c^ III MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 3 0864 1001 6043 4 iiliiiiii'i'i BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE JUDITH RIVER, FERGUS COUNTY, MONTANA BASED ON THE COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF THE BENTHIC ALGAE COMMUNITY Prepared for: \ \ State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 2 009 01 Helena, Montana 59620-0901 Project Officer: Darrin Kron DEQ Contract No. 200012-2 Prepared by: Loren L. Bahls, Ph.D. Hannaea 1032 Twelfth Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 oTfliT DncrrwFNTS collection 1 5 2002 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 1515 E. 6th AVE. "ELENA. MONTANA 59520 November 15, 2000 Printed on 100% Recycled Post -Consumer Paper SUMMARY On August 9, 2000, periphyton samples were collected from two stations on the middle Judith River near Lewistown, Montana for the purpose of assessing whether this segment of the river is water-quality limited and in need of TMDLs . The samples were collected following DEQ standard operating procedures, processed and analyzed using standard methods for periphyton, and evaluated following modified USEPA rapid bioassessment protocols for wadeable streams . The Judith River heads in the Rocky Mountain Ecoregion, flows through the Valley and Foothill Prairie Ecoregion, and ends in the Northern Great Plains Ecoregion, where the study reach is located. For this reason, Judith River metrics were compared to criteria for both mountain streams and prairie streams . When compared to biocriteria for both mountain streams and prairie streams, the large percentage of Achnanthes minutissima and the large number of abnormal diatom frustules indicated moderate impairment and partial support of aquatic life uses at both sampling sites. The stress that caused this impairment may be either natural or cultural in origin. The periphyton communities at both sites were represented by the usual groups of algae with healthy genus richness. Although a shift in abundance from cyanobacteria at J 1 to green algae at J 3 may indicate some nutrient enrichment, values for the diatom pollution index, which were nearly identical, indicated no significant increase in organic loading between the two sites. The relatively large similarity index indicated that sites J 1 and J 3 had very similar diatom floras and that little or no environmental change had occured between the two sites. INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the biological integrity, support of aquatic life uses, and probable causes of impairment to those uses, in a section of the Judith River near Lewistown, Montana. The purpose of this report is to provide information that will help the State of Montana determine whether the Judith River is water-quality limited and in need of TMDLs . The federal Clean Water Act directs states to develop water pollution control plans (Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs) that set limits on pollution loading to water-quality limited waters. Water-quality limited waters are lakes and stream segments that do not meet water-quality standards, that is, that do not fully support their beneficial uses. The Clean Water Act and USEPA regulations -require each state to (1) identify waters that are water-quality limited, (2) prioritize and target waters for TMDLs, and (3) develop TMDL plans to attain and maintain water- quality standards for all water-quality limited waters. Evaluation of use support in this report is based on the species composition and structure of the periphyton (benthic algae, phytobenthos) community at two stream sites that were sampled on August 9, 2000. The periphyton community is a basic biological component of all aquatic ecosystems. Periphyton accounts for much of the primary production and biological diversity in Montana streams (Bahls et al . 1992) . Plafkin et al . (1989) and Stevenson and Bahls (1999) list several advantages of using periphyton in biological assessments: • Algae are universally present in large numbers in all streams and unimpaired periphyton assemblages typically support a large number (>30) of species; • Algae have rapid reproduction rates and short life cycles, making them useful indicators of short-term impacts; As primary producers, algae are most directly affected by physical and chemical factors, such as temperature, nutrients, dissolved salts, and toxins; Sampling is quick, easy and inexpensive, and causes minimal damage to resident biota and their habitat; Standard methods and criteria exist for evaluating the composition, structure, and biomass of algal associations; Identification to species is straightforward for the diatoms, for