Examination of Ecological Attributes for Large River Fish Communities
In New Jersey and New York: Implications for Biological Indices
Report prepared by:
6/7/v^
James Kurtenbach, Aquatic Biologist
Monitoring Operations Section
Approved by:
Johr^B, Kushwara, Chief
Monitoring and Assessment Branch
l^hc
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODS 2
RESULTS 4
DISCUSSION 14
LITERATURE CITED 24
APPENDIXES
A RIVER SITES AND LOCATIONS
B LIST OF FISH SPECIES CAPTURED IN THE STUDY
-------
List of Figures
1. Map of river sites in New Jersey and New York 3
2. The average percent composition of each major fish family 5
3. The average composition of each trophic class 5
4. Fish taxonomic composition across regions and drainages 6
5. The percent composition of trophic classes across regions and drainages 7
6. The percent composition of migratory fish across regions and drainages 7
7. The percent composition of riverine fish across regions and drainages 8
8. The comparison of taxonomic composition between tidal and non-tidal rivers 9
9. The percent composition of trophic classes between tidal and non-tidal rivers 10
10. The percent composition of migratory fish between tidal and non-tidal rivers 11
11. The percent composition of riverine fish between tidal and non-tidal rivers 11
12. The comparison of taxonomic composition between wadeable streams and large rivers 12
13. The percent composition of trophic classes between wadeable streams and large rivers 13
14. The percent composition of migratory fish between wadeable streams and large rivers 14
15. The percent composition of riverine fish between wadeable streams and large rivers _ 14
ii
-------
List of Acronyms
BH
Benthic herbivore
BI
Bcnthic insectivore
DC
Direct current
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FMMI
Fish Multimetric Index
GF
Generalist feeder
IB I
Index of Biological Integrity
NJDEP
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NRSA
National River and Streams Assessment
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PH
Planktivorous herbivore
PI
Planktivorous insectivore
TC
Top carnivore
wc
Water column insectivore
iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Large river monitoring programs with direct assessment and reporting on biological conditions
are a need across the nation, including New Jersey and New York. Information on the biological
impacts in large rivers is often lacking. This consequence is attributed to the lack of
development of bioassessment protocols and biological criteria for large rivers. In order to
effectively monitor the biological conditions of rivers in the future, development of
bioassessment tools is needed. To help fulfill this need, large river fish data collected in New
Jersey and New York were examined to explore development of a bioassessment protocol that
integrates biological characteristics of the fish community into a single measure of biological
condition.
This study had three objectives: (1) to examine various ecological attributes of large river fish
communities in NJ and NY across major drainages, tidal freshwater vs non-tidal rivers, and large
rivers vs wadeable streams, (2) address the importance of these natural factors in the
development of large river fish indicators, and (3) use the information to guide discussions and
planning for all future development of large river fish biological indices.
Fish data were examined for 55 nonwadeable river sites in New York and New Jersey sampled
within the years 2008-2009 and 2013-2014. In addition, a total of 28 wadeable stream sites were
sampled in 2008-2009 and these data were used for the wadeable stream and large river
comparisons. All sites were a subset of the total sites selected nationwide for EPA's 2008-2009
and 2013-2014 National Rivers and Streams Assessment (USEPA 2016a, USEPA 2016b,
US EPA, under development). The area of study included the major drainages in New York State
(Great Lakes-St. Lawrence, Hudson, Susquehanna, and Allegheny) and New Jersey (Delaware,
Raritan, Passaic, and Mullica). Rivers ranged in size from 5th through 7th stream order using the
Strahler classification system.
Fish data were examined to determine the occurrence of major fish families and trophic classes.
Results showed among all river sites that, Cyprinidae, Centrarchidae, Percidae, Clupeidae, and
Catostomidae were fish families with the most common occurrence. Families with less
significant occurrence were Anguillidae, Ictaluridae, Esocidae, and Moronidae, while all other
families made minor contributions to the overall composition of the large river fish community.
For trophic classes, generalist feeders, water column specialist, and benthic insectivores were
dominant in the fish community. Planktivorous insectivores, planktivorous herbivores, and
benthic herbivores were the least dominant trophic guilds.
iv
-------
Fish data were further examined for four ecological attributes (taxonomic composition, trophic
class, life history, and habitat guild) by doing a comparison across five drainages, non-tidal vs
tidal rivers, and large river vs wadeable streams. Migratory pattern was the life history trait
examined in this study. Presence and abundance of riverine fish were selected to represent a
specific type of habitat guild. Results showed that taxonomic composition, trophic class, life
history, and habitat guild varied widely across drainages, non-tidal vs tidal rivers, and large river
vs wadeable streams.
Few large river fish IBI's have been developed for application in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
regions (Yoder et al. 2008, Yoder et al. 2009, USEPA 2016b), and these could be considered
provisional without significant post development testing or incorporation into state monitoring
and assessment programs. Both IBI's were examined to determine if drainage, tidal influence,
and river size could affect key taxonomic composition and other autecological metrics that
comprise these indexes. Based on analysis of the fish data collected in New Jersey and New
York it is concluded that drainage, tidal influence, and river size does matter in the development
of biological indices for large rivers, and any use of current IBI's in the future development of
New Jersey and New York large river IBI's will require significant refinements, or may not be
applicable at all.
Results of this study will be considered in making recommendations to the NJDEP and
NYSDEC for statewide non-wadeable rivers and streams biological monitoring programs.
v
-------
Introduction
New Jersey and New York are home to a number of large river systems. Aquatic resources of
rivers include important recreational fisheries (e.g., bass, trout, walleye, pike, catfish, and various
panfish) and important habitats for fish, macroinvertebrates, aquatic plants, amphibians, some of
which are endangered or threatened (e.g., shortnose sturgeon, bluebreast darter, pugnose shiner,
gravel chub, longear sunfish; Carlson and Daniels 2004). These rivers are also significantly
linked to a diversity of adjacent habitats for terrestrial wildlife.
In response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, Federal and State agencies routinely monitor rivers
for various chemical, physical and biological parameters. Substantial controversy exists with
regard to the present ability of monitoring programs to document water quality improvements or
declines on regional or national scales. In response to this concern, a number of
recommendations have been made to enhance surface water monitoring (Heinz Center 2002,
IFTM 1995), including the application and development of promising biological techniques
(U.S. EPA 1987). As an outgrowth of these recommendations and a renewed interest in
biological assessments, the EPA developed and recommended protocols for use on streams and
rivers (Flotemersch et al. 2006; Barbour et al. 1999; Plafkin et al. 1989), lakes and reservoirs
(Gerritsen et al. 1998), and estuaries and coastal marine water (Gibson et al. 2000). These
protocols are a synthesis of existing methods, designed as reliable and relatively inexpensive
assessment tools for determining biological conditions.
