SDMS DocID 485580

Erat-wVfgMgseKBg^c»^- .<

LHfJAK: ^ J S I J S L

OTHER: J=tg^§§C

Establishment and Field Testing of a Rapid Bioassessment Screening of Rhode

Island 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 1992

INTRODUCTION

A previous study by the author (Gould 1991) resulted in an enumeration of the freshwater

macroinvertebrates in Rhode Island. 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 continuation of the study to refine collection and

analytical techniques and to report on longer term population structure within the streams of Rhode

Island is reported in this document.

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. 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 insects 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 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's water quality standards classify freshwalers into three categories: Class A,

Class B, and Class C. These standards are based primarily on 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 ifthe macroinvertebrates would confirm these

classifications.

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

The same forty freshwater sites within the state of Rhode Island watershed selected in the

earlier study (Gould 1991) to measure the effect of varying water quality on the distribution of

macrofauna were selected. Freshwater streams classified as A, B, or C of the first,second, and

third orders were chosen; these included water supply streams, impacted urban streams, and rural

streams. All of the selected sites were representative of the different watershed environments

within the state and included different water quality types (see Tables 1 and 2).

Water supply streams in the Scituate, Newport, North Kingstown, and Pawlucket 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 spring and summer of 1992. 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.

J

3

Off «-. •f *•'!••

Table 1. Sample sites, towns, types and locations.

Stream Town Station Type Sampling Location

Abbot Run Brook South North Allleboro Water Supply Valley Road about 50 meters above bridge

Abbot Run Brook- North Cumbeiland Water supply at Route 120 bridge about 50 meters south of bridge.

Adamsville Brook Adamsville Reference At USGS gage, below culvert

Ashaway River Hopkinton Reference Al Rt. 216 below bridge. About 150 meters below dam.

Bailey's Brook Middlelown Newport watershed Al Kempenaar's Clambake. Below culvert al parking lot

Beaver River Richmond Reference At Shannock Hill Road, About 50 meters south below pool.

Big River West Greenwich Reference South Side of Route 3. Sample taken from west shore.

Buckeye Brook Warwick Impacted. Urban development Rt 117 A. al Lockwood Corner. Bridge at side street.

Bucks Horn Brook Coventiy Reference At Lewis Farm Road about 50 meters east.

Canonchel Brook Hopkinlon Reference Below golf course at Rockville-Alton Road culvert/bridge.

Carr River West Greenwich Reference Al Burnt Saw Mill Road. About 50 meters below bridge.

Chipuxel River Exeter Reference At Wolf Rocks Road about 50 meters south of culvert below pool

Clear River Burriville Impact from sewage treatment At Old Victory Highway Bridge

Cold Brook Little Complon Reference Pottersville Rd. at culvert. Riffle community below small pool

Congdon Brook West Greenwich Reference At bridge, south side near old foundation.

Dolly Cole Brook Foster Sciluate Watershed Al Old Danielson Pike just north of bridge

Dundery Brook Little Compton Reference At Swamp Rd below culvert

Fall River Exelet Reference North of Route 165 bridge

Hardig Brook Warwick Impacted. Urban development Toll Gate Road at Burger King parking lot in fall. Spring sample upstream.

Hemlock Brook Foster Scituale Watershed Hemlock Rd bridge about 180 meters west of bridge.

Hunt River East Greenwich North Kingstown wells About 100 meters west of North Kinstown pumping station

Jamestown Brook Jamestown Jamestown Water supply About 18 meters below culvert of Watson Farm Road

Keech Brook Burriville Reference Below covered bridge in George Washington Management Area

Maidford River Middletown Newport Water Supply Prospect Ave just below the bridge/culvert.

Meadow Brook Richmond Reference About half mile north of Pine Hill Rd in Carolina Management Area.

Moswansicut Brook Sciluate Sciluale watershed Route 116, west 80 meters- below old stone bridge

(slipmuc River-­ Top Brook. Burriville Reference South of Brook Road. Top Brook below the pool.

Nooseneck Rivor West Greenwich Reference About 50 meters west of bridge at Route 3.

Porris Brook Exeter Reference About 10 meters south al Blitzkrieg Trail bridge.