which there is a large body of taxonomic and ecological literature; Excessive algae growth in streams is often correctly perceived as a problem by the public. Periphyton and other biological communities reflect the biological integrity^ of waterbodies; restoring and maintaining the biological integrity of waterbodies is a goal of the federal Clean Water Act; Periphyton and other biological communities integrate the effects of different stressors and provide a measure of their aggregate impact; and Periphyton and other biological communities may be the only practical means of evaluating impacts from non-point sources of pollution where specific ambient criteria do not exist (e.g., impacts that degrade habitat or increase nutrients) . Periphyton is a diverse assortment of simple photosynthetic organisms, called algae, and other microorganisms that live attached to or in close proximity of the stream bottom. Most algae, such as the diatoms, are microscopic. Diatoms are distinguished by having a cell wall composed of opaline glass: hydrated amorphous silica. Diatoms often carpet a stream bottom with a slippery brown film. ^ Biological integrity is defined as "the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitats within a region" (Karr and Dudley 1981) . V. Some algae, such as the filamentous greens, are conspicuous and their excessive growth may be aesthetically displeasing, deplete dissolved oxygen, interfere with fishing and fish spawning, clog water filters and irrigation intakes, create tastes and odors in drinking water, and cause other problems. PROJECT AREA AND SAMPLING SITES The project area is located in Fergus County near the city of Lewistown, Montana (pop. 6,368) . The Judith River heads in the Little Belt Mountains (maximum elevation 9,175 feet) and flows northeast for about 100 miles to where it enters the Missouri River near the town of Winifred (pop. 162) . The two sampling sites addressed in this report bracket a 10-mile-long segment of the Judith River located between Ross Fork and Ware northwest of Lewistown. The upper watershed of the Judith River lies within the Northern Rockies Ecoregion (Woods et al . 1999) . The river then traverses a band of the Montana Valley and Foothill Prairies Ecoregion. The lower (and the longest) segment of the river--a portion of which is addressed in this report- -flows through the Northwestern Great Plains Ecoregion. The surface geology of the watershed is composed of Madison Limestone in the mountainous headwaters and Colorado Shale overlain by Quaternary gravel deposits at lower elevations (Renfro and Feray 1972) . Vegetation is mixed forest in the headwaters and mixed grassland at lower elevations (USDA 1976) . Periphyton samples were collected at two sites on August 9, 2000 (Table 1) . The upper site (J 1) is located west of Ross Fork at an elevation of about 3,750 feet (Map 1) . The lower site (J 3) is located east of Ware at an elevation of 3,450 feet (Map 2) . Ross Fork and Ware are sidings on the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. Land use in the Judith River watershed is mostly silviculture and recreation in the mountains and livestock grazing and hay production with some dryland farming at lower elevations. Fish, wildlife, and watershed values are also important. The Judith River is classified B-1 in the Montana Surface Water Quality Standards above Big Spring Creek, and B-2 below Big Spring Creek. The section of river addressed in this report is located just above the mouth of Big Spring Creek and is classified B-1 . METHODS Periphyton samples were collected by Darrin Kron (Water Monitoring Section, MDEQ Monitoring and Data Management Bureau) following standard operating procedures of the MDEQ Planning, Prevention, and Assistance Division. Using appropriate tools, microalgae were scraped, brushed, or sucked from natural substrates in proportion to the rank of those substrates at the study site. Macroalgae were picked by hand in proportion to their abundance at the site. All collections of microalgae and macroalgae were pooled into a common container and preserved with Lugol ' s solution. The samples were examined to estimate the relative abundance and rank by biovolume of diatoms and genera of soft (non-diatom) algae according to the method described by Bahls (1993) . Soft algae were identified using Dillard (1999) , Prescott (1978) , Smith (1950) , and Whitford and Schumacher (1984) . These books also served as references on the ecology of the soft algae, along with Palmer (1977) . After Che identification of soft algae, the raw periphyton samples were cleaned of organic matter using sulfuric acid, and permanent diatom slides were prepared using Naphrax, a high refractive index mounting medium, following Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA 1998) . Between 407 and 408 diatom cells (814 to 816 valves) were counted at random and identified to species. The following were used as the main taxonomic and autecological references for the diatoms : Krammer and Lange-Bertalot 1986, 1988, 1991a, 1991b; Patrick and Reimer 1966, 1975. Lowe (1974) was also used as an ecological reference for the diatoms . The diatom proportional counts were used to generate an array of diatom association metrics (Table 2) . A metric is a characteristic of the biota that changes in some predictable way with increased human influence (Barbour et al . 