In particular, large river monitoring programs with direct assessment and reporting on biological
conditions is a need across the nation, including New Jersey and New York. Information on the
biological impacts in large rivers is often lacking. Community measures of resident fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and periphyton assemblages making up the biological community in large
rivers are more limited compared to their use on wadeable streams. Consequently, information
gaps exist on where biological impairment is occurring and the magnitude of those effects on
large river systems. This consequence is attributed to the lack of development of bioassesment
protocols and biological criteria for large rivers. To effectively monitor biological conditions of
rivers in the future, development of bioassessment tools such as indexes of biological integrity
(IBI's) are needed.
The index of biological integrity (IBI) is a multimetric bioassessment protocol that integrates
biological characteristics of the fish community into a single measure of biological condition.
Individual metrics which comprise the IBI are measures of responsive characteristics of aquatic
communities such as pollution tolerance, structure, and composition. Metrics are standardized
and aggregated into a single IBI score (Karr 1986). However, before any index of biological
integrity can be developed, a basic understanding of how ecological attributes of large river fish
communities vary with natural factors and zoogeography is necessary, because these will differ
1
-------
across river systems. At this time there is a basic need for increased understanding of the fish
communities of the large river systems. Once this is accomplished, ecological attributes may be
tested for their response to human disturbance. Several IBI's have been developed for wadeable
streams on drainages located in New Jersey and New York (Halliwell et al. 1999; Daniels et al.
2002). To date, IBI's applicable to wadeable streams in NJ and NY have not been tested on
hundreds of miles of non-wadeable rivers and streams that exist within both states.
The study had three objectives: (1) to examine various ecological attributes of large river fish
communities in NJ and NY across major drainages, tidal freshwater vs non-tidal rivers, and large
rivers vs wadeable streams, (2) address the importance of these natural factors in the
development of large river fish indicators, and (3) use the information to guide discussions and
planning for all future development of large river fish biological indices.
Results of this study can be considered in making recommendations to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDF.C) for statewide non-wadeable rivers and streams
biological monitoring programs. Development and application of fish biological indices can
assist the NJDEP and NYSDEC in implementing biological criteria in their water quality
programs, to more accurately determine aquatic life use support for 305(b) water quality reports
and 303(d) listing, and to prioritize rivers and streams for protection. Other potential
beneficiaries of the project are environmental watershed association groups and citizen volunteer
monitors, by providing them with information to use for decision making in watersheds of their
interest.
Methods
Sampling was conducted at 55 nonwadeable river sites in New York and New Jersey during the
years 2008-2009 and 2013-2014 (Appendix A). In addition, a total of 28 wadeable stream sites
were sampled in 2008-2009 and these data were used for the wadeable stream and large river
comparisons. All sites were a subset of the total sites selected nationwide for EPA's 2008-2009
and 2013-2014 National Rivers and Streams Assessment (USEPA 2016a, USEPA, under
development). The area of study (Figure 1) included the major drainages in New York State
(Great Lakes-St. Lawrence, Hudson, Susquehanna, Allegheny) and New Jersey (Delaware,
Raritan, Passaic, Mullica). Rivers ranged in size from 5th through 7th stream order using the
Strahler classification system. All fish collections were performed during the summer index
period of June through September.
2
-------
Ottawa
Montreal
» • *
J
VERMONT
MtBstesauga*"
*1 V -
- 41..1 rnltor
£
/
NEW YORK
NE
H AMP
PENNSYLVANIA ft,ofrg fs tend
/'f*" "
Pittsburgh
f». rnar^mj f * j aTa4* ¦ _¦
Philadelphia*"
—• " ~~A»yar
MARYLAND
Goodie
-------
controlling the boat and the other netting the fish. Stunned fish at or below the water surface
were netted quickly and every attempt was made to capture fish representing all species and size
classes. Netting was accomplished with long handled nets that had a W mesh size and sufficient
frame width and depth. If <500 individuals were capture in the upstream half of the sampling
reach, electrofishing would continue until 500 fish were collected or the downstream extent of
the reach length was achieved.
Processing of fish and voucher specimens followed the EPA National Rivers and Streams
Assessment Procedures (USEPA 2013a; USEPA 2013b). Once fish were collected, processing
was done carefully and quickly to avoid stress and mortality. Fish were identified to the species
level of taxonomy, counted, evaluated for maximum and minimum length, examined for disease
and anomalies, recorded on fish field forms, and released. Under certain circumstances, capture
of fish with electrofishing gear may result in some fish receiving electrode scars or apparent
backbone deformities. These fish were excluded from the assessment of disease and anomalies.
Only fish greater than 25 mm in length were counted. All fish needed to be identified accurately
to species. Reference specimens for difficult to identify individuals were placed in jars
containing 10% buffered formalin and later confirmed at the laboratory using regional taxonomic
keys. Common and scientific names of species followed those established under the American
Fisheries Society's publication, "Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United
States, Canada, and Mexico" (Nelson et al. 2004).
Results
Fish data were examined to determine the occurrence and trophic classes of major fish families
encountered in large rivers of New Jersey and New York. Cyprinidae, Centrarchidae, Percidae,
Clupeidae, and Catostomidae were fish families with the most common occurrence (Figure 2).
Families with less significant occurrence were Anguillidae, Ictaluridae, Esocidae, and
Moronidae. Additional families were placed in the other category and consisted of
Petromyzontidae, Lepisosteidae, Amiidae, Umbridae, Salmonidae, Gadidae, Fundulidae,
Atherinidae, Cottidae, Sciaenidae, and Soleidae. Combined these families contributed least to
the overall composition of the large river fish community. Generalist feeders, top carnivores,
water column specialists, and benthic insectivores were the dominant trophic classes in the river
fish communities (Figure 3). Planktivorous insectivores, planktivorous herbivores, and benthic
herbivores were the least dominant trophic guilds.
4
-------
Large River Taxonomic Composition
1.5%
1.7% 3.8%
37.5%
3.2%
0.6% 1-1%
¦ Anguillidae
¦ Clupeidae
¦ Cyprinidae
¦ Catostomidae
¦ Ictalurldae
¦ Esocidae
¦ Moronidae
¦ Centrarchidae
¦ Percidae
¦ Other
Figure 2. The average percent composition of each major fish family.
Large River Trophic Class
0.6% 0.5% n.0/
2.8% ul/°
13.1%
I GF
IWC
Bl
1TC
I PI
PH
I BH
I Other
Figure 3. The average composition of each trophic class (GF = generalist feeder, WC = water
column insectivore, BI = benthic insectivore, TC = top carnivore, PI = planktivorous insectivore,
PH = planktivorous herbivore, BH = benthic herbivore).
Fish data were further examined for four ecological attributes (taxonomic composition, trophic
class, life history, and habitat guild) by doing a comparison across five drainages, non-tidal vs
tidal rivers, and large river vs wadeable streams. Migratory pattern was the life history trait
examined in this study. Presence and abundance of riverine fish was selected to represent a
specific type of habitat guild.
