Full text of "Aquatic surveys and re-assessment of sites within the Middle Powder River Watershed"

See other formats

Aquatic Surveys and
Re-assessment of Sites within the
Middle Powder River Watershed

Prepared for:
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Miles City Field Office

and
The Interagency BLM Aquatic Task Group

Prepared by:

David M. Stagliano
Aquatic Ecologist

Montana Natural Heritage Program

a cooperative program of the
Montana State Library and the University of Montana

May 2012

MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Program

Aquatic Surveys and
Re-assessment of Sites within the
Middle Powder River Watershed

Prepared for:
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Miles City Field Office

and
The Interagency BLM Aquatic Task Group

Agreement Number:
L08AC 13222

Prepared by:

David M. Stagliano

Aquatic Ecologist

MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Program

*"">■ MONT

r q,tate
Libr;

Library

■S-*

'% The University of

Montana

This document should be cited as follows:

Stagliano, David M. 2012. Aquatic Surveys and Re-assessment of Sites within the Middle Pow-
der River Watershed. Report for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Miles City Field Office
and The Interagency BLM Aquatic Task Group. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena,
Montana. 19 pp. plus appendices.

Executive Summary

The project goals of the 2011 Aquatic Surveys
and Assessment of the Middle Powder Water-
shed were to: 1) revisit five integrator sites es-
tablished and sampled in 2005 to assess aquat-
ic community changes during this time period;
2) perform habitat-targeted surveys for the
rare sand-dwelling mayfly community; and 3)
interpret key community and watershed indica-
tors (against reference condition standards) to
determine aquatic condition status and trends
since the development of coalbed natural gas
(CBNG) wells in the watershed. Inventory
work occurred on BLM lands where possible
to enable informed management at the local
site scale. Fish and macroinvertebrate samples
were collected at six mainstem Powder River
sites in Montana (Moorhead Bridge site added
in 2011) for this BLM assessment.

Fish Communities: Fish surveys were per-
formed at each site using the 300 m seining
protocols developed by Bramblett et al. (2005)
for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Over-
all, we captured 374 individuals and identi-
fied eight native species at the six mainstem
Powder River sites. Despite using the same
effort during similar river flows, fish numbers
and diversity were significantly lower (about
1/4 as many individuals) in 2011 than in 2005,
which recorded 1299 individuals of 13 fish
species. Native fish species averaged six per
site in 2011, whereas in 2005, sites averaged
seven per site (7.5 species is Expected {E}
at reference condition). Flathead chubs were
the dominant members of this river section's
fish community in 201 1 averaging 66% of the
individuals collected, while in 2005 they only
made up about 28% with sand shiners domi-
nating the catch (60%). The exotic carp and
introduced plains killifish were not collected at
any of the 201 1 sites where they were reported
in 2005. The Sturgeon Chub, a Montana spe-
cies of concern previously common in this

reach, was not collected in 201 1 and only at
one downstream site in 2005, indicating a sus-
tained decline or absence in this reach. Fish
communities across all sites scored relatively
lower with the IBI and Observed vs. Expected
(O/E) in 2011 than in 2005 (averaging 54.8 vs.
58.4 and 0.8 vs. 0.9, respectively), but these
differences were not significant (F-test, p= 0.25
and 0.74). The Moorhead Bridge site was the
exception for 2011 with increased IBI and O/E
scores. When calculating O/E values, four of
the six sites scored within the 1.2-0.8 unim-
paired/good integrity threshold, while sites
POW3 and POW6 ranked impaired with scores
of 0.57 and 0.63. The fish community scores
did not correlate with the macroinvertebrate
DEQ MMI or O/E scores (r=0.09 and 0.07),
but did have a positive relationship with the
BLM Habitat Scores (r=0.51 and 0.55).

Macroinvertebrate Communities: Paired
EMAP-protocol macroinvertebrate samples
were collected at each site replicating efforts
from 2005. Overall, 64 total taxa were report-
ed from the sites in 2011, an increase from 59
taxa in 2005. Average macro invertebrate-taxa
richness per site was 28 taxa, which is a signif-
icant increase from 23.4 taxa per site reported
in 2005 (p < 0.03). All EMAP samples agreed
in ranking the six Powder River sites non-im-
paired with DEQ MMI plains-index scores
>37 and the O/E, but the O/E scores based
on species expected only >50% of the time
report all sites significantly below the impair-
ment threshold. Reach- Wide EMAP samples
collected two of the five species of rare sand-
dwelling mayflies, Homoeoneuria alleni and
Anepeorus rusticus not sampled with the
Targeted-Riffle Protocols (Peck et al. 2003).
Targeted sampling of the rare sand-dwelling
mayfly community with the over-sized dip net
proved laborious and ineffective at increas-
ing occurrence records or estimating densities.

There were no discernible trends in the MMI
or O/E index scores from the Wyoming Border
to Broadus, and MMI scores were not signifi-
cantly different than 2005 scores. However,
the occurrence and abundance of some sensi-
tive/Species of Concern (SOC) mayfly species
has significantly decreased from the Wyoming
Border to Moorhead Bridge from 2005 to
2011, while the abundance of the stonefly, Ac-
romicria abnormis, has significantly increased
across the study area in recent years.

Community Integrity: Multiple lines of evi-
dence (fish and macroinvertebrates) indicate a
continued decline in the biological integrity of
this reach of the Powder River. This is par-
ticularly noted in fish and SOC mayfly species
declines between the Wyoming border and
Moorhead Bridge. From a long-term perspec-
tive, the fish community at the WY border
looks significantly different than it did 30 years

ago, as it continues to lose sensitive species
and biological integrity. Concurrent studies
have found that the maximum concentrations
of alkalinity in the Powder River also occurred
in this reach (Petersen et al. 2011), potentially
implicating cumulative effects from coalbed
natural gas extraction-related outflows from
upstream in Wyoming as likely contributors to
this biological condition. Community Integrity
results from the 2011 fish and macroinverte-
brate surveys combined to rank the Powder
River reach at the Moorhead Bridge Site as the
most biologically intact, followed by Pow-
der River Site #5 upstream of Rough Creek
(POW#5). In 2005, the Powder River reach
at the Wyoming border (POW#l) and POW#5
had the highest index of biotic integrity (IBI)
for fish. Powder River Site #5 was also the
only site where we collected Sturgeon Chubs
(Montana SOC) in 2005, but we failed to col-
lect any during the 2011 sampling.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank The Interagency
Aquatic Task Group (ATG) of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), especially Jake
Chaffin of the Miles City Field Office and Bill
Ostheimer of Buffalo, Wyoming BLM FO, for
support and funding of MTNHP aquatic eco-
logical projects. We also thank Dave Feldman
(MTDEQ) for running the 2011 macro inverte-
brate O/E models. Dr. Dan Gustafson, provided
important information about his research

We wish to thank those who assisted us in the
field sampling, including Troy Hinke (Broad-
us) and Winston Greeley (Helena) of MT-
FNP. Substantial on-site field sampling and
logistic help were provided by Bryce Maxell
(MTNHP). Editorial comments were provided
by MTNHP staff members Linda Vance, Gary
Carnefix, and Neil Snow. Coburn Currier for-
matted and provided helpful comments on the
report. This is publication no. 2012-03 of the
Montana Natural Heritage Program.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Powder River Study Sites 2

Methods 4

Habitat and Water Quality Collection and Analysis 4

Fish Collection and Analysis 4

Macroinvertebrate Collection and Analysis 6

Results and Discussion 8

Habitat and Water Quality Results and Analysis 8

Fish Community Results and Analysis 8

Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis 12

Conclusions and Recommendations 17

Literature Cited 18

Appendix A: Global/State Rank Definitions

Appendix B: Raw fish data and IBI metric calculation from Powder River sites.

Appendix C: Macroinvertebrate taxa lists, abundance and plains MMI calculations at each site.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Aquatic Sample sites in the Middle Powder River Watershed 3

Figure 2. Seining the Powder River near the WY border 4

Figure 3. Reach- wide EMAP macroinvertebrate sample (F pin center) at Powder

River site 2 6

Figure 4. Two native catfish species collected in the Powder River 8

Figure 5. Powder River fish community IBI and Observed/Expected (O/E) Scores for

2005 and 2011 10

Figure 6. Powder River study reach fish community proportion for the dominant 8

species by total individuals in 2005 and 2011 11

Figure 7. Individual species responses across sites and years of the SOC mayfly and

golden stonefly 15

Figure 8. Powder River study reach macroinvertebrate IBI and O/E Scores for 2005

and 2011 16

List of Tables

Table 1. Powder River Site locations sampled in 2011 2

Table 2 Characteristics, metrics, and classification offish captured in the Powder

River during 2005 and 2011 sampling 5

Table 3. Impairment determinations from the MMI and O/E models 7

Table 4. Habitat quality scores, physical and water quality parameters of Powder

River sites 9

Table 5. Fish collected from the mainstem Powder River, IBI and O/E index scores 9

Table 6. Powder River fish samples at the Wyoming border taken 30 and 36 years apart 12

Table 7. Powder River macroinvertebrate sample information 13

List of Tables (continued)

