A biological assessment of sites in the Madison River drainage, Madison and Beaverhead County, Montana : TMDL-M06 August-September 2003

2004·1.3 MB·English

by  Bollman, Wease

A Biological Assessment of Sites in the
Madison River Drainage, Madison and
Beaverhead Counties, Montana TMDL-M06
August-September, 2003
Bollman, W. 2004
MONTANASTATELIBRARY
3 0864 0014 9368 6
DATE DUE
ShH
I
RECEIVED
APR 3 2004
DEQ
Planning Division
A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES
IN THE MADISON RIVER DRAINAGE,
MADISON AND BEAVERHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA
TMDL-M06
August - September 2003
STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTlOn
HAY <' 2004
1
U|RARY
MONTANA STATE
heleS.'m6n?a;'^'^^^
A
report to
The Montana Department of Environmental
Quality-
Planning, Prevention and Assistance Division
Helena, Montana
Al Nixon, Project Manager
by
Wease Bollman
'd'h-r-ii^,:
f Rhithron Associates, Inc.
s
Missoula, Montana
.^
April 2004

INTRODUCTION
Aquatic invertebrates are aptly applied to bioassessment since they are known
to be important indicators ofstreamecosystem health (H)Ties 1970). Longlives,
complex life cycles andlimited mobility mean thatthere is ample time for the benthic
community to respond to cumulative effects ofenvironmental perturbations. This report
summarizes data collected in August - September 2003 from 9 sitesinthe Madison
River drainage. Siteswere located in Madison and Beaverhead Counties, Montanaand
lie within the MontanaValley and FoothiU Prairiesand Northern Rockies ecoregions
(Woods et al. 1999).
A mvdtimetric approach to bioassessment such asthe one applied in this study
uses attributes ofthe assemblage in an integratedway to measure biotic health. A
streamwithgood biotic health is "...abalanced, integrated, adaptive system having the
full range ofelements and processes that are expected in the region'snatural
environment..." (Karr and Chu 1999). The approach designed by Plafkin et al. (1989)
and ad^ted for use in the State ofMontanahas been defined as ". an array of
..
measures or metrics that individually provide information on diverse biological
attributes, and whenintegrated, provide an overall indication ofbiological condition."
(Barbour et al. 1995). Community attributes that can contribute meaningfully to
interpretation ofbenthic datainclude assemblage structure, sensitivity ofcommunity
members to stress or pollution, and functional traits. Each metric component
contributes an independent measure ofthe biotic integrity ofastream site; combining
the components into atotal score reduces variance and increases precision ofthe
assessment (Fore et al. 1996). Effectiveness ofthe integratedmetrics depends on the
applicability ofthe underlying model, which rests on afovindation ofthree essential
elements (BoUman 1998a). The first ofthese is an appropriate stratification or
classification ofstream sites, typically by ecoregion. Second, metrics must be selected
based upon their ability to accurately express biological condition. Third, an adequate
assessment ofhabitat conditions at each site to be studied enhances the interpretation
i
ofmetric outcomes.
Implicit in the multimetric method and its associated habitat assessment is an
assumption ofcorrelative relationships between habitat measures and the biotic \
,^
metrics, in the absence ofwater quality impairment. These relationships mayvary
regionally, requiring an examination ofhabitat assessm.ent elements and biotic metrics
and atest ofthe presumed relationship between them. BoUman 1998a) has studied the
(
assemblages ofthe MontanaValley and Foothill ftairies (MVFF^ ecoregion and has
reconmiended abattery ofmetrics appficable to the montane ecoregions ofwestern j- j
Montana. This metric battery has been shown to be sensitive to impairment, related to
measures ofhabitat int^rity, and consistentover replicated samples. However, scoring
criteria developed for the MVFP ecoregion metric battery may not be appropriately
sensitive for streams ofthe Northern Rockies ecoregion. Additional work may be needed
to calibrate scoring to montane regions, thusimpairment classifications must be
interpreted with care. For comparison, the bioassessment index foiond in the Montana
Department ofEnvironmental Quality (Montana DEQ) Standard Operating Procedures /
i
(Bukantis 1998) is also scored and presented. However, this index has not been tested
for sensitivity to impairment, relationship to measures ofhabitat integrity, or
consistency over replicated samples.
In this report, 3 assessment methods are used: first, taxonomic datais
translated in to 2 bioassessment indices, and metric scores in each index are summed
to derive impairment classifications anduse support designations. Second, anarrative
interpretation, based on the author's professionaljudgment is given. Metric
performance and taxonomic dataare both applied to this analysis. Third, the model of
Barbour and Stribling (1991) is applied to bioassessment and habitat assessment
scores. While the interdependence ofthese methods is obvious, since the same dataare
used for all, some degree ofindependence is maintained throughout the analysis.
Narrative interpretations are given without regardto the bioassessment index result
and without reference to habitat assessment. Since indices are summations, they can
often mask evidence ofimpairment; the narratives attempt to expose the p>otential
shortcomings ofthe indices. Similarly, graphing the association between habitat
assessment scores and bioassessment scores using the model ofBarbour and Stribling
can provide clues to offer support or possible refutation ofthe conclusions ofthe
narrative analysis.
