BASELINE NONGAME WILDLIFE SURVEYS ON THE FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION

Prepared for: Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation Office of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 1027

Poplar, MT 59255

Tribal Government Resolution:

#26-571-2012-03

Prepared by:

Paul Hendricks, Susan Lenard, David Stagliano and Bryce A. Maxell

Montana Natural Heritage Program

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

March 2013

P.O. Box 201800, 1515 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620-1800, 406-444-5354

This document should be cited as follows: Hendricks, P., S. Lenard, D. Stagliano, and B. A. Maxell. 2013. Baseline nongame wildlife surveys on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Report to the Assiniboine

and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 83 pages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A variety of animal surveys were conducted during summer (May- September) 2012 as a baseline assessment of nongame wildlife on tribal lands on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana, the focus being all vertebrate groups (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, small mammals) and some aquatic invertebrate taxa (e.g. Mussels, Dragonflies) using relatively native habitats. Results of the surveys are intended to help guide stewardship and management of tribal lands as needs arise, whether they are in response to energy exploration and development, conflicts in land use practices, threats from invasive or non-native species, or other land management concerns.

Of 72 total stream sites visited, fish were documented at 36 of 55 sites with water. Twelve of 17 fish species detected were native, with highest occurrence rates by Fathead Minnow (60%) and Brook Stickleback (58%); the non-native Northern Pike was present at 52% of sites. Fish species richness averaged 3.1 (2.2 native species) across all sites, and reached its greatest value (eight species) at one site on the Poplar River. Two Montana Species of Concern (SOC) fish, Northern Redbelly Dace and Iowa Darter, were recorded at five and three sites, respectively. Pearl Dace, another SOC fish collected previously from the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, was not detected at any of the historical sites. Fifteen of 36 sites scored in the unimpaired range for biological integrity of fish communities, nine scored moderately impaired and the remainder as slightly impaired. However, taxonomic completeness qualified as unimpaired at only 25% of sites, indicating the majority of sites were adversely affected by introduced fish species.

Overall, 180 unique macroinvertebrate taxa were reported from assessment surveys or incidentally at ~50 sites visited. Two SOC mayflies (Caenis youngi and Analetris eximia) and one SOC dragonfly (Stylurus intricatus) were collected at two sites each. Five potential SOC Odonata species were collected across the study area. Highest species richness among invertebrate groups was, in order of dominance: Diptera (36 taxa), Odonata (31), Coleoptera (28), Mayflies and Mollusks each with 21 taxa. The most ubiquitous damselflies were the Northern Bluet and Eastern Forktail reported at 28 and 25 sites, respectively. The Physa snails (Physella acuta and P. gyrina) were the most abundant and widespread mollusk species, detected at 30 sites with over 1100 individuals. Despite structured mussel searches at 25 sites and surveying an additional 30 streams, we only documented the giant floater (Pyganodon grandis) at three sites in Smoke Creek and the Poplar River.

Five amphibian and two reptile species were detected during surveys at 57 wetland sites, with Boreal Chorus Frog and Northern Leopard Frog at 50.9% and 29.8% of sites, respectively. Plains Spadefoot, currently a state SOC, was detected at one site. Amphibians were three times more likely to be detected at sites where fish were not observed. Incidental observations of amphibians and reptiles during the course of other surveys resulted in 52 observations of three amphibian and five reptile species, including the state SOC Smooth Green Snake, and Common Gartersnake, the first verified in far northeastern Montana north of the Missouri River.

One hundred and ten bird species were recorded on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation during the 2012 surveys, including 16 SOC species. Seventy species were detected on 23 road transects (10 point counts each, 230 points total), and 22 species on 19 off-road points (no species differed from those detected on road transects). Horned Lark was the most abundant and widespread bird species detected within 100 m of count points (474 individuals on 79.1% of 249 points). Species detected within 100 m of points

included nine state SOC: Long-billed Curlew (2 points), Loggerhead Shrike (2 points), Sprague’s Pipit (24 points), Chestnut-collared Longspur (119 points), McCown’s Longspur (36 points), Brewer’s Sparrow (4 points), Baird’s Sparrow (57 points), Nelson’s Sparrow (1 point), and Bobolink (12 points). Nests of two SOC species (Sprague’s Pipit, Chestnut-collared Longspur) were documented incidental to other surveys. Sprague’s Pipit is also a Candidate Species for Federal Listing under the Endangered Species Act. The suite of birds detected in 2012 includes most of those expected to breed regularly in native grasslands in this region, including seven SOC. Fifteen wetland sites received unstructured surveys, but resulted in detection of 52 species, many of which were encountered nowhere else during bird surveys. Twelve woody sites were surveyed for cuckoos using recorded call playbacks; no cuckoos were detected.

Fifty-seven captures of seven terrestrial small mammal species were made during 940 trap-nights of effort at 46 sites, a trapping success of 6.06%. Deer Mouse accounted for 87.7% of all captures (at 30 sites). One captured Pygmy Shrew represents only the third record for northeastern Montana (first record for Valley County); this species probably merits addition to the SOC list due to its rarity across the state, especially east of the Rocky Mountains. Incidental observations of terrestrial small mammals during the course of other surveys resulted in 36 observations of 12 additional species, none of which are SOC.

Eight species of bats were detected during acoustic surveys for single nights at 32 sites, with presence of five species (Big Brown Bat, Eastern Red Bat, Hoary Bat, Silver-haired Bat, Little Brown Myotis) based on calls classified definitive and three additional species (Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Western Small- footed Myotis, Western Long-eared Myotis) on calls classified probable. Three of these species are state SOC: Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (probable: 2 sites), Eastern Red Bat (definitive: 6 sites, probable: 5 sites), and Hoary Bat (definitive: 13 sites, probable: 3 sites). The most widespread species was Silver- haired Bat, detected at 86.7% of 30 sites (definitive: 25 sites, probable: 1 site) where equipment did not malfunction. Two long-term acoustic monitoring stations included calls classified definitive for eight bat species, including the three based only on probable calls during the single night surveys, and also included a ninth species, Long-legged Myotis, with calls classified probable.

