Species Status Assessment for the Trispot Darter (Etheostoma Trisella)

Species Status Assessment for the Trispot Darter (Etheostoma trisella)

Photo Credit Pat O’Neil, Geological Survey of Alabama

Version 1.0

July 2017

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 4

Executive Summary To evaluate the biological status of the trispot darter both currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a thorough assessment of biology and natural history and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors in the context of determining the viability and risk of extinction for the species. This document is a compilation of the best available scientific and commercial information and a description of past, present, and likely future risk factors to the trispot darter.

All known records of the trispot darter occur above the fall line in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Historically, this species occurred throughout the middle to upper Coosa River Basin with collections in the mainstem Coosa, Conasauga, and Coosawattee rivers, their tributaries, and tributaries to the Oostanaula River within the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. Genetics indicate that this species had a wide extent in the upper Coosa River Basin and ranged from at least the Little Canoe Creek system near Springville, Alabama to the Upper Conasauga River near Conasauga, Tennessee.

Currently, the trispot darter is known to occur in Little Canoe Creek, Ballplay Creek tributaries, Conasauga River and tributaries, and Coosawattee River and tributary. For the purposes of this report we considered three historical Management Units (MU’s) (Cowans Creek system, Johns Creek system, and Woodward Creek system) and four current MU’s for the trispot darter (Little Canoe Creek System, Ballplay Creek System, Conasauga River System, and Coosawattee River System). Historical MU’s were defined as one or more watersheds that the species was collected in prior to 2007. Current MU’s were defined as one or more watersheds that the species currently occupies (collections 2007-2017) and were grouped based on similar management strategy requirements and genetic research. Currently, the trispot darter occupies approximately 20% of its historically known range.

• Resiliency describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events (arising from random factors). To be resilient to stochastic events populations of trispot darters need to have a large number of individuals (abundance), cover a large area (spatial extent), and the area occupied needs to occur in multiple non-linear waterways (spatial complexity). Additionally, populations need to exist in locations where environmental conditions provide suitable habitat and water quality such that adequate numbers of individuals can be supported. Without all of these factors, a population has an increased likelihood for localized extirpation. The tripsot darter currently has low resiliency in each of the four management units considered in our analysis.

• Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For the trispot darter to exhibit adequate representation, resilient populations should occur in the ecoregion to which it is native (Ridge and Valley); these populations should occur at the widest extent possible across the historic range of the species; and they should occupy multiple tributaries in addition to the core population within the mainstem of a river. Finally, natural levels of connectivity should be maintained between representative populations because it allows for the exchange of novel and beneficial adaptations where connectivity is high or is the mechanism for localized adaption and variation where connectivity is lower and the species is

2 naturally more isolated. The trispot darter currently has low representation across its range in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion.

• Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. Redundancy for the trispot darter is characterized by having multiple, resilient and representative populations distributed within the species’ ecological setting and across its range. For this species to exhibit redundancy, it must have multiple resilient populations with connectivity maintained among them. Connectivity allows for immigration and emigration between populations and increases the likelihood of recolonization should a population become extirpated. Redundancy was found to be low in the range of the trispot darter.

No MU’s of trispot darter currently exhibit high resiliency due to the reduction in extent of occupied habitat, low abundance of individuals per collection record, spatial arrangement of records, as well as stressors affecting habitat and water quality. Similarly, representation and redundancy are currently low for this species because multiple resilient populations are lacking and no connectivity exists among the Little Canoe Creek MU, Ballplay Creek MU, and the Georgia/Tennessee MU’s. The major threat to this species is reduced connectivity between the non-breeding habitat and the breeding habitat during spawning season that may occur due to groundwater withdrawal, drought, or made made structures such as dams and improper road crossings.

Our future scenarios assessment considered the current viability of the species to project likely future viability given plausible scenarios of urban development and climate change. Only in the Best Case scenario did the species persist in all known MU’s. However, under this scenario trispot darters were not expected to expand outside of historical and current range boundaries and resiliency was expected to be moderate at best for three MU’s and remained low for one MU. Two out of the four MU’s were extirpated under the Status Quo scenario and all were expected to be extirpated under the Worst Case scenario. Resiliency, representation, and redundancy declined in the Status Quo scenario and no resiliency, representation, or redundancy exists for the Worst Case scenario due to further range contractions and increased likelihoods for extreme climatic events that will impact the species.

