Freshwater fish communities


Discussion Fish Communities



Download 1.05 Mb.
Page7/7
Date03.03.2018
Size1.05 Mb.
#41921
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Discussion




  1. Fish Communities

The large range of values (0 to 100 percent) observed for both the cold-coolwater fish and fluvial fish metrics indicates that they are useful and sensitive for the study area (Whittier et al. 2007). At one extreme, sites that support only brook trout would show 100 percent for both metrics. A threshold may be selected to separate out predominantly brook trout sites (e.g., >90 percent fluvial fish), which would be similar to other states (e.g., NHDES 2007, Kanno et al. 2010). Cold and cool water streams are recognized by Rhode Island and Massachusetts as valuable habitats and managed accordingly. At the other extreme, some sites showed zero percent of both cold-coolwater fish and fluvial fish. A threshold could also be set to separate sites with few or no fluvial fish (e.g., <10 percent fluvial fish), which may be located near the coast.


The results indicate that impairment may vary by subwatershed. For comparison, Kashiwagi and Richards (2009) considered that a target, or reference, fish community for the Blackstone River should contain 51 percent fluvial specialists and 26 percent fluvial dependents, for a total of 77 percent fluvial fish. The results of our analysis for the upper (65 percent) and lower (46 percent) Blackstone River indicated some difference from this target (Table 2). Similarly, Kashiwagi and Richards (2009) estimated 76 percent fluvial species in the target fish community for the Taunton River, and our results showed 22 and 30 percent for the upper and middle Taunton, respectively (Table 2). The Wood River was used as a reference condition in the Kashiwagi and Richards (2009) report, and the percentage was reported as 67 percent fluvial fish, which was much higher than our result of 18 percent (Table 4). Similarly, Kashiwagi and Richards (2009) estimated 56 percent fluvial fish for the Pawcatuck River, which is consistent with the 57 percent in our results for the Lower Pawcatuck River (Table 4).
Across the HUC10 watersheds, the spatial patterns of the results for abundance of cold-coolwater fish and fluvial fish were not surprising. Both measures were higher in upper reaches of the watershed, likely due to both elevation and development patterns. Enser and Lundgren (2005) noted that in Rhode Island, upper reaches of streams and rivers are fairly steep and cold, whereas lower stream and river reaches may be warmer and slower due to reduced elevation gradients. Although the absence of cold-coolwater and fluvial species may be due to stressors (e.g., urban development) or environmental setting (e.g., coastal streams), or a combination of the two, the presence of these species is indicative of good environmental health, and their distribution within the study area provides a benchmark for future assessment.
The high correlation of the cold-coolwater and fluvial metrics of relative abundance is expected, because in many cases the species that make up these metrics are both cool water and fluvial (Table 1). In their IBI development, the state of New Hampshire used a cutoff point of 0.8 Spearman correlation coefficient as a threshold for strong correlation (NHDES 2007), so both metrics would likely not be used together in an index. Similarly, the percent of warm-water species would be the complement of the cold-coolwater species. While the streams in the Narragansett Bay watershed can be expected to support both cold-coolwater and warm-water fisheries, impairment due to stressors can shift the composition toward warm-water fisheries (e.g., Flanagan et al. 1999).
Some additional metrics could be considered for analysis. Trophic and tolerance metrics are often used in assessments, although Bain (2010) found that aspects of fish species tolerance were less responsive than habitat in the Quinebaug River in Massachusetts. Coles et al. (1995) found that cyprinid species were sensitive to urbanization in New England coastal streams; Kanno et al. (2010) also included cyprinid species in their MMI. Introduced species may also be indicators for impaired streams, particularly those species in the family Centrarchidae (e.g., Bain and Meixler 2000, Bain 2010). The Estuary Program may be able to add unique value by continuing to review, test, and coordinate the varied state approaches. These metrics can be related to the Biological Condition Gradient framework, and in particular it may be useful to relate the fluvial fish metric to the land use stressor (i.e., percent of urban lands, impervious cover, forested lands).

  1. Brook Trout Habitat

While these results only offer a preliminary view of habitats that support brook trout or could have supported it at the time when data were collected and analyzed, this provides an opportunity to reassess these catchment areas in a holistic fashion, by continuing to collect fish data and defining new or existing areas where conditions are suitable for cold-water species. Conditions of the contributing areas could have changed over the last 10 or more years—due to land use changes, habitat fragmentation, and degraded water quality—which constrain the results to being only an estimation of potential habitat.


