summary of ecological risk assessment (era) …changes in the benthic community as the result of...

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MEETING

Location Westborough Technology Park Conference Center (NOTE CHANGE)

Date August 18 1994

Time 10 am AGENDA

Overview of Aquatic Ecology Assessment GE Contractor (Chadwick amp Associates) of the Housatonic River

Presentation and Discussion of Co=ents on DEPEPA Aquatic Ecology Assessment

Overview of Terrestrial Ecosystem Evaluation GE Contractor (SG Martin amp Associates) of the Housatonic River

Presentation and Discussion of Co=ents on DEP amp EPA Terrestrial Ecosystem Evaluation

Other Issues

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MEETING August 18 1994

Westborough Technology Park Conference Center

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE FAX

d~~ l)e-P 10eelt(1l ~ iCY1T LJ) CvHer

510 n D SO VI us EPA

A-AN WpoundJNI3~

C7AfLr Gse8c

----v alibl NoM lUG

Yov4 LAJ LC)tfJiWJfU El+O~L ~ j(E7 h7 fdfter7-

(tAo] 5perduftJ

-loh C I ( rA poshyA-~ltl) ~ltJ)-Mo 0 gt

Y1-l15 4eo

lop HrSifltgtSu LL I~

04(K 5 - S1shy

cX~h1~ S1eph~ C lY)tJ(tl~

Cu55 tCe-eV1ctvshy

(V-aVciI 4tlY tY~

EI len Ebtrt

jVDfJJ A

U5 r hl5

S~lt4 I f0cIIlt

GIT P17 ~ OE--V

NtJFW

H-rltI

50 fY)atf~ 1klt9c ~lt bull

JlC-~(fk-t- ~r~K-M~ LlkfeVi f (-tv f- amp ~~ f St ~lftrtM(l+tlrt ChOVRI~k

61 5]3-PI7 -73- hG2

In 7 ltt11-liOO x l-LO

Co (-L ~t - S+L

SoB- Z-~I - 123Q

S-S~Jamp5-shy-22)- )T3 7 (2i) jtj

111 ]yraquo)shy

fo7 bll1 603

113

Lf3 411 g ~o

( S-O~) 79 () - 7 ~ 70

amp1 r-rf 1- - s3tg

GOt) 17tf -COldshy

(to ) 111 - OCgtfZ

(2-01 114-o01~ (201)114-pound)20

DRAFT NOTES -- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

These draft notes were prepared to guide development of the Supplemental Health and Environmental Proposal The documents that are the subject of these notes (Aquatic Ecology Assessment of the Housatonic River and Evaluation of the Terrestrial Ecosystem of the Housatonic River Valley) are not official submittals under MGL 21E or ReRA and thus DEP and EPA have no intentions of formally ~~ing on approving or disapproving these submittals ~E

DRAFf NOTES FOR DISCUSSION ON Aquatic Ecology Assessment of the Housatonic River Massachusetts

A BROAD ISSUES DEALING WITH PURPOSE OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT

1 It is not clear how this study fits into the outline described in the PHEAP or how the results and conclusions will be used to characterize ecological risk Overall the study provides a useful description of the fish and benthic invertebrate community structures of the Housatonic River and can PTovide support for the ecological risk assessment However a number of issues must be addressed regarding preparation and implementation of the Scope of Work for the Ecolog~ Risk Assessment (HEAP)

bull Will data from this study be used to support preparation of the HEAP

- Issues raised in the joint comments of the Preliminary Health and Environmental Assessment Proposal (PHEAP) must be addressed in the HEAP

- Will data in this study be used as a basis for selecting receptors pathways of exposure and endpoints for the ecological risk assessment

bull In the ecological risk assessment DEPIEPA expect that toxicity studies will be conducted and that the results of these studies will carry at least as much weight in the final conclusions as the results from field studies

This is an important consideration given that standard for significant risk to the environment in the MCP includes showing that there is no evidence of ecologically significant harm and that there is no Indication of the potential for ecologically significant harm

PRAFT NOTES -- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLy

B

1

2

SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE METHODS USED IN THE STUDY

Upstream Comparison areas

bull The upstream area (EB-I) appears to already be an impacted area because it is a channelized portion of the river and flows behind an shopping area Comparing an upstream site with a fair habitat with downstream sites that have better habitats introduces bias

bull In a community analysis it is preferable to select a background or reference site that is out of the influence of contaminants and is in the same watershed or ecosystem type as the impacted site

bull There are many potential point and nonpoint sources to the River upstream of the GE facility On the East Branch these sources include Pittsfield Municipal Landfill Pittsfield Sand and Gravel possibly Friedman Steel Downing Industrial Park Vieon Recovery (trash incineration) Kelly Lumber a Sewage Disposal area and a Pumping Station Crane Paper Co--I1d various department stores gas stations and restaurants In addition on Unkamet Brook which flows into the East Branch many wetland and floodplain ar~around the Coltsville area were filled in the 60s and 70s This issue warrants further evaluation

Fish community evaluation

bull On page 12 the range selected as representative of normal relative weight (70-100) appears wide It is questionable whether this range is too wide to allow discrimination between sites and even whether relative weight is a good parameter to use to identify impaired communities In addition the rationale for modifying the relative weight standard for yellow perch is not clear

bull EPA Fish Assessment Methods recommend using the Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr et al 1986) There are 12 biological metrics used in compiling this index Consideration of the parameters in this index would result in a more robust analysis

bull Fish that were collected were placed into one of 3 groups game fish rough fish or forage fish These groups relate to the role of the fish in supporting a recreational fishery rather than an ecological role in supporting an aquatic habitat All subsequent analyses and conclusions about the health of fish communities in the Housatonic are based on these groupings

bull Only the time spent electroshocking fish at Woods Pond is mentioned his is a very important factor in standardizing fishing effort