Table 8. Sensitive and SOC macro invertebrate species site occupancy changes

from 2005-2011 14

Table 9. Sand-dwelling SOC taxa collected with the EMAP RW vs. Sandbar

Timed Kick 14

Introduction

The Powder River is a vast drainage represent-
ing one of the last undammed, large prairie rivers
in the United States. In this part of southeastern
Montana, the landscape through which the Pow-
der flows resembles a natural condition-state of a
large prairie river with sweeping meanders across
the valley bottom, side channels, oxbows, shifting
islands and functional connectedness to the flood-
plain (Vance et al. 2006). The Powder River aquat-
ic ecosystem supports many elements of a fully
functioning, biologically diverse system, including
25 native fish species (19 in Montana) (Baxter and
Stone 1995) and numerous species of rare inver-
tebrates. Some mayfly and dragonfly species of
concern (SOC), including globally rare (G1-G3)
species, have evolved to exploit the shifting sand
and gravel bar habitats common in unaltered large
prairie rivers (D. Gustafson, pers. comm. 2006,
Stagliano 2006, MTNHP and MTFWP 2006). With
its specialized aquatic life, the Powder River sup-
ports not only a diverse community, but represents
the sole remnant of a once widespread Great Plains
riverine community offish and invertebrates (Hu-
bert 1993). The Powder River was identified as
the reference standard in the Large Prairie River
classification (Stagliano 2006); no other large
prairie system in the ecoregion contains the qual-
ity and biological integrity of its communities and
habitats (Stagliano 2005). Furthermore, the Pow-
der River was determined to provide substantial
habitat for the declining sturgeon chub (Montana
and Wyoming SOC, BLM Sensitive Species) (Wer-
don 1992), a species that has been extirpated from
much of its historic range (Stagliano and Gould
2010).

The Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana
is currently undergoing one of the world's largest
coalbed natural gas (CBNG) developments, with
about 12,000 wells in place in 2003, 14,200 in
2005, and up to 70,000 projected over the next 20
to 30 years (Davis and Bramblett 2006). CBNG
mining has the potential to severely disrupt biota
in adjacent riparian zones and streams. However,
information is scarce concerning the effects of
CBNG product water on fish and aquatic inverte-

brates, making it difficult to predict the potential
effects of this development on aquatic ecosystems
(Davis et al. 2009). Therefore, pre-development
baseline data and monitoring can be used to as-
sess the influence of CBNG wells at the landscape
or local reach scale. Despite numerous projects
undertaken to document and monitor biological
communities in the middle Powder River water-
shed (Confluence Consulting 2004; Stagliano 2006;
Davis et al. 2009; Peterson et al. 2009; Peterson et
al. 2011), gaps still exist in our basic knowledge of
prairie river aquatic community spatial and tem-
poral changes without the addition of confounding
anthropogenic factors (Dodds et al. 2004). Ad-
ditionally, the Powder River presents numerous
challenges in evaluating its biological and chemical
integrity. These include problems associated with
sampling a shifting sand-bed stream, high vari-
ability in flow, and naturally high conductivity and
turbidity.

Structural changes have been documented in the
fish assemblages since the 1970s in the present
study section of the Powder River from dominance
by flathead chub {Platygobio gracilis) to domi-
nance by sand shiner {Notropis stramineus) (Sta-
gliano 2006, Peterson et al. 2010). This change has
been coupled with a continued decline of the stur-
geon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) throughout the
Powder River (Stagliano and Gould 2010) and in-
creased occurrences of introduced fish species (Pat-
ton et al. 1998). Therefore, additional monitoring
is warranted within the targeted locations between
the Wyoming border and Broadus.

This study represents a continued investigation
into documenting the fish and macroinvertebrate
communities of this prairie river section with these
specific objectives: 1) to revisit and resample six
integrator sites established in 2005 to assess aquat-
ic community changes over this time period; 2) to
perform habitat-targeted surveys for the rare sand-
dwelling mayfly community; and 3) to interpret
key community and watershed indicators (against
reference condition standards) to determine aquatic
condition status and trends during the development
of CBNG wells in the watershed.

Powder River Study Sites

Joseph Platz (former BLM Miles City Fish
Biologist) and I established the following sites
in 2005 along the main-stem Powder River on
BLM or state-owned riparian parcels that were
"two track" accessible and would complement on-
going USGS monitoring sites. We keep the initial
naming convention of the sites despite dropping
site 4 and inserting Site 6 upstream of Site 5. We
added the Moorhead Bridge site in 2011 after
conversations with Jake Chaffm (BLM Miles City)
(Figure 1, Table 1).

Table 1. Powder River Site locations sampled in 2011.

Site Code Site Description .„., Latitude Longitude Elevation „ ,. „

v Mile & Gradient Sampled

POW1
POW2

POWMOOR12

POW3

POW6

POW5

Powder River near
Wyoming border

Powder River near
Dry Creek

Powder River at
Moorhead bridge

Powder River
downstream from
Moorhead

Powder River near
Buttermilk Creek

Powder River near
Rough Creek

219 45.0128 -105.9029

215 45.0377 -105.8809

212 45.0578 -105.8775

206 45.1071 -105.8421

187 45.2256 -105.6906

166 45.3467 -105.5333

3426

0.5%

7/26/2011

3376

0.3%

7/26/2011

3350

0.4%

7/27/2011

3315

0.2%

7/27/2011

3185

0.2%

7/27/2011

3105

0.2%

7/28/2011

Legend

o Towns

♦ 2011 Powder Sites
Public_Lands

OWN FULL

| Montana Dept of Transport at ion
Montana State Trust Lands
Prwate Land

US Bureau of Land Management
US Forest Service

Wyoming Border

2 4

I Miles

Figure 1. Aquatic Sample sites in the Middle Powder River Watershed.

Methods

Aquatic communities (fish and macroinvertebrates)
and riparian areas were inventoried and assessed
using a combination of Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks (MFWP) (fish) and BLM / EPA
(macroinvertebrates and habitat assessments)
protocols and methodology. These methods
replicated those used during our July 2005 site
visits during river flows at 500 cfs (recorded at the
USGS Moorhead Gaging Station). Reach lengths
were set at a standard 300 m, but to encompass
an additional set of riffle macrohabitats for the
macroinvertebrate targeted-riffle sampling,
protocols were extended to 450 m. Information
and results from previous inventories, such as those
conducted by MTFWP (fish), USGS and BLM
(macroinvertebrates), were incorporated into the
analysis for Moorhead Bridge (in 2005) and earlier
site visits for the Wyoming border site.

Habitat and Water Quality
Collection and Analysis

The assessment stream reach was divided into 1
equally spaced transects according to the BLM and
EMAP protocols ( http://wwwl .usu.edu/buglab/
forms/Bug%20Protocol%20form.pdf ; Lazorchak et
al. 1998). The downstream transect was marked
(GPS, flagging and photo point) as the bottom of
the reach. All ecological assessment protocols
started from this point and continued upstream for
300 m (designated the assessment area or "AA")
to the top of the reach, which was also marked.

Parameters recorded at each transect were: wetted
width; three channel depth measurements; percent
large woody debris and riparian shading. On-
site habitat assessments were conducted using
the rapid assessment protocol developed for the
EPA by Barbour et al. (1999), with modifications
for the BLM by the National Aquatic Assessment
Team (scores 0-24). Water quality measures:
Specific conductivity; pH; water temperature; and
dissovlved oxygen concentration were measured
prior to biological sampling, which used a Yellow
Springs Instruments Inc. Model 85 water meter
calibrated to the higher conductivity level.

Fish Collection and Analysis

Fish surveys were performed using the 300 m
seining protocols developed by Bramblett et al.
(2005) for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
This protocol calls for block nets at the upstream
and downstream ends of the reach, but the width
of the Powder River precluded the use of these.
Instead, shallow riffle areas were used as barriers
and appeared sufficient in preventing fish from
escaping while the run and pool areas were being
seined (Figure 2). Shallow riffle areas unable to
be seined in the normal fashion because of cobble
obstructions were "kick-seined" (Figure 2) to
capture fish inhabitating this microhabitat. We
used 30 ft, l A inch mesh seines to cover most areas
across the channel and all macrohabitats within the
reach.

Figure 2. Seining the Powder River near the Wyoming border by beach seining (I) and kick-seining a riffle (r).

Fish were transferred to holding buckets, identified
to species, enumerated in the field, examined for
external anomalies (e.g. deformities, eroded fins,
lesions, and tumors), and released. Young-of-the-
year fish less than 20 millimeters in length were
noted on the field sheet (not included in the totals),
and released. Voucher specimens were taken only
in the case of uncertain field identifications of the
silvery minnows, Hybognathus spp., which were
preserved in 1 0% buffered formalin and identified
in the lab. Vouchers will be submitted to the
Montana State University fish collection.
Analysis of the sampled fish communities used

Integrated Biotic Indices (IBI) (Bramblett et al.
2005) and derived Observed/Expected (O/E) fish
models (Stagliano 2005) to detect impairment or
species loss in the biological integrity of the sites.
The IBI involved calculation of a series of 10
metrics evaluating different attributes of the fish
community (Table 2, Appendix B).

Because fish species richness can be directly
proportional to watershed size and is a
multiplicative factor in the Montana IBI (Bramblett
et al. 2005), we used the average catchment area
for this study reach (20,962 km 2 ) based at the

Table 2. Characteristics, metrics, and classification offish captured in the Powder River during 2005 and 2011
sampling. * = species collected in 2005, but not in 2011.