5
-------
Fish taxonomic composition varied across the drainages/regions studied (Figure 4). Anguillidae,
Clupeidae, and Moronidae were only significantly present in the New Jersey and Hudson
drainages. Cyprinidae was present in the greatest amounts in the Great Lakes and Allegheny
drainages, but was still significantly present in all the drainages. Catostomidae was present in
the greatest amount in the Allegheny drainage compared to the other drainages, but still
significantly present in all drainages. Ictaluridae and Escocidae were not prominent in any of the
drainages and were completely absent in the Allegheny drainage. It should be noted that only
two sites were sampled in the Allegheny basin. Centrarchidae was least present in the Allegheny
drainage, but significantly present in all the drainages. Percidae was significantly present in all
the drainages, but least present in the Great Lakes drainage. Trophic guilds of the large river fish
assemblage also varied across drainages/regions (Figure 5). Key findings show that benthic
insectivores are more highly abundant in the Allegheny drainage, top carnivores generally have
half the abundance in the Great Lakes and Allegheny drainages compared to other drainages, and
planktivorous insectivores were absent in the Susquehanna, Great Lakes, and Allegheny
drainages. Migratory fish were only collected in the New Jersey and Hudson drainages (Figure
6). Riverine fish abundance was 2-3 times greater in the Allegheny drainage compared to other
drainages (Figure 7).
Taxonomic Composition
•inn no/
MM
NJ Hudson Susquehanna Great Lakes Allegheny
Regions/Drainages
Anguillidae ¦ Clupeidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae tetaluridae
Esocidae a Moronidae a Centrarchidae Percidae BOther
Figure 4. Fish taxonomic composition across regions and drainages.
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
n no/
6
-------
Trophic Class
60.0
50.0 -
5? 40-° "I
£ 30.0 -
c
U
i_
CJ
a- 20.0
10.0 -
0.0
NJ
Hudson Susquehanna Great Lakes
Regions/Drainages
Allegheny
GF
¦ WC
Bl
¦ TC
PI
PH
¦ BH
¦ Other
Figure 5. The percent composition of trophic classes across regions and drainages (GF =
generalist feeder, WC = water column insectivore, BI = benthic insectivore, TC = top carnivore,
PI = planktivorous insectivore, PH = planktivorous herbivore, BH = benthic herbivore).
c
0)
(J
-------
10.0
0.0
Riverine Fish
60.0 -i
50.0
E 40.0
t 30.0
C
u 17 9
- 20.0
a
49.8
8.8
11.5
14.0
¦
¦
. I
1
NJ
Hudson
Susquehanna Great Lakes
Regions/Drainages
Allegheny
Figure 7. The percent composition of riverine fish across regions and drainages.
All four autecological attributes had some differences between tidal vs non-tidal rivers. There
was a greater abundance of Anguillidae, Clupeidae and Moronidae which made up 51.9% of the
family composition in tidal rivers compared to a greater abundance of Cyprinidae and
Centrarchidae which made up 72.5% of the family composition in non-tidal rivers (Figure 8).
Tidal rivers showed a higher abundance of planktivorous insectivores and top carnivore (68.9%)
feeding groups, while non-tidal rivers had a greater abundance of generalist feeder, water column
insectivore, and benthic insectivore feeding groups that made up 68.6% of the trophic
composition (Figure 9). Migratory fish abundance in tidal rivers was almost 20 times that of
non-tidal abundance (Figure 10). Abundance of riverine fish in tidal rivers was about double that
of non-tidal rivers (Figure 11).
8
-------
Tidal Rivers Taxonomic
Composition
3-6% 8.3%
0.1%
10.4%
! Anguillidae
i Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
i Catostomidae
i Ictaluridae
Esocidae
i Moronidae
Non-Tidal Rivers Taxonomic
Composition
1.1% 0,7% 1.5%
45.6%
0.3%
0.8% L0%
¦ Anguillidae
- Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
¦ Catostomidae
ictaluridae
Esocidae
¦ Moronidae
¦ Centrarchidae
Figure 8. The comparison of taxonomic composition between tidal and non-tidal rivers.
9
-------
Tidal Rivers Feeding Groups
• Other
Non-Tidal Rivers Feeding Groups
1.2% 0.8% 0.3% CiA%
¦ GF
¦ WC
Bl
¦ TC
PI
PH
¦ BH
¦ Other
Figure 9. The percent composition of trophic classes between tidal and non-tidal rivers (GF =
generalist feeder, WC = water column insectivore, BI = benthic insectivore, TC = top carnivore,
PI = planktivorous insectivore, PH = planktivorous herbivore, BH = benthic herbivore).
10
-------
40.00
35.00 -
— 30.00 -
f 25.00 H
.£
5 20.00
o 15.00
0)
a 10.00 -
5.00 ¦
0.00
Migratory Fish
38.08
Tidal
2.50
Non-Tidal
River Type
Figure 10. The percent composition of migratory fish between tidal and non-tidal rivers.
Riverine Fish
18.00
16.00
14.00
C
a)
u
Q)
a.
4.00
2.00
0.00
15.52
8.92
-
Tidal Non-Tidal
River Type
Figure 11. The percent composition of riverine fish between tidal and non-tidal rivers.
Three of the four autecological attributes had some differences between wadeable streams and
large rivers. Clupeidae were absent in wadeable streams. In the large rivers, Cyprinidae and
"other" fishes were found in less abundance, while Catostomidae and Centrarchidae were found
in greater abundance (Figure 12). Wadeable streams had a highly disproportionate abundance of
the generalist feeder trophic class, while large rivers had greater abundances of the water column
insectivore and top carnivore feeding groups, and more balance between trophic classes (Figure
13). The percentage of migratory fish in large rivers was approximately two times that of the
wadeable streams (Figure 14). No major differences in abundance of riverine fish were found
between wadeable streams and large rivers (Figure 15).
11
-------
Wadeable Streams Taxonomic
Compostion
1.8%
0.1%
51.4%
0.0%
0.7%
2.9%
4.4%
¦ Anguillidae
¦ Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
i Catostomidae
i Ictaluridae
Esocidae
I Moronidae
l Centrarchidae
¦ Percidae
Large River Taxonomic Composition
1.5%
1.7% 3.8%
37.5%
• Anguillidae
¦ Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
¦ Catostomidae
. Ictaluridae
Esocidae
¦ Moronidae
¦ Centrarchidae
* Percidae
¦ Other
Figure 12. The comparison of taxonomic composition between wadeable streams and large
rivers.
12
-------
Wadeable Streams Fish Feeding Groups
¦ Other
Large Rivers Fish Feeding Groups
¦ Other
Figure 13. The percent composition of trophic classes between wadeable streams and rivers
= generalist feeder, WC = water column insectivore, BI = benthic insectivore, TC = top
carnivore, PI = planktivorous insectivore, PH = planktivorous herbivore, BH = benthic
herbivore).
13
-------
6.0
5.0
E
4.0
to
tZ
+*
3.0
c
cu
u
h.
u
2.0
Q.
1.0
0.0
Migratory Fish
2.59
Large Rivers Wadeable Streams
Sites
Figure 14. The percent composition of migratory fish between wadeable streams and large
rivers.
