004-
2007. It is somewhat apparent based on the data that
a couple of salmonfly age classes are missing at the
sample site during the worse years of the drought
(Table 5). Although, low abundances observed here
are typical of large, long-lived invertebrate taxa.
There are also reports (RCO website) that the
stonefly, Skwala sp. is increasing its numbers in
lower stretches of the river. This community shift is
another indicator of warming water temperatures in
the river, since this stonefly is more tolerant of warm
water, but a full community analysis is beyond the
scope of this project.
Table 5. Salmonflies at Rock Creek
nr. Clinton
Year
Individuals
per
Sample
#of
Samples
2000
1.33
3
2001
1.75
3
2002
1
2003
1
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1
Conclusion: There is one long term macroinvertebrate data set at the downstream end of
Rock Creek where salmonfly populations might already be expected to be in lower densities
than in the canyon reaches. Therefore, beyond the affects of missing year classes during the
more extreme drought years, we do not have sufficient data to definitively conclude that
populations of the giant salmonfly are fluctuating beyond normal natural variability within
Rock Creek.
14
Smith River
The Smith River is formed by the confluence of the North and South Fork approximately 4
miles southwest of White Sulphur Springs, MT. It flows 41 miles to a canyon entrance where
it confluences with a major tributary, Sheep Creek at Camp Baker. The Smith River within
the permit float section (from Camp Baker downstream to Deep Creek) has a strong
salmonfly hatch that occurs from May through late June, depending on weather and river
conditions (pers. observation 2004-2007, Big Sky Fishing 2010). Surprisingly, for such a
popular fishing, floating and recreation designation, this river section lacks macroinvertebrate
sampling data; especially, long-term data consistently collected at various stations capable of
monitoring stonefly populations. In fact, benthic samples taken by the MT Natural Heritage
Program at 2 sites in the canyon reach in June of 2008 are the only standardized samples that I
could find while data searching. We did compile a benthic sample dataset from Mark
Canfield (unpublished) that he has been collecting since 1991 at 3 sites near the Smith River
Wildlife Management Area approximately 10 river miles upstream of Camp Baker (Figure 7).
Since 1991, Mark has documented an alarming trend with increasing siltation and changing
macroinvertebrate commumities at these sites; especially the decline and loss of Pteronarcys
californica and increases in more tolerant stoneflies. Only with the recent last 2 high water
years do some populations above Camp Baker seem to be showing signs of recovery, based
on the presence of adults in 2010 (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Salmonfly sampling data provided by M. Canfield above Camp Baker
70
60
a
a.
E
ro
w
i-
Q.
R!
3
■D
>
C
50
40
30
20
10
Pteronarcys californica @ Smith River blw. Fort Logan
Adult Salmonflies
collected, but none
in larval sample.
o?> N o?^ of?* dP»* of^ of^ df^ 0$* of? cS? c?^ c£" c£ « J «» «*» «*> « J «-> cs
sN _«fc _«8> 4^ J> ^ ^ J> ^ ^
Year
There are also reports (M. Canfield, unpublished) that a golden stonefly, Hesperoperla
pacifica is increasing its numbers in this stretch of the river. This community shift is another
indicator of warming water temperatures in the river, since this stonefly species is slightly
15
more tolerant of warm water, but a full community analysis is beyond the scope of this
project. I will additionally add that this Smith River reach contains a declining population of
the Western Pearlshell Mussel that will likely die out in the next 20 years due to the degrading
stream conditions (Stagliano 2010).
Conclusion: There are no long term macroinvertebrate data sets within the Smith River Float
Permit Section to definitively conclude that populations of the giant salmonfly are fluctuating
beyond normal natural variability. The sites above the Camp Baker put-in have shown a
significant decreasing trend in habitat conditions and salmonfly populations for the 20 years
of data examined (M. Canfield, unpublished, Stagliano pers. observation), while populations
downriver in the canyon may be experiencing less of a decline because numerous tributaries
below Camp Baker (Sheep, Spring, Rock and Tenderfoot Creek) add significant flows of
colder less impacted water to the Smith. Further downstream near the take out of the permit
float section at Eden Bridge and then Truly Bridge, there are just a few years of widely spaced
sampling data, but salmonfly populations would be reaching thermal tolerance limits and
expected to be at low densities at these downstream transitional sites (Bollman 2000).
