Establishment and Field Testing of a Rapid Bioassessment Screening of Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

Completion of a Research Project for Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

by

Mark Gould School of Science and Mathematics Roger Williams University Bristol, RI 02809 December 1993 INTRODUCTION Previous studies by the author (Gould 1991, 1992) resulted in the enumeration of the freshwater macroinvertebrates in Rhode Island over a period of two years. These studies, along with the present study, provide a baseline for further studies and the documentation of freshwater macrofauna present within the state. The 1990 to 1991 sampling of the Rhode Island streams yielded significant information concerning the distribution of the macrofauna. The methodology provided a fast collection and data interpretation device once proper identification in the field was obtained. The 1991 to 1992 study confirmed the methodology, and began to develop trends within the macrofauna populations. The continuation of the study in 1992 to 1993 presented in this paper, further refined the collection and analytical techniques and reports on longer term population structures within the streams of Rhode Island.

Stream invertebrates are well-adapted to their environment. Many species exist in the larval stage for a year or more; the adult often emerges for one or two days, mates, and dies. The survival of the species is dependent upon favorable environmental conditions in the water column. If conditions are not conducive at any time for the survival of a particular species, the stream will not support such a population. Species that occur in the freshwater environment are products of long-term environmental success.

The density and species composition of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates are controlled by many factors. These parameters may include substratum, temperature, oxygen concentration, organic content, and water chemistry. During the summer of 1993, the second driest summer on record occurred. Surface waters were at low levels. Many riffle communities were almost non-riffle environments. This produced a "worst case scenario" for the invertebrates within the streams.

The presence or absence of an organism can measure the effects of all past, short-, and long-term environmental stresses. Therefore, the use of benthic macroinvertebrates as indicator organisms for the evaluation of the quality of a water body is a valuable tool for monitoring aquatic ecosystems. It is relatively difficult to obtain quantitative samples of benthic invertebrates due to: a) the heterogeneity of the habitat type; b) the depth of the organisms in the substrate; c) the stage in the life of the organism (many emerge as winged adults); d) variations in discharge, environmental conditions such as ice, etc.; and e) movement and transport of the organisms. In Rhode Island two major human contributed factors that may affect species density and diversity are the amount of organic enrichment from point and non-point sources. In order to determine whether or not these factors affect water quality, this study continued to evaluate the aquatic macro-invertebrates found throughout Rhode Island. The information was analyzed to determine species composition and ecosystem structure, as well as to determine reference baseline data for freshwater habitats in the state.

Rhode Island water quality for freshwaters have been classified into three categories: Class A, Class B, and Class C. Class A waters are suitable for water supply and all other water uses. Class B waters are suitable for bathing, other recreational purposes, agricultural uses, industrial processes and cooling, excellent fish and wildlife habitat, good aesthetic value, and acceptable for

Z public water supply with appropriate treatment. Class C waters are suitable for fish and wildlife habitat, recreational boating, industrial processes and cooling, and good aesthetic value. These classifications are the result of standards that primarily reflect point source discharges into the rivers from treatment plants and industry. This survey sampled 24 Class A streams, 14 Class B streams and 2 Class C streams to determine if the macroinvertebrates would confirm these classifications. Further classification of streams according to stream order (first through fifth) was completed.

The objectives of this study were: 1. To continue to refine the methodology of a rapid quantitative selection method for the evaluation of benthic macroinvertebrates in the freshwaters of Rhode Island; 2. To compare the results obtained by this research with those obtained by other freshwater studies; 3. To document baseline populations of the macrofauna in Rhode Island waters. Materials and Methods Forty freshwater sites within the state of Rhode Island watershed were selected in the earlier study (Gould 1991) to measure the effect of varying water quality on the distribution of macrofauna. This survey sampled forty five locations with the addition of the at the Manville Dam, the Kickemuit River at Route 6 in Swansea, MA., Lawton's Brook below the Lawton Valley Reservoir in Portsmouth, the in Westerly, and Silver Creek in Bristol. Freshwater streams classified as A, B, or C of the first,second, and third orders were chosen; these included drinking water supply streams, known impacted urban streams, and rural streams. All of the selected sites were within the two ecoregions in Rhode Island (Narragansett/Bristol Lowland and Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills. Within each of the ecoregions the stations selected included different water quality standard types (see Table 1).

Water supply streams in the Scituate, Newport, North Kingstown, Bristol, and Pawtucket systems were included in the sampled streams. Impacted urban and suburban streams included those downstream from treatment plants and in urban environments while rural streams were considered to have minimal point source disturbances based on surrounding land uses and historical information.

Each site selected was sampled during the summer of 1993. In all instances the samples were taken within 3 meters of the original designated site. This was to minimize potential on-site differences caused by differences of the microhabitat within the stream. Temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured by means of a Hanna Water Meter at each station during the project. This information enabled the researcher to maintain a general physical/chemical picture of the stream sites. Another study conducted at the University of Rhode Island monitored many of the same stations for their chemical constituents.

All biological samples were field preserved in approximately 50% ethyl alcohol and transported to the laboratory for identification. Long-term preservation required at least 70% alcohol; samples once identified became reference samples which were properly preserved in mason jars and stored at Roger Williams University.

The summer sample was taken during July and August 1993. Samples were taken at the 45 sites. Protocol HI as outlined in Plafkin et al (1989) was utilized for analysis of samples. At any site, a minimum of 100 organisms was desired and when possible collected and identified at each

3 site as per method. Samples were identified in the field. Collection of organisms occurred at each site by collecting until at least 100 organisms were collected in the net samples (for most stations more than 100 specimens were collected within the net; therefore, these were counted in the methodology). Unidentified specimens were returned to the laboratory for identification. A hand-held drift net (source Wildco Supply) with an opening of 45 x 23 cm provided a reliable and repeatable sampling tool for the protocol. Approximately one square meter of riffle area above the net was thoroughly turned by hand and foot for each replicate for at least three minutes. It was determined (by experimentation and consultation with other researchers conducting the protocols) that three samples of approximately 1.0 m2 in the stream were sufficient to generate suitable specimens that would be indicative of the riffle community in the stream.

Results and Discussion According to the Protocol (Chapter 5), a delineation of the streams by a series of metrics was necessary. This was accomplished by observations made at each site visits by obtaining samples of the sediment, rock/grain size, and determining other physical parameters.

At each station the following were noted or measured: a. predominant surrounding land use b. local watershed erosion c. local watershed nonpoint source pollution d. estimated stream width in meters e. estimated stream depth in meters f. high water mark in meters g. velocity h. dam presence or absence near the site i. channelization j . canopy cover k. sediment odor 1. sediment oils m. sediment deposits n. inorganic substrate components o. organic substrate components According to the protocol (Chapter 5) delineation of the condition/parameters into primary (substrate and in stream cover), secondary (channel morphology), and tertiary (riparian bank structure) occurs. The above metrics are reported in Table 2.

One notes that the values for the sites (based on 130 points as outlined in Section 5-6 of the Protocol) range from a low of 30 for the in Providence to a high of 116 for in Hopkinton. Ten sites considered comparable to the reference site were those that had values of ninety percent or greater of the Ashaway score. Those stations with physical scores of 102 and greater were considered to be environments, based on their physical habitat, to be similar or comparable to each other.

Those stations with physical scores of approximately seventy five to eight eight percent of the top-reference site (Ashaway) ranged in values from 84 to 98 points. Seventeen stations fell within this range which the protocol considers to be "supporting" for the physical habitat when the station is compared to the reference station.

V "Partially supporting" physical habitat stations were determined by multiplication of the "Ashaway site score by at approximately sixty percent but not more than seventy three percent. These stations had a range of 59 to 74 points; six stations were within this range. Those stations that did not achieve at least sixty percent of the reference station physical measurements were considered to be "non-supporting". Eleven stations fell within this category. A relative comparability based on habitat and physical parameters was constructed (see Table 3) which presents the stations in a numerical listing from high to low based on the biological score of using the Wood River for the state's reference station. Also listed in Table 3 are the biological scores using the Fall River as the state's reference station. As mentioned above, by analyzing the protocol's physical parameters, the determination of a reference site was made. However, even though the Ashaway site received the highest value in the matrix, it was felt that based on the location of the Ashaway site (below the dam), physical factors such as oxygenation would be affected. This could bias the results. Therefore, based on land use, biological observations of all the stations (number of species and types) and the physical parameters, two all state reference sites were selected for review, the Wood and the Fall Rivers. These were determined to be the reference station for the entire state based on the criteria outlined in Plafkin et al.

Biologically, the stations were found to be quite diverse. Approximately 130 species were identified. This compares to 150 species in 1992. Representative species are reported in Table 4. These species were collected during the summer 1993 sample. The table is an all stations compilation. One of the prime objectives of this study was to determine the bioassessment feasibility of the Protocol methodology within the watersheds of Rhode Island. Upon determination of the reference stations, the following indices were computed for each station as described in Plafkin et al (Chapter 6): the biological composition, taxa richness, shredders to total ratio, EPT index, FBI index, scrapers to filterers ratio and the EPT to chironomid ratio. Further, the communities were compared to the Fall and Wood Rivers by means of the Community Similarity index.

Each of these criteria for characterization of biological conditions are described in detail in Plafkin etal. (1989). The complete biological matrix by station required to run the Protocol is provided in Tables 5 and 6 based on the Fall and Wood Rivers as the reference station. Family level tolerance classification is required for completion of the Protocol. The protocol's appendix C (Tables C-l and C-2) represent the values determined for most calculations in the Protocol and represent values published in the literature. In some instances when specific organisms were not indicated in the tables, values for tolerance were determined by the author based on the literature values for similar organisms and observations of the organisms. This allowed completion of the Protocol.

With each of the biological indices completed, the bioassessment component of the Protocol was conducted . Each of the metrics is scored differently (see Plafkin et al. Table 6.3.4). Numeric values based on the summer 1993 survey have been presented for each site. These were determined by Protocol standards (the numeric ranking of stations is based on the Wood in Table 6 and Adamsville in Table 7).

