..,, ------

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Aquatic Community Study

at Prime Hook NWR Bombay Hook NWR Long Island NWR Complex Supawna Meadows NWR

Summer2000

Prepared by: Cassy Lewis Lisa Johnson NON-TARGET AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY STUDY 2000

Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

PURPOSE

The immediate goal of this study in the summer of 2000 was to collect baseline data on the aquatic invertebrate communities present in wetlands where control activity occurs, or may occur in the future, on National Wildlife Refuges. We surveyed the invertebrate communities characterizing the water column and the benthos at four refuges in Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. This study is a component of the long­ term attempt to minimize the potential negative effects of mosquito control activities, particularly the use of larvicides, on the 1ion-target that share the of mosquito larvae. Knowledge of the invertebrate taxa that are present (or abundant relative to other taxa) at a site will assist refuge staff in mosquito control decision­ making, particularly in choosing specific larvicides that will minimally impact a site's particular non-target invertebrates. Applying information about the local invertebrate communities to the selection of appropriate larvicides is an important step toward conserving invertebrate biodiversity and maintaining this important food resource for other that use the wetlands.

METHODS General Approach The four refuges that were sampled during July and August of 2000 were Prime Hook NWR, Bombay Hook NWR, Long Island NWR Complex (Wertheim NWR), and Supawna Meadows NWR (Table 1). At each refuge, we sampled three sites representing different habitat types where mosquito breeding was likely to occur. At ten to sixteen sample locations per site, we collected a benthic core sample and a water column sample, counted mosquito larvae/pupae present in three dip samples, and recorded vegetation/habitat type and water parameters (water temperature, water depth, pH, and salinity). In the lab, we sieved and sorted ten benthic and ten water column samples per site, counted and identified (to -level) all aquatic invertebrates found, and dried and weighed the invertebrates. Any fourth-instar mosquito larvae that we found were identified to species level.

Detailed Procedures Study Site Selection: The refuge biologists at each NWR that participated in the study identified three sites for sampling. We used sites that were representative of areas where mosquito control activity occurs or may occur. If both salt marshes and fresh water wetlands were present at the NWR, we suggested that the three sites include both habitat types. Some biologists included in their choices a pair of two similar sites, one that had been sprayed with mosquito larvicides and one that had not, for comparative purposes. The refuge staff provided maps of the area, and insecticide spraying history information (Table 1). Depending on transportation time, sampling each site took between 1.5 and 3 hours. Once we arrived at a site, we selected a semi-discrete area to use as our sampling area. If the site was a salt marsh, we chose a representative portion of the marsh to sample that contained at least IO different potholes 01: wet areas. If the site was an open water body, we chose a sampling area that was bounded by terrestrial vegetation and that could be sampled in an afternoon or morning period of time. Field Data Collection: We selected a center point for each sampling area, and took a GPS location (recording the waypoint on the plugger unit for later downloading). Our pattern for sampling was to go out in 3 directions from the center point in radiating transects. We randomized our selection of sample locations at each site by spinning the compass dial to come up with an initial directional reading for the first transect. 120 and 240 degrees were then added onto the initial reading for the other transect directions. We took a GPS location at the end of each transect to define our sample area boundaries.

2 In to space out sample points on the transect, we estimated the number of paces needed to evenly fit 3 to 5 points l:,etween the center and the perimeter of our area, with our perimeter sampling point ending up in the edge vegetation if we were in open water. We attempted to have at least 5m between sample points to minimize disturbing subsequent sample point areas. The following list details the data we collected in the field: 1. At each site, we recorded air temperature, sky condition (Sun/Rain/Cloudy/Partly Cloudy), and estimated wind speed. 2. We assessed the vegetation present at each site and chose one of the following to describe vegetative type: 0 = Open Water EV Emergent Vegetation p Salt Marsh Pothole (the nearest pothole to where the paced sample point ended up falling) SAV = Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

All sample points at a site were usua!ly, but not always, the same vegetation type. We recorded vegetation types for individual sample points when they differed from the rest of the site. 3. Once arriving at a sample point, we took 3 separate dips for mosquito larvae before disturbing the area. We recorded the average number of mosquito larvae and pupae per dip, and assigned a percent for each developmental category present (instars 1, 2, 3, 4 and pupae) in the three dips. We collected samples of the fourth instar larvae and pupae and placed them in whirl-pak bags for later identification. 4. We took a water column sample using the D-frame net by sweeping above the benthos for 1 meter in length. If the water was too shallow to get the D-frame net through the water column, we used the 3 50-ml dipper to collect 10 dips of water, which we poured through the D-frame net. If there was less water than this present (such as in a small salt marsh pothole), we poured a total of 1 dip of water (obtained by getting small amounts of water in one dipper, and filling the sec.:ond dipper) through the D-frame net, and recorded that this was done. We placed the contents of

3 1

the net in a labeled zip-lock bag. Ifwe found a fish in the sample, we made a note of this and returned the fish to the water. (We also noted whether we observed evidence of fish in the water continuous with our sample point.) 5. We then took readings for water temperature (nearest degree Celsius), pH (±0.1 pH, using a Hanna Instruments pHep 3 Pocket-Sized Microprocessor), salinity (nearest part per thousand, using a Sper Scientific Salt Refractometer w/ATC 300011), and water depth (nearest whole centimeter). We took depth and temperature readings at every sample point. If the body of water was homogenous and connected, we collected pH and salinity data only three times if three consistent readings were obtained. However, if discrete potholes of water were encountered, we measured pH and salinity at each sample point. We calibrated the refractometer at the beginning of the season, and calibrated the pH meter prior to each trip. 6. Next we took the benthic core sample, using a plastic PVC core with a screen on one side. The core measured 5 cm in depth and 10 cm in diameter. The core was placed on the bottom and pushed into the benthos until the depth of 5 cm was achieved. We put the contents of the sample into a labeled zip-lock bag. When the root mat was too tough to dislodge by hand, we went around and under the core with a serrated trowel to get the sample. Storage o(Samples: While on the road, we kept the sample bags on ice in coolers. We put them into the refrigerator upon returning to the lab. If the samples had to be stored for over 1 week, we added enough anhydrous reagent alcohol (95% denatured alcohol formula 3A, 5% Isopropyl alcohol) to the bags to coat all of the material. [Before using alcohol to preserve the samples, one sample was kept refrigerated for eight days. Some soft-bodied (damselfly larvae and mosquito pupae) were beginning to decompose - other insects, including corixids and beetle larvae, were still whole. The water column samples tended to decompose more quickly than the benthic samples.] Processing Samples: We rinsed material from each sample in a 1 mm - mesh sieve, and placed the remaining material into white sorting trays. Concentrated sugar water (one five-pound bag of sugar per gallon of water) was poured into each tray with the sample, in order to

4 aid in sorting. Most invertebrates floated to the surface of the sugar water; however, snails remained on the bottom. Large samples (usually benthics) where split in half or thirds and placed into separate trays, so that the white tray bottom was visible during sorting as a contrasting background. Each tray of material was searched under light with forceps by teasing apart one clump at a time, and all macro-invertebrates were picked out. If no organisms were observed, we ceased searching that tray-load of material after 15 minutes. Thus, each tray received at least 15 minutes of scrutiny, and large benthic samples were sorted through for at least 30 total minutes. Using dissecting microscopes and keys, we identified each invertebrate individual to family level. We identified fourth instar mosquito larvae to species level, and if any adults developed from pupae in our bags, we also identified them to species. We identified annelids, nematodes, water mites and snails to more general taxonomic levels (as far as was possible with our resources). We did not include terrestrial insects or spiders that had presumably fallen into the water. We recorded the number of individuals of each taxonomic group, and kept larvae, pupae, and adults in separate categories. When individuals of each /category were counted, they were placed together into a drying tin labeled with site, sample point, W or B (water column or benthic sample), and taxon name. The invertebrates were dried in a drying oven for 24 hours at 60°C, and then were allowed to cool for a minimum of two hours. A tin was placed on the balance and tared to 0.000g. The invertebrates were then poured into the balance tin and weighed to the nearest 0.001g. We kept some individuals in labeled vials of 70% ethyl alcohol for the Non­ Target Invertebrate Reference Collection. When individuals were preserved, we noted that they were not included in the biomass measures, and later adjusted the biomass to account for them, based on weights of others in the taxon found at the same site.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PRIME HOOK NWR

Prime Hook NWR Study Site Characteristics Freshwater and salt marsh were represented in the three study sites at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. Use of larvicides for mosquito control has been permitted in the recent past at all three sites (Table 1). GPS location coordinates from the site centers and perimeters are provided in Table 2. Complete water and habitat characteristics are presented in Table 3. PMHJ: The first site, located south of Prime Hook Beach Road in Unit III, was a freshwater wetland (salinity was O ppt at all sample points) with emergent vegetation that included bulrush, cattail, and Phragmites. At the sixteen sample points visited on 7/21/00, the mean water depth was 28 cm, the mean water temperature was 23°C, and the average pH was 6.3 (Table 3). All water at the site was continuous, and numerous small fish were observed. We visited PMHl with Mosquito Control staff on 7/18, and found no immature mosquitoes at the site itself. However, some larvae were found in small, isolated pools between the road and PMHl in the Phragmites stand. These pools most likely resulted from unusually heavy rains the previous week. We found no mosquito larvae or pupae on 7/21 at PMHI. Due to the low salinity at PMHl, methoprene is no longer used on this site; however, BTI use is permitted. PMH2: This site was a salt marsh and was a representative portion of the OMWM Control Site in Unit IV, with Spartina and Salicornia dominating the vegetation. Fifteen points at PMH2 were sampled on 7/28/00. All sample points were located in different salt marsh potholes, which had water depths between 3 and 10 cm (mean depth was 5 cm) (Table 3). Salinities in the potholes ranged from 6 to 12 ppt, after a morning rain (mean= 7.8 ppt). Mean water temperature was 25°C, and mean pH was 6.3 (Table 3). Due to the shallow depths of the potholes, traditional D-frame net sweeps through the water column were impossible to obtain. Instead, we dipped water from each pothole, and poured the liquid

6 through the net to obtain water column samples. Fish were definitely observed in one of the fifteen potholes sampled, and no mosquito larvae or pupae were found at any sample points. PMH2 had been sprayed with methoprene on 7/21/00 and 7/4/00 by Mosquito Control. PMH3: This site was a discrete pond near the Isaac's Island upland area in Unit 1. The wetland immediately surrounding PMH3 was being marked for future OMWM ditches and ponds. We sampled fifteen points at PMH3 on 7/27/00. Two of our sample points were located at the pond's edge in emergent vegetation (low grasses). Sub-aquatic vegetation was present at all of the other sample points. The mean water depth at the sample points was 25 cm; the mean salinity, 7.9 ppt; the mean temperature, 24°C; and the mean pH, 7.3 (Table 3). We observed fish in throughout the pond, and in every water column sample. No mosquito larvae or pupae were detected. In the month prior to our sampling, PMH3 had been sprayed once, with methoprene on 7/4/00.

Prime Hook NWR Non-Target Invertebrate Survey Results Raw data (numbers of individuals, and invertebrate biomasses) from each sample point at PMHI, PMH2, and PMH3 can be found in Appendices 1, 2, and 3. Tables 4, 5, and 6 provide taxonomic lists and summary data on the actual and relative invertebrate abundances and biomasses. PMHJ: The predominant invertebrates in the water column at PMHI were corixids (249 of 517 individuals found, representing 48.8% of the total invertebrate biomass in the ten samples processed) (Table 4). Hydrophilid larvae made up 17.6% of the invertebrate biomass, and asellids (Isopoda), 14.6%. Corixids and asellids were found in all ten samples, and hydrophilids were found in nine often water column samples processed. Asellids were the most abundant invertebrates in the benthic samples (26 of 62 individuals found). By biomass, hydrophilids were the most significant member of the benthic community (31.3% of the total biomass) with gastropods, asellids, and corixids each representing over 10% of the total biomass. There was one very large dipteran found - it alone made up 20.8% of the benthic biomass in the ten samples processed.

7 ..

PMH2: The most abundant invertebrates at PMH2 were gastropods, in both the water column samples (223 of248 individuals and 97.3% of the total biomass) and the benthic samples (42 of 70 individuals and 95.5% of the total biomass). Other taxa found each represented less than 3% of the biomass in water column or benthic samples (Table 5). PMH3: PMH3 had about 1000 more individuals than PMH 1 or PMH2 in the same amount of samples (Table 6). Invertebrate abundances were high, as was richness oftaxa present. Gastropoda was the predominant invertebrate taxon in the water column samples at PMH3, representing 746 of 1408 individuals and 71.0% of the total biomass. Chironomids were the second most abundant invertebrates (361 individuals, composing 10.6% of the biomass). Each of the ten water column samples processed had chironomids present. In the benthic core samples, chironomids were the most abundant invertebrates (58 of 86 total individuals; 39.6% of the total biomass). Three adult beetles (Hydrophilidae) present in the benthic samples made up 26.4% of the benthic biomass. Other dipterans from the families Ephydridae (shore flies), Tabanidae (horse and deer flies), Ceratopogonidae (biting midges), and Dolichopodidae (long-legged flies) made up another 25.3% of the total biomass found in the benthic samples (Table 6).

Prime Hook NWR Mosquito Control Recommendations These recommendations are based upon the invertebrates we found in this study, and on the extensive literature review prepared by Brown ( 1998), which has been distributed in binder form to all refuges. PMHI: Until further research addresses the effects of methoprene on amphibians, it should not be used at freshwater sites such as PMH I. Of the current options available, the larvicide that will least affect non-target invertebrates at this site is BTI (Bacillus thuringiensis israe!ensis). Studies cited in Brown (1998) found that application of BTI had no effect on corixids or on Asel/us forbesi (Isopoda). However, no studies were found testing the effects of BTI on gastropods. Mixed results were found when effects of BTI on beetles were tested. Miura et al. (1980) found no effects on hydrophilids, and

8 •

BTI (Rodcharoen et al., 1991 ), and ceratopogonids are less affected over long-term periods by BTI than methoprene (after three years of application, BTI reduced ceratopogonid populations by 29% while methoprene reduced them by 55%) (Hershey et al., 1998). BTI also appears to be less harmful against some other taxa present at PMH3 than methoprene. For example, PMH3 was the only Prime Hook site where damselfly larvae (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) were observed. BTI has not been found to negatively impact any odonates, but methoprene had adverse effects on Coenagrionidae and some other odonates in a study by Breaud et al. (1977). PMH3 was a diverse site in terms of invertebrate taxa present. In order to conserve invertebrate diversity in refuges, not to mention maintain a quality food source for birds and other wildlife, avoidance of spraying any insecticide at PMH3 or similarly rich sites, densely populated with invertebrates, is a high priority. Long-term application of either methoprene or BTI would definitely decrease the richness and abundance of invertebrates there. OMWM is currently being implemented at the area surrounding PMH3. The site should be monitored in the future to investigate the effects of this treatment on the invertebrate community. Any non-chemical method of mosquito control that does not significantly alter the habitat would be preferable to the use of larvicide, which definitely will affect the non-target invertebrate community over time.