- 2 shy

DRAFI NOTES -- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

3

4

5

6

Benthic Community Evaluation

bull The document does not report any contaminant data co-located with observations of benthic communities

bull Use of the parameters from the Rapid Bioassessment protocols (plafkin et al 1989) will result in a more robust analysis of benthic communities

bull In addition to richness diversity and density indicator species evaluatfons would be appropriate to consider because the upstream sites do not appear to be reference stations with good nonimpacted habitat

Water Quality Parameters

bull The rationale for selection of parameters and durations for measurements is unclear

- What was the purpose for selecting nitrate and ammonia as water quality parameters

- Why was the sampling period May-October selected (high and low flow) - Why was temp and dissolved oxygen measured weekly for 4 months

Other animals

bull Species such as reptiles amphibians and aquatic birds and specifically fish-eating birds were not evaluated

- Effects in birds that have been reported in the literature are reproductive failure crossed bills reduced mandibles foot and eye problems and feather loss

bull Plants were evaluated only in the context of their role as habitat for fish and benthic communities

Relevant Standards Criteria Toxicity Literature

eThere is only one general statement about fish tissue levels of PCBs (p6) No specific studies or levels are mentioned This is a notable oversight considering that PCBs are currently bioavailable in the River and appear to be biomagnifying based on fish tissue studies

bull The study should have included a discussion of effects reported in the literature that are associated with the PCB levels known to be in fish in the River Effects endpoints reported in the literature that should be discussed include reproductive effects estrogenic effects kidney toxicity liver lesions and enzyme induQiion

- 3 shy


bull There is a body of relevant standards criteria guidelines and toxicity information that should be considered in the ecological risk assessment These include the following

- NOAA ER-L (50 ppb) and ER-M (400 ppb) contaminated sediment values - Ministry of Ontario Sediment Quality Guidelines

NEL= 10 ppb LEL=70 ppb SEL=530 ppm - National Screening Level Concentration (29 ppb at 1 TOC) - Use of Hyallela azteca as sediment toxicity test organism (95 mortality in

sediments gt 43 ppm) - EPA Region V Guidelines for Pollution Classification of the Great Lakes (2 10

ppm = heavily polluted) - New England River Basins Commission classification for highly contaminated

dredge material (1 ppm) - EPAs Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook - EPA Sediment Quality Triad Approach

C SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ~

~

1 Habitat type as a detenninant of presenc~f fish and benthic communities There are several inadequately supported conclusions about the effects of PCBs on fish and invertebrate populations

bull The cluster analysis on fish community data (p 33) and invertebrate data (p57) indicates that species present at the site were more a function of habitat type than a function of other factors such as location relative to the GE facility Conclusions are drawn that fish communities and benthic invertebrate populations in Housatonic are determined by habitat features not the pattern of PCB sediment concentrations and that sediment PCBs are having no discernable ecological effect on the aquatic biota of the Housatonic River system (p63)

These conclusions are not properly supported for the following reasons

bull Upstreamdownstream location may not be an appropriate surrogate for PCB sediment concentrations because some downstream locations (HR-5 and HR-6) have low PCB levels In fact pp15 and 61 indicate that because sites HR-5 and HR-6 (both downstream locations) have low PCB levels they are used as comparison data for site HR-2 (also downstream) which has relatively high levels of PCBs

bull a community study such as was performed in this document does not have the resolution to determine what effect the PCBs are having on a particular species one cannot measure injury by simply counting numbers of organisms or num~ers of species i

- 4 shy


2 Fish Community Data

bull Page 43 indicates that lower numbers of rough fish in 1993 show that the fish community is more balanced because there are fewer rough fish to compete with more desirable species

- Does desirable relate to recreational fishing or to supporting a healthy aquatic ecosystem

- Greater numbers of rough fish is an indicator of a stressed system not a more healthy system

bull Table 5 shows that 12 species of fish that were collected in earlier studies but were not collected in the Chadwick 1992 and 1993 studies This issue should be better evaluated

bull Figure 4 shows that forage fish biomass in downstream shallow locations is noticeably lower than in upstream site WB1 This difference warrants further study

bull It is overstating the facts to conclude that the fish community in the Housatonic is healthier than in 1970 because the methodlised in earlier studies were not discussed or evaluated as comparable (p47)

3 Benthic invertebrate data

bull Page 62 states that benthic invertebrate density is lower at HR-I than at other sites which correlates with low nitrate levels This also correlates with being downstream from GE

bull On p 53 mention is made of invertebrate populations correlating to nutrient levels Was a cluster analysis performed for this or is inferred from the data

bull The Shannon-Weaver diversity index may not be sensitive enough to detect adverse changes in the benthic community as the result of exposure to PCBs Aquatic invertebrates appear to be much less sensitive than fish and other vertebrate species to effects of PCBs Thus studies examining benthic invertebrate communities may not provide sufficient evidence to prove or eliminate potential adverse effects resulting from PCB exposure

bull Conclusions based on differences between diversity indices should be better supported

- 5 shy


DRAFf NOTES FOR DISCUSSION ON Evaluation of the Terrestrial Ecosystem of the Housatonic River Valley


1 In general this evaluation is well done and provides a valuable body of information about the terrestrial ecosystem However it is not clear whether this evaluation-represents the full and final assessment of risks to terrestrial receptors Assuming it does not there are a number of issues that need to be studied further in the ecological risk assessment

B SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE METHODS USED IN THE STUDY

1 Selection of Reference Area The shrub meadow reference area may already be a stressed area because of the road and railroad tracks located adjacent to it This issue should be further evaluated

2 Selection of Indicator Species There are several species (listed below) which ma~ good indicator species but were either rejected or not considered at all

bull Earthworms they are an important food source for birds and mammals and thus they have a potentially important role in biomagnification of PCBs

bull Amphibians and Reptiles incidental observations were noted no further evaluations were made

bull Plants plants can be stressed by PCBs

bull Fish eating mammals fish eating is a key exposure pathway that must be evaluated The River Otter is an especially good species The fact that otter is trapped in MA is not a sufficient rationale for not selecting it as an indicator species

bull Carnivorous birds

bull Aquatic herbivores and insectivores

bull Omnivores (raccoons)

bull Species of concern threatened species and endangered species in accordance with 310 CMR 400922 these species known or likely to be located at the dispoSfll site or in the surrounding area must be specifically identified as an environmental receptor It appears that these species have not even been identified in the document

- 6 shy


3 Avian Reproductive Success Additional information must be provided regarding the statistical methods used to analyze data collected on avian reproductive success and the conclusions drawn based on these analyses Specific areas that need clarification are

bull Number of nests observed including borderline nests bull The power of the study bull Is the clutch size normally distributed

4 Absence of expected species This was selected as an assessment endpoint Table 3-11 provides data on observed and expected wildlife species The species that were expected and not observed are not discussed thoroughly enough Also no data are provided about the number of each species observed and expected or the sex ratios

5 Measurement Endpoints The selection of measurement endpoints is not supported by any discussion of biological mechanisms as related to PCB exposure

~

6 Predictive v Retrospective (Field) methods of assessing risk -x

The use of predictive methods has been rejected in favor of a retrospective approach which is focused on community-level studies Both methods have value in the risk assessment

B SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

1 White-footed mice results

bull Table 3-7 (p3-1O) and the text on p 3-11 indicate that the white-footed mice population density in the Housatonic was greater than ranges in the reference areas

bull Table 3-9 (p3-l2) shows that the age structure of the white-footed mice in the Housatonic population is younger than comparison populations

These findings suggest possible effects from exposure to PCBs but are not discussed adequately in the report

2 Statement of Risk Results The stated objective of this document is to evaluate the effects of PCBs on terrestrial wildlife Study methods used are described as those typically used to assess environmental risks However the report makes no conclusions about risk

bull

- 7 shy

PRELIMINARY DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

TASK 100 Characterization of Risk to the Environment

General

43 It appears that the tasks described in the PHEAP are designed primarily to collect information needed to assess human health risks and that this infor~ation will be supplemented in Task 10 by additional data needed for assessing ecological risks This implies a sequential approach to the human health and ecological risk assessments Although the data needs for human health and ecological risk assessments may differ to an extent there is substantial overlap between data collection efforts for the two assessments Therefore data collection for the health and ecological assessments should occur concurrently rather than sequentially This will ensure that both risk assessments are performed in a logical and fully coordinated manner

As a first step in the process of environmentalecological risk characterization GE should develop a comprehensive investigaRltn plan In this plan GE must clearly define the objectives of the environmentarJ ecological risk assessment For example if GE intends to use the risk assessment results to identify remediation levels this must be stated as an objective of the risk assessment and the investigation plan should be developed in accordance with the stated objectives The investigation plan should contain the overall design of the ecological risk assessment and should describe specific activities procedures and techniques that will be part of the risk assessment process This plan should be prepared before conducting field studies or collecting samples for chemical analysis or toxicity testing This will facilitate the co-location of chemical samples with bioassays and field studies Co-location of analyses is critical to enable investigators to correlate chemical concentrations with biological effects because physical and chemical and biological conditions often vary widely over small areas Ideally each samples collected for a toxicity test should be split for chemical analysis Key steps EPA and MA DEP expect to be included in GEs ecological investigation plan are summarized below

bull Identification of Assessment Endpoints Assessment endpoints are effects that will be considered to represent significant risk of harm to the environment and should be representative of all exposure pathways Examples of Assessment Endpoints are listed as follows

bull habitat degradation or destruction

~

reduction of a population or subpopulation


absence of a species change in the structure of a community bioconcentrationbioaccumulation and loss or diminishment of ecological function

Assessment endpoints should be selected based on the following information

description of the fate and transport characteristics of the contaminants of concern identification of exposure pathways and receptors of concern and evaluation of the potential toxicological effects of the contaminants to the receptors

EPA and MA DEP recommend that a field survey be conducted to obtain information needed to support selection of assessment endpoints It is important that the field survey be coordinated with any sampling activities so that sampling is coordinated in time and space with the identification of critical receptors

bull Identification of Measurement EndpointSmiddot A measurement endpoint is a measur~~e response to a contaminant that is related to a particular assessment endthiint(s) Examples of measurement endpoints are listed as follows

chemical analyses bioassay results field surveys benchmark comparisons biomarkers and toxicity tests

Strong links between measurement endpoints and assessment endpoints will enable the risk assessor to draw conclusions about risk from the results of measurements Multiple measurement endpoints should be identified for each assessment endpoint In this way the determination of whether there is significant risk can be made based on a preponderance of evidence

Subtask 101 Site Reconnaissance

44 The PHEAP does not identify the types needs or quality of information that will be obtained from Subtask 15 and from first-hand observations of Area 6 for use in the ecological assessment Preliminary field surveys should be done to support planning the assessment More extensive field surveys may be includeej in the assessment as measurement methods