Current and Future Conditions Management Current Status Quo Best Case Worst Case Unit Little Canoe Moderate Low Moderate Likely Extirpated

Ballplay Low Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated

Conasauga Low Likely Extirpated Moderate Likely Extirpated

Coosawattee Low Low Moderate Likely Extirpated Table 1. Current Condition and projections of Future Condition of the trispot darter by the year 2070 under three future scenarios.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….….2

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….…..6

CHAPTER 2 – SPECIES NEEDS AND DISTRIBUTION………………………………….…8

Biology and Life History……………………………………………………………..…8

Population Needs…………………………………………………………………..……12

Species Needs……………………………………………………………………….…..12

Historical Range and Distribution………………………………………………………14

Current Range and Distribution…………………………………………………………15

CHAPTER 3 – FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY…………………………………..….17

Sedimentation……………………………………………………………………………17

Hydrologic Alteration……………………………………………………………………17

Loss of Riparian Vegetation…………………………………………..…………………18

Contaminants………………………………………………………………………….…19

Reduced Connectivity……………………………………………………………………20

Poultry Litter……………………………………………………………………..………21

Channel Modification……………………………………………………………………22

Urbanization……………………………………………………………………...………23

Weather Events…………………………………………………………….……….……24

Conservation Actions…………………………………………………………….………24

CHAPTER 4 –CURRENT MANAGEMENT UNIT CONDITION AND SPECIES VIABILITY…………………………………………………….…………………….………….26

Methods……………………………………………….…………………………………26

Current Condition………………………………………………….………….…………30

CHPATER 5 –FUTURE SCENARIOS AND SPECIES VIABILITY………….…….…….…..46

Methods………………………………………………………………………..…..……46

Status Quo……………………………………………………………..…..…..…..……48

Best Case…………………………………………………………………………..……58

Worst Case…………………………………………………………………..…...... ……61

Overall Summary……………………………………………………………….….……66

LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………..…………….……..68

Chapter 1. Introduction

The trispot darter is a freshwater fish found in the Coosa River System in the Ridge and Valley region. This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as part of the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 2010, p. 457).

The Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework (USFWS 2016, entire) is intended to be an in- depth review of the species’ biology and threats, an evaluation of its biological status, and an assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. The intent is for the SSA Report to be easily updated as new information becomes available and to support all functions of the Endangered Species Program from Candidate Assessment to Listing to Consultations to Recovery. As such, the SSA Report will be a living document upon which other documents, such as listing rules, recovery plans, and 5-year reviews, would be based if the species warrants listing under the Act.

The SSA Report is not a decisional document by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), rather it provides a review of available information strictly related to the biological status of the trispot darter. The listing decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the results of a proposed decision will be announced in the Federal Register, with appropriate opportunities for public input.

For the purpose of this assessment, we generally define viability as the ability of the trispot darter to sustain populations in natural river systems over time. Using the SSA framework (Figure 1.1), we consider what the species needs to maintain viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Wolf et al. 2015, entire).

Figure 1-1. Species Status Assessment Framework

• Resiliency describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events (arising from random factors). We can measure resiliency based on metrics of population health; for example, species abundance and complexity of their spatial arrangement. Highly resilient populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), or the effects of anthropogenic activities.

• Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or environmental diversity within and among populations and gauges the probability that a species is capable of adapting to environmental changes. The more representation, or diversity, a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes (natural or human caused) in its environment. In the absence of species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we evaluate representation based on the extent and variability of habitat characteristics across the geographical range.

• Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. Measured by the number of populations, their resiliency, and their distribution (and connectivity), redundancy gauges the probability that the species has a margin of safety to withstand or can bounce back from catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many populations).

To evaluate the biological status of the trispot darter both currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs). This SSA Report provides a thorough assessment of biology and natural history and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors in the context of determining the viability and risk of extinction for the species. This document is a compilation of the best available scientific and commercial information and a description of past, present, and likely future risk factors to the trispot darter.

Chapter 2. Species Needs and Distribution

Biology and Life History

Taxonomy

The trispot darter was described by Bailey and Richards (1963, p. 14) from a single specimen collected in Cowans Creek, 6.7 miles southeast of Centre, Cherokee County, Alabama on September 13, 1947. This species was originally described as a member of the subgenus Psychromaster and was later moved to the subgenus Ozarka in 1980 (Williams and Robinson, p. 150). In 2011 the trispot darter was moved into the Etheostoma subgenus where it exists today (Near et al. 2011, p. 593).

Genetic Diversity

A genetic analysis of the trispot darter was conducted in four creek systems in 2011. Sampling locations included Little Canoe and Ballplay Creek systems in Alabama, and Coahulla Creek system in Georgia and Mill Creek system in Tennessee. The results showed genetic similarities between the Alabama and Tennessee/Georgia populations which suggests that the populations have become recently isolated. The results of this study indicate that the darter was more widespread throughout the Coosa basin and genetic material appears to have been shared prior to construction of reservoirs on the Coosa River (Fluker and Kuhajda 2011, p. 4-5).

