Status of Aquatic Resources - Coweeta LTERcoweeta.uga.edu/publications/119.pdf · Status of Aquatic Resources 2.0 Question 1: What are the current status and ... Finally, the Tennessee

Status of Aquatic Resources

2.0

Question 1:

What are the current status andapparent trends in aquatic resourceswithin the Southern Appalachianassessment area?

Aquatic resources have been broadlydefined to include streams and vvaterbodies,watersheds, aquatic and semiaquatic species ofall kinds, water quality, and other characteris-tics of aquatic habitat. In effect, this questionasks for a current inventory of all aquaticresources and an assessment of the historic andfuture trends in those resources. How much isthere? In what condition are the SouthernAppalachian Assessment (SAA) aquaticresources? Are they increasing or decreasing inquality or quantity?

The focus of the assessment was pr imari lyon surface water. Although analysis of the cur-rent status and trends of aquatic resourcesshould include the role of human activities,detailed discussions of interaction betweenhuman activities and aquatic resources havebeen deferred to a later section that specificallyaddresses this question (chapter 5). Finally, allefforts were made to ensure that resources iden-tified in the public discussion that preceded theteam's efforts were addressed. For example,trout receive considerable emphasis here andin subsequent sections because trout were thesingle most commonly mentioned aquaticresource in the public comments.

A number of regional inventory and moni-toring efforts are underway. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)Environmental Monitoring and AssessmentProgram (EMAP) has been operational for sev-eral years. The goals and objectives of EMAPare closely aligned with this question of statusand trends, and the original sampling schemewas devised to produce relatively unbiasedresults for a large network of sites. However,few EMAP results were available when the SAA

started, and now EMAP is undergoing majordesign revisions.

The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS)National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)program is an integrated assessment of physi-cal, chemical, and biological aspects of waterquality, inc lud ing status and trends, for thenation. Several of the study units extend intothe SAA area, but NAWQA sampling does notcompletely cover the SAA area. Furthermore,the first round of sampling is not yet completeon any study unit, and two-thirds have not yetbeen initiated. Finally, the Tennessee ValleyAuthority's (TVA) River Action Teams (RAT) areevaluating existing physical and biological con-ditions of streams for the entire Tennessee Riverbasin. This effort involves detailed sampling ofhundreds of sites, organized by subbasin. Atthis time, sampling is not yet complete and theentire SAA area was not included in the sam-pling, so these data could not be used.Although use of these monitoring programs inthe SAA was not extensive, some RegionalEMAP (R-EMAP) and RAT data were used forthe case study on fish community integrity (sec-tion 2.7). These major efforts, though not com-pletely suitable for the SAA, are l ikely to bevaluable for future efforts to characterize thestatus and trends of aquatic resources in theSouthern Appalachians.

Biodiversity is not addressed in this sectionbecause existing data for the SAA area are inad-equate. Nevertheless, a brief discussion of thetopic, narrowly defined as species richness, iswarranted. A comprehensive treatment of bio-diversity in southeastern aquatic systems,including chapters on high-gradient mountainstreams, ponds, and reservoirs has been pub-lished recently (Hackney and others 1992).Diversity or freshwater mussels in the Southeastis greater than any other part of the world(Williams and Neves 1995), and much of thatdiversity is in the SAA area. A similar claim maybe made for crayfish and snails in the Southeast(Will iams and Neves 1992, Taylor and others,1996). Of the 297 mussel species in the UnitedStates, 269 (91 percent) have been found in the

15

11 southeastern states (Neves and others 1995).Diversity of fishes in the Southeast is also high:Out of about 800 species of fish in the UnitedStates, the Southeast has about 485 and theSouthern Appalachians south of the Roanokeand New Rivers have about 350 species (Walshand others 1995). in mountain streams, aquaticplantji.e., algae and macrophytes) diversitymay be relatively limited, but diversity of aquat-ic invertebrates, especially insects, is high(Wallace and others 1992). A great deal of thisregional diversity is due to the presence of sev-eral physiographic provinces (e.g., mountains,piedmont, coastal plain), but diversity withinthe SAA area is also high.

The headwater areas of the Tennessee andCumberland rivers on the Cumberland Plateauof southwestern Virginia, Tennessee, andKentucky are known to be particularly rich inboth fish and mussel species (Starnes and Etnier1986; Neves 1991; Neves and others 1995).Faurra--of this area, known as Cumberlandian,are diverse because the area is geologically oldand streams have been isolated for a long time,fostering speciation. To some extent, this greatgeologic age and isolation contributes to thediversity of aquatic fauna throughout the SAAarea. A warmer climate and lack of glaciationalso contribute to the diverse fauna of theSoutheast (Adams and Hackney 1992).

These same conditions probably contributeto high genetic and landscape diversity, as well.The genetic diversity of the southern strain ofnative brook trout, for example, is high becausepopulations in adjacent streams have beenisolated from each other for some time (Krieglerand others 1995). At the landscape scale, fishfauna of each drainage differ from neighboringdrainages (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).Although drainages may be adjacent to eachother in the SAA area, their connectedness foraquatic species may require an impossible pas-sage through inhospitable physiographicregion^ and estuarine and marine systems.

For fish, a long history of human manipula-tion, through stocking and introduction ofexotic species, may paradoxically bothincrease species diversity directly and decreasediversity by eliminating native species throughcompetition and predation. These and otherhuman activities have resulted in a loss ofspecies, a topic to be discussed more fully laterin this document.

What follows is a discussion of eight

selected topics of current status and trends ofaquatic resources. In most cases, there is a topicintroduction; followed by key findings; expla-nations of data sources; discussion of analyses,spatial patterns, and trends leading to key find-ings; and some speculation on future trends,although predictive models were not produced.

The selection of topics in this chapter waslargely dependent on data available for theregion. For example, the assessment of currentstatus and trends for biota emphasizes threegamefish and species recognized to be imper-illed or at risk. There are literally hundreds(thousands, if insects are included) of otheraquatic species in the SAA area about whichadequate data to produce similar analyses arelacking.

2.1 WATERBODIES:

STREAMS, RIVERS,

AMD LAKES

Introduction

The Southern Appalachian Mountain regionis blessed with abundant rainfall, which pro-duces and maintains water flow through a vastnetwork of perennial streams. These mountainstreams serve as water supplies for mountainand foothill communities and, ultimately, majorcities of the eastern and southeastern UnitedStates. Seventy-three river watersheds lie whol-ly or partly in the SAA area.

The waters of the SAA area support a largevariety of aquatic life, and the adjacent riparianzone is home and refuge for a number ofspecies. The expanding land uses in the Southand increasing development in urban and sub-urban areas require an abundant supply ofhigh-quality water. Information and data per-taining to the location of streams, rivers, andlakes are essential to understanding, analyzing,and successfully managing our vital waterresources.

This section summarizes some of thehydrography data collected for the aquatictechnical report. The information serves as abasis for much of the discussions that follow.

Key Findings

Water is a significant part of the SAA arealandscape. The mean density of stream and

chapter two

river channels is 12 feet of length per acre ofland and would be greater if all small mountainstreams (intermittent and first- to third-order)could be measured.

• High annual precipitation amounts are typi-cal for the SAA area, which includes stationsthat record the greatest total rainfall per yearin the Eastern United States.

•The SAA area contains more than 556,000acres of flooded river and lake surface, about1.5 percent of the total SAA area.

Data Source

Knowledge of the locations of all streams,rivers, and lakes in the SAA region is basic tosuccessful analysis of aquatic resources. CISfiles have been assembled to consolidate thiswaterbody information. River and stream datawere taken from the EPA Reach File version 3.0(RF3), which is based on the 1:100,000 scaleUSGS Digital Line Graph (DIG) data. Eachstream or river is divided into segments orreaches of similar channel type. Attributes foreach reach include a numeric code, streamname, reach type, reach length, and spatiallocation information. Lake and reservoirboundaries also came from the DLG data.Major river basins have been delineated byUSGS and HUCs assigned to each. Basins arenumbered in a hierarchial 8-digit code.Approximate boundaries were digitized from1:2,000,000-scale maps.

Quality and Gaps

The "blueline" representation of a headwa-ter stream on a 1:100,000-scale map generallyshows only the main fork of each actual fourth-order stream (Chow 1964) that exists on thelandscape. Thus, most second- and third-orderstreams and nearly all first-order streams are notincluded in the RF3 database. The concept ofstream order is described by Maidment (1993),or Chow (1964), and in many hydrology text-books. It is estimated that as little as 30 percentof the total length of flowing streams on upperslopes is represented by the length of headwa-ter reaches recorded in the database. Manysmall perennial and intermittent streams inmountain watersheds are not represented, evenon the more detailed 1:24,000-scale 7.5-minute quadrangle sheets. Thus, the weakest

characteristic of the RF3 database, for thepurposes of the SAA, is that many miles ofheadwaters streams are not represented.

Parts of 73 watersheds or hydrologic unitslie within the SAA. A total of 26 watershedsare wholly within the assessment region, 18have more than 50 percent of their area within,and 29 have less than 50 percent within theregion. Watershed boundaries are shown infigure 1.0.2.

Pre-analysis Preparations

The watershed boundaries, appropriate atthe 1:2,000,000 scale, had insufficient detailwhen redrawn at the larger scale of 1:100,000.Due to the lack of an existing 1:100,000-scaledigital version of watershed boundaries, a digi-tal file was generated by the SAA team.Hydrologic unit boundaries were adjusted to fitbetween the ends of headwater streams andalong ridgelines defined by digital elevationdata for the 1:100,000-scale maps. Watershedshaving less than 50 percent of their total areawithin the SAA region were omitted fromstream density analyses. Minor portions (less

8 > Density < 10.01

10 > Density < 12.5

12.4 < Density < 15

17

AR110

Figure 2.1.1 Stream density by watershed.Stream density in mean feet of river or streamchannel per acre of land surface in river basinwatersheds defined by the eight-digitHydrologic Unit Code drainage areas.

18

than 10 percent) of 13 watersheds are includedwhere county boundaries, which define theSAA area, are not coincident with watershedridgelines.

Analyses

Stream length was totaled for counties and-hyclrologic units, listed in tables 2.1.1 and

2.1.2-. Overall, the SAA region has a streamdensity of 12 feet of channel length per acre ofland with somewhat higher densities aroundlakes in the Tennessee River system, in countieswith higher, steeper slopes, and in the high-rainfall southern portion of the SAA (figs. 2.1.2and 2.1.4). Densities were found to be less inthe foothill and upper piedmont counties,figure 2.1.3 shows the distribution of streamdensity by counties. Half of the SAA has a den-sity of main streams and rivers between 11 and13 feet per acre. If all lengths of flowing streamscould have been counted, these densitiesvvOnld be higher. For example, the ForestService did an intensive survey of theChattooga River basin and recorded a streamdensity, including intermittent streams, of 82feet per acre. Other National Forest lands inSouth Carolina have densities ranging from 64in the piedmont to 116 feet per acre in themountains.

Annual precipitation in the SAA ranges froma mean of about 35 inches along the WestVirginia-Virginia border to nearly 100 inchesalong the southeastern edge of the Blue RidgeMountains in North and South Carolina. Figure2.1.4 shows the precipitation for 1986 and1989 averaged over the climate zones of theSAA region (Guttman and Quayle 1996). These2 years represent some of the driest and thewettest periods, respectively, experienced inthe southern end of the mountains in the past60 years.

Water yield from forested mountain water-sheds averages 46 percent of precipitation.Most yield occurs as base or delayed flow(Woodruff and Hewlett 1970). Quickflow dueto storm events comprises 4 to 12 percent ofannual total streamflow.

Lakes and impoundments are a significantpart of the water resources in the mid-to-south-ern portion of the SAA, principally because ofTVA reservoirs (fig. 2.1.5). The region containsnearly 870 square miles of water surface. Table2.1.3 lists the water surface area of each state

within the SAA region.The watershed boundaries were used to

describe regional patterns for aquaticresources. The areas of each of the watershedswholly or partly within the SAA region are list-ed in table 2.1.2.

Future

The hydrography database will be importantto any future assessments of aquatic resources.The USGS has a program to produce digital linegraph CIS files that are accurate and completeto the standard of 1:24,000-scale maps (USCS1993, 1994). These new files will vastlyimprove the stream length, density, and loca-tion information over what has been availablefor this assessment and redefine the hydrologicunit code watershed boundaries.

2.2 CONDITION OF

WATER BO DIES

Introduction

The condition of waterbodies is influencedby land uses within the watershed, geology,soil erosion, vegetation, and soil nutrients. Inaddition, the condition of lakes and reservoirs isdetermined by the shape of lake basins, as wellas a number of physical, chemical, and biolog-ical processes that are associated with lakesand lake sediments. The water quality of riversand their tributaries is also determined bynatural habitat features such as the riparianzone land cover and the stream bed strata, (i.e.,gravel, silt, etc.). Human impacts such as directpollutant discharges, stormwater and overlandrunoff, and air deposition of pollutants cansignificantly alter the characteristics of awaterbody.

This evaluation of the condition of the riversand their tributaries is based upon the water-bodies' ability to support their designated usesfishing, aquatic life, swimming, drinking water.Most waterbodies in the SAA are classified asfishable and swimmable. The states are respon-sible for adopting water quality criteria for thesewaterbodies to protect the appropriate desig-nated uses. Comparison of state water monitor-ing data to appropriate water quality criteriaserves as the basis for the evaluation of the rel-ative water quality condition of the hydrologic

chapter two

Table 2.1.1 Stream length and density for eachregion except for Virginia city-counties.

FIPS1 Code010150101901027010290104901111011211301113015130471305513057130831308513111131151311713119131231312913137131391314313187132131322313227132331324113257132811329113295133111331337005370093701137021370233702737039370433707537087370893709937111371133711537121371713717337175371893719337199

CountyCalhounCherokeeClayCleburneDekalbRandolphTalladegaBanksBartowCatoosaChattoogaCherokeeDadeDawsonFanninFloydForsythFranklinGilmerGordonHabershamHallHaralsonLumpkinMurrayPauldingPickensPolkRabunStephensTownsUnionWalkerWhiteWhitfieldAlleghanyAsheAveryBuncombeBurkeCaldwellCherokeeClayGrahamHay woodHendersonJacksonMcDowellMaconMadisonMitchellSurrySwainTransylvaniaWataugaWilkesYancey

StateALALALALALALALGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGANCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNC

county in the Southern Appalachian Assessment

Length(miles)762.66

1047.76769.39783.33

1124.82737.00891.91341.47579.53275.50511.30614.72283.80359.18551.33828.00294.31334.65651.03570.98406.69539.81371.19481.03620.87316.50373.74462.80498.58250.94247.66491.32718.39355.62441.57309.33534.63348.64889.22710.17704.49650.43322.20379.59862.85595.51617.09638.00671.17680.01307.66895.87692.01596.96474.51

1 175.76449.28

Density(feet/acre)

10.2814.4110.471 1 .5211.9210.419.68

12.0510.1613.9713.4411.6913.4513.8511.6213.189.82

10.3612.4413.1712.0210.3810.8113.9314.77

8.2913.2512.2310.9111.2411.8912.3113.2712.1212.5310.8410.3311.6311.1211.3812.2511.5012.0510.3812.8313.1110.3011.7910.6612.4211.4313.7410.5612.9412.5212.7611.84

19

Table 2.1.1Assessment

FIPS1 Code45045450734507747001

-4700747009470114701347019470254702947035470574705947063470654706747073470894709147TJ93471054710747115471214712347129471394714347145471534715547163471714717347179510035100551009510155101751019510215102351027510355104551051510635106751069510715107751079510915 1 1 0551113

(cont.) Streamregion except for

CountyGreenvilleOconeePickensAndersonBledsoeBlount .BradleyCampbellCarterClaiborneCockeCumberlandGraingerGreeneHamblenHamiltonHancockHawkinsJeffersonJohnsonKnoxLouclonMcMinnMarionMeigsMonroeMorganPolkRheaRoaneSequatchieSevierSullivanUnicoiUnionWashingtonAlbemarleAlleghanyAmherstAugustaBathBedfordBlandBotetourtBuchananCarrollCraigDickensonFloydFranklinFrederickGilesGraysonGreeneHighlandLeeMadison

length and density forVirginia city-counties.

StateSCSCSCTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA

each county

Length(miles)

1040.61847.89603.52438.36623.20929.38526.18561.71504.42499.73776.76

1050.95358.81

1044.80221.04773.68295.02699.38340.05589.58744.91343.92689.32695.37300.17931.15817.08667.15492.58527.72382.44

1030.55616.06315.73232.43494.65984.74727.10768.19

1507.46781.40

1254.38489.25850.82685.11627.29566.37500.05516.07

1075.65524.33424.72620.09178.68596.51540.67407.48

in the Southern Appalachian

Density'feet/acre)

10.7710.389.74

10.4912.6413.5313.109.30

11.979.34

14.4612.669.79

13.8110.3811.0910.8911.55

8.9316.0711.6911.4913.1611.1711.4211.7712.9012.4412.0811.0211.8614.2211.8313.977.76

12.3811.1913.4213.2412.7912.0613.4511.2512.8611.2210.8314.1612.3311.1612.4710.419.71

11.479.39

11.8310.2010.45

chapter two

Table 2.1.1Assessment

FIPS1 Code511215112551139511415115551157511615116351165511675116951171511735118551187511915119551197540275403154071

(cont.) Stream lengthregion except for Virginia

CountyMontgomeryNelsonPagePatrickPulaskiRappahannockRoanokeRockbridgeRockinghamRussellScottShenandoahSmythTazewellWarrenWashingtonWiseWytheHampshireHardyPendleton

and density forcity-counties.

StateVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAWVWVWV

each county

Length(miles)560.13745.34416.63658.24369.35416.64373.82873.31

1217.59689.90788.65823.01622.68643.39296.95888.15567.65643.28933.32884.10869.66

in the Southern Appalachian

Density(feet/acre)

11.8712.9610.9411.18

9.2512.8812.3011.9911.7711.9412.0813.2511.3610.2111.3212.9111.5811.4211.9412.4810.28

^Federal Information Processing Standard code for counties

AR111

5 > Density < 10.01

10 > Density < 15.01

15 < Density < 20

Figure 2.1.2 Stream density by county. Streamdensity in mean feet of river or stream channelfor each acre of land surface in each SAAcounty.

21

chapter two

Table 2.1.2 Hydrologic unit watersheds that are fully or partly within the Southern AppalachianAssessment (SAA) region, grouped by major drainage basins.

Hydrologic UnitCode NumberChesapeake Bay0207000102070002020-700030207000402070005020700060207000702070008020801030208010602080201020802020208020302080204

River Basin NameWatersheds

Potomac, South BranchPotomac, North BranchCacapon-TownConococheague-OpequonShenandoah, South ForkShenandoah, North ForkShenandoahMiddle Potomac-CatoctinRapidan-RappahannockPamunkeyUpper JamesMauryMiddle jame-BuffaloRivanna

Portion of WatershedWithin SAA Region(percent)

832

6213

10010028<141<196

1006376

(acres)

78817212363

491500191656

1 06440066193462407

483426204

58351358925542047845635385235

River and StreamLength(miles)

1837.5826.67

1148.69388.76

2604.561626.00

145.74.03

948.4712.92

3477.101303.792229.40

893.78

Density(t'eet/acre)

12.311.412.310.712.913.012.3

-11.811.713.512.713.912.3

Carolina-Atlantic Watersheds030101010301010303TR01010304010203050101030501020305010503050107030501080305010903060101030601020306010403070101

Upper RoanokeUpper DanUpper YadkinSouth YadkinUpper CatawbaCatawba, South ForkUpper BroadTygerEnoreeSaludaSenecaTugalooBroadUpper Oconee

8227619

511910152124788836

5

1178765361261960919

5662878396681399

1539867776999927

410997525143573886358182100221

3382.25842.26

2453.26154.98

1962.88202.26333.93166.73220.29981.57

1517.741589.06810.66243.72

15.212.313.514.513.213.111.511.311.612.615.314.612.012.8

Alabama-Apalachicoia River Watersheds0313000103130002031501010315010203150103031501040315010503150106031501070315010803150109

Upper ChattahoocheeMiddle ChattahoocheeConasaugaCoosawatteeOostanaulaEtowahUpper CoosaMiddle CoosaLower CoosaUpper TallapoosaMiddle Tallapoosa

705

100100100

91100

53205233

722849105562461535549452361995

10856671026919901588263886948014341081

2205.51206.13

1212.401484.981072.272823.143104.102086.63

626.732122.26

755.80

16.110.313.914.315.613.716.012.212.511.811.7

Ohio River Watersheds050200040505000105050002050500030507020105070202051002010513010105130104051301050513010705130108

CheatUpper NewMiddle NewCreenbriarTugUpper LevisaKentucky, North ForkUpper CumberlandCumberland, South ForkObeyCollinsCaney

<110052

19

69<11217

14

15

15131884269561216

1371896078

5443954

185008158121

887923604

175444

.004268.151177.70

11.15184.33

1275.41.00

384.03326.1320.8352.39

427.31

-12.011.14.3

10.112.4

-11.010.912.411.712.9

chapter two

Table 2.1.2 (cont.) Hydrologic unit watersheds that are fully or partly within the SouthernAppalachian Assessment (SAA) region, grouped by major drainage basins.

Hvdrologic UnitCode Number River Basin Name

Portion of WatershedWithin SAA Region(percent) (acres)

River and StreamLength(miles)

Density(feet/acre)

Tennessee River Watersheds06010101 Holston, North Fork06010102 Holston, South Fork06010104 Holston06010105 Upper French Broad06010106 Pigeon06010107 Lower French Broad06010108 Nolichucky06010201 Watts Bar Lake06010202 Upper Little Tennessee06010203 Tuckasegee06010204 Lower Little Tennessee06010205 Upper Clinch06010206 Powell06010207 Lower Clinch06010208 Emory06020001 Middle Tennessee-Chickamau06020002 Hiwassee06020003 Ocoee06020004 Sequatchie06030001 Guntersville Lake06030003 Upper Elk

10010010010010010010010010010010010010010098

ga 100100100

9530

47361875516863928411997234420405051391131644871053533287472354675823125230460216140710453829711874071315229411737361234405174

298

1177.772063.841823.413092.471168.731726.852989.862771.531308.981073.531950.673192.431362.841158.861426.283301.353689.121137.74873.67926.22

.11

13.114.415.113.614.018.114.016.813.012.015.213.512.015.014.014.714.814.612.812.1

1.9

y 10

<9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 >15Stream Density (ft/ac)

23

Figure 2.1.3 Distribution of stream densitiesfor counties across the Southern AppalachianAssessment region. Virginia city-counties arenot included.

I

Precipitation (inches/year)

I precipitation < 40

I 40 => precipitation < 50

50 => precipitation < 60

60 => precipitation < 70

precipitation > 70

ARII:;

Figure 2.1.4 Precipitation averaged over the climate zones of the SAA region: a.) 1986, an unusuallydry year, and b.) 1989, an unusually wet year.

chapter two

Table 2.1.3 Water surface area of floodedrivers and lakes in the Southern AppalachianAssessment region.

State AcresAlabamaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaSouth CarolinaTennesseeVirginiaWest VirginiaTotal

66,36889,88847,66438,915

248,77661,537

3,090556,238

Figure 2.1.5 Acres of lake or reservoir surfacefor counties in the SAA areaence of TVA impoundmentsfor counties in the SAA area showing influ-

AR114

Impoundment Acres

1 -999

1,000-4,999

5,000 - 9,999

10,000-50,000

units (HUCs) or watersheds in the study areas.A commonly used method to assess the

condition of lakes and reservoirs is to determinetheir trophic state. The trophic state classifica-tion of lakes is based on divisions of theirtrophic progression from low to high primaryproductivity. Traditionally, the progression isdivided into three classes: oligotrophic,mesotrophic, and eutrophic. Low nutrient(nitrogen and phosphorous) levels, low algaldensities, clear water, oxygen concentrations inthe hypolimnion (the deeper portions of lakes)sufficient to support aquatic life and good water

Mesotrophic46.0%

Eutrophic38.0%

Oligotrophic16.0%

Figure 2.2.1 Lake and reservoir trophiccondition. A summary of the trophic conditionof lakes and reservoirs within the SouthernAppalachian Assessment region is portrayedas percent of total lake acres assessed.

quality are characteristic of oligotrophic water.As lakes age or inputs of pollutants from humanactivities increase, the trophic progression oflakes continues. Increased nutrient levels,increased algal densities, decreases in waterclarity, and decreases in hypolimnetic oxygenconcentrations occur as a lake progresses froma mesotrophic to a eutrophic state. Mesotrophiclakes are moderately productive and show lit-tle, if any, signs of water quality problems.Eutrophic lakes may be so productive, withhigh nutrient levels, poor clarity, and low oxy-gen, that a high potential for water qualitydegradation exists. Continued increases ofnutrients can lead to hypereutrophic condi-tions. This deteriorated condition can result infish kills due to oxygen depletion and jeopar-dize the use of lakes for drinking water suppliesand recreation.

Fecal coliform concentrations are used toindicate the likely presence of pathogenicorganisms and the potential for water-baseddisease outbreaks.

Key Findings

The trophic status of lakes in the SAA areavaries widely. Overall, for lakes greater than500 acres assessed by the states, 38 percent

of total lake acres were assessed as eutroph-ic, 46 percent mesotrophic, and 16 percentoligotrophic (fig. 2.2.1).

• There is general agreement that water qualityhas improved significantly since the adoptionof the Clean Water Act in 1972. In addition,in some areas, population growth and result-

Jng landscape alterations have caused some•.degradation in water quality.

• An association may exist between the waterquality condition of rivers and their tributariesin the study area and the extent of urbaniza-tion and resource extraction. See chapter 5for a discussion of pollutant sources and theirimpacts on water quality. Figure 2.2.2

illustrates the miles of impaired waterbodiesby watershed, and figure 2.2.3 ranks thewatersheds by the percentage of stream milesnot supporting designated uses. These figuresindicate that the Tennessee River andAlabama River basin areas include most ofthe significantly impacted watersheds.

The Chesapeake Bay drainage area, primarilyin Virginia, has the highest percentage ofwaterbodies that meet water quillly stan-dards for the protection of aquatic life in thestudy area.

The occurrence of fecal coliform bacteriaabove the states' standards for humancontact is evident throughout the study area

Virginia

Tennessee;

Alabama'"

,.\ >' North

Carolina

[AT] HUC BoundaryInside SAA Area

"-.Carolina [7\7| HUC Boundary__. , -> Outside SAA Area

(A/I State Line

Miles Not Supporting

AR132

-10

>25

Figure 2.2.7 iVi.iles'of streams not supporting water uses by hydrologic unit. Miles of streams withsevere degradation are shown by hydrologic unit based on states' 1994 water quality reports toCongress.

chapter two

(fig. 2.2.4). Contamination from fecal col-iform is likely due to natural depositionfrom wildlife, livestock operations, andmunicipal discharges.

There are 15 watersheds with areas of wide-spread water quality degradation (greaterthan 20 percent impairment) (fig. 2.2.3).

More than 80 percent of river miles in mostwatersheds or hydrologic areas (which repre-sent 75 percent of the river miles in theSAA) are rated as fully supporting their desig-nated uses.

Data Sources

The primary sources of information for thisassessment were the 1994 Water QualityReports to Congress (state water quality reportsto Congress, as required under section 305 [b]of the Clean Water Act) from the states withinthe SAA (Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management 1994; Denton andothers 1994; Georgia Department of NaturalResources 1994; North Carolina Department ofEnvironment, Health, and Natural Resources1994; South Carolina Department of Healthand Environment 1994; Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality 1994). West Virginia's1994 full report was not completed in time for

Alabama

TennesseeC \ y North

Carolina

[771 HUC Boundaryy _ Inside SAA Area

^ ^--Carolina [A/] HUC BoundaryV _ - - - ' Outside SAA Area

[A/1 State Line

o - 5%6% - 10%11%-20%> 20%

27

AR133

Figure 2.2.3 Percent of stream miles not fully supporting water use shown by hydrologic unit. Percentof stream miles not fully supporting designated water uses such as fishing/aquatic life, swimming, anddrinking water are shown by hydrologic unit based on states' 1994 water quality reports to Congress.

T

Figure 2.2.4 Fecal coliform violations. Percent of stations exceeding standardsfor bacterial contamination (400 colonies per 100 ml) are shown by county.

Alabama

AR134

this assessment. These reports are producedbiennially by the states and describe statewidewater quality conditions for the previous 2-yearperiod. Additional information was obtainedfrom the "River Pulse" documents produced bythe TVA (TVA 1993; TVA 1994b; TVA 1995a).

Information concerning the trophic state oflakes in the SAA was also obtained from thestate Water Quality Reports to Congress. Eachof the, states in the region uses a form of atrophic state index based on measurement ofwater quality parameters. Although the meth-ods vary somewhat, each of the indices used bythe states is based on similar factors, such aswater clarity, chlorophyll a, and nutrient levels(nitrogen and phosphorous).

Information concerning the attainment ofwater quality standards in rivers and streamswas aggregated by hydrologic units and water-sheds described in section 2.1. The percentage

30% - 60%60% - 100%

of the waterbodies that fully supported,partially supported, and did not support theirdesignated uses, based on water quality factors,was derived from the data presented in eachstate's Water Quality Report to Congress. TheRF3 database of streams in the study area wasused to obtain the numbers of river miles in ahydrologic unit/watershed. Fully supportingwaters are defined as those waterbodies wherewater quality samples meet the water qualitycriteria more than 90 percent of the time.Partially supporting waters are defined as thosethat meet water quality criteria 75 to 90 percentof the time, and nonsupporting waters are thosethat meet water quality criteria less than 75 per-cent of the time (EPA 1993a).

Water quality monitoring frequency andextent varies from state to state. The data usedin this analysis include both monitored andevaluated water quality as documented by

chapter two

each state. Monitored means having site-specif-ic survey data less than 5 years old. Evaluatedmeans not having current site-specific informa-tion; rather, data older than 5 years, otherinformation such as land use data, modelingusing estimated parameters, or data fromsources or studies with less rigorous analyses(EPA 1993a). For example, of the total streammiles in EPA's Southeastern Region, 15 percentwere monitored and 15 percent were evaluat-ed, as reported in the states' 1994 WaterQuality Reports to Congress (Section 305[b]Reports). These percentages for monitored andevaluated stream miles are probably s imilar inthe SAA area. Because the states present theirassessments in different formats, the informa-tion in the state Water Quality Reports toCongress was aggregated by hydrologicunit/watershed. In some cases supplementalinformation, such as the total river miles in ahydrologic uni t or watershed was obtainedfrom the RF3 database files.

Water quality standards also vary betweenstates. In addition, several limitations of assess-ments based on legally enforceable state stan-dards are important. First, not all chemical stres-sors are covered by standards; some chemicalslack sufficient toxicity data to establish standards.Next, some criteria that are available may notinclude toxicity data pertinent to sensitive life-stages of some organisms (freshwater musselsand amphibians, for example). Thus, how wellthe criteria protect untested organisms isn't fu l lyknown. Finally, federal criteria recommendationsand state standards are generally not available forimportant stresses such as habitat degradation orfor the biological integrity of aquatic communi-ties, perhaps the best integrative measure of thecondition of aquatic systems.

To provide a more complete picture of thewater quali ty conditions of the rivers andstreams, the data were summarized two ways byhydrologic unit/watershed: first, using the streammiles not supporting water uses (fig. 2.2.2), andsecond by percentage of stream miles not fu l l ysupporting designated uses (fig. 2.2.3).

The fecal coliform data were obtained fromthe EPA STORET database of water quality data.This information was aggregated by county toillustrate the geographic areas susceptible toexposure above the states' standards for humancontact (fig. 2.2.4).

Trends and Spatial Patterns

There is general agreement that waterquality has improved significantly since theadoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972.Recently, the rate of water quality improvementhas slowed since most of the municipal andindustrial discharges currently control pollutionand protect water quality, while the remainingsources of pollution, such as storm water runoff,sediment contamination, and spil ls are more dif-ficult and expensive to control. In addition, insome areas, population growth and resultinglandscape alterations have caused some degra-dation in water quality.

Portions of five major river basins originate inthe SAA area (fig. 1.0.2). Based on the states'Water Quali ty Reports to Congress, theTennessee River basin is the most severelyimpacted basin in the study area. The most severeimpacts are found in the French Broad andHolston river watersheds and in the main stem ofthe Tennessee River. These impacts are attributedto urbanization, resource extraction, and hydro-logic modification of the Tennessee River system.

The Alabama River basin, especially the CoosaRiver watershed, is impacted by point sources andagricultural runoff, as discussed further in chapter5. The basin has impacts associated with highfecal coliform counts (fig. 2.2.4).

The Ohio River basin portion of the studyarea includes the New River watershed inNorth Carolina and Virginia, which appears tobe in above-average condition (fig. 2.2.2).However, a significant number of miles are notsupporting designated uses due to impacts frommin ing operations (fig. 2.2.2, fig. 5.1.5).

The Atlantic basin contains parts of severalheadwater watersheds that generally yield high-quali ty water. The notable exception isGreenville County, South Carolina, which has76 miles of streams that do not fu l ly supportthe aquatic life designated uses and havesignif icant fecal coliform-related impacts(fig. 2.2.2, 2.2.4).

The Chesapeake Bay basin area appears, tobe the least impacted of the river basins in thestudy area. The most impacted area in this basinis in the south branch of the Potomac Riverwatershed. While the aquatic life uses are f u l l ysupported in more than 99 percent of the JamesRiver watershed (fig. 2.2.2), there are elevatedlevels of fecal coliform contamination in theeastern portion of this watershed (fig. 2.2.4).

29

Likely Future Trends

Because of expected population growth andassociated development, future water quality insome areas may be at risk to impairment.Maintaining the water quality gains of the pastand continuing to improve water quality ofimpacted waterbodies, will require control of

"Sources of pollution and siltation, remedies forpast damage to sediments and riparian zones,and land use practices and patterns designed tominimize the impact on water resources. Suchan approach would maintain the integrity ofstreams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in the SAAarea.

Waterbodies in the SAA area are extremelyimportant to area residents for a variety ofreasons. For example, the waterbodies areheavily used for recreation, drinking water,transportation routes, livestock watering, irriga-tion, and flood control. Reservoirs also providehydroelectric power and most lakes supportexcellent populations of both sport and com-mercial fishes. The lakes, reservoirs, andstreams also provide habitat opportunities andenhancement for wildlife and offer prime realestate sites for human habitation and secondhome or vacation sites.