C
V
-------
Esocidae, and Moronidae had a less common occurrence, and all other families only had
incidental occurrence. The fish community was represented by diverse trophic classes, primarily
generalist feeders, water column insectivores, top carnivores, benthic insectivores, planktivorous
insectivores, and less represented by nonparasitic filterers, parasitic filterers, and benthic
herbivores,
Taxonomic composition of fish communities naturally vary across drainage basins due to historic
natural events such as the advancement and retreat of glaciers that allowed connections and
barriers for fish colonization. Fish fauna of the northeastern U.S., including the northern Mid-
Atlantic slope drainages almost entirely represent post-glacial fauna (Smith 1985). More
recently in the last couple hundred years there has been an increased homogcnization of fish
communities across drainages (Carlson and Daniels 2004). Inter basin transfers of fish have
resulted from stocking of desirable sport fish, accidental bait bucket releases, and construction of
canals for navigation that have created connections previously not available for fish dispersal.
This variation in species richness and composition is well represented by current taxonomic
composition differences seen between major drainage basins, tidal vs non-tidal, and large vs
wadeable rivers in New Jersey and New York.
Large river fish communities were comprised of nine major family groups, with several
incidental families collected that did not contribute significantly to the overall taxonomic
composition among drainages. There were cases where one or more families were significantly
present in some drainages and absent in others, families that contribute substantial taxonomic
composition with the exception of one drainage, or families that were found in greatest
abundance in one drainage, but still had significant contribution across drainages. Anadromous
fish were only found in the Hudson and New Jersey drainages, with the exception of one
American eel collected from a tributary of the St. Lawrence River. Historically, anadromous fish
(e.g., herrings, shad, eel) were present in the New York portion of the Susquehanna basin, but
large dams located on the lower reach of the river now prevent migration of these fish upstream.
Fish families represented by four families (e.g., Cyprinidae, Catostomidae, Centrarchidae,
Percidae), were examples of fishes with significant taxonomic contribution across drainages,
although each family occurred in one drainage with lessor or greater abundance. This pattern of
dominant taxonomic composition only makes sense because of 169 fish species found in New
York (Werner 1980) and 86 fish species found in New Jersey (Aradt 2004), these four families
account for 57% and 50% of the fish species richness, respectively.
Distinct differences were found in the family composition between tidal and non-tidal rivers.
Greater than 50% of the taxonomic composition was comprised of Anguillidae, Clupeidae, and
Moronidae in tidal rivers. Because of their migratory habits, eels and herrings often are found in
greater abundance in the tidal transition between the ocean and upland streams. Moronidae was
comprised of both migratory striped bass and white perch. Although not truly anadromous.
15
-------
white perch are abundant in brackish waters of the Atlantic coast. In contrast, non-tidal rivers
were not dominated by anadromous or fish species that have a preference for tidal waters.
Cyprinidae and Centrachidae contribute to greater than 70% of taxonomic composition in non-
tidal rivers. Species from these families are generally restricted to upland lakes, rivers and
streams, although a few species can tolerate low levels of salinity.
Similar to tidal versus non-tidal rivers, wadeable streams compared with large rivers have
noticeable differences in their taxonomic composition. Together the families Catostomidae,
Centrarchidae, and Percidae contribute highly to taxonomic composition in large rivers, whereas,
Cyprinidae and families in the "other" category contribute most abundantly in wadeable streams.
Fish species more typical of medium and larger rivers contributed to the greater composition of
Catostomidae, Centrarchidae. and Percidae. They included white sucker and river redhorses,
smallmouth bass and other sunfishes (bluegill, pumpkinseed, rock bass, redbreast sunfish), and
yellow perch, walleye and darters. The greater abundance of Cyprinidae in the wadeable streams
was represented by smaller stream species such as, blacknose dace, longnose dace, and creek
chub. More often wadeable streams have cold water compared to the large rivers which are
predominantly warmwater. As a result, trout contributed more significantly to the taxonomic
composition of smaller streams.
Trophic classification is based on the foraging habitat and type of food consumed, with fish
ranging from generalist feeding in multiple habitats and on a variety of prey, to specialist like
benthic insectivores that only forge on the bottom for aquatic invertebrates. Fish trophic
composition like taxonomic composition naturally varies among major drainages in New York
and New Jersey, and is also influenced by human activities like dam and canal building, flow
regulation, habitat alteration, and introduction of exotic species. One of the key findings was
benthic insectivores were more highly abundant in the Allegheny drainage. This reflected a rich
and abundant redhorse and darter community, including a high abundance of streamline chub.
The Allegheny drainage has the greatest fish species richness of the major drainage basins
located in New York State. Another important finding was the New Jersey, Hudson, and
Susquehanna had double the top carnivore abundance found in the Great Lakes and Allegheny
drainages. This was primarily reflected in the abundance of American eel, rock bass,
smallmouth bass, white perch and walleye. American eel and white perch contributed more
significantly to the overall predator abundance in the New Jersey and Hudson drainages, while
walleye made up a larger portion of the predator composition in the Susquehanna drainage. A
number of the river sites in the New Jersey and Hudson basins were tidal and provided preferred
habitat for the American eel and white perch. In addition, the Delaware River as part of the New
Jersey drainages, supports a good population of American eel because of the lack of main stem
dams. The high abundance of walleye in the Susquehanna drainage is probably the result of an
aggressive fish stocking program by the NYSDEC. The last notable aspect of trophic
composition among the five drainages was the absence of planktivorous insectivores in the
16
-------
Susquehanna, Great Lakes, and Allegheny drainages. The lack of planktivorous insectivores in
the Great Lakes and Allegheny drainages generally represents the natural distribution of
Clupeidae in these systems. Blueback herring and American shad are not native, and alewife
were likely introduced (Daniels 2001) to the Great Lakes and are found in tributaries, but
typically in dammed portions of rivers where lentic habitat is more favorable for planktivorous
feeding. In contrast, all three Clupeidae, alewife, blueback herring and American shad are native
to the New Jersey and Hudson drainages. As a result, these species were present at a number of
the sampling locations. Because the sampling was conducted during the summer and early fall,
most individuals were young of the year fish. The absence of Clupeidae in the upper reaches of
the Susquehanna where all sampling was conducted results from the high dams on the lower
reaches which act as barriers for the migration of anadromous fish.
Whether a river is freshwater tidal or non-tidal has a major influence on the trophic composition
of the fish community. The feeding composition of the fish community at tidal river sites was
significantly comprised of planktivorous insectivores and top carnivores. These trophic groups
combined were primarily comprised of alewife, blueback herring, American shad, American eel,
striped bass, white perch and some miscellaneous other predator species. These fish species
typically represent an important component of the fish fauna of large tidal rivers in the Mid-
Atlantic region. In contrast, non-tidal rivers were dominated by a trophic class of generalist,
water column insectivores, and benthic insectivores. Cyprinidae comprised nearly 50% of the
family composition in non-tidal rivers and many of the cyprinids are classified as generalist and
water column insectivores, and this explained the large contribution of these feeding guilds.
