STATEWIDE TARGET FISH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT

Public Information Meeting – August 27, 2018

Prepared for: Presented by:

1 MEETING AGENDA

• Background on Target Fish Community (TFC) Models • Overview of the Phases of the Process • Examples • River-Specific Discussions

2 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT

• Method derived from Bain and Meixler (2000) and (2005) methods • Meant to characterize the relative abundance (percentage) of species in a river based on data from similar rivers • Reference river data are not from “pristine” or “unimpacted” conditions, but should be from riverine areas that are considered good quality and are not severely degraded • NHDES has used these methods previously for the Souhegan and lower Lamprey River. This project developed TFC models for 22 Designated River systems

3 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT PHASES

• Delineation of Designated River segments • Current fish community shifts that change along the river • Physical characteristics that change along the river • Selection of Reference Rivers with similar characteristics to the Designated River segments • GIS – Physical characteristics • Selection of Reference River Fish Community Data • Processing to remove stocked fish and non-native species • Evaluation of Data Sufficiency – Do we have Reference River Data to provide strong/accurate models? • Development of TFC Model for each Designated River segment

4 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – APPLIED TO EACH DELINEATED SEGMENT

Physical Characteristics of a River

GIS Initial Final Exercise All Fish Data Data GIS Final Fish Community Fish Screening Reference Exercise Screening Community Data from All Community River Reference River Data from Segments River Segments Reference with Similar Dataset with Similar Rivers Characteristics Characteristics Analyze Dataset

Target Fish Community Model

5 DELINEATION OF DESIGNATED RIVERS

• Goal: Delineate NH Designated Rivers into segments, if appropriate, based on where fish community shifts are predicted to occur • Datasets • Fish Sample Data – Do fish community shifts currently occur? • Physical Characteristic Data – Are there locations where the river changes character dramatically, where fish communities could also shift?

6 DETERMINING GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RIVER SECTIONS THAT DRIVE FISH COMMUNITY STRUCTURE • Fish communities in a river can shift due to changes in river character • Though some changes in character may be more likely to cause a fish community shift, primarily we are looking for a combination of potential factors that would result in a fish community change • Stream Order • Water Chemistry • Watershed Area • Thermal Regime • Gradient • Predicted Fish Community Types • Geology • Ecoregion • We can look at this by overlaying data in a “Geographic Information System” (GIS)

7 DELINEATION OF DESIGNATED RIVERS • 37 Delineated Segments

8 REFERENCE RIVER AND FISH COMMUNITY DATA SELECTION

• Goals: Select Reference Rivers with similar characteristics to Designated River segments, and from those rivers, select fish community data • Datasets • Physical Characteristic Data – Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification (TNC); Ecoregion • Quality Characteristics – National Fish Habitat Disturbance Index – used low/very low disturbance index • Fish sample data from NH, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY • Electrofishing only, 1990-Present • When sufficient data were available, data were selected from within the greater watershed or nearby watershed areas

9 REFERENCE RIVER AND FISH COMMUNITY DATA SELECTION

• Reference River Fish Community Data Processing • Stocked fish were removed – methods depended on information available by State • Non-native fish were not included in the model – Native species list were developed by major basin (Collaborative effort by GSE, NHDES, and NHFG Biologists)

10 REFERENCE RIVER AND FISH COMMUNITY DATA SELECTION

• We need to make sure that we have enough data for each delineated segment to develop the TFC models • Evaluation of Sufficiency • Within-River (for each reference river) – are there enough sites along a reference river to accurately characterize the community? • Among-River (for each TFC model) – are there enough reference rivers to develop an accurate model? • Statistical Tool – MultSE • Way of visualizing that, if we added more information, would the fish community change? • Look for low values, flattening out, and/or low variability (more detail in examples)

11 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT

• Finalized dataset was used to calculate TFC model for each Designated River segment using Bain and Meixler (2005) methods • Final table and barplot figure developed with expected percentages of species

