Lower St. Croix River. Select Small Tributary Streams: An Aquatic Biota Assessment, Ten Years Later. June 2014 FOR

Transcription

1 Lower St. Croix River Select Small Tributary Streams: An Aquatic Biota Assessment, Ten Years Later June 2014 FOR Carnelian Marine St. Croix shed District Washington County, Minnesota BY PrairieScape Environmental Consulting Byron N. Karns

2 Table of Contents: o Introduction o Methods o Informational Site Sheets Compare by site all taxa abundance (for winter/summer only) Highlighted results Stream biota metrics: taxa richness (excluding Chironomidae), Hilsenhoff (Family) Biotic Index (HBI), %EPT families (sensitive orders), % Dominance of most abundant species/taxa, and the three most common families/taxa. of note Compare, winter 2002 to current Physical and Chemical data Google Earth of Location(s) o References o Appendix o Master sheet taxa data 2002 o Master Taxa Tolerance Reference List o Master Taxa List o Spreadsheets: o Chem SMM Site o Macro Table Site o Info Sheet per Site 2

3 INTRODUCTION At the behest of the Carnelian- Marine- St. Croix shed District, PrairieScape proposed to reassess the biological condition of approximately twenty, first- order streams, located from the Washington County- line south to Stillwater, MN. These streams generally originate from groundwater discharge, enhanced by watersheds from eight to nearly 5000 acres in size. are located on the western shore of the St. Croix River and there terminate. In, local units of government, with aid of a private contractor (EOR, Inc.), produced a comprehensive study of these streams and their watersheds, by describing their size, bedrock/glacial geology, hydrology, land cover, topography, plant communities, water chemistry and stream biota. Most of this information is included in the District s shed Management Plan. To evaluate the current condition of these streams and provide data for assessments of the future, the shed District is interested in determining to what extent the macro- invertebrates and certain physical/chemical attributes of these streams have changed in the past decade. 3

4 METHODS The approach taken for this project reflects the methodology determined for the initial study in the early 2000s. For the Lower St. Croix River Spring Creek Stewardship Plan (EOR ), a comprehensive discussion of a wide variety of parameters was included. An assessment of physical features, such as hydrology, thermal impacts, flow rate/velocity, erosion, sedimentation and stream morphology were determined. Stream chemistry and quality was assessed using instantaneous water quality samples. Stream biota data were collected representing four seasons to provide initial biomonitoring assessments. Much of this information was included in the CMSCWD shed Management Plan (2010) and would be the basis for future individual stream plans. This comprehensive look at representative reference streams in northeastern Washington County was meant to provide a baseline for future assessments. Two prominent and changeable elements of the initial work are water chemistry and stream biota. As was done during the initial study, instantaneous water quality samples were collected at each of the streams visited. collection was done only during the July 2013 sampling event. was taken by dipping a one liter opaque Nalgene bottle (previously triple rinsed with DI water) fully submersed pointed upstream at the transect location. The bottle was chilled and delivered to the St. Croix shed Research Station within 24 hours of collection. Stream water was analyzed for total suspended solids, volatile suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrates and ammonium. In addition, flow, ph, temperature, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved sediments and conductivity readings were collected on- site using hand- held meters. Biological sampling was performed during the meteorological mid- point of summer and winter. Summer sampling began on July 14 th and concluded July 21 st,

5 sampling commenced on January 12 th and finished January 25 th, Sites were accessed by land, boat or ski after obtaining the prior permissions and permits where necessary. Sampling locations were determined by returning to the approximant site of the earlier study, ensuring the location was above the high water influence of the St. Croix River and then marked with flagging at a transect (point for water/physical data collection) bisecting a pool. Following the protocols of the EOR plan, from the transect point up and down stream, the first riffle/run was located and a 30 x 15 cm kick net with a 0.7μm mesh size was used to disturbed, or kick an area of 0.5 meters for one minute. Larger organic material was examined for macroinvertebrates and removed from the net; the remainder of the material collected was preserved in Nalgene bottles with ethanol and chilled. Samples (4 per stream) were picked for up to two hours. If picking lasted the full two hours, the last ten minutes were used searching for rare/large organisms. Picked samples were then sorted to family and finally identified to genus (or lowest reasonable taxonomic level), enumerated and labeled. Tallies were entered by sample. specimens are considered part of a teaching collection and were delivered to the District with this report. 5