Pascoag River Burriville Reference In Pascoag behind pharmacy near Cumberland farms

Pawluxet River Cranston Impacted. Urban development At USGS gage in Cranston

Queens River Exeter Reference Aboul 50 meters north of Mail Road bridge

Runnins River Seekonk Impacted Area investigated, no suitable location found in the Route 114A vicinity.

Rush Brook Sciluate Scituale Watershed ' About 120 meters west of Elmhurst Brook bridge

j r ­

Table 1. Sample sites, towns, types and locations. > i l

Stream Saugatucket River

Swamp Brook

Ten Mile River

Tomaquag Brook Wilbur Hollow Brook

Wood River

Woonasquatuckel River

Town

South Kingstown

Scituale

East Providence

Hopkinton

Scituale

Richmond

Providence

Station typo Impacted Urban development

Sciluate Watershed

Impacted . Urban development

Reference

Scituale Watershed

Reference

Impacted. Urban development

Sampling Location At Route 1A bridge in Wakefield about 20 meters below dam

15 melers NW of inflow point of Ponagansett River into Scituale At Broadway Bridge

At Chase Hill Rd bridges above southern bridge.

North of culvert crossing on Old Plainfield Pike

At DEM access on Old Nooseneck Rd. About 15 meters below bend in river.

At Eagle Street bridge

ov

Table 2. . General Description of Sites

Stream

Abbot Run Brook South

Abbot Run Brook- North

Adamsville Brook

Ashaway River

Bailey's Brook

Beaver River

Big River

Buckeye Brook

Bucks Horn Brook

Canonchet Brook

Carr River

Chipuxet River

Clear River

Cold Brook Congdon Brook

Dolly Cole Brook

Dundery Brook

Fall River

Hardig Brook

Hemlock Brook

Hunt River

Jamestown Brook

Keech Brook

Maidford River

Meadow Brook

Moswansicut Brook

Nipmuc River- Top Brook.

Nooseneck River

Parris Brook

Pascoag River

Pawtuxet River

Queens River

Piunnins River

Rush Brook

Saugatucket River

Swamp Brook

Ten Mile River

Tomaquag Brook

Wilbur Hollow Brook

Wood River

Woonasquatucket River

General Description

Bottom fairly smooth. Some small rock/mud.

Bottom at riffles with sand/pebble small rock

Small riffle area. Some large rock and pebble.

Large rock in riffle community.

Small riffle area. Pebblee and small rock. Intermittent?

Good flow. Small rock Sandy bottom- riffle fair below pool

Deep sandy bottom- swampy upstream- area dip netted

Muddy, sand bottom. Flow fair.

Good flow, good riffle Bottom rock and small pebble

Good flow, not rocky with muddy/sand bottom

Good riffle below old dam site, rock variable with pebble.

Good flow, riffle community fair; some large rock, pebble.

Deep river, good flow. Rocks present

Fair flow, below bridge. Some riffle. Swampy environment

Good flowing stream, moss covered rock

Good flow and riffle community. Rock and pebble.

Fair flow, some riffle. Low grade. Intermittent?

Some riffles below bridge. Heavy vegetation. Pebble/rock

Some riffles. Rock/pebble. Fair flow. Inputs?

Good flow. Large rock/boulder. Some small shingle.

Only riffle in area,(Rock/pebble). Bottom otherwise muddy.

Fair flow, heavy vegetation. Some riffle with pebble bottom. Intermittent?

Good flow. Rocky bottom

Good flow, riffle area. Shingle bottom

Good flow, good riffle, bit muddy. Small rock.

Good flow. Large rock/boulder. Some pebble. Riffles.

Good riffle, shallow over shingle.

Good riffle, good flow over rock and some pebble

riffles fair

Good flow- large rock

Good flow, deep. Rock large with muddy bottom. Chlorine.

Riffles fair, flow good, small pebble bottom.

Flow flow, no riffle. Access?

Hard bottom, some small rock. Not easy to move Good riffle

Good flow and riffles below dam. Large rock. Salt intrusion?

Some riffles, small rock with muddy bottom.

Good flow, muddy bottom- some rock

Flow from swamp. Rock below artificial impoundment Intermittent?

Upstream dam has been undermined. Good riffle with rock bottom, some mud.

Rapid/riffles extensive. Rocky bottom/boulder.

Bottom hard-packed mud with some gravel.

Temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured by means of a Hanna Water Test

Instrument at each station during the project. This information enabled the researcher to maintain a

general physical/chemical picture of the stream sites.

All biological samples were field preserved in approximately 50% ethyl alcohol and

transported to the laboratory for identification. Long-term preservation required al least 70%

alcohol; samples once identified became reference samples which were properly preserved in

mason jars and stored at Roger Williams University.

The spring sample was collected during May 1992 and the summer sample taken during

August 1992. Samples were taken at the 40 sites. Protocol II as outlined in Plafkin et al (1989)

was utilized for the analysis of this sample. At any site, a minimum of 100 organisms was

desired and when possible collected and identified al each site as per method.

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.

The spring and summer samples were collected according to the Protocol II methodology.

Samples were identified in the field for the most part with unknowns transported to the laboratory

for identification. Collection of organisms occurred at each site by collecting until al 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).

7

Results and Discussion

According to the Protocol (Chapter 5), a delineation of the streams by a scries 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 were developed for the 1991 report, the numeric ranking is

reported in are in Table 3.

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 Woonasquatucket River in Providence to a high of 116

for Ashaway River 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 104 and greater were considered to be environments, based on their physical habitat, to

be similar or comparable to each other.

*

Table 3, Habitat Assessment Based on Parameters Outlined in Plafkin et al. 1989

Stream S u b s t r E m b e d d F low C h a n n e B o t t o m Poo l B a n l V e g e t a Cover To ta l

Abbot Run Brook South 7 6 11 12 12 10 9 9 8 084

Abbot Run Brook- North 11 8 11 13 12 12 9 9 8 093

Adamsville Brook 14 12 15 13 13 12 8 9 8 104

Ashaway River 17 16 16 14 13 14 9 9 8 116

Bailey's Brook 4 4 7 7 7 5 7 8 5 054

Beaver River 11 10 9 9 10 10 9 9 8 085

Big River 4 5 4 5 3 3 7 8 5 044

Buckeye Brook 6 5 9 6 5 5 7 9 3 055

Bucks Horn Brook 17 16 16 14 12 12 9 8 8 112

Canonchet Brook 6 6 11 5 5 6 8 9 6 062

Carr River 11 10 10 12 10 11 9 9 8 090

Chipuxet River 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 9 7 074

Clear River 10 8 13 10 10 10 8 9 8 086

Cold Brook 7 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 8 063

Congdon Brook 13 10 13 8 6 9 9 9 8 085

Dolly Cole Brook 17 11 15 14 12 12 9 9 8 107

Dundery Brook 8 5 5 5 6 5 8 9 8 059

Fall River 16 11 15 10 12 12 9 9 8 102

Hardig Brook 14 9 13 8 8 9 9 8 7 085

Hemlock Brook 16 12 15 14 12 12 9 9 8 107

Hunt River 11 5 12 6 7 7 7 9 8 072

Jamestown Brook 5 5 4 3 5 3 8 9 8 050

Keech Brook 15 12 15 13 12 12 9 9 8 105

Maidford River 14 11 11 12 11 10 9 9 6 093

Meadow Brook 15 11 13 12 10 11 9 9 8 098

Moswansicut Brook 15 14 15 13 12 12 9 9 Is 107

Nipmuc River - Top Brook. 13 12 13 ,8 9 11 9 9 |8 092

Nooseneck River 17 15 i 15 14 13 12 9 19 J8 M 1 3

Parris Brook 12 10 10 11 12 11 9 !9 18 092

Pascoag River 15 11 112 10 7 7 8 9 \7 086

Pawtuxet River 10 7 |9 |5 4 5 9 7 16 062

Queens River 112 9 \ < ' i g 8 9 9 !9 18 :084

Runnins River j j ! 1 1 i | \ | j

Rush Brook 116 14 i l 2 113 12 12 9 19 18 1105

Saugatucket River |14 14 |13 112 12 12 9 |6 |5 097

Swamp Brook 14 12 111 MO 10 11 9 9 8 094

Ten Mile River 04 4 |5 15 4 5 8 8 {6 049

Tomaquag Brook 115 10 9 18 11 10 8 9 !8 088

Wilbur Hollow Brook he 14 i l l ' |11 11 9 8 9 8 097

Wood River '17 14 |17 j 12 12 13 9 9 |8 111

Woonasquatucket River is 2 14 |3 2 3 7 3 |3 030

7

Those stations with physical scores of 75 to 88 percent of the top-reference site (Ashaway)

ranged in values from 88 to 102 points. Eleven 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.