The data show three distinct populations: Little Canoe Creek, Ballplay Creek, and Conasauga River (Mill and Coahulla creeks). Data was not collected in the Coosawattee River. The Ballplay Creek population has experienced a recent rapid reduction in its population size, known as a genetic bottleneck (Fluker and Kuhajda 2011, p. 5). Therefore we consider at least three populations to exist but it is unclear if the Coosawattee is distinct from the Conasauga population. This information provides the basis for our Management Unit (MU) delineation (see Current Distribution, pg. 16).

Morphological Description

The trispot darter is a small bodied, benthic fish distinguished from the other four Ozarka species by its complete lateral line, single anal spine, and scaled cheeks (Williams and Robinson 1980, p. 150). Adult males and females range in size from 1.3 - 1.6 inches (33 - 40 mm) standard length (Mettee et al. 1996, p. 675), and the body is slender to moderately stout. The darter has three prominent black dorsal saddles, pale undersurface, and a dark bar below the eye (Bailey and Richards 1963, p. 15 - 16). Scattered dark blotches exist on the fin rays. During breeding season males are a reddish-orange color and have green marks along their sides and a red band through their spiny dorsal fin.

Non-breeding Season Habitat

A detailed life history study of the trispot darter was conducted by Michael Ryon (1981 and 1986, entire). Like other members of the Ozarka subgenus, the trispot darter utilizes distinct breeding and non-breeding habitats (Williams and Robinson 1980, p. 153; Ryon 1981, p. 9 and 1986, p. 74). Approximately from April to October, the species inhabits its non-breeding habitat which consists of small to medium river margins and lower reaches of tributaries with slower velocities (estimated to be 0.7 - 1 foot/second, 0.2 – 0.3 m/second) and is associated with detritus, logs, and stands of water willow though vegetation and detritus have not been found to be essential. The substrate consists of small cobbles, pebbles, gravel, and often a fine layer of silt. The predominate food item while in their non-breeding habitat was found to be non-biting midges (Chironomidae) larvae and pupae (70%) followed by mayflies (Ephemeroptera) nymphs (Ryon 1986, pg. 76). Trispot darters occupy water depths ranging from 4 - 30 inches (10 - 75 cm). Water temperatures in non-breeding habitat generally range from 57 - 80° F (14 - 27º C) (May - July) and reduce to 60° F (16° C) in October. During low flow periods, the darters move away from the peripheral zones and toward the main channel; edges of water willow beds, riffles, and pools; and mouths of tributaries.

Breeding Season Habitat

In late fall this migratory species shifts its habitat preference and movement toward spawning areas begins; this movement may be queued by temperature change, precipitation, and/or decreasing daylight hours (Ryon 1981, p. 13), with rainfall being the most likely trigger (Ryon 1981, p. 47). The fish move from the main channels into tributaries and eventually reach adjacent seepage areas where they will congregate and remain from approximately late November or early December to late April. Breeding habitat becomes available as precipitation increases and the water table rises. The transition zone between breeding and non-breeding habitats was described by Ryon (ibid) to be a low gradient stream mostly comprised of long pools with woody debris and clay substrate base overlayed with silt and sand. Non biting midges (Chrionomidae) were also found to be the dominate prey item while in breeding areas, followed by mayflies (Ephemeroptera) nymphs (Ryon 1986, p. 76). Breeding sites have been defined as intermittent to partially intermittent seepage areas and ditches with little to no flow; shallow depths (12 inches, 30 cm or less); moderate leaf litter covering mixed cobble, gravel, sand, and clay; a deep layer of soft silt over clay; and emergent vegetation (both aquatic and terrestrial species) (Ryon 1981, p. 15 - 17 and 1986, p. 75, O’Neil et al. 2009, p. 18). The temperature of the spawning areas likely remains fairly constant during the breeding period (53 to 59° F, 12 to 15° C) (Ryon 1981, p. 66). During their spawning period the trispot darter requires seasonally wet tributaries and seeps that become available and connected to their non-breeding habitat through precipitation and a rise in the water table. Breeding habitat preference was found to be similar in the Little Canoe Creek population and the Conasauga River population (O’Neil et al. 2009, p. 18).

Reproduction

This darter species spawns during winter months (January - March), has a 1:1 sex ratio, and has a distinct spawning habitat separate from its non-breeding habitat. Individuals congregate within the spawning areas and rainfall is most likely the primary trigger for movement into spawning grounds (Ryon 1981, p. 47). As described above males develop breeding colors and may have some growth of breeding projections on their head, body, or fins. In December and early January the ovaries of sexually mature females grow quickly. This fish lives a maximum of three years but most likely dies after the end of their second year (Ryon 1981, p. 69). Not all of the first year age class matured fast enough to spawn in Ryon’s study and he found individuals within the breeding habitat that did not show mature eggs or enlarged ovaries. The upper estimate of eggs (developing and mature) for spawning females at the beginning of spawning season is 292. Females arriving early to the spawning areas may spawn twice a year (Ryon 1986, p. 80). It has been speculated that if the trispot darter has one to two years of low reproductive success it could result in local extirpations due to its short life span and low fecundity (Ryon 1981, p. 71).