16
Yellowstone River
The macroinvertebrate data for the Yellowstone River has a few large spatial and temporal
gaps with only three consistently visited sites in the upper basin documented to contain the
giant salmonfly. The macroinvertebrate database compiled by MTNHP contained data from
the Stadnyk (1971), Newell (1975) and Schwer (1976) studies, the EPA Western Pilot study
on the Yellowstone River (1992 and 2000), and data from the USGS NAWQA website from
2001 (data dates 1992, 1999 and 2000). Additional data was downloaded from the EPA
STORET database (data from 2001 and 2003) (see Table 1). Newell (1975) and Stadnyk
(1971) reported Pteronarcys calif ornica at five sampling stations from Yellowstone National
Park boundary downstream past Livingston to the Grey Bear Fishing Access Site, a reach of
approximately 69 miles. Subsequent sampling events in 1994, 1999 and 2000 (EPA 2000,
USGS 2001) did not collect this species downstream of Livingston, an occupancy reduction
of -20 river miles (see Figure 8). We could not assess population abundance measures
between dates because the sampling methods were significantly different, but could document
the presence and absence of these species at sites This occupancy reduction was also
documented for the least salmonfly, Pteronarcella badia which was reported by Newell
(1975) and (Schwehrl976) to occur from the Yellowstone National Park boundary
downstream past Billings to Huntley (Figure 9). While more recent sampling has only
documented this species to occur as far down as the Laurel area, a significant range reduction
of -25 miles (EPA 2000, USGS 2001) (Figure 9). Potential reasons for this disappearance at
downstream sites include a warming of water temperatures and diminishing spring flushing
flows. The "transitional" area between warm and cold water fisheries has also been
progressively proceeding upstream with warm water fish occupying additional river miles
past Reed Point and fewer salmonids collected down towards Billings. There are also enough
data available to support the trend that a warm-water tolerant stonefly, Acroneuria abnormis
is increasing its numbers and upstream distribution in this stretch of the river. This
community shift is another indicator of warming water temperatures in the river, since this
stonefly is more tolerant of warm water, but a full community analysis is beyond the scope of
this project.
Conclusion: Based on wide gaps in spatial and temporal data, we cannot definitively
conclude that existing populations of the giant and least salmonfly are fluctuating beyond
normal natural variability within the upper portion of the Yellowstone River. But we can say,
quite certainly, that Pteronarcys californica and Pteronarcella badia now occupy 20 and 25
miles less of the Yellowstone River than they did 25 years ago, respectively. Additionally,
Pteronarcella badia appears to be in much lower densities (i.e. below detection levels) in the
middle portion of the Yellowstone between Livingston and Billings than in the 1970's when
this species was collected in good numbers at all sites in this reach.
17
Figure 8. Giant salmonfly collection data in the Yellowstone River from the 1970's
(top) and 1994-2005 (bottom).
Pteronarcys californica -
O Present
# Absent
T ~ ~~W —
Pteronarcys californica: 1994 -2005
I • Present
# Absent
18
Figure 9. Least salmonfly collection data in the Yellowstone River from the 1970' s
(top) and 1994-2005 (bottom).
19
Opinion Survey Results
While not scientific per se, fisherman, professional guides and fisheries biologists spend a
significant amount of time on their local rivers and can provide a wealth of anecdotal
knowledge and informed opinions where true scientific evidence is lacking. The responses in
Table 6 correspond to the questions asked in the email survey from the methods section on
page 5. The average number of years that the survey participants (n=24) have spent fishing is
30.6, and 21 .4 of those have been on the rivers of Montana. The breakdowns of particular
interest groups are described below (Table 6). Overall, if the participants fished the salmonfly
hatch on their home river, 45% thought the salmonfly numbers have been about the same
through the years, while 17% thought the numbers have decreased. If the Big Hole or
Madison River was not listed as their home river, 90% of participants said they traveled to
Table 6. Opinion Survey Resonses for 35
surveys sent (15, 10, 10 per group). (=) means, the same, no change, (A)- a change,
(NA)-not applicable, (-)-Decreased, (+)-
ncreased
Avg. # of
Avg. # of
Home
Home
Home
Response
Years
Years in
River (1st
River (2nd
River (3rd
3) Target
Survey Group
Rate
Fishing
MT
Rank)
Rank)
Rank)
Salmonfy
5) Salmonfly Hatch Numbers
Professional Guides 60% 32
28 Madison Blackfoot Gallatin yes/yes/no
= (55%), NA (22%), {-) (22%)
Fisheries Biologists 50% 30
25 Big Hole Blackfoot Madison yes/yes/yes
= (60%), NA (20%), {-) (20%)
General Fisherman 100% 29
14 Missouri Big Hole Blackfoot no/yes/yes
= (20%), NA (70%), {-) (10%)
Table 6. Opinion Survey Resonses (cont.)
Survey Group
6) Travel to
another MT
River for
Salmonfly Hatch
7) On this river
Salmonfly Hatch
Numbers
8) Epic
salmonfly
hatches 20
years ago
9) Biological Changes
Noticed
10) What factor(s) do you
contribute most to these
changes?