"Partially supporting" physical habitat stations were determined by multiplication of the

Ashaway site score by at least sixty percent but not more than seventy three percent. Nine 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". Ten stations fell within this category. A

relative comparability based on habitat and physical parameters was constructed (see Table 4)

which presents the stations in a numerical listing from high to low.

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, the Fall River was 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. These species were collected

during the spring and summer 1992 samples. Other sample sets present comparable species lists

and the table is an all stations compilation.

The prime objective of this study was to determine the bioassessment feasibility of the

Protocol methodology within the watersheds of Rhode Island. Upon determination of the reference

station, 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 River by means of the Community Similarity index. Each of these criteria for

characterization of biological conditions are described in detail in Plafkin etal. (1989).

With each of the biological indices completed, the bioassessment component of the

^ ^ K B ^ r t : ! ^ ^ ^ ' • * > • ^ . ^ • • ^ ? « » c t ^ ^ y - ~ : i i « ' a l J W ^ • • . •

Table 4. Relative Comparability of the Stations Based on Habitat

Stream ,

Ashaway River

Nooseneck River

Bucks Horn Brook

Wood River

Dolly Cole Brook

Hemlock Brook

Moswansicut Brook

Keech Brook

Rush Brook

Adamsville Brook

Fall River

Meadow Brook

Saugatucket River

Wilbur Hollow Brook

Swamp Brook

Abbot Run Brook- North

Maidford River

Nipmuc River- Top Brook.

Parris Brook

Carr River

Tomaquag Brook

Clear River

Pascoag River

Beaver River

Congdon Brook

Hardig Brook

Abbot Run Brook South

Queens River

Chipuxet River

Hunt River

Cold Brook

Canonchet Brook

Pawtuxet River

Dundery Brook

Buckeye Brook

Bailey's Brook

Jamestown Brook

Ten Mile River

Big River

Woonasquatucket River

Runnins River

Total Physical Score

116 >

113 j

112 /

111 \

107 ,

107

107

105

105

104 /

102 .

098 I

097 >

097

094

093

093

092

092­

090

088 /

086

086 \

085

085

085

084

08^

074

072 S

063 V

062

062 /

059 . V

055

054 I

050 |

049 '

044

030

.0.

s3opaovT»Kf.

. C X

/ /

Protocol was conducted . Each of the metrics is scored differently (see Plafkin et al. Table 6.3.4).

Numeric values based on the spring and summer 1992 survey have been presented for each site.

These were determined by Protocol standards (please refer to the summary Tables 5 and 6 ).

The EXCEL program on the Macintosh microcomputer was adapted to analyze the data.

This enabled the metrics (index values) to be completed in a timely fashion. The complete

biological matrix by station required to run the Protocol was run based on the Fall River as the

reference station as state reference location.

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. , $ i

y-Upon analysis of this biological assessment, most of the sites were considered in the spring

sample to be non-impaired (>83% of the Fall value, 36 or more points) or slightly impaired (54­

79% of the Fall value, 23 to 35 points) based on the percentage relationship of the station to the

Fall system. Six stations were considered to be moderately impaired (21-50% of the Fall value, 9

to 22 points) and one station was considered to be severely impaired (less than 17% of the Fall

value, 8 or fewer points) by utilization of the Protocol metric.

Analysis of the summer biological assessment utilizing the Fall River as the reference i

station and the same bioassessment score values resulted in a decline of stations that were slightly

or non impacted with an increase in the moderately impacted to severe impact stations.

A non-impaired station is comparable to the best situation to be expected within an

ecoregion. These stations would have balanced trophic structure and optimum community structure oV

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.

1 ^

Table 5. Spring Bioassessment utilizing the Fall River as reference station.