BOMBAY HOOK NWR

Bombay Hook NWR Study Site Characteristics One freshwater and two salt marsh sites were sampled at Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge 8/2/00. Use of larvicides for mosquito control has been permitted in recent years at two of the three sites (Table I). GPS location coordinates from the site centers and perimeters are provided in Table 2. Complete water and habitat characteristics are presented in Table 7. BMHJ: BMH I, the Bombay Hook Island site, was a salt marsh dominated by Spartina. We sampled 15 different potholes, which had an average depth of 11 cm, mean salinity of 16 ppt, mean water temperature of 26°C, and mean pH of 6.5 (Table 7). This site had

10 been sprayed with Methoprene about two weeks before we sampled it for invertebrates (Table 1). Only three individual mosquito larvae were found in 45 dips. We observed one second instar and two third instar Aedes sollicitans larvae (Table 7). We sampled 15 different potholes, which had an average depth of 11 cm, mean salinity of 16 ppt, mean water temperature of26°C, and mean pH of 6.5 (Table 7). BMH2: BMH2, the Marshall Island site, was located just across Duck Creek from BMH 1. It can be considered a control site for BMHl in that the location, sample date and time, vegetation, and water parameters are similar, but BMH2 has not been sprayed for years. We sampled 15 different potholes, which had an average depth of 9 cm, mean salinity of 17 ppt, mean water temperature of 33°C, and mean pH of 7.1 (Table 7). No mosquito larvae were found in the dip samples(Table 7). BMH3: This site was located on the western side of Sheamess Pool impoundment. We sampled the freshwater marsh from the edge of Sheamess Pool's open water toward the upland area at 15 sample locations on 8/2/2000. Much of our sampling area had been dry ground prior to heavy rains in late July. BMH3 had been sprayed for mosquito control in the summer of 1999 (Table 1); it had not been sprayed the season prior to our sampling. We found an average of 3.5 immature mosquitoes per dip: most were pupae, but all four instars were found. All individuals were Aedes sollicitans. We saw swarms of freshly­ emerged adults in the vegetation, and many empty pupal cases were floating on the surface of the water. In the recently-flooded areas, we could see the cracked mud bottom through the water (cracked, exposed mud is a preferred surface for Aedes' egg-laying). The salinity at all sample locations was I ppt, mean water temperature was 33°C, mean water depth was 9 cm, and the average pH was 3.7 (Table 7). This low pH seemed unusual - after sampling, we tested our pH meter on pH 4 and pH IO solutions, and the meter performed correctly.

11 Bombay Hook NWR Non-Target Invertebrate Survey Results Ten benthic and ten water column samples were processed from each site. Raw data (numbers of individuals, and invertebrate biomasses) from individual sample points at BMHl, BMH2, and BMH3 can be found in Appendices 4, 5, and 6. Tables 8, 9, and 10 provide taxonomic lists and summary data on the actual and relative invertebrate abundances and biomasses. BMHJ: Five insect families, isopoda, gastropoda, and nematoda were found at BMH 1 (Table 8). By biomass, gastropods were the predominant invertebrate in both the water column samples (85.3% of the total biomass) and the benthic samples (93.8% of the total biomass). Corixids represented 12.6% of the invertebrate biomass in the water column samples. Other taxa found each represented less than 4% of the biomass in water column or benthic samples. Dipterans made up 0.35% of the water column samples' biomass (3 of 71 individual invertebrates found in the samples), and 1.67% of the benthic samples' biomass (15 of the 40 individuals) (Table 8). BMH2: Taxa found at BMH2 include five insect families, gastropoda, nematoda, and acari (water mites) (Table 9). Corixids were the predominant invertebrate in the water column at BMH2 in terms of both abundance (292 of 351 total individuals found) and relative biomass ( 66.5%) (Table 9). Corixids and diptera pupae each made up 28.1 % of the biomass in the benthic samples at BMH2. Gastropods made up 28.3% of the water column samples' invertebrate biomass, and 15.6% of the benthic samples' biomass. The richness of invertebrate taxa is similar at BMHl and BMH2. BMHl and BMH2 results differ most obviously regarding the gastropods and the dipterans. Gastropods did not dominate the invertebrate community at BMH2 to the degree that they did at BMH2 (Tables 8 and 9). Dipterans were a larger component of the invertebrate community, especially in the benthos, at BMH2 than at BMHI. Dipterans represented 53.1 % of the invertebrate biomass ( 46 of 57 individuals) found in the benthic samples. In the water column samples, dipteran relative biomass was 0.40% of the total biomass, and 7 of the 3 51 individuals found were dipterans (Table 9).

12 BMHJ: Corixids and culicidae pupae (Aedes sollicitans) were the dominant invertebrates at BMH3 (Table 10). In the water column samples, corixids made up over 50% of the invertebrate biomass, and represented 486 of 728 individuals found ( 66.8% relative abundance). There were 213 A. sollicitans pupae found in the water column samples, composing 29.3% of the biomass and representing 29.3% of the total number of individuals found. In the benthic samples, A. sollicitans pupae and corixids each made up 27% of the invertebrate individuals found, and each represented over 20% of the biomass. Since these insects do not live in the benthos itself, they could have been either on the surface of the benthos, or caught in the benthic core on its way through the water column during sampling. Hydrophilidae adults (water scavenger beetles) and dolichopodidae larvae (long-legged flies) also contributed significantly to the invertebrate biomass at BMH3 (Table 10).

Bombay Hook NWR Mosquito Control Recommendations These recommendations are based upon the invertebrates we found in this st~dy, and on the extensive literature review prepared by Brown (1998), which has been distributed in binder form to all refuges. BMHJ: The invertebrate community of the BMH 1 salt marsh potholes is dominated by gastropods. Spraying of methoprene in the past possibly has already depressed populations of other invertebrates. If any invertebrate surveys have been done in the past at this site on Bombay Hook Island, it would be informative to compare them to current surveys to see if BMH 1 has been historically dominated by gastropods, or has experienced a shift since spraying has begun. Our sampling of BMH2, across Duck Creek, suggests that spraying may have already altered the community at BMHl, ifit was historically similar to that ofBMH2. Considering the present community at BMHI, continued use of methoprene could also damage the current dominant invertebrates, gastropods (as discussed above regarding PMH2). Because we found no studies that have tested the effects of BTI on gastropods, we cannot make a comparison between

13 methoprene and BTI in terms of minimizing non-target effects at sites where gastropods dominate. BMH2: Of the invertebrates found at BMH2, corixids (hemipterans) are the most abundant, although they do not completely dominate the community. Gastropods, coleopterans (particularly hydrophilids), and dipterans (several different families) also contribute significantly to the overall abundance and biomass of invertebrates at the site. Studies cited in Brown (1998) found that neither methoprene nor BTI application had an adverse effect on corixids. As stated above (relating to BMHl and PMH2), methoprene may harm gastropods, but effects of BTI on gastropods are undocumented. Evidence in Brown ( 1998) suggests that BTI is less harmful to coleopterans than methoprene. Methoprene has been found to adversely affect coleopterans (Hershey et al., 1998), dytiscids in particular (Norland and Mulla, 1975), and a hydrophilid, Berosus (Breaud et al., 1977). Mixed results were found when effects of BTI on beetles were tested. Miura et al. (1980) found no effects on hydrophilids, and three other studies found no effects on coleopterans as a whole. However, Hershey et al. (1998) found that coleopterans were significantly reduced in one season of three in their study of BTI application in natural wetlands (but over the whole three-year study period, beetles were not significantly reduced). Non-target dipterans are adversely affected by the current common mosquito larvicides; evidence in Brown (1998) suggests that BTI and methoprene are both harmful. For example, Hershey et al. (1998) found that the total number of dipterans in their study wetlands diminished by 66% after three years of methoprene use, and by 63% after three years of BTI use. However, according to citations in Brown (1998), some dipterans appear to tolerate BTI better than methoprene, so it may offer a slight advantage to dipterans over methoprene (see discussion relating to PMH3) .. This site has been protected from mosquito spraying in the past, and hopefully will not be sprayed in the future. However, for areas with similar invertebrate communities that will be sprayed, we recommend BTI, although neither is ideal for the non-target invertebrates present. Overall, there is more concrete evidence at this time that methoprene is more harmful to coleopterans, diptrans, and gastropods than BTI is.

14 BMH3: Until further research addresses the effects of methoprene on amphibians, it should not be used at freshwater sites such as BMH3. At BMH3, the corixids are of primary concern when selecting a mosquito larvicide, and coleopterans should be considered as well (both hydrophilids and dytiscids were found at BMH3). Of the current options available, the larvicide that will least affect non-target invertebrates at this site is BTI. Even if methoprene is cleared in the future of any relationship to amphibian deformities, it is not the larvicide of choice at a site like BMH3 because it is more harmful to coleopterans than BTI is, as stated above regarding BMH2. Although BTI may cause some harm to coleopterans, studies cited in Brown (1998) found that application of BTI had no effect on corixids. We recommend frequent sampling of mosquito larvae during periods when weather conditions suggest that mosquito development is likely, so that BTI can be applied when it is most effective against mosquitoes (early in their developmental cycle; instar I or 2). Most of the immature mosquitoes we found at BMH3 were already pupae. By maximizing the impact of each BTI application, we should be able to minimize the frequency of application, and thus minimize the impact on non-target species.

LONG ISLAND NWR COMPLEX

Long Island NWR Complex Study Site Characteristics Three salt marsh sites were sampled at Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex on 8/16/00. Two sites were at Wertheim NWR, and the third, selected for comparison purposes, was at a nearby National Park Service property, the William Floyd Estate. Frequent use of methoprene for mosquito control has been permitted in the past at the two sites within Wertheim NWR, but spraying is not permitted at the William Floyd Estate (Table 1). OPS location coordinates from the site centers and perimeters are provided in Table 2. Complete water and habitat characteristics are presented in Table 11.

15 WRTJ: WRTl was a salt marsh which had been modified in the past with a series of ditches. We sampled ten locations; two sample locations were at the edges of ditches in emergent vegetation, and the remaining eight were in shallow pannes or smaller potholes (Table 11). The ten sample sites had an average depth of 15 cm, mean salinity of 30 ppt, mean water temperature of 25°C, and mean pH of 7.0 (Table 11).This site, the "control site" for the Wertheim NWR sites, had not been sprayed in decades. No mosquito larvae were observed in the samples, and fish were present at four (or more) of the ten locations. WRT2: WRT2, known as Wertheim East, area BH-120, was also a salt marsh with a series of ditches through it. Our ten sample locations included one ditch edge with emergent vegetation, and nine pothole or panne locations. WRT2 sample locations had an average depth of 10 cm, mean salinity of 20 ppt, mean water temperature of 30°C, and mean pH of 7.1 (Table 11). Fish were observed in three of the locations, and no mosquito larvae were found. WRT3: WRT3, known as Wertheim West, area BH-99A, was a salt marsh with ditches. We sampled two ditch edges with emergent vegetation and eight pannes or potholes. The sample locations had an average depth of 19 cm, mean salinity of 25 ppt, mean water temperature of26°C, and mean pH of 6.8 (Table 11). Fish were observed in eight of the locations, and no mosquito larvae were found.

Long Island NWR Complex Non-Target Invertebrate Survey Results Raw data (numbers of individuals, and invertebrate biomasses) from each sample point at WRTl, WRT2, and WRT3 can be found in Appendices 7, 8, and 9. Tables 12, 13, and 14 provide taxonomic lists and summary data on the actual and relative invertebrate abundances and biomasses. WRTJ: Corixids were the most abundant invertebrate in the water column samples (172 of 694 individuals found, or 24.7%), but they made up only 9.0% of the biomass (Table 12). By mass, gastropods dominated the invertebrate community in the water column

16 samples, representing 80.1 % of the invertebrate biomass found. The most abundant invertebrates in the benthic samples were chironomids (394 of 523 individuals found, or 75.3%). They made up 16.9% of the invertebrate biomass in the benthic samples. Gastropods (25) made up 73.5% of the benthic invertebrate biomass at WRTl. Smaller numbers of other diverse invertebrates were present, including am phi pods from two families, a parasitic fish louse (Argulidae), immature crabs (Ocypodidae), oligochaetes, fly larvae from five families, dragonfly larvae, beetle adults, and a water mite (Table 12). WRT2: Corixids were the predominant invertebrate in the water column samples at WRT2, both by number (728 of 1043 individuals, or 69.8% relative abundance) and by biomass (71.0% relative biomass) (Table 13). Ephydridae pupae (shore flies) made up 12.6% of the individuals and 13.8% of the biomass in the water column samples. In the benthic samples, the most abundant invertebrates were ephydridae pupae (122 of272 individuals found, or 44.9%). They made up 50.6% of the invertebrate biomass in the benthic samples. Three large syrphidae larvae (flower fly) made up 26.1 % of the benthic invertebrate biomass. There were 30 chironomids (11.0% of the individuals found) composing 2.2% of the benthic invertebrate biomass. WRT2 contained a high diversity of dipterans- seven different families of flies were found at WRT2 (Table 13). WRTJ: Corixids and hydrophilidae adults were the dominant invertebrates in the water column at WRT3 (Table 14). Corixids made up 59.6% of the invertebrate biomass, and represented 636 of 939 individuals found (67.7% relative abundance). There were 28 hydrophilidae adults found in the water column samples, composing 11.8% of the biomass and representing 3.0% of the total number of individuals found. In the benthic samples, ephydridae larvae made up 33.3% of the biomass. Ephydridae pupae and corixids each represented 20% of the biomass in the benthic samples (Table 14). No chironomids were found in the samples from WRT3, but four other fly families were represented.