Species

Scientific Name

Trophic* Feeding Litho-obligate Tol** Originft
Habitat! Reproductive
GuildJ

Hiodontidae

Goldeye
Catostomidae

Hiodon alosoides

River Carpsucker*

Carpiodes carpio

Shorthead Redhorse*

Moxostoma
macroledidotum

Cyprinidae

Common Carp*

Cyprinus carpio

Flathead Chub

Platygobio gracilis

Longnose Dace

Rhinichthys cataractae

Plains Minnow

Hybognathus placitus

Western silvery
Minnow

Hybognathus argyritis

Sand Shiner

Notropis stramineus

Sturgeon Chub*

Macrhybopsis gelida

Cyprinidontidae

Plains Killifish*

Fundulus kansae

Ictaluridae

Channel Catfish

Ictalurus punctatus

Stonecat

Noturus flavus

BE
BE

BE
GE
BE
BE

GE
BE

BE
BE

LO
LO

TR§
LO

INT

TOL

MOD

INT

MOD

TOL

MOD

INT

MOD

INT

N
N

A HB = herbivore (> 90% plants or detritus); IC = invertivore/carnivore (>25% both invertebrates and vertebrates); IN = invertivore; OM =

"|" BE = benthic; GE = generalist; WC = water column: Brown (1971); Scott and Crossman (1973); Becker (1983)

X LO=Litho-obligate Reproductive Guild; Scott and Crossman (1973); Pflieger (1997); Barbour et al. (1999)

§ Tolerant reproductive strategists are not litho-obligates, use parental care at spawning site: Scott and Crossman (1973); Pflieger (1997)

** INT = intolerant; MOD = moderately tolerant: TOL = tolerant; Barbour et al. (1999);

f f N = native; I = introduced; Brown ( 1 97 1 ); Holton and Johnson (2003)

Moorhead gauging station for these calculations.
The summation of individual fish species and
tolerance metrics range between and 100.
Bramblett et al. (2005) did not propose threshold
criteria for good, fair, and poor biological integrity
for these scores, but instead relied on comparisons
to "reference condition" scores. Therefore, we
followed Confluence Consulting (2004) methods
by applying commonly used criteria of 75 to 1 00
indicating good to excellent biological integrity,
25 to 74 indicated fair biological integrity, and
less than 25 indicating poor biological integrity in
describing condition.

Derivation of the expected fish communities
is performed by identifying the frequency of
occurrence that a species has at a site classified in
a reference condition and summing the frequencies
across all fish species of the community (see
Stagliano 2006). The O/E (Observed taxa of
an evaluated site/Expected Taxa for a reference
site) model is a direct measure of the community
completeness. Taxonomic completeness is a
fundamental aspect of biological integrity and
is defined here as the proportion of the taxa that
"should" occur in a sample (E) that were actually
sampled (O) (Jessup et al. 2005). It compares
the fish species that are expected at a site with

the actual taxa that were found when the site
was sampled (carp/introduced species are never
"expected" and thus were given scores of zero).
Values of the O/E range from to 1 , with values
of 1 implying reference conditions and values
less than 1 implying some form of biological
impairment. In some cases, it is more ecologically
meaningful than the IBI, but not always. Pairs
of fish community samples were compared
across years for significant differences by using
proportional and taxa community similarity indices
(Brower and Zar 1984).

Macroinvertebrate Collection and
Analysis

The two standardized macroinvertebrate methods
used for the mainstem Powder River monitoring
were the EMAP Targeted Riffle (8 composited
riffle Surber samples, area sampled = 0.744 square
meters) and the EMAP Reach- Wide sampling for
including all habitats within the sampling reach (10
dipnets, area sampled was ca. 0.93 square meters)
(Lazorchak et al. 1998, Peck et al. 2003) (Figure 3).

These samples were collected within the MTDEQ
recommended sampling time frame (June 1 st -
September 15™), preserved in 1 liter Nalgene

Figure 3. Reach-wide EMAP macroinvertebrate sample (F pin center) at Powder River Site 2.

bottles with 95% ethanol and processed (sorting,
identification and data analysis) by David
Stagliano at the MTNHP Helena lab following
protocols used by the BLM Buglab: http://wwwl.
usu.edu/buglab/process/lab%20procedures.
htm . Macroinvertebrates were identified to
species, counted and the tabular data entered
into spreadsheet and database forms. Data
analysis included computation of indices of
community structure such as proportion of EPT (%
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxa)
and other biological metrics used in calculating the
MTDEQ multimetric macroinvertebrate (MMI)
indices or used in the Observed /Expected (0/
E) Models (Jessup et al. 2005, Feldman 2006).
Metric results were then scored using the MTDEQ
bioassessment criteria and each sample categorized
as non-impaired or impaired according to threshold
values (Table 3). The macroinvertebrate MMI
score is based upon a series of metrics that
measure attributes of benthic macroinvertebrate
communities regarding condition changes to
a stream system (in the form of pollution or
pollutants). The invertebrate metrics include: EPT
Taxa Richness (Score = EPT richness/14*100):
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera andTrichoptera
taxa; Percent Tanypodinae (Score = Percent
Tanypodinae/10 *100)[ Tanypodinae is a subfamily
of Chironomidae]); Percent Orthocladiinae
of Chironomidae (Score = (100-percent
Orthocladiinae of Chironomidae/ 1 00)* 1 00);
Predator Taxa Richness (Score = number of
predator taxa/9*100); Percent Collectors and

Filterers (Score = (100 - percent collectors and
filterers/65)*100. The index score represents the
condition of the macroinvertebrate community at
the time the sample was collected. If the index
score is below the impairment threshold, the
individual metrics can be used to provide insight
as to why the communities are different from the
reference condition (Barbour et al. 1999, Jessup
et al. 2005). The results from the eastern plains
index metrics are averaged to obtain the final
index score. The impairment threshold set by
MTDEQ is 37 for the eastern plains stream MMI
index and <0.8 for the O/E (Table 3). Ideal scores
representing a "complete" community are between
0.8 and 1.2 where a score of 1.0 represents 100%
of the expected species were actually collected.
The O/E scores can be evaluated by summing
all taxa expected at a given site (0/E p>0), or by
summing only those taxa expected to be at the
site greater than 50% of the time (O/E p>0.5).
The latter method has been found to eliminate the
"eschewing" effect of counting too many rare taxa
in the sample (Marchant 2002).

The final invertebrate sampling method targeted
main current, sand-dwelling invertebrates with
a modified 0.5 meter rectangular dipnet (D.
Gustafson, pers. comm. 2006). The dipnet was
maneuvered downstream of the sampler in a
diagonal fashion as the sampler is kicking both
feet across main-current sandbars using a time-
distance catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) measure
to standardize across all reaches sampled in the
Powder River.

Table 3. Impairment determinations from the DEQ MMI and O/E (RIVPACS) models
(taken from Jessup 2005, Feldman 2006).

Ecoregion

RIVPACS

MMI

Impairment Determination

Mountain

>0.8or< 1.2

>63

Not impaired

<0.8or> 1.2

<63

Impaired

Low Valley

>0.8or<1.2

>48

Not Impaired

< 0.8 or > 1.2

<48

Impaired

Eastern Plains

>0.8or<1.2

>37

Not impaired

<0.8or> 1.2

<37

Impaired

Results and Discussion

Habitat and Water Quality Results
and Analysis

Powder River Sites 1 and 5 scored highest in
habitat quality with the BLM assessment protocols,
representing 75% and 80% of the best possible
score, respectively (Table 4). Powder Site 5
also had the highest number of recorded channel
depths greater than 50 cm, indicating ample deep
holding areas for fish. Powder River Site 3 scored
lowest in the habitat assessment scores despite
having the second highest number of deep channel
areas; unfortunately, many of these deep areas had
unstable, unconsolidated substrate (silt, fine sand),
which is not optimum fish habitat.

Conductivity measurements were calibrated with
the USGS field gauge at the Moorhead Bridge
site. Reach-wide conductivity values measured in
201 1 averaged slightly higher (1225 us/cm) than
in 2005 (1 190 ixs/cm), but were not significantly
different (F-test, p>0.05). Temperature increases
of >6 degrees C and slight decreases in dissolved
O^ (>1 mg/1) can be seen in the sequence of sites
Moorhead Bridge — > POW3 — »POW6 as they were
sampled on 7/27/20 1 1 from the morning hours into
the late afternoon (Table 4).

Fish Community Results and
Analysis

We captured 374 individuals and identified eight
native fish species at the six Powder River sites
(Table 5). Despite using the same effort during
similar river flows, fish numbers per site and
diversity were significantly lower in 20 1 1 than
in 2005 (1299 individuals of 13 fish species).
Whereas in 2005, sites averaged 7 spp. per site, in
201 1 native fish averaged 6 species per site (7.5
species is expected at reference condition). The
exotic carp and introduced plains killifish were not
collected at any of the 2011 sites where they were
reported in 2005, nor were the native shorthead
redhorse or river carpsucker (Table 5). The
Sturgeon Chub, a Montana and Wyoming species
of concern previously common in this reach, was
not collected in 20 1 1 and only at one downstream

site in 2005, indicating a sustained population
decline or absence in this study reach.

Figure 4. Two native catfish species collected in the
Powder River, the stonecat (top) and channel catfish
(bottom).