EBTJV habitat patches across the watersheds of Narragansett Bay, Little Narragansett Bay, and the Southwest Coastal Ponds indicated remaining habitat areas that should be protected for maintaining cold-coolwater streams that support brook trout and other cold-coolwater species. Although brook trout have been studied within the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed (Tefft 2013), to our knowledge brook trout distributions have not been considered at the scale of the Narragansett Bay watershed. On the other hand, the percentage area of brook trout habitat was used as metric in this report, the results should not be directly compared with those by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, as our methods were developed based on best professional judgement which used EBTJV as secondary data.
One of the applications of comparing designated cold-water stream habitat to brook trout predicted habitat and actual observations of brook trout from monitoring is to guide managers and partners in locating specific areas to assess water and habitat quality and to prioritize research and management efforts. While the Narragansett Bay watershed is not the primary core habitat area for brook trout in the New England region, this analysis showed that the subwatersheds can support core habitat that could contribute significantly to conservation of brook trout and other cold-coolwater species. Given that over 25 percent of the area of the Pawtuxet River and Lower Blackstone River subwatersheds have been mapped as brook trout habitat patches by the EBTJV and estimated by the Estuary Program as important areas for protection of cold-water habitat and the conservation of brook trout, these areas seem to align with other watershed indicators and characteristics examined by the Estuary Program such as low levels of urban development (see “Land Use” and “Impervious Cover” chapters) and larger natural areas (see “Land Use” chapter) that are identified as ecologically significant for watershed protection and also protected as open space (see “Open Space” chapter).

  1. Data Gaps and Research Needs

Ongoing collection of freshwater fish assemblage data is needed, particularly for Rhode Island, where recent data are lacking. Targeted collection of data on brook trout could better refine the brook trout habitat predictions and clarify cold-water stream designations. Additional considerations of data collection to support trends analysis could be discussed among the states. For example, certain subwatersheds had fewer samples (e.g., Woonasquatucket River-Moshassuck River). Some additional freshwater habitats that were not considered here but may be within brook trout catchment areas and have ecological significance for fish include intermittent streams, blackwater creeks, freshwater reaches of tidal rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, peatlands, and bogs (Enser and Londgren 2006). Specialized methods for collection of fishes in these habitats may need to be identified or developed.