Benthic insectivores were largely contributed by darter species which are more characteristic of
hard bottom substrates associated with free flowing non-tidal rivers.
Large rivers have a number of physical habitat and biological characteristics making them
different than small streams. Physical features of large rivers typically include broad width, open
canopy, and increased water temperatures (Flotemersch 2006). In addition, large rivers tend to
be at lower elevation, have substrates dominated by fine sediments, and have longer retention
times. Large rivers compared to wadeable streams have many more microhabitats, and these
increase significantly during periods of high flow when the main channel is connected to
adjacent floodplain habitats. All these features together result in fish communities with higher
biological diversity and complexity. In comparing the trophic composition in the New Jersey
and New York large rivers versus wadeable streams, large rivers had a higher composition of
water column insectivores and top carnivores, and overall trophic evenness. Whereas, wadeable
streams had a disproportionate abundance of generalist feeders. The high abundance of
generalists was primarily contributed by Centrachidae (bluegill, green sunfish, pumpkinseed),
Cyprinidae (common shiner, creek chub, eastern blacknose dace, fathead minnow), and
Catostomidae (white sucker). Elevated dominance of generalist feeders is somewhat concerning
because relative abundance of generalists is often used as a metric in indices of biological
17
-------
integrity to indicate poor biological conditions (Halliwell et al. 1999). Interestingly, large river
systems are more often regarded as degraded because they receive the cumulative effects of
human activities in upstream tributaries, but the contribution of generalist feeders was
significantly less in the large rivers. Noticeable differences of trophic ecology and other fish
community function among stream size has been documented (Goldstein and Meador 2004).
Migratory fish play an important ecological role in large river systems with connections to
marine ecosystems. Important ecological roles include the transfer of nutrients and energy
between ecosystems, and in food webs as consumers or food for terrestrial and fish predators.
Common anadromous fishes of large rivers in New Jersey and New York include
Petromyzontidae (sea lamprey), Acipenseridae (shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon),
Anguillidae (American eel), Clupeidae (blueback herring, ale wife, American shad), and
Moronidae (striped bass). Barriers in the form of large river dams and small mill dams on
tributaries throughout the region have greatly restricted the abundance and native distribution of
these migratory fishes.
Migratory fish contributed significantly (> 10%) to the taxonomic composition in the New Jersey
and Hudson drainages, but were only incidental in the Great Lakes drainage with a few
individuals of American eel captured, and they were completely absent in the Susquehanna and
Allegheny drainages. The complete absence of migratory fish species in the upper Susquehanna
basin is the result of several high dams located on the lower mainstem river. Data in this study
support the negative impacts dams have in alteration of migratory fish distribution. In the
Allegheny drainage natural geography precludes anadromous migratory fish that commonly
occur in eastern coastal rivers and streams with short and direct connections to marine systems.
In comparing the contribution of migratory fish in tidal versus non-tidal rivers, tidal systems had
significantly greater abundance (40 times). Most notably, this resulted from young of the year
and juvenile life stages of American eel, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and striped
bass. It is not surprising that migratory fish abundance should be high in tidal rivers for several
reasons. First, proximity of tidal river reaches with connection to estuaries and open marine
waters ensures the movement of migratory fish populations in and out of this transition zone,
along with providing important habitat and feeding areas for early life stages of fish. More
importantly, tidal freshwaters form the upper bounds of estuaries and are highly productive
systems. Decay of freshwater tidal marsh plants together with inputs of organic matter from
upriver terrestrial sources provide high amounts of particulate detritus, dissolved organic matter,
and nutrients. This in turn provides a significant food source for primary consumers and
continuing up the food chain to important migratory anadromous fish using the area for feeding
and nursery habitat.
18
-------
Overall, the percent contribution of migratory fish was small in both large rivers and wadeable
streams, although it was double for large rivers. Differences are primarily explained by the
distance of the sampling locations from important nursery estuaries. A number of sampling
locations on rivers were in freshwater tidal zones or within close proximity of these areas. On
the other hand, wadeable stream sampling locations were mostly tributaries in the upper reaches
of the drainage. Even when these streams had suitable habitats or documented native
distribution of anadromous fish, numerous dams in downstream reaches often preclude these fish
from reaching headwaters.
Riverine fish are defined as species which require flowing water habitat for reproduction. Often
these fish are rheophils with preference to live in fast moving water and lithophilic spawners that
broadcast eggs over silt-free rocky substrates. The Allegheny drainage had an abundance of
riverine fish that was approximately 3-5 times that found in the other drainages. Percidae
(primarily darters) and Catostomidae (primarily redhorses) contributed most to the abundance of
the riverine fishes. Both groups of fish are known for their species richness and presence in the
Allegheny drainage (Werner 1980). Additionally, all river sites sampled in the Allegheny
drainage had intact free-flowing river habitats, whereas, the other drainages had a number of
sites influenced by dams creating lentic conditions which are less favorable to river fish
assemblages. The percent contribution of riverine fish in non-tidal versus tidal rivers was
approximately double. This observation is understandable since non-tidal rivers have
downstream direction flow and when this is not constrained by dams, flowing water coupled
with hard clean substrates provide optimum conditions for riverine fishes. In contrast, tidal
rivers are located at lower elevations and transition to estuaries were fine sediments and detritus
from upstream tributaries get trapped as soft bottom sediment. In comparing large rivers and
wadeable streams, no significant differences in the percent contribution of riverine fish were
found. The only differences were in the trophic composition of the riverine fish. Riverine fishes
of large rivers were predominantly benthic insectivores, whereas, there was more trophic balance
(e.g., top carnivores, benthic herbivores, generalist, and benthic insectivores) of the riverine fish
in wadeable streams.
Few large river fish IBI's have been developed for application in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
regions (Yoder et al. 2008, Yoder et al. 2009, USEPA 2016b), and these could be considered
provisional without significant post development testing or incorporation into state monitoring
and assessment programs. Although several wadeable stream fish IBI's are developed and
routinely applied in these regions (Halliwell et al. 1999, Roth et al. 2000, Daniels et al. 2002,
\\y\ - their use on large rivers
are unlikely to be appropriate. First, large river IBI's would require adjustments for maximum
species richness and abundance (density) metrics. Second, large rivers are likely to have
19
-------
different fish assemblage structure and function, necessitating new metrics that measure species
composition, trophic composition, and autecological traits.
Before a regional IBI can be developed for any waterbody there is a need for extensive
background information on fish species composition and taxonomic richness, trophic guild
structure, and other ecological attributes of structure and function such as habitat guild and
migratory pattern. The latter is particularly important for large river systems with connection to
marine environments that have anadromous fish populations. Other important information for
IBI formulation includes resident and normative species status, tolerance to environmental
degradation, and reproductive guild structure. However, these were not included in the data
analysis and are not discussed further in this report. Together these make up the component
metrics for an IBI.