17 Long Island NWR Complex Mosquito Control Recommendations These recommendations are based upon the invertebrates we found in this study, and on the extensive literature review prepared by Brown (1998), which has been distributed in binder form to all refuges. In selecting the mosquito larvicide that minimally impacts the non-target organisms at sites like WRTl, WRT2, and WRT3, the invertebrate taxa to consider are , gastropoda, hydrophilidae (significant at WRT3, but present at all three sites), and diptera (especially chironomidae at WRTl, syrphidae at WRT2, and ephydridae at all three sites). Studies cited in Brown (1998) found that neither methoprene nor BTI application had an adverse effect on corixids. As stated above (relating to BMHl), methoprene has been found to harm some gastropods, but effects of BTI on gastropods are undocumented. Evidence in Brown (1998) suggests that BTI is less harmful to coleopterans than methoprene (see above discussion relating to BMH2). Non-target dipterans are adversely affected by all of the current/common mosquito larvicides, and evidence cited in Brown (1998) suggests that BTI and methoprene are both harmful: Hershey et al. (1998) found that the total number of dipterans in their study wetlands diminished by 66% after three years of methoprene use, and by 63% after three years of BTI use. BTI is somewhat less harmful to certin diptera families. Several studies listed in Brown (1998) address the specific dipteran families common at Long Island NWR Complex sites. Methoprene has been found to adversely affect one species of shore fly (ephydridae) and one species of midge ( chironomidae ), and to have no effect on one of flower fly (syrphidae), (Miura and Takahashi, 1973). Several other studies have documented negative effects ofmethoprene on chironomids (Norland and Mulla, 1975; Breaud et al., 1977; Ali, 1991; and Hershey et al.,1998). Out of 30 different tests of the effects of BTI on various chironomids (in different applications or environmental situations), 17 showed negative effects on the organism and 13 showed no effect. There were no specific rererences documenting effects of BTI on ephydrids or syrphids. All in all, BTI may be a slightly better mosquito control choice for minimalizing overall negative effects on non-target invertebrates at salt marsh sites with diverse aquatic insects like the sites at Long Island NWR Complex. If conservation of dipterans in

18 • • particular is a primary management goal, then other options should be considered for mosquito control. These include non-r.hemical methods, or use of a surface film product like Arosurf/Agnique or xanthum gum. On-going research on these products should be monitored for information about effects on non-target invertebrates. Our results suggest two major differences between the unsprayed and sprayed sites in the Long Island NWR Complex. The chironomid community at WRTI was a more significant component of the overall invertebrate community than it was at WRT2 or WRT3. The benthic samples from WRTI had more individuals and a greater biomass than those from WRTI and WRT2 (due mostly to high numbers of gastropods and chironomids in the benthos at WRTI, but lacking at the other sites (Tables 12, 13, 14). It is probable that other factors that differ between the sites (besides just spray status) contribute to differences in the invertebrate communities that we observed.

SUPAWNA MEADOWS NWR

Supawna Meadows NWR Study Site Characteristics Three freshwater sites were sampled on 8/23/00 at Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Use oflarvicides for mosquito control has been permitted in the past, but no spraying has been done since the mid-1990s at the sample sites (Table I). GPS location coordinates from the site centers and perimeters are provided in Table 2. Complete water and habitat characteristics are presented in Table 15. SPMJ: SPMI was a body of water created after when a woodland stream was dammed. Five of our ten sample locations were in open water with no sub-aquatic vegetation, four had sub-aquatic vegetation, and one was along the water's edge in emergent vegetation. The mean depth at the sample locations was 22 cm, mean salinity of 4 ppt, mean water temperature of 24 °C, and mean pH of 6. 7 (Table 15). Fish were observed throughout the water body, and no mosquito larvae were found. SPM2: SPM2 was originally a sand-bottom pond in the woods. At the time of sampling, the original pond had split into two parts due to low water levels - the smaller part was

19 • • only 9 cm in depth at its deepest. W c sampled 10 locations ( eight in the larger part of the pond and two in the smaller part), which had an average depth of 22 cm, mean salinity of 2 ppt, mean water temperature of 24 °C, and mean pH of 6.2 (Table 15). Half of the sample locations were in open water without sub-aquatic vegetation, and half had sub­ aquatic vegetation. No mosquito larvae were found in the dip samples, and numerous fish and tadpoles were observed in both portions of the site (Table 15). SPM3: SPM3 was a sand-bottom pond in the woods just to the south of SPM2. It was one continuous water body with sub-aquatic vegetation growing throughout it. We took seven samples from locations with sub-aquatic vegetation, two samples in open water without sub-aquatic vegetation, and one in the emergent vegetation by the pond's edge (Table 15). The average water depth at our sample locations was 34 cm; mean salinity was 1 ppt; mean water temperature was 24°C; and mean pH was 6.3 (Table 15). Fish were observed throughout the water body, and no mosquito larvae were found.

Supawna Meadows NWR Non-Target Invertebrate Survey Results Raw data (numbers of individuals, and invertebrate biomasses) from each sample point at SPMl, SPM 2, and SPM 3 can be found in Appendices 10, 11, and 12. Tables 16, 17, and 18 provide taxonomic lists and summary data on the actual and relative invertebrate abundances and biomasses. SPMI: Haliplidae adult beetles were the dominant invertebrates by biomass in the water _, column samples of SPMl: five of them represented 48.2% of the invertebrate biomass (Table 16). Corixids were the second most significant invertebrates in the water column by biomass (29.6% relative biomass). Chironomids were the most abundant invertebrates that we found in the water column (representing 32 of 67 individuals), but after being dried, their combined biomass was zero mg. Four odonates were found in the water column samples, including two dragonfly larvae and two damselfy larvae; together the odonates made up 14.8% of the biomass in the water column samples. Only four different taxa were found in the benthic samples. Thirty-seven of the 42 individuals found in the benthic samples were chironomids; they made up 7.9% of the

20 • ' total invertebrate biomass. One large hydrophylid adult made up 52.6% of the biomass, and one large libellulid (dragonfly ) made up 39.5% of the benthic biomass. Three small ceratopogonids weighed zero mg after being dried. SPM2: By mass, notonectids (backswimmers) dominated the invertebrate community in the SPM2 water column samples, representing 80.1 % of the invertebrate biomass found. The second, third, and fourth most significant invertebrate taxa by biomass were all. beetle families. Hydrophilidae, gyrinidae, and haliplidae together composed 39.1 % of the biomass in the water column samples (Table 17). Water mites (hydrachnidia) were the most abundant invertebrates in the water column samples (121 of 355 individuals found, or 34.1 % of the total) and represented 5.8% of the total invertebrate biomass. Large numbers of chironomids (94 individuals) and coenagrionids (damselfly larvae, 56 individuals) were found in the water column samples, but each taxon only represented less than 3% of the water column samples' total biQmass. The most abundant invertebrates in the benthic samples were chironomids (65 of 87 individuals found, or 74.7%). They made up 35.3% of the invertebrate biomass in the benthic samples. Five haliplid beetle adults also made up 35.3% of the benthic invertebrate biomass (Table 17). SPM3: Dytiscids (adult beetles) were the predominant invertebrate in the community in the water column samples, representing 40.2% of the biomass found. The second-most significant taxon by biomass was hydrophilidae: ten adult beetles made up 35.4% of the total biomass in the water column samples. Chironomids were the most abundant invertebrate in the water column samples (146 of 374 individuals found, or 39.0%), followed by coenagrionids (112 of 374 individuals, or 30.0%); each of these taxa represented less than 4% of the invertebrate biomass in the water column samples (Table 18). One large dytiscid adult (with a dry weight of 77 mg) represented 79.3% of the total biomass found in benthic samples of SPM3. For comparison, eight libeilulids (dragonfly larvae) each weighed on average 1 mg, and their combined 8 mg dry weight represented 8.3% of the benthic sample biomass - libellulidae was the second-most

21 ..

~

significant taxon by relative biomass for the benthic samples (Table 18). The most abundant invertebrates in the benthic samples were chironomids (69 of 159 individuals found, or 43.4%). They made up 3.1 % of the invertebrate biomass in the benthic samples. Chaoborids, phantom midges, were the second-most abundant invertebrate in the benthic samples (43 individuals represented 1.0% of the total biomass) (Table 18).

Supawna Meadows NWR Mosquito Control Recommendations These recommendations are based upon the invertebrates we found in this study, and on the extensive literature review prepared by Brown (1998), which has been distributed in binder form to all refuges. Until further research addresses the effects of methoprene on amphibians, it should not be used at freshwater sites such as SPMl, SPM2, and SPM3. Even if methoprene is cleared of its association with amphibian deformities, it will not be the best larvicide to use at freshwater sites like the woodland ponds at Supawna Meadows NWR. Of the current options available, the larvicide that will least affect non-target invertebrates at these sites is BTI. The taxa of concern at the SPM sites are odonates, notonectids and corixids (hemipterans); haliplids, hydrophilids, and dytiscids (coleopterans); and chironomids. No effects of BTI were observed on odonates (damselflies or dragonflies) by several researchers (Colbo and Undeen, 1980; Miura et al., 1980; and Mulligan and Schaefer, 1981) Miura et al. ( 1980) also observed no effects of BTI on notonectids, corixids, hydrophilids, or dytiscids. No specific studies of the effects of BTI on haliplid beetles have been found. Methoprene has been shown to adversely affect odonates, including coenagrionidae (damselfly larvae) and two genera of dragonfly larvae (Breaud et al., 1977). There is also evidence that methoprene harms a dytiscid genus (Norland and Mulla, 1975) and a hydrophilid genus (Breaud et al., 1977). No effects of methoprene were found on a notonectid species (Miura and Takahashi, 1973) or on corixids (Miura and Takahashi, 1973; Breaud et al., 1977). Both methoprene and BTI negatively affect chironomids, as discussed above regarding PMH3, BMH2 and the Long Island NWR Complex sites. Overall, BTI is less harmful to the SPMl, SPM2, and SPM3 invertebrates (both the heavily represented taxa and the rarer taxa) than methoprene.

22 ~ ;.·

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, Wenona. 1998. Mosquito La:-vicide Non-Target Organism Effects. USFWS Coop Unit, UMES, Maryland. All other scientific studies cited are referenced within Brown (1998).

23 Table 1 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Summer 2000 ~ Refuges Sampled, Summer 2000

Refuge Site Sample Site Identification for Refuges Sky Wind Air Temperature Code Date {C, R, PC, S) (mph) (degrees F) Prime Hook NWR PMH1 7/21/00 Unit Ill, South of Prime Hook Beach Rd. C 5 70 PMH2 7/26/00 Unit IV, OMWM Control Site CIR 2 72 PMH3 7/27/00 Unit I, Isaac's Island Site, pond in future OMWM area PC 2 74 Bombay Hook NWR BMH1 8/2/00 Bombay Hook Island Site s 10 86 BMH2 8/2/00 Marshall Island Site (control for BMH 1) PC 12 86 BMH3 8/2/00 West Side of Shearness Pool lmpoundment C 5 88 Long Island NWR Complex WRT1 8/16/00 Control for Wertheim NWR, William Floyd Estate (NPS) C 5 72 WRT2 8/16/00 Wertheim East, area BH-120 s 5 75 WRT3 8/16/00 Wertheim West, area BH-99A s 5 76 Supawna Meadows NWR SPM1 8/23/00 T. Walker's Site 4, dammed waterway in forest PC 8 79 SPM2 8/23/00 T. Walker's Site 2, northern pond in forest C/R 10 82 SPM3 8/23/00 T. Walker's Site 3, southern pond in forest C/R 5 84 C=Cloudy R=Raining PC=Partly Cloudy S=Sunny

Refuge Site Spraying Spray History Prior to Sampling Chemical GPS Location, UTMs Code Permitted? (confirmed dates) Used Easting, Northing Prime Hook NWR PMH1 yes unknown unknown 0477996E 4300393N PMH2 yes 7/21/00, 7/4 Methoprene 0482069E 4296123N PMH3 yes 7/4/00 Methoprene 0474541E 4305180N Bombay Hook NWR BMH1 yes 7/20/00 Methoprene 0463891 E 4344235N BMH2 no · 0463654E 4344355N BMH3 yes Summer99 unknown 0459389E 4346329N Long Island NWR Complex WRT1 no 0683919E 4514566N WRT2 yes 8/15/00, 8/8, 8/1, 7/25, 7/11, 7/5, 6/27, 6/20, 6/13, 5/22, 5/16, 5/9 Methoprene 0678775E 4514765N WRT3 yes 8/15/00, 8/8, 8/1, 7/25,7/18, 7/11, 7/5, 6/27, 6/20, 6/13, 5/31, 5/16, 5/9 Methoprene 0677408E 4515085N Supawna Meadows NWR SPM1 restricted mid 90s unknown 0455852E 4385344N SPM2 restricted mid 90s unknown 045898E 4385792N SPM3 restricted mid 90s unknown 0454850E 4385808N Table 2 Summer 2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Sampling Site GPS Data

Refuge Site Code GPS Location Coordinates, UTMs Location Easting Northing Prime Hook NWR PMH1 0477996e 4300393n Center 0478004e 4300375n Edge 0478018e 4300403n Edge 0477992e 4300413n Edge 0477975e 4300386n Edge PMH2 0482069e 4296123n Center 0482034e 4296132n Edge 0482046e 4296095n Edge 0482090e 4296146n Edge 0482102e 4296105n Edge PMH3 0474541e 4305180n Center 0474550e 4305170n Edge 0474556e 4305176n Edge 0474552e 4305195n Edge Bombay Hook NWR BMH1 0463891e 4344235n Center 0463888e 4344177n Edge 046.3854e 4344257n Edge 0463926e 4344266n Edge BMH2 0463654e 4344355n Center 0463606e 4344337n Edge 0463662e 4344395n Edge 0463681e 4344318n Edge BMH3 0459389e 4346329n Center G459384e 4346279n Edge 0459328e 4346385n Edge 0459447e 4346330n Edge Long Island NWR Complex WRT1 0683919e 4514566n Center 0683915e 4514536n Edge 0683886e 4514587n Edge 0683941e 4514622n Edge WRT2 0678775e 4514765n Center 0678745e 4514745n Edge 0678784e 4514808n Edge 0678816e 4514735n Edge WRT3 0677408e 4515085n Center 0677387e 4515105n Edge 0677405e 4515048n Edge 0677423e 4515111n Edge Supawna Meadows NWR SPM1 0455852e 4385344n Center 0455867e 4385339n Edge 0455844e 4385331n Edge 0454857e 4385337n Edge SPM2 0454898e 4385792n Center 0454900e 4385788n Edge 0454894e 4385797n Edge 0454879e 4385789n Edge SPM3 0454850e 4385808n Center 0454840e 4385800n Edge 0454850e 4385811n Edge ... 0454844e 4385809n Edge r

Table 3 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Summer 2000 Sample Site Water Parameters and Habitat Information, Prime Hook NWR