Upon analysis of the biological assessment for the Wood River, two of the sites were considered to be non-impaired (>83% of the Wood value) while 32 were considered to be slightly impaired (54-79% of the Wood value) based on the percentage relationship of the station to the Wood system. The remainder of the stations were considered to be moderately impaired (21-50% of the Wood value) by utilization of the metric proposed by the Protocol. As noted in the

S introduction, this survey sampled forty five stations, thirty eight were considered to be Class B or better (24 Class A).

A similar comparison was conducted for the Fall River. Upon analysis of this biological assessment for the Fall River, only one of the sites was considered to be non-impaired (>83% of the Fall value) while 25 were considered to be slightly impaired (54-79% of the Fall value) based on the percentage relationship of the station to the Fall system. The remainder of the stations were considered to be moderately impaired (21-50% of the Wood value) by utilization of the metric proposed by the Protocol. From the comparison of the Fall and Wood River data, it was determined to use the Wood River as the state reference site in all future work. The Adamsville site as the reference indicated that most of the stations are slightly impaired when compared both in 1993 and in 1991. Further analysis of the data will be conducted. A nonimpaired station is comparable to the best situation to be expected with an ecoregion. These stations would have balanced trophic structure and optimum community structure for the stream size and habitat quality. A slightly impaired station has a community structure that is less than expected in that species composition is lower due to the loss of some intolerant forms. Tolerant forms increase in this stage. Moderately impaired stations have fewer species due to a loss of most intolerant forms as well as the reduction in EPT. Severely impaired stations have few species present and often these stations are dominated by one or two species. These stations are often within urban areas. The relative value of a particular metric for Rhode Island watersheds was considered dependent upon the presence or absence of a particular taxonomic group. Species variation from station to station occurred. Combined with differences caused by stream order, e.g. comparison of the first order stream in Jamestown with the fourth order stream at Wood is a poor comparison due to physical differences between the sites (please refer to the Addendum for further details). All data was interpreted by means of the indices proposed by the Protocol.

The EPT/Chironomid ratio was considered to be of limited value due to the spotty appearance of the groups.

The taxa richness, the EPT index, the scrappers to filterers ratio, and per cent contribution indices were considered to be valuable potential diagnostic values. Comparison to reference stations in southern New England need to be completed. Unfortunately, the variation between the watersheds is great and comparison of the same river system both upstream and downstream from potential impact needs to be done. The community similarity index offered a good comparison of stations in relationship to the Nooseneck system.

On-site observations and collections provide the researcher with information concerning biotic diversity and stream dynamics. The use of the state freshwater classification system and the use of indices that accurately portray the biological organisms within the study area requires the development and understanding of both the organisms and the flaws within the collection/enumeration process. Habitat assessment better delineated the stations and an index based on the actual organism types present will provide a bioassessment protocol of increased value for this region.

A habitat assessment and biological assessment of Dolly Cole Stream based on five locations upstream and downstream from the Route 6 bridge was continued from 1991 during this study. This research indicated that the habitats are similar except for the area directly below the bridge and the bioassessment scores indicated that the station below the bridge was moderately impaired while the other stations were either non-impaired or slightly impaired. This study showed

C a potential use of the protocol within the state on a site basis. A paper is being prepared. As mentioned earlier, the 1993 collection was during drought conditions. Low water flow resulted in fewer riffles. This directly affected the total number of specimens collected and probably resulted in the biological protocol similarity of many stations. An analysis of the stream flow data for 1993 compared to previous year data will be conducted.

7 Acknowledgements This study was the result of a grant from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of Environmental Coordination to Roger Williams University, School of Science and Mathematics. The author would like to thank the following for their contributions to this study: Karen Blackburn and Hannah Gould accompanied the investigator in the field and helped in the sample, identification, and enumeration of the macroinvertebrates. Richard Koch, Professor of Chemistry at Roger Williams University, who assisted in the EXCEL interpretation. Robert Richardson of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management provided direction and insight on many facets of the project.

H Bibliography Adler, P.H. and K.C. Kim. 1986. The Blackflies of Pennsylvania (Simulidae, Diptera) Bionomics, , and Distribution. Agric. Exp. Station, Penn State University. University Park, PA. 88 p. Alba-Tercedor, J. and O. Sanchez-Ortega. 1991. Overview and Strategies of Ephemeroptera and . Sandhill Crane Press. Gainesville, FL. 588 p. Allen, R.K. and G.F. Edmonds. 1959. A Revision of the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). I. The subgenus Timpanoga. Canadian Entomologist 91:51-58. Barwick, D.H. and P.L. Hudson. 1985. Food and Feeding of Fish in Hartwell Reservoir Tailwater, Georgia-South Carolina. Proc. Ann. Conf. SE Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39:185-193. Bednarik, A. F. and W. P. McCafferty. 1979. Systematic revision of the genus Stenonema (Ephemeroptera:Heptageniidae). Canadian Bull Fish and Aquatic Sci. 201. 73 p. Bergman,E. A. and W.L. Hilsenhoff. 1978. Baetis (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) of Wisconsin. Great Lakes Entomologist. 11:125-135. Bode, R.W. 1983. Larvae of North American Eukiefferiella and Tvetenia (Diptera: Chironomidae). NY State Museum. Albany. 40 p. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1986. Guide to the Freshwater Aquatic Microdile Oligochaetes of North America. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 84. Dept. Fisheries and Oceans. Ottawa, Canada. 259 p. Brinkhurst, R.O. and B.G. Jamieson. 1971. Aquatic Oligochaeta of the World. Univ. Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 860 p. Burch, J.B. 1972. Freshwater Sphaeriacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DC 31 p. Burch, J.B. 1982. Freshwater Snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of North America . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/3-82-026. 294 p. Burian, S.K. and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Tech. Bull. 142. 109 p.

Cupp, E.W. and A.E. Gordon. 1983. Notes on the Systematics, Distribution, and Bionomics of Black Flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the Northeastern United States. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. No. 25. Ithaca, NY 76 p.

Davies, S.P., L. Tsomides, D. Courtemanch, and F. Drummond. 1991. Biological Monitoring and Biocriteria Development Program Summary. Maine Dept. Env. Protection. Augusta. 47 p.

Edmunds. G.F., S.L. Jensen, and L. Berner. 1976. The Mayflies of North and Central America. Univ. Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 330 p. Gould, M.D. 1991. Establishment and Field Testing of a Rapid Bioassessment Screening of Rhode Island Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Research Project for RI Department of Env. Management. 54 p.

Gould, M.D. 1992. Establishment and Field Testing of a Rapid Bioassessment Screening of Rhode Island Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Research Project for RI Department of Env. Management. Hilsehhoff, W.L. 1982. Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin. Madison. 60 p. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. Tech Bull. 132. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res. 22 p. Hobbs, H.H. 1972. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. US EPA, Washington. 173 p. Holsinger, J.R. 1972. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. US EPA, Washington. 89 p.

Hubbard, M.D. 1990. Mayflies of the World: A Catalog of the Family and Genus Taxa (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Flora and Fauna Handbook No. 8. Sandhill Crane Press. Gainesville, FL. 119 p.

Hudson, P.L. 1987. Unusual Larval Habitats and Life History of Chironomid (Diptera) Genera. Ent. Scand. Suppl. Lund, Sweden. 29:369-373. Hudson, P.L. and SJ. Nichols. 1986. Benthic Community of the Savannah River Below a Peaking Hydropower Station. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 102:107-121. Hynes, H.B. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool, UK. 555 p.

Jokinen, E.H. 1983. The Freshwater Snails of Connecticut. Bull. 109. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Surv. Hartford. 83 p.

Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management. Ecological Applications 1:66-84. Klemm, J. 1982. Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) of North America. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-600/3-82-025.177 p. Klemm, J. 1985. A Guide to the Freshwater Annelida (Polychaeta, Naidid and Tubificid Oligochaeta, and Hirudinea) of North America. Kendall-Hunt. Dubuque, Iowa. 198 pp. Klyuge, N. Yu. 1989. Genetic Revision of the Heptageniidae (Ephemeroptera): I. Diagnosis of Tribes, Genera, and Subgenera of Heptageniidae. Entomol. Rev. 68:1-24.

Lehmkuhl, D.M. 1979. How to Know the Aquatic Insects. Wm. C. Brown Co. Dubuque, LA. 168 pp. Malcolm, S.E. 1971. The Water Beetles of Maine: Including the Families Gyrinidae, Haliphidae, Dytiscidae, Noteridae, and Hydrophilidae. Tech Bull. 48. Life Science and Agric. Exper. Station. Orono. 49 p.

/0 Maschwitz, D.E. 1975. Revision of the Nearctic Species of the Subgenus Polypedilum (Chironomidae:Diptera). Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Minnesota. Minneapolis. 325 p.

McCafferty, W.P. 1991. Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of the Ephemeroptera (Insecta): A Commentary on Systematics. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 84:343-360. McCafferty, W.P. and R.D. Waltz. 1990. Revisionary Synopsis of the Baetidae (Ephemeroptera) of North and Middle America. Trans. Am. Entomolo. Soc. 116:769-799. Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins.(ed). 1978. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America Kendall-Hunt Publ. Co. Dubuque, Iowa. 441p. Needham, J.G. and P.R. Needham. 1962. A Guide to the Study of Fresh-Water Biology. Holden- Day, San Francisco, CA. 108 pp. Oliver, D. R. and R.W. Bode. 1985. Description of the Larva and Pupa of Cardiocladius albiplumus (Diptera: Chironomidae). Canadian Entomologist. 117:803-809. Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.J. Penton, and DJ. Conklin. 1990. Freshwater Macro­ invertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell Univ. Press. Ithaca, NY.442 p. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 628 p. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers:Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/444/4-89-001. Washington. Provonsha, A. 1990. A Revision of the Genus Caenis in North America (Ephemeroptera, Caenidae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 116:801-884. Reynoldson, T.B., D.W. Schloesser, and B. A. Manny. 1989. Development of a Benthic Invertebrate Objective for Mesotrophic Great Lakes WatersJ.Great Lakes Res.l5:669-686. Roback, S.S. 1981. The Immature Chironomids of the Eastern United States V. Pentaneurini- Thienemannimyia Group. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. 133:73-128. Ross, H.H. 1972. The , or Trichoptera, of Illinois. Entomological Reprint. Los Angeles. 326 p. Saether, O.A. 1977. Taxonomic Studies on Chironomidae: Nanocladius, Pseudochironomus, and the Harnischia complex. Bull. 196. Dept of Fish and Aquatic Sci. Ottawa. 143 p.