Station

Fall Wood Ashaway Clear Cold Dolly Cole Meadow Nipmuc Nooseneck Parris Rush Swamp Beaver Congdon Tomaquag Hunt Beaver at 138 Canonchet Dundery Hardig Hemlock Keech Adamsville Bailey's Big Maidford Moshwansicut Pascoag Woonasquatucket Abbot Run North Pawtuxet Abbot Run South Buckeye Lawton's

Bioassessment

Reference 83 75 75 75 75 . 75 75 75 75 75 75 71 71 71 67 63 63 63 58 58 58 54 54 54 54 54 50 50 46 46 42 33 13

Score(%) Assessment

Non-impaired Slightly Impa red Slightly Impa red Slightly Impa red Slightly Impa red Slightly Impa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa red Slightly mpa ired Slightly mpa ired Slightly mpa ired Slightly mpa ired Slightly mpa ired Slightly mpa ired Slightly Impa ired Slightly Impa ired Slightly Impa ired Slightly Impa ired Slightly Impa ired Moderate jly Impaired Moderate jly Impaired Moderate 3ly Impaired Moderate 3(y Impaired Moderate Jly Impaired Moderate jly Impaired Severely Impaired

( 3

Table 6. Summer

Station

Fall Wilbur Hollow Cold Hunt Meadow Nooseneck Parris Rush Dolly Cole Keech Pascoag Wood Hardig Hemlock Adamsville Ashaway Nipmuc Jamestown Abbott Run North Beaver Congdon Dundery Moshwansicut Queens Beaver at 138 Clear Maidford Swamp Carr Bailey's Tomaquag Ten Mile Abbot Run south Big Saugatucket Pawtuxet Woonasquatucket Chipuxet Lawton's

Bioassessment utilizing the Fall River

Bioassessment Score(%)

Reference 88 79 79 79 79 79 79 75 75 75 71 67 67 63 63 63 63 58 58 58 58 58 58 54 54 54 54 50 46 42 42 33 33 33 21 17 17 0.4

as reference station.

Assessment

Non-impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Slightly Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Moderately Impaired Severely Impacted Severely Impacted Severely Impacted

tH

• 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. Differences may be caused by stream size and composition of the

physical habitats (e.g. comparison of the Class A stream in Jamestown with the Class A stream at

Fall River is a poor comparison due to physical differences between the sites). All data was

interpreted by means of the indices proposed by the Protocol.

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 Fall system.

The numeric ranking system is considered to be a good bioassessment method. On-site

observations and collections provide the researcher with information concerning biolic 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 commenced in the fall of 1991. This

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 a potential use of

the protocol within the state on a site basis. (Please see attached draft report).

This study resulted in several concerns that require further study. Among them are:

1. the temporal distribution within the streams at each site. This study has provided a

baseline for such study and the documentation of macrofauna variations present within the state.

Over the period of several years, the nature of the changes will be monitored to determine long­

term fluctuations of macrofauna.

2. The variation within the stream (longitudinal and horizontal) requires further

f S

investigation. The draft study is continues to document the potential non-point effects on a stream.

During the winter of 1993, storm events will be measured by monitoring the macrofauna at the

stations.

3. Analysis of the local variation by sub-regions will occur. Use of the EXCEL program to

analyze the samples by geographical region may determine relative differences in the watersheds.

Hopefully, the above experiments will begin to help the researcher better understand the

significance of the site selection as well as potential for non-point source runoff.

The 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.

/ £

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:

Rebecca Jones and Karen Blackburn, two undergraduates at Roger Williams University

who learned to identify, analyze, and conduct their own research within the streams.

Richard Koch, Professor of Chemistry at Roger Williams University, who assisted in the

EXCEL interpretation.

Robert Richardson and Christopher Deacutis of the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management who provided direction and insight on many facets of the project.

; 7

Bibliography

Adler, P.H. and K.C. Kim. 1986. The Blackflies of Pennsylvania (Simulidae, Diplera)

Bionomics, Taxonomy, 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

Plecoptera. 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 Tvelenia (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 31p.

/a

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 Systemalics, 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.

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.

i\

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 S.J. 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, IA.

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.

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

Zo

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 RR. 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 (Diplera: Chironomidae). Canadian Entomologist. 117:803-809.

Peckarsky, B.L., RR. 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.15:669-686.

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 Caddisflies, or Trichoptera, of Illinois. Entomological Reprint. Los

Angeles. 326 p.

2L\

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 Caddisfly 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: Hydropsychidae). 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.

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 Animals). 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.

ZZ.

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 Holarclic 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 (Trichoplera). 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 J.D. 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.

/°I°,2.^ZJ