Monitoring water quality, trophic condition,biological, and habitat condition of each water-body is important in determining the status andtrends of water quality and health in waterbod-ies in the region. Monitoring will aid in thedetection of developing and existing waterquality problems that may occur within theSAA area. With this knowledge, problem areascan be identified and corrected.

2.3 SENSITIVITY OF

STREAMS TO ACID

DEPOSITION

Introduction

Acidic deposition is the process by whichacidic compounds move from the atmosphereto the earth's surface. Sulfur and nitrogen oxidesare released into the atmosphere from sourcessuch as factories, automobiles, and fossil-fueled power plants. These emissions react withother chemicals in the atmosphere to producesulfate and nitrate. When mixed with water,they become sulfuric and nitric acids and are

delivered to watersheds in rain or snow or asparticulate matter, aerosol particles, or dust.

The Mid-Atlantic Highlands has one of thehighest rates of acidic deposition in the nation(Herlihy and others 1993). The naturalresources that appear most sensitive to and atgreatest potential risk from acidic depositionare aquatic ecosystems, aquatic dependantspecies, and high-elevation red spruce forests.Research conducted under the auspices of theNational Acid Precipitation AssessmentProgram (NAPAP) concluded that regions in theUnited States most at risk from continued acidicdeposition are located along the AppalachianMountain chain stretching from theAdirondacks in New York to the southern BlueRidge in Georgia.

The acidity and buffering capacity ofstreams are determined by the amount and typeof acidic compounds deposited and the chem-ical, biological, and physical processes in thewatershed. Soil performs an important functionin this process. Microbial activity in soil organ-ic matter can produce significant bufferingaction (Fitzgerald and others 1988). In soils, sil-icate and carbonate minerals provide the basecations needed to buffer the soils and neutral-ize acidity in the streams. The ability of soils toassimilate or neutralize acid compounds is lim-ited. As the supply of base cations from soils isexhausted and the neutralizing capacity isdiminished, acidic inputs are no longer neutral-ized and surface waters become acidic. As soilsbecome saturated with sulfate compounds, thechemical passes through to surface waters.Acidic deposition into a watershed reduces thealkalinity of soils and causes leaching or exportof the base cations in soils, further reducing theability of soils to neutralize acid deposition.

In the Southern Appalachians, soil composi-tion is determined almost exclusively bybedrock geology. Soils derived from quartzsandstone, for example, provide little to nobase cations and, therefore, have limited buffer-ing capacity. Conversely, soils derived fromlimestone have an abundance of base cationsthat readily buffer acid deposition. It followsthat bedrock geology can be used to identifyspecific watersheds that are sensitive to acidifi-cation (Herlihy and others 1993; Cosby andothers 1991).

chapter two

Key Findings

• Within the SAA area, 54 percent of streammiles have high sensitivity to acid deposition,18 percent have medium sensitivity, and 27percent have low sensitivity.

• Published scientific evidence indicates thatsome streams in the area have becomeincreasingly acidic in recent years.

• Projections for the future suggest that manyadditional streams could become moreacidic in the decades to come.

• The northern part of the assessment area ismore vulnerable than the southern partbecause of its location relative to sources ofacid deposition and also because of climatefactors such as length of growing season.

• Headwaters mountain streams in rugged ter-rain are typically most sensitive to acid depo-sition.

Data Sources and Methods

of Analysis

A generalized bedrock geology map of thecrystalline and sedimentary rocks of theSouthern Appalachian Mountains, compiled byPeper and others (1995), provides the basis forassignment of lithology-based acid depositionsensitivity ratings. The generalized geologicmap groups rocks by their dominant lithologyusing mineralogical, petrographic, and othercharacteristics that influence the compositionand texture of the rocks without regard to spe-cific age or stratigraphic name. Thus, for exam-ple, all quartz sandstones are mapped as a sin-gle rock type. Broad areas are generalized bydominant rock type and aerial significance at1:1,000,000 scale. The map units are useful forregional considerations but are not detailedenough for site-specific work.

The chemical composition of stream wateris largely a function of watershed bedrockgeology. Webb and others (1994) developed awatershed classification that relates bedrockgeology to various parameters of streamchemistry and is based on the Virginia TroutStream Sensitivity Study (VTSSS) database.These data represent the result of chronic highlevels of acid deposition and the resultanteffect on stream chemistry. Stream water chem-istry from spring season samples at 70 sites was

used to differentiate between the various rocktypes and group them by similar chemicalcharacteristics.

Each rock unit on the generalized geologicmap was assigned a sensitivity rating based onthe VTSSS classification. For rock units notincluded in the VTSSS classification, sensitivi-ties were assigned by collaboration amongexperts. A key factor is the expected ability ofthe rock types to release acid-neutralizing cal-cium upon weathering and thus produce anacid-neutralizing soil in the watershed of thestream.

Rocks composed of mostly calcium or cal-cium-magnesium carbonate (limestones,dolomites, marbles, and calcareous rocks), arerated as low susceptibility, as are most maficrocks (gabbros, mafic paragneisses and schists,and amphiboiites), predominantly mafic vol-canic rocks, diabase, and ultramafic rocks andmafic-ultramafic complexes. These lattergroups of rocks generally contain sufficient cal-cium-rich feldspar or other calcium-magne-sium silicate minerals to generate acid-neutral-izing soils upon weathering. In addition, manyof these mafic rocks have undergone low-grademetamorphism and have dispersed carbonateminerals within their altered matrices.

Dominantly siliceous clastic rocks (sand-stones, shales) were shown by Webb and others(1994) to be associated with areas of high acidprecipitation susceptibility. These rocks releaselittle or no acid-neutralizing components;indeed, sulfitic shales and sulfitic schists maybe acid generators. These and their metamor-phic equivalents, as well as siliceous mylonites,were rated as high-susceptibility areas.

Areas of felsic volcanic rocks, granitic rocks(granite, granodiorite, quartz diorite), volcanicand volcaniclastic rocks, felsic paragneiss andschist, alkalic rocks, and anothosite are charac-terized by the presence of alkali (potassium andsodium), feldspars, and slightly calcareousplagioclase feldspar. Based on rock composi-tion alone, most geologists would considerlarge areas of inclusion-free potassium feldspar-rich granite to have little acid neutralizingcapacity (ANC) and resultant high acid deposi-tion sensitivity rating. However, most granites inthe map area are granodioritic and containinclusions. Areas dominated by these rocks, asexpected and as evidenced by Webb and oth-ers (1994), were designated to be of mediumsensitivity.

31

The product is a CIS-generated map of geo-graphical areas within the SAA area that havehigh, medium, or low sensitivity to acid depo-sition (fig. 2.3.1). When combined by overlaywith a map of stream reaches, the result is anestimate of miles of stream by sensitivity level.These are shown in the following table:Sensitivity Level MilesRTgrT 52,086Medium 17,986Low 25,860

These sensitivity ratings are based on a gen-eralized map of bedrock geology. As a result,there can be significant local variations fromthe rating shown on the acid deposition sensi-tivity map (fig. 2.3.1). For example, in parts ofthe Valley and Ridge province in Virginia, some

of the narrow limestone valleys do not displayat the scale of the generalized bedrock geologymap (1:1,000,000 scale). Consequently, theselow acid deposition sensitivity areas are notindicated on the acid deposition sensitivitymap. In addition, the VTSSS data are restrictedto streams associated with forested ridges andmay not provide information concerning theless extensive area of other rock types andalluvial deposits within the map areas. TheVTSSS data may be further biased towardmore extreme (low ANC) conditions becausethe VTSSS sites were selected from the leastdisturbed wild land watersheds in the region.These tend to be the base-poor lands thathave been unsuitable for cultivation or timberproduction.

Figure 2.3.1 Map of geographic areas in theSAA region that have high, medium, and lowsensitivity to acid deposition.

AR130

chapter two


The table above depicts the relative sensitiv-ity and not the current condition of streamchemistry in the assessment area. For a streamto be at risk, it must be sensitive to acid deposi-tion. It must also have an actual or reasonablepossibility of exposure to acid deposition inamounts sufficient to cause an adverse effect.Sensitive streams are at high risk when locatedwhere acidic deposition loads are currentlyabove (or are projected to remain above)thresholds likely to cause adverse effects. Asreported in the Atmospheric Technical Report(SAMAB 1996a), the northern part of the SAAarea is the recipient of much higher loadings ofacid deposition than the southern portion.

Temporal Trends

There are indications that stream acidifica-tion is already occurring. Very few streams havea long enough history of chemical and biologi-cal monitoring to identify trends over time.However, indirect evidence from specificwatersheds provides compelling evidence thatacidification is occurring. One excellent exam-ple is the St. Mary's River, which flows from thewestern slopes of Virginia's Blue RidgeMountains. Its watershed was given federalwilderness status in 1984. Historical informa-tion on stream insects dates back to the 1930swhen Eugene Surber worked on the river. Thedecrease in the number and diversity of aquat-ic insects from 1936 to 1988, the disappear-ance of acid-sensitive mayfly genera, andincreases in abundance of acid-tolerant stone-fly and midge species are all indicative ofstream water acidification (Kauffman and oth-ers, 1993). The St. Mary's River is discussed fur-ther in the Atmospheric Technical Report(SAMAB 1996a) and in sections 2.5 and 2.8 of

this report.Data from the Great Smoky Mountains

National Park in Tennessee and North Carolinaindicate a poor buffering capacity for most ofthe park's streams and lower pH in the higher-elevation watersheds. The National StreamSurvey researchers (Kaufmann 1988) were ableto infer significant historical decline of ANCand pH. They concluded that chronic acidifica-tion of surface waters has occurred in theSouthern Blue Ridge.

Spatial Trends

Within the SAA area, higher-elevation landssuch as mountain ridges are made up of moreresistant bedrock that is usually lacking inbuffering capacity. The valleys are often under-lain by more weatherable rock with abundantbuffering capacity. Surface waters most sensi-tive to acidic deposition are often located inwatersheds having shallow acidic soils withrapid, shallow subsurface flows. Acidic lakesand streams tend to occur in smaller water-sheds with steep terrain or at the higher eleva-tions (e.g., watersheds less than 30 km2 andelevations greater than 300 m in the Mid-Appalachian region [Herlihy and others 1993]).These small watersheds have additional attrib-utes that provide favorable habitat for nativetrout. As discussed in section 2.5, many ofthe trout populations in these streams arethus at risk.

Forested watersheds are the most likelyplaces to find acidic streams. Almost all of theacidic streams in the Mid-Appalachians were inforested watersheds along ridges. The highlyweatherable and more base-rich valley bottomswhich have more buffering capacity havegenerally been cleared for agriculture andsettlement.

33

34

Nitrogen Saturation

Nitrate is not only an important acid anionin acidic deposition, it is also an essentialnutrient in high demand by biological process-es and organisms. An expanding body of recentresearch shows that nitrate deposition is animportant component and increasing causeof present and future acidification in someenvironments. Specifically, there are limits tothe amount of nitrate that can be incorporatedinto organic matter by biological processesin watersheds. When these processes aresaturated, nitrate losses from the watershed willincrease, principally in the form of nitrateleaching. Excess nitrate in watersheds can leadto depletion of base cations and surface wateracidification.

Episodes of storm flow or snowmelt runoffcan expose organisms to short-term acutelylethal acidic water. Episodic events occurring

^during spring snowmelt or storm runoff oftentend to be most acidic. Nitrate tends to be moremobile in watershed soils at this time of yearbecause most plants are dormant. Snowmelt orstorm runoff can flush nitrate through the water-shed at flow rates that exceed the capacity ofplants to capture the nutrient. Nitrate can thusbe a significant seasonal cause of episodic acid-ification in some regions.

Present scientific knowledge does not allowa precise estimate of the number of years it willtake for a watershed to reach nitrogen satura-tion. Times to saturation vary among geograph-ic regions. Watersheds in the northern portionof the SAA area with cooler annual tempera-tures, shorter growing seasons, lower inherentproductivity potentials, and long histories ofelevated deposition rates of sulfur and nitrogenwill have the shortest time to nitrogen satura-tion. Some estimates indicate this will happenin less than 100 years. Watersheds in the south-ern portion of the SAA area, with warmer annu-al temperatures, longer average growing sea-sons, relatively higher inherent productivitypotentials, faster decomposition rates, and his-torically lower nitrogen deposition rates willhave longer times to nitrogen saturation.

The progressive infestation of the gypsymoth (SAMAB 1996 b) may also accelerate thenitrogen saturation process. Webb and others(1994) report large increases in nitrate concen-trations in stream waters where gypsy mothinfestation and severe defoliation have occurred.

Future Trends

The potential for future change is addressed byHerlihy and others (1993). They state: "Our analy-ses of net annual sulfur retention in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands indicate the effect that atmos-pheric sulfur deposition is having in the region.Increased sulfur deposition has resulted inincreased fluxes of sulfate to surface waters. This,in turn, has caused stream acidification to the pointthat some reaches have become acidic. Our analy-ses further indicate that soils and surface waters ofthe region have not yet realized the full effects ofelevated sulfur deposition. Net annual sulfur reten-tion undoubtedly will continue to decrease in thefuture resulting in increasing stream sulfate con-centrations and further loss of stream ANC."

In a report to Congress, EPA (1995a) dis-cusses the use of models to predict streamANC and pH in the year 2040 under variousscenarios of air quality regulation. For theMid-Appalachian region, they predict that if"...average time to watershed nitrogen satura-tion approximates 100 years or less, the MAGIC(Model for Acidification of Groundwater inCatchments) model (Cosby and others 1985)predicts that reducing either sulfur or nitrogendeposition by about 25 percent below project-ed Clean Air Act Amendments reductions, orsome lesser combined deposition reduction forboth chemicals, could be necessary to maintainproportions of target stream reaches in the year2040 near their 1985 conditions."

Webb and others (1994) have modeled pro-jected changes in stream chemistry for their sixresponse classes. They project that: "For theBlue Ridge siliciclastic streams, the observedpresent and estimated future percentage ofstreams with pH less than or equal to 5.0 on achronic basis is 5 percent and 68 percent(respectively). For the Allegheny Ridge's siliclas-tic streams, these percentages are 8 percent and100 percent. For the Allegheny Ridge's minorcarbonate streams, these percentages are 0 per-cent and 20 percent."

Long-range projections of the responses ofsurface waters in the Southern Blue Ridge tochanges in acidic deposition are limited.Elwood and others (1991) suggest that "someacidification of surface waters in this regionhas already occurred," and that "increases inacid anion mobility will result in major declinesin the ANC and pH of most surface waters inthe region."

chapter two

2.4 THREATENED,

ENDANGERED, AND

SPECIAL CONCERN

AQUATIC SPECIES

Introduction

Threatened and endangered species arethose that have been officially listed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under theEndangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Underthis law, the term "species" includes species,subspecies, other smaller taxonomic units(stocks, varieties), and certain populations;that convention will be followed in this docu-ment. Additional species may be of specialconcern because of their limited distributions,but the legal listing process has not beencompleted. This section concerns distributionof threatened, endangered, and special concernspecies (TE&SC), defined broadly as thosespecies listed as threatened (T), endangered (E),proposed endangered or threatened (PE, PT),category 1 (C1), or formerly known as category2 (C2) (a designation since eliminated by theFWS), or ranked as G1, G2, or G3 (or a variant)by the state heritage programs and The NatureConservancy (see glossary).

Key Findings

1 The state heritage program lists include 190aquatic and semiaquatic TE&SC species inthe SAA area; of these, 62 are fish and 57 aremolluscs.

' The state heritage program lists include 34endangered, 10 threatened, 4 proposedendangered, and 63 former (C2) aquatic andsemiaquatic species, as determined by theFWS; an additional 79 species are ranked asG1, G2, or G3 by The Nature Conservancy.

1 Of the 34 endangered species on the stateheritage program lists, 26 are molluscs and 7are fish.

The 10 counties with the greatest number ofaquatic TE&SC species on the state heritageprogram lists are in three areas: the Clinchand Powell river drainages of Virginia andTennessee; the area around Knoxville andOak Ridge, TN; and Monroe County,Tennessee. This overall pattern largely reflectspatterns for fish and molluscs.

• According to the FWS, 46 threatened andendangered aquatic species are known tooccur and 7 others possibly occur in SAAarea counties. The nine counties known byFWS to have the greatest number of threat-ened and endangered aquatic speciesinclude the same six counties in the Clinchand Powell river drainages of Virginia andTennessee that were identified in the heritageprogram data set as harboring the mostTE&SC species and two counties in Georgia,which are primarily in the Conasauga Riverdrainage.

Data Sources

We obtained Element Occurrence Record(EOR) data from the seven state heritage pro-grams with all sample locations assigned tocounties. Some records were rather old,although about 60 percent were dated in thelast 20 years; no attempt was made to select bydate of record. (Late in the process, it was dis-covered that Virginia had neglected to senddata for Montgomery and Buchanan Counties).

With the aid of standard references, fish,mussels, and only aquatic and semiaquaticspecies of amphibians (salamanders), and rep-tiles (turtles) (Conant 1975; Martof and others1980), insects (Merritt and Cummins 1984),snails (Hubricht 1985; Burch 1989), and otherinvertebrates were selected (Pennak 1989).There were no truly aquatic plants (e.g.,Utricularia) in the database that met the TE&SCcriteria. The relatively few amphibians and rep-tiles were combined as "herptiles." Also com-bined were the few crustaceans, flatworms, andannelid worms as "other invertebrates."