Professional Guides
Fisheries Biologists
General Fisherman
Madison(44%)
Big Hole (22%)
Madison(40%)
No travel (40%)
Big Hole (50%)
Madison (20%)
= (77%), (-)(23%)
NO (55%) (+) Sediment (100%)
YES (45%) Aquatic Species A (20%)
= (60%), (-)(20%) NO (40%) (+) Sediment (100%),
NA (20%) YES (60%) Aquatic Species A (20%)
: (70%), (+)(10%) NO (50%) (+) Sediment (50%),
NA (20%) YES (50%) Aquatic Species A (50%)
Drought, H 2 temps (89%)
Fishing Pressure (77%)
Dam effects (11%)
Drought, H 2 temps (80%)
Fishing Pressure (50%)
Dam effects (30%)
Drought, H 2 temps (90%)
Fishing Pressure (60%)
Dam effects (20%)
20
one of these rivers to fish the salmonfly hatch; of those 69% believed that the salmonfly
hatches were about the same, while 21.5% (slightly higher in the guide group) thought that the
hatches have lessened through the years.
It was about an even 50/50 split on average when asked the question, "Do you agree or
disagree that the salmonfly hatches 15-20 years ago on the Big Hole, Madison and
Yellowstone were more abundant, "epic" even. Have you heard this? Fewer guides 45%
agreed with this statement, while more fisheries biologists 60% did. Many participants cited
nostalgia for the "good ole days" as the driver in believing this was true, while in reality many
guides said the salmonfly hatches on the Blackfoot, Big Hole and Rock Creek the last 2 years
have rivaled what they have seen in all their years on the rivers. One outfitter said, "This is
the typical BS phenomenon that you get from a populace that likes to lament about how good
things "used to be." Although, for those that did fish the salmonfly hatches in sections of the
Madison and Big Hole that no longer are producing those hatches, the good ole days on those
river sections are truly gone. Another reason included in the survey for thinking that those
past days were better, was "fishing pressure was much less back than, and you had a better
chance of enjoying yourself."
The overwhelming, across the board agreement about the "biological changes" happening in
the rivers that we fish is the increase in sediments and silt; 100% of guides and fishery
biologists and 50% of general fisherman cite this habitat degradation as the most noticeable
change occurring on their rivers (Table 6). The second most mentioned biological change
noted was a shift in aquatic species communities, both fish and insects. Prevalent responses
included, "higher brown trout numbers", "brown trout in river sections were they weren't
before", "loss of westslope cutthroat and rainbows from certain river reaches", and on the plus
side in the Missouri River this last year, "increases in the number of rainbow trout juveniles
indicating a good spawn the past couple years". For the invertebrates, common changes noted
were an "increase in smaller insect hatches," "better hatches of caddis and tricos where there
used to be more stoneflies" and "increases in the number of crayfish and a decline of stonefly
nymphs". These aforementioned insect and invertebrate changes are directly correlated to the
filling of interstitial spaces in cobbles with silt and sediments coupled with warmer water
temperatures.
The unanimous reason cited by participants for the increase in fine sediments and the
corresponding biological changes was drought (86%) , and the long-term effects of decreased
flushing flows and warmer water temperatures. Additional side-effects of the drought and in
addition to it are dam-related (20%); factors such as not being able to release full spring
flushing flows because of reservoir levels or having to top release warm water because of dam
operation issue (Madison River 2008) have all contributed to sediment build up in the cobbles
and gravels suffocating intolerant insect life (stoneflies, large mayflies), while allowing other
smaller insects to thrive (tricos, BWO mayflies and certain caddis species).
While not explicitly related to most biological changes mentioned in the survey, but
overwhelmingly addressed as a change seen on their rivers was fishing pressure (62%). It
seems that all groups interviewed, from guides to biologists, are frustrated with the increased
amount of boat and angler pressure on Montana' s rivers. The crowding aspect of trying to
21
fish the salmonfly hatch or any hatch could indeed have diminished the enjoyment factor of
the angling experience and cause some folks to wish for the "good ole days" of less crowded
conditions, regardless of how good the hatch is. A few examples of the type of angling
pressure that fisherman mentioned in the survey, from a fisheries biologist, "Back in the day
when I did flyfish 100 days a year, mostly the Bitterroot, I loved to fish during the Skwala
hatch it was the hordes of flyfishing snobs that overtook the Bitterroot during the Skwala
hatch that forced me off the river."
One fisherman commented while fishing the Big Hole, "on a weekday, we are talking over 50
boats on the water! While fishing (the salmonfly hatch), we did see a good number of bugs,
but I believe a large factor in reduced catch rates is directly related to the number of boats on
the water." Similarly commenting on the perceived trout inactivity during a hatch, "On these
Blue Ribbon Rivers, there is an extreme amount of fishing pressure. Fish are being pursued
from dawn til dusk."