Trispot darters have adhesive eggs that attach to vegetation or rocky substrates and once laid, the eggs are abandoned. The eggs have an incubation period of approximately 30 days at 53° F (12° C). Development from egg to larvae is 41 days (Table 1-1) (Ryon 1981, p. 59).

Life Stage Resources needed Information Source

Fertilized Eggs Ephemeral streams/ditches connected to Ryon 1981, p. 59, non-breeding habitat with adequate water 1986, p. 85 quality; vegetation, rocks for adhesive eggs; eggs submerged on vegetation and/or rocks for approximately 30 days at 53º F (12º C)

Larval Ephemeral streams/ditches connected to Ryon 1981, p. 59, non-breeding habitat with adequate water 1986, p. 85; Ross quality; low predation, disease and 2013, p. 190; Patrick environmental stress; flushing rain events O'Neil pers. comm. to reach lower stream reaches; 41 days to 2017 reach juvenile stage

Juveniles Ephemeral streams/ditches connected to Ross 2013, p. 190; non-breeding habitat with adequate water Patrick O’Neil GSA quality; low predation, disease and pers. comm. 2017 environmental stress; adequate food availability

Nonbreeding Adult Flowing water-shallow pools and Ryon 1981, p. 11, (Mid-April to Mid- backwaters in main channel with good 1986, p. 75; O'Neil et October) water quality; documented to be found al. 2009, p. 18; with a fine layer of silt and/or debris, leaf Johnson et al. 2011, p. litter; adequate food availability 14

Breeding Adult (Late Flowing water with adequate water quality, Ryon 1981, p. 13, November to Late adequate flow to connect to breeding areas; 1986, p. 75 April) clean structure (vegetation, rock, substrate); appropriate male to female demographics; appropriate spawning temperatures

Table 2-1. Trispot darter needs to fulfill its life cycle.

Population Needs

Each population of the trispot darter needs to be able to withstand, or be resilient, to stochastic events or disturbances. These are events that are reasonably likely to occur, however, occur infrequently enough that they can drastically alter the ecosystem where they happen. Classic examples of stochastic events include drought, major storms (hurricanes), fire, and landslides (Chapin et al. 2002 p. 285 - 288). To be resilient to stochastic events populations of trispot darters need to have a large number of individuals (abundance), cover a large area (spatial extent), and the area occupied needs to occur in multiple non-linear waterways (spatial complexity). Additionally, populations need to exist in locations where environmental conditions provide suitable habitat and water quality such that adequate numbers of individuals can be supported. Without all of these factors, a population has an increased likelihood for localized extirpation.

Species Needs

For a species to persist and thrive over time, it must exhibit attributes across its range that relate to either representation or redundancy (Figure 2-1). Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time and encompasses the “ecological and evolutionary patterns and processes that not only maintain but also generate species” (Shaffer and Stein, p. 308). It is characterized by the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations. For the trispot darter to exhibit adequate representation, resilient populations should occur in the ecoregion to which it is native (Ridge and Valley); these populations should occur at the widest extent possible across the historic range of the species; and they should occupy multiple tributaries in addition to the core population within the mainstem of a river. The breadth of morphological, genetic, and behavioral variation should be preserved to maintain the evolutionary variation of the species. Finally, natural levels of connectivity should be maintained between representative populations because it allows for the exchange of novel and beneficial adaptations where connectivity is high or is the mechanism for localized adaption and variation where connectivity is lower and the species is naturally more isolated (Figure 2-2).

Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. It “guards against irreplaceable loss of representation” (Redford et al. 2011, p. 42; Tear et al. 2005, p. 841) and minimizes the effect of localized extirpation on the range-wide persistence of a species (Shaffer and Stein, p. 308). Redundancy for the trispot darter is characterized by having multiple, resilient and representative populations distributed within the species’ ecological setting and across its range. For this species to exhibit redundancy, it must have multiple resilient populations with connectivity maintained among them. Connectivity allows for immigration and emigration between populations and increases the likelihood of recolonization should a population become extirpated (Figure 2-2).

Figure 2-1. How resiliency, representation, and redundancy are related to species viability.

Figure 2-2. Trispot darter species needs in relation to viability.

Historical Range and Distribution:

All known records of the trispot darter occur above the Fall Line in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. The type locality is a single specimen from Cowan’s Creek, Coosa River tributary, Cherokee County, Alabama, collected in 1947, and was described in 1963, by Bailey and Richards (1963, p. 14). The type locality has been inundated by Weiss Lake, in 1960, and the species was assumed extinct at the time it was described (Bailey and Richards 1963, p. 18).