6 RESULTS Please see project summary sheet (s). 6

7 INFORMATION FOR SITE SHEETS Stream Names and Numbers: Stream names follow the convention set during the original project formations in the early 2000s (EOR ). Names were derived from land ownership, local landmarks or site usage. These labels were continued in this study, with parenthetical additions to add clarity as needed. Location number for each stream in the study begins with the upstream- most site at #1 Cedar Bend (just south of the Washington- Chisago county lines). Numbers progress downstream to the northern edge of Stillwater at #20 Silver Creek. Stream #5 Zavoral s Stream was omitted for this study, as it is being monitored by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as part of an adjacent pit mine operation. The National Park Service is also monitoring on the main stem of the St. Croix River, just below the outfall of this stream. Reference conditions of the stream and river could contain important information, should any of the safety procedures at the mine fail. The stream numbering scheme for the EOR report reflected a desire to group streams into geophysical alignments. These numbers, with their U pper, M iddle and L ower designations are included to allow the reader to easily reference the earlier work. : Short important characteristics derived from the results discovered for each stream are highlighted in a series of bullet points. This information reflects data collected for water quality and analysis of the macroinvertebrates studied. Conclusions were drawn from comparisons with the earlier study, or the current among- stream information, as appropriate. 7

8 : These details include topographical, GIS, stream length, watershed size and the speed, or velocity of the stream. Global positioning is given in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (15 T). Length of stream appears to be identical between the EOR Plan and the 2010 District Plan. The watershed size was not always similar, so both were presented, with the older study s in parentheses. Velocity was taken during both sampling events, though July (when available) is offered here as it coincides with collection of water for chemical analysis. physical data can be accessed in the accompanying spreadsheets. : The table with water chemistry results includes analysis provided for the July 2013 sampling, benchmarks from studies and standards on the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers (Payne et al. 2002, Niemela et al., 2004) and means from and this study. Common parameters used to assess water quality were judged for each stream using interpretations from the lab and commonly accepted thresholds for these chemicals, solids and temperatures. Both the Lower St. Croix River Spring Creek Stewardship Plan and the District s shed Plan provide excellent descriptions for these parameters. : s for the sampled macroinvertebrates collected at each stream during the July and January events are provided in tabular form. Taxa richness (# of species, genus, family, etc.) indicates diversity at the site and is a commonly included as point of reference. Higher numbers indicates more species, generally considered good. The biotic integrity index assigns a tolerance value or number to, in this case, families of insects and other aquatic invertebrate, with the understanding that this 8

9 somewhat subjective ranking of sensitivity to pollution, temperature, disturbance, etc., can provide a useful number for comparisons. While widely used, there is still some debate about the reliability (or how finely tuned it can be) of the index. It is my judgment that using regional scales (such as Hilsenhoff s) on a small geographic area, where the tolerances of individuals in a group (e.g. species in a family) are not likely to be different, is relevant. Therefore, a small minnow mayfly (HBI of 4), inhabiting a small stream within 20 miles of another, is assumed to react to degradation, or enhancements the same. The HBI scale goes from 0-10, with the lower score more favorable. Please see Table V- 3 of the District s Plan for more information. Mayflies, stoneflies and are considered to be sensitive to environmental changes more so, and more consistently, than other groups of aquatic insects. They are commonly grouped together and their numbers are judged within a sample against the total number of organism collected. A higher percentage is good. Dominance by one taxa is generally not seen as favorable. In small, coldwater streams, diversity is generally not high however, and some sensitive organisms that find idea conditions might predominate. As has been shown in this and the earlier work, scuds, and some sensitive true flies do well, or very well in these streams. These organisms are a critical food source for brook trout and other animals up the food web. Finally, species (taxa) of note indicates macroinvertebrates collected in numbers relative to the total collected, that were either numerous or sensitive, but found less abundantly than the top three. 9

10 Silver Creek (#20 3L) Quality better than average High # of macroinvertebrate species Better than average HBI Low total Nitrogen Stable temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 1336 (516) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , s, var., Riffle Beetles, Netspinner 10, var.

11 95 Ravine (Carnelian Creek) (#19 2L) High total suspended solids Low numbers of EPT species Elevated HBI Very low flow, impacted by St. Croix River/Rd. Stable Temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 1517 (1500.3) July Velocity (m/s): < Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Snails Sowbugs, No- see- ums, aquatic worms, Riffle beetles, Netspinner 11, var.