Conclusions
To address the question posed in the objectives: Are Statewide Populations of Salmonflies
declining? We offer three answers — 1) yes, at the statewide, broad-scale view of distribution
and river-mile occupancy, we have lost a significant portion of salmonfly populations in the
state's rivers. A quick calculation extrapolating lost river benthic habitat based on real data,
professional opinion and on presumed species occupancy before dams were built or mining
effects, we have realized a loss of -350 river miles, -70 miles of this has been documented
within the last 30 years. Our more recent losses have been attributable to loss of habitat
through siltation or increasing water temperatures beyond the species thermal limits.
The second answer to the question: 2) yes and no, salmonfly populations within some
individual rivers have indeed declined in the last 20 years, four river sections in particular are
highlighted by strong data or professional analysis; the Big Hole from Melrose to Browns
Bridge and below Melrose, the Madison River below Ennis Lake, the Smith River above
Camp Baker, and the Clark Fork below the Milltown Dam site and below Missoula. There are
also sections of rivers (Big Hole, Rock Creek) that have experienced salmonfly decreases
during the worse years of the drought, but have been shown by data or professional opinion to
have rebounded in the last few "good water" years.
The third answer to the question: 3) we do not have sufficient data to answer this question for
many sections of our rivers. The common theme running through this study was the lack of
long term macroinvertebrate data sets on most of our major rivers. Project-generated (theses,
watershed grants, etc.) macroinvertebrate samples were generally taken for 1 or 2 years with
minimal visits per site and large gaps between projects; thus, we find large temporal gaps in
data. The value of scientifically based, replicated monitoring can be seen in the Clark Fork
River's 50 year data set; without the long-term data we would' ve never known the numbers of
salmonflies were improving in certain river reaches until the 1970' s when populations
suffered a significant set back by exposure to metals from upstream sources, yet to return
again to some sites. If we had examined the last 10 years of that Clark Fork data across all six
sites, we would' ve concluded that salmonflies were largely absent from those reaches.
22
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Travis Horton and Don Skaar (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) for
their interest and willingness to address aquatic macroinvertebrates in a state where salmonids
dominate the fisheries world, although they are so intricately linked. Thanks need to go to
Scott Blum and Meghan Burns (MT NHP) for deftly appending and reviewing data to the
databases which feed our website applications and producing high quality maps, respectively.
Sincere gratitude goes to Wease Bollman of Rhithron Associates Inc. and Dan McGuire,
Aquatic Biologist, for opening up their databases for data sharing; additionally, Arnie Wick,
Kris Kumlien, Larry Urban, Robin Cunningham, Adam Petersen, John Herzer, Terri
Raugland, Dick Oswald, Eric Merchant, Duke Fisher, Rory Ruffner, Lee Ricks, as well as all
the other professional fishing guides and fisherman who shared their thoughts and experiences
to be used for this article.
References Cited
Journals and Reports
Baumann, R.W., A.R.Gaufin, and R.F.Surdick. 1977. The Stoneflies (Plecoptera) of the
Rocky Mountains. Memoirs of the American Entomological Society, number 31, 208 pp.
Bollman, W. 1998. Improving Stream Bioassessment Methods for the Montana Valleys and
Foothill Prairies Ecoregion. Master's Thesis (MS). University of Montana. Missoula,
Montana.
Bollman, W. 2000. An analysis of the aquatic invertebrates and habitat of the Smith River,
Meagher and Cascade Counties, Montana, June- August 2000. A Report to the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, MT 10 pp. + appendices
Bollman, W. 2007. Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities at Two Sites
on the Gallatin River, Gallatin County, Montana. A Report to the Blue Water Task Force
Bozeman, Montana. 10 pp. + appendices
DEQ 2005. Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning
Bureau Standard Operating Procedure WQPBWQM-009.
Fraley, J.J. 1978. Effects of elevated summer water temperature below Ennis Reservoir on
the macroinvertebrates of the Madison River, MT. M.S. Thesis. MT State University. 120 p.
Gaufin, A.R., E.R. Ricker, M. Miner, P. Milam, and R.A. Hays. 1972. The stoneflies
(Plecoptera) of Montana. Trans, of the American Entomological Society 98(1):1-161
23
Hauer, F.R., J. A. Stanford, and J. T. Gangemi, 1991. Effects of stream regulation in the
upper Missouri River. Report 116-91. Flathead Biological Station. Report to MT Power Co.
McGuire, D. 1988. A synopsis of Clark Fork River macroinvertebrate studies through 1986
and a proposed long-term macroinvertebrate monitoring program 1988. Prepared for the
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau
McGuire, D. 1993. Clark Fork River macroinvertebrate community biointegrity, 1986 through
1992. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau
Newell, R. 1975. Biological investigations on the Yellowstone River. Macroinvertebrates.
Report to the Montana Department of Fish and Game. 2 n in series. 98 pp.+ appendices.