The historical range (Figure 2-3) is delineated from known collections of trispot darter within the Coosa Basin, based on Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC8) watersheds, in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion.

This fish has a historical range from the middle to upper Coosa River Basin with collections in the mainstem Coosa, Conasauga, and Coosawattee rivers, their tributaries, and tributaries to the Oostanaula River. Genetics indicate that this species has a wide extent in the Coosa River Basin and ranged from at least the Little Canoe Creek system near Springville, Alabama to the Upper Conasauga River near Conasauga, Tennessee (Figure 2-1).

Historical Management Units

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC 10) were used as a spatial framework to define MU’s within the Ridge and Valley ecoregion and field collections were used to identify species presence. Historical MU’s were defined as one or more HUC10 watersheds that the species was collected in prior to 2007. Historic collections of the trispot darter are known from Cowans Creek, a tributary to the Coosa River, and Johns and Woodward creeks, tributaries to the Oostanaula River.

The Cowans Creek MU has one collection point, the species’ type locality, and was collected in 1947. Cowans Creek is a tributary to Spring Creek, which is a tributary to the Coosa River in Alabama and was inundated by Weiss Lake in 1960 and is considered extirpated.

The Johns Creek MU has one collection point made in 1985 within the mainstem of Johns Creek which flows into the Oostanaula River in Georgia.

In the Woodward Creek MU three collections have been made at one location in the mainstem of Woodward Creek near its confluence with the Oostanaula River in Georgia. The collections were made in 2000 and 2005.

Current Range and Distribution:

Currently, the trispot darter is known to occur in Little Canoe Creek and tributaries (including Gin Branch), Ballplay Creek tributaries, Conasauga River and tributaries (including Holly, Coahulla, and Mill (GA) creeks, and a Mill Creek (TN) tributary,) and Coosawattee River and tributary (including Salacoa Creek).

Current Management Units

For the purposes of this report we will consider four MU’s for the trispot darter: Little Canoe Creek System, Ballplay Creek System, Conasauga River System, and Coosawattee River System (Figure 2-2). HUC 10 watershed boundaries were used as a spatial framework to define these areas within the Ridge and Valley ecoregion and field collections and genetic analysis were used to identify species presence. MU’s were defined as one or more HUC10 watersheds that the species currently occupies and were grouped based on similar management strategy requirements and genetic research (Figure 2). Genetic research indicate three trispot darter populations: Little Canoe Creek, Ballplay Creek, and Conasauga River. It is unknown if tripsot darters in the Coosawattee River system are genetically distinct, however this river is unique because of the hydroelectric dam and we determined it would require a specified management strategy compared to the other watersheds, and therefore should be analyzed as its own MU. Current MU conditions are described below.

Figure 2-3. Trispot darter assumed historical range and the watersheds where this species has been collected in the Coosa River basin within the Ridge and Valley region. The grayscale MUs are Historical and the colored MUs are Current.

Chapter 3. Factors Influencing Viability

Sedimentation

The negative effects of increased sedimentation are well understood for aquatic species (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, p.72; Burkhead and Jelks 2001, p. 964). Sedimentation can affect fish species by degrading physical habitat used for foraging, sheltering and spawning (Burkhead and Jelks 2001, p. 964; Sutherland 2005, p. 90), alter food webs and stream productivity (Schofield et al. 2004, p. 907), force altered behaviors (Sweka and Hartman 2003, p. 346), and even have sub-lethal effects and mortality on individuals (Sutherland 2005, p. 94; Wenger and Freeman 2007, p. 7). Chronic exposure to sediment has been shown to have negative impacts to fish gills, causing gill damage, and may reduce growth rates (Sutherland and Meyer 2007, pg. 401); these impacts could stress the darter and reduce their fitness. Increases in sedimentation likely impact the trispot darter by altering its food sources, reducing the complexity of its habitat needed for spawning, sheltering, and foraging, and reduces its fitness.

A wide range of activities can lead to sedimentation within streams that can include: agriculture, construction activities, stormwater runoff, unpaved roads, forestry activities, utility crossings, dredging, and historic land use. Within the range of the trispot darter sedimentation is occurring due to urban impacts in the Springville, Alabama and Dalton, Georgia areas, agricultural practices in the Conasauga River basin, and livestock access to streams in the Little Canoe Creek watershed.

Hydrologic Alteration

Hydrologic alteration has two components: increases in storm flow frequency and intensity and a decrease in base flows, which together create a “flashy” hydrologic regime. Activities that lead to hydrologic alteration include reservoir construction and operation, water withdrawals, and an increase in impervious surfaces as a result of urbanization.