Although the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is confronted with a variety of land use issues and challenges, it continues to support a large variety of native species that should be considered in future management activities. The deleterious effect of converting native grassland to cropland may be reflected in different rates of point-count occupancy by some grassland bird species in different areas within the reservation boundary, as well as between the reservation as a whole and adjacent areas in the region where larger areas of intact native prairie remain. Responses by small terrestrial mammals and bats to land conversion are less clear and deserve more attention, but riparian corridors and open water are important landscape features for bats, some small mammal species, and various birds. Where they are present, non-native predatory fish tend to be detrimental to native pond-dwelling amphibians and some native stream fish. Future land stewardship and management decision-making for tribal lands will be better informed with additional surveys of all categories of nongame animals and habitats, as many gaps remain in survey coverage across the reservation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several persons made this project possible. In particular, Jeanne Spaur (tribal wildlife biologist) promoted the survey idea with the tribal government and the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP), walked the proposal through the bureaucratic process, arranged for permission to access tribal lands, freely offered assistance with many aspects of the project, participated in some of the field work, and provided refuge from the mid-summer heat on more than one occasion. Chris Mart conducted most of the lentic amphibian and reptile surveys, Coburn Currier (MTNHP) aided with bird surveys and Phil Sawatzski assisted with the fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys. Mike Borgreen (Medicine Lake NWR) provided field logistical support for the aquatics crew. Claudine Tobalske (MTNHP) created the land cover maps that helped those of us in the field orient and find our way around tribal lands on the reservation.

Table of Contents

EXGCULIVE SUMIMALY ss .cscisssscssssnacesssvesectsssnnsssasessvassoennuessecssunscevnacesesssssecsesnnnesscessecsssseessousovessosneesdevssececssess iii ACKNOW]lEd SIMENES ..sssscssonsisesscsssnsssotesseccsssnessennssvecdevssecsesees os seedsens senses oasdedsenssescessssdedsens seusessesceesscessescsoseaseess Vv MUVE CCUG CLOT ay csssvsscsnnensvesseverspnnveavice cantsyentennss vases vensetnneusta ea vesensnvnso varasveysnncwnsssacuvenen innessve aaemsvsenssevasvenssvennnies 1 SUID Y ALC iccissiicssiescscevsiivnces toacscenoeseeccsvescesentetvcensesscasentiessucssesuassoueaesnntt)senusveoedededssusceseboececsasseanasracceeseesesee 1 Method...........scccsesssrsssssscssscvsscsecsecssccsccsscsscesessscssnsesseucesesssnescesecssnsssssscsscsssssnscsesssnecesecsscssssesesscssseseesesssnseess 2 DULEVEY SILC, .cgehess vate tester tn tea vase see ttives vasuel saicedsabesh ccuulcuscasves ode veliteetestebs asa lcbescdbsap hase ii vetistss tesnGscaediamees 2 SuEVvey Method) iessse iiorises Cnty asi caiacentetieidi dea lesniasi ceed) Matin tae iialeissielel Auiiened avin ieee 3 FRGSUUIES ANIC DISCUSSION sss sscssncensucssssvseseacdexurssansvesesatonsedubexsupescdunaepecneusssapionseesGvucepenousbsrseuessessshasupesGenvepenetnians 6 Pash: Communities 022 «.csiveadieasnenssiusteeesedtvesestebvauss sa liweadsg vatirvessdavevas eiveeds sbguesaplebhuasedanesaateletensselvesssaasbesosious 6 AGuatic: MacroimVerteDrates sisi: cosoczspes ioeiepssabestae da iesnnets Gan she bo eacasbetantedes alee sh decitessedeslediasienneeomsnieets 10 Lentic Amphibians and Reptiles ..cc2cctscstsccvcesecctiaghevssssdeedeelossssmansteesectaasasessiisesstbestassutiiscobiepbucessideetesones 12 Bird SUrVOySvazseisce ands ccctudos csc sdb ccbenis ie btacewedsneescavenscaveeis cglged ti eabeasorustenastetuens hecbteceseisustoraese@eiiesoee 14 Terrestrial Small Mammal Surveys ...........cccescesecesecsseesseeeseeeeseeeseeescecaaeceaecsaecaecsseesseeeseeeseeseaeeeaeeeaaeenaes 18 Bat: Detector ACOUSTIC: SUIVEYS sss iecésrs scxcsssiasdecscttoceuslasasssvissecsas.sebosasausseoeatssd¥isrsssersassalisiessetedseasscutecbaeters 21 Opportunistic and Pre-2012 Observations 200.0... eeeesseessecsseceseceseceseceseesseeseeeeeneeseeeeneesseeeaaecaaecaeseaeeeaeens 24 Some Conclusions and Suggestions ............csscccssccsscsssssccsssccssccssccssccescscsecssecsscessecssecsscessessssssssscesscessseses 25 METER ATIF CCM save eit nivacuseeatesasssjeceevavivapunssnvacensiavetenstyensnsuebes avssyensesnevaecensiyedueusvaus eeassviaesiopbuatenssyonaonavtinens 26 ADD CIGICES ii occ se csccecaveisaveccuceuscsstssc socoesseesvoeesiedvoce cess sabecucestsvdecso%cvdee cess cubase secs sedi susecoustebtsscuesvesseibeassesuess 29 Appendix 1: Heritage Rank Definitions... eee eeceseeeeeeeeeeeseeeseecsaeceaeceaecaecsseeeseeeseeseeeeeaeeeaeeeaaeenaes 30 Appendix 2: Checklist of Fish Species at Aquatic Survey Sites 0.00... ce sescssecsseceeeeeeeeeeeeesseeeeeeeeenaes 33 Appendix 3: Aquatic Sites Survey SUMMALY......... eee eeceseeeeeeeeeeeseecsaeceaecaecaeceseeeeeeseeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 36 Appendix 4: Macroinvertebrates Found During Aquatic Sites SurveyS ......... ccc ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaes 41 Appendix 5: Lentic Amphibian and Reptile Survey Results ...... ees eesceseceseceseceseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeenaes 47 Appendix 6: Checklist of Birds Observed on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation ............ceeeeseeseereeees 50 Appendix 7: Bird Road Transect Survey Results ......... ee eeceeseeseeeseeeseeceseceaecesecsseeeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaaeenaes 52 Appendix 8: Off-road Bird Point Count Results... ee eeceeseeseeeseecseeceaeceseceaeceseeeeesseeeeeeeeneeeneeenaeenaes 56 Appendix 9: Bird Nests Located Incidental to other Survey Work 00.0... ceceeseeeeceeeceeeeeeeeeeseeeneeeneeenaes 58 Appendix 10: Counts of Bird Species at Wetland Sites... ieee eseecsseceseceseceeeeseeeeeeseeeseneeeaeeeaaeenaes 60 Appendix 11: Terrestrial Small Mammal Trapping Results 00.0.0... cece eeeeceseceseceseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeenaes 63 Appendix 12: Bat Detector Acoustic Survey Results 00... ceceeseesseesseceseceseceseceseeeseeeseeeseeeeseeeaeeeaaeenaes 66 Appendix 13: Opportunistic Wildlife Observations during 2012 ...... eee eeseeseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeenaes 69