1999) . Metric values from the Judith River were compared to numeric biocriteria or threshold values developed for streams in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Ecoregions of Montana (Tables 3 and 4) . These criteria are based on metric values measured in least-impaired reference streams (Bahls et al . 1992) and on metric values measured in streams that are known to be impaired by various sources and causes of pollution (Bahls 1993). Because metrics from both sites indicated impairment (see Table 6) , Protocol II (Bahls 1993) could not be used. The criteria in Tables 3 and 4 distinguish among four levels of impairment and three levels of aquatic life use support: no impairment or only minor impairment (full support); moderate impairment (partial support) ; and severe impairment (nonsupport) . These impairment levels correspond to excellent, good, fair, and poor biological integrity, respectively. Quality Assurance.- Several steps were taken to assure that 6 the study results are accurate and reproducible. Upon receipt of the samples, station and sample information were recorded in a laboratory notebook and the samples were assigned a unique number compatible with the Montana Diatom Database, e.g., 2004-01. The first part of this number (2004) designates the sampling site (Judith River west of Ross Fork) ; the second part of this number (01) designates the number of periphyton samples that have been collected at this site to date for which data have been entered into the- Montana Diatom Database . Sample observations and analyses of soft (non-diatom) algae were recorded in a lab notebook along with station and sample information provided by MDEQ . A portion of the raw sample was used to make duplicate diatom slides. After completing the diatom proportional count, the slide used for the count will be deposited in the University of Montana Herbarium in Missoula. The other slide will be retained by Hannaea in Helena. On completion of the project, station information, sample information, and diatom proportional count data will be entered into the Montana Diatom Database. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results are presented in Tables 5 and 6, which are located near the end of this report following the Literature Cited section. Spreadsheets containing completed diatom proportional counts, with species' pollution tolerance classes (PTC) and percent abundances, are attached as Appendix A. SAMPLE NOTES J 1. Some filaments of Audouinella had terminal setae. Specimens of Synedra were particularly evident among the diatoms J 3. No observations were recorded for this sample. NON- DIATOM ALGAE The periphyton samples from both sites contained a healthy- mix of green algae, diatoms, red algae, and cyanobacteria (Table 5) . Non-diatom genus richness was good, with 10 genera observed at J 1 and 11 genera at J 3 . Cyanobacteria (Gloeothece) were most abundant at J 1, while green algae iCladophora) ranked first in biovolume at J 3 . Diatoms were intermediate in abundance and biovolume at both sites. The decline in nitrogen- fixing cyanobacteria and the increase in green algae from J 1 to J 3 may indicate an increase in nutrient concentrations between these sites. Certain cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) are typical of mountain streams with lower nutrient levels in Montana (Bahls et al . 