Large rivers in the study area appear to have sufficient native fish species richness for the
formulation of indices of biological integrity. A total of 91 species of fish were captured
(Appendix B). Sufficient species richness is a concern for constructing IBI's in the northeastern
U.S. where the fish fauna is naturally depauperate compared to Midwestern river diversity where
fish IBI's were originally developed. Northeastern wadeable streams and rivers typically have
between one to 15 species, and generally average six to eight species (Halliwell et al. 1999).
Unpublished data from the 2008-2009 and 2013-14 EPA National Rivers and Streams
Assessment showed wadeable streams (Strahler orders 1-4) sampled in New Jersey and New
York had an average of 8 species, which is consistent with fish species richness documented in
the New England region. In contrast, data showed the large river (Strahler orders 5-7) fish
species richness averaged 21 taxa. This level of species richness is acceptable for formulation of
IBI's since the theoretical framework of the index requires at least a moderate level of species
richness (Fausch et al. 1990).
Another requirement of building a fish IBI is that the index is dependent on the fish community
trophic composition. Information on trophic or feeding status is essential in development of
component metrics of the index. Although most trophic groups are represented by few species,
nine of 10 trophic classes described for the Northeastern U.S. (Halliwell et al. 1999) were
represented by fish species collected in the New Jersey and New York large rivers. Numerous
fish IBI's developed and applied in the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern regions of the U.S. include
metrics which represent one or more trophic feeding groups (Roth et al. 2000, Daniels et al.
2002, Yoder et al. 2008, Yoder et al. 2009, US EPA Ml 6b,
). Based on this information it is believed that large river
systems in New Jersey and New York have sufficient diversity of trophic feeding guilds to
develop metrics and support formulation of IBI's.
20
-------
Species richness and abundance of migratory fish are generally not an important metric
component of stream and river IBI's. However, in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, large
river systems that connect to estuaries have relatively rich and abundant migratory fish fauna. A
number of the large river sites in New Jersey and New York were tidal freshwater, and had a
significant presence of migratory fish. Consequently, migratory fish species should be
considered in formulation of indices of biological integrity for larger coastal riverine habitats in
New Jersey and New York.
Only one habitat guild class was examined. Occurrence and relative abundance of riverine fish
species are used to assess the free flowing status of rivers. These species require seasonally
moderate to high stream flows to maintain clean hard substrates for feeding and reproduction.
Fish were classified as riverine if they were listed (Halliwell et al. 1999) as restricted to brooks,
streams, or rivers, while species listed for both lotic and lentic habitat were excluded from this
classification. Riverine fish accounted for 38% of the total fish species captured in the survey.
Based on the richness of this ecologically important component of the fish community, it is
concluded a riverine fish metric would contribute useful information to a large river fish IBI.
Once information was obtained from the analysis of the ecological attributes, two potential large
river IBI's (Yoder et al 2009, USEPA 2016b) were examined to determine if drainage, tidal
influence, and river size could affect key taxonomic composition and other autecological traits
that comprise these indexes. Most appealing is the fish multimetric index (FMMI) proposed for
application in the Eastern Highlands climatic region (USEPA 2016b). This index uses modeling
expected values of metrics and could be considered a hybrid between predictive models of
taxonomic composition and use of regional reference sites to establish expected values for a set
of metrics. Like traditional multimetric indexes, the FMMI is comprised with metrics that
represent multiple aspects of structure, composition, and function of the aquatic biota. The
Eastern Highlands climatic region encompasses all of the major New York and northern New
Jersey drainages where the large river sites were sampled. Four (number of native centrarchid
taxa, % taxa that are native and intolerant rheophils, % individuals that are native and migratory,
% taxa that are native invertivores) of the eight metrics which comprise the FMMI were tested
with the New York and New Jersey large river fish data.
Centrarchidae were 3 to 4 times less abundant in the Allegheny versus the other drainages, while
having twice the abundance in non-tidal versus tidal rivers, and Centrarchidae were more
abundant in large rivers than wadeable streams. Although Centrarchidae abundance and taxa
richness are different measures, differences seen in Centrachidae abundance in the Allegheny
drainage and across broad river types likely would require adjustments for this metric to have use
in rivers across a large geographical area.
21
-------
Riverine fish abundance was 2 to 3 times greater in the Allegheny drainage versus the other
drainages, while having no major differences in abundance of riverine fish between tidal versus
non-tidal and large rivers versus wadeable streams. Because riverine fish are most commonly
rheophils and lithophilic spawners, these traits when used as IBI metrics will likely require
metric adjustments for drainages such as the Allegheny that have high species richness and
abundance of riverine fishes.
Migratory fish were only collected in the New Jersey drainages and Hudson drainage, with
exception of three individual American eels collected from three river sites draining into the St.
Lawrence. Migratory fish abundance in tidal rivers is almost 20 times that of non-tidal
abundance and percentage of migratory fish in large rivers is approximately 2 times that of
wadeable streams. The abundance of native migratory fishes is highly variable across drainages
and river classes in New York and New Jersey, and any use of a migratory fish metric would
require significant adjustments for natural expectations.
Water column insectivores had similar abundance across drainages, but benthic insectivores were
highly more abundant in the Allegheny drainage and planktivorous insectivores were only
present in the New Jersey and Hudson drainages. The Allegheny also had 2 times the insectivore
(PI, WC, BI) abundance found in the New Jersey and Susquehanna drainages. Planktivorous
insectivores were more abundant in tidal rivers, but water column insectivores and benthic
insectivores were more abundant in non-tidal rivers. Large rivers had 2 times the insectivore (PI,
WC, BI) abundance versus wadeable streams and significantly greater tax a richness. This
variation of insectivore abundances and dominant insectivore group among drainages and river
types, likely will require significant adjustments for any insectivore metric to be used in
development of large river IBI's in New Jersey and New York.
The other fish IBI evaluated was originally developed for non-wadeable rivers of Maine, but has
been proposed for extension on other New England Rivers (Yoder et al. 2009). This IBI like
most others developed, consist of metrics that measure different aspects of species richness and
composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition. Five metrics (native
Cyprinidae species, percent native salmonids, percent benthic insectivores, percent fluvial
specialist/dependent, non-guarding lithophilic species) were tested with the New Jersey and New
York fish data.
Cyprinidae were 2-3 times more abundant in the Great Lakes and Allegheny drainages versus
other drainages, and 4 times more abundant in non-tidal versus tidal rivers. In addition, both of
these drainages have naturally higher Cyprinidae diversity then New England Rivers and
streams. Because of differences seen in the abundance of Cyprinidae in the Great Lakes and
Allegheny drainages versus other drainages and in non-tidal versus tidal rivers, significant
22
-------
adjustments of this metric would be required for use across a large geographical area and for
large rivers under tidal influence.
Other families (Salmonidae included) never contributed >3% of the taxonomic composition for
any drainage and >4% for tidal or non-tidal rivers. The lack of Salmonidae in the river fish
samples collected across New Jersey and New York would preclude any use of a Salmonidae
richness or relative abundance metric. Stenothermic species like trout and salmon become less
predominant in large rivers moving north to south from New England to the Mid-Atlantic region.