Schloesser, D.W. 1988. Zonation of Mayfly Nymphs and Larvae in the St.Marys River. J. Great Lakes Res. 14:227-233.

Schuster, G.A. and D.A. Ethier. 1978. A Manual for the Identification of the Larvae of the Caddisfly Genera Hydropsyche and Symphitopsyche in Eastern and Central North America (Trichoptera: ). EPA 600/4-78-060. US EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio. 129 p. Smith, D.G. 1986. Keys to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Massachusetts. 1. Mollusca Pelecypoda (Clams, Mussels). Mass. Div. Water Poll. Control. Westborough. 53 p.

/ 1 Smith, D.G. 1987. Keys to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Massachusetts. 2. Mollusca Mesogastropoda (Operculate Snails). Mass. Div. Water Poll. Control. Westborough. 35 p.

Smith, D.G. 1988. Keys to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Massachusetts. 3. Crustacea Malacostraca (Crayfish, Isopods, Amphipods). Mass. Div. Water Poll. Control. Westborough. 58 p. Smith, D.G. 1989. Keys to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Massachusetts. 4. Benthic Colonial Phyla (Colonial Hydrozoans, Moss ). Mass. Div. Water Poll. Control. Westborough. 49 p. Soponis, A.R. 1977. A Revision of the Nearctic Species of Orthocladius (Diptera: Chironomidae). Entomological Soc. Canada. 187 p. Simpson, K.W. and R.W. Bode. 1980. Common Larvae of Chironomidae (Diptera) from New York Streams and Rivers. Bull. 439. NY State Museum. Albany. 105 p.

Simpson, K.W., R.W. Bode, and P.Albu. 1983. Keys for the Genus Cricotopus Adapted from Hirvenoja's work. Bull. 450. NY State Museum. Albany. 133 p.

Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 1. Univ. Toronto Press.Toronto, Canada. 292 p. Walker, E.M. 1958. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 2. Univ. Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 318 p Walker, E.M. and P.S. Corbet. 1975. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 3. Univ Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 307 p. Weber, C.I. (ed). 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. EPA 670/4-73-001. US EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio. 146 p.

Wetzel, R. 1982. Limnology . Saunders Publishing. Philadelphia. 767 p. Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic Region. Part 1. Larvae. Supp. 19. Entomologica Scandinavica. Lund, Sweden. 457 p. Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1986. Chironomidae of the Holarctic Region. Part II. Pupae. Suppl. 28 Entomologica Scandinavica. Lund, Sweden. 482 p. Wiggins, G.B. 1977. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly (Trichoptera). Univ Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 401 p.

Williams, W.D. 1972. Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of North America. US EPA. Washington. 45 p.

Wilson, R.S. and JD. McGill. 1982. A Practical Key to the Genera of Pupal Exuviae of the British Chironomidae (Diptera, Insecta). Univ. Bristol, Bristol, England. 62 p.

Wood, D.M., B.V Peterson, D.M. Davies, and H. Gyorkos. 1963. The Blackflies of Ontario. Part II. Larval Identification, with Descriptions and Illustrations. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Ontario. 93:99-129.

iZ­ Table 1. Stream Sampling Sites for the 1993 Biological Monitoring Program, Indicating stream order and ecoregion: Narragansett/Brlstol Lowland region (NBLR) and Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills region (SNECPHR)

Stream Stream Order Ecoregion

Abbot Run Brook North 3 NBLR Abbot Run Brook South 3 NBLR Adamsville 3 NBLR Ashaway 2 SNECPHR Bailey's Brook 1 NBLR Beaver River 2 SNECPHR 3 SNECPHR Blackstone River 5 SNECPHR Buckeye Brook 2 NBLR Bucks Horn Brook 3 SNECPHR Canonchet Brook 2 SNECPHR 2 SNECPHR 3 SNECPHR Clear River 4 SNECPHR Cold Brook 2 NBLR Congdon Brook 2 SNECPHR Dolly Cole Brook 2 SNECPHR Dundery Brook 1 NBLR Fall River 3 SNECPHR Hardig Brook 2 SNECPHR Hemlock Brook 3 SNECPHR Hunt River 4 NBLR/SNECPHR Jamestown Brook 1 NBLR Keech Brook 2 SNECPHR Kickemuit River 3 NBLR Lawton's Valley 2 NBLR 1 NBLR Meadow Brook 2 SNECPHR Moswansicut Brook 1 SNECPHR 2 SNECPHR 2 SNECPHR Parris Brook 2 SNECPHR 2 SNECPHR Pawcatuck River 5 SNECPHR 5 SNECPHR Queens River 3 SNECPHR Rush Brook 2 SNECPHR 3 SNECPHR Swamp Brook 1 SNECPHR Silver Creek 1 NBLR Ten Mile River 2 NBLR Tomaquag Brook 2 SNECPHR Wilbur Hollow Brook 3 SNECPHR Wood River 4 SNECPHR Woonasquatucket River 4 SNECPHR

i3 Table 2. Rating' of Streams based on physical metrics

Stream Total Physical Score

Ashaway River 116 Nooseneck River 113 Bucks Horn Brook 112 Wood River 11 1 Dolly Cole Brook 107 Hemlock Brook 107 Moswansicut Brook 107 Keech Brook 105 Rush Brook 105 Adamsville Brook 104

Fall River 102 Meadow Brook 098 Saugatucket River 097 Wilbur Hollow Brook 097 Swamp Brook 094

Abbot Run Brook- North 093 Maidford River 093 Nipmuc River-- Top Brook. 092

Parris Brook 092

Carr River 090

Tomaquag Brook 088

Clear River 086 Pascoag River 086

Beaver River 085

Congdon Brook 085 Hardig Brook 085 Abbot Run Brook South 084 Queens River 084

Chipuxet River 074 Hunt River 072

Cold Brook 063

Canonchet Brook 062

Pawtuxet River 062

Dundery Brook 059

Buckeye Brook 055

(H Stream Total Physical Score

Lawton's Valley 055 Bailey's Brook 054 Kickemuit River 051 Blackstone River 050 Jamestown Brook 050 Pawcatuck River 050 Silver Creek 049 Ten Mile River 049 Big River 044 Woonasquatucket River 030

IS Table 3. Rating of stream based on Wood River as reference with physical metrics 1 isted . Fall Riversas reference also indicated.

Stream Total Physic Biological Score Wood Biological Score Fall F

Dolly Cole Brook 107 83 71 Beaver River 085 83 62 Tomaquag Brook 088 78 71 Ten Mile River 049 78 62 Parris Brook 092 78 67 Hunt River 072 78 67 Hardig Brook 085 78 71 Fall River 102 78 100 Buckeye Brook 055 78 43 Wilbur Hollow Brook 097 72 62 Rush Brook 105 72 62 Nooseneck River 113 72 86

Nipmuc River- Top Brook. 092 72 71

Meadow Brook 098 72 62 Keech Brook 105 72 81

Hemlock Brook 107 72 62 Congdon Brook 085 72 62 Cold Brook 063 72 71 Bucks Horn Brook 112 72 62 Adamsville Brook 104 72 67 Silver Creek 049 67 62

Maidford River 093 67 67

Dundery Brook 059 67 67

Bailey's Brook 054 67 71 Pawcatuck River 050 61 67

Pascoag River 086 61 52

Moswansicut Brook 107 61 52

Blackstone River 050 61 57 Big River 044 61 67 Ashaway River 116 61 51

Swamp Brook 094 56 52

Kickemuit River 051 56 48 Clear River 086 56 52

Carr River 090 56 48 Jamestown Brook 050 50 62

/£ Stream Total Physic Biological Score Wood Biological Score! Fall F

Abbot Run Brook South 084 50 38

Queens River 084 44 38 Chipuxet River 074 44 38

Abbot Run Brook- North 093 44 33

Pawtuxet River 062 39 33 Lawton's Valley 055 39 43 Canonchet Brook 062 39 29 Woonasquatucket River 030 33 33 Saugatucket River 097 33 33 Wood River 111 100 , 52

/? Table 4. Species list for 1993 sampling period. All station compilation..

ORGANISM ORDER FAMILY

Crangonyx obliquis-ricl Amphipoda Crangonyctidae

Gammarus fasciatus Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus lacustris Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. Amphipoda Gammaridae Hyalella azteca Amphipoda Talitridae Agabus sp. Coleoptera Dytiscidae Anchydorsus sp. Coleoptera Ptilodactylidae Ancyronyx variegata Coleoptera Elmidae Cybister sp. \ Coleoptera Dytiscidae Cylloepus sp. Coleoptera Elmidae Dineutus sp. Coleoptera Gyrinidae Donacia sp. Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Dubiraphia sp. Coleoptera Elmidae

Graphoderus sp. Coleoptera Dytiscidae

Gyrinus sp. Coleoptera Gyrinidae

Haliplus sp. Coleoptera Haliplidae

Hydrophilus sp. Coleoptera Hydrophilidae

Macronychus sp.? Coleoptera Elmidae Neoelmis sp. Coleoptera Elmidae

Optioservus sp. Coleoptera Elmidae Promoresia sp. Coleoptera Elmidae

Psephenus sp. Coleoptera Psephenidae Sperchopis sp. Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Stenelmis sp. Coleoptera Elmidae Tropisternus sp. Coleoptera Hydrophilidae

Cambarus diogenes Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes propinquus Decapoda Astacidae

Orconectes rusticus Decapoda Astacidae Orcopectes virilis Decapoda Astacidae

Procambarus acutus Decapoda Cambarinae

Ablabesymia sp. Diptera Chironomidae

Ablabesymyia sp. Diptera Chironomidae Antocha sp. Diptera Tipulidae

Atherix variegata Diptera Athericidae Boreochlus sp. Diptera Chironomidae/Podonominae