12 EXAMPLE 1 – AMMONOOSUC RIVER (MIDDLE SEGMENT)

13 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – DESIGNATED RIVER DELINEATION

• Ammonoosuc River delineated into 3 segments • Shifts in physical characteristics • Shifts in current fish community

14 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER SELECTION

Physical Characteristics of a River

GIS Exercise

Reference River Segments with Similar Characteristics

• Characteristics from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification Layer (TNC) – Dataset spans the entire Northeast Characteristic Class Description Size Class 2 Small River Elevation Class 3 800 - 1,700 feet Gradient Class 4 Moderate-High Chemical Class 1 Low Buffered (Acidic) Temperature Class 1 Cold 15 Level III Ecoregion 58 Northeastern Highlands TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Physical Characteristics of a River

GIS Exercise GIS All Fish Community Reference Exercise Data from All River River Segments Segments with Similar with Similar Characteristics Characteristics

16 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Low/Very Low Cumulative Disturbance Index (National Fish Habitat Disturbance Index Layer) • Watershed (HUC4) if possible, to narrow geographic range – In this case, the CT River watershed was the selection area • Sufficient sample data (n>50 fish/sample, more than one sample/river) • Data collected 1990 and later 17 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Are there enough data from each reference river for adequate characterization of that reference river community?

• Johns River and Israel River had few (3 sites), and this was not ideal. However, they remained in the analyses to examine in the overall model multSE. If these rivers were removed, the geographic range would need to be expanded to other major watersheds (i.e. Hudson), which may have different species/niches 18 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Are there enough reference rivers for developing the TFC model? • Overall multSE looks good (adding rivers would not provide considerably different results

19 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data • Final Fish Final Data Screening Fish Screening • Removal of stocked fish (All of the Community Community Reference Atlantic Salmon and some of the Brook Data from Trout) Reference River Dataset • Inclusion of only species that are native Rivers to the greater basin Upper Ammonoosuc Israel Nash Species Johns River Ammonoosuc River River Stream River Longnose Dace 203 392 47 235 93 Blacknose Dace 206 292 225 189 63 Slimy Sculpin 22 0 61 612 72 Longnose Sucker 61 9 199 7 33 Spottail Shiner 0 0 456 0 0 Atlantic Salmon 159 0 1 23 0 Brook Trout 22 7 21 56 5 Burbot 0 42 10 16 15 Fallfish 0 28 100 0 0 Tessellated Darter 2 87 2 0 0 Common Shiner 1 22 58 26 0 White Sucker 27 23 23 0 0 Brown Trout 0 0 3 3 5 Rainbow Trout 4 1 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass 0 0 5 0 0 Lepomis Sp 0 0 1 1 0 Northern Redbelly Dace 0 0 0 1 0 20 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data Final Fish • Final Data Screening Fish Screening Community Community • Removal of stocked fish Data from Reference • Inclusion of only species that are native Reference River to the greater basin Rivers Dataset

Upper Ammonoosuc Israel Johns Nash Ammonoosuc Species River River River Stream River Longnose Dace 203 392 47 235 93 Blacknose Dace 206 292 225 189 63 Slimy Sculpin 22 0 61 612 72 Longnose Sucker 61 9 199 7 33 Spottail Shiner 0 0 456 0 0 Burbot 0 42 10 16 15 Fallfish 0 28 100 0 0 Tessellated Darter 2 87 2 0 0 Common Shiner 1 22 58 26 0 White Sucker 27 23 23 0 0 Brook Trout 21 0 4 26 0 Northern Redbelly Dace 0 0 0 1 0

21 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – MODEL CALCULATIONS • Apply Bain and Meixler (2005) Target Fish Community method to final dataset Model