PPL Madison River Biomonitoring data. Annual Reports: 1997 through 2009.
Relyea, C. D., G.W. Minshall, and R.J. Danehy. 2000. Stream insects as bioindicators of fine
sediment. In: Proceeding Watershed 2000, Water Environment Federation Specialty
Conference.Vancouver, BC.
Rockwell, LP. and R.L. Newell. 2009. Note on mortality of the emerging stonefly Pteronarcys
californica on the Jocko River, Montana, USA. Western North American Naturalist
69(2):264-266.
Schwehr, D. 1976. Distribution and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates of the middle
Yellowstone River. M.S. Thesis: Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 69 pps.
Stadnyk, L. 1971. Factors affecting the distribution of stoneflies in the Yellowstone River,
Montana. Ph. D. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 36 pp.
Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 2002. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera
(Plecoptera). 2nd edition. The Caddis Press: Columbus, Ohio. 510 pp.
Databases, People and Websites
AnglingGuide website. Accessed Oct 10, 2010 http://www.anglerguide.com/articles/230.html
Big Sky Fishing website. Accessed Oct 10, 2010: http://www.bigskyfishing.com/River-
Fishing/Central-MT-Rivers/smith-river/smith fishing.htm
Big Sky Fishing website. Accessed Oct 10, 2010: http://www.bigskyfishing.com/River-
Fishing/South-MT-Rivers/Gallatin-river/gallatin-river-overview.php
EDAS. 2008. Ecological Data Application System Version MT 3.3.2k developed for MT
Department of Environmental Quality
24
EPA Storet. website Accessed Oct 11, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html
Kris Kumlien [mttrout@troutfitters.com] Contacted Oct 8, 2010.
Gustafson, Dan 2010. AIM website accessed Oct 8, 2010. Aquatic Invertebrates of Montana
http://www.esg.montana.edu/aim/plecop/plecopO.html
Madison River Fishing Co. website Accessed Oct 12, 2010
http://www.mrfc.com/MadisonPviverMontanaFishing/MadisonRiverReport.aspx
McGuire, Dan. Private Consultant pers. comm. Contacted Nov 2 th , 2010
Mike Bias, Big Hole River Foundation, pers. comm. Contacted Nov 9 l , 2010.
Nature Serve 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA (Accessed: October 11, 2010 ).
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchSciOrCommonName=pteron
arcys&x=10&y=5
Robin Cunningham, Outfitter, pers. comm.
Rock Creek Outfitters (RCO) Website. Accessed Oct 12, 2010
Roger Oettli of Great Divide Outfitters. Website Accessed Oct 12, 2010
http : //bi gholetrout .com/
Rhithron 2010. Rhithron and Associates database. Accessed Oct 11, 2010
Rock Creek Outfitters. Accessed Oct 11, 2010
http://www.glaciertovellowstone.com/montana-rivers/rock-creek.html
Saffel, P., B. Liermann, J. Lindstrom and L. Knotek. 2010. Prioritization of Tributaries of the
Upper Clark Fork Basin for Fishery Enhancement. Presentation to the Clark Fork Coalition.
Sean Blaine of Angler's West Flyfishing Outfitters on the Yellowstone River. Pers comm.
Contacted Oct 8, 2010
USGS 2000. Accessed Oct 11, 2010. http://wv.water.usgs.gov/projects/vell/index.htm
USGS 2010. Accessed Jan 11, 2010
http://mt.water.usgs.gov/images/annual_departures/06041000.annual.departure.png
25
Appendix A. Pteronarcys californica and P. dorsata collection sites across Montana with