1992). They cannot compete with diatoms and green algae under moderate to heavy nutrient loading. Cladophora, which was occasional at J 1 but frequent at J 3 , is a widespread alga that often becomes a nuisance in waters that are enriched with nutrients. Ankistrodesmus and Scenedesmus are planktonic algae that are common in larger and nutrient-enriched hardwater streams and rivers . Red algae are generally more sensitive to pollution than other types. Audouinella, a red alga found in the Judith River and in many other Montana streams, was common at J 1 and rare at J 3 (Table 5) . DIATOMS The major diatom species in the Judith River were either sensitive to or only somewhat tolerant of organic pollution (Table 6) . The percent abundance of tolerant and sensitive species was about the same at the two sites, resulting in almost identical pollution indexes. The pollution indexes indicated no 8 impairment for either a mountain stream or a prairie stream. However, diatom species diversity at both sites indicated minor impairment for a mountain stream and moderate impairment for a prairie stream (Table 6) . Species richness also indicated minor to moderate impairment at J 3 . Diatom diversity and species richness were significantly higher at J 1 than at J 3; values at J 1 were very near the threshold for no impairment of a mountain stream and for minor impairment of a prairie stream. The low diversity at both sites was due, in part, to the large percent abundance of Achnanthes minutissima . This is an opportunistic "weed" species that colonizes recently disturbed habitats. Its large abundance at both sites indicated that moderate biological, chemical, or physical disturbance had occurred before the samples were collected. It is not known whether this disturbance was natural or cultural in origin. The relatively small number of cells in the motile genera Navicula and Nitzschia indicated no impairment from siltation at either site (Table 6) . Fifteen diatom valves (7.5 cells) exhibiting physical abnormalities were observed at each site, indicating moderate impairment. The percentage of teratological cells has been correlated with ambient concentrations of heavy metals in certain Colorado streams (McFarland et al . 1997). Teratological cells may also result from other forms of pollution and environmental stress . Only a few cells of diatom species in the family Epithemiaceae were counted, indicating that nitrogen was probably not limiting to algal growth at either site. Diatoms in this family often harbor nitrogen- fixing cyanobacteria within their cells and are most abundant in waters where nitrogen is the limiting nutrient-. The relatively large similarity index (72.94) indicated that the two sites had very similar diatom floras and that little or no change in environmental conditions had occured between the two sites. Adjacent reaches on the same stream, without intervening tributaries or pollution sources, can expect to have at least 60% of their diatom floras in common (Bahls 1993) . In summary, dominance by Achnanthes minutissima and a relatively large number of abnormal frustules indicated moderate impairment at both sites when compared to biocriteria for both mountain streams and prairie streams. Moreover, low diatom diversity values at both sites indicated moderate impairment when compared to diversity biocriteria for prairie streams. It is not known whether the stress that resulted in the large populations of A. winutissirna, the low diversity, and the larger than normal number of teratological cells was natural or cultural in origin. LITERATURE CITED APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. Bahls, L.L. 1979. Benthic diatom diversity as a measure of water quality. Proc . Mont. Acad. Sci. 38:1-5. Bahls, L.L. 1993. Periphyton Bioassessment Methods for Montana Streams (Revised) . Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena. Bahls, L.L., Bob Bukantis, and Steve Tralles. 1992. Benchmark Biology of Montana Reference Streams. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena. 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. Second Edition. EPA/841-B-99-002 . U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 10 Dillard, G.E. 1999. Common Freshwater Algae of the United States. J. Cramer, Berlin. Johansen, J.R. 1999. Diatoms of Aerial Habitats. Chapter 12 in Stoermer, E.F., and J. P. Smol (eds.), The Diatoms, Cambridge University Press, New York. Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-69. ,♦ Krammer, K., and H. Lange-Bertalot . 1986. Bacillariophyceae, Part 2, Volume 1: Naviculaceae . In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.). Freshwater Flora of Middle Europe. Gustav Fischer Publisher, New York. Krammer, K., and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1988. Bacillariophyceae, Part 2, Volume 2: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae . In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.). Freshwater Flora of Middle Europe. Gustav Fischer Publisher, New York. Krammer, K., and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1991a. Bacillariophyceae, Part 2, Volume 3: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.), Freshwater Flora of Middle Europe. Gustav Fischer Publisher, Stuttgart. Krammer, K., and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1991b. Bacillariophyceae, Part 2, Volume 4: Achnanthaceae, Critical Supplement to Navicula (Lineolatae) and Gomphonema , Complete List of Literature for Volumes 1-4. In Ettl, H., G. Gartner, J. Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.). Freshwater Flora of Middle Europe. Gustav Fischer Publisher, Stuttgart. Lange-Bertalot, Horst . 1979. Pollution tolerance of diatoms as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwigia 64 :285-304 . Lowe, R.L. 1974. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Freshwater Diatoms. EPA- 670/4-74-005 . McFarland, B.H., B.H. Hill, and W.T. Willingham. 1997. Abnormal Fragilaria spp . (Bacillariophyceae) in streams impacted by mine drainage. Jour, of Freshwater Ecology 12 (1) : 141-149 . Palmer, CM. 1977. Algae and Water Pollution: An Illustrated Manual on the Identification, Significance, and Control of Algae in Water Supplies and in Polluted Water. EPA-600/9-77-036. 11 Patrick, Ruth, and C.W. Reimer. 1966. The Diatoms of The United States Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Volume 1: Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae, Achnanthaceae, Naviculaceae . Monograph Number 13, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia . Patrick, Ruth, and C.W. Reimer. 1975. The Diatoms of The United States Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Volume 2, Part 1: Entomoneidaceae, Cymbellaceae, Gomphonemaceae, Epithemiaceae . Nonograph Number 13, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Rivers and Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA 440-4-89-001 . Prescott, G.W. 1978. How to Know the Freshwater Algae. Third Edition. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. Renfro, H.B., and D.E. Feray. 1972. Geological Hi^x.^ay Map of the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Smith, G.M. 1950. the Fresh-Water Algae of The United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Stevenson, R.J., and L.L. Bahls. 1999. Periphyton Protocols. Chapter 6 in Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second Edition. EPA/841-B-99- 002. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. USDA.' 1976. Climax Vegetation of Montana (map). U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Cartographic Unit, Portland. Whitford, L.A., and G.J. Schumacher. 1984. A Manual of Fresh- Water Algae (Revised) . Sparks Press, Raleigh, North Carolina . Whittaker, R.H. 1952. A study of summer foliage insect communities in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 22:1-44. Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Nesser, J. A., Shelden, J., and Azevedo, S.H. 1999. Ecoregions of Montana (color poster with map), U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 12 r:^-*.' .y ■ II V 7N'- "^'••^"v — |i — V V' ~V~ -■ — T X a 1/) II CO CO CM o - ■'.- -F ui :' r ■ >^;;ii' ■.■nn':. " ( .» '1)1 . '3 91 8 ) N . ^. --:i- v^-. -. - "*-■•- — - ■-"!.7*^' \ ;, ■^?^ .^ :•■;::::::■■ /■'"' -V •.;■:■:■:■ ** ^. M'; 1 . 11 ^ ': •\ ■-■■; \ ,./ ' ' "^ .■:■■■■:■■ ■:-C^, ''^ '^^■N* V''- , J < ; "• >^ 0^^^ ',1-' - <^U ■ i - Ov_~s^^-/^==«->::i^vv ■3?^. -..iV"-.-J>5. .. r ■ ^. ""^^v ••.,Sv>> -«<^ ' ' ■•'.•^ ^C* VV ■ ■■'^::^^---^ ■J ■■ —/•■.<- X d ^ V y ■■'■ ■■. ^ v», ■••1 V. ~\ \ \\ iiiii \^>v X ■^ .y-^' -y' u y ;X f:ioa-,.-. 4 / o ■'0 / ?1 Kits ,■ -TLi. 1 — ;r~ -I' .■■ I I I I si o II Table 1. Location of periphyton stations on the Judith River sampled August 9, 2000: Station codes, sample numbers in the Montana Diatom Database, and latitudes and longitudes. Stations are listed in order from upstream to downstream. Location Station Code Sample Number Latitude/ Longitude Judith River west of Ross Fork J 1 2004-01 47 04 48 109 42 44 Judith River east of Ware J 3 2005-01 47 10 20 109 38 56 • c o • •H to 4-1 en ro U 0) C Q) i-l n3 M 4J ^ -H en a T3 0 .H 2 T3 03 0 ^ C AJ 3 •H U J-) QJ 03 >, a c JJ X •H QJ Vh ^ o DTO 0) C c jJ fO o c ■H •H ~ OJ w 03 r-l e XI 03 m u U OJ d •H >-l 4J Cn jJ ^ 0 w 0) 1— 1 Cu o m ■H c u £1 fO -H XJ c cu c: cu JJ o en 03 2 o 3 a rH C 0 03 -rH Sh > xi 0) w JJ 0) c 0 3 03 4J rH 03 en TS > c (U •rH W M-l tn 3 o 03 0) W Q) S-i U tj) u ■H C c >-i (0 •H iJ u 0) o e - JJ (U c u OJ o c tn •H Q) c 4J 1-1 0 03 OJ a -H 14-1 M U (U (D 0 u M m CQ u m •• •H w u E e JJ 0 m QJ JJ OJ e 03 >-i •rH OJ 4-1 Q M 0 fN 0) M £1 m Eh 0) tn C O tn et; QJ jj u OJ ft w tn 0) > o 0) en C 03 (D u c (U ^H (U 0) u •rH u JJ (D 2 tn 03 Q) >-l u QJ Q + o o o o Ch tn rH 03 4J •H W ^ 0) > -rl P m (U ■H o 0) Oi to a o a a OJ 0 0 tn tn tn m 03 03 QJ 0 0 Jh ^H 1-1 u u u QJ a C Q M M tn rH m m X 0) ■d a H O -H :3 o P4 en tn rH OQ (1) d o •i-i .u n) 4J rH -H W |~H 03 ■u OJ u o £1 u 03 m OJ ■d d 0) u d :3 4.) CO -H P 0 tn m 0 in u 0 Q en en tn rH m •d 0) 4J d 0 o u IQ 0) •H o 0) Ui o 55 0 CO m 0 u + o o o + o o o o o o o ro 1 en 1 H 1 o iH o H O o o 1 I o o o o o Ln en en H 03 •U OJ !