Upper Israel Johns Nash Ammonoosuc Mean Rank of Mean Expected Species Ammonoosuc River River River Stream River Proportion Proportion Percentage Longnose Dace 203 392 47 235 93 0.27996 1 32.2% Blacknose Dace 206 292 225 189 63 0.25875 2 16.1% Slimy Sculpin 22 0 61 612 72 0.18064 3 10.7% Longnose Sucker 61 9 199 7 33 0.08324 4 8.1% Spottail Shiner 0 0 456 0 0 0.07696 5 6.4% Burbot 0 42 10 16 15 0.02482 6 5.4% Fallfish 0 28 100 0 0 0.02313 7 4.6% Tessellated Darter 2 87 2 0 0 0.02052 8 4.0% Common Shiner 1 22 58 26 0 0.01975 9 3.6% White Sucker 27 23 23 0 0 0.01897 10 3.2% Brook Trout 21 0 4 26 0 0.01309 11 2.9% Northern Redbelly 0 0 0 1 0 0.00018 12 2.7% Dace

22 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – FINAL RESULT

Target Fish Community Model

23 EXAMPLE 2 – CONTOOCOOK RIVER (LOWER SEGMENT)

24 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – DESIGNATED RIVER DELINEATION

• Contoocook River delineated into 3 segments • Shifts in physical characteristics • Shifts in current fish community

25 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER SELECTION

Physical Characteristics of a River Characteristic Class Description GIS Size Class 3a Medium Tributary River Exercise Elevation Class 2 20 - 800 feet Gradient Class 1-3 Very Low to Low-Moderate Reference River Chemical Class 0 Assume Mod. Buff. (Size 3+) Segments Temperature Class 2 Transitional Cool with Similar Northeastern Highlands-Northeastern Characteristics Level III Ecoregion 58-59 Coastal Zone

• Characteristics from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification Layer (TNC) – Dataset spans the entire Northeast

26 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Low/Very Low Cumulative Disturbance Index (National Fish Habitat Disturbance Index Layer) • Watershed (HUC4) if possible, to narrow geographic range – In this case, the CT, Merrimack, and Saco/Coastal River watersheds were the selection area • Sufficient sample data (n>50 fish/sample, more than one sample/river) • Data collected 1990 and later 27 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Are there enough data from each reference river for adequate characterization of that reference river community?

• Many rivers had multiple sites and their MultSE pattern was asymptotic (leveling out), meaning that additional sites would not have provided considerably different results. 28 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Are there enough reference rivers for developing the TFC model? • Four or more rivers would exhibit an asymptotic relationship – the model included five.

29 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data Final Fish Fish Screening Ashuelot Deerfield Westfield Community Community Species River River Millers River Suncook River River Reference Fallfish 494 26 217 122 23 Data from Common Shiner 368 346 125 27 506 Reference River Longnose Dace 112 644 20 0 340 Dataset White Sucker 55 578 68 21 23 Rivers Blacknose Dace 3 749 3 0 260 Smallmouth Bass 17 46 114 2 318 Slimy Sculpin 0 714 0 0 0 Tessellated Darter 69 192 3 0 87 Yellow Bullhead 23 7 8 23 13 Redbreast Sunfish 4 0 111 0 0 • Final Data Screening American Eel 4 37 16 0 166 Margined Madtom 0 0 0 24 0 • Removal of stocked fish (Atlantic Yellow Perch 6 1 57 1 1 Salmon) Pumpkinseed 6 0 48 0 4 • Inclusion of only species that are Bluegill 0 2 18 9 0 native to the greater basin Sea Lamprey 0 3 47 0 0 Rock Bass 3 31 0 0 75 • Note: Diadromous fish with limited Creek Chub 0 97 0 0 22 or unreliable community data (i.e. Largemouth Bass 0 0 20 4 0 Sea Lamprey) were removed Chain Pickerel 2 0 20 2 0 Lepomis Sp 0 0 0 2 0 Brown Trout 1 21 0 0 0 Atlantic Salmon 1 2 0 0 5 Longnose Sucker 0 13 0 0 0 Creek Chubsucker 0 9 0 0 0 Brook Trout 0 6 0 0 0 Black Crappie 0 0 1 0 0 Bridle Shiner 0 0 1 0 0 Golden Shiner 0 0 1 0 0 Rainbow Trout 0 0 1 0 0