vi

Appendix 14: Summary of Fish Observations from Fort Peck Indian Reservation pre-2012 ................ 75

Appendix 15: Records of Non-game Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals Pre-2012 «0.0.0.0... 79 List of Tables Table 1: Fish recorded during the 2012 Fort Peck Surveys 000.0... eeceesceeseeseeessecnsecesecesecnseceseceseeeseeeseeeees 7 Table 2: Total Number of Total Native Fish Species Detected by Site oo... ee eeeceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 9 Table 3: Macroinvertebrate Species Detected during the 2012 Fort Peck Survey... eeeeeeeseeseereee 12 Table 4: Amphibian and Reptile Species Detected during the 2012 Fort Peck Survey... cece eee 12 Table 5: Bird Species Detected < 100 m of Count Points during the 2012 Fort Peck Survey................ 15 Table 6: Terrestrial Small Mammals Captured during the 2012 Fort Peck Survey... ee eeeeeeeeseereee 19 Table 7: Bats Detected during the 2012 Fort Peck Single-Night Acoustic Survey ..........eceeeeeseeseerees 22 Table 8: Monthly Bat Activity in 2012 at Two Long-term Acoustic Monitoring Stations........0....00 23 List of Figures Figure 1: Sites for Aquatic Surveys in 2012 0... eecesceeeceseceseeeseeeeeeecseeeseecaaecsaecsaecaecsaeesseeseesseeenneeees 6 Figure 2: Percent of Native Fish at Various Sites during the 2012 Survey ....... cece ceeceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeees 8 Figure 3: Location of Lentic Sites Surveyed for Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles in 2012... 13 Figure 4: Location of Road Transects and Off-road Points for Bird Point Counts in 2012.00.00. 14 Figure 5: Distribution of Sprague’s Pipit Across the Fort Peck Reservation............:ccsccssesseecceseeeeeereeees 17 Figure 6: Location of Terrestrial Small Mammal Trap Lines on Fort Peck Reservation in 2012 .......... 19 Figure 7: Location of Bat Detector Surveys on Fort Peck Reservation in 2012 0.0... ee eeeeeseeseeereeeeeee 21 List of Photos Photo 1: Typical Glaciated Prairie Stream Habitat ..0..... ee eee esceeseeneecsseceseceseceseceseeeseeeeeeeeneeeneeenaeenaes 10 Photo 2: Typical Glaciated Large Valley River Habitat ....... cece csecssecsseceeceeeeseeeseeeeeeseneeeneeenaeenaes 11 Photo 3: Small Mammal Trap line in Riparian Habitat; White-footed Mouse ........... ee eeeeeseeseeereeeeeee 20 Photo 4: Small Mammal Trap line in Shrubby Draw; Western Harvest Mouse ............. eeeceesseeseeereeeeeee 20 Photo 5:Bat Detector Site #19 and #23 0... lees ceeceseeseceseeeseeeeseeeseecsaecsaecsaecsaecsseeseeeseesseeseneeeaeeesaeenaes 22 Photo 6: Bat Detector Site #18 and #6 00... eee ceeceseceseeeeeeeeneeeseeeseecsaecsaecsaecsaecseesseeeseeseeeseneeeneeenaeenaes 23 Photo 7: Smooth Green Snake; Common Gartersnake ..............ccccccccesssscesececeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeseaeaeaeeeeeaeeeees 24

vii

INTRODUCTION

Extreme northeastern Montana has received relatively little inventory for its non-game vertebrate occupants, with the notable exception of Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Sheridan County and the Waterfowl Production Areas associated with the refuge. Much of what is known about non-game wildlife in the region has been focused on birds, but now includes increased attention on amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals (e.g., Hossack et al. 2003, Perry et al. 2004, Carson et al. 2006, Dorak et al. 2012). Despite additional agency and NGO focus on northeastern Montana, gaps in documented distributions remain fairly numerous. Non-game vertebrate wildlife of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation continues to be under-surveyed, despite long-term and increasing impacts from agriculture and mineral exploration. Thus, there is an immediate need to gather baseline data from the reservation on a broad spectrum of non-game vertebrates. These data will help the Tribal Executive Board and Fort Peck General Council to better understand, protect, and preserve their wildlife resources in their on-going efforts to make informed management decisions as demands for land and mineral resources escalate.