-i O £1 1-1 03 m CO 0) •H o 0) CO 4J d d -H o P 4J d o 0) 0 tn 03 0 u u a M + O o rsi r-H 03 -U ■a 03 rH iH fO u 2 CO 0) (0 o d d 0 u u 0) P4 0 to m 0 u 0 Q + o o 00 Lfl en In 0 03 jJ jJ •H x: X 0) ■d d H >. 4J •H U (ti iH -H •H 0 tn 03 0 1-1 u 0 D + o o CO o en en C 03 oS O tn a 0 > 0 jj CO 0) m 0 u -H 4J -H H 4J d 0 o 0 CM 0 tn 03 0 1-1 u o o o en en en 0 tn 03 o CO 0 rH -H o 0 <: 4J d 0 o M 0 P4 ^0 013 i •H iH JJ 3 C rH -^l 0 ■H iH JJ ;3 c c -H en 0 tn m 0 iH tj is UrS •H O 03 iH d jj 03 C C •H JJ 03 ^ 0 £ o en m o 0 ^1 u en O tn ■H u 0 tn o -^ -d ^ 03 '^ JJ -rH tn In 0 > •H n a o a 03 CO jj o rH 03 JJ iH 0 CQ I 0 Cn 03 rJ >i £1 T) 0 C cn •H en en m en 0 u 03 0 rH O JJ c o •H o 0 4-1 o tn 0 •H U 0 CU en O •H tn cn CU X O jj 03 o £ •H a- c 0) u to N JJ :5 03 f-H :3 o ■rH > 03 1-1 0 C 0 Cn 0 JJ C •H "S 0 ™ •^ 3 0 .^ en "^ 03.'^ o| en ^ gen 05 •.^, H a _g to "5 0 0 ^ Cu ^ 5^ 03 en en ■H JJ cn 0) •q JJ 03 o -^ o 0 u a m c £1 OS jJ 0 u u 0 >, u u JJ 1 1 o m 1 0 -H rt IH « a\ O CTi O CTl o S to JJ rH QJ JJ Q) tn C -H s • JJ H-l fO QJ CTl O CTl o cri o O -H C 3 e 0 QJ C O JJ rH T3 in '^ in (N m (N ]jtOQJU-HiHO-HCOCn 0) W •rl C A V ■^■Hj::Q)C-H6to c; E W dJ B HH T-,x:jjaQja)m urn ^ H CO > x: >, x: n S S -H •H m o m (n jJ in jJ QJ in o\<' U ro QJ CTl -^ • U JJ UH -H > ■ U a ^ JJ fO e ij 0) <=! ^ 1 1 mgCOmCOjJ OiO •H M x: • 0) M CO o o o O CTl CTl n rC C QJ -H fO ll m -n ■^ QJ O o\o rH 1 fO H OJ U O rH • iH C! iJ iH C rH o O rH rH CTl cr> ^ ^ -H ^ JJ O QJ oV O E f^JJ JJ O 3 U5 iH CTl • p CO n3 MH O • O - ^ -rl j::jjQjcri(NCO m -H -H QJ ^ 0) a ^ u A V A J-) m ■ w c 4J m Qj a c N JJ QJOcojJcnxiin ro E pi 0 -a JJ C en roEOQJ-HfCJJA--^ C O -H ;3 c; m QJ r r |j;n3C03SQJ QJO O 6 JJ u QJ C -H o O CTv o cr\ CTl J CO CO rH rH QJ UlrH U (0 W CJ -H U • ^ m fO - tn •• c MH •H QJ -H Vj £ QJ m ID (J\ O 'S* ^ Q) >EJJrO(OfO > nH U (1) QJ o a (N (N 'S' in r- r- j,x:E rOf03QJX;iH a XI o x: cu D CO V A mJJOQJQJ CnJJUtC OJ n3 m jj ci JJ U iH QJ -H rH •iCf03JJ>OC0M-H !^O-Hn3t0(T!JJ OE (1) m -T) fC >-l iH in Ti >i m O QJ QJ 0) M -0x5 x; >, C -H iJ S e u-i X) MH -H E 0 U jJ 1 1 .t: QJ C QJ Ti TJ -H to •H 0 c CTi O CT\ o c:^ o pjJC3E>iQJ3Eto $-HQ)Xln3rHC0JJ -H :i!OQJn3COrH3CO -T3 ^ C 4J Cn 3 QJ 3 CM (N (N H rH H Cn-H fO c S d, 0 A V 0) -H -iH C/D u S fO CO oj JJ 73 -i-i S_rH JJjJQJinQJJJnJN ^'OQJCXlQJXiCiHiH .*:iHXiajjJ3 000) c h m QJ •H O U i-l U CU-H a [jJJ U Q)OUrH> ^C>-,iH5:;Cncoa3MH rH ax: rH m X 1 1 fti :3 jj i-H X! QJ o o cr\ O CTl cr\ ■^ 0 JJ QJ O rH -r-i II U 1/1 C fO U T) • • .';:; U -H a rH fC T3 iH ■H dJ >-l 3 c in m CTi O ^ •^ p U CO rH fC fC o\o .HCfOOQ)-H>, rHO Cn 0) £1 Q] Jj M (N (N <^ in r- r- o en > CO V A rnnJrH^rHSrOC-H • QJ-HJJUH EQJEo rH :3 w o ■H o o Q .J-lE UH- QJ-H(N r?JJ-H QJ-H COCO 5 CO V ■H 0) iw 0) X) M-l Xl .tjtOCOX^iHCUJJ -H W JJ c Commun: ired up ristic er of t jacent urbatio 93) . P curs be omewhat change ; y-l rH u o 1 1 O -H W -H X o o cr> O CTl CTl U VJ -H JJ QJ • M -H JJ m 73 o O Ch o a\ CTl M JJ QJ U JJ c (N fN m -^ in in 0) m e -H rH M V A > 3 ^^ -H j,mOrHT)JJCriUC0 ■^ arH rH iinE iH tn >, ^ M A V n iH to QJ iH 1 ^ o CriMH E C Q) o - CO CD C 0 iH QJ C m Cli Index ite t he de sum o both viron commo recov ; 40. loras O Sh -H UH JJ Cfl iH >, ^ Cfl 3 O JJ c 1 1 fC HH •H X O a\ O Oi o a\ o •rH rH fC CO QJ C a\ O CTi o a\ o CO jJ O G QJ iJH iH m c Cn una ■ ■ S, QJ Jj QJ a iH CD ;7>,cox: -hoc^ Q) Vh (T! C QJ c: m fN fN CN rH rH r-i JJ 3 JJ -H > M x; A V ."ltiqjjjcvh mm ■H 4J C JJ ■H c/: QJ ^3^ OOtOjJXirH ^jj3cqe mau-H J^tOtO-HECOiHQJ E iH fo o m Q — JJ JJ U C 2 iH iH m QJ rH -^ JJ rH 0) U 0 iH U JJ .^ m O Q) 0 E O -H m >, a fO CO JJ rH 0 a QJ QJ iH PmQJ'OU-HrHSCCO .5 B C iH HH -H to . U JJ QJ iH D C --1 a a -o > O ro -H -H g 3\ JJ QJ 3 JJ •H 3 O rH jJ QJ a ^ Q) m CO m m --H '^•'vhu •HjjEato'O tn ^ S JJ CO iH rH tL, h 2 CO 2 (0 ^ CO a QJ o tn-H m to o rH \ 0 \-H O \ 3 n, m -H to 3 0 E m ^aiHQ)JJX!JJ-HiHJJ EEjJjJm-nm om ■^ o Qj-Hx; iH-HUHrHx; f-\ rH QJ rO S 0) a QJ Q) a T5 rH w JJ a U CD XI 0 JJ a u a oca O r-i ■H v^ a 0 c m •H c g iH JJ 3 X O 3 O 3 fO n3 3 O 0 H CQ M M 0 cri CO w :z; CO O fc tj Oj CO a s rf tJEtojjjJxiOMHS u o C xJ (U 4-1 CO E o 0) 1-1 S •H W O (0 E rH QJ 0) 4-) 4J W (U -H E <0 C rH -H O ftjJ Q) -H > c 0) fO 0) -H O 'O JJ •rH >, ro •LJ 3: ■H S-i c Ul-H 0) M U (U XI O j::; W 4J 0) w O E 4-1 iJ "O S-I 4J c ■H O U ax: 3 XJ w c 0) u ■H c 4J 05 >-l iJ) OJ X! OJ o O CO 0) XJ [0 CO o 0) 4-1 XI 4-1 ■H CO u •H U S-I -H XJ iH XJ (U CJ 0) OS E -H > 3 S-I QJ CTT) XJ iH 03 0 QJ ^ -^ E Cn-a u C C QJ 0) 03 QJ - CO tn >. CO tn c QJ C 03 ^ -H XJ CO CO 