Fish communities across all sites scored
relatively lower with the IBI and O/E in 20 1 1
than in 2005 (averaging 54.8 vs. 58.4 and 0.8 vs.
0.9, respectively) (Figure 5). However, these
differences were not significant (F-test, p = 0.25
and 0.74). At the site level, there were substantial
decreases in the IBI at sites POW1 and POW5
between 2005 and 2011; the exception to this
declining trend was the Moorhead Bridge site,
which had a slightly increased IBI and O/E scores
(Figure 5). The O/E at four of the six sites scored
within the 1.2-0.8 unimpaired/good integrity
threshold, while sites POW3 and POW6 ranked
impaired with scores of 0.53 and 0.67 (Table 5,
Figure 5).

Table 4. BLM Habitat Quality scores (out of 24), physical and water quality parameters of Powder
River sites. ChD ^channel depths measured in 10 cross sections (n=30), # ofChD >50cm reflects
deep run or pool areas. Cond*— Conductivity in microsiemens/cm, DO = Dissolved Oxygen in mg/l.

BLM Avg Avg H20

Site Site wetted ChD # ChD Temp pH Cond* DO

Score width (m) (cm) >50 cm (°C)

Powder River 1

42.4

36.0

23.3

8.5

1180

8.0

Powder River 2

38.5

40.0

24.5

8.4

1160

7.8

Powder MOOR 12

37.0

45.0

22.7

8.5

1180

8.2

Powder River 3

44.0

27.7

8.6

1210

7.8

Powder River 6

45.0

32.0

28.5

8.4

1302

7.0

Powder River 5

42.0

41.0

23.4

8.4

1320

9.0

Table 5. Fish collected from the Powder River sites in 2011. Fish IBI and O/E index scores. * :
collected in 2005, but not in 2011.

' species

Powder River

Sitel

Site 2

Moorl2

Site 3

Site 6

Site 5

River Mile

219

215.4

212.2

206.6

186.9

166.2

Collection date:

7/26/11

7/27/11

7/28/11

Channel Catfish

Common Carp*

Flathead Chub

Goldeye

Longnose Dace

Plains Minnow

Plains Killifish*

River Carpsucker*

Sand Shiner

Shorthead Redhorse*

Stonecat

Sturgeon Chub*

Western Silvery Minnow

Total # species

Native Species

Total Individuals

110

Fish IBI

51.9

53.5

57.6

53.9

51.4

57.6

O/E

0.80

1.07

0.53

0.67

0.93

»-
o

u
to

5 55

—

u- 50

Powder River Fish Biotic Integrity

■2005
■2011

POW#l POW#2 POW#12 POW#3 POW#6 POW#5
MOOR

1.2

1.0

S 0.8

ISl

0.6

0.4

0.2

Powder River Fish O/E

-2005
-2011

POW#l POW#2 POW#12 POW#3 POW #6 POW #5
MOOR

Figure 5. Powder River study reach fish community IBI (top) and Observed/
Expected (O/E) (bottom) Scores for 2005 and 2011.

Flathead chubs dominated the community
composition across all sites in 2011 (avg. 66% of
individuals), representing a complete shift from
the sand shiner dominated assemblages of 2005
and 2008 (Stagliano 2006, Peterson et al. 2009)
(Figure 6). These data do not support the recent
hypthesis that the switch in dominance to the sand
shiner community was linked to a decrease in
water quality More likely, this shift was caused by
spatial or temporal variability in fish communities

per reach. In addition, overall decreases in the
abundance of longnose dace in 20 1 1 , which are
intolerant of poor water quality, lends some support
to this conclusion. In contrast, an increase in the
percent of western and silvery plains minnows in
the catch in 20 1 1 is a positive indicator of water
quality because these species are also considered
less tolerant to water quality changes, but the low
numbers of total fish per site that we derived these
percentages from is still troubling.

2005

I Sand Shiner

l Flathead Chub

I Longnose Dace

I Plains Minnow

l Channel Catfish

I Western Silvery Minnow

Goldeye

River Carpsucker

2011

I Flathead Chub

I Sand Shiner

f Western Silvery Minnow

I Plains Minnow

i Channel Catfish

Goldeye

Longnose Dace

Stonecat

Figure 6. Powder River study reach fish community proportion for the
dominant 8 species by total individuals in 2005 (top) and 20011 (bottom).

Relative utility of Fish IBI vs. O/E

Although the fish IBI is inadequate to determine
the fish community integrity, it is a useful tool for
monitoring sites between years, and it correlated
strongly with the habitat quality index (r=0.451,
p<0.05). Fish IBI values ranked all Powder River
sites as having fair biological integrity (scores >25
and <75). Even when Powder River sites had
their full fish community present (POW5 in 2005),
they still ranked only "fair" in biointegrity with
the IBI (Figure 5). This can be explained in part
because the lowest-scoring metrics were those with
adjustments for catchment area, such as number of
native species and number of native families. The
Powder River is a diverse aquatic system, but one

cannot expect a linear increase in fish species with
increasing watershed area. For example, to bring
the IBI to over 70, a sample of all 20 native species
in the Powder River with no tolerant individuals
would be required. This situation brings into
question the suitabilty of the IBI to a watershed of
this size. The largest catchment area of sites used
by Bramblett et al. (2005) in developing the fish
IBI was about 14,000 km 2 while catchment areas
for our sites on the Powder River ranged from
about 20,000km 2 to well over 23,000 km 2 . By
extrapolating beyond the range of the calibration
data, we risk serious prediction errors. By using
the O/E model as a direct measure of community
completeness, the highest expected score in the

upper Powder River reaches, despite a total species
pool of approximately 20 species, is 7.5 native
species.

A comparsion of diversity levels in the Powder
River along the Wyoming border (POW1 at river
mile 219) in 1975, 2005, and 2011 indicates that
the number of native species and O/E declined
during that 36 year interval (Table 6). We can also
document that the Percent Community Similarity
to 1975 is very low at 24.6% (2005) and 34.6%
(2011). But more surprisingly, the taxa similarity
between 1975/2005 and 1975/2011 was 58.3% and
33.3% (respectively). Compared to sampling in
1975, of the 12 species not shared with the 1975
sample, five were collected in 2005 and eight in
201 1 (Table 6). Taxa similarity between 2005 and
201 1 was 62.5%. In addition, two common taxa
collected in 1975, lake and sturgeon chubs, which
were absent from the 2005 and 2011 samples, were
not observed in 20 1 1 . Moreover, sturgeon chubs

have not been collected within 30 miles of this site
in the past five years

Macroinvertebrate Community
Analysis

Whereas 59 taxa were reported in 2005, 64 taxa
were recorded in 2011 (Appendix C). Average
macroinvertebrate taxa richness per site was
28.0 taxa, reflecting a significant increase from
23.4 reported in 2005 (F-test, p < 0.03) (Table
7). All EMAP samples agreed in ranking the
six Powder River sites as non-impaired,with the
DEQ MMI plains indesx score >37 and the OP/
E p>0. However, the 0/E p>0.5 scores reflect
sites below the expected number of species and
below the impairment threshold (Figure 7). The
two protocols also yielded different community
composition measures, and the within-site
sampling method variability was greater than

Table 6. Powder River fish samples taken 30 and 36 years apart at the
Wyoming border (POW 1). * = species not collected at this site in 2005 or
2011.

Taxa

10/15/1975

7/11/2005

7/26/2011

Channel Catfish

Common Carp*

Goldeye

Longnose Dace

Flathead Chub

965

Lake Chub*

River Carpsucker

Sturgeon Chub*

Sand Shiner

305

Shorthead Redhorse

Sauger*

Western Silvery/Plains

Minnow

Total Native Species

O/E

1.27

1.13

0.80

% Community Similarity

24.6%

34.6%

Taxa Similarity

58.3%

2005- 62.5%
1975- 33.3%

similar-method across site variability. The number
of individuals obtained in a targeted riffle (TR)
sample was significantly higher than the reach-
wide (RW) EMAP samples (F-test, pO.OOl). All
TR samples had to be sub-sampled to reduce the
number of organisms for the targeted 600 count,
whereas three of the RW samples failed to reach
600 organisms after picking 1 00% of the sample
(Table 7).

Reach- Wide EMAP samples did collect two of
the five species of rare sand-dwelling mayflies,
Anepeorus rusticus (G2S1) and Homoeoneuria
alleni (G4S2), which were not sampled with the
Targeted-Riffle Protocols (Table 8). The number
of sites where four SOC taxa were collected
has increased by ten since 2005. They were not
detected at only four sites where they had been
encountered in 2005 (Table 8). Unfortunately
for one SOC mayfly taxon, Raptoheptagenia
cruentata, significant population declines are
occurring despite only being "lost" from one site
in 201 1 (Figure 7, Table 8). In contrast, one of
only two stonefly species, Acroneuria abnormis,
has increased in both population density and site

occupancy from 2005 to 2011 (Figure 7).
Six other "sensitive" taxa followed similar trends
of being detected at more sites in 201 1 than being
lost (not detected) from sites occupied in 2005,
including new "additions" to the study reach by
a stonefly taxon, Isoperla, and a sensitive Tipulid
dipteran (Table 8). Extensive time/distance
sampling of sandbar habitat at three sites did
not add any additional SOC taxa to the species
list or obtain sufficient numbers of individuals
to estimate densities per area of stream bottom
(Table 9). These sandbar taxa are truly rare with
randomized clumped distributions, making it even
harder to estimate population size or densities per
unit river bottom. However, randomization of the
EMAP RW sampling scheme (right, left, center)
appeared to provide a reasonably good probablity
of detection, as addtional taxa were not found at
the three sandbar sites where extensive sampling
occurred (Table 9).