12 Arcola Court (#18 1L) High total nitrogen, led by nitrates Low flows Low numbers of EPT species Invasive baby s breath covering stream Stable Temperature Parameter Benchmark Jul Miss/Croix 2013/4 TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 29 (29.10) July Velocity (m/s): < Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , No- See- Ums, Midges Craneflies,, var. 12

13 Foster s Creek (#17 9M) Stream flows through public land Higher than average total nitrogen Higher # of macroinvertebrate species Many species found in equal numbers Stable temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 51 (51.5) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant Flatworms,, s, midges,, var., Mayflies, Midges 13

14 Arcola Mills Creek (#16 8M) Better than average water quality Higher flows, brook trout present No highly dominant species Stream closely monitored by volunteers Stable temperatures Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 145 (166.5) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Blackflies, mayflies flatworms,, var., Tortoiseshell 14

15 Willow Brook (Croixside) (#15 7M) This site is within a development Higher total nitrogen led by nitrates High dominance by one species (scuds) Better than average HBI and richness Colder winter temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 1408 (1147) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant ,, Riffle beetles s,, var., Black flies, Mayflies 15

16 Spring Creek (#14 6M) Better than average water quality St. Croix shed Research Station stream Low percent of sensitive families (EPT) High dominance by one species (scuds) Stable temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 315 (312.2) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Blackflies var.,, var., Mayflies, Midges 16

17 Judd St. Creek (#13 5M) High levels of total phosphorus/ammonium Higher total suspended solids Very low summer flow Healthy net spinner caddisfly population Surface water dominated temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 111 (61.4) July Velocity (m/s): < Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant Blackflies, Netspinner, mayflies,, var., Broadback Stoneflies 17

18 Mills Stream (#12 4M) Better than average water quality Better than average richness and HBI Scud dominant, but good EPT % High abundance of macroinvertebrates temperature variable Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM): shed (acres): 4294 (5076) January Velocity (m/s): Strea m Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Netspinner Riffle beetles, midges,, var. Netspinner 18

19 Marine Landing Creek (#11 4Mb) Phosphorous higher, other parameters ok Low flow during summer event Surface water/road dominated Supports netspinner Temperatures unstable Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 38 (361.77) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Netspinner none,, var., Spring Broadback stoneflies, mayflies 19

20 Dunn s Creek (Pine Needles) (#10 3M) Good biotic index, EPT and richness Higher total nitrogen and nitrates Owned by Science Museum of MN Low flows during July Temperature stable Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 27 (26.5) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Netspinner None,, var. Black flies, mayflies 20

21 William O Brian State Park (#09 2M) Better than average water quality Higher suspended solids Good taxa richness and HBI stream length in State Park Temperature stable Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 9 (8.1) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , winter stoneflies None,, var., Spring Broadback stoneflies 21

22 Swedish Flag (#08 1M) Low taxa richness, but good HBI quality better than average Property in multiple ownership Dominated by scuds Low summer temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 514 (361.77) Est. Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Midges, case,, var., Spring broadback stoneflies, mayflies 22

23 Clapp s Stream (#07 7U) Good taxa richness and HBI score Tops in EPT score Average water quality, flashy upstream Protected lower reach, dramatic bluffs Very low winter temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 919 (711.92) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Mayflies, stoneflies Midges,, var., spring broadback mayflies 23

24 Gilbertson s Creek (#06 6U) County reference stream Subject to future development Deep gorge, road dominated Good water quality, richness, HBI Unstable water temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 75 (84.46) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , mayflies Stoneflies,,, var., Blackflies, mayflies 24

25 Campsite #2 (#04 4U) Poorer than average HBI, EPT Good taxa richness quality average Stream on public land Lower water temperatures Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 30 (27.09) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant Blackflies,, Midges s, stoneflies,, Blackflies, mayflies 25, var.

26 Campsite #1 (#03 3U) Better water quality Both campsite #1 and 2 closed Percent EPT high at this site On ridgeline, on public land Lower water temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 34 (30.79) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Blackflies, Mayflies Midges,, var. Blackflies, mayflies 26

27 Falls Creek (#02 2U) Ok water quality, slightly high phosphorus Headwaters state S Good taxa richness, HBI, EPT Large watershed Stable water temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): shed (acres): 2061 ( ) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant , Blackflies, mayflies stoneflies,, var. Blackflies, mayflies 27

28 Cedar Bend Trout Farm (#01s 1U) Surface water ponds dominate Higher nitrogen (see nitrates) Smallest stream length, good flow Unreachable during winter sampling Good HBI and summer water temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): = shed (acres): 03 = 74 (74.13) July Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant ,, mayflies Craneflies,, var., mayflies 28