3 •rH XJ 03 S-I S-I o 4-1 o 03 ■H S-I QJ XJ •H U d) rH XI m S-I o 4-1 tn c ■H XJ 03 u XJ •H ^ s^ ><; m QJ 03 CO XJ C QJ S-I U O U C QJ iq QJ Oj ^ u CO 03 QJ C -H U -H U S-I E QJ Q) O CL, Oj Q C/3 S-I CO 73 QJ QJ QJ ^ 4-1 -H XJ E O U C :i QJ 3 s a o CO CJ QJ U c 03 X X! QJ U X3 3 C XJ M CO •rH Q C O •H ><; XJ QJ Oi 73 XJ C I— I M •H CO c O •H X XJ QJ 3 T! i-H C iH M O >, . XJ ■w X CO QJ O a G 03 x; CO Q — rH "^ XJ iH QJ 03 >, C 03 CO U XJ QJ S-I D -H • Cn U 13 XJ CO O Cn^H oJ CO o rH QJ 03 S QJ D o XJ a u a •H c E Sh XJ p CQ M M O CO col 1 1 0 u 03 1 XJ ,H 0 CTl O x: >, x^ CO J-i Sh XJ 0 Sh o\o !J 3 05 XI 0 > 0 CTl • U XJ 4H -H > . U 1 1 a) i ^ n 03 C 03 C 0 XJ CTl 0 O o o O (J\ Ch 0 •H 03 II CO -r-i * * * QJ 0 o\o iH 1 03 O O rH H CTi E XJ 03 CO 03 V A taker on th iatom 0 U C 03 Strea ave a to gu site or ch milar Ij 'O T3 x: >, c-H 1 1 ■H QJ C 0 T3 T) -H to a~i O CTi O tJ\ o ^ XJ c n E >i 0 3 E CO A n ro (N r^ (N g •H QJ XI 03 iH to XJ -H V d to QJ 05 CO rH 3 CO -'O s 03 CO ^r-\ XJ XJ 0 Sh 0 XJ 05 >•, i?0 QJ c x; 0 XJ c vh ^ -H ^X! 0 XJ C 0 O 0 ^ -^ u 0 O U rH > 1 1 ;«§^ u C tn CO 03 4H o O CTi O Ch (j\ 0 O rH -l—l II * •H U-H a rH 05 X) Sh LD LD CTl o ^ •^ •5 e fo CO rH 03 03 o\° (N (N ^ LD r- r- 0 0 -H >, rH O V 1 1 A Z!ommunity S: red upstrea istic simil XJ 0 x: XJ t riffl ions, w PCS ma between at simi e; <2 0. o o cn o a\ CTl 4H c XJ x; tn ' ' 0 0 03 • CO s c o O CTi O CTi Ch U X ^ Sh 0 05 LD V LD 1^ r- 00 00 Sh Oi Sh ro 3 E x; A ~ -H U 0 •r-i 3 CTl U 0 U ^ m o rH T3 -U cr\ CJ to c &^ M < Sh iH O 0 S E ^ 05 0 II XJ 1 c u-^ E a to XJ 03 LO U) LD LO in LO H C 4H CO M 03 o\o ^ rN) t^ tN CM t^ CN QJ 3 0 Qj 0 CO ,H x; x: Ch 0 0 03 05 XJ • Ti fN H (N H H H c QJ x: XJ XJ CQ Ch 0 A V L, m QJ o ^ XJ H c — >,Ln E CO 0 Sh 1 ^ o tn4H E C 0 o - V XJ QJ 0 x; c o > •CO OU "O XJ 0 E O o 05 -a «iJ 6 O V4 E u ^ ^ I 1 ^ XJ QJ M -H X: 3 XI •H O 0 o CT^ O CTi O CTl O CO > U Sh -rH CTi O O CTl O *^ CO XJ ^ >. to . 0 O C 0 4H XJ 0 C Sh tn ro A ro ro CM (N CM x; ■H O a Sh V .hT3 0 u C Sh 05 05 W C d Sh O 0 CO XJ x: iH .U •U ^ XJ 13 CO E 03 G U -H Sh 05 QJ Simil; re a s c meas H E CO Vh 0 E Sh O Sh Sh xJ o 0 0 E o -H -U M 0 a QJ QJ Sh 0 U •H rH Sh c tn G r-i c a T) > O c Sh 4H -H to QJ 3 XJ •H :3 O nH XJ QJ a 03 CO 03 OS ~-H -H IJH S-I 2 CO S 03 Sh CO a H XJ E a CO TS iH ^ O ""-■^ \-H O \ 3 The ompa etri to =1 n p: m QJ QJ a n -H ^ XJ a U CO 0 XJ XI xJ •in Sh xJ U C Dj 0 rH •H Sh a 0 c u 03 •H 03 O 01 X o d 0 3 05 03 Id O 0 H x; Sh •rH 4H rH J^ w s; CO O lij tti D< CO a s - u E J2 XJ XJ T) O 4H S Table 5. Relative abundance of cells and rank by biovolume of diatoms and genera of non-diatom algae in periphyton samples collected from the Judith River near Lewistown, Montana on August 9, 2000. Taxa Relative Abundance and (Rank) J 1 J 3 Chlorophyta (green algae) Anki s trodesrnus Cladophora Coswarium Oedogoniurn Scenedeswus Spirogyra Chrysophyta (golden algae) Bacillariophyceae Rhodophyta Audouinella Cyanophyta (cyanobacteria) ^ Calothrix Gloeothece Hydrocoleuiu Merismopedia Oscillatoria Phormidium occasional (9) occasional (4) rare (11) occasional (10] frequent (2) common ( 5 ) common (3) abundant ( 1 ) occasional (8) occasional (7) common (6) occasional (10) frequent (1) occasional (7) common (5) occasional (9) frequent (3) frequent (4) rare (11) occasional (8) abundant (2) occasional (12) frequent (6) ^ Formerly known as blue-green algae, Table 6. Percent abundance of major diatom species^ and values of selected diatom association metrics for periphyton samples collected from the Judith River near Lewistown, Montana on August 9, 2000. « Species /Me trie (Pollution Tolerance Class) ^ Percent Abundance/Metric Values^ Mountain Criteria Plains Criteria'' Jl J3 Jl J3 Achnanthes biasolettiana (3! Achnanthes winutissima (3) Cymhella laevis (3) Cymbella rnicrocephala (2) Cells Counted Total Species Species Counted Species Diversity- Percent Dominant Species Disturbance Index Pollution Index Siltation Index Percent Abnormal Cells Percent Epithemiaceae Similarity Index 8.09 2.46 55.76 68.92 5.27 1.23 4.90 9.46 408 407 69 44 52 29 29 2 .99 2.08 2 .99 2 08 55.76 68.92 55 .76 68 92 55.76 68.92 55 .76 68 92 2.75 2.76 9.07 2.46 1.84 1.84 1 .84 1 84 0.61 0.49 72.94 ^ A major diatom species is here considered to be one that accounts for 5% or more of the cells in one or more samples of a sample set . ^ Underlined values indicate good biological integrity, minor impairment, and full support of aquatic life uses; bold values indicate fair biological integrity, moderate impairment, and partial support of aquatic life uses; all other values indicate excellent biological integrity, no impairment, and full support of aquatic life uses when compared to diatom criteria for mountain and plains streams in Tables 3 and 4 . ^ 3 = sensitive to pollution; 2 = tolerant of pollution; 1 = most tolerant of pollution. * Only metric values that exceed diatom biocriteria for plains streams are shown. APPENDIX A: DIATOM PROPORTIONAL COUNTS Judith River west of Ross Fork (J-1) 11/15/00 iSample . 