30 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data Final Fish • Final Data Screening Fish Screening Community Community • Removal of stocked fish Data from Reference • Inclusion of only species that are native Reference River to the greater basin Rivers Dataset Species Ashuelot Deerfield Millers Suncook Westfield River River River River River

Fallfish 494 26 217 122 23 Common Shiner 368 346 125 27 506 Longnose Dace 112 644 20 0 340 White Sucker 55 578 68 21 23 Blacknose Dace 3 749 3 0 260 Slimy Sculpin 0 714 0 0 0 Tessellated Darter 69 192 3 0 87 Redbreast Sunfish 4 0 111 0 0 American Eel 4 37 16 0 166 Yellow Perch 6 1 57 1 1 Pumpkinseed 6 0 48 0 4 Creek Chub 0 97 0 0 22 Chain Pickerel 2 0 20 2 0 Longnose Sucker 0 13 0 0 0 Creek Chubsucker 0 9 0 0 0 Brook Trout 0 6 0 0 0 Bridle Shiner 0 0 1 0 0 Golden Shiner 0 0 1 0 0 31 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – MODEL CALCULATIONS Target Fish • Apply Bain and Meixler (2005) Community Model method to final dataset

Species Ashuelot Deerfield Millers Suncook Westfield Mean Rank of Mean Expected River River River River River Proportion Proportion Percentage

Fallfish 494 26 217 122 23 0.29665 1 28.6% Common Shiner 368 346 125 27 506 0.22394 2 14.3% Longnose Dace 112 644 20 0 340 0.11098 3 9.5% White Sucker 55 578 68 21 23 0.09088 4 7.2% Blacknose Dace 3 749 3 0 260 0.08162 5 5.7% Slimy Sculpin 0 714 0 0 0 0.04185 6 4.8% Tessellated Darter 69 192 3 0 87 0.03656 7 4.1% Redbreast Sunfish 4 0 111 0 0 0.03289 8 3.6% American Eel 4 37 16 0 166 0.03070 9 3.2% Yellow Perch 6 1 57 1 1 0.01894 10 2.9% Pumpkinseed 6 0 48 0 4 0.01554 11 2.6% Creek Chub 0 97 0 0 22 0.00876 12 2.4% Chain Pickerel 2 0 20 2 0 0.00847 13 2.2% Longnose Sucker 0 13 0 0 0 0.00076 14 2.0% Creek Chubsucker 0 9 0 0 0 0.00053 15 1.9% Brook Trout 0 6 0 0 0 0.00035 16 1.8% Bridle Shiner 0 0 1 0 0 0.00029 17.5 1.6% Golden Shiner 0 0 1 0 0 0.00029 17.5 1.6% 32 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – FINAL RESULT

Target Fish Community Model

33 EXAMPLE 3 – OYSTER RIVER (UPPER SEGMENT)

34 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – DESIGNATED RIVER DELINEATION

• Oyster River delineated into 2 segments • Shifts in physical characteristics • Shifts in current fish community

35 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER SELECTION

Physical Characteristics Characteristic Class Description of a River Size Class 1a Headwater GIS Elevation Class 2 20 to 800 feet Exercise Gradient Class 4 Moderate-High Chemical Class 2 Moderately Buffered (Neutral) Reference River Temperature Class 1 Cold Segments Level III Ecoregion 59 Northeastern Coastal Zone with Similar Characteristics

• Characteristics from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification Layer (TNC) – Dataset spans the entire Northeast

36 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Low/Very Low Cumulative Disturbance Index (National Fish Habitat Disturbance Index Layer) • Watershed (HUC4) if possible, to narrow geographic range – In this case, all watersheds from the CT and eastward were retained due to limited data from each reference river • Sufficient sample data (n>50 fish/sample, more than one sample/river) 37 • Data collected 1990 and later TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Are there enough data from each reference river for adequate characterization of that reference river community?