relative abundance based on numbers in benthic samples. R= rare, C=common, A= abundant
Waterbody
Latitude_D
ec
Longitude_D
ec
Relative
Abundance
Waterbody
Latitude_
Dec
Longitude_D
ec
Relative
Abundance
Bear Creek
45.0640
-110.6388
R
Dearborn River
47.1986
-112.0931
R
Beaver Creek
46.7878
-111.9069
R
Dearborn River
47.1988
-112.1099
C
Beaver Creek
46.8171
-111.8010
C
Dearborn River
47.1954
-112.0174
C
Beaver Creek
46.8171
-111.8058
C
Dearborn River MFork
47.2104
-112.2754
R
Beaver Creek
47.5956
-112.7533
C
Dearborn River MFork
47.1524
-112.2267
R
Big Hole North Fork
45.6442
-113.6519
R
Deep Creek
46.2935
-111.4685
R
Big Hole River
45.8597
-113.0836
R
Deep Creek
46.3010
-1 1 1 .4546
R
Big Hole River
45.5267
-112.7008
R
Deep Creek
46.3230
-111.4011
R
Big Hole River
45.7014
-112.7344
R
Dry Creek
46.2437
-1 1 1 .4476
R
Big Hole River
45.7847
-112.9139
R
Dry Creek
46.2436
-111.4516
R
Big Hole River
45.8494
-113.0681
C
Dupuyer Creek
48.1808
-112.5433
R
Birch Creek
44.0692
-112.8397
C
Fish Creek
45.7719
-112.2547
R
Bitterroot River
46.8533
-114.0989
C
Fish Creek South Fork
46.9883
-113.9823
R
Bitterroot River
46.0922
-114.1742
C
Fisher River
48.3474
-115.3119
R
Bitterroot River
46.8523
-114.1000
R
Fisher River
48.0847
-115.3746
R
Bitterroot River
45.9735
-114.1410
R
Fisher River
48.3567
-115.3158
C
Bitterroot River
46.0920
-114.1749
R
Flathead R, N Fork
48.4933
-114.1253
R
Bitterroot River
46.8523
-114.1000
R
Flathead River Sfork
47.9842
-113.5637
R
Blackfoot River
46.9003
-113.7550
C
Flint Creek
46.6285
-113.1512
A
Blackfoot River
46.8997
-113.7562
C
Fortine Creek
48.5980
-114.9590
C
Blackfoot River
47.0137
-113.2231
R
Fortine Creek
48.6717
-114.8978
C
Blackfoot River
46.9333
-113.1147
c
Fortine Creek
48.7936
-114.9533
C
Bloody Dick Creek
45.0166
-113.4978
R
Gallatin River
45.1692
-111.2414
C
Bloody Dick Creek
45.0427
-113.4087
R
Gallatin River
45.2819
-111.2239
C
Bloody Dick Creek
44.9940
-113.3274
R
Gallatin River
45.2780
-111.2291
R
Boulder River
45.8339
-109.9381
R
Gallatin River
45.0900
-111.2132
C
Bridger Creek
45.7092
-111.0264
C
Gallatin River
45.2259
-1 1 1 .2493
C
Bridger Creek
45.7003
-110.9289
R
Gallatin River
45.3951
-111.2070
C
Clark Fork River
47.0233
-114.3359
R
Gallatin River
45.4265
-111.2325
C
Clark Fork River
47.0139
-114.3105
R
Gallatin River
45.2986
-111.2038
R
Clark Fork River
46.9933
-114.2287
R
Gallatin River
45.2816
-111.2252
R
Clark Fork River
46.8743
-114.0666
c
Gallatin River
45.4849
-1 1 1 .2702
A
Clark Fork River
46.8826
-113.9312
A
Gallatin River
45.2656
-111.2577
A
Clark Fork River
46.8826
-113.9312
A
Gallatin River
45.2572
-111.2500
A
Clark Fork River
46.8217
-113.8081
R
Garden Creek
45.2242
-112.1417
R
Clark Fork River
46.7166
-113.5804
R
Jocko River
47.3122
-114.2982
C
Clark Fork River
46.7121
-113.3309
R
Keeler Creek
48.3572
-115.8590
R
Clark Fork River
46.6612
-113.1486
C
Little Bitterroot River
47.9007
-114.5832
R
Clark Fork River
46.5901
-112.9276
R
Little Blackfoot River
46.5200
-112.7922
R
Clark Fork River
46.4009
-112.7423
R
Little Blackfoot River
46.5195
-112.7934
C
Clark Fork River
46.4969
-112.7372
R
Little Thompson River
47.7280
-115.0250
R
Clark Fork River
45.1572
-109.0088
R
Little Thompson River
47.5426
-114.8845
R
Lolo Creek
46.7558
-114.1133
R
26
Appendix A. cont.