METHODS
Sampleswere collected inAugust - September 2003 by personnel ofthe
Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality (MontanaDEQ). Sample designations
and site locations are indicated inTable 1 and on Figure 1. The site selection and
kicknet sampling method employed were those recommended in the Montana DEQ
Standard Operating Procedures forAquatic Macroinvertebrate Sampling (Bukantis
1998). Aquatic invertebrate samples were delivered to Rhithron Associates, Inc.,
Missoula, Montana, for laboratory and dataanalyses. In the laboratory, the Montana
DEQ-recommended sorting method was used to obtain subsamples ofatleast 300
organisms from each sample, \dien possible. Organismswere identifiedto the lowest
possible taxonomic levels consistentwith Montana DEQ protocols.
Table 1. Sample designations and locations. Sites are listed in upstream-to-
downstream order. Madison River drainage. August - September 2003.
Collection
SiteID Statloo ID ActivityID Location Description Latitude Longltade
Date
BUFUC BUFORD CREEK 1/8 MI
M06BUFDCX>I 03-U345-M U/S FROM MOUTHOF 8/28/03
01 WFKMADISON
ELKR ELKRTVER 4 MI UP
M06ELKR01 03-U341-M
01 FSRD 1209
ELKR ELK RIVER@ END OFW
M06ELKR02 03-U342-M
02 FKMADISONRRD
ANTELOPE CREEK
autlc
M06ANTLC01 03-U340-M UPPER REACH ON
01
ANTELOPE BASIN RD
OAZLC GAZELLECREEK 1/3 MI
M06QAZLC01 03-U343-M D/S OFXING GAZELLE
01
CRAND FSRD 1200
GAZELLE CREEK200
OAZLC
M06GAZLC02 03-U344-M YDS U/S FROM FS 209
02
XlNQ@GAZELLE CR
BLAINE SPRING CREEK
BLIfSC
M06BLNSC03 03-U355-M BELOW FISH
03
HATCHERY
Bunc BLAINESPRING CREEK
Ol M06BLNSC01 03-U353-M 1/3 MI U/S FROM
MOUTH
BUfSC BLAINE SPRING CREEK
04 M06BLNSC04 03-U356-M @VARNEY
Figure 1. Approximate sampling locations. Madison River drainage. August
September 2003
TOPOI mapprintedon04A)7/04from"Montana.tpo"and"UnOtled.tpg"
112«ll'00"W 112»C»'00"W in°49W'W 111«38'00"W 111°27'00"W m»J6'00"W WGS84110"5S'CX)"W
fELXH.Oil'**
,..-<'..
^ —
--Vj\*g^_y --^yA ^Tto»Mii>^|~- r-fiw *-yL r V K. \ is*« it^ - iV. 13 i
112«11'00"W 112«00'00"W in»49'00"W lll«3a'00"W U1»27'00"W moiS'OO'W WGS84IIQOSS'OO"w
a } 10 13 X' 33idK
°I '^I'ljI'>"1*1>.I.''I?.i.'II.'aIO^ tI'2l* H3i0I *3i5»I'l<4i0'1m
PniidOoBiTOPOIO3000HiIiomIGwriiUubHoUbip(www.tapojxm)
Two bioassessment indiceswere employed in evaluating the data. The first index
employed was developed for streams ofwestern Montanaecoregions (Bollman 1998a).
Each metric used in this indexwas tested for its response or sensitivity to varying
degrees ofhiunan influence. Correlations have been demonstrated between the metrics
andvarious symptoms ofhuman-caused impairment as expressedinwater quality
parameters or instream, streambank, and streamreach morpholc^c features. Metrics
were screened to minimize variability over natural environmental gradients, such as site
elevationor sampling season, viaich might confound interpretation ofresults (Bollman
1998a). The multimetric indexincorporates multiple attributes ofthe sampled
assemblage into an int^rated score that accurately describes the benthic communityof
each site in terms ofits biologic int^rity. In addition to the metrics included in the
index, other metrics shown to be applicable to biomonitoring in other regions (Kleindl
1995, Patterson 1996, Rossano 1995) were used for descriptive interpretation ofresults.
These metrics include the number of"dinger" taxa, long-lived taxarichness, the percent
ofpredatory organism.s, and others. They are not included in the int^rated
bioassessment score, however, since theirperformance ia western Montanaecoregions
is unknown. However, the relationship ofthese metrics to habitat conditions is intuitive
and reasonable.
The six metrics included in the bioassessment index used for MVFP sites in this
study were selected because, both individually and as an integrated metric batteiy, they
are robust at distingviishingimpaired sites from relatively unimpaired sites (Bollman
1998a). In addition, they are relevant to the kinds ofimpacts that are present in the
Madison River drainage. They have been demonstrated to be more variable with
anthropogenic disturbance thanwith natural environmentalgradients (Bollman 1998a).
Each ofthe six metrics developed and tested for western Montanaecoregions is
described below.