Errors were corrected using the same refer-ences, consulting the FWS (1994a, 1994b,1994c, 1994d, 1994e) lists first, followed bystandard references (Conant 1975; Robins andothers 1991), to resolve differences in scientificnames. Where different global rankings weregiven by different states. The NatureConservancy office in Boston was consulted toreconcile differences. FWS (1994a, 1994b,1994c, 1994d, 1994e) rankings were assignedmanually to the corrected EOR data. Finally,the TE&SC species were selected that met theabove criteria. The resulting data set had 2,633observations of 190 species.

35

chapter t\vo

36

Analysis, Spatial Patterns,

and Trends

Before discussing the analysis results andspatial patterns, some limitations of the EORdata should be considered. The state heritageprograms are largely dependent on sharing of

-data from state and federal agencies, often col-lected for specific reasons at particular sites(e.g., bridge sites). With these data, patternsmay be a function of where the search tookplace rather than patterns of species distribu-tion. Analysis of the distribution of EOR loca-tions revealed that greater effort was probablyexpended on lands owned by entities otherthan the federal government, the states, or theCherokee Nation. Nonetheless, there appearsto be no better source of data for the SAAregion as a whole.

Another concern is that there is someambiguity in the identification of a particularcounty as having few or many TE&SC species.Consider a county that has many TE&SCspecies in the EOR data set: Is that so becausemuch of the county is managed by an agency

100

for protection of TE&SC species, because thecounty once had many endemic species thatare now imperiled by poor conditions, becauseit's a large county, or because someone spendsa lot of time looking for TE&SC species?Although it is tempting to think that countieswith many TE&SC species are places wheredegraded conditions imperil many species, inmany cases these are areas that provide refugefor species.

The EOR data set had information on 190aquatic TE&SC species: 62 were fish, 57 mol-luscs (mussels and aquatic snails), 6 herptiles,26 insects, and 39 other invertebrates (table2.4.1). Most (111) species had some kind ofFWS ranking (E, T, PE, C2) in addition to a glob-al ranking. A similar data set of known and pos-sible occurrences of species, obtained fromFWS files (Herrig 1995), had 53 federally listed(E, T) or proposed (PE, PT) species, compared to48 in the EOR data set. There were more obser-vations of species within the SAA area in theEOR data set; therefore, most analyses were ofthis data set.

The species in the EOR data set weredistributed among taxonomic groups and

Fish Molluscs Herptiles Insects Other All TaxaInvertebrates

• E* L3C2

Ql JHG1-C3"includes 4 PE molluscs

Figure 2.4.1 Distribution of number of species in each taxonomic groupamong federally listed endangered and proposed endangered (E), threatened(T), former category 2 (C2), and globally ranked (G) classes of TE&SC species.Globally ranked species are those that are ranked G1, G2, or G3 and are notalso federally ranked in one of the above classes. Numerals are numbers ofspecies, and the proportion of each section of bar reflects the percentage oftotal TE&SC species in the corresponding class. (Based on ElementOccurrence Records from state heritage programs)

chapter two

Table 2.4.1 Threatened, endangered, and special concern (TE&SC) species used in section 2.4 of thisreport. These species are either federally listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed endan-gered (PE), category 1 (1) candidate, or former category 2 (2) candidate or globally ranked as G1, G2,C3, or a variant (see glossary for descriptions of global ranks) by The Nature Conservancy. All specieswere in the heritage programs database and occur within the Southern Appalachian Assessment(SAA) area boundary.

Scientific Name Common NameGlobalRank

FishAcipenser fulvescensAmbloplites cavifronsAmmocrypta claraClinostomus funduloides ssp 7Cottus baileyiCottus pygmaeusCycleptus elongatusCyprinella caeruleaCyprinella callitaeniaCyprinella monachaCyprinella zanema pop 1Erimystax cahniErimystax ins ignisEtheostoma acuticepsEtheostoma cinereumEtheostoma ditremaEtheostoma kanawhaeEtheostoma maculatumEtheostoma nigrum susanaeEtheostoma podostemoneEtheostoma sagittaEtheostoma scoff;Etheostoma sp 3Etheostoma tallapoosaeEtheostoma tippecanoeEtheostoma trisellaEtheostoma vulneratumHemitremia flammeaHypentelium roanokenseIchthyomyzon bdelliumLuxilus zonistiusMoxostoma ariommumMoxostoma lachneriMoxostoma robustumNotropis ariommusNotropis hypsilepisNotropis lineapunctatusNotropis semperasperNotropis sp 3Noturus baileyiNoturus flavipinnisNoturus gilbertiNoturus munitusNoturus stanauliPercina antesellaPercina aurantiacaPercina aurolineataPercina burton iPercina jenkinsiPercina lenticulaPercina macrocephalaPercina palmaris

Lake sturgeon G3Roanoke bass G3Western sand darter G3G4Little Tennessee River rosyside dace G5T2Black sculpin G2Pygmy sculpin- G1Blue sucker G3Blue shiner G2Bluestripe shiner G2Spotfin chub G2Santee chub - piedmont population G3?T3Slender chub G2Blotched chub G3G4Sharphead darter G3Ashy darter G2G3Coldvvater darter G2Kanawha darter ' G2Spotted darter G2Cumberland johnny darter G5T1Riverweed darter G3Arrow darter G3G4Cherokee darter G?Duskytail darter G1Tallapoosa snubnose darter G2?QTippecanoe darter G3Trispot darter G2Wounded darter G3Flame chub G4Roanoke hog sucker G3Ohio lamprey G3G4Bandfin shiner G3Bigeye jumprock G2Greater jumprock G3?Robust redhorse G3G4Popeye shiner G3Highscale shiner G3Lined chub G3Roughhead shiner G3Palezone shiner (S. Fk. Cumberland) G2Smoky madtom G1Yellowfin madtom G2Orangefin madtom G2Frecklebelly madtom G3Pygmy madtom G1Amber darter G2Tangerine darter G3G4Goldline darter G2Blotchside darter G2Conasauga (=reticulate) logperch . G1Freckled darter G2Longhead darter G3Bronze darter G3

FederalRank

2T2T

2EET2

EE

T

E

9

37

Table 2.4.1 (cont.) Threatened, endangered, and special concern (TE&SC) species used in section2.4 of this report. These species are either federally listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), proposedendangered (PE), category 1 (1) candidate, or former category 2 (2) candidate or globally ranked asG1, G2, G3, or a variant (see glossary for descriptions of global ranks) by The Nature Conservancy.All species were in the heritage programs database and occur within the SAA area boundary.

.33

Scientific Name• -Percina rex

''Percina squamataPercina tanasiPhenacobius crassilabrumPhenacobius teretulusPhoxinus cumberlandensisPhoxinus tennesseensisPo/yodon spathu/aThoburnia hami/toniTyphlichthys subterraneus

Common NameRoanoke logperchOlive darterSnail darterFatlips minnowKanawha minnowBlackside daceTennessee dacePaddlefishRustyside suckerSouthern cavefish

GlobalRankG2G3G2G3G3G2

G2G3G4G2G3

FederalRank

E2T

2T

2

MolluscsAlasmidonta marginataAlasmidonta ravenelianaAlasmidonta varicosaAthearnia anthonyi

^Conradi/la caelataCumberland/a monodontaCyprogenia stegariaDromus dromasElimia bellulaElimia crenatellaElliptic lanceolataEpiob/asma brevidensEpioblasma capsaeformisEpioblasma florentina florentinaEpiob/asma torulosa

gubernaculumEpioblasma torulosa torulosaEpioblasma triquetraEpioblasma turgidulaEpioblasma walker/Fusconaia barnesianaFusconaia corFusconaia cuneo/usFusconaia mason/Hemistena lataHolsingeria unthanksensislo fluvial isLampsilis abruptaLampsilis cariosaLampsilis virescenslasmigona holstoniaLasmigona subviridisLeptoxis praerosaLeptoxis taeniataLexingtonia dolabel/oldesLithasia geniculataLithasia verrucosaPegias fabulaPlethobasus cicatricosusPlethobasus cooperianusPlethobasus cyphyusPleurobema collina

ElktoeAppalachian elktoeBrook floaterAnthony's river snailBirdwing pearl/musselSpectacle caseFanshellDromedary pearlymusselWalnut elimiaLacey elimiaYellow lanceCumberlandian combshellOyster musselYellow-blossom

Green-blossom pearlymusselTubercled blossomSnuffboxTurgid-blossomTan riffleshellTennessee pigtoeShiny pigtoeFine-rayed pigtoeAtlantic pigtoeCracking pearlymusselAn aquatic cavesnailSpiny riversnailPink mucketYellow lampmusselAlabama lamp musselTennessee heelsplitterGreen floaterOnyx rocksnailPainted rocksnailSlabside pearlymusselOrnate rocksnailVaricose rocksnailLittle-wing pearlymusselWhite wartybackOrange-foot pimplebackSheepnoseJames spinymussel

G5G1G3

G1T1G1

G2G3G1G1G?G?G3G2G2

G1TX

G2TXG2TXG3GH

G1T1G2G3

G1G1G2G1G1G2G2G4G1

G2G3C3

G1G3G?

G2G3G1G3

G?GlGlGlC3G1

2E2EE2EE222PEPEE

EE2EE

EE

2E2E2222222EEE

cnaprer two


Scientific Name Common NameGlobalRank

Pieurobema cordatumPleurobema oviformePieurobema plenumPleurobema rubrumPleurocera showalteriPyrgulopsis ogmorapheQuadrula cylindrica strigillataQuadrula intermediaQuadrula sparsaToxolasma cylindrellusToxolasma lividusTulotoma magnificaVillosa fabalisVillosa nebulosaVillosa perpurpureaVillosa trabalis

Herptiles (Amphibians and Reptiles)Aneides aeneusClemmys muhlenbergiiCryptobranchus alleganiensisDesmognathus santeetlahEurycea junaluskaCyrinophilus palleucus

InsectsAeshna mutataArrhopalites clarusCalopteryx amataCeraclea alabamaeCheumatopsyche helmaComphus consanguisComphus quadricolorComphus ventricosusComphus viridifronsHydraena maureenae

Hydroptila cheahaHydroptila choccoloccoHydroptila micropotamisHydroptila patriciaeHydroptila setigeraMacromia margaritaOphiogomphus aspersusOphiogomphus howeiOphiogomphus incurvatus

incurvatusOphiogomphus mainensisPolycentropus car/son/Pseudosinella hirsutaStenelmis gammoniStylurus amnicolaStylurus lauraeStylurus scudderi

Ohio River pigtoe C3Tennessee clubshell C2G3Rough pigtoe G1Pyramid pigtoe G2G3Upland hornsnail G?Royal snail G1G3Rough rabbitsfoot G4T2T3Cumberland monkeyface G1Appalachian monkeyface G1Pale lilliput G1Purple liliput G1G2Tulotoma livebearing snail G2?Rayed bean G2Alabama rainbow G3Purple bean G1 PECumberland bean G2

Green salamander G4Bog turtle G3Hellbender G4Santeetlah dusky salamander G3QJunaluska salamander G2QTennessee cave salamander G2

Spring blue darner G3G4A cave springtail G1 ?Superb jewelwing G3G4Caddisfly G1Helma's cheumatopsyche caddisfly G1G3Cherokee clubtail G2G3Rapids clubtail G3G4Skillet clubtail G3Green-faced clubtail G3Maureens hydraenan

minutemoss beetle G1G3Caddisfly G1Caddisfly G1Caddisfly G1Caddisfly G1Caddisfly G1Margaret's river cruiser G2G3Brook snaketail G3G4Pygmy or midget snaketail G3

Piedmont snaketail G3G4T3Twin-horned snaketail G3G4Carlson's polycentropus caddisfly G1G3A cave springtail G1Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle G1G3Riverine clubtail G3G4Laura's clubtail G3G4Zebra clubtail G3

FederalRank

2E

2E

PEEEE2E7

2122

27

39

cnapier two


Scientific Name©ther Invertebrates*• Antrolana lira

Caecidotea carolinensisCaecidotea henrotiCaecidotea holsingeriCaecidotea incurvaCaecidotea price!Caecidotea richardsonaeCaecidotea sinuncusCaecidotea vande/iCambarus chasmodactylusCambarus crinipesCambarus extraneusCambarus obeyensisCambarus reburrusLirceus culveri

"""Lirceus usdagalunMacrocotyla hoffmasteriSphalloplana chandler!Sphallop/ana consimilisSphalloplana virginianaStygobromus abditusStygobromus baroodyiStygobromus biggersiStygobromus carolinensisStygobromus conradiStygobromus cumberlandusStygobromus ephemerusStygobromus estesiStygobromus gracilipesStygobromus hoffmanlStygobromus interitusStygobromus leensisStygobromus morrisoniStygobromus mundusStygobromus pseudospinosusStygobromus sp 7Stygobromus spinosusStygobromus stegerorumSty/odrilus beattiei

Common Name

Madison Cave isopodBennett's Mill Cave water slaterHenrot's cave isopodGreenbriar Valley cave isopodIncurved cave isopodPrice's cave isopodTennessee Valley cave isopodAn isopodVandel's cave isopodNew River riffle crayfishBouchard's crayfishChickamauga crayfishObey crayfishFrench Broad crayfishRye Cove isopodLee County cave isopodHoffmaster's cave flatwormChandler's planarianPowell Valley planarianRockbridge County cave planarianJames cave amphipodRockbridge County cave amphipodBigger's cave amphipodYancey sideswimmerBurnsville Cove cave amphipodCumberland cave amphipodEphemeral cave amphipodCraig County cave amphipodShenandoah Valley cave amphipodAllegheny County cave amphipodNew Castle Murder Hole amphipodLee County cave amphipodMorrison's cave amphipodBath County cave amphipodLuray Caverns amphipodSherando spinosoid amphipodBlue Ridge Mountain amphipodMadison Cave amphipodA cave lumbriculid worm

GlobalRank

G1G?G2

. G3G2G3

G3G5G1G2

G3G4G3?G3

G3?G2G3

GlG1G3Gl

G1G2GlG1G2

G1G2G?

G1G2G2G1G1G2G1GlGlG2

G1G2GlG2G2Gl

G1G2

FederalRank

T2

2

2222E

2

222

2

22

40

federal and global rankings (fig. 2.4.1). Nearly90 percent of mollusc and 53 percent of fishTE&SC species were ranked by FWS. Amonginsects, only 27 percent were ranked by FWS,and they were all formerly C2, not enough per-suasive information was available to warrantFWS listing as threatened or endangered. Thenumber of herptile species was limited becauseonly aquatic salamanders and turtles wereincluded and because relatively little effort isdirected to these groups. The herptiles that had

FWS ranks were all formerly C2, and morepersuasive information is needed for FWSlisting as threatened or endangered.

Molluscs and fish had the largest number ofFWS -listed species, reflecting both higher effortand higher numbers of species at risk. Both ofthese groups exhibit high degrees of endemismin the SAA area, a major factor in speciesendangerment (Williams and others 1989;Neves 1991; Warren and Burr 1994; Flatherand others 1994). in the United States, out of

chapter two

about 800 fish species, 254 species that are rareenough to warrant protection have been identi-fied (Williams and others 1989). In theSouthern Appalachians (defined to includemore than the SAA area, but to exclude SAAareas north of the Roanoke and New Rivers),there are about 350 fish species, 64 of whichare imperiled (Walsh and others 1995). Amongthe molluscs, the freshwater mussel fauna is ofparticular concern: of 297 native musselspecies in the United States and Canada, 21 arebelieved extinct, 77 endangered, 43 threat-ened, and 72 of special concern (Williams andothers 1993). Diversity of mussels in theSoutheast is not only the highest in the world,but the percentage of species now imperiledexceeds 50 percent for all SAA states exceptWest Virginia, where 46 percent are imperiled(Williams and Neves 1995).

To determine regional patterns of distribu-tion, numbers of TE&SC species observed in theEOR data set for each county were counted andresults plotted on maps (fig. 2.4.2). Similar plotswere produced for fish and molluscs separately(figs. 2.4.3, 2.4.4). The four categories in figures2.4.2-2.4.4 were selected to identify the 8 to 10counties with the greatest number of TE&SCspecies.

Ten counties had 16 to 41 TE&SC species inthe EOR data set: 6 counties in the Powell andClinch river drainages; Knox, Anderson, andRoane Counties, Tennessee; and MonroeCounty, Tennessee, (fig. 2.4.2). The Clinch,Hoiston, and Powell river drainages have largenumbers of TE&SC species of all kinds, andconsequently, these are also areas of muchscrutiny. These areas in the upper portions ofTennessee River drainage, on the CumberlandPlateau, are geologically old and isolated, acondition that favors speciation. These areascontinue to have a rich fauna of both fish andmussels (Starnes and Etnier 1986; Neves 1991).Knox and Anderson, and to a lesser extent,Roane Counties in Tennessee include bothurban areas of Knoxville and Oak Ridge andimpounded portions of the Tennessee Riverdrainage (e.g., Watts Bar Lake). In these coun-ties, some of the EORs are of historical sight-ings, and some species are no longer foundthere. Nonimpounded portions of theTennessee River drainage above impoundmentsand in the Clinch and Powell river drainagesmay be important locations of TE&SC species.Monroe County, Tennessee, is a largely rural

no data (2)

0 (21)

1 - 5 (60)

6 - 1 5 (42)

1 6 - 4 1 (10)AR151

Figure 2.4.2 Spatial distribution of all TE&SCspecies among counties. Numbers in parenthe-ses denote the number of counties in the givenoccurrence class.