Reservoirs can substantially alter hydrology downstream, especially when operated for hydroelectric power generation (Freeman et al. 2001, p. 183, Power et al. 1996, p. 893). Hydropeaking dams produce high flows only when power generation is needed. A hydropower dam, Carters Dam and Reregulation Dam, exists on the Coosawattee River on the boundary of the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge ecoregions. Non-hydropeaking reservoirs, farm ponds, amenity lakes, and other impoundments may substantially alter hydrologic regimes by storing water during low flow periods, effectively dampening moderate to high flows and in some cases augmenting flows. Reduced baseflows reduce the habitat available to fluvial specialists like darters (Armstrong et al. 2001, p. 6; Freeman and Marcinek 2006, p. 445). Fishes are adapted to the natural seasonal variations of flow and alterations to this regime result in impacts to their life history strategies. For example, in a study of hydrologically altered systems across the United States, fish that used simple nests for their reproductive strategy were apparently lost from these environments because of diminished flows around the nest and were replaced with nest guarders.

In systems that had increased minimum flow compared to the natural regime simple nests were replaced by broadcast spawners (Carlisle et al. 2010, p. 6). Specifically, altered flows impact the trispot darter as it has been identified for the slackwater darter, a similar species. Pond construction on farms alters the natural stream flow by impounding the water and removing potential spawning habitat. Farm ponds pose a threat to spawning areas because the land can inherently be an ideal place to construct a pond – too wet to plow and isn’t good for livestock foraging (USFWS 1984, p. 21).

If excessive, water withdrawals for drinking water, agriculture, industry, or other purposes can lower downstream water levels. Recent studies in the Georgia Piedmont show that the quality of the fish community declined as water withdrawal levels increase (Freeman and Marcinek 2006, p. 443). Groundwater withdrawal has been identified as a primary threat to the Arkansas darter, a fish in the same subgenus with similar life history traits (USFWS 2012, p. 70021). Reduced recharge and withdrawal of excessive groundwater may impact the connection between non- breeding and breeding sites for trispot darter, making it difficult or impossible for the darters to move between their breeding and non-breeding habitats.

Runoff from impervious surfaces is a common source of hydrologic alteration. Impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops alter the natural hydrologic cycle. In a natural forested system, most rainfall soaks in to the soil and is carried into nearby streams via subsurface flow. Some evaporates or transpires, and a relatively small amount becomes surface runoff. In an urbanized system with high levels of impervious cover, most stormwater hits impervious surfaces and becomes runoff, which then is channeled quickly to streams via stormwater drain pipes or ditches. Relatively little infiltrates into the soil. As a result, storm flows in the receiving stream are higher and more frequent, although briefer in duration, and base flows are lower.

Increases in flow frequency or intensity can result in channel widening through bank erosion or deepening to accommodate the additional discharge unless the channel is physically constrained (Wolman 1967, p. 392; Arnold et al. 1982, p. 160; Booth 1990, p. 409). This results in increased downstream sedimentation and unstable beds, both of which degrade channel complexity, feeding, and refugia habitat for species like trispot darter. Increased streamflows caused by alteration can cause physical washout of eggs and larval fishes, stress on adults (Allan 1995, p. 314; Yang et al. 2008, p. 9 and 11), and negatively alter the stream’s food web (Power et al. 1996, p. 889), affecting many fish species, including the trispot darter.

Loss of Riparian Vegetation

Removal of riparian vegetation can destabilize stream banks, increasing stream sedimentation and turbidity (Barling and Moore 1994, p. 544; Beeson and Doyle 1995, p. 989); reduce the stream’s capacity for trapping and removing contaminants and nutrients from runoff (Barling and Moore 1994, p. 555; Peterjohn and Correll 1984, p. 1473; Osborne and Kovacic 1993, p. 255;

Vought et al. 1994, p. 346); increase water temperature (Brazier and Grown 1973, p. 4; Barton et al. 1985, p. 373; Pusey and Arthington 2003, p. 4); and increase light penetration to streams. In turn, this increases algae (primary production) (Noel et al. 1986, p. 667; Pusey and Arthington 2003, p. 6); reduces terrestrial energy inputs, (Karr and Schlosser 1978, p. 231); and reduces leaf litter and terrestrial invertebrate inputs, therefore, decreasing overall stream production (Nakanao et al. 1999, p. 2440; Wallace et al. 1999, p. 429,). Aquatic food webs are largely driven by non- living inputs of organic matter from plant and other coarse material that is blown into the stream (Allan 1995, p. 109), primarily from riparian zones. Buffers are an essential component of an overall program of stream ecosystem protections, however, studies that compared open and forested reaches in the Etowah basin along five small streams in suburban catchments (Roy et al. 2005, entire) concluded that riparian buffers – although necessary for protecting fish assemblages – were insufficient alone to maintain healthy assemblages in an urban setting where much of the stormwater runoff is transported to the stream in pipes, bypassing the buffer.