Site Code Sample# Habitat Type Water Temperature Water Depth pH Salinity Mosquito Count %1nstar1 I %1nstar2 I %1nstar3 I %1nstar4 I- %Pupae Mosquito Species Present Fish Observed? EV=Emergent vegetabon Degrees Celsius Centimeters parts per average # of immature % of immature mosquitoes at each developmental stage in dips (in open water ?•Saltmarsh pothole thousand mosquitoes per dip continuous With SAV-=Subaquatic vegetation (3 dips taken) sample site) PMH1 1 EV 23 29 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 2 EV 23 27 6.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 3 EV 23 29 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 4 EV 23 28 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 5 EV 23 33 6.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 6 EV 23 33 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 7 EV 23 29 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 8 EV 23 25 6.3 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH1 9 EV 23 29 6.3 a 0 a 0 0 a a none y PMH1 10 EV 23 29 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 none y PMH1 11 EV 23 26 6.3 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 none y PMH1 12 EV 23 23 6.3 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 none y PMH1 13 EV 23 29 6.3 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 none y PMH1 14 EV 23 28 6.3 0 0 a a a a a none y PMH1 15 EV 23 26 6.3 0 a a a 0 0 0 none y PMH1 16 EV 23 24 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y MEANS: 23.00 27.94 6.31 o.oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 STD DEVS: 0.00 2.77 0.03 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

PMH2 1 p 25 4 5.7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N PMH2 2 p 25 4 6.3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N PMH2 3 p 25 5 6.4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N PMH2 4 p 25 5 6.3 7 0 0 0 a 0 0 none N PMH2 5 p 24 6 6.3 7 0 a 0 a a 0 none N PMH2 6 p 24 4 6.4 6 0 0 a a 0 0 none N PMH2 7 p 25 6 6.5 8 0 a a a 0 a none N PMH2 8 p 25 7 6.5 7 a 0 a a a a none N PMH2 9 p 25 4 6.4 9 a 0 0 0 0 0 none N PMH2 10 p 25 3 6.4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N p 25 3 6.4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N PMH2 - 11 PMH2 12 p 25 4 6.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N PMH2 13 p 25 6 6.2 8 0 0 a 0 0 0 none N PMH2 14 p 25 4 6.3 11 0 a 0 0 0 0 none y PMH2 15 p 25 10 6.2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N MEANS: 24.87 5.00 6.31 7.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 STD DEVS: 0.35 1.81 0.19 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 0

PMH3 1 SAV 24 27 7.2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 2 SAV 24 24 7.2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 3 SAV 24 25 7.2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 4 SAV 24 25 7.2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 5 SAV 24 23 7.2 8 0 0 a 0 0 0 none y PMH3 6 SAV 24 29 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 7 SAV 24 28 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 8 SAV 24 37 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 9 SAV 24 27 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 10 EV 24 25 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 11 SAV 24 26 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 a none y PMH3 12 SAV 24 23 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 13 SAV 24 24 7.3 8 0 a 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 14 SAV 24 21 7.3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y PMH3 15 EV 25 14 7.4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y MEANS: 24.07 25.20 7.27 7.93 0 0 0 0 0 0 STDDEVS: 0.26 4.81 0.06 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~

Table 4 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 7/21/2000 for Prime Hook NWR, Site PMH1: Unit Ill, S of Prime Hook Beach Rd.

PMH1 Water Column Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Corixidae 249 50.82% 24.9 10 100% 100 48.78% Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 30 6.12% 3 9 90% 36 17.56% Asellidae lsopoda 133 27.14% 13.3 10 100% 30 14.63% Gastropoda Mollusca 7 1.43% 0.7 5 50% 13 6.34% Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 6 1.22% 0.6 1 10% 12 5.85% Oligochaeta Annelida 47 9.59% 4.7 5 50% 6 2.93% Daphniidae Cladocera 17 3.47% 1.7 3 30% 3 1.46% Hydrochidae Coleoptera 2 0.41% 0.2 1 10% 2 0.98% Chironomidae Diptera 9 1.84% 0.9 5 50% 1 0.49% Diptera pupae Diptera 3 0.61% 0.3 1 10% 1 0.49% Dolichopodidae Diptera 2 0.41% 0.2 2 20% 1 0.49% Hydrachnidia Acari 7 1.43% 0.7 2 20% 0 0.00% Talitridae Amphipoda 2 0.41% 0.2 2 20% 0 0.00% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 1 0.20% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% Dytiscidae adults Coleoptera 1 0.20% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% Ephydridae larvae Diptera 1 0.20% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 517 205

PMH1 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Tax on Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 9 14.52% 0.90 5 50% 15 31.25% Diptera pupae Diptera 1 1.61% 0.10 1 10% 10 20.83% Gastropoda Mollusca 4 6.45% 0.40 2 20% 8 16.67% Asellidae lsopoda 26 41.94% 2.60 6 60% 7 14.58% Corixidae Hemiptera 5 8.06% 0.50 3 30% 5 10.42% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 9 14.52% 0.90 4 40% 2 4.17% Dolichopodidae Diptera 3 4.84% 0.30 2 20% 1 2.08% Oligochaeta Annelida 2 3.23% 0.20 2 20% 0 0.00% Chironomidae Diptera 1 1.61% 0.10 1 10% 0 0.00% Dytiscidae adults Coleoptera 1 1.61% 0.10 1 10% 0 0.00% Dytiscidae larvae Coleoptera 1 1.61% 0.10 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 62 48

Variable Definitions Total# Observed= sum of the "Taxon" individuals found i{l all 10 processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance= percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon I total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed= number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon I biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. .. Table 6 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 7/27/2000 for Prime Hook NWR, Site PMH3: Unit 1, Isaac's Island Site, pond in future OMWM area •

PMH3 Water Column Samo/es Taxon HigherTaxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Gastropoda Mollusca 746 53.79% 74.6 7 70% 1063 71.01,% Chironomidae Diptera 361 26.03% 36.1 10 100% 159 10.62% Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 80 5.77% 8 6 60% 100 6.68% Coenagrionidae Odonata 21 1.51% 2.1 8 80% 63 4.21% Corixidae Hemiptera 69 4.97% 6.9 7 70% 49 3.27% Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 6 0.43% 0.6 4 40% 19 1.27% Ephydridae pupae Diotera 9 0.65% 0.9 3 30% 9 0.60% Hemiptera 22 1.59% 2.2 1 10% 8 0.53% Scirtidae larvae Coleoptera 15 1.08% 1.5 2 20% 7 0.47% Ephydridae larvae Diptera 3 0.22% 0.3 2 20% 5 0.33% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 37 2.67% 3.7 5 50% 4 0.27% Podocopa Ostracoda 23 1.66% 2.3 3 30% 4 0.27% Libellulidae Odonata 3 0.22% 0.3 2 20% 3 0.20% Diptera pupae Diptera 8 0.58% 0.8 5 50% 2 0.13% Hydrachnidia Acari 2 0.14% 0.2 2 20% 1 0.07% Tabanidae Diptera 2 0.14% 0.2 1 10% 1 0.07% Hemiptera 1 0.07% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 1408 1497

PMH3 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Chironomidae Diptera 58 67.44% 5.8 8 80% 36 39.56% Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 3 3.49% 0.3 2 20% 24 26.37% Ephydridae pupae Diptera 2 2.33% 0.2 1 10% 8 8.79% Tabanidae Diptera 2 2.33% 0.2 1 10% 8 8.79% Diptera pupae Diptera 4 4.65% 0.4 2 20% 4 4.40% Ephydridae larvae Diptera 2 2.33% 0.2 1 10% 3 3.30% Curculionidae Coleoptera 1 1.16% 0.1 1 10% 3 3.30% Corixidae Hemiptera 1 1.16% 0.1 1 10% 2 2.20% Coenagrionidae Odonata 5 5.81% 0.5 1 10% 1 1.10% Podocopa Ostracoda 4 4.65% 0.4 1 10% 1 1.10% Hydrachnidia Acari 1 1.16% 0.1 1 10% 1 1.10% Ceratopogonidae Diotera 1 1.16% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% Dolichopodidae Diptera 1 1.16% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 1 1.16% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 86 91

Variable Definitions Total# Observed= sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals ofTaxon / total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed= number of sample points. out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed I total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 1O samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals ofTaxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. '"

Table 7 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Summer2000 Sample Site Water Parameters and Habitat Information, Bombay Hook NWR •

Site Code, Sample# Habitat Type Water Temperature Water Depth pH Salinity Mosauito Count %1nstar1 I %1nstar2 I %1nstar3 I %1nstar4 I ¾Pupae Mosquito Species Fish Observed? I EV=Emergent vegetabon Degrees Ceisius Centimeters parts per average # of irrmature % of invnature mosquitoes at each developmental stage in dips Present ~n open water I P=Saltmarsh pothole thousand mosquitoes per dip continuous with SAV=Subaquatic vegetation (3 dips taken) sample site) BMH1 1 p 27 3 6.6 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH1 ! 2 p 27 4 6.7 18 0.67 0 50 50 0 0 Aedes sollicitans N BMH1 3 p 27 5 6.6 17 0.33 0 0 100 0 0 Aedes sollicitans N BMH1 4 p 24 21 6.4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH1 5 p 25 14 6.3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH1 6 p 26 18 6.5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N p 27 17 6.8 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N .. BMH1 7 BMH1 8 p 27 4 6.5 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH1 9 p 26 12 6.3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH1 10 p 25 17 6.5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH1 11 p 27 15 6.7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH1 12 p 25 12 6.3 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH1 13 p 23 4 6.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH1 14 p 27 5 6.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N

BMH1 I 15 p 27 9 6.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N i MEANS: 26.00 10.67 6.51 16.47 0.067 STD DEVS:I 1.31 6.17 0.15 0.99 0.187

BMH2 ! 1 p 33 3 6.5 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH2 2 p 33 3 6.7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH2 3 p 36 8 6.7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH2 4 p 34 3 7.1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 none -N BMH2 5 p 32 5 6.8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH2 ! 6 p 34 15 7.8 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N >-· BMH2 : 7 p 38 4 8.5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH2 8 p 37 7 8.5 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH2 9 p 34 5 8.5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH2 10 p 32 10 7.0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH2 ; f1 p 31 12 6.6 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH2 I 12 p 33 14 6.5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N ~ BMH2 ' 13 p 29 13 6.6 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N I BMH2 14 I p 30 12 6.5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N t-- BMH2 15 p 31 16 6.7 17 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 none N MEANS:! 33.13 8.67 7.13 17.53 0 STD DEVS: 2.50 I 4.73 0.78 1.25 0 i -- BMH3 ! 1 SAV 33 5 3.4 1 15.3 0 0 0 2 98 Aedes solficitans N BMH3 ! 2 SAV 35 7 3.3 1 0.33 0 0 0 0 100 Aectes sollicitans N ,... BMH3TJ SAV 35 8 3.3 1 7.3 0 0 0 0 100 Aedes sollicitans N BMH3 4 SAV 34 10 3.3 1 0.33 0 0 0 0 100 Aedes sollicitans N BMH3 5 SAV 35 7 3.1 1 16 0 0 0 29 71 Aedes sollicitans N BMH3 6 SAV 31 10 3.4 1 3.3 0 0 0 0 100 Aedes sol/icitans N BMH3 7 SAV 36 5 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH3 8 SAV 34 11 4.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH3 9 SAV 31 16 5.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH3 I 10 EV 30 25 6.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y BMH3 11 SAV 30 6 3.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N BMH3 ! 12 I SAV 34 5 3.3 1 1.6 0 0 0 20 80 Aedes sollicitans N BMH3 I 13 SAV 35 6 3.2 1 1.6 0 0 0 0 100 Aedes sollicitans N BMH3 14 SAV 34 6 3.1 1 5.6 12 12 24 29 24 Aedes sollicitans N BMH3 : 15 EV 36 4 3.0 1 1.0 0 0 0 0 100 Aedes so/licitans N MEANS: 33.53 8.73 3.71 1.00 3.491 STD DEVS: 2.07 5.47 0.98 0.00 5.406 I'"

Table 8 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/2/2000 ,;; for Bombay Hook NWR, Site BMH1: Bombay Hook Island Site

BMH1 Water Column Samo/es

Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Gastropoda Mollusca 26 36.62% 2.6 5 50% 243 85.26%

Corix1dae Hemiptera 33 46.48% 3.3 5 50% 36 12.63%

Curculionidae Coleootera 2 2.82% 0.2 1 10% 4 1.40%

Ephydridae larvae Diptera 2 2.82% 0.2 1 10% 1 0.35%

Nematoda Nematoda 7 9.86% 0.7 1 10% 1 0.35%

Ceratopooonidae Oiptera 1 1.41% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00%

SUM 71 285

BMH1 Benthic Core Samples

Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Gastropoda Mollusca 7 17.50% 0.7 4 40% 225 93.75%

Hvdrophilidae adults Coleoptera 3 7.50% 0.3 2 20% 9 3.75%

Ephydridae larvae Oiptera 15 37.50% 1.5 3 30% 4 1.67%

Asellidae lsopoda 1 2.50% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.42%

Nematoda Nematoda 14 35.00% 1.4 2 20% 1 0.42%

SUM 40 240

Variable Definitions

Total# Observed= sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 1 O processed water column or benthic samples.

Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon / total number of individuals in all taxa.

Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point.

# Points Observed = number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed.

Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10).

Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples.

Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon: total biomass of individuals of Taxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ..

Table 9 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/2/2000 .,, for Bombay Hook NWR, Site BMH2: Marshall Island Site

BMH2 Water Column Sam, /es

Taxon HigherTaxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Corixidae Hemiotera 292 83.19% 29.2 9 90% 329 66.46%

Gastropoda Mollusca 40 11.40% 4 4 40% 140 28.28%

Hvdrophilidae adults Coieoptera 2 0.57% 0.2 2 20% 22 4.44%

Eohvdridae larvae Oiptera 4 1.14% 0.4 3 30% 2 0.40%

Nematoda Nematoda 9 2.56% 0.9 1 10% 1 0.20%

Hvdrachnidia Acari 1 0.28% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.20%

Ceratopogonidae Oiptera 2 0.57% 0.2 1 10% 0 0.00%

Oiptera pupae Diotera 1 0.28% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00%

SUM 351 495

BMH2 Benthic Core Samo/es

Taxon HigherTaxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Oiptera pupae Diptera 18 31.58% 1.8 3 30% 9 28.13%

Corixidae Hemiptera 9 15.79% 0.9 5 50% 9 28.13%

Gastropoda fAollusca 1 1.75% 0.1 1 10% 5 15.63%

Dolichopodidae Oiptera 17 29.82% 1.7 4 40% 3 9.38%

Ephydridae larvae Diptera 6 10.53% 0.6 3 30% 3 9.38%

Ephydridae pupae Diptera 2 3.51% 0.2 1 10% 2 6.25%

Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 1 1.75% 0.1 1 10% 1 3.13%

CeratoooQonidae Diotera 3 5.26% 0.3 2 20% 0 0.00%

SUM 57 32

Variable Definitions

Total# Observed= sum of the ''Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples.

Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon / total number of individuals in all taxa.

Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point.

# Points Observed= number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed.

Frequency = percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed I total number of sample points·(10).

Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples.

Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ..,

Table 10 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/2/2000 .., for Bombay Hook NWR, Site BMH3: West Side of Shearness Pool

BMH3 Water Column Samples

Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Corixidae Hemiotera 486 66.76% 48.6 10 100% 366 50.97%

Culicidae puoae Diptera 213 29.26% 21.3 8 80% 210 29.25%

Hvdrophilidae adults Coleoptera 14 1.92% 1.4 8 80% 110 15.32%

Hydroohilidae larvae Coleoptera 6 0.82% 0.6 5 50% 26 3.62%

Coenagrionidae Odonata 3 0.41% 0.3 2 20% 4 0.56%

Dytiscidae adults Coleoptera 1 0.14% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.14%

Mesoveliidae Hemiptera 1 0.14% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.14%

Eohvdridae pupae Diptera 2 0.27% 0.2 2 20% 0 0.00%

Chironomidae Diptera 1 0.14% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00%

Culicidae larvae Diptera 1 0.14% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00%

SUM 728 718

BMH3 Benthic Core Samples

Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Culicidae pupae Diptera 10 27.03% 1.0 4 40% 12 28.57%

Corixidae Hemiptera 10 27.03% 1.0 6 60% 9 21.43%

Dolichopodidae Diptera 3 8.11% 0.3 1 10% 8 19.05%

Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 1 2.70% 0.1 1 10% 8 19.05%

Diptera pupae Oiptera 2 5.41% 0.2 2 20% 2 4.76%

Ceratopoqonidae Diptera 4 10.81% 04 2 20% 1 2.38%

Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 3 8.11% 0.3 2 20% 1 2.38%

Haliplidae Coleoptera 1 2.70% 0.1 1 10% 1 2.38%

Nematoda Nematoda 2 5.41% 0.2 1 10% 0 0.00%

Ephydridae larvae Diptera 1 2.70% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00%

SUM 37 42

Variable Definitions Total# Observed= sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples.

Relative Abundance= percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon I total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed= number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples.

R~ative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ....

Table 11 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Summer 2000 ... Sample Site Water Parameters and Habitat Information, Long Island NWR Complex

Site Code Sample# Habitat Type Water Temperature Water Depth pH Salinity Mosquito Count %1nstar1 I %1nstar2 I %1nstar3 I %1nstar4 \ ¾Pupae Mosquito Fish Observed? EV=Emergent vegetation Degrees Celsius Centimeters parts per average # of immature % of immature mosquitoes at each developmental stage in dips Species (in open water P=Saltmarsh pothole thousand mosquitoes per dip Present continuous with SA V=Subaquatic vegetation (3 dips taken) sample site) WRT1 1 p 26 13 6.9 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT1 2 p 25 13 6.9 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT1 3 EV 23 22 7.2 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT1 4 p 25 14 7.5 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT1 5 EV 24 42 7.1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT1 6 p 25 11 7.2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT1 7 p 26 10 6.9 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT1 8 p 24 9 6.7 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT1 9 p 26 10 6.9 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT1 10 p 27 9 6.8 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N MEANS: 25.10 15.30 7.01 29.90 0 STDDEVS: 1.20 10.13 0.24 1.79 0

WRT2 1 p 32 11 7.3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT2 2 p 30 9 7.2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT2 3 p 31 11 7.8 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT2 4 p 29 15 7.4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT2 5 p 33 6 7.3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT2 6 EV 28 9 6.7 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y ~RT2 7 p 29 8 7.1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT2 8 p 30 10 7.1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N WRT2 9 p 28 10 6.8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT2 10 p 31 8 6.7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 non03 N MEANS: 30.10 9.70 7.14 20.00 0 STD DEVS: 1.66 2.41 0.34 2.45 0

WRT3 1 p 24 24 7.1 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 none .Y WRT3 2 p 26 22 7.1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y 1-- WRT3 3 p 30 7 6.9 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT3 4 EV 28 35 6.7 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT3 5 p 26 16 6.6 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT3 6 EV 25 31 6.9 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y p 27 10 6.6 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N - WRT3 7 WRT3 8 p 25 14 6.7 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT3 9 p 26 26 6.8 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y WRT3 10 p 26 9 6.8 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 none N MEANS: 26.30 19.40 6.82 25.20 0 STD DEVS: 1.70 9.66 0.18 2.20 0 ..,

Table 12 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/16/2000 for Long Island NWR Complex, Site WRT1: William Floyd Estate (Wertheim NWR Control) ..,

WRT1 Water Column Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Gastropoda Mollusca 99 14.27% 9.9 8 80% 1823 80.13% Corixidae Hemiotera 172 24.78% 17.2 7 70% 205 9.01% Eohvdridae pupae Diotera 62 8.93% 6.2 3 30% 92 4.04% Gammaridae Amphipoda 54 7.78% 5.4 5 50% 41 1.80% Palaemonidae Decaooda 2 0.29% 0.2 2 20% 20 0.88% Chironomidae Diotera 113 16.28% 11.3 5 50% 19 0.84% Libellulidae Odonata 19 2.74% 1.9 2 20% 16 0.70% Stratiomvidae Diotera 7 1.01% 0.7 1 10% 12 0.53% Ceratopogonidae Diotera 86 12.39% 8.6 1 10% 10 0.44% Hydroohilidae adults Coleoptera 4 0.58% 0.4 4 40% 9 0.40% Mesoveliidae Hemiotera 19 2.74% 1.9 3 30% 6 0.26% Eohvdridae larvae Diotera 18 2.59% 1.8 2 20% 6 0.26% Ocvpodidae Decaooda 15 2.16% 1.5 1 10% 4 0.18% Hvdroohilidae larvae Coleoptera 11 1.59% 1.1 5 50% 3 0.13% Diptera pupae Diptera 6 0.86% 0.6 2 20% 3 0.13% Talitridae Amphipoda 5 0.72% 0.5 2 20% 3 0.13% Arqulidae Branchiura 1 0.14% 0.1 1 10% 2 0.09% Coleoptera adults Coleoptera 1 0.14% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.04% SUM 694 2275

WRT1 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Gastropoda Mollusca 25 4.78% 2.5 5 50% 461 73.52% Chironomidae Diptera 394 75.33% 39.4 8 80% 106 16.91% Ephvdridae ouoae Diotera 30 5.74% 3 5 50% 27 4.31% Ephydridae larvae Diotera 16 3.06% 1.6 3 30% 14 2.23% Libellulidae Odonata 5 0.96% 0.5 2 20% 5 0.80% Ocvpodidae Decaooda 18 3.44% 1.8 1 10% 3 0.48% Diotera pupae Diptera 9 1.72% 0.9 3 30% 3 0.48% Oliqochaeta Annelida 15 2.87% 1.5 4 40% 2 0.32% Dolichooodidae Diptera 2 0.38% 0.2 2 20% 2 0.32% Hvdrophilidae adults Coleoptera 2 0.38% 0.2 2 20% 2 0.32% Corixidae Hemiotera 1 0.19% 0.1 1 10% 2 0.32% Gammaridae Amphipoda 3 0.57% 0.3 2 20% 0 0.00% Stratiomvidae Diotera 2 0.38% 0.2 2 20% 0 0.00% Hydrachnidia Acari 1 0.19% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 523 627

Variable Definitions Total # Observed = sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon I total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed= number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight = sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 1O samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon I biomass total of all individuals o( all taxa found in samples. Table 13 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/16/2000 " for Long Island NWR Complex, Site WRT2: Wertheim East, BH-120 ., WRT2 Water Column Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Corixidae Hemiptera 728 69.80% 72.8 10 100% 411 70.98% Ephvdridae pupae Diptera 131 12.56% 13.1 9 90% 80 13.82% Svrphidae Diptera 1 0.10% 0.1 1 10% 20 3.45% Hvdrophilidae adults Coleoptera 6 0.58% 0.6 3 30% 17 2.94% Mesoveliidae Hemiptera 18 1.73% 1.8 7 70% 10 1.73% Chironomidae Diptera 46 4.41% 4.6 5 50% 9 ·1.55% Hvdrachnidia Acari 14 1.34% 1.4 7 70% 7 1.21% Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 10 0.96% 1 6 60% 7 1.21% Gastropoda Mollusca 2 0.19% 0.2 2 20% 7 1.21% Hemiptera 6 0.58% 0.6 3 30% 6 1.04% Libellulidae Odonata 2 0.19% 0.2 2 20% 3 0.52% Oliqochaeta Annelida 57 5.47% 5.7 6 60% 1 0.17% Ceratopoqonidae Diptera 21 2.01% 2.1 5 50% 1 0.17% Diptera pupae Diptera 1 0.10% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 1043 579

WRT2 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Ephydridae pupae Diptera 122 44.85% 12.2 8 80% 91 50.56% Syrphidae Diptera 3 1.10% 0.3 2 20% 47 26.11% Corixidae Hemiptera 26 9.56% 2.6 6 60% 19 10.56% Hvdrophilidae adults Coleoptera 2 0.74% 0.2 1 10% 8 4.44% Chironomidae Diptera 30 11.03% 3 3 30% 4 2.22% Oligochaeta Annelida 35 12.87% 3.5 5 50% 2 1.11% Stratiomyidae Diptera 2 0.74% 0.2 2 20% 2 1.11% Hydrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 1 0.37% 0.1 1 10% 2 1.11% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 44 16.18% 4.4 4 40% 1 0.56% Ephydridae larvae Diptera 3 1.10% 0.3 3 30% 1 0.56% Diotera pupae Diptera 2 0.74% 0.2 1 10% 1 0.56% Dolichopodidae Diptera 1 0.37% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.56% Tabanidae Diptera 1 0.37% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.56% SUM 272 180

Variable Definitions Total# Observed = sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon I total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed = number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon I biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ..,

Table 14 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/16/2000 for Long Island NWR Complex, Site WRT3: Wertheim NWR West, BH-99A ,.

WRT3 Water Column Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Poin1 # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Corixidae Hemiptera 636 67.73% 63.6 10 100% 522 59.59% Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 28 2.98% 2.8 8 80% 103 11.76% Libellulidae Odonata 18 1.92% 1.8 4 40% 74 8.45% Stratiomyidae Diptera 3 0.32% 0.3 2 20% 55 6.28% Ephydridae pupae Diptera 54 5.75% 5.4 8 80% 48 5.48% Ephydridae larvae Diptera 51 5.43% 5.1 10 100% 20 2.28% Hvdrophilidae larvae Coleoptera 11 1.17% 1.1 4 40% 19 2.17% Gammaridae Amphipoda 31 3.30% 3.1 5 50% 13 1.48% Talitridae Amphipoda 4 0.43% 0.4 2 20% 10 1.14% Hydrachnidia Acari 13 1.38% 1.3 6 60% 5 0.57% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 73 7.77% 7.3 7 70% 3 0.34% Argulidae Branchiura 1 0.11% 0.1 1 10% 2 0.23% Diptera pupae Diptera 7 0.75% 0.7 3 30% 1 0.11% Mesoveliidae Hemiptera 3 0.32% 0.3 1 10% 1 0.11% Oligochaeta Annelida 5 0.53% 0.5 3 30% 0 0.00% Dolichopodidae Diptera 1 0.11% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 939 876

WRT3 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Poin # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Ephydridae larvae Diptera 4 10.00% 0.4 2 20% 5 33.33% Ephydridae pupae Diptera 9 22.50% 0.9 6 60% 3 20.00% Corixidae Hemiptera 6 15.00% 0.6 2 20% 3 20.00% Dolichopodidae Diptera 6 15.00% 0.6 2 20% 2 13.33% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 12 30.00% 1.2 1 10% 1 6.67% Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 1 2.50% 0.1 1 10% 1 6.67% Oliqochaeta Annelida 2 5.00% 0.2 2 20% 0 0.00% SUM 40 15

Variable Definitions Total# Observed = sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 1O processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon / total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed= number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency = percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ...

Table 15 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Summer 2000 ~ Sample Site Water Parameters and Habitat Information, Supawna Meadows NWR

Site Code Sample# Habitat Type Water Temperature Water Depth pH Salinity Mosquito Count %1nstar1 I %1nstar2 I%1nstar3 I%1nstar41 %Pupae Mosquito Fish Observed? EV=Emergent vegetation Degrees Celsius Centimeters parts per average # of immature % of immature mosquitoes at each developmental stage in dips Species (in open water O=Open Water, no SA V thousand mosquitoes per dip Present continuous with

SA V=Subaquatic vegetation (3 dips taken) sample site) SPM1 1 0 22 46 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 2 0 24 17 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 3 SAV 24 24 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 4 SAV 24 11 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 5 SAV 24 8 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 6 0 24 22 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 7 SAV 24 7 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 8 0 24 43 I 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 9 0 24 30 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM1 10 EV 24 14 i 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y MEANS: 23.80 22.20 6.70 4.00 l 0 STD DEVS: 0.63 13.81 I 0.00 0.00 I 0 I SPM2 1 0 24 33 7.3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 2 0 24 36 6.2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 3 0 24 30 6.1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 4 SAV 24 15 I 5.9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 5 SAV 24 18 6.1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 6 SAV 24 20 6.1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 7 0 24 34 6.1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM2 8 SAV 24 14 6.1 2 0 o 0 o 0 o none y SPM2 9 0 26 9 5.8 2 o o o 0 o o none y SPM2 10 SAV 26 8 ! 5.8 2 0 o o o o o none y I MEANS: 24.40 21.70 6.15 2.00 0 I--- STD DEVS: 0.84 10.66 0.43 . 0.00 0 ! I I SPM3 1 SAV 24 40 I 6.2 1 o o 0 0 0 o none y SPM3 2 SAV 24 29 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM3 3 SAV 24 41 ! 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y ! SPM3 4 SAV 24 13 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM3 5 0 24 37 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y l y SPM3 6 0 24 57 I 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none I SPM3 7 SAV 24 36 i 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM3 8 SAV 24 34 I 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM3 9 SAV 24 41 I 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y SPM3 10 EV 24 13 : 6.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 none y

MEANS: 24.00 34.10 f 6.29 1.00 0 STD DEVS: 0.00 13.26 ! 0.03 0.00 0 ..