Benthic insectivores were highly more abundant in the Allegheny compared to the other
drainages and not a significant trophic guild of either tidal or non-tidal rivers, although 2 times
more abundant in non-tidal rivers. Differences seen in benthic insectivore abundance in the
Allegheny drainage likely would require adjustments for this metric to be used in rivers across a
large geographical region.
Riverine fish were used as a surrogate to evaluate the percent fluvial specialist/dependent and
non-guarding lithophilic species metrics. Riverine fish abundance was 3 to 5 times greater in the
Allegheny versus other drainages and was almost double in non-tidal versus tidal rivers. These
metrics would also require adjustments for them to be used across a broad geographic area like
New Jersey and New York.
Both the Eastern Highlands FMMI and New England Rivers IBI have metrics that quantitatively
measure various attributes of taxonomic composition, trophic feeding guilds, migratory life
history, and habitat guilds, all of which were examined for drainages, tidal influence, and stream
size in New Jersey and New York. Based on analysis of the fish data collected in New Jersey
and New York it is concluded that drainage, tidal influence, and river size does matter in the
development of biological indices for large rivers, and any use of current IBI's in the future
development of New Jersey and New York large river IBI's will require significant refinements,
or may not be applicable at all.
23
-------
Literature Cited
Arndt R.G. 2004. Annotated checklist and distribution of New Jersey freshwater fishes, with
comments on abundance. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science 49:1-33.
Barbour M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols
for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Second
edition. EPA/84 l-B-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington
DC.
Carlson, D.M. and R. A. Daniels. 2004. Status of fishes in New York: Increases, declines and
homogenization of watersheds. American Midland Naturalist 152:104-139.
Daniels, R.A., K. Riva-Murray, D.B. Halliwell, D.L. Vana-Miller, and M. D. Bilger. 2002. An
index of biological integrity for northern Mid-Atlantic slope drainages. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 131:1044-1060.
Daniels, R.A. 2001. Untested assumptions: the role of canals in the dispersal of sea lamprey,
alewife, and other fishes in the eastern United States. Environmental Biology of Fishes 60:309-
329.
Fausch, K.D., J. Lyons, J.R. Karr, and P.L. Angermeier. 1990. Fish communities as indicators of
environmental degradation. Pages 123-144 in S.M. Adams, editor. Biological Indicators of Stress
in Fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium Number 8, Bethesda, MD.
Flotemersch, J.E., J.B. Stribling, M J. Paul. 2006. Concepts and approaches for the
bioassessment of non-wadeable streams and rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. EP A/600/R-06/127.
Gerritsen, J., R. Carlson, D.L. Charles, D. Dycus, C. Faulkner, G.R. Gibson, R.H. Kennedy, and
S.A. Markowitz. 1998. Lake and reservoir bioassessment and biocriteria. Technical guidance
document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. EPA/841-
B-98-007.
Gibson, G.A., M.L. Bowman, J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder. 2000. Estuarine and coastal marine
waters: Bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance. EPA 822-B-00-024. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Goldstein, R.M., and M.R. Meador. 2004. Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams
to large rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 971-983.
24
-------
Halliwell, D.B., R.W. Langdon, R.A. Daniels, J.P. Kurtenbach, R.A. Jacobsen. 1999.
Classification of freshwater fishes of northeastern United States for use in the development of
indices of biological integrity, with regional applications. Pages 301-337 in T.P. Simon, editor.
Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
H. John Heinz III Center. 2002. The state of the nation's ecosystems: measuring the lands,
waters, and living resources of the United States. The H John Heinz III Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment, Washington DC, Cambridge University Press.
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (IFTM). 1995. The strategy for
improving water quality monitoring in the United States: final report of the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R Yant, and I.J. Sehlosser. 1986. Assessment of
biotic integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Special Publication Number 5, Champaign, IL.
Nelson, J.S., E.J. Grossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.K. Lea, and J.D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada and
Mexico. Sixth edition. Special Publication 29, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, and S.K. Gross. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols
for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington DC. EPA/444/4-89-001.
Roth, N.E., M.T. Souther land, J.C. Chaillou, P.F. Kazyak, and S.A. Stranko. 2000. Refinement
and validation of a fish index of biotic integrity for Maryland streams. Prepared by Versar, Inc.,
Columbia, MD, for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal
Assessment Division. CBWP-MANTA-EA-00-2.
Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Surface water quality monitoring: a framework for
change. Office of Water and Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
25
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013a. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013/14.
Field Operations Manual Non-Wadeable. EPA-841 -B-12-009a. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013-
2014. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA 841-B-12-007. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2016a. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-
2009: A Collaborative Survey. EPA/841/R-16/007. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-
2009 Technical Report. EPA/841/R-16/008. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Water and Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Werner, R.G. 1980. Freshwater fishes of New York State. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse,
NY.
Yoder, C.O., R.F. Thoma, E.T. Rankin, B.H. Kulik. and B.R. Apell. 2008. Maine Rivers fish
assemblage assessment: Development of an interim fish assemblage index for non-wadeable
Maine Rivers. MBI Technical Report MB1/2008-11-2. Report to USEPA, Region I, Boston, MA.
Yoder, C.O., L.E. Hersha, and B.R. Apell. 2009. Fish assemblage and habitat assessment of the
upper Connecticut River: A preliminary report and presentation of data. MBI Technical Report
MBI/2009-8-3. Report to USEPA, Region 1, Boston, MA.