/* ORGANISM ORDER FAMILY

Chironomos sp. Diptera Chironomidae

Clinocera sp. Diptera Empididae

Dicranota sp. Diptera Tipulidae > Dortylolabis sp. Diptera Tipulidae Eukiefferiella sp. Diptera Chironomidae Hemerodromia sp. Diptera Empididae Hexatoma sp. Diptera Tipulidae Leptotarsus sp. Diptera Tipulidae Limnophilia sp. Diptera Tipulidae Pedicia sp. Diptera Tipulidae Pentaneura sp. Diptera Tanypodinae Protanypus sp. (?) Diptera Chironomidae/Diamesinae Pseudosplittia sp? Diptera Chironomidae Simulium sp. Diptera Simulidae Simulium venustum Diptera Simulidae

Tipula abdominalis Diptera Tipulidae Tipula sp. Diptera Tipulidae Tipula strepens Diptera Tipulidae Accrpenna sp. Ephemeroptera Baetidae Ameletus sp. Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae Arthroplea sp. Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae

Caenis sp. Ephemeroptera Caenidae Dannella sp. Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae

Epeorus sp. Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Ephemerella sp. Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae

Heptagenia sp. Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Isonychia sp. Ephemeroptera Oligoneuridae Leptophlebia sp. Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Macdunnoa sp. Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae

Paraleptophebia sp. Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae

Potamanthus sp. Ephemeroptera Potamanthidae

Serratella sp. Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae

Siphlonurus sp. Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae

Siphloplectron sp. Ephemeroptera Metretopodidae Stenonema sp. Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae

n ORGANISM ORDER FAMILY

Amnicola walkeri Gastropoda Hydrobiidae

Campeloma decisum Gastropoda Viviparidae Fossaria abrussa Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Fossaria galbana Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Laeuapex fuscus Gastropoda Ancylidae Lymnaea columella Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Physa sayi Gastropoda Physidae Physa sp. Gastropoda Physidae Physella sp. (?) Gastropoda Physidae Planorbula sp. Gastropoda Planorbidae

Valvata sincere Gastropoda Valvatidae

Valvata sp. Gastropoda Valvatidae Viviparus subpurpureus Gastropoda Viviparidae Gerris sp. Hemiptera Gerridae

Rhagovelia distincta Hemiptera Veliidae Erpobdella punctata Hirudinea Erpobdeliidae

Helobdella elongata Hirudinea Glossiphoniidae Helobdella sp. Hirudinea Glossiphoniidae

Helobdella stagnalis Hirudinea Glossiphonidae

Moorebdella fervida Hirudinea Erpobdeliidae

Moorebdella sp. Hirudinea Erpobdeliidae

Myzobdella lugubris Hirudinea Piscicolidae Placobdella hollensis Hirudinea Glossophoniidae Placobdella montifera Hirudinea Glossophoniidae Placobdella papillifera Hirudinea Glossiphoniidae Caecidotea sp. Isopoda Asellidae Lirceus sp. Isopoda Asellidae

Langessa sp. Lepidoptera Pyralidae Parapoynx sp. Lepidoptera Pyralidae Corydalus sp. Megaloptera Corydalidae

Nigronia sp. Megaloptera Corydalidae Sialis sp. Megaloptera Sialidae Aplexa hypnorum Mollusca Physidae Gyraulus (torquis) par Mollusca Planorbidae

Planorbella trivolvis gr Mollusca Planorbidae

7o ORGANISM ORDER FAMILY

Aeshna sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Aeshnidae

Basiaeschna sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Aeshnidae

Boyeria sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Aeshnidae

Cordulegaster sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Cordulegastridae

Didymops sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Macromidae Dorocordulias sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Corduliidae Gomphus hodgesi Odonata/Anisoptera Gomphidae Gomphus sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Gomphidae Lanthus sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Gomphidae Leucorrhinia sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Libellulidae Ophiogomphus sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Gomphidae Perithemis sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Libellulidae Progomphus sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Gomphidae Somatochlora sp. (?) Odonata/Anisoptera Corduliidae Stylogomphus sp. Odonata/Anisoptera Gomphidae Amphiagrion sp. Odonata/Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Argia sp. Odonata/Zygoptera Zoenagrionidae Hetaerina sp. Odonata/Zygoptera Calopterygidae Calopteryx sp. Odonota/Zygoptera Calopterygidae Haplotaxis gordioides Oligochaeta Haplotaxidae

Ophiodonais serpentina Oligochaeta

Tubifex tubifex Oligochaeta Tubificidae Chaetogaster sp. (?) Oligochaeta/Tubificid Naididae Anodonata grandia Pelecypoda Unionacea Margaritifera margarii Pelecypoda Unionidea

Musculium sp. Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae Sphaerium sp. Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae Bothromesostoma mac Platyhelminthes Neorhabdocoela Acroneuria sp. Plecoptera

Agnetina sp. Plecoptera Perlidae

Attaneuria sp. Plecoptera Perlidae

Beloneuria sp. Plecoptera Perlidae

Classemia sabulosa Plecoptera Perlidae Eccoptura sp. Plecoptera Perlidae

Z,( ORGANISM ORDER FAMILY

Haploperla sp. Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Isoperla sp. Plecoptera Perlodidae Neoperla sp. Plecoptera Perlidae Paragnetina sp. Plecoptera Perlidae Peltoperla sp. Plecoptera Peltoperlidae Peltoperla sp. Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta sp. Plecoptera Perlidae Plecoptera Perlidae Pteronarcys sp. Plecoptera Pteronarcyidae Shipsa sp. Plecoptera Nemouridae Strophopteryx sp. Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx sp. Plecoptera Taeinopterygidae

Tallopela sp. Plecoptera Perlidae Adicrophelps sp. Trichoptera Brachycentridae Anabolia sp. Trichoptera Limnophilidae

Anabolia sp. Trichoptera

Apatania sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae

Apatania sp. Trichoptera Philpotamidae

Arctopsyche sp. (?) Trichoptera Hydropsychidae sp. Trichoptera Beraeidae

Brachycentrus sp. Trichoptera Brachycentridae

Cheumatopsyche sp. Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Chimarra sp. Trichoptera

Desmona sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae

Diplectrona sp. Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Glossosoma sp. Trichoptera

Glossosoma sp. Trichoptera Glossosomatidae

Goera sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae Helicopsyche sp. Trichoptera Heliopsychidae Heteroplectron sp. Trichoptera Calamoceratidae Hydatophylax sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae Lepidostoma sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae

Limnephilus sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae Lype sp. Trichoptera Macronema sp. Trichoptera Hydropsychidae

77 ORGANISM ORDER FAMILY

Macrostemum sp. Trichoptera Hydropsychidae

Madeophylax sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae •

Micrasema sp. Trichoptera Brachyentridae

Molanna sp. Trichoptera Molannidae •••

Neophylax sp. Trichoptera Uenoidae Neotrichia sp. Trichoptera Neureclipsis sp. Trichoptera Nyctiophylax sp. Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Oecetis sp. Trichoptera Leptuceridae Parapsyche sp. Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Platycentropus Trichoptera Limnophilidae Polycentropus sp. Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Potamyia sp. Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Pseudostenophylax sp. Trichoptera Limniphidiae Psilotreata sp. Trichoptera Odontoceridae Psilotreta sp. Trichoptera Odontoceridae Psychoglypha sp. Trichoptera Limnephilidae Ptilostomis sp. Trichoptera Phryganeidae Pynopsyche scabripenr Trichoptera Limnephilidae Rhyacophila sp. Trichoptera

Theliopsyche sp. Trichoptera Lepidostomatidae Trichoptera Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hagenella sp. Tricoptera Phryganeidae

Hydropsyche sp. Tricoptera Hydropsychidae Brychius sp. Hastaperla sp.

Z3> i -tL 5. Masterstat/Wood'93 447. 3oV. 72% A B c D E F G H 1 1 Sh F Sc TL Wood Abbot Run (No Abbot Run (So Adamsville 2 Hirudinea 10 - - - 1 3 Tubificidae 10 - - - ­ 4 Oligochaeta 7 1 - - ­ 5 Isopoda 8 - - - 1 6 Amphipoda 4 - - - 4 7 Decapoda 5 - - - ­ 8 Gastropoda 6 - - - ­ 9 Coleoptera 1 1 1 4 3 - - 6 10 Lepidoptera 1 5 - - - ­ 11 Tipulidae 1 3 - - - 1 12 Simulidae 1 6 1 11 3 8 13 Tabanidae 6 - - - ­ 1 4 Culicidae 1 9 - - - ­ 15 Chironomidae 6 - - - ­ 16 Plecoptera 1 1 17 6 - 28 17 Limnephilidae 1 4 49 40 40 8 18 Hydropsyche 1 4 - - - 13 19 Chimarra 1 3 - - - 3 20 Hemiptera 1 10 1 - 17 1 21 Diptera 5 - - - ­ 22 Porifera 2 - 1 1 1 23 Megaloptera 8 7 - - 4 24 Sialidae 4 1 - - 3 25 Bivalvia 1 3 - 38 - ­ 26 Anisoptera 2 1 - - 5 27 Zygoptera 2 - - - 1 28 Ephemeroptera 1 5 19 4 39 12 29 Nematoda 0 - - - ­ 30 31 Total Number 100 100 100 100 32 Taxa Richness 10 6 5 17 33 Shredders/to lal* 0.40 0.33 0.40 0.29 34 EPT Index 3.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 35 FBI 2.68 3.89 2.68 2.89 36 Community Simi arit / 1.17 1.40 0.18 37 Scrapers/Filterers* 2.00 - 1.00 0.67 38 EPT/Chiron. - - - ­ 39 % Contrib 49% 40% 40% 28%