41

AR152

Figure 2.4.3 Spatial distribution of TE&SC fishspecies among counties. Numbers in paren-theses denote the number of counties in thegiven occurrence class.

AR1S3

no data (2)

0 (78)

1 - 4 (35)

5 - 1 0 (12)

1 1 - 2 7 (8)

Figure 2.4.4 Spatial distribution of TE&SCmollusc species among counties. Numbers inparentheses denote the number of counties inthe given occurrence class.

AR154

Figure 2.4.5 Spatial distribution of federallylisted threatened and endangered aquaticspecies known to occur in the SAA-area coun-ties. Numbers in parentheses denote the num-ber of counties in the given occurrence class.

area which includes portions of the CherokeeNational Forest and upper portions ofTellico Lake.

A closer look at the heritage program EORdata reveals that the EOR observation dates andsampling effort may influence the overall pat-tern in figure 2.4.2. The year each species waslast observed in each county can be identified.Had this analysis been restricted to only themost recent dates, useful patterns would nothave been detectable because the data setwould be too small. For Anderson County,Tennessee, only 2 out of 17 species were lastobserved in the past 20 years (1975 to 1995).Likewise, only 4 out of 21 species in KnoxCounty, Tennessee; 7 out of 16 species in RoaneCounty, Tennessee; and 6 out of 16 species inMonroe Countv, Tennessee, have beenobserved in the past 20 years. In the six coun-ties in the Powell and Clinch river drainageswith at least 16 TE&SC species, at least two-thirds of the TE&SC species have been observedin the past 20 years. Thus, some of the TE&SCspecies may have been extirpated from thesecounties, especially in the areas aroundKnoxville. However, this conclusion is by nomeans certain, because sampling effort is notuniform through time and space. For example,one species in Anderson County was observedin 1995, but in Hancock County, Tennessee, 24out of 26 species (92 percent) have beenobserved since 1975 and none have beenobserved since 1980. Which county currentlyhas more TE&SC species? Which has moreextirpated species? Have people given up look-ing for TE&SC species around Knoxvillebecause the area is so urbanized and it seems awasted effort? Has anyone sampled in remoteHancock County in the past 15 years? Withoutadditional information about how samplingeffort was expended over time and across theregion, these results should be taken with somecaution. Those seeking to focus conservationefforts should examine all available evidence.

The FWS files on known and possibleoccurrences of threatened, endangered, andproposed threatened or endangered aquaticspecies were compiled by Herrig (1995) into adata set that identifies these species for eachcounty. This data set contains information on 46species known to occur in the SAA area and 7additional species whose occurrence is "possi-ble." As was done with the TE&SC species inthe EOR data set, numbers of known

chapter two

threatened, endangered, and proposed threat-ened or endangered species were counted foreach county and the results plotted on a map(fig. 2.4.5). Although all 135 SAA counties hadat least one known or possible occurrence,only 62 counties had known occurrences ofthese species (fig. 2.4.5). Eight counties had 7 to19 known occurrences (fig. 2.4.5). Six of thesecounties were the same counties in the Powelland Clinch river drainages that were identifiedin the EOR data set (figs. 2.4.2 and 2.4.5). Theother two counties, Murray and Whitfield inGeorgia, are primarily in the Conasauga Riverdrainage, another area known for its diversity.The urban areas around Knoxville, TN, identi-fied in the EOR data set, do not have large num-bers of known species occurrences in the FWSdata set. But, if possible occurrences in theFWS data set are also included, Knox Countyhas the second or third highest (tie) count ofspecies in the SAA area. Further comparison ofthe distribution patterns from the EOR and FWSdata sets, as well as another published byFlather and others (1994), is beyond the scopeof this report and will be reported separately.

Ten counties with 7 to 10 TE&SC fishspecies in the EOR data set were scattered infour areas: the Clinch River, VA, and upperHolston River, VA and TN; Patrick County,Virginia; Claiborne County, Tennessee, in thePowell River drainage; and Polk, Monroe, andBlount Counties, Tennessee (fig.2.4.3). PatrickCounty, Virginia, is a largely rural area on theeast slope of the Blue Ridge. Polk County,Tennessee, was the site of historically intensecopper mining and soil and water acidificationdue to processing of mined copper. BlountCounty, like Monroe County, Tennessee, hassome rural areas near the Great SmokyMountains National Park, but also has urbanareas around Maryville. About one-third ofBlount County is in the Great Smoky MountainsNational Park, where efforts are underway torestore several federally listed species in atleast one stream (Moore 1995). But these con-centrations of species may simply representgreater collecting effort: Streams in these fourcounties (Patrick, Polk, Blount, and Monroe) areknown to be frequently surveyed for fish by sev-eral individuals because streams harbor speciesof intense interest or have many endemicspecies. Warren and others (1995) provide fur-ther discussion of fish imperilment patterns forthe Southeast.

Eight counties with 1 to 27 TE&SC molluscspecies in the EOR data set were in two areas:six counties in the Powell and Clinch riverdrainages of Virginia and Tennessee and Knoxand Anderson counties, the urban area ofKnoxville and Oak Ridge, TN (fig. 2.4.4). TheTennessee River drainage, in general, has alarge number of mollusc species (Neves andothers 1995). These areas still have highlydiverse and endemic fauna, harboring a num-ber of TE&SC mussel species (Neves 1991;Neves and others 1995). The Clinch ValleyBioreserve (encompassing the Pendleton islandReserve on the Clinch River) is one of TheNature Conservancy's Last Great Places,because it harbors mussels and other fauna.

Causes of species loss are difficult to sort outbecause several factors contribute to each lostspecies, the factors differ for each species, andwe rarely observe the extinction of a species.Some extinctions are gradual over time andspace. Other losses go unnoticed because solittle is known about many species.Anthropogenic factors have been implicated,including loss and degradation of physicalhabitat, sedimentation, impoundments andother physical barriers, chemical pollution,introduction of exotic species, and overex-ploitation of species. Ecological attributes ofindividual species, like diadromy (speciesmigrate from fresh to salt water or vice versa),limited geographic range, limited range ofstream size, and ecological specialization, alsocontribute to loss of species (Angermeier 1995).Catastrophic events also can contribute, espe-cially where a species has a limited geographicrange (some species are limited to singlesprings or seeps).

The Powell River drainage is an area inwhich coal mining and associated effects ofacid mine drainage and increased sedimenta-tion have contributed to endangerment of mol-luscs (Neves and others 1995). Impoundmentof rivers and degradation of water quality havebeen implicated in the loss of mussel species inthe Tennessee River (Neves and others 1995).Other factors that may cause loss of musselsand freshwater snails include nonpoint pollu-tion, especially sediments; waste discharge,especially toxics that accumulate in mussel tis-sue over time; reduced stream flow; loss of hostfish species (an early life stage of mussels mustlive attached to the gills of a particular fishspecies); habitat loss and degradation,

43

chapter two

44

including loss of riparian buffer strips; anddredging and channelization (Neves and others1995). In the SAA area, exotic zebra mussels(Dreissena polymorpha) have been seen in theTennessee River up to Knoxville and in thelower 2 miles of the French Broad River. Zebramussels can be expected to contribute to mol-lusc declines in the future as they spread to

• other areas (Neves and others 1995). Zebramussels attach themselves to native molluscs,preventing them from respiring and feeding,and eventually kill the mollusc.


Certain future trends are obvious. But, withthe analysis of the current situation, trends thatreflect the process of species imperilment, perse, must be separated from trends that representthe human process of identifying imperiledspecies.

Both the FWS and heritage program listswill tend to grow longer over time - newspecies are identified more rapidly than otherspecies are removed from lists. Between 1979and 1989, none of the 251 North American fishspecies identified by the American FisheriesSociety as threatened, endangered, or of specialconcern was removed from their list becauserecovery was successful, 16 were removedbecause of better information, and 10 becameextinct (Williams and others 1989). In that sametime, 139 new species were added (Williamsand others 1989). In the Southeast, the numberof imperiled fish species recognized by theFWS has risen from 3 in 1974 to 84 in 1994(Walsh and others 1995). All states in the SAAarea have a backlog of species recognized byfisheries professionals as threatened or endan-gered, but which are not federally listed(Warren and Burr 1994). These historical trendswill probably continue. If the EndangeredSpecies Act is not reauthorized, of course newspecies will not be listed by the FWS (there isalready a moratorium on listing new speciesafter March 1995, and the C2 list was eliminat-ed in July 1995). But, species will be no lessendangered by not being federally listed, andthey will still be of concern to heritageprograms and others.

Will more species in the SAA area becomeendangered over time? Probably. Extinctionsand endangerment, have always occurred,although not at the current rate (Wilson 1988),

and they will probably continue. But, tospeculate further on the future trend of endan-germent patterns requires complex considera-tions of biological, cultural, economic, andpolitical concerns well beyond the scope of theanalysis we conducted.

2.5 STATUS OF TROUT

POPULATIONS

Introduction

The status of trout and trout habitat in theSouthern Appalachians, where trout are nearthe southern edge of their range, is a major con-cern raised during the SAA public commentperiod. Many people want to fish for nativebrook trout, naturalized rainbow and browntrout, or stocked individuals of all three species.Others find the native brook trout to be a beau-tiful fish and want assurances that its continuedexistence is secure. Still others see trout as indi-cators of high water quality.

Three species of trout live in the SAA area:the native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis),introduced rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss), and introduced brown trout (Salmotrutta). Originally, brook trout were distributeddown the spine of the Southern AppalachianMountains through western Virginia and NorthCarolina, and eastern Tennessee to northwestSouth Carolina, and northeast Georgia, whichis the southern edge of the range of the species(MacCrimmon and Campbell 1969). Stockingprograms have not significantly extended thisrange. Rainbow trout and brown trout wereintroduced to the region in the late 19thand early 20th centuries. Historical attemptshave been made to introduce other salmonids,but other than occasional reports of kokanee(Oncorhynchus nerka) and lake trout(Salvelinus namaycush) from certain reservoirs,none of these attempts appear to havesucceeded.

In the Great Smoky Mountains and neigh-boring areas of Tennessee, introduced rainbowtrout have been successful at lower elevations.Between the 1900s and the present, brook trouthave been increasingly restricted to upperheadwater reaches (King 1937; Kelly and others1980; Bivens and others 1985; Larson andMoore 1985). Brook trout now occur at thehighest elevations and rainbow and brown

chapter two

trout at lower elevations with up to severalkilometers of sympatric coexistence betweenthe allopatric sections (Bivens and others 1985;Larson and Moore 1985).

These patterns do not hold completely forthe region-trout tend to be distributed along lat-itudinal and elevational gradients (Meisner1990; Flebbe 1994). Brook trout generally liveat higher elevations than rainbow or browntrout; however, proceeding north, the averageelevation at which brook trout live declinesmore rapidly than that for the other two species(Flebbe 1994). in the northern portions of theSAA area, around Shenandoah National Park,brown trout are quite rare, rainbow trout areonly marginally successful, and brook trout arewidely distributed and abundant (Lennon1961; Mohn and Bugas 1980; Flebbe 1994).Sympatry of trout species becomes less com-mon to the north (Flebbe 1994). Allopatricbrook trout, the native condition, remains mostcommon and abundant in the SAA region as awhole (Flebbe 1994).

Stocking programs are largely run by thestates and very few streams in the SAA havenever been stocked. Stocking of fingerlings andadult trout of all three species continues intothe present.

Recently, two putative strains of brook trouthave been recognized in the SouthernAppalachians: a southern form and a northernform introduced through hatcheries and stock-ing (Stoneking and others 1981; McCrackenand others 1993). The two forms can be distin-guished with modern genetic methods. In atleast some streams where northern brook troutwere stocked on top of existing southern brooktrout, hybridization between the two has beenfound (McCracken and others 1993). Currentresearch efforts are aimed at determining geo-graphic patterns in distribution of the northern,southern, and hybrid forms (Kriegler and others1995; Strange and Habera 1995; McCracken1995). In Tennessee, northern brook troutappear to be more common in streams locatednear hatcheries (Strange and Habera 1995).However, stocking records have not proven tobe reliable predictors of genetic status of brooktrout in individual streams (Kriegler and others1995).

Key Findings

Of the 37.4 million acres in the SAA area,

14.6 million acres are in the range of wildtrout. Trout also live in some areas of theSoutheast outside the SAA area.

• Of the total 33,088 miles of potential wildtrout streams in the SAA area, 7 percent arein West Virginia, 39 percent are in Virginia,10 percent are in Tennessee, 32 percent arein North Carolina, 2 percent are in SouthCarolina, 10 percent are in Georgia, andnone are in Alabama.

• Of the total 33,088 miles of potential wildtrout streams in the SAA area, 7,975 miles arein areas under Forest Service managementand 1,634 miles are under National ParkService management.

• Of the total 33,088 miles of potential troutstreams in the SAA area, 2,431 miles are inroadless areas and 846 miles are in wilder-nesses.

•An additional 1,337 miles of stocked troutstreams are found outside the wild troutrange boundary. An unknown portion of thestreams within the wild trout range are.stocked.

• Approximately 59 percent of wild troutstreams are in counties that are highly vul-nerable to acidification and 27 percent are inareas moderately vulnerable to acidification.Most of the highly vulnerable areas are in thenorthern parts of the SAA area, where brooktrout are more common than rainbow andbrown trout.

• Most Virginia and West Virginia wild troutstreams are in counties that have reportedhemlock wooly adelgid infestation.

• Twenty-six reservoirs greater than about 1square mile in the SAA area contain trout: 15are stocked with trout, primarily rainbowtrout; 8 contain incidental wild trout frompast stockings or tributary streams; and troutmay occur in 3 additional private reservoirs.

Data Sources

No existing data sets were adequate for pro-ducing a CIS map that depicts current status oftrout for the whole SAA area and could be thebasis for analysis. States use various criteriabased on fish sampling programs and waterquality criteria to delineate "trout waters."Waters meeting states' water quality criteria fortrout water are generally acknowledged by

45

chapter two

fisheries biologists to include waters that can-not and do not currently support trout, becausethe criteria often include only water tempera-ture, and possibly dissolved oxygen, measuredat limited points in time and space. Other habi-tat characteristics and interactions with otherspecies preclude trout where temperature

- might be adequate. State fish and wildlife agen-cies", which have primary responsibility for fishon national forest lands, conduct stream inven-tories. However, their methods and timing dif-fer, and states sample only a small, nonrandomportion of their total stream mileage (Mohn andBugas 1980; Bonner 1983; Strange and Habera1995). Streams on private lands are rarelyinventoried. The Great Smoky MountainsNational Park has conducted surveys of its trout

streams since the 1930s (King 1937; Lennon1967; Kelly and others 1980; Larson andMoore 1985; Moore 1995). These data sourceswere starting points for drawing the maps.

Two maps were constructed for trout at the1:2,000,000 scale because data and resourceconstraints prevented a more detailed map.Both maps represent potential trout distribu-tion. Also, because of this broad scale and thesometimes patchy nature of distributions ofindividual species, all three trout species werecombined into single distributions.

State inventory data (Fatora and Beiser1980; Mohn and Bugas 1980; Bonner 1983;Strange and Habera 1995), state water-qualitydata, and expert opinion were used to draw aboundary around the wild trout area.

46

Table 2.5.1 Summary statistics for trout in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) area. In thistable, "wild trout streams" refers to potential wild trout streams in this report and to actual wild trout(unstocked) streams in the other reports cited.

This ReportTotal Miles

Total square miles in SAATotal square miles in wild boundary

Total stream miles in SAAPotential wild trout stream milesAdditional stocked trout stream miles

Wild Trout Streams by OwnershipWild trout stream miles in Forest Service ownershipWild trout stream miles in National Park Service ownershipWild trout stream miles in Native American (Cherokee) ownershipWild trout stream miles in state ownershipWild trout stream miles in DOE or military ownershipWild trout stream miles in other ownership

Wild Trout Streams by StateWest Virginia wild trout stream milesVirginia wild trout stream milesTennessee wild trout stream miles

North Carolina wild trout stream miles""South Carolina wild trout stream miles

Georgia wild trout stream milesWild Trout Streams by Acid Sensitivity

Wild trout stream miles, high sensitivity to acidificationWild trout stream miles, medium sensitivity to acidificationWild trout stream miles, low sensitivity to acidificationWild trout stream miles where no data on sensitivity to acidification

Wild Trout Streams in Protected AreasWild trout stream miles in roadless areasWild trout stream miles in wildernesses

58,47722,78583,61433,088

1,337

7,9751,634

102345

123,031

2,23012,9803,273

10,543632

3,429

19,5039,0464,534

4

2,431846

Other Reports

6,1 891

5,044'

9771

5831

8392

1,319'1811

2,3931

'(Source: Habera and Strange, 1993 (North Carolina and Tennessee figures don't include 736 miles in Great Smoky Mountains National Park])-(Source: Strange and Habera, 1995)

chapter two

Whenever possible, a consensus on all bound-aries was achieved among experts. To identifyadditional wild and stocked streams outsidethe wild trout boundary, the same expertsand several state publications were consulted(West Virginia Division of Natural Resources(WVDNR) 1989; Tennessee Wildlife ResourcesAgency (TWRA) 1994; Georgia Departmentof Natural Resources (GADNR) 1995;Mohn 1995).