26
-------
APPENDIX A; River Sites and Locations
SITE J D
River Name
Latitude
Longitude
DATE_COL
FW08NJ004
Delaware River
41.27242348
-74.84022117
6/23/2009
FW08NJ005
Raritan River
40.50889787
-74.46614516
7/7/2009
FWQ8NJ007
Passaic River
40.91250932
-74.18683631
7/9/2009
FW08NJ008
Delaware River
41.25012378
-74.8555479
8/13/2008
FW08NJ009
Delaware River
40.33695516
-74.93851447
7/8/2008
FW08NJ011
Passaic River
40.8628988
-74.10744864
7/8/2009
FW08NJ013
Delaware River
40.45047125
-75.06823166
7/13/2009
FW08RNJ9001
Wading River
39.617337
-74.496294
7/14/2009
NJRM-1002
Delaware River
41.31137872950
-74.79188428130
8/14/2014
NJRM-1003
Delaware River
40.67157217050
-75.17843643680
7/22/2014
NJSS-1086
Belcher Creek
41.15246106980
-74.34996876350
9/9/2014
NJRO-1019
Passaic River
40.75796
-74.16351
6/4/2013
FW08NY019
Chemung River
42.14603326
-77.05408537
10/2/2008
FW08NY021
Mohawk River
42.82852399
-73.98933424
9/29/2008
FW08NY023
Chenango River
42.16144049
-75.85677759
9/25/2008
FW08NY025
Hudson River
43.24865985
-73.74076924
9/30/2008
FW08NY027
Indian River
44.25928066
-75.76742933
10/7/2008
FW08NY028
Hudson River
42.47413071
-73.78702077
9/23/2008
FW08NY030
Olean Creek
42.08065107
-78.42363433
9/16/2008
FW08NY032
Allegheny River
42.06590517
-78.46921921
9/15/2008
FW08IMY034
Seneca River
43.13766805
-76.29551055
9/23/2008
FW08NY035
Susquehanna River
42.02895573
-76.39830557
9/26/2008
FW08NY037
Mohawk River
42.93557536
-74.19444996
9/25/2008
FW08NY040
Hudson River
43.25552804
-73.58640123
10/1/2008
FW08NY044
Hudson River
42.05575562
-73.9319509
8/26/2008
FW08NY047
Grass River
44.81864062
-75.10078251
7/17/2009
FW08NY050
Oswego River
43.3045003
-76.39769929
10/6/2008
FW08NY051
Susquehanna River
42.12401229
-75.61379191
6/16/2009
FW08NY052
Oswegatchie River
44.61612925
-75.40615014
7/20/2009
FW08NY053
Mohawk River
42.89548278
-74.50933963
8/20/2009
FW08RNY9004
Hudson River
43.25190207
-73.83515964
9/27/2008
FW08RNY9005
Oswegatchie River
44.29784965
-75.35973487
10/9/2008
FW08RNY9006
Raquette River
44.91539831
-74.89250033
8/17/2009
FW08RNY9007
Sacandaga River
43.23095631
-74.18652878
9/28/2008
NYLS-1115
Pochuck Creek
41.29257
-74.47551
9/26/2013
NYR9-0915
Genesee River
42.85984
-77.84331
8/21/2013
NYRF-0004
Schcoon River
43.48083
-73.81417
7/8/2014
NYRM-1001
Susquehanna River
42.01278
-75.77946
9/18/2013
NYRM-1002
Hudson River
43.30507
-73.59358
7/10/2014
NYRM-1003
Susquehanna River
42.54433
-74.95158
9/12/2013
NYRM-1004
Hudson River
42.69165
-73.70884
9/12/2014
NYRM-1005
Susquehanna River
42,08366
-76.29192
9/8/2013
NYRM-1006
Hudson River
43.47235
-73.84035
7/8/2014
NYRM-1007
Susquehanna River
42.28799
-75.48149
9/24/2013
-------
NYRM-1008
Hudson River
42.17815
-73.87060
9/10/2014
NYRO-1049
Grass River
44.91335
-74.93946
7/16/2013
NYRO-1050
Tioughnioga River
42.31674
-75.94378
9/4/2013
NYRO-1051
Black River
43.80096
-75.46669
7/23/2013
NYRO-1052
Grass River
44.62279
-75.22698
7/14/2013
NYRO-1053
Cattaraugus Creek
42.56912
-79.13579
9/11/2013
NYRO-1054
Chenango River
42.10099
-75.91594
9/20/2013
NYRO-1055
Mohawk River
42.94959
-74.38360
9/8/2013
NYRO-1056
Grass River
44.84435
-75.08576
7/17/2013
NYRO-1057
Genesee River
42.76741
-77.83879
8/18/2013
NYRO-1058
Seneca River
43.16468
-76.25831
8/14/2013
-------
Appendix B: List of Fish Species Captured in the
Lampetra appendix (American brook lamprey)
Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Ohio lamprey)
Petromyzon marinus (sea lamprey)
Lepisosteus osseus (longnose gar)
Amiacalva (bowfin)
Anguilla rostrata (American eel)
Alosa aestivalis (blueback herring)
Alosapseudoharengus (alewife)
Alosa sapidissima (American shad)
Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad)
Campostoma anomalum (central stoneroller)
Carasslus a u rat us (goldfish)
Cyprinella analostana (satinfin shiner)
Cypririella spiloptera (spotfin shiner)
Cyprinus carpio (common carp)
Erimystax dissimilis (streamline chub)
Exoglossum maxillingua (cutiips minnow)
Hybognathus regius (eastern silvery minnow)
Luxilus chrysocephalus (striped shiner)
Lux i I us cornutus (common shiner)
Macrhybopsis storeriana (silver chub)
Nocomis micropogon (river chub)
Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner)
Notropis amoenus (comely shiner)
Notropis atherninoides (emerald shiner)
Notropis bifrenatus (bridle shiner)
Notropis husdonius (spottail shiner)
Notropis photogenis (silver shiner)
Notropis procne (swallowtail shiner)
Notropis rubellus (rosyface shiner)
Notropis stramineus (sand shiner)
Notropis volucellus (mimic shiner)
Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow)
Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow)
Rhinichthys cataractae (longnose dace)
Scardinius erythrophthalmus (rudd)
Semotiius atromaculatus (creek chub)
Semotilus corporalis (fallfish)
Carplodes cyprinus (quillback)
Catostomus catostomus (longnose sucker)
Catastomus commersoni (white sucker)
Erimyzon oblongus (creek chubsucker)
Hypentelium nigricans (northern hog sucker)
Moxostoma anisurum (silver redhorse)
Moxostoma erythrurum (golden redhorse)
-------
Moxostoma macrolepidotum (shorthead redhorse)
Moxostoma valenciennesi (greater redhorse)
Ameiurus catus (white catfish)
Ameiurus natalis (yellow bullhead)
Ameiurus nebulosus (brown bullhead)
Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish)
Noturusflavus (stonecat)
Noturus insignis (margined madtom)
Esox americanus americanus (redfin pickerel)
Esox lucius (northern pike)
Esox masquinongy (muskellunge)
Esox niger (chain pickerel)
Umbra limi (central mudminnow)
Salmo trutta (brown trout)
Lota lota (burbot)
Fundulus diaphanus (banded killifish)
Fundulus heteroclitus (mummichog)
Labidesthes sicculus (brook silverside)
Cottus bairdi (mottled sculpin)
Morone americana (white perch)
Morone saxatilis (striped bass)
Ambloplites rupestris (rock bass)
Lepomis auritis (redbreast sunfish)
Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish)
Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed)
Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill)
Micropterus dolomieu (smallmouth bass)
Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)
Pomoxis annularis (white crappie)
Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie)
Ammocrypta peiiucida (eastern sand darter)
Etheostoma blennioides (greenside darter)
Etheostoma caeruleum (rainbow darter)
Etheostoma flabellare (fantail darter)
Etheostoma nigrum (johnny darter)
Etheostoma olmstedi (tessellated darter)
Etheostoma variatum (variegate darter)
Etheostoma zonale (banded darter)
Perca flavescens (yellow perch)
Percina caprodes (iogperch)
Percina copelandi (channel darter)
Percina macrocephala (longhead darter)
Percina peltata (shield darter)
Stizostedion vitreum (walleye)
Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum)
Trinectes maculatus (hogchoker)
------- |