There are numerous pastures where livestock have access to streams which have been identified as spawning habitat for the trispot darter in the Little Canoe Creek watershed (Lee Holt USFWS pers. comm. 2017). Livestock accessing riparian buffers and, subsequently, the stream proper, lends to increased concern for future water quality issues and habitat destruction. Livestock accessing streams also de-stabilize stream banks which creates increased sediment loads within these small systems.

When the riparian zone is lost the complexity of available habitat is reduced from the increases in sediment, destabilized banks, and reduced woody debris input. In their non-breeding habitat trispot darters are found in riffles and quiet backwaters (Etnier 1970, p. 358) and have been associated with aquatic vegetation and leaf litter. These microhabitats can be lost when riparian vegetation is removed because bank stability decreases and sediment covers and fills in these habitats.

Contaminants

Contaminants, including metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides and other potentially harmful organic and inorganic compounds, are common in urban streams and may be partially responsible for the absence of sensitive fish in those systems. These include wastewater treatment plants, mines, and industrial facilities. Non-point sources are more difficult to pinpoint. Pesticides are frequently found in streams draining agricultural lands, with herbicides being the most commonly detected (McPherson et al. 2003, p. 44). Many agricultural streams still contain dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethan (DDT) and its degradation products (Zappia 2002, p. 50). Pesticides are also heavily used in urban and suburban areas, and many of these find their way into streams and groundwater (USGS 2006, p. 1). A comparison of agricultural and urban groundwater quality in the Mobile Basin (which includes the Coosa River basin) found a greater variety and frequency of pesticide compounds in the urban groundwater (Robinson 2003, p. 27). Chlordane and other now-banned organochlorine pesticides are still common in urban streams,

19 including those in the Mobile Basin (Zappia 2002, p. 53). Streets and parking lots can contribute heavy metals that are largely derived from automobiles (Van Hassel et al. 1980, p. 642; Bannerman et al. 1993, p. 46). Oil and other hydrocarbons are also common constituents in urban runoff (Fam et al. 1987, p. 1045).

Parts of north Georgia have adopted “Roundup Ready” crops extensively. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were developed to survive applications of the herbicide Roundup and their prevalent use in agriculture corresponds with an increased use of Roundup. Roundup’s active ingredient is glyphosate, which impedes photosynthesis. Glyphosate is non-toxic to slightly toxic to most fish, although toxicity appears to be higher in several important sport or food fish, including brown trout, rainbow trout, channel catfish, and bluegill (Kegley et al. 2016). Glyphosate is an acid, but in Roundup it commonly is used in salt form (isopropylamine salt). This salt, as well as the surfactant normally found in Roundup (polyethoxylated tallowamine; POEA) and/or other ‘inert’ ingredients in the Roundup formulation appear more toxic to fish and mussels than glyphosate alone (Mitchell et al. 1987, p. 1032), causing death of mussel glochidia (Bringolf et al. 2007, p. 2099) and subcellular and DNA changes in fish that may affect survival (Szarek et al. 2000, p. 439; Cavalcante et al. 2008, p. 4; Langiano and Martinex 2008, p. 229). Temperature, pH, suspended sediment, and other water quality parameters may affect glyphosate and Roundup’s effects on aquatic species.

The contamination of the Coosa River with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB’s) has been attributed to the General Electric facility in Rome, Georgia (GA EPD Coosa River Basin Plan, ch. 5 p. 18). This facility began operation in 1954 and was closed in 1998. Monitoring and control of discharge of PCB’s is provided through a National Polluted Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit but contaminated sediments still remain in the Coosa River below the facility’s location. PCB’s are also documented in the Coosawattee River. Results of animal testing show that PCBs have toxic effects to the endocrine system, nervous system, reproductive system, blood, skin, gastrointestinal system, and liver (EPA 1999, pg. 1). These impacts could be detrimental to the trispot darter within the basin.

Reduced Connectivity

Fishes can be particularly susceptible to a loss of structural connectivity as a result of movement and dispersal barrier because their movement is restricted to the stream network. Numerous natural features can limit or prevent fish movement such as beaver dams and waterfalls as well as manmade structures that prevent fish movement (Anderson et al. 2012, p. 473; Millington 2004, p. 58). Structures installed at road crossings (bridges and culverts), dams, and pipelines all have the potential to act as barriers to fish movement, limit drift of pelagic larvae to downstream reaches, block exchange of genetic material between populations, increase a population’s vulnerability to local extinction, and prevent recolonization after extirpation has occurred.