.,, Table 16 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/23/2000 for Supawna Meadows NWR, Site SPM1: "Site 4"

SPM1 Water Column Samo/es

Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Haliplidae Coleoptera 5 7.46% 0.5 2 20% 13 48.15%

Corixidae Hemiptera 11 16.42% 1.1 2 20% 8 29.63%

Libellulidae Odonata 2 2.99% 0.2 2 20% 3 11.11%

Coenagrionidae Odonata 2 2.99% 0.2 2 20% 1 3.70%

Mesoveliidae Hemiptera 2 2.99% 0.2 2 20% 1 3.70%

Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 1 1.49% 0.1 1 10% 1 3.70%

Chironomidae Diotera 32 47.76% 3.2 5 50% 0 0.00%

Diptera pupae Diptera 12 17.91% 1.2 5 50% 0 0.00%

SUM 67 27

SPM1 Benthic Core Samples

Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass

Hydroohilidae adults Coieoptera 1 2.38% 0.1 1 10% 20 52.63%

Libellulidae Odonata 1 2.38% 0.1 1 10% 15 39.47%

Chironomidae Diptera 37 88.10% 3.7 6 60% 3 7.89%

Ceratopoaonidae Oiptera 3 7.14% 0.3 2 20% 0 0.00%

SUM 42 38

Variable Definitions

Total # Observed = sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples.

Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon / total number of individuals in all taxa.

Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point.

# Points Observed = number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed.

Frequency= percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10).

Total Dry Weight = sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples.

Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ... Table 17 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/23/2000 for Supawna Meadows NWR, Site SPM2: "Site 2" II SPM2 Water Column Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Hemiotera 29 8.17% 2.9 2 20% 264 40.12% Hvdroohilidae adults Coleoptera 9 2.54% 0.9 3 30% 124 18.84%

Gyrinidae Coleootera 3 0.85% 0.3 2 20% 73 11.09% Haliplidae Coleoptera 21 5.92% 2.1 2 20% 60 9.12% Hydrachnidia Acari 121 34.08% 12.1 5 50% 38 5.78% Libellulidae Odonata 10 2.82% 1 2 20% 27 4.10% Hemiptera 3 0.85% 0.3 2 20% 24 3.65% Chironomidae Diptera 94 26.48% 9.4 8 80% 19 2.89% Coenaqrionidae Odonata 56 15.77% 5.6 4 40% 16 2.43% Gastropoda Mollusca 4 1.13% 0.4 1 10% 10 1.52% Tabanidae Diotera 2 0.56% 0.2 2 20% 3 0.46% Ceratopogonidae Diptera 1 0.28% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% Chaoboridae Diptera 1 0.28% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% Saldida·e Hemiptera 1 0.28% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 355 658

SPM2 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Chironomidae Diotera 65 74.71% 6.5 10 100% 12 35.29% Haliolidae Coleoptera 5 5.75% 0.5 2 20% 12 35.29% Libellulidae Odonata 2 2.30% 0.2 2 20% 5 14.71% Hvdrachnidia Acari 6 6.90% 0.6 3 30% 1 2.94% Chaoboridae Diptera 5 5.75% 0.5 1 10% 1 2.94% Coenagrionidae Odonata 1 1.15% 0.1 1 10% 1 2.94% Nematoda Nematoda 1 1.15% 0.1 1 10% 1 2.94% Tabanidae Diptera 1 1.15% 0.1 1 10% 1 2.94% Oliqochaeta Annelida 1 1.15% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 87 34

Variable Definitions Total #Observed= sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 10 processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance= percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon / total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed = number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency = percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed/ total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 1O samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon I biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ... Table 18 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study: Taxonomic List (in order of relative biomass) Sample Date: 8/23/2000 for Supawna Meadows NWR, Site SPM3: "Site 3" ,.

SPM3 Water Column Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total # Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Dvtiscidae adults Coleootera 6 1.60% 0.6 1 10% 218 40.22% Hydrophilidae adults Coleoptera 10 2.67% 1 1 10% 192 35.42% Libellulidae Odonata 17 4.55% 1.7 4 40% 35 6.46% Coenaorionidae Odonata 112 29.95% 11.2 5 50% 21 3.87% Gastropoda Mollusca 8 2.14% 0.8 3 30% 15 2.77% Notonectidae Hemiptera 8 2.14% 0.8 2 20% 15 2.77% Chironomidae Diotera 146 39.04% 14.6 9 90% 11 2.03% Baetidae Ephemeroptera 17 4.55% 1.7 4 40% 11 1.90% Pyralidae Lepidoptera 5 1.34% 0.5 1 10% 6 1.11% Hvdrochidae Coleootera 5 1.34% 0.5 1 10% 4 0.74% Sciomvzidae Diptera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 4 0.74% Belostomatidae Hemiotera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 3 0.52% Elmidae Coleoptera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 2 0.37% Hydrachnidia Acari 15 4.01% 1.5 4 40% 1 0.18% Chaoboridae Diptera 3 0.80% 0.3 1 10% 1 0.18% Hydrophilidae larvae Coleootera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.18% Limneohilidae Trichoptera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.18% Hemiptera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 1 0.18% Saldidae Hemiptera 5 1.34% 0.5 3 30% 0 0.00% Ceratooooonidae Diptera 3 0.80% 0.3 3 30¾ 0 0.00% Diptera pupae Diptera 3 0.80% 0.3 2 20% 0 0.00% Caenidae Ephemeroptera 2 0.53% 0.2 1 10% 0 0.00% Hydroptilidae Trichootera 2 0.53% 0.2 2 20% 0 0.00% Mesoveliidae Hemiptera 1 0.27% 0.1 1 10% 0 0.00% SUM 374 542

SPM3 Benthic Core Samples Taxon Higher Taxon Total# Observed Relative Abundance Ave Point # Points Observed Frequency Total Dry Weight (mg) Relative Biomass Dvtiscidae adults Coleoptera 1 0.63% 0.1 1 10% 77 79.38% Libellulidae Odonata 8 5.03% 0.8 2 20% 8 8.25% Oliqochaeta Annelida 12 7.55% 1.2 1 10% 4 4.12% Chironomidae Diptera 69 43.40% 6.9 8 80% 3 3.09% Coenaorionidae Odonata 9 5.66% 0.9 5 50% 3 3.09% Chaoboridae Diptera 43 27.04% 4.3 2 20% 1 1.03% Gastropoda Mollusca 4 2.52% 0.4 1 10% 1 1.03% Ceratopooonidae Diptera 7 4.40% 0.7 4 40% 0 0.00% Hvdrachnidia Acari 6 3.77% 0.6 4 40% 0 0.00% SUM 159 97

Variable Definitions Total# Observed = sum of the "Taxon" individuals found in all 1O processed water column or benthic samples. Relative Abundance = percentage of total individuals represented by Taxon; total number of individuals of Taxon / total number of individuals in all taxa. Ave Point= average number of individuals of that Taxon per sample point. # Points Observed = number of sample points, out of 10, where that Taxon was observed. Frequency = percentage of samples containing Taxon; number of sample points Taxon was observed / total number of sample points (10). Total Dry Weight= sum of the dry weights of individuals of Taxon found in all 10 samples. Relative Biomass = percentage of total biomass represented by Taxon; total biomass of individuals of Taxon / biomass total of all individuals of all taxa found in samples. ...

Appendix 1 PMH1 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 7/21/2000 ill found at Prime Hook NWR, Site PMH1

Sample# 1 1 1 I 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 71 7 7 7 8 s 8 8 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 I i Sample Type w w Bl B w w B B w w B B wi w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B . , I . , 1 TAXA LIST # mg #; mg #\ mg #i mg #\ mg # mg #! mg # mg #I mg #\ mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #\ mg

: 'i I : I ,I I I Asellidae 3 1 i 9: 2 14 3 13 3 1 17' 3 2 1 42 1 7 5 2 4 1 3 1 9 1 1 o 15 3 16 4 5 5 1 o

' I: I I l , l• I, I

Ceratopogonidae 1 O 1 · O , 1, , \ ', 3 2 4 O 1 o

I I I I Chironomidae 11 o i I I 2 1 2: o 1 \ o 3 o 1 o : I I I t I i I I I ' Corixidae 12 7 42 1 26 2:. 2 29;, 16 I. 25 4 2 1 27 lI 6 1 I , 2 13 7 29 9 35 7 22 12 15 6 i I i i I Daphniidae 1 I, 1 ', i '1 11 I 2 , 5 o \

I I ' \ I I I \ Diptera pupae 3 1 , I ' 1 • 1 1 O

1 I i I ' I , ' Dolichopodidae 1 , o 1 o \ 1 1 2 1 ,

I I I I i 1 Dytiscidae adults \ , ! 1 \ O 1 I O 1 1 : ' ' I I ' Dytiscidae larvae I / 1 I I 1 ! o i i ! . I I i 1 1 Ephydridae larvae 1 O I I i 1

I I . i I ! I ' I I Gastropoda 1 ; 4 , : 1 : 4 3 3 · 3; 8 1 1 1 1 o , 1 1

I ' i I I ' ' I ' I I ! I I Hydrachnidia I · .I , 4 I o 3 o 1 1

1 1 Hydrochidae I : ' : J 2 2 I , i , , : 1 1 Hydrophilidae adults 1 i , ! i 6; 12 , I I ' I i I : I : Hydrophilidae larvae 3, 1 1 ; 0 ! 2 1 1 3 0 13 I 24 4 '· 7 1 1 1 0 3 i 3 2 5 2 1 1 : 1 2 5 1 2 1 I

! ' I I ' I I I 0/iaochaeta I, , 31 o ! : 1 i o 20 3 1 o 10 I 1 2 1 I 1 12 1

1 Talitridae ) i i 1 1 j . , 1 o I ) 1 o ! I 1 W = Water Column Sample I I I i I i I i i I B = Benthic Core Sample I i I I : i I

#=Number of individuals in sample I i i I I 1 : 1 ma = Orv weiaht/biomass of individuals in sample ' I I 1 , ..

Appendix 2 PMH2 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 7/26/2000 ,. found at Prime Hook NWR, Site PMH2

' Sample# 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15

Sample Type w w B B W w B B w w B B W w B B W w B B W w B B W w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B : i TAXA LIST # mg #!mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #lmg # mg # mg # mg #\mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg I I I Ceratopogonidae I 1 1 I I I I Chironomidae j 1i 0 I 2 2 i 2 0 6 0 2 0 I 1 0 1 0 I l I I I Corixidae 1' 0 i 1 1 I 1 0 1 0 I I I i ! '· I 1 0 Dolichopodidae ' i I ·, I l I I Ephydridae oupae I 1 1 I I I i Gastropoda 61 i 233 11! 5 39 90 7 34 26 59 2 6 5 13 11 10 1 42 25 197 11 73 10 46 45 55 8 19 1 4 21 33 I I I I i Gerridae 2' 1 i I I I I 1 0 I ! 21 0 I: i I i ! I : I I i 'i I i I Hydrophilidae adults i I I i 11 1 41 8 I 1 1 i I ! I I l I 'i I I I I i I ! I Hydrophilidae larvae i 1 0 3 2 1 0 I i i I I I ' I i I I I I Libellulidae I I I I 1 6 I I I l i I I I 0/igochaeta : a: 4 I 1 0 4 1 i I I ' I I ' I Stratiomyidae I I I I 1 1 I I I i W = Water Column Sample ; i I I I I i ' I B = Benthic Core Sample I ! i i l I I' I i I I I ·# = Number of individuals in sample i I I I i I mg= Orv weiaht/biomass of individuals in sample I I I I I I ..

Appendix 3 PMH3 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 7/27/2000 .. found at Prime Hook NWR, Site PMH3

Sample# 2\ 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 10 10 10\ 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 I Sample Type WI w B B W W B B w w B B w w B B w w B B W w B B WW B B w w B B w w B B w w B B I TAXA LIST #img # mg # mg #lmg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #mg #lmg # mg # ma # mg # ma # mg # mg

Ceratopoaonidae I 3 0 31 1 11 1 3 0 1 0 17 2 I Chironomidae 122 88 20 15 ) 2 5 3 2 0 2 3 65 19 9 6 9 0 17 4 1 1 341 9 2 0 57 24 2 4 63 14 1 1 6 2 I Coenaarionidae 1 3 6 11 1 4 4 11 6 21 1 1 I 2 4 3 5 2 4 I I I Carixidae I 16 16 1 2 11 5 13 14 15, 6 3 2 I I 7 4 4 2 ! I I Curculionidae I 1 3 1. I I Diotera ouoae I 2 3 3 0 1 0 I 2 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 I I I Dolichooodidae I I 1 0 I 1 ! I I I I Eohvdridae larvae 2 4 I 2 3 1 1 I

Eohvdridae ouoae i I 6 6 1 1 I 2 2 2 8 ; I I I Gastroooda ' al 24 I 171 292 I ! 26J 44 11 17 I 3 5 358 419 169 262 I I I I ' I ! Gerridae I I i 0 I i I i ' I I Hvdrachnidia i 1! 0 I ! 1 1 1 1 I I [fjy_droohilidae adults I I i 1 4 I 1l 1 3 11 I 1 3 1 4 21 20 ! I i i I I l I Hvdroohilidae larvae 5 1 1 0 101 6 13 31 ' 9 10 18 25 25 27 ' 'i Libe//ulidae I I I I I i ! 1 1 2 2 I I ! ! I I I Mesoveliidae I I I I 22' 8 I I ! I I Podocooa i 21 0 I : 3 0 18 4 4 1 i i I i '1 l \ Scirtidae larvae I I I i 14 6 ! 1 1 I I i I I I I I Tabanidae I I ! I I 2! 8 I 21 1 I ! I I i I I I W = Water Column Sample i I I I ' I I I I I I I ' B = Benthic Core Sample i i I i I ! I I I I I I ! I I # = Number of Individuals in sample ! I I I I ! : I I I I I I I ; ma = Orv weiaht/biomass of individuals in samale ! I I I I I I l I I i ....

Appendix 4 BMH1 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/2/2000 .. found at Bombay Hook NWR, Site BMH1

Sample# 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15

Sample Type w WB BW w B BW w B BW w B B w WB B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B BW w B B I I i TAXA LIST # mg # mg # mg # mg #lmg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #1mg I I I I I I Asellidae I I I I 1 1 ! I I I 1 ! '> I I I I Ceratopogonidae 1 \ 0 i \ I I : i I ! I I I i Corixidae I i, ! I s: 6 I 10 11 10 11 1 1 711 7 '1 :, i i I I i 1 I I Curculionidae I I I I I 2 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I ! Ephydridae larvae I ! I I i I 21 1 12 3 i 2 1 1 0 I I I I I I I i I I Gastropoda 10'r 11a 11 72 31111 i I 101 9 1 0 1 I 43 4 110 1 1 2 4

I I I I j I Hydrophilidae adults I I I I I I 1 I 5 21 4 I I I I I i I I I Nematoda 7j 1 2/ 0 I I I ! 12 1 I I I I ! I i : I I I I W = Water Column Sample i I i I i, I ! I i I I i I I I I I 1. B Benthic Core Sample\ I I i : i = ! i I 1 I I I I I I I ! I # = Number of individuals in sample I I ! 1 I i I i I I I I ma = Orv weight/biomass of individuals in sample i I I I I I I I ...-~.