Page 1 •zM Masterstat/Wood'93

ci7* en 1 337» 417. 41'?­ is?. J K L M N 0 1 Ashaway Bailey's Beaver Big River Blackstone Buckeye 2 - - - - - 3 3 ------4 - 1 - 12 - 2 5 - 1 4 - - 1 6 - 27 4 - - 45 7 - - - - 1 - 8 - 4 1 - - - 9 - 6 2 1 - - 10 - - - - - • 11 ------1 2 2 13 20 63 1 3 13 ------14 1 - - - - - 15 - - - 2 7 - 16 30 - 15 2 - - 17 30 - 43 1 1 78 45 18 - 35 - - - - 19 - 2 - - - - 20 2 10 3 - - - 21 ------22 2 1 - - - - 23 3 - 3 7 2 - 24 - - - - 1 - 25 - - - - 1 - 26 - - 4 - - - 27 - - - - - 1 28 30 - 1 2 9 - 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 100 100 32 8 10 1 1 8 H 8 7 33 0.38 0.20 0.36 0.38 2. 0.13 0.14 34 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 O 1.00 1.00 35 1.97 4.50 4.02 5.38 lo 3.81 4.32 36 0.63 0.60 0.36 0.50 O 0.75 1.00 37 0.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 <4 1.00 1.00 38 - - - 1.00 L> 0.14 - 39 30% 35% 43% 63% O 78% 45% 22_

Page 2

Z3 Masterstat/Wood'93 lz% 37t s& 447, 5&7­ 12^* P Q R s T U 1 Buckshorn Canonchet Carr Chipuxet Clear Cold 2 - - - 2 - - 3 ------4 ------5 ------6 - - - 29 - 76 7 - - - 1 - - 8 ------9 1 - 1 - - 2 10 ------1 1 - 1 - - 2 3 1 2 - - 58 - 73 3 13 ------14 ------15 ------16 12 - - - - 17 60 8 25 3j 5 2 18 - - - - - 5 19 ------20 8 5 - 1 7 2 21 ------22 - - 7 - - - 23 12 - 7 1 7 4 24 - - - 3J 3 - 25 - - - 29 1 - 26 4 5 2 1 - 1 27 - - - 1 - 2 28 3 - - 29 2 - 29 ------30 31 100 19 100 100 100 100 32 <4 7 4 6 11 8 10 33 U> 0.57 0.75 0.33 0.18 0.38 0.40 34 L\ 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 35 (a 3.32 3.95 5.07 3.05 5.41 3.92 36 0 0.71 2.00 1.00 0.55 0.63 0.50 37 4 1.00 0.00 1.00 - 1.00 0.67 38 - 0 - - - - - 39 0 60% 42% 58% 29% 73% 76% 2So

Page3

Z£ Masterstat/Wood'93 nil- g3% £7 7c 7S-7. 7^7. 7 ^ V W X Y Z AA 1 Congdon Dolly Cole Dundery Fall River Hardig Hemlock 2 - - 1 - 1 - 3 ------4 - - - 1 - - 5 - - 2 - 1 - 6 - 1 29 - - - 7 ------8 - - 2 - 1 - 9 - 1 2 3 2 7 10 ------1 1 2 2 1 - - - 1 2 1 3 - 4 12 - 13 ------14 - - 29 5 1 - 15 - - - 16 - - 1 6 9 5 - 10 1 4 17 54 76 - 28 65 57 18 - - 1 - - - 19 8 - 1 - - - 20 - 2 29 6 3 20 21 ------22 ------23 7 5 - 4 12 11 24 - 1 1 - - - 25 - - 1 - - - 26 9 2 - 14 - - 27 2 - 1 3 - - 28 8 2 - 6 1 1 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 100 100 32 9 1 1 13 12 11 6 33 0.33 0.45 0.23 0.33 0.36 0.67 34 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 35 3.06 3.75 5.92 3.92 4.13 3.82 36 0.67 0.27 0.54 0.25 0.36 0.83 37 0.50 2.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 38 - - - 0.19 - - 39 54% 76% 29% 28% 65% 57%

Page 4

ZT7 Masterstat/Wood'93

is% g67« 111 £(fl. 31% Gl7~ AB AC AD AE AF AG 1 Hunt Jamestown Keech Kickemuit/Rte Lawton's Maidford 2 2 - - - 4 3 - - - - ­ 4 - 1 - -- 2 5 2 - - - 13 6 13 86 - 68 16 7 - - - - ­ 8 - 8 - - 5 9 2 1 2 - 4 10 - - - - ­ 1 1 - - - - ­ 1 2 65 -. 33 - 1 1 13 - - - - ­ 14 - - 4 - 1 2 15 - 1 1 - ­ 16 7 - - 15 ­ 17 4 - 42 10 ­ 18 - - 3 - 34 19 - - - - 3 20 4 3 8 4 1 21 - - - - ­ 22 - - - - ­

23 - - • 6 - ­ 24 - - - - 5 25 - - - - ­ 26 - - 1 - ­ 27 - - - 3 ­ 28 1 - - - ­ 29 - - - - ­ 30 31 100 100 100 100 1 100 32 9 6 9 5 1 12 33 0.44 0.33 0.33 0.60 6.00 0.17 34 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 35 5.29 4.24 4.83 3.53 9.00 5.42 36 0.56 1.17 0.56 1.40 2.00 0.42 37 1.00 0.50 0.67 0.00 0.60 0.40 38 - 1.00 3.00 - - ­ 39 65% 86% 42% 68% 100% 34%

Page 5

ZV Masterstat/Wood'93 12^' u% 72 7. I2l- 18% u% AH Al AJ AK AL AM 1 Meadow Brook Moshwansicu Nipmuc Nooseneck Parris Brook Pascoag 2 ------3 ------4 1 - - - - 1 5 ------6 - 4 - - - - 7 - 2 - - - - 8 ------9 5 - - 5 2 - 10 ------1 1 - - - 6 6 - 12 4 - 3 10 2 7 13 ------14 1 - 2 1 - - 15 - - - 2 - - 1 6 37 1 19 14 23 3 17 39 73 59 24 44 71 18 ------19 ------20 1 8 4 8 1 13 21 ------22 - 4 1 - 1 - 23 8 - 5 9 7 - 24 - - 3 3 - 1 25 ------26 4 1 2 8 8 3 27 - - - - - 1 28 - 7 2 10 6 - 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 100 100 32 9 8 10 12 10 8 33 0.44 0.375 0.30 0.42 0.50 0.38 34 3.00 3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 35 2.86 3.82 3.56 3.35 2.85 4.20 36 0.33 0.875 0.40 0.25 0.40 0.50 37 0.67 0 0.50 0.67 1.00 - 38 - - - 1.50 - - 39 39% 0.73 59% 24% 44% 71%

Page 6

Z°> Masterstat/Wood'93

Cl1- 31*7- W). 12% 33?t 677. AN AO AP AQ AR AS 1 Pawcatuck Pawtuxet Queens Rush Brook Saugatucket Silver Creek 2 - 18 - - - 1 3 - - - - - ­ 4 - 14 - - 2 4 5 - 7 - - 31 7 6 - 4 11 - - ­ 7 - - - - - ­ 8 - - - - - 4 9 2 - - 2 - 1 10 - - - - - ­ 11 1 - 1 - - 1 12 2 38 3 - - ­ 13 - - - - - ­ 14 - 2 - - - ­ 15 - - - - - ­ 16 6 - 3 1 - ­ 17 79 16 3 75 37 9 18 - - - - - ­ 19 - - - - - 1 20 8 - 1 13 - 15 21 - - - - - ­ 22 - - - - - ­ 23 - - - 1 - ­ 24 1 - - 1 - ­ 25 1 - - - 29 ­ 26 - - 1 - - ­ 27 - - - - - ­ 28 - 1 77 7 1 ­ 29 - - - - - ­ 30 31 100 100 100 100 100 43 32 8 8 8 7 5 9 33 0.63 0.13 0.50 0.57 0.20 0.44 34 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 L 3.00 35 3.97 6.60 0.88 3.84 5.26 5.56 36 0.50 0.88 0.75 0.57 1.60 0.67 37 1.00 0.50 - 1.00 0.00 0.33 38 - - - - - ­ 39 79% 38% 77% 75% 37% 35%

Page 7 3° Masterstat/Wood'93

S%7. 7 S7* 1&% 72 7o 32.1* AT AU AV AW AX AY 1 Swamp Brook Ten Mile Tomaquag Wilbur Hollow Woonasquatucket 2 - 6 - - - 3 - - - - - 4 - - - - 2 5 - - - - - 6 - - 48 - - 7 - - 4 - - 8 4 3 1 - 3 9 4 1 3 - - 10 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - 12 28 1 3 3 - 13 - - - - - 14 - - - - - 15 - 2 - - - 1 6 - - 9 1 - 17 19 81 20 81 1 18 - - - - - 19 - - - - - 20 8 - 2 7 - 21 - - - - 1 22 - - - - - 23 14 - 2 6 - 24 - - - - - 25 - 6 - - - 26 19 - 7 2 - 27 4 - 1 - - 28 - - - - 2 29 - - - - - 30 31 100 100 100 100 9 32 8 H 7 1 1 6 5 33 0.38 to 0.29 0.36 0.50 0.20 34 2.00 o 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 35 4.17 U 4.48 3.74 3.96 5.11 36 0.63 0 1.00 0.36 0.83 1.60 » 37 1.00 y 2.00 1.00 1.00 - 38 - u 0.5 - - - 39 28% no 81% 48% 81% 33%

Page 8

3/ i^u L Masterstat/Fall'93 857. S57, iol^ A B C D E F G H 1 1 Sh F Sc TL Fall River Abbot Run (No Abbot Run (So Adamsville 2 Hirudinea 10 - - - 1 3 Tubificidae 10 - - - - 4 Oligochaeta 7 1 - - - 5 Isopoda 8 - - - 1 6 Amphipoda 4 - - - 4 7 Decapoda 5 - - - - 8 Gastropoda 6 - - - - 9 Coleoptera 1 1 1 4 3 - - 6 10 Lepidoptera 1 5 - - - , - 1 1 Tipulidae 1 3 - - - 1 1 2 Simulidae 1 6 4 11 3 8 13 Tabanidae 6 - - - - 14 Culicidae 1 9 5 - - - 15 Chironomidae 6 16 - - - 16 Plecoptera 1 1 10 6 - 28 17 Limnephilidae 1 4 28 40 40 8 18 Hydropsyche 1 4 - - - 13 19 Chimarra 1 3 - - - 3 20 Hemiptera 1 10 6 - 17 1 21 Diptera 5 - - - - 22 Porifera 2 - 1 1 1 23 Megaloptera 8 4 - - 4 24 Sialidae 4 - - - 3 25 Bivalvia 1 3 - 38 - - 26 Anisoptera 2 14 - - 5 27 Zygoptera 2 3 - - 1 28 Ephemeroptera 1 5 6 4 39 12 29 Nematoda 0 - - - - 30 31 Total Number 100 100 100 100 32 Taxa Richness 12 6 5 17 33 Shredders/to tal* 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.29 34 EPT Index 3.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 35 FBI 3.92 3.89 2.68 2.89 36 Community Simi arit i 1.50 1.80 0.29 37 Scrapers/Filterers* 0.67 - 1.00 0.50 38 EPT/Chiron. 0.19 - - - 39 % Contrib 28% 40% 40% 28%

Page 1

3^ i,.