6en«s/S|>ecles Wariel^ PoBullon Tolerance Ctess Count Percent ;:; 200401 Achnanthes biasolettiana 3 66 8.09 200401 Achnanthes minutissima 3 455 55.76 200401 Amphora inariensis 3 0 0.00 200401 Amphora libyca 3 1 0.12 200401 Amphora pediculus 3 3 0.37 200401 Aulacoseira distans 3 0 0.00 200401 Caloneis bacillum 2 0 0.00 200401 Cocconeis placentula 3 3 0.37 200401 Cymbella affinis 3 1 0.12 200401 Cymbella amphicephala 3 3 0.37 200401 Cymbella delicatula 3 1 0.12 200401 Cymbella laevis 3 43 5.27 200401 Cymbella microcephala 2 40 4.90 200401 Cymbella minuta 2 2 0.25 200401 Cymbella perpusilla v. striatior 3 11 1.35 200401 Cymbella silesiaca 2 24 2.94 200401 Cymbella sinuata 3 2 0.25 200401 Denticula kuetzingii 3 5 0.61 200401 Diatoma moniliformis 2 3 0.37 200401 Diploneis oblongella 3 1 0.12 200401 Fragilaria construens 3 4 0.49 200401 Fragilaria pinnata 3 0 0.00 200401 Fragilaria vaucheriae v. capitellata 2 10 1.23 200401 Frustulia vulgaris 2 1 0.12 200401 Gomphonema dichotomum 3 7 0.86 200401 Gomphonema intricatum v. vibrio 3 4 0.49 200401 Gomphonema mexicanum 2 2 0.25 200401 Gomphonema minutum 3 2 0.25 200401 Gomphonema olivaceum 3 2 0.25 200401 Gomphonema parvulum 1 5 0.61 200401 Gomphonema pumilum 3 0 0.00 200401 Gomphonema sp. 3 0 0.00 200401 Gomphonema subtile 3 0 0.00 200401 Navicula capitata 2 1 0.12 200401 Navicala capitatoradiata 2 3 0.37 200401 Navicula cryptocephala 3 2 0.25 200401 Navicula cryptotenella 2 0 0.00 200401 Navicula gregaria 2 0 0.00 200401 Navicula kotschyi 2 6 0.74 200401 Navicula lenzii 2 1 0.12 200401 Navicula menisculus 2 2 0.25 200401 Navicula pupula 2 3 0.37 200401 Navicula pygmaea 2 2 0.25 200401 Navicula reichardtiana 2 4 0.49 200401 Navicula stroemii 2 2 0.25 200401 Navicula tripunctata 3 1 0.12 200401 Navicula trivialis 2 0 0.00 Page 1 Judith River west of Ross Fork (J-1) 11/15/00 Sample f G«)is/Si>eciesAtort^ PoSulloo Toteratfice Class Count P€R»m 200401 Navicula veneta 1 9 1.10 200401 Nitzschia amphibia 2 2 0.25 200401 Nitzschia angustata 2 0 0.00 200401 'Nitzschia angustatula 2 0 0.00 200401 Nitzschia apiculata 2 2 0.25 200401 Nitzschia desertorum 2 10 1,23 200401 Nitzschia fonticola 3 2 0.25 200401 Nitzschia frustuium 2 1 0.12 200401 Nitzschia gracilis 2 0 0.00 200401 Nitzschia lacuum 3 2 0.25 200401 Nitzschia liebetruthii 2 2 0.25 200401 Nitzschia palea 1 11 1.35 200401 Nitzschia paleacea 2 4 0.49 200401 Nitzschia solita 1 2 0.25 200401 Stauroneis smithii 3 0 0.00 200401 Surirella angusta 1 0 0.00 200401 Synedra ecus 2 4 0.49 200401 Synedra delicatissima 2 0 0.00 200401 iSynedra nana 3 20 2.45 200401 Synedra rumpens 2 14 1.72 200401 Synedra tenera 2 0 0.00 200401 Synedra ulna 2 2 0.25 Page 2 Judith River east of Ware (J-3) 11/15/00 Sangjie Geous/SpeclesA/i^Bty Poilutkjn ToteranceCl^s Count Percent : 200501 Achnanthes biasolettiana 3 20; 2.46 200501 Achnanthes minutissima 3| 561; 68.92 200501 Amphora libyca 3t 0 0.00 200501 Cocconeis pediculus 3 2 0.25 200501 Cocconeis placentula 3 1 0.12 200501 Cycloteila meneghiniana 2 0 0.00 200501 Cymbella affinis 3i 3 0.37 200501 Cymbella delicatula 3 2 0.25 200501 Cymbella laevis 3 10i 1,23 200501 Cymbella microcephala ' 2 77i 9.46 200501 Cymbella perpusllla v. striatior [ 3 3 0.37 200501 Cymbella silesiaca 2 7 0.86 200501 iDenticula kuetzingii 3 4 0.49 200501 Diatoma moniliformis 2 9 1.11 200501 Diatoma vulgaris 3 0 0.00 200501 Fragilaria leptostauron 3 Oi 0.00 200501 Fragilaria pinnata 3 0; 0.00 200501 Fragilaria vaucheriae v. capitellata i 2 24' 2.95 200501 Gomphonema kobayasii 3 2 0.25 200501 Gomphonema minutum 3 2 0.25 200501 Gomphonema olivaceum 3! 0 0.00 200501 Gomphonema parvulum 1 8 0.98 200501 Gomphonema pumilum 3 4 0.49 200501 Gomphonema subtile 3 0 0.00 200501 Navicula cryptotenella 2 4 0.49 200501 Navicula gregaria 2 1 0.12 200501 Navicula kotschyi 2 4 0.49 200501 Navicula pupula 2 0 0.00 200501 Navicula stroemii 2 1 0.12 200501 Navicula trivialis 2 0 0.00 200501 iNavicula veneta 1 0 0.00 200501 iNitzschia amphibia ! 2 0 0.00 200501 Nitzschia angustata 2 0 0.00 200501 Nitzschia fonticola 3 0 0.00 200501 INitzschia palea 1 5 0.61 20050rNitzschia perminuta 3 5i 0.61 20050rNitzschia solita 1 0 0.00 200501 Stauroneis smithii 3 0 0.00 200501 Synedra acus 2 12 1.47 200501 'Synedra delicatissima 2, 1 0.12 200501 ;Synedra nana 3: 13 1.60 200501 jSynedra rumpens 2 4 0.49 200501 Synedra tenera 2 21 2.58 200501 ;Synedra ulna \ 2 3 0.37 Page 1