1. Bphemeroptera (mayfly) taxa richness. The number ofmayfly taxa
declines as water quality diminishes. Impairments to water qualitywhich have been
demionstrated to adversely affect the ability ofmayfliesto flourish include elevated
water tetajjeratures, heavy metal contamination, increased turbidity, lowor high
pH, elevated specific conductance and toxic chemicals. Fewm.ayffy species are able
to tolerate certain disturbances to instream habitat, such as excessive sediment
deposition.
2. Plecoptera (stonefly) taxa richness. Stoneflies are particvdarly
susceptible to impairments that afiiect a stream on areach-level scale, such as loss
ofriparian canopy, streambank instability, channelization, and alteration of
morphological features such as pool firequency and function, riffle development and
sinuosity. Just as all benthic organisms, they are also susceptible to smaller scale
habitat loss, such as by sediment deposition, loss ofinterstitial spaces betvpeen
substrate particles, or unstable substrate.
3. Trlchoptera (caddisily) taxa richness. Caddisflytaxarichnesshas been
shown to decline when sediment deposition affects habitat. In addition, the presence
ofcertain case-building caddisflies can indicate good retention ofwoody debris and
lack ofscouring flowconditions.
4. Number ofsensitive taxa. Sensitive taxaare generally the first to
disappear as anthropogenic disturbances increase. The list ofsensitive taxa used
here includes oiganisms sensitive to awide range ofdisturbances, including warmer
water temperatures, organic ornutrient pollution, toxic pollution, sediment
deposition, substrate instabilityr and others. Unimpaired streams ofwestern
Montanatypically support at least four sensitive taxa (Bollman 1998^.
5. Percent filter feeders. FUter-feediog organisms are adiverse group;
- they capture small particles oforganic matter, or organically enriched sediment
material, fi'om the water column by means ofavariety ofadaptations, such as
silkennets orhairy appendages. In forested montane streams, filterers are expected
to occur in insignificant nxunbers. Their abvmdance increaseswhen canopy cover is
lost and\rtienwater temperatxires increase and the accompanyinggrowth of
filamentous algae occurs. Some filteringorganisms, specifically the Arctopsychid
caddisfiies (Arctopsyche spp. and Parapsyche spp.) build silken nets with large mesh
sizes that capture small organisms such as chironomids andearly-instar mayflies.
Here they are considered predators, and, in this study, their abundance does not
contribute to the percent filter feedersmetric.
6. Percent tolerant taxa. Tolerant taxaare ubiquitousin stream sites, but
when disturbance increases, their abundance increases proportionately. The listof
taxaused here includes organisms tolerant ofawide range ofdisturbances,
includingwarmerwater temperatures, organic ornutrientpollution, toxic pollution,
sediment deposition, substrate instability and others.
A second index was appKed; depending on the site location, the Montana DEQ
indexformountain streams or forfoothill streamswas used. These are the metric
batteries recommendedin the MontanaDEQ standard operating procedures (Bukantis
1998). Both ofthese indices should be consideredprovisional, since correlative
relationships between them and meaningfiil measures ofhabitat condition and water
quality have not beenevaluated. Thus, conclusions concerningbioassessment based
upon these metrics mustbe regarded as tentative.
Scoring criteriafor each ofthe metricsin the indices applied in this study are
presented inTables 2a, 2b, and 2c. Metrics differintheir possible value ranges aswell
asin the direction thevalues move as biological conditions change. For example,
Ephemeropterarichness valuesmay range fi-om zero to ten taxaor higher. Larger
valuesgenerally indicate favorable biotic conditions. On the otherhand, the percent
filterersmetric may range firom 0% to 100%; in this case, largervalues are negative
indicators ofbiotic health. To facilitate scoring, therefore, metric valueswere
transformed into asingle scale. The range ofeachmetric has been divided into four
parts and assigned apoint score between zero and three. A score ofthree indicates a
metric value similar to one characteristic ofanon-impaired condition. A score ofzero
indicates strong deviation fi-omnon-impaired condition and suggests severe degradation
ofbiotic health. Scores foreach metric were summedto give anoverall score, the total
bioassessment score, for each site in each sampling event. These scoreswere expressed
as the percent ofthe maximum possible score. The total bioassessment score for each
sitewasexpressed in terms ofuse-support. Criteriafor use-support designations were
developed by MontanaDEQ and are presented inTable 3a. Scoreswere also translated
into impairment classifications according to criteriaoutlined inTable 3b.
In this report, certain othermetricswere used as descriptorsofthe benthic
community response to habitat orwater quality butwere notincorporated into the
bioassessment metric batteiy, either because they have notyet been tested for
reliability in streams ofwestern Montana, or because results ofsuch testing did not
showthem to be robust at distinguishing impairment, or because they didnotmeet
other requirements for inclusion in the metric battery. These metrics and their use in
predicting the causes ofimpairment or in describing itseffects on the biotic community
are described below.
Table 2a. Metrics and scoiing criteriafor bioassessment ofmontane streams ofWestern
Montana (Bollman 1998£^.
Score
Metric 3 2 1
Ephemeropterataxarichness >5
Plecoptermtazarichness
Trichoptermtaxarichness
Sensitive tmxa.richness
Percent fllterers
- '" Percent toleranttaxa