Appendix 5 BMH2 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/2/2000 .,, found at Bombay Hook NWR, Site BMH2

I I Sample# 1\ 1 11 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 14 14 141 14 15 15 15 15 i Type W! W B BW w B BW w B BW w B BW w B B w w B B w w B B w w B BW w B B w w B B I I TAXA LIST # 'mg # mg # mg# mg # mg# mg# mg# mg# mg # mg # mg# mg # 1mg # mg# mg# mg# mg # \mg # \mg # 1mg [ Ceratopogonidae 2 0 2 0 1 0 I l i I Corixidae 3 6 i 1 1 4 3 1 1 50 49 2 2 48 48 2 2 8 11 1 0 58 66 3 4 53 59 i 67 86

i I Diptera pupae 11 0 13 5 41 4 I I 11 0 I Dolichopodidae 41 1 6 1 5 1 2 0 i I I I I Ephydridae larvae 2 1 I 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 i I Ephydridae pupae 2 2 I Gastropoda 1 2 I 2 53 1 5 251 48 I 12 37 -+-- I I Hydrachnidia I I 1 1 i I I I I ! I ! i _Hydrophilidae adults ! I I 1 2 i i 1 I 20 I I I I I Hydrophilidae larvae 1 '· 1 i I I i I i I ! I i Nematoda I I I 9i 1 I I I i I I I I i i ', I I I I l \ ! W Water Column Sample I I I = I I I I i ' ' I I ! [ I I I ' B Benthic Core Sample I I I = i ! I I I i '· I I I I I I I i : I ' I I I : I # = Number of individuals in sample I ! i I I I I i i I I I I I I I I mg = Dry weight/biomass of individuals in sample J I I ! I I I I ... ,

Appendix 6 BMH3 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/212000 found at Bombay Hook NWR, Site BMH3 ..

I I 11 Sample# I 1 1 j 1 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 I - Type w w B\ B w WB B w WB B w WB B w WB B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w ·s B w w B B I TAXA LIST #,mg #!mg #1mg # mg #!mg # mg # mg # mg #1mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #Jmg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg ', I Ceratopoaonidae 2 0 2 1

Chironomidae 1 0 I ! Coenaarionidae I I 2 1 1 3 I I I l Corixidae 27. 24 17 12 44 29 I 471 29 2 2 39 58 51 26 11 1 44 25 2 2 64 42 1 0 10 18 1 1 143 103 3 3 I ! I I Culicidae larvae i \ 1 0 ' ' I I \ I Culicidae 1Jupae 114' 72 11 1 61 11 2 2 201 14 3 2 4' 2 i I 5 6 4 7 12 12 351 73 17 20

I . ' Ii I Diptera pupae I 1. 1, 1 I 1 1 I I I Dolichopodidae I I I 3 8 ! i I i I Dytiscidae adults I 1 1 i l Ephydridae larvae i 1 0 i i ! I 1 I 1 Ephvdridae pupae ' i I 0 0 I I I I Haliplidae I 11 1 I I I I I ! I I I I I I i i I I I i Hydrophilidae adults 2'. 1 1 I 13 2 20 I 1 16 1 1 I 1 17 1 8 3 17 3 25 I ~ ! I I I I I I I Hydrophilidae larvae 2 12 I I I 2 0 1 1 1 2 i 1 , 11 1 1 11 0 I ' ! i ! I Mesoveliidae I' I i I I 1 1 ! I i I I i Nematoda I i ! I 2 0 I I I ' I I W = Water Column Sample I I I I I I B Benthic Core Sample ! I i = I I I I I I I i i I i # = Number of individuals in sample ( I i

I i I mg = Dry weight/biomass of individuals in sample ! I I I I -1 I I I I I .. ,

Appendix 7 WRT1 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/16/2000 found at Long Island NWR Complex, Site WRT1 ...

1 Sample# 1: 2 21 2( 2 3 31 3 3 4 41 4 4 5 5 5 SI 6 6 6 6 7 71 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 91 9 91 101 10 10\ 10 Sample Type! W! WI Bl Bl WI WI Bl Bl WI WI Bl Bl WI WI Bl Bl WI W Bl Bl WI WI Bl Bl WI WI Bl B WI WI Bl Bl WI WI Bl Bl WI WI al B 1 1 TAXA LIST I #1 mgl #) mgl #I mgl #I mgl #I mg\ #I mg! #I mgl #I~_#\ mg #I mgl #I mgj ~#\ mgL,& mgl #\ mg #I mgj _ #L m~ ttl mg I #\ mg I .. #I ma.L~I mg

Arqulidae 11 2

Ceratopoqonidae 861 10 1 l Chironomidae 21 DI 181[ 73 2 0 DI 1051 19 12! 3 0 0 3 0 5 2 7 2 186\ 25 l Coleoptera adults 1 11 1 I i \ Corixidae 120! 132 71 7 271 44 7 7 8 10 21 1 2 21 3 I I Diotera E!_UPae 61 1 1 I 11 21 0 51 2 2 1

DolichoQodidae - i - E[!_hvdridae larvae 1: DI 131 9 1! 1 171 6 2 4 l I Eohvdridae pupae 51 5 571 871161 13 2 2 31 7 5 3\ 2 1: 2 1 Gammaridae 10, 61 11 OI 21 1 401 31 DI 21 DI 11 3

I Gastropoda 101 185 11 29 11 10 11 131 21 621 Bl 117\ 1\ 111 57\ 10161 Bi 1701 20[ 433\ 1011481 11 201 4/ 70

Hvdrachnidia i I 11 O l ,_Hydrophilidae adults 11 1 1 I 3 3 2 i Hvdroohilidae larvae 3i 1 11 0 51 1 0 l - 1 Libe/lulidae 3i 4 4; 4 161 12 - I Mesoveliidae 61 1 21 _ 12 3 I I 1 101 1 15 41 8 2 I 1Ocypodidae I-~ Olig_ochaeta ·t--t- - 2 0 3 9 0 Palaemonidae 11 10 10

i I 1 Stratiomyjdae , I 1 I 0 71 121 ! 1 I o Talitridae 4! 1 11 2 - W = Water Column Sam.e_le l l B = Benthic Core Sam.e_le i ! I . 1 1 # = Number of individuals in sami:>_le ! I I I

mq = Drv weiqht/biomass of individuals in sample ~,-

Appendix 12 SPM3 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/23/2000 found at Supawna Meadows NWR, Site SPM3

I Sample# 1 I 1 1 1 21 2 2 2 3 3 31 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 101 10 10 10 Sample Type w! w B B w\ w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w W B B w w B B w w B B wl w B B i I TAXA LIST #i mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #I mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #I mg I I Baetidae 1i 0 2 0 3 1 11\ 10 i ! I Be/ostomatidae I 1 3 I Caenidae I 2 0 i Ceratopogonidae I 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 i I Chaoboridae ' I ' 3 1 29 1 14 0 i '· Chironomidae 12 0 38 1 24 1 6 1 5 0 1 0 28. 4 14 1 10 0 11 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 29 3 2 0 26 2 51 0 I I 1 i I' 2': 11, 3 19! 3 3 1 0 Coenagrionidae ' 1 0 63' 12 2 0 1 2 13 3 16 1 0 I ' Diptera pupae l I 2 0 1 0 i I : I ' I Oytiscidae adults i I I 61 218 11 77 \ Elmidae I' I 1 I 2 I I Gastropoda I I 1 1 1 0 6 14 4 1 I I Hydrachnidia I 11 0 I 8 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 1! 0 11 0 ' Hydrochidae ! I I 5 4 ! I Hvdrophilidae adults ! I I 10: 192 I I I Hvdrophilidae larvae ' I \ 1 1 I ! ' ' ! ' Hydroptilidae I ! ' 1 0 11 0 i I ! I 1 0 61 18 6 Libellulidae --- I I 9 16 2 2 1 1 6! '1 i Lirrinephilidae ; i ' 1i 1 ' I i I ! Mesoveliidae ' ' I ! 1i 0 i I Notonectidae ! I I 5 15 3 0 I I I ! ! l 12, 4 Oligochaeta ' I I I i I Pleidae I I I 1i 1 ! I I Pyralidae i I I 5[ 6 i ' I I Saldidae ! ! 2 0 2 0 1! 0 i ! i 1i 4 Sciomyzidae i ! ' I : i W =Water Column Sample I ! i I I I ! B =Benthic Core Sample ! i I i i I I I i !!_= Number of individuals in sample' ! I I I I ' I mq = Orv weight/biomass of individuals in sample I i I I i i ....

Appendix 13 Reference Collection Specimens, by Taxonomic Group: Summer 2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study

Higer Taxon Taxon LowerTaxon Common Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Acari Hydrachnidia thin water mite WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Acari Hydrachnidia round water mite WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Acari Hydrachnidia water mite WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Acari Hydrachnidia water mite SPM2 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Amphipoda Gammaridae amphipod WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Amphipoda Gammaridae amphipod WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Amphipoda Talitridae amphipod WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Annelida Oligochaeta small white annelid PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Annelida Oligochaeta 2 types of oligochaetes PMH2 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Annelida Oligochaeta worm, red or white when alive WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Branchiura Argulidae Argu/us parasitic fish louse WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Branchiura Argulidae Argu/us parasitic fish louse WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Coleoptera Coleoptera unknown family, adult water beetle WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Coleoptera Dytiscidae adult water beetle SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Elmidae adult water beetle SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Gyrinidae whirligig beetle SPM2 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Haliplidae crawling water beetle larva BMH3 Benthic 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Coleoptera Haliplidae adult crawling water beetle SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrochidae Hydrochus former subfamily of Hydrophilidae PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrochidae · former subfamily of Hydrophilidae SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus water scavenger beetle larva PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus water scavenger beetle larva PMH3 Water Column 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Tropisternus adult water scavenger beetle SPM1 Benthic 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle larva PMH3 Water Column 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle adult WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle larva WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae adult water scavenger beetle SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Scirtidae beetle larva PMH3 Water Column 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Decapoda Ocypodidae immature shore crabs WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Decapoda Palaemonidae shrimp WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate

Page 1 of 3 ••

Appendix 13 Reference Collection Specimens, by Taxonomic Group: Summer2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study •

Higer Taxon Taxon LowerTaxon Common Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 types, biting midge/no see 'um PMH3 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Chaoboridae phantom midge larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Chironomidae midge larva PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva PMH2 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva with case PMH3 Benthic 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR

Diptera Chironomidae midge larva 1WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Oiptera unknown family, large pupa with case PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Diptera 5 assorted pupae WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim .NWR Diptera Oiptera pupal case SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Oiptera pupa SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Dolichopodidae long-legged fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Dolichopodidae long-legged fly larva WRT1 Benthic 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Diptera Ephydridae Ephydra shore fly larva WRT1 Benthic 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Diptera Ephydridae shore fly pupa BMH1 Benthic 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly larva BMH2 Water Column 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly PMH3 Water Column 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly, pupal case and emerged adult PMH3 Water Column 7127100 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae 3 types of shore fly puparia WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ephydridae adult shore fly, emerged WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Diptera Sciomyzidae marsh fly larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Stratiomyiidae soldier fly larva PMH2 Benthic 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Stratiomyiidae soldier fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Oiptera Syrphidae Heliophilus flower fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Syrphidae Heliophilus flower fly larva WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Tabanidae horse/deerfly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR

Page 2 of 3 ~.

Appendix 13 Reference Collection Specimens, by Taxonomic Group: Summer 2000 • Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study

HigerTaxon Taxon LowerTaxon Common Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Ephemeroptera Baetidae "small minnow mayfly" SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Ephemeroptera Caenidae "small squaregill mayfly" SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Belostomatidae giant water bug nymph SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman, nymph and adult BMH2 Water Column 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman adults and nymph WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 ~upawna Meadows Hemiptera Mesoveliidae WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Hemiptera Mesoveliidae water treader WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Hemiptera Mesoveliidae water treader SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Notonectidae backswimmer SPM2 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Pleidae pigmy back swimmer SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Saldidae shore bug WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Hemiptera Saldidae shore bug SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Homoptera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface BMH2 Water Column 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Homoptera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR ~optera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Homoptera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate lsopoda Asellidae lsopod PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Lepidoptera IPyralidae aquatic moth larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Mollusca Bivalvia Dreissenacea bivalve shell WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate I Mollusca !Gastropoda Physidae snail, sinistral shell opening PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR

Mollusca .Gastropoda Physidae snail, sinistral shell opening PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 1 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca .Gastropoda Physidae snail, sinistral shell opening SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Mollusca Gastropoda snail PMH3 Water Column 7127100 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca Gastropoda snail PMH2 Benthic 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca Gastropoda snail WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Nemotoda Nematoda white aquatic free-living roundworm PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Nemotoda I Nematoda I aquatic free-living roundworm SPM2 Benthic 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Odonata Coenagrionidae damselfly larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Odonata Libellulidae dragonfly larva WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Odonata ILibellulidae dragonfly larva SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Trichoptera IHydroptilidae "microcaddis" (1-4 instars are caseless) SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Trichoptera ILimnephilidae early instar, caddisfly larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows

Page 3 of 3 .,.