Previous investigations from 1 999 through 2002
by Dan Gustafson (pers. comm., 2006) and a
subsequent study (Staligano 2006) suggest the
mayflies are not only rare, but may been already

Table 7. EMAP macroinvertebrate results: T ' R=Targeted Riffle, RW=Reach-wide. % Sub=percent of sample
picked, # Ind= number of individuals picked from subsample. EPT=Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
taxa in sample, TTaxa= total taxa richness, number of individuals in the sample, multimetric index score, and
aquatic impairment status for stream site.

Site

Site code

EMAP
Method

% Sub
Picked

# Ind TTaxa

EPT
Taxa

MMI

Status

Powder River 1

YLSPW1

TR-500

632

53.5

Non-Impaired

Powder River 1

YLSPW1Q

RW-500

100

561

49.6

Non-Impaired

Powder River 2

YLSPW2

TR-500

629

56.0

Non-Impaired

Powder River 2

YLSPW2Q

RW-500

100

618

51.4

Non-Impaired

Powder River
Moorhead

YLSPWM

TR-500

603

56.9

Non-Impaired

Powder River
Moorhead

YLSPWMQ

RW-500

607

51.4

Non-Impaired

Powder River 3

YLSPW3

TR-500

33.3

558

59.1

Non-Impaired

Powder River 3

YLSPW3Q

RW-500

100

385

46.1

Non-Impaired

Powder River 6

YLSPW6

TR-500

631

54.5

Non-Impaired

Powder River 6

YLSPW6Q

RW-500

603

51.9

Non-Impaired

Powder River 5

YLSPW5

TR-500

603

58.7

Non-Impaired

Powder River 5

YLSPW5Q

RW-500

100

394

46.5

Non-Impaired

Table 8. Sensitive and SOC macroinvertebrate species site occupancy changes from 2005-2011: X — collected
during both years; (+) — detected in 2011, but not in 2005; (-) — detected in 2005, but not in 2011; blank— not
collected at site. TolVal — MT DEQ Tolerance Rank (0, most sensitive), NS Rank — NatureServe Conservation
Ranks (see Appendix A).

Tol.

POW

Sensitive Species

Value

SOC

Rank

POW1

POW2

Moor

POW3

POW6 POW5

Acroneuria abnormis (P)

(+)

Anepeorus rusticus (E)

G2S1

(+)

(-)

(+)

Brachycentrus occidentalis (T)

(+)

Dicranota (D)

(+)

Leucrocuta (E)

(+)

Homoeoneuria alleni (E)

G4S2

(+)

Isoperla (P)

(+)

Raptoheptagenia cruentata*(E)

G4S2

(-)

Rhithrogena (E)

(+)

Stylurus intricatus (0)

G4S1

(-)

(+)

E = Ephemeroptera, P = Plecoptera, T=

Trichoptera,

0= Odonata

Table 9. Number of sand- dwelling SOC individuals collected with the EMAP Reach-wide (RW) vs. Sandbar
Timed Kick (SB Kick) at three sites with sampling effort. * = not an SOC, but collected with both sampling
methods.

POW Moorhead

POW3

POW6

SOC Species

EMAP RW

0.93 m 2

SB Kick
3.0 m 2

EMAP RW

0.93 m 2

SB Kick
3.5 m 2

EMAPRW

0.93 m 2

SB Kick
6.0 m 2

Anepeorus rusticus (E)

Analetris eximia (E)

Homoeoneuria alleni (E)

Lachlania saskatchewanensis 1 (E)

Ophiogomphus severus* (O)

Stylurus intricatus (O)

Potential Species of Concern

ia
12

10
8
6
4
2

SOC Mayfly--Ropfoftepfogen/o cruentata

* * —♦—zoos

-■-2011

POW#l

POW#2

POW #12
MOOR

POW #3

POW #6

POW #5

_0J

i_
m

111

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Stonef\y~Acroneuria abnormis

—♦—2005 A

-■-2011 /~

/ i

* * *

* /

f— _

■ 1 ^

► 1 •—

POW#l

POW #2

POW #12
MOOR

POW #3

POW #6

POW #5

Figure 7. Individual species responses across sites and years of the SOC mayfly
(top) and golden stonefly (bottom). * — significant difference between years (t-test,
p<0.05). Bars reflected indicate 1 standard error.

in serious decline. These species once may have
been quite common in prairie rivers across the
northern Great Plains, but have been eliminated
throughout most of their historic range due to
impoundments and other anthropogenic river
alterations. Unfortunately, inadequate pre-CBNG
baseline data on sand-dwelling invertebrates
in the Powder River following standardized
bioassessment sampling (response of J. Frelich
to Powder River EIS [Stagliano 2006]), prevents
knowing more accurately the long-term trends of
specialized mayflies (Stagliano 2006, Petersen
et al. 2010). Although we targeted these species
in 201 1 with specialized collecting techniques to

serve as baseline population estimates for future
monitoring, the current absence of many taxa
collected previously throughout the study reach
suggests that options for helping to conserve the
species may be limited.

Macroinvertebrate IBI vs. O/E

No discernible trends were evident in
macroinvertebrate MMI index or O/E p>0 5 scores
from the Wyoming Border to Broadus (Figure 8)
and MMI scores in 20 1 1 were not significantly
different from 2005 (F-test, p >0.05) (Figure 8).
Proceeding downstream the O/E p>0 had a slight

decreasing trend and showed more variability in
the upper sites by the Wyoming border (Figure
8). As measured by the MTDEQ plains MMI and
O/E model in 20 1 1 , the biological condition for
all assessed Powder River sites, except POW5Q
(O/E), was nonimpaired, as it was in 2005 (Figure
8). However, as measured by the O/E p>0.5, all
samples fell below the impairment threshold,
indicating a signficant departure (i.e., taxa loss or
replacement) from expected biological community
conditions (Figure 8). But when applying the
O/E p>0 5 all samples fall below the impairment
threshold indicating a significant departure (ie.
taxa loss or replacement) from expected biological
community conditions (Figure 8). Selected site

patterns in biological condition observed in 2005
were repeated in 20 1 1 with appreciable increases
in the MMI scores at sites POW2 and POWMOOR
and decreases in integrity at POW1 and POW5

(Figure 8).

Although all sites ranked unimpaired with MMI,
there was a ca. 20-point scoring spread between the
lowest MMI score of 46.5 (201 1, POW5 RW) and
65.4 (2005, POW5 RW). Thus, site POW5 (RW)
had the most severe macrinvertebrate community
integrity decline between years, although it should
be noted that RW samples are always more variable
than targeted Riffles (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Powder River study reach macroinvertebrate MMI for 2005 and 2011
(top) and Observed/Expected (O/E p>0, O/E p>0.5 ) Scores for 2011 (bottom).
Horizontal red line is the impairment threshold.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations
are offered based on results from surveys:

1 . All study sites in the Powder River ranked
unimpaired with the DEQ MMI and O/E
p >o, but by incorporating the fish IBI, O/E,
macroinvertebrate O/E p>0 5 and individual
sensitive species responses, a clearer picture
of biological integrity is probably realized.
Fish O/E analysis ranked Sites 3 and 6 as
biologically impaired and Site 1 was on the
impairment threshold with greatly reduced
scores compared to 2005. Community
Integrity results from the 2011 fish and
macroinvertebrate surveys combined to rank
the Powder River reach at the Moorhead
Bridge Site as the most biologically intact,
followed by Powder River Site 5 upstream of
Rough Creek.

2. Results from macroinvertebrate samples
demonstrated that the EMAP Targeted Riffle
protocols sample more insects, track the fish
O/E more closely, and have less variability
when applied in the field compared to other
protocols. Therefore, we recommend replicated
EMAP Targeted-Riffle Protocols for future
monitoring efforts, while continuing to
evaluate multi-habitat protocols, such as the
EMAP reach-wide for collecting the rare, SOC
sand-dwelling group.

3. The fish community at the Wyoming border
has changed significantly over the past three
decades, and continues to lose sensitive
species and biological integrity. For example,
sturgeon chubs have significantly declined or
are now absent in the study reach from the
Wyoming Border to Moorhead Bridge and
potentially further downstream. Patton et al.
(1998) found sturgeon chubs at half of the
eight sites sampled in the Wyoming portions of
the Powder River near Montana. Confluence
Consulting (2004) found two sturgeon chubs
in 2002 at only one Wyoming site close to the
Montana border, and three years later MTNHP
(Stagliano 2006) and the USGS (2005) did
not capture a single sturgeon chub within 40
miles of the Wyoming border despite combined
sampling of 6 stream reaches. The rarity of
the sturgeon chub in this reach is alarming for
a river that has provided substantial habitat
for this species in the past. We recommend
additional fish surveys downstream near
Broadus to find the new upstream distributional
extent of this species. Additional studies that
test the tolerance to water chemistry changes
in sturgeon chub and other native fish species
could be a component of futuring monitoring
for CBNG development in the Powder River
basin.

Literature Cited

Barbour, M., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B.
1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use
in Streams and Wadable Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second
Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. United States
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of
Water: Washington, D.C.

Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone. 1995. Fishes
of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish
Department, Cheyenne, WY.

Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

Bramblett, R.G., T.R. Johnson, A.V. Zale, and D.
Heggem. 2005. Development and evaluation of
a fish assemblage index of biotic integrity for
northwestern great plains. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 134:624-640.

Brower, J.E. and J.H. Zar. 1984. Field and

Laboratory Methods for General Ecology (2nd
Ed.). Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Dubuque, IA.

Brown, C. J. D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Big Sky
Books, Montana State University, Bozeman.

Confluence Consulting. 2004. Powder River
Biological Survey and Implications for Coalbed
Methane Development. Prepared for Powder
River Basin Resource Council. 67 pp. +
appendices.

Davis, W. and B. Bramblett. 2006. Effects of
Coalbed Natural Gas Development on Fish
Assemblages in the Powder River Basin.
Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
Fact Sheet, Montana State University. 3pp.

Dodds, W.K., K. Gido, M.R. Whiles, K.M. Fritz,
and W J. Matthews. 2004. Life on the edge:
The ecology of Great Plains prairie streams.
BioScience 54: 205-216.

Feldman, D. 2006. Interpretation of New
Macroinvertebrate Models by WQPB. Draft
Report. Montana Department of Environmental
Quality, Planning Prevention and Assistance
Division, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Water
Quality Standards Section. 1520 E. 6th Avenue,
Helena, MT 59620. 14 pp.

Holton, G.D. and H.E. Johnson. 2003. A field guide
to Montana fishes, 3rd edition. Montana Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, Helena.

Hubert, WA. 1993. The Powder River: a
relatively pristine stream on the Great Plains.
In: Restoration Planning for Rivers of the
Mississippi Ecosystem. US National Biological
Survey Biological Report 19.

Jessup, B., J. Stribling, and C. Hawkins. 2005.
Biological indicators of stream condition in
Montana using macroinvertebrates. Tetra Tech,
Inc. Report to MT DEQ.

Lazorchak, J.M., D.J. Klemm, and D.V. Peck
(editors). 1998. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field
Operations and Methods for Measuring the
Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams.
EPA/620/R-94/004F U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Marchant, R. 2002. Do rare species have any place
in multivariate analysis for bioassessment?
Journal of the NA Benthological Society 21:311-
313.

MTNHP and MTFWP 2006. Montana Natural
Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife
and Parks. Montana animal species of concern.
Helena, MT: MTNHP and MTFWP 1 lp. http://
mtnhp.org/Reports/2006_MASOC.pdf

Patton, T.M, F.J. Rahel, and WA. Hubert. 1998.
Using historical data to assess changes in
Wyoming's fish fauna. Conservation Biology
12:1120-1128.

Peck, D.V., J.M. Lazorchak, and D.J. Klemm
(eds.), 2003. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program - surface waters: Western
Pilot Study field operations manual for wadeable
streams: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 258 pp.

Peterson, DA., M.L. Clark, K. Foster, PR. Wright,
and G.K. Boughton. 2010. Assessment of
ecological conditions and potential effects
of water produced from coalbed natural gas
development on biological communities in
streams of the Powder River structural basin,
Wyoming and Montana, 2005-08: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2010-5124, 84 pp.

Peterson, DA., E.G. Hargett, and D.L. Feldman.
201 1. Assessment of potential effects of water
produced from coalbed natural gas development
on macroinvertebrate and algal communities in
the Powder River and Tongue River, Wyoming
and Montana, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2011-1294, 34 pp.

Pflieger, W L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri,
revised edition. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City.

Stagliano, D.M. 2005. Aquatic Community
Classification and Ecosystem Diversity in
Montana's Missouri River Watershed. Report
to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana
Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 65
pp. plus appendices. http://mtnhp.org/Reports.
asp?key=l

Stagliano, D. 2006. Aquatic surveys and
assessment within the Middle Powder River
watershed: Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (ESA0 10009), 37 pp. http://mtnhp.
org/Reports/Mid_Powd_Riv_Water_Assess.pdf

Vance, L., D. Stagliano, and G.M. Kudray 2006.
Watershed Assessment of the Middle Powder
Subbasin, Montana. A report to the Bureau
of Land Management, Montana State Office.
Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena,
MT. 61 pp. plus appendices.

Werdon, S.J. 1992. Population status and
characteristics of Macrhybopsis gelida,
Platygobio gracilis and Rhinichthys cataractae
in the Missouri River Basin. South Dakota State
University, Brookings, SD. M.S. Thesis, 55pp.

Rehwinkel, B.J. 1978. Powder River aquatic
ecology report. Report prepared for Utah
International, Inc. Montana Department of Fish
and Game.

Scott, W B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater
fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Bulletin 1 84, Ottawa

Stagliano, D.M. and W.M. Gould. 2010. Montana
AFS Species of Special Concern Status Pages.
http://www.fisheries.org/units/AFSmontana/
SturgeonChub.html

Appendix A. Global/State Rank Definitions

Heritage Program Ranks

The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote
global (range-wide) and state status. Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 to 5, reflecting
the relative degree to which they are "at-risk". Rank definitions are given below. A number of factors are
considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and distribution of known "occurrences" or popula-
tions, population trends (if known), habitat sensitivity, and threat. Factors in a species' life history that
make it especially vulnerable are also considered (e.g., dependence on a specific pollinator).

Global Rank Definitions (NatureServe 2003)

Gl Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity and/or other factors making it highly

vulnerable to extinction
G2 Imperiled because of rarity and/or other factors making it vulnerable to extinction

G3 Vulnerable because of rarity or restricted range and/or other factors, even though it may

be abundant at some of its locations
G4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery
G5 Demonstrably secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery
Tl-5 Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) — The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or

varieties) are indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' global rank

State Rank Definitions

51 At high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers,
extent and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to extirpation in the state

52 At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or
habitat, making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state

53 Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent
and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas

54 Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually
widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for
long-term concern

55 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its
range). Not vulnerable in most of its range

Combination Ranks

G#G# or S#S# Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) used to indicate uncertainty about

the exact status of a taxon
Qualifiers

NR Not ranked

Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority — Distinctiveness of

this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty
may

result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in
another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher)
conservation status rank

Appendix A- 1

X Presumed Extinct — Species believed to be extinct throughout its range. Not located

despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually
no

likelihood that it will be rediscovered

H Possibly Extinct — Species known from only historical occurrences, but may never-the-

less still be extant; further searching needed

U Unrankable — Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substan-

tially conflicting information about status or trends

HYB Hybrid — Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species

? Inexact Numeric Rank — Denotes inexact numeric rank

C Captive or Cultivated Only — Species at present is extant only in captivity or cultiva-

tion,

or as a reintroduced population not yet established

A Accidental — Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and

outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a
few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the one or two occa-
sions they were recorded

Z Zero Occurrences — Species is present but lacking practical conservation concern in

Montana because there are no definable occurrences, although the taxon is native and
appears regularly in Montana

P Potential — Potential that species occurs in Montana but no extant or historic occurrences

are accepted

R Reported — Species reported in Montana but without a basis for either accepting or

rejecting the report, or the report not yet reviewed locally. Some of these are very recent
discoveries for which the program has not yet received first-hand information; others are
old, obscure reports

SYN Synonym — Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage

Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank

* A rank has been assigned and is under review. Contact the Montana Natural Heritage

Program for assigned rank

B Breeding — Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana

Appendix A- 2

Appendix B. Raw fish data and IBI metric calculations

from Powder River sites.

Fish Species

Powder River #1

Powder River #2

Powder Kiver
#Moorhead

Powder River #3

Powder River #6

Powder River #5

Channel Catfish

Flathead Chub

Goldeye

Longnose Dace

Plains Minnow

Sand Shiner

Stonecat

Western Silvery Minnow

Total # species

Native Species

Native Families

Total Individuals

110

# Minnow Species Thrive

Proportion of tolerant individuals

0.00

# Sucker + Catfish Species

% Insectivorous Minnows

76.47

76.67

61.82

78.18

73.97

57.27

# Benthic Invertivore Species

2~f

% Litholphilic Spawners

9.80

10.00

20.00

23.29

37.27

% Parental Care

5.88

6.67

1.82

7.27

0.00

0.91

% Native to Montana

100.00

# Long Lived Species

Metrics

Adjust
Value

Score

Adjust

Value Score

Adjust

Value Score

Adjust
Value

Score

Adjust
Value

Score

Adjust
Value

Score

Number of Native Fish Species

4.86

27.00

4.86

27.00

6.86

38.11

2.86

15.89

3.86

21.44

5.86

32.55

Number of Native Fish Families

1.83

33.68

1.83

33.68

2.83

52.12

2.83

52.12

0.83

15.24

2.83

52.12

Proportion of tolerant individuals

0.00

100.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

100.00

#of Sucker and Catfish Species

0.42

4.62

0.42

4.62

1.42

15.49

0.42

4.62

-0.58

-6.25

0.42

4.62

Proportion out of the Total
Number of Fish That Were Insect
eating Minnows

76.47

105.02

76.67

105.29

61.82

84.90

78.18

107.37

73.97

101.59

57.27

78.66

Total Number of Species That
Prefer to Eat Insects That Live on
the Stream Bottom

0.56

9.45

1.56

26.45

0.56

9.45

0.56

9.45

0.56

9.45

0.56

9.45

Proportion of the Total Number of
Fish That Require Rocks to Lay

Eggs

9.80

11.82

10.00

12.06

20.00

24.12

20.00

24.12

23.29

28.08

37.27

44.94

Proportion of the Total Number of
Individuals That Do Not Require
Rocks, But Have Parental Care of

Eggs

5.88

93.31

6.67

92.42

1.82

97.93

7.27

91.73

0.00

100.00

0.91

98.97

Proportion of the Total Number of
Fish Sampled That Are Native

100.00

100.04

100.00

100.04

100.00

100.04

100.00

100.04

100.00

100.04

100.00

100.04

Number of Long-Lived Native
Species

3.31

33.92

3.31

33.92

5.31

54.41

3.31

33.92

4.31

44.16

5.31

54.41

Sum of Metrics

518.86

535.47

576.55

539.25

513.75

575.75

IBI Score

51.89

53.55

57.66

53.92

51.38

57.57

Appendix B - 1

Appendix C. Macroinvertebrate taxa lists, abundance, and

PLAINS MMI CALCULATIONS AT EACH SITE.