Additional efforts are needed to characterize diadromous fish, which are those species that live the majority of their lives in either freshwater or saltwater and then migrate to the opposite water type to spawn. The state field surveys were not designed to sample diadromous species, which are likely underrepresented in the data. Additional attention may be needed for anadromous fish (those spawning in freshwater), including river herring (alewife and blueback herring), Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, sturgeon, and American shad, as well as the catadromous American eel (which spawns in saltwater). In particular, the Nemasket River in the Taunton River Basin supports the largest alewife fish run in the state of Massachusetts (Bowden 2013), and sturgeon—a rare, large, native species—has been found in the lower Taunton River.
Collection and/or prediction of environmental data that coordinates with fish data is also needed. Specifically, more information is needed on stream flow, water withdrawals, stream temperature, stream barriers, riparian buffers, water quality, and overall aquatic habitat. In-stream temperature monitoring is an important data gap. Many states have instituted continuous monitoring of temperature in order to provide resource managers with needed information on the potential effects of various stressors on riverine ecosystems. To our knowledge, there is currently very limited data collection of this type within the Narragansett Bay watershed (see “Temperature” chapter). In addition to its value for assessing landscape stressors, water temperature monitoring in rivers and streams over time is needed to discern and understand potential impacts of a changing climate.
Future analysis will explore and quantify the relationships between ecological metrics, including those presented here, and environmental data at multiple scales (e.g., site, watershed, catchment areas), including multiple stressors such as percent of impervious cover, stream flow, water withdrawals, stream temperature, conditions of stream barriers, and riparian buffer characteristics. For example, Armstrong et al. (2011) quantified the reduction in fluvial fish abundance in Massachusetts in response to percent depletion of August median flow and impervious cover. Methods for these analyses could include empirical and regression approaches (e.g. Freeman and Marcinek 2006, Kanno and Vokoun 2010), as well as threshold analysis, which was used in Connecticut (Beauchene et al. 2014). Bayesian regression approaches could allow for the inclusion of different datasets (e.g., national data, targeted local studies) and updates as additional data are collected.
For brook trout specifically, important next steps are data collection and integration to support the improvement and update of the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Salmonid Catchment Assessment and Habitat Patch Layers model to continue tracking these critical areas over time. There are significant ongoing regional research efforts on brook trout through the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, Trout Unlimited, U.S. Geological Survey Conte Anadromous Fish Branch, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, and state partners that are addressing research questions related to expected changes in and effects of water temperature, flow, and land use, and aspects of conservation. Future research in the Narragansett Bay watershed will coordinate with these ongoing efforts and will seek to use available regional research results in watershed assessment and management.
An understanding of how stressors affect indicators can be used to support development and validation of management tools such as state-level indices (i.e., for Rhode Island) and coordination of freshwater fish indices across the Narragansett Bay watershed. These tools would strengthen the water quality assessment process by incorporating a second biological indicator and providing an improved tool for tracking change over time (RIDEM, personal communication). Longer-term development of indicators for freshwater fish may involve either the development of an IBI or MMI for the Narragansett Bay watershed. The environmental state practitioners in Rhode Island would like an index for their statewide monitoring and reporting responsibilities. The state data could support the development of an index following the example of Connecticut (Kanno et al. 2010) and others (e.g., Stoddard et al. 2008). These metrics can be related to the Biological Condition Gradient framework, as has been done in Connecticut (Stamp and Gerritsen 2013).
An additional need is to translate these findings to support conservation and restoration. Erkan (2002) described restoration efforts for anadromous fish within the state of Rhode Island, which included improvement of passage for juveniles and adults through dam breaching and removal, installation of fishways, and removal of vegetative and debris obstructions. To support identification of priority areas for conservation and restoration activities, our findings regarding distribution of fluvial fish could be combined with the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity data on locations and conditions of stream barriers. Habitat protection priorities identified by The Nature Conservancy also could be implemented.
Noteworthy are the array of projects throughout the Narragansett Bay watershed focused on fish passage, including both assessments and implementation, and the importance of reconciling and streamlining information about aquatic habitat conditions in relation to continuity and connectivity. It would be of interest to environmental practitioners, researchers, and advocates to identify and quantify the effects of stream barriers to changes on fish assemblages through habitat fragmentation, water quality degradation, and stream flow alteration. To date, most of the restoration efforts and funding in the Narragansett Bay watershed have focused on anadromous fish (RIDEM 2002 and 2013, Foran et al. 2017, final report under review). A study led by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (Foran et al. under review) in collaboration with partners including the Estuary Program evaluated the effect of multiple ecosystem restoration projects at the Narragansett Bay watershed level and calculated passable and unpassable fish passage. The study found that approximately 854 stream miles have been opened to anadromous fish (i.e., alewife herring, blueback herring, and shad), 435 miles to eels, and 154 miles to brook trout as a result of dam removals and other fish passage restoration projects in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. However, Foran et al. analysis stops at the upstream limits of suitable habitat for anadromous fish (RIDEM 2002 and 2013). In 2016, preliminary results from field assessments of over 400 stream barriers (i.e., culverts and bridges) in the Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers identified that 43 percent of the assessed structures provided full passage to aquatic organisms, while 57 percent were identified as moderate to severe barriers (Fuss and O’Neill 2016, final report under review). Similar research and assessments should be conducted and replicated across the watershed, which can be prioritized utilizing the findings from this report and other efforts to target areas in the watershed for habitat protection of for cold-coolwater and fluvial fish species.

  1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This chapter was written by Brenda Rashleigh, Assistant Laboratory Director for Water in the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program at EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, and Eivy Monroy, Watershed and GIS Specialist with the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. GIS data preparation and analyses were conducted with the GIS support of Julia Twichell and Jamie Duncan-Brown, GIS Environmental Analysts with the Estuary Program. We are grateful to RIDEM, MADFW, and CT DEEP for access to their fish data. The information in this document has been subjected to Environmental Protection Agency review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.



  1. References

Armstrong, S., T.A. Richards, and S.B. Levin. 2011. Factors influencing riverine fish assemblages in Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5193.