Waterbody
Latitude
Dec
Longitude
Dec
Relative
Abundance
Waterbody
Latitude_
Dec
Longitude_
Dec
Relative
Abundance
Lolo Creek
46.7517
-1 14.0920
R
South Meadow Creek
45.4475
-111.7289
C
Lolo Creek
46.7528
-114.0917
R
St Regis River
47.4061
-115.4917
R
Lynch Creek
47.4981
-1 14.9096
R
St Regis River
47.3431
-115.2803
C
Madison River
44.7799
-111.1130
R
St Regis River
47.2986
-1152344
C
Madison River
45.5851
-111.5763
R
Stillwater River
48.3206
-114.2786
C
Madison River
45.5905
-111.5762
R
Stillwater River
45.5285
-109.4684
R
Madison River
45.0974
-111.6624
C
Swamp Creek
48.6020
-114.9680
A
Madison River
44.8252
-111.4498
C
Swamp Creek
48.6025
-114.9614
R
Madison River
44.9753
-111.6469
C
Swan River
48.0425
-113.9747
R
Madison River
44.9002
-111.5922
A
Tenmile Creek
46.5276
-112.2539
C
Madison River
45.5746
-111.5936
C
Tobacco Rver
48.8970
-115.1220
C
Metzel Creek
44.6956
-111.8972
R
Tobacco Rver
48.7990
-114.9530
R
Middle Fork Dearborn
47.1929
-112.2911
C
Tobacco Rver
48.8985
-115.1231
R
Missouri River
47.2705
-111.6951
C
Tom Creek
44.5900
-111.6694
R
Nez Perce
45.8017
-1 14.2708
C
Tongue River
44.9966
-106.8800
R
Ninemile Creek
47.0281
-1 14.3969
R
Tongue River
44.8840
-107.2391
R
Ninemile Creek
47.0819
-1 14.4392
R
Trail Creek
45.6428
-113.6925
R
a Dell Creek
45.3408
-111.7180
C
Trout Creek
47.7235
-115.6987
R
Pipe Creek
48.4893
-115.5222
R
Trout Creek
46.7670
-111.6492
C
Prickly Pear Creek
46.6607
-111.9754
C
Trout Creek
46.7659
-111.6468
A
Prickly Pear Creek
46.5161
-111.9478
C
Twelvemile Creek
47.3725
-115.2625
R
Rock Creek
46.6958
-113.6647
C
Twelvemile Creek
47.3760
-115.2590
R
Rock Creek
46.2262
-113.5385
C
Bitterroot River WF
45.8149
-114.2534
C
Rock Creek
46.7072
-1 13.6725
C
Bitterroot River WF
45.8050
-114.2623
C
Sheep Creek
44.6869
-1 12.7256
C
Whitefish Rver
48.3206
-114.2786
R
Sheep Creek
46.8116
-110.9228
R
Wise Rver
45.7931
-112.9503
R
Sheep Creek
46.8116
-110.9276
R
Wise Rver
45.7919
-112.9516
R
Sheep Creek
44.6869
-112.7256
C
Wise Rver
45.7921
-112.9513
R
Silver Creek
47.361 1
-115.5661
R
Wise Rver
45.7931
-112.9503
R
Smith River
46.8710
-111.2708
R
Yaak Rver
48.4956
-1159183
R
Smith River
46.8693
-111.2723
C
Yaak Rver North Fork
48.9700
-115.6200
C
Smith River
46.8469
-111.2099
C
Yellowstone River
45.1119
-110.7936
A
Smith River
46.8280
-111.1924
R
Yellowstone River
45.3380
-110.7632
R
Smith River
47.0106
-111.2892
R
Yellowstone River
45.4850
-110.6220
C
Smith River
47.2362
-111.3888
R
Yellowstone River
45.5385
-110.5810
C
Smith River
47.2616
-111.4207
R
Yellowstone River
45.7862
-110.0686
C
Smith River
46.7553
-111.1719
R
Yellowstone River
45.5972
-110.5653
C
South Fork Dearborn
47.1935
-112.1845
R
27
Appendix B. Pteronarcella badia, the least salmonfly, collection sites across Montana with
relative abundance based on numbers in benthic samples. R= rare, C=common, A= abundant
Relative
Relative
Waterbody
Lat Dec
Long_Dec
Abundance
Waterbody
Lat_Dec
Long_Dec
Abundance
Belly River
48.9690
-113.6826
R
Flathead R, Middle Fork
48.5056
-113.9933
C
Big Hole River
45.6153
-113.4578
R
Flint Creek
46.6285
-113.1512
C
Bitterroot River
46.8533
-114.0989
R
Ford Creek
47.441 7
-112.6671
R
Bitterroot River
45.9663
-114.1350
C
Ford Creek
47.4456
-112.5641
R
Bitterroot River
46.0922
-114.1742
C
Gallatin River
45.0900
-111.2132
R
Bitterroot River
46.8533
-114.0989
C
Polaris, MT
45.4744
-113.1200
R
Bitterroot River
46.8523
-114.1000
R
Jack Creek
45.1624
-112.0871
C
Bitterroot River
46.5823
-114.0627
C
Jefferson Creek
46.7922
-112.7150
C
Blacktail Creek
45.9930
-112.5321
A
Jefferson Creek
46.7922
-112.7150
C
Blacktail Deer Creek
45.0053
-112.4450
C
Jefferson Creek
46.7761