The Montana Natural Heritage Program’s (MTNHP) 2012 baseline non-game wildlife inventory focused on all vertebrate taxa (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, terrestrial small mammals, and bats), and included environmental assessment of streams and rivers, including collection of distributional data for sensitive invertebrates (focal groups: Odonata, Crayfish, Mussels, Mayflies) prior to new exploratory drilling for oil and gas reserves and before any anticipated impacts to the environment from these activities. Focus was on native landscapes under tribal jurisdiction, with emphasis on uplands for most non-aquatic taxa.

STUDY AREA

The Fort Peck Indian Reservation, shaped roughly like a trapezoid, is about 110 mi (180 km) E-W by 40 miles (64 km) S-N, encompassing about 3,289 square miles (8,519 km’) between 104°30' to 106°'W and 48°00' to 48°38'N in far northeastern Montana. The Reservation lies entirely within the Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion and includes the Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie in the east and Glaciated Northern Grasslands in the west (Woods et al. 2002). The reservation is bounded by Big Muddy Creek on the east, the Missouri River on the south, the lower Milk River and Porcupine Creek on the west, and 48°38' N latitude on the north. Much of the reservation lies in Roosevelt and Valley counties with smaller portions in Daniels and Sheridan counties. Elevations across the Fort Peck Indian Reservation range from 1950 ft (594 m) in the east on the Missouri River in Roosevelt County to 3065 ft (934 m) in the west in Valley County.

Private inholdings are numerous throughout the reservation. Both private and tribal lands are used for dryland agricultural crops, more prevalent in the eastern half of the reservation but widespread across reservation uplands. Much of the reservation’s human population of about 11,000 is concentrated in lower areas along the Missouri River bottom. There are older established oil fields (e.g. East Poplar Oil Field), and the reservation is within the area experiencing dramatically increased oil exploration and development associated with the oil-rich Bakken formation of northeastern Montana and northwestern North Dakota.

METHODS

Survey Sites

Fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates

We chose streams to visit stratified by east and west watersheds of the reservation and also by previous reports of MT SOC fish presence (MFISH database). We additionally based stream visits on biointegrity rankings from a previous report on streams of the Fort Peck Reservation (Blue Stem Consulting 1994). The second visit to the watersheds on the western side of the reservation was abbreviated due to a significant rainstorm on 25 June (>2”) that caused flooding, unsafe sampling and deteriorated road conditions.

Amphibians and aquatic reptiles

All safely accessible standing water bodies (lentic sites) present within each watershed on 1:24k scale topographic maps or found incidentally while in the field were surveyed if they were on tribal lands or on private lands with permission to survey the sites. Where no standing water bodies were found on topographic maps, accessible lands were examined for areas of low topographic relief or backwaters of streams that might provide lentic breeding habitat. Where there were too many lentic sites to survey within the 3 days allocated to each watershed, those likely to have more suitable habitat were prioritized for survey over springs and wells.

Birds

Two types of point-count sampling were conducted: (1) road-transects, and (2) single off-road points. Road transects consisted of 10 points per transect, each point being 0.5 miles apart (transect length = 4.5 miles). We attempted to run one road transect in each full or partial Quarter-quarter Latilong block, but weather and logistics prevented completion of full coverage across the reservation. Start points of road transects were associated with pre-selected random off-road points, but actual start locations tended to be opportunistic and located where a full transect could be run in each sample block. They were also situated to avoid heavy vehicle traffic as much as possible, and all were on unpaved secondary or tertiary roads. Random single predetermined off-road points for survey were located in native habitat in each Quarter-quarter Latilong block, based on ownership and land cover GIS layers. Points for off-road sampling were located on tribal parcels with no less than a quarter section of native cover and buffered by 200 m of native habitat. As with the road transects, we were not able to conduct off-road point counts in all sample blocks, due to weather and logistic constraints.

Surveys for cuckoos (both Black-billed and Yellow-billed) were conducted following standard play-back protocols, and targeted on major drainages with extensive shrub and tree cover. Waterbird surveys were opportunistic and unstructured (no time duration and no standard methodology). Sites were found while in transit across the reservation or identified from maps and then visited.

Terrestrial small mammals and bats

Because prior surveys were lacking from most areas of the reservation, we trapped for terrestrial small mammals at as many locations as time and logistics permitted. Sampling was focused on native habitats on tribal lands (agricultural and developed landscapes were avoided). Within native habitats, sites chosen for sampling were identified largely on extent of native habitat

2

(identified from land cover maps), physical access to the site (often requiring significant amounts of time assessing several potential sites), and the geographic spread across the reservation. Within non-random targeted areas, trap lines were clustered because of the travel and time logistics required to set and retrieve trap lines. We also tried to sample from a diversity of native cover types within and between survey areas (e.g., grasslands, shrubby draws, sagebrush, badlands, buffaloberry patches, and riparian woodlands).

Effort was made to sample for bats from all major watersheds across the reservation, but it was necessary to limit sampling to fewer concentrated areas due to travel logistics and weather. Sites were chosen based on the presence of water, trees, or bridges, or a combination of these features. Bats in prairie landscapes are often associated with these features because they also attract insect prey and/or provide bats with roosting habitat. As with small mammal trapping, identification of sites for sampling often required significant amounts of time assessing several potential sites.