Bain, M.B., and M.S. Meixler. 2000. Defining a target fish community for planning and evaluating enhancement of the Quinebaug River in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Produced for: Quinebaug River Instream Flow Study Agencies.
Bain, M.B. 2011. Target fish communities for restoration of waterways supporting society and nature. Appl. Ichthyol. 27(Suppl. 3):86–93.
Bassar, R.D, B.H. Letcher, K.H. Nislow, and A.R. Whiteley. 2016. Changes in seasonal climate outpace compensatory density-dependence in eastern brook trout. Global Change Biology 22:577–593.
Beauchene, M., M. Becker, C.J. Bellucci, N. Hagstrom, and Y. Kanno. 2014. Summer thermal thresholds of fish community transitions in Connecticut streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:119–131.
Bellucci, C.J., M. Becker, and M. Beauchene. 2011. Characteristics of macroinvertebrate and fish communities from 30 least disturbed small streams in Connecticut. Northeastern Naturalist 18:411–444.
Bowden, A.A. 2013. Towards a comprehensive strategy to recover river herring on the Atlantic seaboard: lessons from Pacific salmon. ICES J. Mar. Sci. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst130.
Carlisle, D.M., D.M. Wolock, and M. Meador. 2010. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences: a multiregional assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment doi:10.1890/100053.
Carlisle, D.M., C.P. Hawkins, M.R. Meador, M. Potapova, and J. Falcone. 2008. Biological assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(1):16–37.
Coles, J.F., T.F. Cuffney, G. McMahon, and K.M. Beaulieu. 2004. The effects of urbanization on the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of coastal New England streams. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1695, Reston, VA.
Coombs, J.A., and K.H. Nislow. 2015. EBTJV Salmonid Catchment Assessment and Habitat Patch Layers. University of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Conservation. Amherst, MA.
DeWeber, J.T., and T. Wagner. 2015. Predicting brook trout occurrence in stream reaches throughout their native range in the eastern United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 14:11–24.
EBTJV (Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture), undated. Eastern brook trout: status and threats. Retrieved from: http://easternbrooktrout.org/reports/eastern-brook-trout-status-and-threats/view
EBTJV (Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture), 2015. EBTJV Salmonid Catchment Assessment and Habitat Patch Layers. Data retrieved from:

http://ecosheds.org:8080/geoserver/www/Web_Map_Viewer.html


Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). 2012. Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI). Retrieved from:

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/sustainable-water-management-initiative-swmi.html


Enser, R.W., and J. A. Lundgren. 2006. Natural Communities of Rhode Island. A joint project of the Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island. Web published by R.I. Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI. Retrieved from: www.rinhs.org
Erkan, D.E. 2002. Strategic plan for the restoration of anadromous fish to Rhode Island coastal streams. RIDEM Division of Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved from:

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/pdf/riap2002.pdf


ESRI, 2016. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
Flanagan, S.M., M.G. Nielsen, K.W. Robinson, and J.F. Coles. 1999. New England coastal basins in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island: Environmental settings and implications for water quality and aquatic biota. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4249. Pembroke, New Hampshire.
Foran, C.M., C. Fox-Lent, C. Chadderton, W. Gendron, L. Oliver, E. Monroy, J. Turek, P. Edwards, and Suedel, B. In review. Watershed Level Effects of Multiple Ecosystem Restoration Projects. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Available upon request from Foran, C.M. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory.
Freeman, M., and P. Marcinek. 2006. Fish assemblage responses to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environmental Management 38(3):435–450.
Fuss and O’Neill. 2016. Dams, Bridges and Culverts Assessment Technical Memorandum. Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Flood Resiliency Management Plan. Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association. Project No. 20111470.B10. Retrieved from:

http://www.wpwa.org/documents/Wood-Pawcatuck%20Dams-Bridges-Culverts%20Assessment%20October%202016.pdf