29 Cedar Bend Trout Farm (#01w 1U) Taxa pulled for one score source same as #01s and 03 Very short reach High winter velocity Higher winter temperature Benchmark 2013/4 Parameter Jul- 13 Miss/Croix TP [μg/l] TN [mg/l] 2.67 TSS [mg/l] NO 2 +NO 3 [mg/l] NO 3 [mg/l] 2.48 NH 4 [mg/l] Temp 03 [C] Temp S&W [C} Location of Sample (UTM 15 T): = shed (acres): 03 = 74 (74.13) January Velocity (m/s): Stream Invertebrate Richness ( #) Family Biotic Index (HBI) Percent EPT Percent Dominance by Most Abundant ,, mayflies Craneflies,, var., mayflies 29

30 CMSCWD Stream Locations 30

31 REFERENCES Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of ; Washington, D.C. 339p. Bouchard, R.W., Jr Guide to aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Upper Midwest. Resources Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 280pp. Eddy, S., and J.C. Underhill Northern fishes. Second Printing. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. Emblom, J.W., S.R. Hanson, G. Montz, P.A. Renard A biological survey of the St. Croix River. Minn. DNR Special Publication. Emmons and Olivier Resources.. Lower St. Croix River Spring Creek Stewardship Plan. Report to the Marine-on-St. Croix shed Management Organization. EOR, Oakdale, MN Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix shed District shed Management Plan. Report to the CMSCWD, EOR, Oakdale, MN. Fago, D., and J. Hatch Aquatic resources of the St. Croix River Basin, in Hesse, L.W., Stalnaker, C.B., Benson, N.G., and J.R. Zuboy eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem: National Biological Survey Report 19, p Fausch, K.D Development and use of the index of biotic integrity to monitor fish communities in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Colorado State University, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Ft. Collins. Gernes, M.C., and J.C. Helgen Indexes of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for Wetlands: Vegetation and Invertebrate IBI's. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency final report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency #CD Hilsenhoff, W.L Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic.index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7(1): Hilsenhoff, W.L Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin: keys to Wisconsin genera and notes on biology, habitat, distribution and species. Natural History Museums Council, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Publ. #3, 79p. Karr J. R Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:

32 Lehmkuhl, D. M How to know the aquatic insects. Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers, Dubuque, IA. 168p. Lyons, J., L. Wang, and T.D. Simonson Development and validation of an idex of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16: Matulová Dragica. 1970, Biological assays and water quality in Minnesota. Minneapolis : Limnological Research Center, University of Minnesota, 116 p. Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins (eds) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America (3 rd. ed.). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 862p. Miller, K.L., and 13 others Regional applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resources management. Fisheries 13(5): Mundahl Neal D. and Thomas P. Simon Development and Application of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Coldwater Streams of the Upper Midwestern United States In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Resources Using Fish Communities, pp Edited by T. P. Simon. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Niemela, Scott and Michael D. Feist Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Guidance for Coolwater Rivers and Streams of the St. Croix River Basin in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program, St Paul, Minnesota 52p. Niemela, Scott and Michael D. Feist Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) Guidance for Coolwater Rivers and Streams of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Biological Monitoring Program St Paul, Minnesota, p. Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest States. EPA/600/3-88/037. Corvallis, OR: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 56 p. Pennek, R.W Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NY. Payne, G. A., K. E. Lee, G. R. Montz, P. J. Talmage, J. K. Hirsch and J. D. Larson quality and aquatic-community characteristics of selected reaches of the St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin, Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul. 43 p. Schmidt, K. and P. Talmage, Fish Community Surveys of Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Streams. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources St. Paul, MN. 32p. 32

33 Simon, T.P., and John Lyons Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. In: Davis, W.S.; Simon, T.P. eds. Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. pp Steedman, R. J Modification and assessment of and Index of Biotic Integrity to quantify stream quality in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: Talmage, P.J., K.E. Lee, R.M. Goldstein, J.P. Anderson, and J.D. Fallon quality, physical habitat, and fish community composition in streams in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota U.S. Geological Survey, - Resources Investigations Report , St. Paul. Voshell, J. R. Jr A guide to common freshwater Invertebrates of North America. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA., 442p. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. and Gatti, R Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22:

34 APPENDIX Table 1. Taxa by Location, 2002 St. Croix Springs - Taxa Specimens by Sampling Location Tolerance Values Silver Creek 95 Ravine Arcola Court Foster's Arcola Mills Willow - Croixside Spring Creek - SMM Judd Street Mill Stream Dunn's Marine Landing Wm. O'Brien SP Order Family Genus () s BI 3L 2L 1L 11M 9M 8M 7M 5M 4M 4M-B 3M 2M 1M 7U 6U 5U 4U 3U 2U 1U Class-Turbellaria Planariidae Class- Oligochaeta Class- Hirudinea Class- Bivalvia Class- Gastropoda Isopoda Asellidae Asellus Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus Collembola Entomobryidae Ephemeroptera ae Baetis Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia Sub-Anisoptera Gomphidae Genus Plecoptera Capniidae ocapnia Plecoptera Capniidae Capnia Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia Plecoptera Nemouridae Nemoura Coleoptera Dytiscidae Genus Coleoptera Elimidae Optioservus Coleoptera Elimidae Stenelmis Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus Trichoptera Glossomatidae Glossoma Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Parapsyche Trichoptera Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma Trichoptera Limnephilidae Asynarchus Trichoptera Limnephilidae Frenesia (missa) Trichoptera Limnephilidae Genus Trichoptera Limnephilidae Hesperophylax Trichoptera Limnephilidae Hydatophylax Trichoptera Limnephilidae Limnephilus Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pseudostenophylax Trichoptera Philopotomidae Chimarra Trichoptera Philopotomidae Dolophilodes Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon Diptera Ceratopogonidae Culicoides Diptera Ceratopogonidae Monohela Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia Diptera Ceratopogonidae Sphaeromias Diptera Chironomidae Genus Diptera Dixidae Dixa Diptera Empididae Chelifera Diptera Psychodidae Pericoma Diptera Simuliidae Eusimulium Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma Diptera Tipulidae Limonia Diptera Tipulidae Pedicia Diptera Tipulidae Pilaria Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Swedish Flag Clapp's Gilbertson's Zavoral's Campsite #2 Cedarbend Campsite #1 Falls Creek Specimens(874.8) TOTALS Taxa(12<-17.6->23)

35 Table 2. Taxa Tolerances TAXA TOLERANCE VALUES Order Family Genus (sp.) H&L Bode EPAID EPAOH EPAWI HBI EOR CompositeBI Class-Turbellaria Planariidae 6 1 * * * 4 4 Class- Oligochaeta 8^ * * * * 8 8 Class- Hirudinea 8^ 10 * * * 8 8 Class- Bivalvia 6 8 * * * 8 8 Class- Gastropoda 7 7 * * * 7 7 Isopoda Asellidae Asellus 8 8 * 8 [8] 8 8 Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus {4} 6 4 * * [4] 4 4 Collembola Entomobryidae {5} 10 * * * 5 5 Ephemeroptera ae Baetis * [2,4-6] 6 6 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia Sub-Anisoptera Gomphidae Genus {1} 4 1 * * 5 * 5 Plecoptera Capniidae ocapnia 3 * * Plecoptera Capniidae Capnia {1} * 1 * * * 1 1 Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia 1 1 * [1] [1] 1 1 Plecoptera Nemouridae Nemoura {2} 1 2 * * [1] 1 1 Coleoptera Dytiscidae Genus 5 5 * * * 5 5 Coleoptera Elimidae Optioservus {4} Coleoptera Elimidae Stenelmis Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus {1} [0-1] 1 * * [0-1] 1 1 Trichoptera Glossomatidae Glossoma 0 0 * * Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche * [3] * * [1-6] 4 4 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 4 4 * * [0-3,4-7] 5 4 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Parapsyche 0 1 * * [0] 0 0 Trichoptera Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma {1} 1 1 * Trichoptera Limnephilidae Asynarchus * * * * [6] * 6 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Frenesia (missa) * * * * Trichoptera Limnephilidae Genus {4} 4 4 * * * * 3 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Hesperophylax [3] 5 * * [3] 3 3 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Hydatophylax * * [2] * 2 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Limnephilus 3 5 * * 3 * 3 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pseudostenophylax 0 1 * * [0] 0 0 Trichoptera Philopotomidae Chimarra 4 * * 4 [0-1,4] 3 3 Trichoptera Philopotomidae Dolophilodes 0 1 * * Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 0 * * [0,2,4] 1 1 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon {6} {6} * <6> * * * 6 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Culicoides 10 * <10> * 10 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Monohela * * * * Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 6 * <6> * Diptera Ceratopogonidae Sphaeromias 6 * * * [6] 6 6 Diptera Chironomidae Genus * 6 * * [0-10] 6 6 Diptera Dixidae Dixa 1 1 * * * 1 1 Diptera Empididae Chelifera 6 6 {3.5} {6} {6} 6 6 Diptera Psychodidae Pericoma * Diptera Simuliidae Eusimulium * * * * Diptera Simuliidae Simulium {6} * [0-2,4-7] 6 6 Diptera Tipulidae Antocha {3} Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota 3 3 * Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma Diptera Tipulidae Limonia 6 6 * Diptera Tipulidae Pedicia 4^ 6 * * Diptera Tipulidae Pilaria 7 7 * * Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila 2 * * Diptera Tipulidae Tipula