Survey Methods

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities & Adult Odonata Collections

Macroinvertebrate communities were sampled qualitatively from ten equally-spaced transects within the 300m assessment reach using the EMAP Reach-Wide protocol (Lazorchak et al. 1998). Sampling started at the downstream transect (A in the EMAP or #10 for the BLM protocol), and proceeded upstream alternating sampling with the 500-micron D-frame net to the left, right or center of the stream channel, so a random sampling of all habitats is achieved. Ten multi-habitat kicks were composited from the net into a 20 liter bucket. All organisms and organic matter in the bucket were elutriated from the inorganic portion and washed onto a 500-micron sieve. The organic portion on the sieve was transferred to one or two 1 liter Nalgene bottles (unless field sub- sampling was needed), labeled and preserved in 95% ethanol and brought to the MTNHP lab in Helena for processing (sorting, identification and data analysis) following protocols outlined by the BLM and MTDEQ (MTDEQ 2006).

Dragonfly and Damselfly adults were documented and collected from sites with aerial sweep nets in a Visual Encounter Survey (VES) fashion while walking the assessment reach. Species were determined using Paulson (2011). Vouchers and photographs of specimens were archived.

Mussel Surveys

Freshwater mussels were surveyed longitudinally along a series of 50m stream lengths with aquascopes (glass-bottom buckets) using a catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) or catch per linear distance (CPUD) approach, because the emphasis of our study is to determine presence/absence and a relative abundance (Young et al. 2001). Time searched by the surveyors is expressed as number of mussels per person-hour and per measured stream distance (mussels per 50 stream meters). We devoted approximately one man-hour of search per site and an effort was made to sample multiple geomorphic units (riffle, glide and pool sequences) and all available habitats therein.

Fish Surveys

Fish sampling within a 300m stream assessment reach followed prairie fish seining protocols (Bramblett 2005) and were conducted with 6 and 9 meter straight seines in 25-30m increments seining in a downstream direction toward the block seine. Fish captured in a blocked section were transferred to holding buckets until the reach is completed, unless the reach is broken up by riffles,

3

impassable or dry sections; in this case, fish were processed and released within the section of capture. Fish held in the buckets were identified to species, enumerated, examined for external anomalies (e.g. deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors), and then released. At least 10% of a species’ individuals were measured for total length in millimeters (TL mm) to obtain size structure data. Young-of-the-year fish less than 20 mm (TL) were noted on the field sheet (not included in the totals) and released. Analysis of the sampled fish communities used Integrated Biotic Indices (IBI) designed for wadeable prairie streams (Bramblett et. al 2005) and derived Observed/Expected (O/E) Fish Models (Stagliano 2011) to detect impairment in the biological integrity of the sites. The expected number of native fish species for a D006 classified reference stream is 2.5-3.75, while the expected number of fish for a C006 stream is 5.5-8.5 depending on watershed area; dividing the observed number of native fish species at a site by the expected number (O/E) derives a percentage compared to reference condition (>0.8 or 80% = unimpaired). Voucher specimens were only taken in the case of uncertain field identifications, and were preserved in 10% buffered formalin after relaxation with MS-222. These will be deposited with the Montana State University Collections. Adult amphibians or reptiles seen while seining or walking the designated stream reach were counted and recorded even if they were not captured in the seine.

Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles Lentic Surveys

We used timed visual encounter and dip net surveys in all portions of water bodies that were less than 50 cm in depth. If little emergent vegetation was present then we carefully examined these shallow water environments for the presence of eggs, larvae, or post metamorphic animals. Areas with dense emergent vegetation were intensely sampled with a dip net. At sites where water depths dropped off steeply from the shoreline, visual searches and dip netting were performed from shoreline. Areas with extensive shallows were systematically searched and dip netted while wading through the area on evenly spaced transects. Vouchers were collected only if they filled new county records or required additional examination not possible in the field for proper determination.

Bird Point-count Surveys

Point counts for birds followed general standard methodology (Hutto et al 1986, Hendricks et al. 2008) applied elsewhere in northeastern Montana. All point counts were ten minutes in duration and conducted within approximately five hours following sunrise (and generally not earlier than 05:30). During each point count, birds observed during time intervals of 0-3 minutes, 3-5 minutes, and 5-10 minutes were recorded separately, while attempting not to count individuals more than once. All birds detected visually and/or aurally within a visually-estimated 100 meter radius circle (aided with an optical rangefinder) surrounding the center point were included in the tally. Each individual species was documented with the appropriate 4-letter AOU code, abundance noted, and identified as within the 100-meter circle or outside of the circle. Birds that flew over the circle but did not land during the count were recorded as flyovers. Counts were not conducted during continuous rain or winds generally exceeding about 12 mph (20 km/hr). A basic assessment of macro-vegetation cover was recorded at each point location following general protocols developed by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

Waterbirds and Cuckoos

Waterbird surveys were usually conducted when weather interfered with other bird survey work. Each survey site location was recorded with a GPS and a total count made for each bird species detected at the site, whether or not it was a species restricted to wetlands or water bodies.

Each site survey for cuckoos lasted 10 minutes. At each location, 3 minutes of passive listening was followed by 5 minutes of call playbacks for each species, and ended with two minutes of passive listening. During the call playback phase, broadcasts of calls occurred at the start of each minute followed by passive listening until time to broadcast calls once again, with the playback process repeated for five cycles.

Terrestrial Small Mammal Trap Line Surveys

Trap lines were oriented in cover type patches so that trap stations were relatively consistent in gross habitat structure. However, individual stations or traps were situation at or near micro- features thought to be used by small mammals (e.g. under shrubs or next to downed wood if present). Each line consisted of 10 stations at 10 paces apart (roughly 90 to 100 m long), often not in a straight line. Each station consisted of a Museum Special snap trap and a Sherman live trap. Snap traps were baited with peanut butter, Sherman traps with bird seed mix and rolled oats to keep the trigger devices clean. Sherman live traps also contained a piece of polyester fiber batting to prevent overnight mortality of captured animals from exposure. Traps at individual stations were placed at least 1 m apart. Trap lines were set in the evening and retrieved as soon as possible the next morning to reduce stress to live animals. Each line, with one exception, was run for a single night. All captured animals were identified, sexed, and weighed in the field; some live individuals were photographed to verify identifications. Animals killed in snap traps were placed in freezer bags and returned from the field for verification of field identifications (shrews, voles), and then deposit with the Philip L. Wright Vertebrate Museum at the University of Montana for preparation as skulls and study skins.