Mast'erstat/Fall'93 Sl% i\% 57*7. 4^7. J K L M N 0 1 Ashaway Bailey's Beaver Big River Blackstone Buckeye 2 - - - - - 3 3 ------4 - 1 - 12 - 2 5 - 1 4 - - 1 6 - 27 4 - - 45 7 - - - - 1 - 8 - 4 1 - - - 9 - 6 2 1 - - 10 ------1 1 ------1 2 2 13 20 63 1 3 13 ------1 4 1 - - - - - 15 - - - 2 7 - 1 6 30 - 15 2 - - 17 30 - 43 1 1 78 45 18 - 35 - - - - 19 - 2 - - - - 20 2 10 3 - - - 21 ------22 2 1 - - - - 23 3 - 3 7 2 - 24 - - - - 1 - 25 - - - - 1 - 26 - - 4 - - - 27 - - - - - 1 28 30 - 1 2 9 - 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 100 100 32 8 10 1 1 8 M- 8 7 33 0.38 0.20 0.36 0.38 tf 0.13 0.14 34 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 O 1.00 1.00 35 1.97 4.50 4.02 5.38 U 3.81 4.32 36 0.75 0.80 0.55 0.63 O 1.00 1.14 37 1.00 0.50 2.00 1.00 L ioo 1.00 38 - - - 1.00 Lf 0.14 - 39 30% 35% 43% 63% C> 78% 45% x\

Page 2

?3 Masterstat/Fall'93 can. 2°i% *Jg7. S^Tc S-z% 1\% P Q R S T U 1 Buckshorn Canonchet Carr Chipuxet Clear Cold 2 - - - 2 - - 3 ------4 ------5 ------6 - - - 29 - 76 7 - - - 1 - - 8 ------9 1 - 1 - - 2 10 ------1 1 - 1 - - 2 3 1 2 - - 58 - 73 3 13 ------1 4 ------15 ------16 12 - - - - - 17 60 8 25 3 5 2 18 - - - - - 5 19 ------20 8 5 - 1 7 2 21 ------22 - - 7 - - - 23 12 - 7 1 7 4 24 - - - 3 3 - 25 - - - 29 1 - 26 4 5 2 1 - 1 27 - - - 1 - 2 28 3 - - 29 2 - 29 ------30 31 100 19 100 100 100 100 32 Z 7 4 6 11 8 10 33 U 0.57 0.75 0.33 0.18 0.38 0.40 34 L 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 35 U 3.32 3.95 5.07 3.05 5.41 3.92 36 o LOO 2.50 1.33 0.73 1.00 0.60 37 L 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 38 - o - - - - - 39 O 60% 42% 58% 29% 73% 76% 2io

Page 3

i u Masterstat/Fall'93 £ZH< 7/7. £>77. 7)7. k27< (oil" V W X Y Z AA 1 Congdon Dolly Cole Dundery Hardig Hemlock Hunt 2 - - 1 1 - 2 3 ------4 ------5 - - 2 1 - 2 6 - 1 29 - - 13 7 ------8 - - 2 1 - - 9 - 1 2 2 7 2 10 ------1 1 2 2 1 - - - 1 2 1 3 - 12 - 65 13 ------14 - - 29 1 - - 15 ------16 9 5 - 1 4 7 17 54 76 - 65 57 4 18 - - 1 - - - 19 8 - 1 - - - 20 - 2 29 3 20 4 21 ------22 ------23 7 5 - 12 11 - 24 - 1 1 - - - 25 - - 1 - - - 26 9 2 - - - - 27 2 - 1 - - - 28 8 2 - 1 1 1 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 100 100 32 9 1 1 13 11 6 9 33 0.33 0.45 0.23 0.36 0.67 0.44 34 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 35 3.06 3.75 5.92 4.13 3.82 5.29 36 0.78 0.55 0.62 0.45 1.17 0.78 37 0.50 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 38 ------39 54% 76% 29% 65% 57% 65%

Page 4

jy Masterstat/Fali'93 6z% 2/7. Htflo 427- Ll% 4.27* AB AC AD AE AF AG 1 Jamestown Keech Kickemuit/Rte Lawton's Maidford Meadow Drool­ 2 - - - 4 ­ 3 - - - - ­ 4 1 - - 2 1 5 - - - 13 ­ 6 86 - 68 16 ­ 7 - - - - ­ 8 8 - - 5 ­ 9 1 2 - 4 5 10 - - - - ­ 1 1 - - - - ­ 1 2 - 33 - 1 1 4 13 - - - - ­ 14 - 4 - 1 2 1 15 1 1 - - ­ 16 - - 15 - 37 17 - 42 10 - 39 18 - 3 - 34 ­ 19 - - - 3 ­ 20 3 8 4 1 1 21 - - - - ­ 22 - - - - ­ 23 - 6 - - 8 24 - - - 5 ­ 25 - - - - ­ 26 - 1 - - 4 27 - - 3 - ­ 28 - - - - ­ 29 - - - - ­ 30 31 100 100 100 1 100 100 32 6 9 5 1 12 9 33 0.33 0.33 0.60 6.00 0.17 0.44 34 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 35 4.24 4.83 3.53 9.00 5.42 2.86 36 1.33 0.56 1.60 2.00 0.58 0.44 37 0.50 0.67 0.00 0.60 0.40 0.67 38 1.00 3.00 - - - ­ 39 86% 42% 68% 100% 34% 39%

Page 5

3C Masterstat/Fall'93 527o 7/7 Stfc (ol% 6Z% Ll % AH Al AJ AK AL AM 1 Moshwansicu Nipmuc Nooseneck Parris Brook Pascoag Pawcatuck 2 ------3 ------4 - - - - 1 - 5 ------6 4 - - - - - 7 2 - - - - - 8 ------9 - - 5 2 - 2 10 ------1 1 - - 6 6 - 1 12 - 3 10 2 7 2 13 ------14 - 2 1 - - - 15 - - 2 - - - 16 1 19 14 23 3 6 17 73 59 24 44 71 79 18 ------19 ------20 8 4 8 1 13 8 21 ------22 4 1 - 1 - - 23 - 5 9 7 - - 24 - 3 3 - 1 1 25 - - - - - 1 26 1 2 8 8 3 - 27 - - - - 1 - 28 7 2 10 6 - - 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 100 100 32 8 10 12 10 8 8 33 0.375 0.30 0.42 0.50 0.38 0.63 34 3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 35 3.82 3.56 3.35 2.85 4.20 3.97 36 1.125 0.60 0.33 0.60 0.75 0.88 37 0 0.50 0.67 1.00 - 1.00 38 - - 1.50 - - - 39 0.73 59% 24% 44% 71% 79%

Page 6

37 Masterstat/Fall'93 3^ * 3*7­ £2% 367. (aZ% 527. AN AO AP AQ AR AS 1 Pawtuxet Queens Rush Brook Saugatucket Silver Creek Swamp Brook 2 18 - - - 1 - 3 ------4 14 - - 2 4 - 5 7 - - 31 7 - 6 4 11 - - - - 7 ------8 - - - - 4 4 9 - - 2 - 1 4 10 -. - - - - - 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - 12 38 3 - - - 28 13 ------14 2 - - - - - 15 ------16 - 3 1 - - - 17 16 3 75 37 9 19 18 ------19 - - - - 1 - 20 - 1 13 - 15 8 21 ------22 ------23 - - 1 - - 14 24 - - 1 - - - 25 - - - 29 - - 26 - 1 - - - 19 27 - - - - - 4 28 1 77 7 1 - - 29 ------30 31 100 100 100 100 43 100 32 8 8 7 5 9 8 33 0.13 0.50 0.57 0.20 0.44 0.38 34 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 35 6.60 0.88 3.84 5.26 5.56 4.17 3 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.89 0.75 37 0.50 - 1.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 38 ------39 38% 77% 75% 37% 35% 28%

Page 7

Iff Masterstat/Fall'93 U>7-*i* 7(7o LZ-lo 627c S3?* AT AU AV AW AX | AY 1 Ten Mile Tomaquag Wilbur Hollow Wood Woonasquatucket 2 6 - - - - 3 - - - - - 4 - - - 1 2 5 - - - - - 6 - 48 - - - 7 - 4 - - - 8 3 1 - - 3 9 1 3 - 3 - 10 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - 12 1 3 3 1 - 13 - - - - - 14 - - - - - 15 2 - - - - 16 - 9 1 17 - 17 81 20 81 49 1 18 - - - - - 19 - - - - - 20 - 2 7 1 - 21 - - - - 1 22 - - - - - 23 - 2 6 7 - 24 - - - 1 - 25 6 - - - - 26 - 7 2 1 - 27 - 1 - - - 28 - - - 19 2 29 - - - - - 30 31 100 100 100 100 9 32 Z 7 11 6 10 5 33 Co 0.29 0.36 0.50 0.40 0.20 34 D 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 35 L 4.48 3.74 3.96 2.68 5.11 36 O 1.14 0.45 1.17 0.50 2.00 37 L 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 - 38 U 0.5 - - - - 39 O 81% 48% 81% 49% 33% Z(*

Page 8

3? Table 7. Wood River as Reference Station for the State.