Reservoirs and lakes in the SAA area alsohave trout. Many small impoundments and oneor two natural lakes occur within the SAA area;for these, the assumption was that if they arewithin the wild trout boundary, they potentiallyhave wild trout. Outside the trout boundary, weassumed that small impoundments lack trout.Reservoirs in the SAA area that are greater thanabout 500 acres (about 1 square mile) and havetrout were identified from maps, publications(TWRA 1989; Mohn 1995), and experts.


and Trends

Two CIS layers were produced: 1) a wildtrout range map with a boundary that encom-passes areas in which trout populations arereproducing, generally without stocking sup-plementation at this time (fig. 2.5.1); and 2) atrout stream map in which individual streams inthe RF 3 file (sec. 2.1) were identified as eitheroccurring within the wild trout boundary (wild)or as additional wild or stocked streams outsidethe boundary. Some streams within the wildtrout area are stocked from time to time, a fewstreams are stocked regularly (usually "put andtake"), and some do not have trout. However,most streams within the area have reproducingtrout populations. Even so, if a stream in the RF3 file is within the wild trout boundary, it wasidentified as wild. The wild trout streams in thislayer are properly called potential wild troutstreams. Identified stocked streams are all out-side the wild boundary and are maintained bystocking programs. No wild trout are known inAlabama, and all stocked trout fisheries inAlabama are outside the SAA area.

The wild trout range map layer (fig. 2.5.1)provides an estimate of the total land area inwhich self-sustaining trout may be found (table2.5.1). Approximately 39 percent of the SAAarea is in the range of wild trout (table 2.5.1).Nearly 40 percent of all streams in the SAA area

Wild Trout Range

Stocked Trout

AR160

Figure 2.5.1 Wild trout range boundaries inthe SAA area. Stocked streams and a few iso-lated wild trout streams exist outside thisboundary. The wild distribution extends north-ward to Maryland and beyond and westwardinto West Virginia from the SAA area.

potentially support wild trout and an additional2 percent outside the wild trout boundary andwithin the SAA boundary are stocked (table2.5.1). All estimates of potential wild troutstream mileage are overestimates of actual wildtrout stream mileage because estimates arebased on the range map we produced and noton inventories. Stocked mileage are underesti-mates because stocked streams within the wildtrout boundary were not identified.

Most reservoirs in the SAA area are man-aged for warm or cool water fisheries, not trout.Of the reservoirs that have trout, most arestocked. Others have incidental wild trout(table 2.5.2), usually because they werestocked in the past or because tributaries to thereservoir have trout (Borawa 1995). The onlyevidence that trout live in some of these reser-voirs is occasional reports of anglers (Borawa

47

Table 2.5.2 Reservoirs in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) area greater than about 500acres (about 1 square mile) with trout. Other reservoirs in the SAA area without trout are not listed.

StateVirginiaVirginiaVirginia-TennesseeTennesseeTennesseeTennesseeTennesseeTennesseeTennesseeTennessee-North CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth Carolina-GeorgiaSouth CarolinaSouth CarolinaSouth CarolinaSouth Carolina-GeorgiaGeorgiaGeorgia1 BKT = brook troutBNT = brown troutKOK = kokaneeLT = lake troutRBT = rainbow trout

Reservoir/LakeJohn Flannagan ReservoirLake MoomawSouth Holston ReservoirTellico ReservoirWatauga ReservoirPatrick Henry ReservoirChilhowee ReservoirParksville LakeWilbur ReservoirCalderwood ReservoirNantahala LakeLake SanteetlahFontana LakeLake CheoahGlenville Reservoir (Thorpe Lake)Bear Creek LakeLake ToxawayWolf Creek ReservoirLake JamesChatuge LakeLake JocasseeTable Rock LakeNorth Saluda ReservoirTugaloo LakeLake LanierLake Burton

Species'RBT, BNTRBT BNTRBTRBTRBT, LTRBTRBTRBTRBTRBT, BNTRBT, BNT, KOKRBTRBT, BNTRBT, BNT, BKTRBTRBT, BNT, BKTRBTRBTRBTRBTRBT BNTRBTRBTBNTRBTRBT

Status2

SSSSSSSSSSIWIWIWSIWSpSIWIWSppSIWIW

S = presently stockedIW = Incidental "wild", often migrating from tributary streamsP = private, status not known

(Source: Information obtained from TWRA, 1994, Borawa, 1995, Durniak, 1995, Geddings, 1995, and Mohn, 1995)

48

1995). Reservoirs managed for trout by activestocking are usually well-publicized (TWRA1994; Mohn 1995). Trout status was notdetermined in the small number of private

' reservoirs (table 2.5.2).For analysis, the trout stream layer was used

to provide stream mileage estimates (table2.5.1) only for potential wild trout streams.Many of the identified additional stockedstreams are in extremely marginal areas wheresurvival of trout beyond a few days or a singleseason is not expected.

First, the total mileage of potential wild troutwas partitioned among ownerships: Forest

Service, National Park Service, other federal,Native American, state, and all other owner-ships (mostly private). Most (70 percent) poten-tial wild trout streams were on private lands;only 24 percent were on Forest Service and 5percent were on National Park Service lands(table 2.5.1). Second, the total mileage waspartitioned among the six states. North Carolina(32 percent) and Virginia (39 percent) had thegreatest mileage of potential wild trout streams.Mileages from this analysis were generallyhigher than mileages cited from other studies intable 2.5.1 because those studies were con-cerned with actual rather than potential wild

chapter two

trout stream miles, and many privately ownedstreams were not included in the estimates.Habera and Strange (1993) reported a differentproportion of the total stream mileage in eachstate because their estimates were based on cri-teria that differed for each state. For example,the estimate for Georgia was based on streamtemperature (Fatora and Beisser 1980) whileestimates for the other states were expandedfrom inventories of public waters. Thus,although the SAA estimate of potential wildtrout stream mileage was much higher thanactual wild trout stream mileage would be, theallocations among the states were probablymore accurate than previous reports.

A number of analyses could be produced toillustrate how these two CIS layers can be usedwith others in the assessment to answer ques-tions about effects on trout. Other analysesmight also address effects of current trout distri-bution on other resources (e.g., recreationalopportunities). To illustrate, three such analyseswill be discussed: areas vulnerable to acidifica-tion, defoliation by gypsy moth, and infestationby hemlock wooly adelgid.

The SAA area was partitioned into areas ofhigh, medium, and low sensitivity to acidifica-tion (section 2.3). The resulting CIS polygonswere used to partition the wild trout streammileage into the same categories of sensitivity(table 2.5.1). A map (fig. 2.5.2) was produced toshow the distribution of these sensitivity cate-gories within the wild trout range. Most of thehighly sensitive streams were in the northernportion of the wild trout range in the SAA area(fig. 2.5.2). The primary concern for trout is thatacidification causes aluminum in soils to bemore soluble in water. When the soluble inor-ganic aluminum reaches streams, trout andother fish are exposed to this aluminum, whichis toxic to them. At least one fish kill of recent-ly stocked rainbow trout due to acid precipita-tion has been documented in the SAA area(Hudy 1994). Brown and rainbow trout are sen-sitive at slightly higher pH values than arebrook trout. Although brook trout are morecommon in the areas highly sensitive to acidifi-cation, their greater tolerance of acidification istoo slight to make a real difference in survivalover the long term.

Gypsy moth and hemlock wooly adelgidare two insect pests that are invading the SAAarea (see Terrestrial Technical Report [SAMAB1996b]). These two pests are of concern to trout

for different reasons. The gypsy moth causeswidespread defoliation in watersheds, includ-ing riparian areas, because its preferred foodsource is oak, common in the mountain forestsof the region, and the moth easily switches toother tree species when oak is not available.Hemlock wooly adelgid is specific to hemlock,but hemlock is a major component of riparianareas in the mountains.

Whether activities of these two pests aredetrimental to trout or not depends on a varietyof complex interactions, including increasedwater temperatures because more sunlightreaches streams, changes in timing and amountof trout food, and increased large woody debrishabitat after trees die and fall into the stream.Gypsy moths have defoliated increasingamounts of Virginia forests since 1986.Projections are that gypsy moths will movesouthwestwarcl through the SAA area, poten-tially affecting more and more of the water-sheds that have trout in them (see TerrestrialTechnical Report [SAMAB 1996b]. Hemlockwooly adelgid has been reported in nearly allcounties of West Virginia and Virginia and inSurry County, North Carolina within the SAAarea and in other counties outside the SAA area(see Terrestrial Technical Report [SAMAB1996b]). The SAA counties in Virginia that donot yet have hemlock wooly adelgid are in thefar southwest, beyond the range of wild trout.Hemlock wooly adelgid is moving south at arate of 20 to 40 miles per year and perhapsmore slowly to the west (Brown 1995).Eventually, this pest could affect the entire SAAarea. Hemlock is a dominant and long-livedresident of riparian areas, and the effects ofhemlock loss on stream systems and trout arepotentially complex.


Future trends for trout are difficult to predictfrom historical and current patterns becausepast practices that contributed to the present sit-uation are unlikely to occur. These practicesinclude wholesale stocking of exotic speciesand clearing of forest land for conversion toagriculture. The following discussion is notintended to be complete nor to imply that pre-dictions can be made from these analyses, butto speculate on trout responses to certain recentor predicted regional trends.

Allocation of forested land to second and

49

retirement home communities has increased inthe past few years and may be expected to con-tinue into the future as the "baby boom" gener-ation reaches retirement age. On a regionalscale, relative abundance of trout Is higher inwatersheds with large areas in hardwood forestmore than 50 years old and small areas inhuman and crop land uses (Flebbe and othersJ988). In addition to declines in trout habitatthat may accompany land use conversions,expectations are for the growing populationthat occupies these homes to exert greaterangling pressure on trout-those who are retiredor visiting second homes will have more time tofish than those who must earn a living, andthere will be more of them.

Fine sediment has been implicated as acause of low trout productivity because finesediment may suffocate or trap developing eggsand embryos in the substrate, alter the amountand kind of food organisms that live in the sub-

AR161

Figure 2.5.2 Areas within the SAA areawild trout range of high, medium, andlow sensitivity to acidification.

strate, limit the amount of habitat available forcover and nest building, or inhibit visual feed-ing by trout. Brook trout seem especially sus-ceptible to these effects. If ongoing efforts tolimit the amount of fine sediment that reachesstreams become successful, increased troutabundance in streams is possible. In addition,brook trout might return to stream sections fromwhich they have been eliminated by an excessof fine sediment. Significant extensions of theoverall range of trout are unlikely becauseother factors probably limit trout at the rangeboundary.

If the trend for increasing acidification notedabove (section 2.3) continues, greater impactson trout might be expected. Brown and rain-bow trout are slightly more vulnerable thanbrook trout to acidification, therefore somestreams might regain allopatric brook trout sta-tus. But the differences are small, and thesestreams may also lose their brook trout. Loss ofbrown and rainbow trout, with concomitantdecline in brook trout abundance and shifts introut food resources, have been noted inVirginia's acid-sensitive St. Mary's River (Mohnand others 1989; Flebbe, 1995). A number ofmitigation efforts involving treatments with limeare underway, but would be costly on a region-al scale.

If predictions for global climate changes dueto greenhouse gases are realized, there may bechanges in temperature, precipitation, andstreamflow. Regional estimates of effects ofglobal change are highly speculative; but, if it isassumed that temperatures in tne SouthernAppalachians may increase, minimum eleva-tions at which brook trout can live would prob-ably increase for much of the SAA area(Meisner 1990). Habitat for brook trout wouldbecome more fragmented as the range shrinksinto "island" near the tops of mountains (Flebbe1993). Further, with increasing elevation,streams branch into smaller streams that maybe too small for brook trout, further limiting andfragmenting the brook trout distribution. Brooktrout restoration - the reintroduction of nativebrook trout to streams that now have eitherexotic trout species or northern-form brooktrout - has been attempted in several streams(Moore and others 1986; Strange and Habera1995). Restoration has already increasedTennessee's trout resource over the last threedecades (Strange and Habera 1995). Particularinterest has developed in restoration with native

chapter two

southern brook trout. The southern, nativebrook trout shows substantial genetic variation,even between nearby streams (McCracken andothers 1993; Kriegler and others 1995). But,with the assistance of modern genetic tools,prudent restoration can be conducted, restoringpopulations in target streams from sources mostlikely to be genetically appropriate (Krieglerand others 1995). These restoration efforts mayachieve success in some individual streams,possibly mitigating negative effects of othertrends, but they will not extend the range oftrout in general.

2.6 OTHER AQUATIC

SPECIES AT RISK

Introduction

The Southern Appalachian Mountain regionhas one of the richest aquatic faunas in thecountry. The high diversity of species is a resultof the unique geological, climatological, andhydrological features of the region. Informationrelative to aquatic species has always beenavailable on an individual state basis, but notcollectively for the SAA area. This report broad-ens the scope by analyzing current status for theregion and determining a base for future trendswithin the SAA area.

"Other aquatic species" is a collective termthat includes species designated by states as"threatened and endangered," "special con-cern," "sensitive," or "rare," but which are notlisted by the FWS as threatened, endangered,proposed, or candidate (C1 or C2); nor rankedby The Nature Conservancy as G1, G2, or G3;nor are trout species. These species areaddressed in sections on TE&SC aquatic species(section 2.4) and trout (section 2.5). Otheraquatic species at risk - fish, molluscs, aquaticinsects, aquatic crustaceans, and aquatic andsemiaquatic salamanders and turtles are includ-ed in this section. The list of other aquaticspecies is a selective one and by no means rep-resents all species in the SAA area. A completeanalysis of all aquatic species was not possible.

Key Findings

• Out of a total of 260 selected other aquaticspecies in the SAA area, there are 97 fish, 25mussel, 1 snail, 2 crayfish, 111 insect, 17salamander, and 7 turtle species.

• Approximately 70 percent of the selected fishspecies occur at the edge of their range inone or more SAA states.

• Fish that are categorized as TE&SC species(table 2.4.1) or as other aquatic species (table2.6.1) comprise about 45 percent of the totalnumber of fish species in the SAA area.

• Mussels that are categorized as TE&SC (table2.4.1) or as other aquatic species (table 2.6.1)comprise about 50 percent of the total num-ber of mussel species found in the SAA area.

• Location information is sparse for aquaticinsects.

Data Methods and Analysis

A species list was compiled from the fol-lowing sources: each of the SAA state naturalheritage programs; USDA Forest Service data-bases for sensitive species; the USDA ForestService Southern Region Aquatic Species BeingReviewed for Sensitive Species Designationthat Occur on the SAA National Forests; andThe Nature Conservancy Endemics and Near-Endemics of the Southern Blue Ridge of NorthCarolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, andSouth Carolina. The TE&SC species (table 2.4.1)and trout were removed from this list of otheraquatic species. The list was distributed to 47reviewers familiar with fauna in the SAA areafor comments, and species were added anddeleted from the list based on the 22 responsesreceived. Additional insect species wereincluded from a study, Southern AppalachianStreams at Risk: Implications for Mayflies,Stoneflies, Caddisflies, and Other AquaticInsects (Morse and others 1993).

Table 2.6.1 contains the scientific and com-mon name of each species, the SAA stateswhere the species is included on range maps,and The Nature Conservancy global rank (seerank) of each species, where applicable. Fishand mollusc scientific and common names fol-low American Fisheries Society publications(Turgeon and others 1988; Robins and others1991), except for species described after publi-cation dates.

51

52

Table 2.6.1 Other aquatic species in the Southern Appalachian Assessment area.

Scientific Name Common Name Occurrence Global RankFish

Anguilla rostrataAplodinotus grunniensCarpiodes carpioCarpi odes ve liferCottus caro/inaeCoitus cognatus

- Cyprinella analostanaCyprinella galacturaCyprinella gibbsiCyprinella niveaCyprinella spilopteraCyprinella whippleiErimyzon oblongusEsox masquinongyEthestoma baileyiEtheostoma blenn/odes gutselliEtheostoma caeruleumEtheostoma camurumEtheostoma chlorobranchiumEtheostoma chuckwachateeEtheostoma coosaeEtheostoma duryiEtheostoma flabellareEtheostoma inscriptumEtheostoma jessiaeEtheostoma Jordan!Etheostoma rufilineatumEtheostoma rupestreEtheostoma simoterumEtheostoma sp. cf coosaeEtheostoma sp. cf Jordan!Etheostoma stigmaeumEtheostoma swannanoaEtheostoma variatumEtheostoma zonaleExoglossum lauraeFundulus bifaxFundu/us catenatusFundulus diaphanusHiodon tergisusHybognathus regiusIchthyomyzon castaneusIchthyomyzon gageiIctiobus bubal usLabidesthes sicculusLampetra aepypteraLampetra appendixLepomis megalotisLuxiius chrysocephalusLux i I us coccogenisLythrurus ardensLythrurus bel/usLythrurus lirusMacrhybopsis aestivalisMacrhybopsis storerianaMargariscus margaritaMicropterus coosaeMoxostoma carinatumNotropis amb/ops

American eelFreshwater drumRiver carpsuckerHighfin carpsuckerBanded sculpinSlimy sculpinSatinfin shinerWhitetail shinerTallapoosa shinerWhitefin shinerSpotfin shinerSteelcolor shinerCreek chubsuckerMuskellungeEmerald darterTuckseegee darterRainbow darterBluebreast darterGreenfin darterLipstick darterCoosa darterBlack darterFantail darterTurquoise darterBlueside darterGreenbreast darterRedline darterRock darterSnubnose darterCherokee darterEtowah darterSpeckled darterSwannanoa darterVariegate darterBanded darterTonguetied minnowStippled studfishNorthern studfishBanded killifishMooneyeEastern silvery minnowChestnut lampreySouthern brook lampreySmallmouth buffaloBrook silversideLeast brook lampreyAmerican brook lampreyLongear sunfishStriped shinerWarpaint shinerRosefin shinerPretty shinerMountain shinerSpeckled chubSilver chubPearl daceRedeye bassRiver redhorseBigeye chub

AL,GA,NC,SCJN,VA,WV G5AL,GA,NC,TN,VA G5GA,NC,TN G5NCJN G4G5AL,GA,NC,TN,VA G5VA,WV G5NC,VA,WV GSAL,GA,NC,SC,TN,VA G5AL,GA G4GA,NC,SC G4AI,GA,NC,TN,VA G5AL,TN,VA G5VA,WV G5NCJN,VA G5TN G4G5TNGA,TN,VA G5TN,VA G4NC,TN,VA G4GAAL,GAJN G4AL,GA,TNNC,SCJN,VA G5GA,NC,SC G4AL,GA,NC G4QAL,GAJN G4AL,GA,NCJN,VA G5AL,GA,TN G4AL,GAJN,VA G5GAGAAL,GA,NC,TN,VA G4NC,TN,VA G4VAGA,NC,SC,TN,VA G5NC,VA G4GAAL,GA,TN,VAVA,WV C5NCJN G5GA,NC,SC,VA,WV G5AL,GA,TN GSAL,GA,TN G5NCJN G5GAJN,VA G5AUGAJN G5NCJN,VA G5AL,GA,SCJN,VA GSAL,GA,NCJN,VA G5GA,NC,SCJN,VAGAJN,VA G5AL,GA G5GAJN,VA G4AL,GAJN GSGAJN G5VA,WV GSAL,GA,NC,SCJN GSAL,GA,NC,SCJN,VA G4T1CA,NCJN,VA G4?