PRELIMINARY DRAY) - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

As detailed above a comprehensive ecological investigation plan should be developed and should describe the types and quality of information needed to perform the ecological assessment and identify the sources of that information For information obtained from sources other than Area 6 the Plan should indicate that justification for its use will be provided in the final REA report

Provide the criteria for determining that data of sufficient quantity and quality for characterizing risks are obtained from these sources and that they meet the data quality objectives of the characterization

45 The PREAP indicates that the site survey will be designed to allow for observations of the ecosystem during different seasons and during changes of seasons if possible

Seasonal observations should be conducted concurrently with other ecological risk assessment activities and should not cause a delay in the schedule provided in Section III Upon completion of the site survey the selection of receptors and pathways of exposures should be reviewed to determine if any modifications are needed based on the full range of seasonal observations

~-

Subtask 102 Identification of PotentiaIly Affected Receptors

46 The PHEAP states that the results of Task 10 and Sub task 101 will be used in identifying and characterizing key ecological receptors in Area 6 The methods and procedures that will be followed in identifying and characterizing ecological receptors

As discussed above the identification of ecological receptors of concern and pathways of exposure should be based on a field survey including but not limited to identification of all endangered or threatened species potentially impacted by the area and should be done prior to the selection of assessment endpoints The comprehensive ecological investigation plan should provide the methods and procedures that will be used to identify and characterize all ecological receptors of concern and pathways of exposure at Area 6

Examples of types of receptors are an organism (individuals of threatened or endangered species) a group of organisms (species subpopulations populations or communities) or a habitat area Receptors should be identified in conjunction with a habitat evaluation of the site and areas surrounding or connected with the site Areas connected to the site should not be included in the assessment itself except affected wetlands but may be important in determining the likelihood of certain species inhabiting or frequenting the site bull

~ I

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Regarding pathways of exposure all potential pathways of exposure both direct and indirect to ecological receptors should be identified and discussed Examples of some direct and indirect pathways of exposure to ecological receptors include but are not limited to

aquatic organisms that are exposed to surface water contaminated by groundwater discharging to surface water terrestrial mammals that live in or visit the floodplain and come into contact with contaminated sediment soil invertebrates that live in direct contact with contaminated soil and ingest soil during their normal life cycle plants that uptake contaminants directly from the soil or groundwater and herbivorous birds that ingest plant material that has taken up contaminants from the soil

Subtask 103 ScreeningmiddotLevel Evaluation

47 The PREAP does not identify or discuss thlmethods techniques and procedures that will be used in performing a screeni~level environmental evaluation for Area 6

Within the REA Proposal identify and discuss the methodologies that will be used in performing the screening assessment Provide the criteria for determining that data of sufficient quantity and quality for characterizing risks are obtained from these sources and that they meet the data quality objectives of the characterization Also describe the sampling strategy and criteria for collecting samples conducting bioassays or other biological monitoring which may be required to supplement information obtained from the screening-level evaluation Demonstrate that the methods used conform to the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Interim Final Volume II (EPA5401-89OOI) and the Region I Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program Draft Final (June 1989)

48 9 of the PREAP states that the screening evaluation will compare chemical concentrations to relevant federal and state standards criteria and other guidelines established for the protection of environmental receptors The procedures for establishing applicability relevance and appropriateness of these standards criteria and guidelines to conditions in Area 6 are not discussed

Within the REA Proposal outline the procedures that will be followed in determining that the federal and state standards and criteria under consideration are applicable relevant and appropriate for the environmental conditiorls and the ecological receptors in Area 6

PREUMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Subtask 104 Ecological Risk Characterization

49 The PHEAP indicates that the influence of natural attenuation and degradation of chemicals over time will be considered in characterizing the ecological risk at Area 6 It is not clear from the information provided how the effects will be considered

Within the REA Proposal identifY and discuss the methodologies and models that will be used in characterizing the influence of natural attenuation chemical degradation chemical transformation and other factors that influencethe risk to ecological receptors over time State whether data and analyses will be presented to quantify the effect of these time-related factors

Subtask 105 Uncertainty and Conservatism

50 Within the REA Proposal identifY and discuss each source of uncertainty and positive and negative potential bias that is expected to affect the results of the ecological risk characterization for Area 6

Indicate that each source of uncertainty will ~

be individually identified and discussed in the fmal IlEA report Statethat the individual sources of uncertainty and bias will be integrated in the final re~t to illustrate their effect on the characterization of the risk posed to ecological receptors by hazardous constituents in Area 6 State that the fmal report will assess the effectiveness of the data quality objectives for the REA and will include a discussion of the impact of data quality on the risk characterization

Tbi$ is pbellpSge last updated 2394

chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text

OVERVIEW OF TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM EVALUATION OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

Objective

To ascertain whether the diversity density and reproductive success of wildlife living in potentially contaminated areas of the Housatonic River flood plain compare favorably to populations inhabiting uncontaminated reference areas or lie within normal ranges as reported in the literature

Selection of Indicator Species

bull Song birds

bull Small mammals

Selection of Study Areas

bull Flood plain forest

bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated

bull Diversity and density of bird species in the flood plain forest

- censuses of study areas - comparison to literature

bull Reproductive success of avian populations in all habitats

- nest monitoring for clutch size young hatched and hatching success - comparison between target and reference nests

bull Small mammal population and age structure in flood plain forest and shrub meadow

- mark and recapture studies to determine size and age structure of population - comparison to literature

bull Reproductive success of small mammals in the shrub meadow and flood plain forest