Appendix 14 Reference Collection Specimens, by Refuge: Summer 2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study •

HigerTaxon Taxon LowerTaxon Common Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Diptera Ephydridae shore fly pupa BMH1 Benthic 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly larva BMH2 Water Column 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman, nymph and adult BMH2 Water Column 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Homoptera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface BMH2 Water Column 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Coleoptera Haliplidae crawling water beetle larva BMH3 Benthic 8/2/00 Bombay Hook NWR Annelida Oligochaeta small white annelid PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR - Coleoptera Hydrochidae Hydrochus former subfamily of Hydrophilidae PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus water scavenger beetle larva PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Diptera unknown family, large pupa with case PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR lsopoda Asellidae lsopod PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca Gastropoda Physidae snail, sinistral shell opening PMH1 Water Column 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca Gastropoda Physidae snail, sinistral shell opening PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Nematoda Nematoda white aquatic free-living roundworm PMH1 Benthic 7/21/00 Prime Hook NWR Annelida Oligochaeta 2 types of oligochaetes PMH2 7/26/00 Prime Hook ·NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva PMH2 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Stratiomyiidae soldier fly larva PMH2 Benthic 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca Gastropoda snail PMH2 Benthic 7/26/00 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus water scavenger beetle larva PMH3 Water Column 7127100 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle larva PMH3 Water Column 7127100 Prime Hook NWR Coleoptera Scirtidae beetle larva PMH3 Water Column 7127100 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 types, biting midge/no see 'um PMH3 7127100 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Chironomidae midge larva with case PMH3 Benthic 7127/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly PMH3 Water Column 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Diptera Ephydridae shore fly, pupal case and emerged adult PMH3 Water Column 7/27/00 Prime Hook NWR Mollusca Gastropoda snail PMH3 Water Column 7127/00 Prime Hook NWR

Page 1 of 4 .,,

Appendix 14 Reference Collection Specimens, by Refuge: Summer 2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study •

Higer Taxon Taxon LowerTaxon Common Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Coleoptera Haliplidae adult crawling water beetle SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Tropistemus adult water scavenger beetle SPM1 Benthic 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Ceratopogonidae biting midge/no see 'um SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Chironomidae midge larva SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Diptera pupal case SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Mesoveliidae water treader SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Odonata Libellulidae dragonfly larva SPM1 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Acari Hydrachnidia water mite SPM2 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Gyrinidae whirligig beetle SPM2 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Notonectidae backswimmer SPM2 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Nematoda· Nematoda aquatic free-living roundworm SPM2 Benthic 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Dytiscidae adult water beetle SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Elmidae adult water beetle SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrochidae former subfamily of Hydrophilidae SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Coleoptera Hydrophilidae adult water scavenger beetle SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Chaoboridae phantom midge larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Diptera pupa SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Diptera Sciomyzidae marsh fly larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Ephemeroptera Baetidae "small minnow mayfly" SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Ephemeroptera Caenidae "small squaregill mayfly" SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Belostomatidae giant water bug nymph SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Pleidae pigmy back swimmer SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Hemiptera Saldidae shore bug SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Lepidoptera Pyralidae aquatic moth larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Mollusca Gastropoda Physidae snail, sinistral shell opening SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Odonata Coenagrionidae damselfly larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Trichoptera Hydroptilidae "microcaddis" (1-4 instars are caseless) SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows Trichoptera Limnephilidae early instar, caddisfly larva SPM3 Water Column 8/23/00 Supawna Meadows

Page 2 of 4 ...

Appendix 14 Reference Collection Specimens, by Refuge: Summer2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study '

Higer Taxon Taxon LowerTaxon Common Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Amphipoda Gammaridae amphipod WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Amphipoda Gammaridae amphipod WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Amphipoda Talitridae amphipod WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Branchiura Argulidae Argulus parasitic fish louse WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Coleoptera Coleoptera unknown family, adult water beetle WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Decapoda Ocypodidae immature shore crabs WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Decapoda Palaemonidae shrimp WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Diptera Dolichopodidae long-legged fly larva WRT1 Benthic 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Diptera Ephydridae Ephydra shore fly larva WRT1 Benthic 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Diptera Ephydridae adult shore fly, emerged WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Hemiptera Corixidae water boatman WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Hemiptera Mesoveliidae water treader WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Homoptera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Homoptera Homoptera semi-aquatic insect found on water surface WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Mollusca Bivalvia Dreissenacea bivalve shell WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate Odonata Libellulidae dragonfly larva WRT1 Water Column 8/16/00 William Floyd Estate

Page 3 of 4 .. , Appendix 14 Reference Collection Specimens, by Refuge: Summer 2000 Non-Target Aquatic Invertebrate Community Study '

HigerTaxon Taxon LowerTaxon ICommon Name/Description Site Sample Source Date Refuge Acari Hydrachnidia !thin water mite WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR I Acari Hydrachnidia round water mite WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR I • Acari Hydrachnidia :water mite WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Annelida Oligochaeta Iworm, red or white when alive WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Branchiura Argulidae Argulus ': parasitic fish louse WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae iwater scavenger beetle adult WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Coleoptera Hydrophilidae :water scavenger beetle larva WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae !biting midge/no see 'um WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ceratopogonidae : biting midge/no see 'um WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Oiptera Chironomidae ! midge larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR I Diptera Chironomidae midge larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Oiptera Oiptera •5 assorted pupae WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Oiptera Dolichopodidae ; long-legged fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ephydridae :, 3 types of shore fly puparia WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Ephydridae ishore fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR

1 Diptera Stratiomyiidae soldier fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR 1 Oiptera Syrphidae Heliophilus I flower fly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Diptera Syrphidae Heliophilus \flower fly larva WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Oiptera Tabanidae ': horse/deerfly larva WRT2 Benthic 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Hemiptera Corixidae iwater boatman adults and nymph WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Hemiptera Mesoveliidae '. water treader WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Hemiptera Saldidae shore bug WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Homoptera Homoptera •semi-aquatic insect found on water surface WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR Mollusca Gastropoda snail WRT2 Water Column 8/16/00 Wertheim NWR

Page 4 of4 -(\

Appendix 8 WRT2 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/16/2000 ,;, found at Long Island NWR Complex, Site WRT2

I l Sample# 1'I 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 SI 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10

Sample Type w! w B B I w w B B w w B B W 1 W B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B w w B B I I I TAXA LIST #i, mg #I mg # mg # mg #,mg #! mg # mg # mg # mg #\ mg # mg #I mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #I mg # mg # mg ; I I Ceratopogonidae I i 13 1 2 0 381 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 1 0 I Chironomidae 1; 0 1 1 25 3 39 7 4 1 3 1 1 0 2 0 I I Corixidae 34; 28 11 1 152 204 7 5 34 15 3 1 129 42 2 2 53 26 I 6 2 I 221 38 35 22 1 1 41 24 12 9 23 10 I I I I ! ! Diptera pupae \ I ! 1 0 2 1 I : I I I I i I I I I Dolichopodidae I 1 1 ! I I ' I I I i i Ephydridaelarvae I 1 0 I 1 1 I I 1 0 I I ! I I I Ep_hydridae p_up_ae 6i 4 31 4 31 2 31 3 191 14 1 1 8 11 4 2 43 25 86! 72 I 10 6 9 3 15 2 7 1 26 15 91 5 11 1 ! l 'I I i Gastropoda ! ' 1 1 ! 1 6 I ! i I I Hydrachnidia I 2 1 11 1 4 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 I 3 1 2 1 i I I I I I Hydrop_hilidae adults I ! I 3 9 2i 8 I 2 4 1 4 I i I I 1 Hvdrophilidae larvae I 1 0 1 0 11 2 I 1 1 I 1 1, 3 2 ! 3 1 3 I I ! I I I Libe/lulidae I i 1 1 I 1 2 I i I I i I I ! I Mesoveliidae i 1 1 1 0 I 5 4 I 1 0 1 1 1 1 I 8,I 3 I I I I I I I I I Olig_och_aeta _ i 3 1 i 331 1 3 0 281 1 l 41 0 11 0 1; 0 1 0 13 0 2[ 0 31 0 i ! I I ! I Saldidae I 1 4 31 1 2 1 i I i '· I I I i ' ' ! ' I I Stratiomyidae I I 1: 1 I I 1 1 I ' \ I I I I I I I I §yrp_hidae I I I I 11 20 21 40 ' 1 I 7 I I I I I i Tabanidae I i 1 1 I I I I I I I ! I I I i i i I I I W =Water Column Sample l I I I I I I I i I I I ! I I B =Benthic Core Sample I I I I I i i i I i I I ' I I ! I ! I I # =Number of individuals in sample i I I I I I i i I I I I I I i I mo =Orv weiqht/biomass of individuals in sample I I I I I I I ' I I I .. ,

Appendix 9 WRT3 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/16/2000 found at Long Island NWR Complex, Site WRT3 0\

i I I I Sample# 1 1 1 1 21 2 21 2 31 3 3 3 41 4 4! 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 sl 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 101 10 : I ! ! I Sample Type w w B .B w w B B w w B B WI W Bj B w w B B w w B B w w ~ B w w B B w w B B w w Bi B I TAXA LIST # mg # mg #i mg #' mg # mg # mg #I mg #I mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg # me # mg # mg #I mg # mg # mg #I mg ' I I I I Araulidae ' I I 1 2 I I I i Ceratoooaonidae 4 0 541 3 I 1 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 5 0 121 1 I I I I I Corixidae 54\ 47 I 434\ 331 4 3 ,,3 15 32', 58 2\ 0 44 36 17 17 I 6 7 3 2 3 3 10 6 I i I I I I I lI 5', ' Diptera pupae '1 1 i I : I I 1 0 1 0 ' ! I I i i I' i I i I I I I Dolichooodidae I I 11 0 3 1 I I 3! 1 ! ! : ; ' ' I Ephvdridae larvae 11! 1 I 16, 1 1i 0 51 2 I 9 4 1 0 3 11 3 5 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 I 0 i : ' I I I I Ephvdridae ouoae 3! 5 I 12: 10 I 2 1 i 11 0 33 31 3 1 1 0 I 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I I i ! I I Gammaridae 11 0 I I I 24! 13 I I 1 0 4 0 1 0 I i I 1 I Hvdrachnidia I 31 1 ! 11 0 I 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 I I I I I I I i I Hvdruohilidae adultc 1 2 ' 21 40 11 1 10: 38 ' 1 2 2 3 I 1 2 10 15 1 1 I I i ! lf-!yQr_C!J].hilidae larvae 3 7 11 0 ! 61 12 11 0 i I I l i : I : I J:ibellulidae 2: 5 a: 33 7 33 1 3 I I I I I I I Mesoveliidae i I i i i I I 3 1 I I ! ; i i Oliaochaeta 1\ 0 1 0 11 0 3 0 I 1 0 ! ; I : Stratiomvidae I I 1' 29 ", i 2 26 I I i i falitridae 1! 0 I I 3 10 I I I I I i ! 'I I j I i i I I I i W =Water Column Sample , I I ! I I I I ! ! ·, I ! l I ' B =Benthic Core Sample i i ' I ! I ! I l # =Number of individuals in sample i l i ' I I i I I ma =Drv weiaht/biomass of individuals in samole i I i ! I I •J

Appendix 10 SPM1 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/23/2000 found at Supawna Meadows NWR, Site SPM1 ..

I ! Sample# 11 1 1 1 21 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 ! 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 101 10 ! Sample Type W! W B B B B w w w w B B w w B B W w B B w w B B W w B B W w B B w w B B WI I \ w Bi B i TAXA LIST #! mg # mg #.mg # mg # mg # mg I # mg # mg # mg # m11 # mg # mg # mg # mg # mg #I mg # mg # mg #I mg #I mg ' Ceratopoaonidae I 1 0 2 0 I Chironomidae I 4 0 6 0 4 0 5 0 4 0 181 3 14 0 5 0 3 0 I 4 0 2 0 i Coenaarionidae 1 1 1 0 ' I ! Corixidae I 9 7 I 2 1 i I Diptera pupae 1: 0 I ' al 0 1 0 I 1 0 I ' ! I I 1i 0 I I I I Ha/ip/idae I I i i I 4 11 1 2 I i I i i Hydrophilidae adults I I I I I I ! I I 1 1 20 I i I 1 1 I I I Libellulidae I' I I I 1 2 1 15 I 1 1 I ! I i I Mesove/iidae ! I I I I I I 1 1 1 0 I I I I i I I I W Water Column Sample j I = i I I ; I I I I I i I I ! B =Benthic Core Sample : I i ' I I ! i i I I I I I I # =Number of individuals in sample: I I I I ' I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I -- I I I I I ! I ' mg =Dry weight/biomass of individuals in sample I I I ' I I I I ! i I I I I i / I I I ~,

Appendix 11 SPM2 Raw Data: Numbers of Individuals and Biomasses of Invertebrate Taxa 8/23/2000 .,, found at Supawna Meadows NWR, Site SPM2

; I I Sami:>_lej! 1 I 1 21 21 2 21 31 31 31 31 4\ 4\ 4! 4 s: SI SI SI 61 6 6\ 61 7 71 7 71 Bi Bl B Bl 9 91 91 91 10 101 101 10 I 1 Sample Typel WI WI Bl Bl WI WI B Bl WI WI Bl Bl WI WI B, B Wi WI Bl Bl WI W Bl Bl WI WI B Bl WI WI B Bl W WI Bl Bl W WI Bl B

', i' TAXA LIST #! mg! #j mgJ #j mg! #j mg! #I mgJ #I mg! #j mgJ #! mg #\ mg! #J mgj #J mg #\ mgj #I mgl ~.J!l9l~I mgj _ #Jmgl #I mgj #I mg #\ mg_l ____!L_om

Belostomatidae 11 1 2\ 23

Ceratopog_onidae 1 I o I Chaoboridae i, 5 0 I I r r I I i f ' I 1 Chironomidae 51 1 21 0 4\ 1 1 ;: 0 1 I 01 15; 11 521 8( 4' 4 3: 11 4 1 I a 41 10i 1 4 2 6 2 16 19 , 3 3 I Coenagrionidae l I 11 11 0 3 4 51 I 11 I I ' Gastropoda '! : L_I 41 10

GJ!inidae i I I I I I I .1 I 211 I I I I 2' 52 Haliplidae I I I I I I I I I _l - I I I I I \ I 1 I 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I 21 101 I I 191 50 4 9

1 ~drachnidia 1 • I .I 'I 1• · 1 I• I. 26 ! 10 1 o 2I o 1 20 s • 1 2 I 1 I, 71 I 19[ 1 I ol -r-rr I I I ; I I : I I I HYQ(QJ)_hilidae adults I : : 1 3 21 47 74 1i 1 I sl Libel/ulidae n·1-1 -r I I I I I i I i I r I i I I I I I I I I I I I_ L l I 1_l _71 J ol _9l_ _20 5 Nematoda ! I I I i -I l _I J _i_L_I I , I : I 1! 1! I I I I I l I _I_ I_ l I I I I I I Notonectidae 1· I I I : I I I- J _l I IL l _:_l_l__LJ_J__l I I I I I I I I I 191 1sol I I 101 84

Oligoc_haeta r I I i I ! I !. I I I I : I . I I I I I I I 11 J J_J_l-1I_J _l_LLL_l Saldidae I ITTTI 0 I i I i ' i Tabanidae 1 1 1 f 2 1 ! 1 I I I W = Water Column Sam_ele : I ! I ' ' I I I B = Benthic Core Sam_ele ! ' i I I I I I # = Number of individuals in samplei r I I l I mg = Dry weight/biomass of individuals in sam_l)le l I