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@WYBorder Benthic Sample 17984

Station ID: YLPOW1H Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P1-R500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/26/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-TR-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 632

Sample Taxa List
Order: OTU name:

Coleoptera Microcylloepus
Coleoptera Stenelmis
Diptera Chironominae

Diptera Chironominae

Diptera Hemerodromia

Diptera Simuliidae

Ephemeropter Acentrella
Ephemeropter Baetis
Ephemeropter Camelobaetidius
Ephemeropter Cercobrachys
Ephemeropter Ephoron
Ephemeropter Fallceon
Ephemeropter Isonychia
Ephemeropter Leucrocuta
Ephemeropter Plauditus
Ephemeropter Traverella
Ephemeropter Tricorythodes
Haplotaxida Oligochaeta
Gomphidae
Acroneuria
Brachycentrus
Cheumatopsyche

Odonata

Plecoptera

Trichoptera

TRICHOPTE

Trichoptera

FinallD: In

Microcylloepus pusillus
Stenelmis
Cryptochironomus
Robackia
Hemerodromia
Simulium
Acentrella turbida
Baetis intercalaris
Camelobaetidius warreni
Cercobrachys cree
Ephoron album
Fallceon quilleri
Isonychia campestris
Leucrocuta

Plauditus punctiventris
Traverella albertana
Tricorythodes minutus
Tubificidae

Ophiogomphus severus
Acroneuria abnormis
Brachycentrus occidentalis

Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche
Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche morosa gr.
Nectopsyche Nectopsyche gracilis

Oecetis Oecetis

Potamyia POTAMYIA FLAVA

Mayatrichia Mayatrichia ayama

luals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

244

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

SW/CN

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

149

CN/SP

CM/SP/CN

CN/SP

Appendix C - 1

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@WYBorder Benthic Sample 17985

Station ID: YLPOW1t1Q Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P1-Q500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/26/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-RW-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 561

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name.

Coleoptera

Microcylloepus

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

Diptera

Chironominae

Diptera

Chironominae

Diptera

Chironominae

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Orthocladiinae

Diptera

Simuliidae

Ephemeropter Acentrella
Ephemeropter Acerpenna
Ephemeropter Baetis
Ephemeropter Baetis
Ephemeropter Camelobaetidius
Ephemeropter Choroterpes
Ephemeropter Cercobrachys
Ephemeropter Ephoron
Ephemeropter Fallceon
Ephemeropter Isonychia
Ephemeropter Leucrocuta
Ephemeropter Raptoheptagenia
Ephemeropter Rhithrogena
Ephemeropter Traverella
Ephemeropter Tricorythodes
Hemiptera Sialis
Lepidoptera Lepidoptera
Gomphidae
Acroneuria
Brachycentrus
Cheumatopsyche
Helicopsyche

Odonata

Plecoptera

Trichoptera

Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Veneroida

FinallD:

Anepeorus rusticus

Melanoides tuberculata

Microcylloepus pusillus

Stenelmis

Acalcarella

Cryptochironomus

Polypedilum

Hemerodromia

Parakieffehella

Simulium

Acentrella turbida

Acerpenna

Baetis intercalahs

Baetis tricaudatus

Camelobaetidius warreni

Choroterpes albiannulata

Cercobrachys cree

Ephoron album

Fallceon quilleri

Isonychia campesths

Leucrocuta

Raptoheptagenia cruentata

Rhithrogena

Traverella albertana

Tricorythodes minutus

Sialis

Petrophila

Ophiogomphus severus

Acroneuria abnormis

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Cheumatopsyche

Helicopsyche borealis
Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche
Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche morosa gr.

Nectopsyche Nectopsyche gracilis

Mayatrichia Mayatrichia ayama

Pisidiidae Pisidium

Individuals

17
24
5
2
2
7
2
151
2
3
7
3
3
2
5
1

14
22
7
1
1
178
20
1
1
6
15
3

25
2
15
3

5
2

TolVal: FFG:

5
5

7
7
7
6

5
5
4
2
4
2
5
2
1

2
4
4
7
2

1
5
3
5
5

2
5

SC/CG
CG/CF/PR
CG/CF/PR
CG/CF/PR

PR
CG/SC

unk

SH
CF
CF

Habit:

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

BU/CN/SP

SP/BU

"SW/10%, CN/90%"

CN/SP
"SW/10%, CN/90%"

"SW/10%, CN/90%"

SW/CN

CN/SP

"CN.CM.BU"

CM/SP/CN

Appendix C - 2

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@drycreek Benthic Sample 17986

Station ID: YLPOW2t1 Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P2-R500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/26/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-TR-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 629

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD: Individuals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

Coleoptera

Dubiraphia

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

Coleoptera

Microcylloepus

Microcylloepus pusillus

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

Diptera

Chironominae

Cladotanytarsus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Dicranota

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

Ephemeropter Camelobaetidius

Camelobaetidius warreni

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Cercobrachys

Cercobrachys cree

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeropter Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

108

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campestris

SW/CN

Ephemeropter Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeropter Plauditus

Plauditus punctiventris

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Traverella

Traverella albertana

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Haplotaxida

Oligochaeta

Tubificidae

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Trichoptera

Brachycentrus

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

CM/SP/CN

Trichoptera

Oecetis

CN/SP

TRICHOPTE

Potamyia

POTAMYIA FLAVA

Trichoptera

Mayatrichia

Mayatrichia ayama

Appendix C - 3

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@drycreek Benthic Sample 17987

Station ID: YLPOW2t1Q Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P2-Q500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/26/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-RW-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 618

Sample Taxa List
Order: OTU name:

Basommatoph Ferrissia
Basommatoph Lymnaeidae
Basommatoph Physa_Physella
Basommatoph Planorbidae
Coleoptera Microcylloepus
Coleoptera Stenelmis
Diptera Chironominae

Diptera Chironominae

Diptera Hemerodromia

Diptera Orthocladiinae

Diptera Simuliidae

Ephemeropter Acentrella
Ephemeropter Baetis
Ephemeropter Cercobrachys
Ephemeropter Ephoron
Ephemeropter Fallceon
Ephemeropter Hexagenia
Ephemeropter Isonychia
Ephemeropter Leucrocuta
Ephemeropter Oligoneuriidae
Ephemeropter Raptoheptagenia
Ephemeropter Rhithrogena
Ephemeropter Traverella
Ephemeropter Tricorythodes
Odonata Gomphidae

Plecoptera Acroneuria

Brachycentrus
Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera

FinallD: Individuals

Choroterpes albiannulata 6

Ferrissia rivularis

Fossaria

Physella acuta

Menetus

Microcylloepus pusillus

Stenelmis

Acalcarella

Cryptochironomus

Polypedilum

Robackia

Hemerodromia

Parakiefferiella

Simulium

Acentrella turbida

Baetis tricaudatus

Cercobrachys cree

Ephoron album

Fallceon quilleri

Hexagenia limbata

Isonychia campestris

Leucrocuta

Homoeoneuria alleni

Raptoheptagenia cruentata

Rhithrogena

Traverella albertana

Tricorythodes minutus

Ophiogomphus severus

Acroneuria abnormis

Brachycentrus occidentalis

TolVal: FFG:

Habit:

Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche confusa
Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche morosa gr.
Nectopsyche Nectopsyche gracilis

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/SC

SP/BU

268

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

SW/CN

unk

CN/BU

unk

CN/SP

CM/SP/CN

Appendix C - 4

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@MooreheadBridge Benthic Sample 17994

Station ID: YLPOWMtl Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: PM-T500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/26/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-TR-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 603

Sample Taxa List

FinallD:

Melanoides tuberculata

Microcylloepus pusillus

Stenelmis

Cryptochironomus

Polypedilum

Robackia

Hemerodromia

Simulium

Acentrella turbida

Camelobaetidius warreni

Ephoron album

Fallceon quilleri

Isonychia campestris

Leucrocuta

Pseudocloeon

Rhithrogena

Traverella albertana

Tricorythodes minutus

Ophiogomphus severus

Acroneuria abnormis

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche_CeratoHydropsyche
Hydropsyche_CeratoHydropsyche morosa gr
Nectopsyche Nectopsyche gracilis

Oecetis Oecetis

Potamyia POTAMYIA FLAVA

Order:

OTU name.