- examination for placental scars and embryos - comparison to literature


RESULTS

Avian Studies

bull Density of breeding birds in target area was greater than the mean densities reported in the literature

bull Diversity of breeding birds in target area was somewhat less than the mean diversities reported in the literature likely reflecting differences in observation time study area size and latitude

bull No statistically significant differences were observed in clutch sizes young hatched or hatching success between target and reference groups Reproductive parameters compared favorably to data reported in the literature

Small Mammal Studies

bull The observed density of the white-footed manse and Southern red-backed vole populations in the target area compared favorably to results of the two literature reference studies

bull The observed age structure of the white-footed mouse and Southern red-backed vole popUlations in the target area compared favorably to results of the two literature reference studies

bull Observed average litter size for white-footed mice and propOltions of target female whiteshyfooted mice and Southern red-backed voles that were reproductive were greater than those reported in the literature

Additional Ecological Data

bull Incidental observations suggest that species expected to be present inhabit the Housatonic River valley Several uncommon rare or threatened species were observed suggesting the conditions of the habitat can successfully support rare and common species alike

ChemRiskreg bull A Division of McLarenIHart July 26 1994 Page 3-Se

Density

MaxiumumT Since 1981

bull Mean

Minimumshy Since 1981

+ Single datum

Figure 3middot2 Avian Population Study Density

450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~

I Massachusetts Maryland

--

I

4

~

---

0

Shannon - Weiner Index

Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum

Figure 3-4 Avian Population Study Diversity

35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2

00 o Massachusetts Maryland North

Carolina

1l () DC - w ~ - Illa shy

~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2

MaXlumum ~ V Since 1981

Mean0

Mimimum h Since 1981

ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00

Figure 3middot5 Avian Reproduction Evaluation Clutch Size

(006)

American Barn Eastern Redstart Swallow Phoebe

bull

Rose-breasted American Red-winged Wood Grosbeak Robin Blackbird Thrush

Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler

tl (lEo ~ltMI wtv~0 _ 0shy

~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0

Number of Eggs Laid Number of Nests Monitored

III Reference Nests 121 Target Nests bull Reference Nests ( ) p-value NA small sample size prevented bull Target Nests

statistical analysis

8

Figure 3-6 Comparison of Observed Clutch Sizes to Ranges Reported in the Literature

7 shy

6 shy r T -r

5 shy T -r- Cr r ~ t

- Ii 0_ (t Tf 0~Q~i~ r p- L -H shy2 Lshy Lshy

~ bull

1 shy

o Amencan Bam Eastern Rosemiddot Amencan Redmiddot Wood Yellow

breasted wingedredstart swallowb phoebe robinc thrushd warbler grosbeak blackbird

Indicator Species

Notes a Unless otherwise noted literature data from Ehrlich et aI (1988)

b Literature data for bam swallows from Lanier (1982) and Ehrlich et aI (1988)

c Literature data from American robin from Howard (1967) Johnson et aI (1976) and EhriIicb et aI (1988)

d Literature data for wood thrusb from Harrison (1979)

Key

occasiOilal tUsual clutch size clutch ti bull

from literature sIZe __

one_~standard r Mean clutch size observed

deviation in reference nests

one-~S~d~ t Mean clutch size observed devla~ in target nests

0

Figure 3-7 Avian Reproduction Evaluation Young Hatched

Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)

American Eastern American Red-winged Wood Redstart Phoebe Robin Blackbird Thrush

Species

Number of Young Hatched Number of Nests Monitored

IiII Reference Nests o Target Nests bull Reference Nests () p-value NA small sample size prevented bull Target Nests statistical analvsis

Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0

ChemRiskreg bull A Division of McLarenlHart July 261994 Page 3middotlOb

Table 3middot7 Summary of Flood Plain Forest Small Mammal Population Study

Southern While-footed red-backed

mouse vole

Total Number of Animals Marked

Estimated Population plusmn Std Dev

Observed Density (individualslha)

Density Reported

in the Literature

a Batzli1977 h Miller and Getz 1977

57 29

641plusmn 38 347 plusmn62

16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h

CIemRisk bull A Division of McLarenlHar July 26 1994 Page 3-12a

Table 3middot9 Summary of Small Mammal Population Age Structure

Percent of Population Percent of Population Percent of Population Observed in Housatonic Reported by Reported by

Flood plain Forest Batzli 1977 Miller and Getz 1977

White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54

Subadults 47 4)middot25 24

Juveniles 28 0- 25 22

Southern red-backed vole

Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported

Table 3-10 Summary of Small Mammal Reproductive Analyses

Total Females Analyzed

White-footed Mice

Target Reference Area Area

5 NR

Southern Red-backed Voles


4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a

Number of Mature Females 5 NR 4 NR 1 1 5 3

Placental Scars Observed 6 NR 4 NR 0 6 15 3

Embryos Observed 26 NR 8 NR 0 0 0 3

Reproduction per Femaled 6 NR 3 NR 0 6 3 1

Average Observed Litter Size

Percent Reproductive Females Observed

52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25

a lbis group includes one immature female b Batzli 1977 c Miller and Getz 1977 d Number of placental scarslnmnber of mature females NR = Not reported NA = Not available

middotChemRiskreg - A Division of McLarenlHart July 26 1994 Page4-8a

Table 4-1 Summary of Potential Exposure-Effect Relationships hy Measurement Endpoint and by Species

Indicator Species Diversity Density Age Structure Reproductive Success

Mammals White-footed mouse Southern red-backed vole Masked shrew Northern short-tailed shrew

Birds Eastern phoebe Bam swallow Wood thrush American robin Yellow warbler American redstart Rose-breasted grosbeak Red-winged blackbird

NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I

NE N NE N NE N NE N NE N NE I NE N NE I NE N

Notes N = no effects (no significant differences or results for target area are more favorable than for reference area) I = inconclusive NE = not evaluated

(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW

AQUATIC ECOLOGY OF HOUSATONIC RIVER

Study Objectives

bull Describe relative habitat quality between sites

bull Determine fish species composition

bull Determine fish abundance

bull Measure structure of game fish populations

bull Evaluate general health of fish

bull Determine composition abundance and health of invertebrate community 4

Sampling Sites (Handout 2 - Map)

bull Upstream shallow sites (EBI WBI)

bull Downstream shallow sites (EB2 HRI HR3 HR4)

bull Downstream deep sites (HR2 HRS HR6)

bull Woods Pond (treated as deep site)

Methods

bull Habitat - cover quantification

bull Fish - bank or boat electrofishing

- Individual lengths and weights - game fish

- Batch weights - forage fish

- Representative sample of rough fish with lengths and weights remainder batch

weighed

bull Invertebrates - 3 Hess samples and kick-net - shallow sites

- 3 Ekman samples and kick net - deep sites

Results

bull Water quality and cover data in report

bull Fish - Fish community in Housatonic River diverse and abundant (Handout 3)

- Shallow sites dominated by minnows (Handout 4)

- Deep sites dominated by sunfish

- Populations similar to other regional streams (Handout 5)

- Biomass shows no pattern correlated to PCB concentrations (Handout 6)

- Biomass better than 1970 (Handout 7)

- Game fish in good condition (Handout 8)

bull Invertebrates

- Shallow sites with stoneflies mayflies caddisflies etc (Handout 9)

- Deep sites with midges and oligochaetes

- Population parameters look good (Handout 10) ~

- Some correlation between densities and nitrogen

- Invertebrate community similar tobther areas (Handout 11)

Conclusions

bull Fish and invertebrate pOJlulations healthy

bull No pattern related to sediment PCB levels

bull No ecological effect of PCBs

HANDOUTH2

DALTON East Branch West BranrI(

Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3

CityTowni i Study Site I

i Smiles

poundgtLgtSHEFFIELD Watershed Location HR6 in Massachusetts

___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3

TABLE 7 Number of fish collected by Chadwick amp Associates Inc from the Housatonic River system September 1993

Family Upstream Shallow Downstream Deep Downstream ~ Common Narne EBI WBI EB2 HRI HR3 HR4 HR2 HRS HR6 WPI TOTAL

Salmonidae Brown trout 1 -shy -- -- I 11 13

Centrarchidae Rock bass 40 18 31 29 58 23 - 43 7 2523 Black crappie -- -shy -- -- -- I 1 4 4 10 20 White crappie -- I I Bluegill 6 1 -- 2 -- I 3 32 44 75 164 Largemouth bass 2 2 1 18 2 32 4 22 15 124 Pumpkinseed 9 9

26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78

Small mouth bass -- -shy -- 8 11 - 19 ~

Esocidae Northern pike -- -shy I 1

~Chain pickerel 1 -shy -- 4 -shy 5 Percidae

Tessellated darter -- -shy -- -- 40 -shy 41 Yellow perch 5 21

-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212

Ictaluridae Brown bullhead -- -shy I 4 -shy 32-- -- 2 -shy 39 Yellow bullhead -- I I

Catostomidae Longnose sucker -- -shy -- -- 47 shy -- I -shy 48 White sucker 5 174 137 119 405 31 20 80 6 75 1052

Cyprinidae Goldfish -- -shy 21 21 Common shiner -- -shy 153 -- 3 -shy 156 Creek chub -- 5 3 14 27 -shy 49 Common carp -- -shy 2 34 1 1 38 Fallfish 21 131 67 5 7 7 238 Fathead minnow -- 2 2 Golden shiner -- -shy 11 18 Longnose dace 40 136

-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186

Bluntnose minnow 1 1191 427 498 32 10 -- 3 1 1 2164 Blacknose dace 204 289 66 9 6 521 1095 Spottail shiner 4 -shy -- 119 -- I 7 134

Cyprinodontidae Banded killifish -- -shy

-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3

Number Collected 339 1981 941 911 937 1300 48 270 103 344 7174 Number of Species 13 14 11 12 15 11 8 14 12 14 28

HANDOUTH4

FISH RELATIVE ABUNDANCE

NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES

DEEP SITES (INCLUDES WOODS POND)

HANDOUTU5

TABLE 10 Comparison of species composition of fish communities between the Housatonic River (present study) and other studies in the Housatonic River drainage and other drainages in the Northeast Dates in parentheses indicate appropriate year of multiple-year investigation

No of Species i I1J(jA~ p

Common Number of No of No of (to Present No of Suecies by Family Game Fish

Stream State Families Species Study) Minnows Sunfish Suckers Species Reference

Housatonic River Drainage Housatonic R MA (1993) 8 26 10 7 2 13 Present Study Housatonic R MA 8 20 19 8 4 2 9 Bergin (1971) Housatonic R MA 9 25 17 7 6 3 12 McCabe (1943) Naugatuck R CT 7 20 16 8 5 1 8 Mount et at (1986) Naugatuck R CT 8 20 17 7 6 1 9 Kasul et at (1990)

Other Drainages Westfield R MA Deerfield R MA

11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)