-112.7383
C
Bloody Dick Creek
44.9940
-113.3274
R
Little Blackfoot River
46.5200
-112.7922
R
Bloody Dick Creek
45.0166
-113.3928
R
Little Blackfoot River
46.5195
-112.7934
A
Bloody Dick Creek
45.0112
-113.2574
R
Lob Creek
46.7528
-114.0917
C
Bloody Dick Creek
44.9940
-113.3274
R
Long Creek
44.7421
-112.0195
R
Cataract Creek
46.2851
-112.2438
R
Long Creek
44.7421
-112.0195
R
Clark Fork River
46.3153
-112.7344
A
McCalla Creek
45.3114
-115.1173
C
Clark Fork River
46.3174
-112.7362
A
Medicine Lodge Creek
44.7514
-113.0362
R
Clark Fork River
46.4969
-112.7372
R
Metzel Creek
44.7306
-111.9011
R
Clark Fork River
46.4009
-112.7423
C
Middle Boulder River
45.6225
-110.1297
R
Clark Fork River
46.1867
-112.7679
C
Middle Boulder River
45.6256
-110.1220
R
Clark Fork River
46.5901
-112.9276
C
Middle Fork Flathead Rivei
48.5056
-113.9933
R
Clark Fork River
46.7121
-113.3309
R
Mill-Willow Creeks Bypass
46.1828
-112.7765
C
Clark Fork River
46.7166
-113.5804
R
Morris Creek trib
46.8414
-116.1837
R
Clark Fork River
46.8222
-113.8065
C
Musselshell River
46.4625
-110.3182
C
Clark Fork River
46.8826
-113.9312
R
Ninemile Creek
47.1650
-114.5578
C
Clark Fork River
46.9176
-114.2081
R
Ninemile Creek
47.0819
-114.4392
C
Clark Fork River
46.9312
-114.2104
R
Ninemile Creek
47.0376
-114.3933
C
Clark Fork River
46.9933
-114.2287
C
Ninemile Creek
47.0313
-114.3930
C
Clark Fork River
47.0233
-114.3359
R
Nine Mile Creek
47.0281
-114.3946
C
Clover Creek East Fork
44.7142
-112.2525
R
North Meadow Creek
45.5127
-111.8174
C
Corral Creek
44.6140
-111.6043
R
North Willow Creek
45.7072
-111.7882
R
Corral Creek
48.7816
-111.1448
R
People's Creek
48.3638
-108.3579
R
Corral Creek
44.6140
-111.6043
R
Powder River
46.4253
-105.3064
R
Dearborn River
47.1986
-112.0931
R
Prickly Pear Creek
46.5875
-111.9193
C
Fork
47.1524
-112.2267
R
Prickly Pear Creek
46.6331
-111.9790
C
Deep Creek
46.2935
-111.4685
A
Prickly Pear Creek
46.5161
-111.9478
R
Deep Creek
46.3010
-111.4546
C
Rock Creek
46.7072
-113.6725
R
Deer Creek
48.9831
-111.5660
R
Sage Creek
48.9192
-110.8209
C
ElkCk
45.6267
-111.4140
R
Shields River
45.7262
-110.4629
C
Elk Creek
46.9814
-111.6029
C
Shields River
45.7297
-110.4669
C
Elk Creek
45.6267
-111.4143
A
Silver Bow Creek
46.1819
-112.7776
R
Elk Creek
46.6781
-111.1951
R
Sixteenmile Creek
46.1090
-111.1681
R
Fawn Creek
48.2496
-115.3521
R
Fish Creek
45.8062
-112.3722
R
28
Appendix B. cont.
Waterbody
Lat_Dec
LongDec
Relative
Abundance
Stillwater River
48.3206
-114.2786
R
Swan River
48.0425
-113.9747
R
Sweetwater
Creek
45.0903
-112.2917
R
Taylor Ck
45.0617
-111.2650
C
Teton River
47.9222
-111.7443
R
Tobacco River
48.8970
-115.1220
R
Tom Creek
44.5900
-111.6694
R
Tongue River
44.9966
-106.8800
A
Warm Springs Creek
46.1814
-112.7826
A
Washington
Creek
46.781 1
-112.6702
R
Washington
Creek
46.7625
-112.7000
C
Whitefish River
48.3206
-114.2786
R
Willow Ceek
45.4381
-112.7422
R
Willow Creek
45.4253
-109.2306
R
Willow Creek
45.4381
-112.7422
R
Yellowstone
River
45.9036
-108.3199
R
Yellowstone
River
45.8000
-108.4667
C
Yellowstone
River
45.7862
-108.4771
C
Yellowstone
River
45.7862
-110.0686
C
Yellowstone
River
45.7581
-109.7697
R
Yellowstone
River
45.6896
-108.6449
R
Yellowstone
River
45.6861
-108.6531
R
Yellowstone
River
45.6813
-108.6664
R
Yellowstone
River
45.6539
-108.7581
R
Yellowstone
River
45.6214
-109.2372
R
Yellowstone
River
45.6172
-108.8395
R
Yellowstone
River
45.5972
-110.5653
C
Yellowstone
River
45.5964
-110.5661
C
Yellowstone
River
45.5385
-110.5810
C
Yellowstone
River
45.4850
-110.6220
C
Yellowstone
River
45.3380
-110.7632
R
Yellowstone
River
45.1119
-110.7936
C
Yellowstone
River
44.9008
-110.2556
C
29