Halliwell, D.B., R.W. Langdon, R.A. Daniels, J.P. Kurtenbach, and R.A. Jacobson. 1999. Classification of freshwater fish species of the northeastern United States for use in the development of indices of biological integrity, with regional applications. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (T.P. Simon, Ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 301–333.
Hagstrom, N.T., M. Humphreys, W.A. Hyatt, and W.B. Gerrish. 1996. A survey of Connecticut streams and rivers. Federal Aid to Sport Fish Restoration. Final Report F-66-R. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Holmlund, C.M., and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics 29:253–268.
Horowitz, R.J. 1978. Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of stream fishes. Ecol. Monogr. 48:307–321.
Hudy, M., T.M. Thieling, N. Gillespie, and E.P. Smith. 2008. Distribution, status, and land use characteristics of subwatersheds within the native range of brook trout in the Eastern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1069–1085.
Kashiwagi, M., and T. Richards. 2009. Development of Target Fish Community Models for Massachusetts Mainstem Rivers. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 92 pp.
Kanno, Y., and J.C. Vokoun. 2010. Evaluating effects of water withdrawals and impoundments on fish assemblages in Southern New England streams, USA. Fisheries Management and Ecology (17): 272-283.
Kanno, Y., J.C. Vokoun, and M. Beauchene. 2010. Development of dual fish multi-metric indices of biological condition for streams with characteristics thermal gradients and low species richness. Ecological Indicators 10:565–571.
Libby, A.D. 2004. A preliminary summary of fish surveys that were conducted in Rhode Island's streams and ponds between 1993 and 2002. Research Reference Document 2004/1, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Project F-20-R. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Libby, A.D. 2013. Inland Fishes of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. 287 pp.
MacCrimmon, H.R., and J.S. Campbell. 1969. World distribution of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26:1699–1725.
Machowski, E., and N. Hagstrom. 2015. Connecticut Inland Fisheries: Monitoring Fish Populations in Streams. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 2014. Stream Survey and Inventory Protocols. Retrieved from: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/wildlife-habitat-conservation/streamsurveyinventoryprotocol.pdf
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 2017. Coldwater Fish Resource (CFR). Retrieved from: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/wildlife-habitat-conservation/what-is-cfr-.html
McKay, L., T. Bondelid, T. Dewald, J. Johnston, R. Moore, and A. Rea. 2012. NHDPlus Version 2: User Guide.
Meixler, M.S. 2011. Application of the target fish community model to an urban river system. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1138–1147.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 2007. Coldwater fish assemblages index of biotic integrity for New Hampshire wadeable streams. R-WD-07-33. Concord, NH.
North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative. Retrieved from: https://www.streamcontinuity.org/
Poff, N.L., and J.K.H. Zimmerman. 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55:194–205.
Rashleigh, B., A. Richardson, M. Nimiroski, and A. Libby. 2013. Freshwater fish assemblage patterns in Rhode Island streams and rivers. Presented at: Ecological Society of America, Minneapolis, MN.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). 2012. Fish community sampling and analysis in Rhode Island rivers and streams: Data and preliminary analysis. Providence, RI.
Schlosser, I.J. 1982. Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients in a headwater stream. Ecological Monographs 52:395–414.
Schlosser, I.J. 1990. Environmental variation, life history attributes, and community structure in stream fishes: implications for environmental management and assessment. Environmental Management 14(5):621–628.
Stamp, J., and J. Gerritsen. 2013. A biological condition gradient (BCG) assessment model for stream fish communities of Connecticut. TetraTech Inc, Owing Mills, MD.
Stoddard, J.L., A.T. Herlihy, D.V. Peck, R.M. Hughes, T.R. Whittier, and E. Tarquinio. 2008. A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27:878–891.
Tefft, E. 2013. Factors affecting the distribution of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed of Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/mesm/docs/majorpapers/tefft_gisrs_2013.pdf
Tefft, E., and P. Edwards. 2013. Rhode Island’s Fish Passage Maintenance Guide. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife. Department of Environmental Management. Fish and Wildlife Research Reference Document #2013/1. Available upon request from RIDEM, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, J.L. Stoddard, G.A. Lomnicky, D.V. Peck, and A.T. Herlihy. 2007. A structured approach for developing indices of biotic integrity: three examples from streams and rivers in the western USA. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 136:718–735.
Xu, C.L., B.H. Letcher, and K.H. Nislow. 2010. Size-dependent survival of brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis in summer: effects of water temperature and stream flow. Journal of Fish Biology 76(10):2342–2369.



Download 1.05 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
information presented
total area
relative abundance
rhode island department