Bat Acoustic Surveys

Bat acoustic calls were recorded using Pettersson D240X detectors, with captured recordings stored on I-River MP3 recorders with up to 1 GB of capacity. Nightly deployment of each detector/recorder was considered an independent survey. Up to three detectors were set each night at different locations while conducting terrestrial small mammal trapping surveys. Detectors were retrieved each morning as soon as possible, and recordings downloaded in the field to a laptop computer. After call files were downloaded they were converted to .wav format and stored in folders labeled for each survey site and date. Two Wildlife Acoustics SM2 detectors with 32 GB of storage capacity were placed for multi-year monitoring in major riparian corridors. Calls were downloaded monthly and later analyzed. Call analysis for bats was conducted back at the office using Sonobat 3.0 software (Sonobat, Arcata, CA). Species determinations were made using the bat acoustic key developed for Montana by Szewczak and Weller (2006).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fish Communities:

We visited 72 sites of six stream classifications during the course of two field trips; 55 sites had water present, 36 of these sites contained fish (Figure 1). We documented 17 fish species during our surveys, five of these were non-native (Table 1, Appendix 2). The highest species richness site was one of the Poplar River sites (LM_FP713), where 8 fish species were reported (5 native species). Fathead minnows and Brook Sticklebacks had the highest site occurrence rate of 60 and 58% respectively, while the non-native northern pike was collected at 52% of total fish sites (Table

Figure 1. Sites for aquatic surveys in 2012, showing those that were dry when visited. Site numbers correspond to those listed in Table 2 and Appendix 3.

SITE CONDITIONS @ Wet e Dy [_] County fee Lake Stream

1). Across all stream classes and reaches, total fish species per site averaged 3.1 with 2.2 native species; if we exclude stream reaches dominated by northern pike, average native species richness goes up to 3.5 (Table 2). Northern Pike are a non-native predatory fish in Fort Peck watersheds documented to decimate native prairie minnow assemblages (Moyle and Leidy 1992, Stagliano 2008). Fort Peck streams with Northern Pike present (Smoke, Tule, lower Police, Poplar and their tributaries) reported significantly fewer fish species present and lower numbers of other individuals definitions) at any of the previously collected locations from the 1950’s (Appendix 2); this is likely

6

when present. We did not collect Pearl Dace (S2 MT SOC; see Appendix 1 for state rank due to the introduction of northern pike within these watersheds (MT FWP stocking records circa 1970). We did document the MT SOC species, Northern Redbelly Dace (NORD)(5 sites) and Iowa Darter (3 sites) co-occurring at two sites, Wolf and East Fork Porcupine Creeks, while the NORD was found additionally at Little Wolf Creek; all NORD sites had no pike present (Photo 1). The Iowa Darter was also reported from Smoke Creek which did contain pike.

We documented six unique stream classification types in the study area: Large Glaciated Plains Valley River System (A001) (the Missouri River), Medium Prairie Rivers (BO06) (Poplar and Big Muddy), Perennial Glaciated Prairie Streams (C006: Smoke, Wolf, Tule, etc.), and numerous stream reaches classified as Northwestern Glaciated Plains Intermittent Stream systems (D006: Otter, Little Wolf or E006: Alkali, Irish Coulees) and the Great Plains Perennial Spring (S005) (Appendix 3, Stagliano 2005, http://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayES.aspx?id=9). Proper stream classification is important when determining biological integrity (Hawkins and Norris 2000) and expected species richness. The Intermittent Prairie Stream (E006) in Montana is naturally fishless 80% of the time; therefore, absence of fish, in itself, should not be viewed as a biological impairment (e.g. Chelsea Creek). We also visited three wetlands that would be classified as Western Emergent Marsh systems (WEEMMA).

Table 1. Fish recorded during the 2012 Fort Peck Surveys. Frequency of Occurrence (FO) was calculated from the # of site visits detected / # of visits capable for detection (n=36). Proportion of individuals out of total individuals captured. * = Introduced Species

# Sites ro ies Fish Species Detected O total

(%) ind. Fathead Minnow 22 60 33.4 Brook Stickleback 21 58 55.0 Northern Pike* 19 52 1.1 White Sucker 14 38 5.2 Brassy Minnow 8 22 0.9 Northern Redbelly Dace 5 14 1.4 Black Bullhead* 4 11 0.2 Common Carp* 4 11 0.0 Iowa Darter 3 8 0.3 Lake Chub 2 5 1.4 Longnose Dace 2 5 0.0 Emerald Shiner* 2 5 0.1 Spottail Shiner* 2 5 0.6 Stonecat 2 5 0.0 Flathead Chub 1 3 0.1 Goldeye 1 3 0.0 Sand Shiner 1 3 0.2

Figure 2. Percent of native fish at various sites during the 2012 surveys. Site numbers correspond to those listed in Table 2 and Appendix 3.

FORT PECK RESERVATION FISH PRESENCE 2012 - PERCENT NATIVE INDEX

In terms of biological integrity measured by the fish IBI, 15 of 36 sites scored in the unimpaired range (>55, i.e. good health), while 9 sites scored moderately impaired and the remainder were slightly impaired (Table 2). But, when measured in taxonomic completeness by the O/E, only 9 sites (25%) had scores greater than the 0.8 unimpaired threshold score, indicating that a majority of sites were adversely affected by introduced fish species or missing expected native species. Fifteen sites had 100% native species present, while seven sites had no native fish present and 22 sites had their fish communities comprised of >90% native fish individuals even when there were non-native fish present (Table 2, Figure 2). Although a stream survey may observe an all native fish species community, this does not necessarily mean that the site has a complete fish assemblage. The predicted reference condition fish community for the Northwestern Glaciated Plains Intermittent Stream (D006) includes the pearl dace (none were detected) and the lake chub (reported from only 2 sites). Thus, many Fort Peck streams within this classification are missing species commonly collected from nearby reference streams.