• Some rivers that were initially selected needed to be removed due to poor MultSE results; the remainder had an asymptotic relationship and/or low MultSE values

38 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES

Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics

• Initial Data Screening • Are there enough reference rivers for developing the TFC model? • The five reference rivers were sufficient according to MultSE (asymptotic relationship with increasing number of rivers)

39 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data Final Fish • Final Data Screening Fish Screening Community Community • Removal of stocked fish Reference Data from • River Inclusion of only species that Reference are native to the greater basin Rivers Dataset

Tributary to Gulf/Sucker Manham Quinebaug Species Webhannet Ware River Tribs Brooks River Tribs Tribs River

Blacknose Dace 115 314 634 0 322 Brook Trout 202 40 143 179 128 White Sucker 50 12 93 0 7 Creek Chub 0 124 0 0 0 Pumpkinseed 3 0 76 0 11 Golden Shiner 1 0 55 0 11 Brown Bullhead 0 1 34 0 15 Common Shiner 0 0 43 0 0 Bluegill 13 0 2 0 1 Longnose Dace 0 0 0 0 8 Chain Pickerel 3 0 3 0 1 Fallfish 0 5 1 0 0 Largemouth Bass 0 0 9 0 0 Yellow Bullhead 0 0 3 0 0 Tessellated Darter 0 1 0 0 0 40 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data • Final Fish Final Data Screening Fish Screening • Removal of stocked fish (no Brook Trout Community Community Reference were determined to have been stocked Data from in this case) Reference River Dataset • Inclusion of only species that are native Rivers to the greater basin

Gulf Sucker Manham River Tributary to Ware River Species Brooks Tribs Quinebaug Tribs Webhannet River Tribs Blacknose Dace 115 314 634 0 322 Brook Trout 202 40 143 179 128 White Sucker 50 12 93 0 7 Pumpkinseed 3 0 76 0 11 Golden Shiner 1 0 55 0 11 Brown Bullhead 0 1 34 0 15 Common Shiner 0 0 43 0 0 Longnose Dace 0 0 0 0 8 Fallfish 0 5 1 0 0 Chain Pickerel 3 0 3 0 1

41 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – MODEL CALCULATIONS

Target Fish • Apply Bain and Meixler (2005) Community method to final dataset Model

Gulf Tributary to Ware Rank of Sucker Manham Quinebaug Webhannet River Mean Mean Expected Species Brooks River Tribs Tribs River Tribs Proportion Proportion Percentage Blacknose Dace 115 314 634 0 322 0.47554 1 34.1% Brook Trout 202 40 143 179 128 0.40685 2 17.1% White Sucker 50 12 93 0 7 0.05316 3 11.4% Pumpkinseed 3 0 76 0 11 0.02003 4 8.5% Golden Shiner 1 0 55 0 11 0.01507 5 6.8% Brown Bullhead 0 1 34 0 15 0.01279 6 5.7% Common Shiner 0 0 43 0 0 0.00795 7 4.9% Longnose Dace 0 0 0 0 8 0.00318 8 4.3% Fallfish 0 5 1 0 0 0.00287 9 3.8% Chain Pickerel 3 0 3 0 1 0.00256 10 3.4%

42 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – FINAL RESULT

Target Fish Community Model

43 SUMMARY • NH Designated Rivers were delineated into segments that were likely to contain different fish communities • Fish community data were selected from reference rivers for each Designated River segment using GIS • Data were evaluated for statistical rigor prior to model development • Data were processed to include reliable native species counts • TFC models were developed for each Designated River segment using the best available data

44 QUESTIONS ON THE PROCESS? DESIGNATED RIVER DISCUSSION?

45 REFERENCES

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. New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Cornell University, 2000.

Bain, M.B. and M.S. Meixler. 2005. Defining a target fish community for planning and evaluating river rehabilitation. Manuscript submitted to Environmental Biology of Fishes in April 2005.

Anderson, M.J. and J. Santana-Garcon. 2015. Measures of precision for dissimilarity-based multivariate analysis of ecological communities. Ecology Letters 18: 66-73.

46