36 Table 3. Master Taxa List. Master Taxa List for Seasonal Sampling Events Rank Order Family Genus () 1 Unknown 2 Class-Turbellaria Planariidae 3 Class- Oligochaeta 4 Class- Hirudinea 5 Class- Bivalvia 5 Class- Gastropoda 6 Isopoda Asellidae Asellus 7 Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus 7 Amphipoda Gammaridae 7 Amphipoda Hyallelidae Hyallela (azteca) 7 Amphipoda Taltridae 8 Collembola Entomobryidae 9 Ephemeroptera ae Baetis 9 Ephemeroptera ae Paraclodes 9 Ephemeroptera ae 9 Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae 9 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae 10 Sub-Anisoptera Gomphidae 10 Sub-Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Nehalennia 10 Sub-Zygoptera Coenagrionidae 11 Plecoptera Capniidae ocapnia 11 Plecoptera Capniidae Capnia 11 Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia 11 Plecoptera Capniidae 11 Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura 11 Plecoptera Nemouridae Nemoura 11 Plecoptera Nemouridae Prostoia 11 Plecoptera Nemouridae 12 Hemiptera Corixidae Sigara 12 Hemiptera Gerridae 12 Hemiptera Mesoveliidae 13 Megaloptera Corydalidae 14 Coleoptera Curculionidae Listronotus 14 Coleoptera Dytiscidae Agabus 14 Coleoptera Dytiscidae Cybristrinae 14 Coleoptera Dytiscidae Dytiscus 14 Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ilybius 14 Coleoptera Dytiscidae Sanfilipodytes 14 Coleoptera Elimidae Dubiraphia 14 Coleoptera Elimidae Optioservus 14 Coleoptera Elimidae Stenelmis 14 Coleoptera Elimidae 14 Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius 14 Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Sperchopsis 14 Coleoptera Hydrophilidae 15 Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus 15 Trichoptera Brachycentridae 15 Trichoptera Glossomatidae Glossoma 15 Trichoptera Glossomatidae 15 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche 15 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 15 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona 15 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 15 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Parapsyche 36

37 Table 3. Continued. Master Taxa List for Seasonal Sampling Events Order Family Genus () 15 Trichoptera Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Asynarchus 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Frenesia (missa) 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Glyphopsyche 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Hesperophylax 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Limnephilus 15 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pseudostenophylax 15 Trichoptera Philopotomidae Chimarra 15 Trichoptera Philopotomidae Dolophilodes 15 Trichoptera Philopotomidae 15 Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 15 Trichoptera Polycentropodidae 15 Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 15 Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae 16 Diptera Athericidae 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Atrichopogon 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Culicoides 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Monohela 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Nilobezzia 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Sphaeromias 16 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 16 Diptera Chironomidae 16 Diptera Dixidae Dixa 16 Diptera Empididae Chelifera 16 Diptera Empididae Clinocera 16 Diptera Empididae Dolichephala 16 Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 16 Diptera Empididae 16 Diptera Ephydridae 16 Diptera Muscidae 16 Diptera Psychodidae Pericoma 16 Diptera Simuliidae Eusimulium 16 Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium 16 Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 16 Diptera Simuliidae 16 Diptera Stratiomyidae Stratiomys 16 Diptera Stratiomyidae 16 Diptera Tabanidae Chrysops 16 Diptera Tabanidae 16 Diptera Tipulidae Antocha 16 Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota 16 Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma 16 Diptera Tipulidae Limonia 16 Diptera Tipulidae Pedicia 16 Diptera Tipulidae Pilaria 16 Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila 16 Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 16 Diptera Tipulidae 17 Leptopodidae 37

38 See separate workbooks for data 38