Table 2. Total number and total native fish species detected by site. Percent native individuals collected per site, IBI and O/E scores for the 36 sites. Underlined values are fish communities that ranked biologically unimpaired.

%

‘ Total Nativ : % Nativ IBI Sittsode oieam ae sacice po rap eine Score OE LM_FP671 | Wolf Creek #1 5 5 100.0 100.0 55.9 0.91 LM_FP678 | Wolf Creek #2 4 4 100.0 100.0 60.8 1.07 LM_FP680 | Wolf Creek #3 4 4 100.0 100.0 61.6 1.07 LM_FP682 | Wolf Creek #4 5 5 100.0 100.0 53.7 0.91 LM_FP690 | Otter Creek 3 3 100.0 100.0 52.7 0.55 LM_FP691 | Otter Creek 5 4 80.0 96.7 57.7 0.73 LM_FP693 | Otter Creek 3 1 33.3 80.0 62.8 0.27 LM_FP676 | Hay Creek 2 1 50.0 93.6 68.8 0.67 LM_FP673 | Smoke Creek #1 3 2 66.7 74.1 47.5 0.36 LM_FP677 | Smoke Creek #2 1 0 0.0 0.0 43.5 0.00 LM_FP710 | Smoke Creek #3 3 2 66.7 91.1 62.0 0.36 LM_FP695 | Alkali Coulee 2 2 100.0 100.0 67.2 0.53 LM_FP728 | Lake Creek 2 2 100.0 100.0 65.8 0.53 LM_FP698 | Irish Coulee 2 2 100.0 100.0 68.9 1.33 LM_FP700 | Irish Coulee 2 2 100.0 100.0 69.4 1.33 LM_FP708 | Sauerkraut Coulee 2 2 100.0 100.0 69.7 1.33 LM_FP720 | Give Out Morgan Creek 2 1 50.0 25.0 60.9 0.67 LM_FP730 | Tule Creek #1 2 0 0.0 0.0 49.5 0.00 LM_FP731 | Tule Creek #2 2 0 0.0 0.0 42.5 0.00 LM_FP735 | Tule Creek (trib) 1 0 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.00 LM_FP738 | Tule Creek #3 1 0 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.00 LM_FP743 | Little Wolf Creek #2 6 5 83.3 97.0 53.0 0.91 LM_FP744 | Little Wolf Creek #3 6 5 83.3 97.0 53.0 0.91 LM_FP745 | Little Wolf Creek #1 3 0 0.0 0.0 43.3 0.00 LM_FP746 | Little Wolf Creek #4 4 4 100.0 100.0 50.4 0.73 LM_FP748 | Police Creek #1 1 0 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.00 LM_FP751 | Police Creek #2 2 2 100.0 100.0 51.7 0.36 LM_FP752 | West Fork Poplar #1 2 1 50.0 99.0 57.5 0.18 LM_FP753 | Hell Coulee 2 1 50.0 25.0 53.5 0.18 LM_FP754 | Snow Coulee 3 2 66.7 66.7 50.4 0.53 LM_FP756 | E. Fork Porcupine Creek 4 4 100.0 100.0 52.1 0.73 LM_FP757 | E. Fork Little Porcupine Creek 3 3 100.0 100.0 37.7 0.55 LM_FP713 |) Poplar River 8 5 62.5 74.1 53.4 0.78 LM_FP726 | Big Muddy Creek 7 3 42.9 92.5 24.4 0.55 LM_FP718 | Poplar River (Oxbow tributary) 1 1 100.0 100.0 42.8 0.18 LM_FP722 | Poplar River (unnamed trib.) 3 2 66.7 94.1 42.1 0.31

Photo 1. Typical Glaciated Prairie Stream (D006: Wolf Creek, LM_FP680) habitat containing Northern Redbelly Dace, Brassy Minnow, Brook Stickleback, Fathead Minnow, Lake Chub and Iowa Darter. Macroinvertebrates include ten dragonfly/damselfly species, ten aquatic mollusk taxa, nine beetle species and three mayflies, Caenis latipennis, Caenis youngi (SOC G482) and Callibaetis fluctuans.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Overall, 180 unique macroinvertebrate taxa were reported from assessment samples, Odonate adult surveys or collected incidentally at ~50 sites visited in 2012 (Appendix 2 and 4). Two species of concern (SOC) mayflies (Caenis youngi and Analetris eximia) and one dragonfly (Stylurus intricatus) were collected at two sites each (Photo 2, Table 3).

Five potential SOC Odonata species were collected across the study area. The highest species richness among invertebrate groups, in order of dominance, was: Diptera (36 taxa), Odonata (31), Coleoptera (28), Mollusks (24) and 22 species of Mayflies reported (Table 3). The most ubiquitous damselflies were the Northern Bluet and Eastern Forktail reported at 28 and 25 sites, respectively. The 12-Spotted Skimmer and Cherry-Faced Meadowhawk dragonflies were the most widespread across the region occurring at 19 and 14 sites, respectively (Appendix 4). We reported numerous sites with ten or 11 species of dragonfly and damselfly adults flying during our early

10

Photo 2. Typical Glaciated Large Valley River (A001: Missouri River, LM_FP703) habitat containing 12 large river fish species and ~20 macroinvertebrates including the only two species of stoneflies collected during this project, the Species of Concern dragonfly, Stylurus intricatus (G4S1) and sand-dwelling mayfly species, Analetris eximia (G3S3)

summer visit; this count could potentially increase to twice that number of species at a site as successions of additional species emerge seasonally into the fall.