Stream Biolo gical Score Reference Wood 100 Non-impaired Dolly Cole 83 Beaver 83 Slightly im paired Tomaquag 78 Ten Mile 78 Parris 78 Hunt 78 Hardig v 78 Fall 78 Buckeye 78 Wilbur Hollow 72 Rush 72 Nooseneck 72 Nipmuc-Top Brook 72 Meadowbrook 72 Keech 72 Hemlock 72 Congdon 72 Cold 72 Bucks Horn 72 Adamsville 72 Silver 67 Maidford 67 Dundery 67 Bailey's 67 Pawcatuck 61 Pascoag 61 Moswansicut 61 Blackstone 61 Big 61 Ashaway 61 Swamp 56 Kickemuit 56 Clear 56 Can- 56 Moderately Impaired Jamestown 50 Abbot Run south 50 Queens 44 Chipuxet 44 Abbot Run North 44 Pawtuxet 39 Lawton's 39 Canonchet 39 Woonasquatuket 33 Saugatucket 33

^ Table 8. Bioassessment scores using Adamsville as reference station for the Narragansett/Bristol Lowland ecoregion, 1993.

Adamsville 100 Slightly impaired Maidford 80 Dundery 77 Bailey's 75 Hunt 75 Cold 72 Silver 69 Buckeye 67 Moderately Impaired Abbot Run north 50 Abbot Run south 50 Severely Impaired Jamestown Lawton's

Table 8b. 1991 Bioassessment Results Using Adamsville as Reference Station.

Adamsville Slightly Impaired Bailey's 78 Maidford 76 Dundery 62 Jamestown 62 Cold 62

^ Addendum to the Report

'Establishment and Field Testing of a Rapid Bioassessment Screening of Rhode Island Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates"

Prepared for

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

March 1994

Mark Gould

Roger Williams University Bristol, RI 02809

/1-i Rhode Island is divided into two ecoregions (Griffith et al. 1992). Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. The map of the regions developed by Griffith et al. indicates that there is a Narragansett/Bristol Lowland region (NBLR) and a Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills region (SNECPHR). The NBLR region encompasses mainly the Basin. The SNECPHR region includes the rest of the state.

The macrofauna survey has sampled within both ecoregions. Within the NBLR there are fourteen stations; within the SNECPHR there are thirty one stations (see Table 1). Analyses of all information during the past several years has centered on the Wood River as the reference station; this is within the SNECPHR region. This year's data analysis continues to use the Wood River, but also included a sub-section utilizing the Adamsville Brook as the reference station within the NBLR region. Data has been reported for both reference sites (see main report).

The streams sampled within the state range in Stream Order from first order to fifth order. Eight of the streams are considered to be first order, sixteen second order, 12 third order, four fourth order and three of the fifth order. Lower order streams are quite dependent upon the immediate characteristics of the watershed. In other words, runoff is a direct component versus one of many components within a higher order stream.

An analysis of the stream order is presently being run using particular order streams as reference stations for comparison.

43 Description of Sites with Trends Observed

Rhode Island's streams and rivers are relatively small! Flow is directly related to rainfall and the groundwater levels. During the past year, severe drought conditions existed which stressed the systems to a greater extent than previous years. Riffle communities that flourished in previous visits were often reduced during the late July to early August sample. This resulted in a decline in the total number of species noted within the state.

The brief description for each sampling site which follows, describes the general "feel" of the principal investigator to the macroinvertebrate sampling locations. Trends that often are not expressed in the Plafkin protocols are expressed here. These are a result of several years of sampling and observing the streams within Rhode Island. The order stream is reflected in the statement.

Trends noted at each station as well as both observed and presumed point and non-source pollutants which may impact the macroinvertebrate populations are postulates.

Abbot Run Brook- North— This stream is fast flowing stream providing excellent habitat. It is downstream from the Arnold Mills dam which would provide some oxygenation; however, it is felt that the relatively shallow depth and a good riffle environment consisting of gravel-pebble provides for a relatively diverse community. Non-point sources of input include surrounding roads (evidence of road sand in the stream). The surrounding land appears to be low density. This is a 3rd order stream.

Abbot Run Brook - South-The continuation of Abbot Run Brook exhibits both flow and riffles similar to Abbot Brook North. The organisms encountered include Tubifex which is considered an indicator of organic enrichment. It is assumed that the unsewered portions of the valley is contributing to the change in the population of the macrofauna. This is a 3rd order stream.

Adamsville Brook-Although a relatively small stream, the flow is relatively constant, and the riffle community is well defined. The relatively rural character of Little Compton may contribute some non-point additions (road run-off, agricultural runoff). The diversity of organisms is fairly good. This system is considered by the author to be the reference location for the coastal systems of the Narragansett Bay ecoregion. This is a 3rd order stream.

Ashaway River— This system below the dam at Ashaway is well oxygenated and contains multiple habitats. The diversity is great. The riffle community is well established within large boulder to small pebble profile. Upstream activities that may affect the distribution include non-point (road, septic systems and agricultural). At this location, previous point source discharges have occurred. This is a 2nd order

VU stream.

Bailey's Brook— As a feeder stream for the Newport Public Water System, this stream flows through a highly developed, sub-urbanized environment. Runoff from roads, shopping areas, and agriculture contribute to a stream that is low on diversity. Flow is continuous throughout the year over a pebble to sand riffle area. This is a 1st order stream.

Beaver River— The sample location below a large trout pool is a well oxygenated environment flowing over a gravel bed. The diversity is good. Non-point impact from upstream include road runoff, agricultural, and septic systems; however, the population is relatively low in the area. With an increase in development upstream, this system may begin to develop a lower diversity similar to Abbot Run South. This is a 2nd order stream.

Big River—The sampling site is located where the river flows under Route 95. It is an area that has been disturbed. It is a fair collecting site for riffle communities. It is relatively shallow, and exhibits a great deal of sand runoff from the surrounding roads and topsoil of the Big River watershed. This is a 3rd order stream.

Blackstone River— This is a new site this year. It is located below the Manville Dam in the riffle community composed of boulder to pebbles. The diversity is good. The river has point and non-point source additives; non-point including agricultural, road, and urban environments. This is a 5th order stream.

Buckeye Brook— This stream is within an urbanized system. The stream exhibits non-point additions such as road runoff and litter. The bottom is fairly compact with oil seepage. The riffle community is limited with small pebble to sand comprising the substrate. This is a 2nd order stream.

Bucks Horn Brook— A well oxygenated, riffle stream leading into the . The riffle community is within a quintessential riffle structure of pebble to large bouIders.Diversity is good. This is a relatively rural site with some agricultural activities upstream as well as ISDS potential inputs. This is a 3rd order stream.

Canonchet Brook- Sample location is below a golf course. Depending upon the season, the flow can be relatively slow. Bottom of the stream has been impacted with clipping debris and sand. Diversity is poor. Further upstream are non-point impact from road (including 1-95), agricultural, and some manufacturing point source. The stream diversity has been on the decline over the past three years. This is a 2nd order stream.

Carr- Below the old dam site which drains a maple swamp, this stream supports a moderate diversity. The stream flow during the past summer was reduced, resulting in the numbers encountered. Non-point runoff is minimal from the road and some septic locations. This is a 2nd order stream.

U T Chipuxet— The sample location was moved this past year downstream. It is now at the old rail bridge off Ministerial Road where at low water there is a riffle community on a rocky substrate. This compares to the former site below a small watering hole which provided a relatively poor diversity. Impact from agricultural, road runoff, and some septic systems is assumed. This is a 3rd order stream.

Clear River— In the summer, the riffle community is well-defined under moderate size rocks. The area is impacted by the Burriville Sewage Treatment plant located upstream. An occasional chlorine smell has been encountered. Non-point additions from road and suburban development are expected. Diversity is fair. This is a 4th order stream.

Cold Brook- The stream flows throughout the year from and through a red maple swamp. It is relatively small, the riffle community is limited. Diversity is fair. Organisms are more similar to the Adamsville biogeographic region. Non-point impact of road and agricultural uses combined with low density septic are expected. This is a 2nd order stream.

Congdon— A rural stream part of the Big River system, it flows through a red maple swamp. The habitat is suitable for macroinvertebrates, but due to the relatively low flow in the summer, the macroinvertebrate populations are relatively low and moderate in diversity. This is a 2nd order stream.

Dolly Cole- A feeder stream of the Scituate system, this stream exhibits an excellent diversity. The riffle community exists with a small boulder to cobble environment. A study of the effects of the non-point addition from roads is being conducted at several stations downstream from the site. Non-point additions from agriculture and rural septic systems is assumed. This is a 2nd order stream.

Dundery Brook- The system almost ceases to flow in dry summers. The stream flows through a red maple swamp and may receive materials from the Little Compton school waste treatment system. Diversity is fair; the bottom provides a minimal riffle community. This is a 1st order stream.

Fall River-This stream is well oxygenated and contains an excellent diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates within the cobble and gravel riffle. The upstream watershed is within the Arcadia Management Area; minimal non-point additions are expected. This is a 3rd order stream.

Hardig Brook-The riffle community is well-defined cobble, small rock in this relatively urban brook. Input from roads, lawns, and probably septic systems is expected. The diversity for such a stream is excellent considering its location. This is a 2nd order stream.

Hemlock Brook- An excellent flow through the Scituate watershed results in a

lie good diverse macroinvertebrate population. Upstream, it is believed that some agricultural inputs may occur as well as an occasional septic system. This is a 3rd order stream.

Hunt River— This river system flows through an unsewered valley that has been developed during the past 20 years. Combined with earlier industrial waste discharges, the relatively high diversity encountered is surprising but probably caused by the flow of the system. The riffles are composed of small rock to gravel. The drought exposed much of this area during the past summer. This is a 4th order stream.