Coleoptera

Microcylloepus

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

Diptera

Chironominae

Diptera

Chironominae

Diptera

Chironominae

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Simuliidae

Ephemeropter Acentrella
Ephemeropter Camelobaetidius
Ephemeropter Ephoron
Ephemeropter Fallceon
Ephemeropter Isonychia
Ephemeropter Leucrocuta
Ephemeropter Pseudocloeon
Ephemeropter Rhithrogena
Ephemeropter Traverella
Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Odonata

Plecoptera

Trichoptera

TRICHOPTE

TrombidiformeAcarina

Gomphidae
Acroneuria
Brachycentrus
Cheumatopsyche

Hygrobates

Individuals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

308

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

li 8

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

SW/CN

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

CN/SP

alis 12

CM/SP/CN

CN/SP

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Appendix C - 5

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@MooreheadBridge Benthic Sample 17995

Station ID: YLPOWMtlQ Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: PM-Q500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/26/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-RW-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 607

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD: Individuals

Tol Vol:

FFG:

Habit:

Dubiraphia vitatta

Amphipoda

Gammarus

"SW/50%, SP/50%'

Basommatoph Lymnaeidae

Pseudosuccinea columella

Basommatoph Physa_Physella

Physella acuta

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Polypedilum

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Dicranota

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Orthocladiinae

Orthocladius

CG/SC

SP/BU

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

306

Ephemeroptei

• Baetis

Baetis tricaudatus

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeroptei

• Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Heptagenia

Heptagenia

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campestris

SW/CN

Ephemeroptei

• Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeroptei

•Oligoneuriidae

Homoeoneuria alleni

unk

CN/BU

Ephemeroptei

•Plauditus

Plauditus punctiventris

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeroptei

• Rhithrogena

Rhithrogena

Ephemeroptei

•Traverella

Traverella albertana

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Odonata

Gomphidae

Ophiogomphus severus

Odonata

Gomphidae

Stylurus

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Trichoptera

Brachycentrus

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche morosa gr.

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

Trichoptera

Mayatrichia

Mayatrichia ayama

Appendix C - 6

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@Jenkins Benthic Sample 17988

Station ID: YLPOW3t1 Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P3-T500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/27/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-TR-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 558

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD: Individuals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

Coleoptera

Microcylloepus

Microcylloepus pusillus

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Polypedilum

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Robackia

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

108

Ephemeropter Camelobaetidius

Camelobaetidius warreni

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeropter Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Heptagenia

Heptagenia

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campesths

SW/CN

Ephemeropter Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeropter Plauditus

Plauditus punctiventris

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Raptoheptagenia

Raptoheptagenia cruentata

unk

Ephemeropter Traverella

Traverella albertana

110

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Haplotaxida

Oligochaeta

Tubificidae

Odonata

Gomphidae

Ophiogomphus severus

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Plecoptera

Isoperla

Trichoptera

Brachycentrus

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

CM/SP/CN

Trichoptera

Oecetis

CN/SP

TRICHOPTE

Potamyia

POTAMYIA FLAVA

Trichoptera

Mayatrichia

Mayatrichia ayama

Appendix C - 7

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@Jenkins Benthic Sample 17989

Station ID: YLPOW3t1Q Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P3-Q500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/27/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-RW-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 385

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD: Individuals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

Basommatoph Lymnaeidae

Pseudosuccinea columella

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

Diptera

Chironominae

Acalcarella

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Orthocladiinae

Orthocladius

CG/SC

SP/BU

Diptera

Orthocladiinae

Parakiefferiella

CG/SC

SP/BU

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

165

Ephemeropter

• Baetis

Baetis intercalaris

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Camelobaetidius

Camelobaetidius warreni

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeroptei

• Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90% 1

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campestris

SW/CN

Ephemeroptei

• Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeropter

Oligoneuriidae

Homoeoneuria alleni

unk

CN/BU

Ephemeropter

Plauditus

Plauditus punctiventris

"SW/10%, CN/90% 1

Ephemeroptei

• Rhithrogena

Rhithrogena

Ephemeroptei

• Traverella

Traverella albertana

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Odonata

Gomphidae

Ophiogomphus severus

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Trichoptera

Brachycentrus

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

CM/SP/CN

Appendix C -

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@RoughCreek Benthic Sample 17990

Station ID: YLPOW5t1 Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P5-T500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/27/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-TR-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 603

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD: Individuals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Polypedilum

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Robackia

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

Ephemeropter Acerpenna

Acerpenna pygmaea

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeroptei

•Asioplax

Asioplax edmundsi

CN/SP

Ephemeropter Anepeorus

Anepeorus rusticus

Ephemeroptei

•Camelobaetidius

Camelobaetidius warreni

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Cercobrachys

Cercobrachys cree

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeroptei

• Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campestris

SW/CN

Ephemeropter Neochoroterpes

Neochoroterpes Oklahoma

CN/SP

Ephemeroptei

• Pseudocloeon

Pseudocloeon

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeroptei

•Traverella

Traverella albertana

233

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Haplotaxida

Oligochaeta

Tubificidae

Odonata

Gomphidae

Ophiogomphus severus

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Trichoptera

Brachycentrus

Brachycentrus occidentalis

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

CM/SP/CN

Trichoptera

Oecetis

CN/SP

TRICHOPTE

Potamyia

POTAMYIA FLAVA

Appendix C - 9

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@RoughCreek Benthic Sample 17991

Station ID: YLPOW5t1Q Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P5-Q500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/27/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-RW-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 394

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD:

Individuals

Tol Vol:

FFG:

Habit:

Basommatoph Physa_Physella

Physella acuta

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%"

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Polypedilum

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Orthocladiinae

Parakiefferiella

CG/SC

SP/BU

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeropter Cercobrachys

Cercobrachys cree

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campestris

SW/CN

Ephemeropter Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeropter Oligoneuriidae

Homoeoneuria alleni

unk

CN/BU

Ephemeropter Traverella

Traverella albertana

166

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Odonata

Gomphidae

Ophiogomphus severus

; 4

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

CM/SP/CN

Trichoptera

Mayatrichia

Mayatrichia ayama

Veneroida

Pisidiidae

Sphaerium

Appendix C - 10

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name: Powder River@buttermilk Benthic Sample 17992

Station ID: YLPOW6t1 Rep.

Reference STORET Activity ID: P6-T500-M

Site Classification: Collection Date: 07/27/201 1

Latitude: Collection Method: MAC-TR-500

Longitude: Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 631

Sample Taxa List

Order:

OTU name:

FinallD:

Melanoides tuberculata

Individuals

Tol Vol:

FFG:

Habit:

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Polypedilum

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Robackia

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Diamesinae

Potthastia

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

Ephemeroptei

• Baetis

Baetis intercalahs

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Cercobracys

Cercobrachys cree

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeroptei

• Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Heptagenia

Heptagenia

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campestris

SW/CN

Ephemeroptei

■ Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeroptei

Plauditus

Plauditus punctiventris

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeroptei

■ Pseudocloeon

Pseudocloeon

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeroptei

■Traverella

Traverella albertana

298

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Plecoptera

Isoperla

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

CM/SP/CN

Trichoptera

Oecetis

CN/SP

Trichopte

Potamyia

Potamyia flava

Veneroida

Pisidiidae

Sphaerium

Appendix C - 11

Montana Bioassessment Report

Waterbody Name

Station ID

Reference

Site Classification:
Latitude:

Longitude:
Sample Taxa List

Powder River@buttermilk
YLPOW6t1Q

Benthic Sample 17993

Rep.

STORET Activity ID: P6-Q500-M

Collection Date: 07/27/2011
Collection Method: MAC-RW-500

Total Number of Individuals in Sample: 603

Order:

TU name:

FinallD: Individuals

Tol Val:

FFG:

Habit:

Coleoptera

Microcylloepus

Microcylloepus pusillus

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

Coleoptera

Stenelmis

SC/CG

"CN/50%, BU/50%'

Diptera

Chironominae

Cladotanytarsus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Cryptochironomus

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Polypedilum

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Chironominae

Robackia

CG/CF/PR

BU/CN/SP

Diptera

Hemerodromia

Diptera

Orthocladiinae

Parakieffehella

CG/SC

SP/BU

Diptera

Simuliidae

Simulium

Ephemeroptei

• Baetis

Baetis tricaudatus

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter

Camelobaetidius

Camelobaetidius warreni

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Cercobracys

Cercobrachys cree

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Ephoron

Ephoron album

Ephemeroptei

•Fallceon

Fallceon quilleri

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Isonychia

Isonychia campesths

SW/CN

Ephemeroptei

• Leucrocuta

Leucrocuta

Ephemeroptei

Oligoneuriidae

Homoeoneuria alleni

unk

CN/BU

Ephemeroptei

•Plauditus

Plauditus punctiventris

"SW/10%, CN/90%'

Ephemeropter Raptoheptagenia

Raptoheptagenia cruentata

unk

Ephemeroptei

• Rhithrogena

Rhithrogena

Ephemeroptei

•Traverella

Traverella albertana

145

Ephemeropter Tricorythodes

Tricorythodes minutus

CN/SP

Odonata

Gomphidae

Ophiogomphus severus

Odonata

Gomphidae

Stylurus

Plecoptera

Acroneuria

Acroneuria abnormis

Trichoptera

Cheumatopsyche

Trichoptera

Hydropsyche_Cerato Hydropsyche

Trichoptera

Nectopsyche

Nectopsyche gracilis

CM/SP/CN

Appendix C - 12

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Aquatic surveys and re-assessment of sites within the Middle Powder River Watershed"

See other formats