Table 2.6.1 (cont.) Other aquatic species in the Southern Appalachian Assessment area.

Scientific Name Common Name Occurrence Global RankNotropis asperifronsNotropis atherinoidesNotropis buccatusNotropis chrosomusNotropis leuciodusNotropis lutipinnisNotropis photogenisNotropis procneNotropis rubellusNotropis rubellus rubellusNotropis rubescensNotropis rubricroceusNotropis scabricepsNotropis scepticusNotropis spectrunculusNotropis stilbiusNotropis telescopusNotropis volucellusNoturus eleutherusNoturus flavusNoturus funebrisNoturus nocturnusPercina (Alvordius) sp.Percina caprodesPercina copelandiPercina crassaPercina evidesPercina maculataPercina oxyrhynchusPercina scieraPercina shumardiPercina sp. cf macrocephalaPhenacobius catostomusPhenacobius uranopsPimephales notatusRhinichthys atratulusStizostedion canadenseThoburnia rhothocea

MolluscsActinonais pectorosaAlasmidonta undulataAlasmidonta viridisCyclonaias tuberculataEllipsaria lineolataElliptic areaElliptic arctataElliptio crass/densElliptic dilatataElliptio fisherianaFusconaia subrotundataLamps! I is fasciolaLampsilis ovataLeptodea fragilisLeptoxis dilatataLigumia rectaMedionidus conradicusPtychobranchus subtentumQuadrula pustulosa pustulosaStrophitus connasaugaensisStrophitus undulatus

Burrhead shinerEmerald shinerSilverjaw minnowRainbow shinerTennessee shinerYellowfin shinerSilver shinerSwallowtail shinerRosyface shinerNorthern rosyface shinerRosyface chubSaffron shinerNew River shinerSandbar shinerMirror shinerSilverstripe shinerTelescope shinerMimic shinerMountain madtomStonecatBlack madtomFreckled madtomBridled darterLogperchChannel darterPiedmont darterGilt darterBlackside darterSharpnose darterDusky darterRiver darterMuscadine darterRiffle minnowStargazing minnowBluntnose minnowBlacknose daceSaugerTorrent sucker

PheasantshellTriangle floaterSlippershell musselPurple wartybackButterflyAlabama spikeDelicate spikeElephant-earSpikeNorthern lanceLong-solidWavy-rayed lampmusselPocketbookFragile papersheliSeep mudaliaBlack sandshellCumberland moccasinshellFluted kidneyshellPimplebackAlabama creekmusselSquavvfoot

GAJN G4AL,GA,TN,VA G5GA,TN,VA G5AL,GA,TN G4GA,NC,SC,TN,VA G5GA,NC,SC G4GA,NCJN,VA G5NC,VA,WV G5NC,TN,VA G5VAGA,NC,SC G4NC,TN,VANC,VA G4GA,NC,SC G4GA,NC,SC,TN,VA G4AL,GA,TN G4?GA,NC,TN,VA G5AL,GA,NC,TN,VA G5GA,TN,VA G5NC,TN,VA GSAL,GA G5GA G5AL,GA,TNAL,GA,NC,TN,VA G5TN,VA G5NC,SC,VA G4GA,NCJN,VA G4GA,TN,VA G5NC,VA G4GA,NCJN,VA G5GAJN GSGAAL,GA,TN G4?GA,TN,VA G4AL,GA,NC,TN,VA,WV G5AL,GA,NCSCJN,VA,WV G5GA,NC,TN,VA G5VA,WV G4

TN,VANC,VA,WV G4NC,TN,VA G4NC,TN,VAAL,GA,TNAL,GA,TNAL,GA,TNALJN,VA G5GA,NC,TN,VA G5VA,WV G4NC,TN,VANC,TN,VA G4NC,TN,VA.AL,GA,TN,VA G5NC,VA G?AL,TN,VA G5GA,NC,TN,VATN,VA G4NCJN,VA GSAL,GA,TNNC,VA,WV

53

chapter two


Scientific NameTritoqon/a verrucosaTruncilla truncataVillosa constrictaVillosa vanuxemensis v.Villosa villosa umbrans

CrustaceansCambarus georgiaeCambarus sp 1

InsectsAeshna canadensisAeshna constrictaAeshna tubercu/iferaAeshna verticalis

Common NamePistolgripDeertoeNotched rainbowMountain creekshellCoosa creekshell

Little Tennessee crayfishEmory River crayfish

Canada darnerLance-tailed darnerBlack-tipped darnerGreen-stripped darner

OccurrenceAL,GA,NC,TN,VANC,TN,VANC,VANC,TN,VAAL,GA,TN

CA,NCTN

VATN,VAVANC,VA

Global RankG4G4

G4

3CG?

G5GSG4G5

54

Acroneuria petersiAcroneuria aridaAgapetus vireoAllocapnia brooks!Allocapnia fumosaAmphiagrion sauciumAmphinemura mockfordiAnax longipesArgia bipunctOfctaArigomphus furciferBaetisca CarolinaBarbaetis benfie/diBeloneuria georgianaBeloneuria stewardBrachycentrus etowahensisCal/ibaetis pretiosusCalopteryx angust/pennisCerac/ea a/abamaeCheumatopsyche bibbensisCheumatopsyche cahabaChimarra augustaChromagrion conditumCordulegaster erroneaCordulegaster obliquuaCordu/ia shurtleffiDo/ophilodes siskoDrunella allegheniensisDrunella conesteeDrunella longicornisDrunella walkeriDrunella wayaEphemera b/andaEphemerella catawbaEphemerella floriparaGomphaeschna antilopeGomphus borealisGomphus fraternusGomphus parvidensGomphus rogersiHeterocloen petersiHomoplectra flintiHydropsyche CarolinaHvdroptiLi anisoforficataH\ droptiij ivgoiHvdroptiLi ijlladegaIron disparIron pleura I is

Eastern red damsel

Comet darnerSeepage dancerLilypad clubtail

Caddisfly

Appalachian jewelwing

CaddisflyAurora damselflyErroneous biddieArrowhead spiketailAmerican emerald

Taper-tailed darnerBeaverpond clubtailMidland clubtailPiedmont clubtailSable clubtail

Caddisfly

SC,VA

AL,NC,SC,VASC,VAVA

GAJN

AL,VA

SC,VAALA/ANC,SC,TN,VAVAVA,WV

VAVAVAAL,NC,SC,VAAL,NC,SC,TN,VA

NC,SC,VA

G5

G5G4G5

G?

G4

G?G5G4G4G5

G4G4G5G4G4

chapter two


Scientific Name Common Name Occurrence Global RankIron rubidusIron subpallidusIsoperla bellonaIsoperla distinctaIsonychia georgiaeIsonychia serrataLadona JuliaLepidostoma etnieriLepidostoma flintiLepidostoma glenniLepidostoma griseumLepidostoma lobatumLepidostoma mitchelliLestes congenerLestes eurinusLestes forcipatusLeucorrhinia frigidaLeucorrhinia hudsonicaLeucorrhinia intactaLeucorrhinia proximaMegaleuctra williamsaeNeophylax aurisNeophylax etnieriNeophylax mitchelliNeophylax stolusNeophylax toshioiOconoperla innubilaOphiogomphus carolusOropsyche howe/laeParagnetina ichusaPolycentropus nascotiusProcloeon quaesitumProcloeon rivulareProtoptila cahabensisPycnopsyche virginicaRhithrogena arnicaRhithrogena exelisRhithrogena fuscifronsRhithrogena rubicundaRhyacophila accolaRhyacophila amicisRhyacophila montanaRhyacophila myctaRhyacophila teddyiSerratella CarolinaSerratella serrataSomatochlora elongataSomatochlora williamsoniStactobiella cahabaStenonema car/son/Strophopteryx inayaStylurus spinicepsSweltsa urticaeTallaperla elisaTheliopsyche coronaTheliopsyche epilonisTramea onustaTriaenodes taeniaWormaldia mohriWormaldia shawnee

MayflyChalk-fronted skimmer

Caddisfly

Spotted spreadwingAmber-winged spreadwingSweetflag spreadwingFrosted whitefaceHudsonian whitefaceDot-tailed whitefaceVariable whiteface

Riffle snaketail

Caddisfly

Caddisfly

Caddisfly

Arrow clubtail

Red-mantled gliderCold spring triaenodes

Caddisflv

VAVA

AL,NC,TN,VA

VAVAVANC,VAVA,WVVA,WVVA

VA,WV

AL

AL,NC,SC,VA

AL,NC,TN

Slender emerald NC,VAWilliamson's bog skimmer TN,VA

NC,TN,VA

AL,NC,VAAL

AL,SC

G5

G?

G5G4G5G5G5G5G5

G5

G?

G?

G?

G5G5

G5

G5G?

G?


Scientific Name Common Name Occurrence Global RankSalamanders

Ambystoma jeffersonianurnAmbystoma talpoideumAmbystoma tigrinum tigrinumDesmognathus imitatorDesmognathus ochrophaeusDesmognathus quadramaculatusDesmognathus welter!Desmognathus wrightiEurycea longicauda longicaudaEurycea lucifugaEurycea wilderae

Cyrinophilus porphyriticusdanielsi

Hemidactylium scutatumLeurognathus marmoratusNecturus macu/osusPseudotriton ruber nitidusPseudotriton ruber schencki

Turtles

Jefferson salamanderMole salamanderEastern tiger salamanderImitator salamanderMountain dusky salamanderBlackbelly salamanderBlack mountain salamanderPigmy salamanderLongtail salamanderCave salamanderBlue Ridge two-lined

salamander

Blue Ridge springsalamander

Four-toed salamanderShovelnose salamanderMudpuppyBlue Ridge red salamanderBlackchin red salamander

VA GSCA,NC,TN G5AL,TN,VA G5NC,TNAL,GA,NC,SC,TN,VA,VVV GSGA,NC,SC,TN,VA-. G5TN,VA G4NC,TN,VA G4AL,GA,NC,TN,VA,WV GSTSAL,GA,TN,VA G5

GA,NC,TN,VA

NCJNAI,GA,NC,SC,TN,VA,WV G5GA,NC,SCJN,VAAL,GA,NC,TN,VA G5NC,TN,VAGA,NC,SC,TN

Apalone spinifera spiniferaClemmys guttataClemmys insculptaGraptemys geographicaGraptemys pulchraPseudemys rubriventrisSternotherus minor peltifer

Eastern spiny softshellSpotted turtleWood turtleMap turtleAlabama map turtleRedbelly turtleStripeneck musk turtle

AL,NC,TN,VAVAVA,WVAL,GA,TN,VAAL,CAVA,WVAL,GA,NC,TN,VA

GSTSG5G4G5G4GSGS

56

Known locations of selected species wererecorded by county, with the exception of mol-luscs, which were recorded by hydrologicalunit. A location table can be found in the sup-porting database that is available in the SAACD-ROM database (TVA 1995). Species loca-tion data were obtained from published books,journal articles, natural heritage programs, andpersonal communications with faunal groupexperts in each state. The location data arebased on present distributions (within the past20 years) and do not include historical distribu-tions. The fish data are more complete thandata for other faunal groups because publishedbooks are available (Menhinick 1991; Etnierand Starnes 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).However, there are missing data for somespecies in Alabama, Georgia, and SouthCarolina. Mollusc data are missing for somehydrological units. Insect data were especiallydifficult to obtain without contacting experts foreach insect taxonornic order. Since severalexperts questioned the validity of salamander

subspecies on the list, the ranges are fairly sub-jective. The location data may be used in a CISto produce maps showing counties in whicheach of the 260 species is known to occur.Managers who plan activities may consult thelocation data to identify state-listed species thatmay occur in the management activity area.


The list of other aquatic species had a totalof 260 species. Of these, there were 97 fish, 25mussel, 1 snail, 2 crayfish, 111 insect, 17 sala-mander, and 7 turtle species. Many of thespecies were included because they are con-sidered rare in states where they occur at theedge of their range. These species may be abun-dant and have wide distributions outside thestate where they are listed. For instance, north-ern insects, such as Aeshna canadensis andComphus boreal is, are found at the southernend of their range in Highland County, Virginia.Other species, such as the mussel Elliptic

chapter two

dilatata, are common throughout much of theSAA area but are rare enough in North Carolinato be included on the list. The SAA area alsoincludes many endemic species that have smalldistributions and populations.

Most of the fish (70 percent) were listed bystates where the species was at the very edge ofits range. A particular species may be abundantin number and distribution, but of questionablestatus within a portion of the SAA. The black-nose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) is an exampleof a state-listed fish species that is found at theedge of its range in one SAA state. This speciesis abundant in Appalachian streams, but it isconsidered rare in South Carolina becausehabitat occurs in only the three most northerncounties of the state.

Approximately one-third of the fish speciesexhibited more limited distributions. The major-ity of these were darters and minnows. Etnierand Starnes (1991) suggest that the largenumber of jeopardized species of darters inTennessee, which are restricted to medium-sized rivers and springs, may be due to habitatalteration (impoundments, sediment increases,and water supply usage). Assuming that thereare about 350 fish species in the SouthernAppalachians (Walsh and others 1995), the 62TE&SC fish species (section 2.4) plus the 97other aquatic species (table 2.6.1) compriseabout 45 percent of the Southern Appalachianfish fauna.

The 111 insect species were listed by SAAstates or in a paper by Morse and others (1993).Streams in the SAA area contain some of thehighest aquatic insect species diversity andone of the highest concentrations of endemicaquatic insect species on the continent (Morseand others 1993). Species of mayflies, stone-flies, and caddisflies were identified as rare andvulnerable to extirpation in the SouthernAppalachian Mountains. These species are sus-ceptible to sedimentation, improper forest man-agement practices, drought, acid rain, anddevelopment. Location information for insectspecies is not complete because few publica-tions are available for reference. Most refer-ences are specific to a particular state or insecttaxonomic order.

Within North America, most species offreshwater decapod crustaceans reside in theSoutheast (Bouchard 1994). Some 36 percent ofthe crayfish in the United States are ranked asextinct or imperiled by The Nature Conservancy

(Warren and Burr 1994). Only two endemiccrayfish species were included on the list (table2.6.1) and five crayfish listed asTS&SC species(section 2.4), possibly because distribution dataare lacking for many species.

Nine species of salamanders in table 2.6.1are widely distributed, but their ranges areperipheral in the SAA area. The remaining eightsalamander species are regarded as eitherendemic or near-endemic to the Southern BlueRidge or are a subspecies. They have limiteddistribution and are vulnerable to habitatdegradation and loss.

Of the 26 molluscs identified, 25 were mus-sels and 1 was an aquatic snail. Mussel distrib-ution information within the SAA is incomplete.Some historical data exist; however, only datadescribing the current distributions were usedfor this assessment. Mussels do not inhabit asmany areas today as they did in the past. Thecombined total of 45 TE&SC mussel species(section 2.4) and 25 mussel species in table2.6.1 comprise about 50 percent of the totalmussel species in the SAA area (McDougal1995).

The common factors affecting the status ofaquatic species populations in the SouthernAppalachians are habitat degradation and loss.Major threats to aquatic habitats and aquaticfauna include dams and the resulting reservoirs,channelization, sedimentation, and mining.Point source pollution, such as industrial waste,livestock feed lots, human sewage, and watertreatment waste; and nonpoint source contam-inants like fertilizer, pesticides, septic systemleakage, household chemical waste, roadwashresidues, and urban area runoff also contributeto the degradation and loss of aquaticresources.