Jamestown Brook- This brook may be described as a very small trickle of water flowing through a red maple swamp during the summer. This stream provides relatively little riffle community within the small rocks and pebbles; however, there is a moderate diversity present. Input from road run-off and some septic is assumed. Road construction effects (Rt 138) need to be monitored. This site provides an excellent location for Red-backed salamanders. This is a 1st order stream.

Keech— Located within the George Washington Management Area, this is within a • relatively well protected watershed. The low flow during the past summer was probably the major factor in the distribution of the macroinvertebrates. The riffles are cobble to small stone. This is a 2nd order stream. Kickemuit River— This stream was sampled and included within the study for the first time this past year. The waters are controlled by the Bristol County Water Authority; flow can be directly related to waters released from the reservoir. The riffles are composed of small rock and cobble. A moderate macroinvertebrate population is supported. Non-point addition of road, agricultural, and ISDS runoffs are expected. This is a 3rd order stream.

Lawton's Brook- Below the Newport Reservoir in Portsmouth, this stream exhibits a poor macroinvertebrate population due to a point source (the backwashing of the filters) and non-point source (road and sand storage). This is a 2nd order stream.

Maidsford Brook. This stream flows in a valley that has become developed during the past 30 years with unsewered houses as well as a busy road that parallel the stream. The stream supports a moderate diversity which should be compared with the Adamsville sample. This is a 1st order stream.

Meadow Brook- Although located within the Carolina Management Area, this stream is downstream from both agricultural and golf course uses. The macroinvertebrate diversity remains fairly high. Other non-point inputs in this rural system may include an occasional septic system runoff. The riffles are composed of cobble and small stone. This is a 2nd order stream.

Moshwansicut Brook-Flowing out of the Reservoir, this stream with an excellent riffle structure (cobble, stone, pebble and boulder) would be expected to be better than

H^ it is. Potential impacts include channelization, road input, and septic systems. Flow regulation of the stream is expected which probably has the biggest impact on the macroinvertebrate population. This is a 1st order stream.

Nipmuc— Top Brook. This feeder stream to the Nipmuc River provides an excellent riffle composed of small stone and pebble with a corresponding good macroinvertebrate population. Surrounding land is protected by the Conservation Area. Non-point inputs include road, septic and agricultural. This is a 2nd order stream.

Nooseneck River— A good flowing stream that has a high diversity with an excellent riffle structure of cobble, boulder and pebble. Input from road runoff (1-95) and some agricultural inputs is possible. This is a 2nd order stream.

Parris Brook— Within the Arcadia Management Area, this relatively small brook has a low flow yet supports an excellent diversity within the riffle. The stream has been pooled during the past year to increase fish habitat. Some agricultural input from upstream is expected. This is a 2nd order stream.

Pascoag River-Downstream from the pond, this suburbanized stream supports a well-oxygenated flow with a fairly good habitat for macroinvertebrates. Water flow may be controlled at the dam. Litter is abundant within the riffle area. Non-point addition of road run-off, septic, and urban runoff is assumed to occur within the stream. This is a 2nd order stream.

Pawcatuck River— This is a new sample location. The watershed contains rural to urbanized environments; the water quality of most of the river is considered to be relatively good. The riffle community at the summer sample was composed of boulder to cobble; the diversity good. Point and non-point additions within the river system occur. This is a 5th order stream.

Pawtuxet River- An urbanized system. This river during the summer has an excellent rifle habitat for macroinvertebrates. However, the organisms collected are indicative of pollution tolerant species. The sample location is located between two sewage treatment plants and chlorine smells are present. This is a 5th order stream.

Queens— The river system flows through a relatively non-developed watershed protected by the Audubon Society and the Metealf properties. Input from the Ladd School Sewage plant complex can be expected as well as other non-point sources such as agricultural runoff and roads. The bottom of the stream is a mixture of sand and pebble and supports a moderate macroinvertebrate population. This is a 3rd order stream.

Rush Brook- This feeder stream of the Scituate exhibits an excellent macroinvertebrate population. The riffle is comprised of boulder to cobble; land-use is limited. Upstream activities may include some agricultural input into the stream.

U-X This is a 2nd order stream.

Saugatucket— Downstream from the dam at Main Street in Wakefield, this site at extreme flood tides may have a saline input. The habitat comprised of mixed size rocks is ideal for macroinvertebrates; however, it supports a small population. Potential inputs include non-point (road, urban, septic) as well as old point source locations (textile). This is a 3rd order stream.

Silver Creek— A new site this past year, this creek is within an urbanized Watershed. Input from sewage overflow, road runoff, and yards influence the macroinvertebrates found. The low flow this past summer resulted in the riffle area to be dry at times. This is a 1st order stream.

Swamp Brook— A small stream with excellent riffles. This feeder stream of the Scituate system exhibits low to no flow during the summer which influences the numbers of macroinvertebrates. Most of the watershed is protected. The stream is probably a groundwater dependent stream. This is a 1st order stream.

Ten Mile River— This year a new site on the river was sampled upstream from the previous location. The new site has an excellent riffle comprised of cobble and pebble. The river is urbanized. Non-point and point sources contribute to the conditions of the stream. This is a 2nd order stream.

Tomaquag —The system flows from a red maple swamp. During the summer, flow may be relatively low, which impacts the macroinvertebrate habitat within a fair riffle site that contains small rock. Non-point potential sources include road and agricultural runoffs in this relatively low human density environment. This is a 3rd order stream.

Wilbur Hollow. An excellent flow and riffle environment composed of cobble and small rock result in a diverse macroinvertebrate population of this feeder stream to the Scituate system. The potential for non-point addition from road and septic systems exist. Water flow from the upstream pond is not regulated. This is a 3rd order stream.

Wood River- An excellent flow and habitat result in an excellent macroinvertebrate population. Non-point additions may include septic, road, and agricultural inputs into this rural stream. During the past summer, some of the riffles were exposed due to low flow; these locations were not at the standard site for sampling. This is a 4th order stream.

Woonasquatucket- An urbanized system that is impacted. Riffles occur where debris extends above the compacted bottom. Habitat for macroinvertebrates is limited. Inputs include non-point (runoff) and point (industrial). The river is channelized. Industrial odors and oils are evident. This is a 4th order stream.

W Quality Assurance Project Plans for 1993 Sampling Period

Title Project: Field Testing a Rapid Bioassessment Screening of Rhode Island's Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Author: Dr. Mark D. Gould, Dean, School of Science and Mathematics, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809

Funding Agency: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Date: May 11,1994

Project Officer/Principal Investigator: Dr. Mark D. Gould, 401-254-3087

Project Quality Assurance Officer: Dr. Mark D. Gould, 401-254-3087

DEM-State of Rhode Island Project Officer: Robert Richardson, 401-277-6519

EPA Quality Assurance Officer: Nancy Barmakian, 617-860-4684

<0 2. Project Description. Previous investigations by the principal investigator have noted some of the freshwater macrofauna within Rhode Island. By use of a standardized methodology (Plafkin etal 1989), it is hoped that longer term population structures within the streams can be obtained and natural fluctuations noted. The objectives of this study were: 1. To continue to refine the methodology of rapid quantitative selection method for the evaluation of benthic macroinvertebrates in Rhode Island freshwaters 2. To compare the results obtained by this research with those obtained by other freshwater studies 3. To document the baseline populations of the macrofauna in Rhode Island waters. The data will be used as a screening tool to help evaluate the relative diversity within the streams of Rhode Island. 3. Technical Design Macroinvertebrates were sampled in the summer at 44 sites in Rhode Island. The sites were picked based on the presence of a riffle community, differing water quality types, and geographical regions of the state. Class I, II, HI, IV, and V streams were selected. These sites provided a mosaic of the Rhode Island community. Standardization of technique was critical to the the value of this project. Use of the Plafkin protocol allowed for comparison to other streams, other regions, and methodologies. Sampling at each site required multiple kick-net samples which indicated the macrofauna distribution. Physical parameters as outlined in Plafkin (Chapter 5) were measured and reported. 4. Project Organization and Responsibility , Dr. Mark Gould was the principal investigator for all aspects of this project including the laboratory identification and storage components. Several students were hired to help collect samples, and were directly supervised by Dr. Gould. Telephone for Dr. Gould: 401-254-3087.

5. Project Schedule Summer sample collected from July to August 1993. Analysis of data utilized EXCEL program on Macintosh computer system followed completion of the sampling regimes. Notebooks of all raw field notes and computer diskettes remain on file in SM-116 at Roger Williams University. Final Report developed during October and November 1993 and presented to the RIDEM in December 1994. 6. Field Sampling Table The methodology outlined in protocols II and HI of Plafkin et al was followed. In the field, kick samples of 3 minute duration in riffle communities occurred in an area covering approximately 1 yard. The first 100 organisms were noted. Within the site, upstream and downstream observations were made to insure that the sites were representative of the streams. The samples were preserved in the field in at least 50% ethyl alcohol and transported to the laboratory for definitive identification. Those samples selected for the reference collection were placed in at least 70% ethyl alcohol. The maximum allowable holding time for the reference samples will be years. This will become an archive for Rhode Island macroinvertebrates. 7. Sampling Procedures and Chain of Custody: Protocol according to Plafkin et al 1989.

STJ, Samples transported to the laboratory and stored in jars with minimum of 70% alcohol in room SM-116 at Roger Williams University. It is not anticipated that the samples will be used for legal purposes. 8. Analytical Procedures: Methods according to protocol of Plafkin et al 1989. 9. Quality Control Samples. Field duplicates of specimens collected were made for at least 20% of the samples for taxonomic identification in the laboratory. Duplication of the sample method occurred at 10 of the sample sites during the collection period. It was determined that significant differences between the samples did not exist. In some preselected streams for quality assurance, limited riffle areas due to low flow conditions made the collection of the second 100 organims impossible.

Specimens are stored for review by other investigators including Dr. Patrick Logan and his graduate students at the University of Rhode Island. Upon request, the samples may be borrowed by other investigators.

10. Project Fiscal Information. Receipt for payment was submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for services rendered and expenses incurred in carrying out the requirements and responsibilities of the agreement between the University and the Department. Upon request, the accounting of the research expenses will be made available to any interested party.

/Jn?>**i S'Z.