The Physa snails (Physella acuta and P. gyrina) were the most abundant and widespread mollusk species detected at 30 sites with over 1100 individuals. The only two stonefly species reported during this survey were collected at the mainstem Missouri River sites. Despite structured mussel searches at 25 sites and surveying an additional 30 streams, we only documented the giant floater mussel, (Pyganodon grandis) at three sites in Smoke Creek (C006) and the Poplar River (B006). Stream type D006 is typically giant floater mussel habitat because of their host-fish relationship with the brook stickleback, but we did not document evidence of individuals at sites within this stream classification. The native, but invasive, crayfish, Orconectes virilis was collected at nine sites and often in high densities (Appendix 4); this species is infamous for dominating suitable stream habitats and out-competing other species. They likely pushed out another native crayfish, Orconectes immunis, which we did not document on Fort Peck lands, but has been previously reported across eastern Montana.

11

Average macroinvertebrate taxa richness per site when full EMAP assessment samples were taken (n=12) was 35 taxa (Appendix x). The Wolf Creek site #3 (LM_FP680) with 51 macroinvertebrate taxa reported was the most diverse stream documented, followed by the Poplar River (site LM_FP713) with 46 macroinvertebrate taxa including 15 mayflies, 7 odonata and 6 caddisfly species (Appendix 4).

Table 3. Macroinvertebrate species (by Order/Class) documented during the 2012 Fort Peck Surveys. Numbers of Montana Species of Concern (SOC) or Potential SOC taxa reported.

Invertebrate Order or Class eae : i ibe Diptera (True Flies) 36 0 0 Odonata (Dragonflies/Damselflies) 31 1 5 Coleoptera (Aquatic Beetles) 28 ? ? Mollusca (Snails/Clams/Mussels) 24 0 0 Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) 22 2 0 Trichoptera (Caddisflies) 14 0 0 Clitellata (Leeches/Worms) 7 0 0 Acarina (Water Mites) 6 0 0 Hemiptera (True Bugs) 6 0 0 Crustaceans (Amphipoda/Crayfish) 4 0 0 Plecoptera (Stoneflies) 2 0 0 Total 180 3 5

Lentic Amphibians and Reptiles

Fifty-seven wetland sites were surveyed for the presence of amphibians and aquatic reptiles during 7 June to 5 July (Figure 3). Five amphibian species and two reptile species were detected at 77.2% of the sites, no amphibians or reptiles were detected at 22.8% of the sites (Table 4). Boreal Chorus Frog and Northern Leopard Frog were the most abundant and widespread species, each found at more than one quarter to one half of sites; only one additional species, Woodhouse’s Toad, was detected at as much as 10% of sites.

Table 4. Summary of amphibian and reptile species detected on Fort Peck Indian Reservation during 57 standardized site surveys, 7 June to 5 July 2012. Bolded species are Montana Animal Species of Concern. Survey details are given in Appendix 5.

Species No. sites % sites Barred Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma mavortium) 5 8.8 Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) 1 1.8 Woodhouse’s Toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii) 6 10.5 Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata) 29 50.9 Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) 17 29.8 Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) 3 5.3 Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) 4 7.0 No Amphibians or Reptiles Detected 13 22.8

12

Figure 3. Lentic sites surveyed for amphibians and aquatic reptiles in 2012. Site numbers correspond to those in Appendix 5.

@ y |

/ =) McCone |

yo Sean. : ~ ~ Om oe 40 nae

Breeding (presence of aquatic larval stages) was documented at 100% of the sites where Barred Tiger Salamander was found, 83.3% of sites with Woodhouse’s Toad, 82.8% of the sites with Boreal Chorus Frog, and 29.4% of sites with Northern Leopard Frog (Appendix 5). One state SOC, Plains Spadefoot, was noted at a single site in Valley County (Site #54: Figure 3, Appendix 5), where breeding was also documented. All of these species are expected to occur in this region of the state (Maxell et al. 2003, Werner et al. 2004)

Of the 42 sites where amphibians were found (73.7% of all sites surveyed), fish were present at 10 of these (23.8%) and not detected at 32 (76.2%) (One-sample proportion test, Zcorrected = 3.24, P = 0.0012). The species of fish present often could not be identified, but Northern Pike was noted at six of the sites where Boreal Chorus Frog and Northern Leopard Frog were detected and at one site where no amphibians were found. Of the six sites with both pike and amphibians, larval frogs were absent at three of them. Predatory fish are known to suppress lentic-breeding amphibian populations (e.g., Pearson and Goater 2008).

Two reptile species were detected during the surveys, Painted Turtle and Plains Gartersnake, each at less than 10% of sites (Table 4, Appendix 5). Neither is a state SOC.

13

Bird Surveys

One hundred and ten bird species were identified within the reservation boundary during the various surveys of 2012 (Appendix 6). This list included 16 MT SOC birds of which ten (Ferruginous Hawk, Golden Eagle, Long-billed Curlew, Loggerhead Shrike, Sprague’s Pipit, Chestnut-collared Longspur, McCown’s Longspur, Brewer’s Sparrow, Baird’s Sparrow, Bobolink) could be considered upland species, the other six classified as waterbirds or wetland/riparian-related species (Horned Grebe, American White Pelican, Black-crowned Night-Heron, Franklin’s Gull, Red-headed Woodpecker, Nelson’s Sparrow). All 16 all are S3 or S3B except the S2B Chestnut-collared Longspur.

Figure 4. Locations of point count road transects and single off-road points for bird point-count surveys. Numbers correspond to road transect and off-road point numbers in Appendices 7 and 8, respectively.

FORT PECK RESERVATION POINT COUNT BIRD SURVEYS 2012

Sheridan.

@ Off Road Points

= Road Survey Points _ \... [J County , GR Lake

Point counts were largely conducted in upland regions across the reservation between 25 May and 2 June. We counted