Northern Conn R MA 7 17 13 6 3 2 8 Chicopee R MA 10 25 19 8 5 2 11 Hoosic R MA 7 18 15 6 4 2 9 Ware R MA 8 21 17 6 2 6 11 Swanson (1973) Lewis Cr VT (1989) 8 21 14 9 4 1 8 Langdon amp Fiske (1991) Nine Mile Cr NY 5 16 12 7 4 2 6 Finger (1982) Town Cr MD 8 38 19 15 9 4 NA Goodfellow amp Lebo (1981) Miller R NH 10 20 10 3 5 2 10 Bailey amp Oliver (1939) Ashuelot R NH 11 26 13 6 4 2 13 Cold River NH 10 20 13 5 3 2 9 Sugar R NH 11 26 14 6 4 2 14 Mascoma R NH 11 27 15 6 5 1 15 Amonoosuc R NH 9 21 14 5 3 2 10 Johns R NH Israel R NH

9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull

Upper Amonoosuc R NH 10 23 12 5 3 2 10 Mohavrk R NH 4 11 6 6 0 2 2

Includes tributaries

HANDOUT 66

500

El Forage Fish o Rough Fish

400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o

EB1 WB1 EB2 HR1 HR3 HR4 HR2 HRS HR6 WP1

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM SHAllOW DOWNSTREAM DEEP WOODS POND

FIGURE 4 Estimated biomass of forage fish rough fish and game fish at study sites on the Housatonic River system September 1993

Weights estimated for forage fish

Biomass for Woods Pond represents biomass actually collected not estimated for entire pond

HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r

FIGURE 6 Estimated biomass (lbsacre) of fish at sites on the Housatonic River in 1993 (present study) and 1970 (Massachusetts DFW)

HANDOUTU8

TABLE 8 Mean relative weights eN) of the most common game fish at sites on the Housatonic River system September 1993

Sl1ecies Brown Largemouth Rock Yellow

SITE Bluegill Trout Bass Bass Perch

Shallow Sites Upstream EBI WBI 905

783 1144 945

649 776

Shallow Sites Downstream EB2 HRI HR3 HR4

852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801

Deep Sites Downstream HR2 HRS HR6

1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832

Woods Pond WPI 1133 1000 800

Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9

INVERTEBRATE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE

NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0

TABLE 11 Benthic invertebrate density (Hlm2) number of taxa and diversity (H) at study sites in the Housatonic River system September 1993

Density Number Diversity SITE (HIm) of Taxa (H)

Shallow Sites Upstream EBI 10429 42 356 WBI 9040 35 234

Shallow Sites Downstream EB2 8003 50 306 HRI 4474 43 296 HR3 54429 50 315 HR4 31415

4middotmiddot 63 435

Deep Sites Downstream HR2 2653 47 394 HR5 1362 56 329 HR6 5378 38 336


HANDOUT U11

TABLE 12 Comparison of benthic invertebrate community parameters in the Housatonic River (present study) with results from other studies in the Housatonic River drainage and other drainages in the Northeast Dates in parentheses indicate appropriate year of multiple-year study NA =Not available

No of Diversity Density Stream State Taxa (H) (Um2) Reference

Housatonic River Drainage Housatonic R MA (1993) 35-63 234-435 1362-54429 Present Study Housatonic R CT NA NA 1176- 1295 Hagstrom et al (1992) Naugatuck R CT NA 240-480 1503-81149 Mount et al (1986)

Other Drainages Lewis Cr VT (1988-90) 12-83 2~33-473 2150-6450 Langdon and Fiske (1991) Hoosic R MA 21-39 NA Hogan (1990) 4- NA Statewide Streams VT 28-66 332-526 NA S Fiske (pers Comm) Wild R ME 27 220 NA D Courtemanch

(pers Comm) Ossipee R ME 27 324 NA Sheepscot R ME 30 292 NA Susquehanna R NY (1984) 28-32 265-413 NA Bode et al (1993) Chenango R NY (1979) 32-38 320-393 NA Grasse R NY (1991) 25-30 276-352 NA

barcodetext SDMS DocID 512784

barcode 512784

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT MEETING August 18 1994

Westborough Technology Park Conference Center

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE FAX

d~~ l)e-P 10eelt(1l ~ iCY1T LJ) CvHer

510 n D SO VI us EPA

A-AN WpoundJNI3~

C7AfLr Gse8c

----v alibl NoM lUG

Yov4 LAJ LC)tfJiWJfU El+O~L ~ j(E7 h7 fdfter7-

(tAo] 5perduftJ

-loh C I ( rA poshyA-~ltl) ~ltJ)-Mo 0 gt

Y1-l15 4eo

lop HrSifltgtSu LL I~

04(K 5 - S1shy

cX~h1~ S1eph~ C lY)tJ(tl~

Cu55 tCe-eV1ctvshy

(V-aVciI 4tlY tY~

EI len Ebtrt

jVDfJJ A

U5 r hl5

S~lt4 I f0cIIlt

GIT P17 ~ OE--V

NtJFW

H-rltI

50 fY)atf~ 1klt9c ~lt bull

JlC-~(fk-t- ~r~K-M~ LlkfeVi f (-tv f- amp ~~ f St ~lftrtM(l+tlrt ChOVRI~k

61 5]3-PI7 -73- hG2

In 7 ltt11-liOO x l-LO

Co (-L ~t - S+L

SoB- Z-~I - 123Q

S-S~Jamp5-shy-22)- )T3 7 (2i) jtj

111 ]yraquo)shy

fo7 bll1 603

113

Lf3 411 g ~o

( S-O~) 79 () - 7 ~ 70

amp1 r-rf 1- - s3tg

GOt) 17tf -COldshy

(to ) 111 - OCgtfZ

(2-01 114-o01~ (201)114-pound)20












B

1

2











- 2 shy


3

4

5

6









Other animals







- 3 shy









~






- 4 shy














- 5 shy
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I







48 Page 19 of the PREAP states that the screening evaluation will compare chemical concentrations to relevant federal and state standards criteria and other guidelines established for the protection of environmental receptors The procedures for establishing applicability relevance and appropriateness of these standards criteria and guidelines to conditions in Area 6 are not discussed











chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784












B

1

2











- 2 shy


3

4

5

6









Other animals







- 3 shy









~






- 4 shy














- 5 shy
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies










ChemRiskreg bull A Division of McLarenIHart July 26 1994 -Se

Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784


B

1

2











- 2 shy


3

4

5

6









Other animals







- 3 shy









~






- 4 shy



bull 3 indicates that lower numbers of rough fish in 1993 show that the fish community is more balanced because there are fewer rough fish to compete with more desirable species











- 5 shy
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784


3

4

5

6









Other animals







- 3 shy









~






- 4 shy














- 5 shy
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784









~






- 4 shy










bull 2 states that benthic invertebrate density is lower at HR-I than at other sites which correlates with low nitrate levels This also correlates with being downstream from GE




- 5 shy
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784














- 5 shy
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784
















- 6 shy






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784






~









bull

- 7 shy



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784



General





~

















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784
















~-





~ I


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784


















chartek
Typewritten Text
chartek
Typewritten Text


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784


Objective



bull Song birds

bull Small mammals



bull Shrub meadows

bull Nests

Endpoints Evaluated










RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784


RESULTS

Avian Studies











Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784


Density


bull Mean


+ Single datum


450

400

Jl ~ 350 ~ Q)

J 8 13300 Q)

~

250

200 North

Carolina

r +

4

~

4- ~


--

I

4

~

---

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

0


Maxiumum

Since 1981

bull Mean

Mimimum Since 1981

bull Single Datum


35 20 U

l- 18 30I shy I)

bull - 16

25 shy I - 14 J

Ll - 12

20 shy (ltgt f- 10

) l15 shy bull I- 8

-610 shy

-4 05 shy

-2


Carolina


~ Jbull gt ~

~ = tN2


Mean0


ltgt Single Datum

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

45

Cshy= l ~35 co ~30 0 ~ 25

Q

820

Z = 11 15 = ~ ~ 10

05

00


(006)


bull


Species

(NA)

Yellow Warbler


~ reg30 gt

0 i omiddot25 C ~

= 0f

-0 a flo20 11 so0 6

~ ~ l so ~15 ~

Z 0 I10 ~

Q

8

5 Z =

0




8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

8


7 shy

6 shy r T -r



~ bull

1 shy



Indicator Species





Key






0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

0


Barn Swallow

bull (091) (NA)


Species



Pan IrQ lt g

~w ~ ~-i) ~

bull gt

18 tI3 ~

is16 = 0

14 t 3

-0 ~ 12

0 ~ ~ e ~10 l

8 Z ~

0

6 I ~

Q

S I Z

2

0




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784




mouse vole




Density Reported

in the Literature


57 29


16 4 87

4 - 13a

4 - 9h





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784





White-footed IDouse

Adults 25 40100 54




Adults 47 NR 48

Subadults 33 NR 37

Juveniles 20 NR 14

NR not reported



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784



White-footed Mice


5 NR



4 NR

Short-tailed Shrews


1 1

Masked Shrews


5 4a







52

100

45b

50-65b30c

2

100

NR

75c

NA

0

NA

100

NA

60

NA

25







NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784






NE

I

A

N N N I I

N NE NE ~NE

NE NE NE NE NE

N N N N N N I I I I



(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

(1E 5 C 0) y C tvr-

HANDOUT 1

OVERVIEW


Study Objectives












Methods






weighed



Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

Results









bull Invertebrates






Conclusions




HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTH2


Southwest Branch

I i i i

HOUSATONIC~iEi ~

RNER

HR4III

i Risingbull Pond

I i HRSi i

HR3


i Smiles


___________ L _____ bull_____________________________ _

CONNECTICUT

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

-- -- - --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- ---- -- --

-- -- -- -

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- - -- --

- - -- --

-- -- ----

--

-- - -- --

--

-- - --- -- -- ---- -- -- --

- -- -- ---- -- - --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

HANDOUTH3





26 1 2 -- -shy 4 16 6 31 78





-- I -shy9 94 -- -shy 13 18 2 50 212




-- -- 4 -shy -- -- 3 46 2 300 662 1186



-- -- 3

-- -- 3 -shy 3


HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTH4


NUMBER COLLECTED

SHALLOW SITES


HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTU5







11 9

28 22

17 16

9 8

6 3 bull

1 2

11 9

McCabe (1943)


9 6

20 14

13 7

4 5

5 0

2 2

11 3

bull



HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUT 66

500


400 Q Game Fish

OJ 0 300

~ D c J 0200 0

100

o






HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTH7

400

300

~ o ~ ()

D 200c J

amp

100

o HA1 0 HA3 0 HA4 HA6 0

()) ())()) shy shy shy()) ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) r r r r r


HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTU8





783 1144 945

649 776


852 846 815 4

1156 1024

916 884 927

1052

801


1019 1061 1057

1105 1065 1121

872 862

776 804 832


Standard 100 100 100 100 79

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTH9


NUMBER COLLECTED

WORMS

SHALLOW SITES


CADDISFLlES

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUTHI0








HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

HANDOUT U11







barcode 512784

summary of ecological risk assessment (era) …changes in the benthic community as the result of...

Documents