Dams and their associated reservoirs createadverse habitat conditions for many species ofmussels and other aquatic fauna that are adapt-ed to flowing water. Most of the medium andlarge rivers in the SAA area have beendammed. Few species can adapt to the newhabitat conditions that are caused by the result-ing changes in water depth, temperature, cur-rent, substrate, and dissolved oxygen levels.Jeopardized species of molluscs and fish thatonce occurred in SAA rivers have disappearedwith the loss of their habitat and now onlyoccur in the remnant sections of free-flowingrivers. The Coosa River system in Alabama andGeorgia is a good example of a drainage that

57

once contained a rich mussel and snail faunanow decimated by dams (Van der Schalie 1981;Neves and others 1994}. Many species nowinhabit only small rivers and headwater streamsnot dammed or altered by human activities(McDougal 1995).

Sedimentation is another serious, pervasivethreat to aquatic habitats and affects many-streams and rivers in the Appalachian area.Sedimentation can result from almost any sur-face clearing such as mining, agriculture, graz-ing, construction, urban development, andforestry, if methods are not used to preventrunoff and protect riparian areas. Rivers in theSAA area have also been devastated by indus-trial discharges. For example, aquatic species inthe South Fork of the Shenandoah River (Neves1991), the North Fork Holston River (Stansberryand Clench 1975; Neves 1991) in Virginia, andthe Etowah River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1994) in Georgia were severely impacted bymercury releases into the rivers.


Many of the species listed in table 2.6.1 willnot be federally protected and, indeed, manyare quite common through much of their range.Protected status is not always necessarythroughout the range of a species, but popula-tion monitoring and range shrinkages areimportant in tracking the status of these species.Some of these species (table 2.6.1) may be use-ful in monitoring environmental changes. Forexample, even though the blacknose dace isabundant throughout the SAA area, recent stud-ies have shown that this fish is a good speciesto monitor because it is sensitive to acidic waterconditions (Newman 1995). From 1989 to1994, the blacknose dace population in the St.Mary's River of Virginia declined 90 percent(Flebbe 1995). The St. Mary's River was identi-fied as one of the most endangered and threat-ened rivers in the United States by AmericanRivers, a national conservation organization.The pH has declined, soils are poor in bufferingcapacity, and the watershed is subject to acidprecipitation. Because acid precipitation is aconcern in much of the SAA area, blacknosedace population declines may reflect acidconditions.

The likely future trend of these aquaticspecies within the SAA area will be highlydependent on the quality of the aquatic habitat.

Human populations in the area will continue togrow, putting more pressure on the aquatic sys-tems in the form of increased nonpoint sourcepollution and water-use demands. In NorthCarolina, Alderman and others (1992) predictthat only 51 of the 147 mussel populations arelikely to maintain viable populations over thenext 30 years. Mussel species within the entireTennessee River basin are in severe decline(Neves and others 1994) and are likely to con-tinue to decline. Introduced species, such asthe zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), willplay a major role in determining the composi-tion and decline of native aquatic communitiesin the future.

Some advances have been made to protectand restore aquatic habitats in the SAA area.A number of groups have formed to addressproblems in many river drainages. Throughoutthe SAA, citizen groups are actively interestedin protecting and restoring the aquatic habitatsfor the Conasauga River in Georgia andTennessee; the Little Tennessee River in NorthCarolina; the Cowpasture River in Virginia; andthe Chattooga River in Georgia, NorthCarolina, and South Carolina. The NatureConservancy has broadened its scope frommanaging small parcels of land to planning onthe ecosystem level. Areas like the ClinchValley Bioreserve are the result of this change inphilosophy. Federal agencies such as the USDAForest Service and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService are moving toward ecosystem manage-ment based on drainage areas rather thanarbitrary boundaries.

Conclusion

Other aquatic species in the SAA area are ofconcern in one or more states, but they repre-sent a range of conditions. At one extreme arespecies that have a limited distribution in a sin-gle state but are common elsewhere. At theother extreme are species of quite limited dis-tribution within the SAA area, such asendemics, that should perhaps be protectedfrom further declines.

State and federal laws, such as the CleanWater Act and Endangered Species Act, help toprotect fragile aquatic habitats in the SAA area.However, survival of aquatic species will bedependent on the cooperation of a variety ofinterests. Future viability of aquatic specieswill require a commitment from industrial,

chapter two

commercial, and residential developers; coop-erative interaction between local, county, andstate agencies; and involvement of residentsand visitors to the area.

2.7 FISH COMMUNITY

INTEGRITY

Introduction

Scientifically sound assessments of the con-dition of fish communities can provide an inte-grated picture of the ecological integrity of theassemblages offish species (Karr 1991) inhabit-ing Southern Appalachian streams. For thisapproach, the fish community as a whole ischaracterized, rather than the population of asingle species (Davis and Simon 1995). Theresult is a comprehensive description of the fishcommunity at a site which can be compared tounimpaired or least impacted sites in the sameecological region (Hughes and others 1986;EPA 1991).

Widely recognized ecological regions with-in the Southern Appalachians include the BlueRidge, Ridge and Valley, and CumberlandPalteau/Mountains areas (Omernik 1995;Omernik and Griffith 1991; McNab and Avers1994). State and federal resource agencies havesampled fish communities at some unimparedand relatively unimpacted reference sites repre-senting portions of both the Blue Ridge andRidge and Valley ecoregions in the SouthernAppalachians. This reference area samplingprovides a partial description of the range ofdesirable and attainable condition for a healthyfish community appropriate to each ecologicalregion (Gallant and others 1989).

Measures of fish community condition orintegrity consider a wide range of ecologicalattributes of fish species present at a site (Karr1993) These measures include fish speciescomposition, trophic composition, abundance,and condition (diseases and anomalies).Responsible agencies have tailored summaryfish community measures of 9 to 12 metricsinto indices that describe the overall biologicalintegrity of the fish community.

Fish community integrity indices commonlyused in the Southern Appalachians are re-finements of the original Index of BioticIntegrity developed by Dr. James Karr for usein Midwestern streams. The IBI has been

extensively tested and successfully modified foruse in many regions around the United States(Plafkin and others 1989; Gibson 1994).

Key Findings

• Numerous detrimental impacts on fish com-munity integrity may be likely (fig. 2.7.2).Based on fish community samples conductedby state and federal agencies covering sub-sets of the SAA area (fig. 2.7.1), 300 subjec-tively selected sites in both Ridge and Valley,and Blue Ridge ecological regions, 65 per-cent of streams sampled show moderate tosevere degradation.

• A statistical sample or a much larger andmore widely distributed selection of siteswould be needed to completely describe fishcommunity condition in the study area.

• Only 9 percent of streams sampled were notimpaired.

Data Sources

The North Carolina Department ofEnvironment, Health, and Natural Resources(NCDEHNR), Division of EnvironmentalManagement, Biological Assessment Groupprovided a summary of Index of BiologicalIntegrity (IBI)-based fish community assess-ments at 46 mountain sites (50 total samples) inthe Blue Ridge of western North Carolina.Most samples were collected by NCDEHNRpersonnel during 1992 to 1993; several collec-tions were compiled by other agencies or orga-nizations and assessed by NCDEHNR(Schneider 1995).

The TVA Holston River Action Teamprovided a summary report on IBI-based fishcommunity assessments for 101 sites. About 10percent of these sites were in the Blue Ridge,and the remainder were in the Ridge and Valley(TVA 1994a). Summary data on fish communi-ty and habitat assessments for 153 sites in theHiwassee River drainage were also provided byTVA (Cox 1995). Most of these were in the BlueRidge.

The IBI-based sampling and assessmentmethods used by North Carolina and TVA aremore fully described in North CarolinaDepartment of Environment, Health, andNatural Resources (1995) and TVA (1994).

59

Figure 2.7.1 Fish community condition sample sites. The geographic distribution of 300 fish commu-nity condition sampling sites is focused on watersheds near the center of the SAA region. All siteshave at least one fish community condition determination based on the Index of Biological Integrity(IBI).

Alabama

Tennessee >' N y Northy •*

Carolina

.South^^ Carolina

A/l HUC BoundaryInside SAA Area

/ \ / | HUC BoundaryOutside SAA Area

"ATI State LineAR181

60

Moderately Impaired39.0%

Slightly Impaired25.7%

Not Impaired9.3%

Severely Impaired26.0%

Figure 2.7.2 Fish community condition atsome sites in the Southern Appalachians. Of300 subjectively selected sites in the studyarea, 65 percent show moderate to severedegradation o f f i sh communities.

chapter two


and Trends

For this assessment, the fish communitycondition classes (or levels of quality) usedby the agencies that contributed data to theassessment have been aggregated into fourclasses. These classes describe the difference incondition between a site of interest and theunimpaired reference condition range. The fourcondition classes used are not impaired, slight-ly impaired, moderately impaired, and severelyimpaired. Not impaired includes the agencies'"excellent" and "good to excellent" classes;slightly impaired includes the "good" and "fairto good" classes; moderately impaired includesthe "fair" and "poor to fair"classes; and severelyimpaired includes the "poor", "very poor topoor", and "very poor" quality classes. The "notimpaired" and "slightly impaired" classesinclude a range of the best quality classes usedby the agencies that provided data. Both "notimpaired" and "slightly impaired" approximatean attainable condition (Polls 1994) rather thana strictly "pristine" condition.

Fish IBI measurements conducted by TVA at101 subjectively selected stream sites in theHolston River drainage show 4.0 percent ofsites not degraded, 18.8 percent slightlydegraded, 48.5 percent moderately degraded,and 30.0 percent severely degraded. Fish IBImeasurements conducted by TVA at 153 sub-jectively selected sites in the Hiwassee Riverdrainage show 5 percent of sites not degraded,25.8 percent slightly degraded, 40.3 percentmoderately degraded, and 28.9 percent severelydegraded. Fish IBI measurements at 46 loca-tions in North Carolina show 34.8 percent notdegraded, 45.7 percent slightly degraded, 15.2percent moderately degraded, and 4.3 percentseverely degraded.

Likely Future Trends and

Implications

Increased degradation of fish communitiesin the region could result from continuedgrowth of population, along with expandingurban and second home development, andother human activities on the landscape. Ifthere are no compensating improvements inmanagement practices to reduce both pointand nonpoint sources, impacts to aquaticresources could result.

The EPA Region 3's Environmental Servicesdivision has organized an ongoing multistateRegional Environmental Monitoring andAssessment (R-EMAP) study (the Mid-AtlanticHighlands Assessment or MAHA) consistingof a statistical sample of more than 200 sitesin the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley ecore-gions (Preston 1995). These data are nowbeing analyzed.

A very incomplete picture offish communi-ty integrity in the Southern Appalachians and alack of long-term trend information for fish andoverall aquatic community integrity present aunique opportunity. A strong interagency effortcould establish a comprehensive aquatic bio-logical community monitoring system thatbuilds on current state and federal agencyefforts (Intergovernmental Task Force onMonitoring Water Quality 1994). A carefullydesigned study should be capable of estimatingthe status of fish community condition withknown confidence. Continued monitoring atregular intervals would allow construction ofreliable estimates of fish community integritytrends. Ideally, the system should use an IBImodified specifically for Southern Appalachianstreams. Each ecological region and stream sizeshould be calibrated cooperatively among thestates and federal agencies. This approach willensure that condition measures for each eco-logical region are equivalent (Jackson andDavis 1994). Common definitions and bound-aries for the ecological regions would ensurethat restoration of stream ecosystems can beevaluated over time (Kondolf 1995).

2.8 A CASE STUDY OF

BENTH1C MACRO-

INVERTEBRATES

IN THE SAA AREA

Introduction

Aquatic macroinvertebrate species aregenerally defined as animal species that lackbackbones and can be seen with the naked eye,larger than about 0.01 to 0.02 inches. Benthicmacroinvertebrates live on bottom substrates ofstreams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. Bottom sub-strates include logs, plants, rocks, gravel, andsediments. In streams of the SAA area, imma-ture insects make up most of the benthicmacroinvertebrate fauna.

61

chapter two

Increasingly, benthic macroinvertebratespecies are the object of biological monitoringefforts to detect change in aquatic systems(MacDonald and others 1991; Rosenberg andResh 1993; Dissmeyer 1994; Gurtz 1994;Firehock and West 1995). The benthic macroin-vertebrate fauna is composed of many generaand species that are more or less sensitive totoxins and effects of such impacts as acidifica-tion and sedimentation. Various indices havebeen devised, such as number of taxa (eitherspecies, genera, or families) or presence of cer-tain tolerant or intolerant taxa (e.g., Baetis) thatare sensitive to particular impacts. Benthicmacroinvertebrates may be better for biologicalmonitoring than are fish because macroinverte-brates are easier to sample and, as a group, maybe more sensitive to impacts.

The most widely used benthic macroinver-tebrate monitoring methods are those of EPA'srapid bioassessment protocols (RBPs), particu-larly levels II and III. Level II RBP can be carriedout by minimally trained staff, while level IIIRBP requires more extensive training in identi-fication of insect genera. Several well-knownmonitoring programs that involve extensive useof volunteers, for example, the Isaak WaltonLeague's Save our Streams (SOS) program, are

62AR190

Figure 2.8.1 Distribution of 110 referencestreams on the George Washington NationalForest according to EPT scores classified ashigh (>13 families; 26 streams), medium (9 to13 families; 57 streams), or low (<9 families;27 streams).

at RBP level I (Dissmeyer 1994; Firehock andWest 1995).

To demonstrate the potential use of benthicmacroinvertebrate monitoring for regionalassessments of current status and trends, weselected as a case study a monitoring programconducted on the George Washington NationalForest by Mark Hudy (1995). Other data setscould be combined with this data set to providea more complete analysis of the SAA area.

Key Finding

• Based on a case study in the SAA area, about60 percent of the streams sampled on theGeorge Washington National Forest with lowEPT scores were acidified.

Data Sources

Data were obtained for 110 reference siteslocated on streams on the George WashingtonNational Forest. These stream sites had beensampled between 1992 and 1995 and benthicmacroinvertebrates identified to the level offamily, closely following the RBP level II (Hudy1995).


and Trends

Several metrics can be calculated fromthese data, but only the EPT scores are reportedhere to illustrate their use. The EPT scoreis a count of the number of families in threeinsect orders, the Ephemeroptera (mayflies),Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Tricoptera (caddis-flies); many species in these three orders areparticularly sensitive to environmental impacts,including stream acidification. Each site wasassigned to high (more than 13 EPT families),medium (9 to 13 EPT families), or low (fewerthan 9 EPT families) EPT classes and plotted (fig.2.8.1). The EPT classes were selected so that thehigh and low classes would each have about 25percent of the sites and the medium classwould have the remaining 50 percent: 26 siteswere classified as high, 57 as medium, and 27as low EPT score sites.

Of the 27 stream sites that had low EPTscores, approximately 60 percent were acidi-fied (ANC < 100) (Hudy 1995). The spatialinterspersion of some low EPT score sitesamong the medium and high sites (fig. 2.8.1) is

chapter two

a reminder that the predictive capability of theacidification map (section 2.3) is limited togeneral large-scale patterns. The remaining lowEPT score sites were on small headwaterstreams or streams with other impacts suchas fine sediment (Hudy 1995). Some lowheadwater ANC sites had medium and highEPT scores. Clearly, multiple factors contributedto the EPT scores for all sites.

The St. Mary's River in Virginia is an exam-ple of a stream that has experienced seriousstream acidification and a concomitant declinein macroinvertebrate fauna. This stream wassampled in the 1930s by Surber (1951) and inthe 1970s and 1980s by the VirginiaDepartment of Came and Inland Fisheries(VDGIF). While pH declined from 6.8 in 1936to 5.2 in 1988, the number of insect taxadeclined from 31 to 18, and EPT score (genus)declined from 17 to 10 (Kauffman and others1993). Acid-sensitive genera had disappearedor declined dramatically by 1976, and moder-ately sensitive genera had declined by 1986and 1988 (Kauffman and others 1993). Taxalike leuctrids and chironomids, which actuallythrive under moderate acidification, haveincreased dramatically over this same time(Kauffman and others 1993). Today, the St.Mary's River has a low EPT score (fig. 2.8.1).

Aquatic macroinvertebrates, especially theinsects, are often sensitive to insecticides usedin agricultural and silvicultural treatments.

Low-elevation streams in the SAA area are oftensurrounded by agricultural land, sometimeswith little or no riparian buffer strip. In forestedareas of the SAA, treatments for gypsy moth andother pests could affect macroinvertebrates inmountain streams. These effects may have fur-ther implications for fish, such as trout andsome threatened, endangered, and special con-cern (TE&SC) fishes, who depend on macroin-vertebrates for food.

Excesses of fine sediment are detrimental toaquatic macroinvertebrates, many of which livein the interstices of gravel and rocks that makeup the stream bed. Fine sediment also tends tocollect in these interstices; and, when fine sed-iment covers over the stream bed, aquaticmacroinvertebrates may be smothered.


Benthic macroinvertebrates will continue tobe used as monitoring tools. In the future, moredata and a better understanding of what variousindices mean will expand our ability to docu-ment historic changes in these taxa and to pre-dict future trends. To the extent that streams aresubject to impacts of acidification, sedimenta-tion, and pesticides, concomitant loss of certainmacroinvertebrate taxa can be expected. Undercertain favorable conditions, when theseimpacts are halted, streams may be recolonizedwith some missing taxa, especially those withhighly mobile aerial life stages.

63

Documents

Status of Aquatic Resources - Coweeta LTERcoweeta.uga.edu/publications/119.pdf · Status of Aquatic Resources 2.0 Question 1: What are the current status and ... Finally, the Tennessee