Dams present a complete barrier to fish movement and effectively prevent the movement of small bodied, benthic fishes upstream and downstream. For the trispot darter we view connectivity at two spatial scales: 1) local connectivity of populations between the breeding and non-breeding areas and 2) connectivity among the MU’s. The life span of this fish is at most three years and it has been speculated that if the trispot darter has one to two years of low reproductive success it could result in local extirpations due to its short life span and low fecundity (Ryon 1981, p. 71). Seasonal rises in the water table and precipitation combine to create spawning grounds. Increases in groundwater withdraw and drought can contribute to reduced connectivity, making it impossible for trispot darters to reproduce. Dams and reservoirs also reduce connectivity for this species by posing a physical barrier between populations as well as changing the habitat from a flowing stream to standing, impounded water; trispot darters are not found in standing, impounded water.

Road crossings are another manmade feature that can reduce stream connectivity and are ubiquitous with the range of the trispot darter. Road crossings are more prevalent in areas with higher human populations. Unlike dams, that generally present complete barriers to small bodied fishes, road crossings can exhibit a range of passability between different structures and even time of year. For instance, an adequately sized culvert (for the stream it is intended to convey) that has a natural substrate throughout may allow for greater amounts of fish passage than a culvert that is perched above the water level, undersized, and lacks natural substrate. Furthermore, variation in flows can alter the passability of a culvert temporally. Despite this variability, numerous studies have identified impassable culverts as a source of decreased connectivity and a threat to stream fish in general (Gido et al. 2016, p. 292) and in the upper Coosa River basin specifically. Impassable road crossings for the trispot darter can result in the fish not reaching their spawning grounds, not able to get back to their non-breeding habitat after spawning, and reduced genetic exchange within a MU.

Poultry Litter

Poultry litter is a mixture of chicken manure, feathers, spilled food, and bedding material that frequently is used to fertilize pastureland or row crops. A broiler house containing 20,000 birds will produce approximately 150 tons of litter a year (Ritz and Merka 2013, p. 2). Surface- spreading of litter allows runoff from heavy rains to carry nutrients from manure into nearby streams. Repeated or over application of poultry litter, in addition, can result in phosphorus buildup in the soil (Sharpley et al. 2007, p. 383). Excess phosphorus and nitrogen in stream systems increases blue-green algae and undesirable aquatic plants that rob water of oxygen, causing fish kills. Litter can also contain arsenic, which is formed from a chemical routinely used as a feed additive to prevent disease and stimulate growth (Stolze et al. 2007, p. 821). Other substances often found in poultry litter included fecal coliform, salmonella, and other pathogens, pesticide residue, other heavy metals (Bolan et al. 2010).

Estrogens, a type of endocrine disruptor that can be found in poultry litter, have been identified as a threat to the Conasauga River system (Jacobs 2015, entire). Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the endocrine system resulting in disturbance to the reproductive, immune, and nervous systems of humans and wildlife. Estrogens have been found in water and sediment samples within the watershed at concentrations high enough to be disruptive to the endocrine system in fish (Jacobs 2015, p. 41). Increased levels of estrogens have been found to have numerous effects on fishes including: intersex individuals and testicular oocytes (Yonkos et al. 2010, p. 2338), decreased competitive behavior (Martinovic et al. 2007, p. 275), decreased sperm concentrations and decreased sperm mobility, and delayed spermatogenesis (Aravindakshan et al. 2004, p. 161). All of these effects lead to decreases in spawning success and potentially population collapse within short time frames (Kidd et al. 2007, p. 8899-8900). In a recent study of endocrine disruptors on fishes in the Conasauga River, approximately 7.5% of male fishes surveyed were found to have testicular oocytes (Jacobs 2015, p. 39). Studies have not been conducted to clarify the effects of endocrine disruptors on trispot darters; however, instances of intersex, testicular oocytes, and decreased reproductive health attributed to higher concentrations of endocrine disruptors has been observed in blackbanded (Percina nigrofasciata), speckled (Etheostma stigmaeum), rainbow (Etheostma caeruleum), and greenside (Etheostma blenniodes) darters (Jacobs et al 2015, p. 65; Tetreault et al. 2011, p. 287; Fuzzen et al. 2015, p. 111). High levels of estrogens are expected in other drainages that have similarly high numbers of poultry houses such as the Coosawattee River basin. It is reasonable to infer that other rivers within the Coosa basin with poultry house densities similar to the Conasauga River system are also affected by endocrine disruptors. Although the endocrine disruption in the trispot darter has not been studied directly, it is possible that it is impacting this fish as well as others in the Coosa River basin.

Channel Modification

Channel modification can refer to a number of activities such as: channelization, piping (e.g. agricultural drain tiles), in-stream construction, in-stream mining, and reservoir creation. Channelization includes straightening, deepening, or widening of streams and rivers for flood control, drainage improvement, navigation, and relocation. Channel modification can lead to a loss of essential trispot habitat components, such as channel complexity, access to floodplain ephemeral streams and seeps during spawning periods, or can completely destroy lotic habitat as is the case with stream piping and reservoir construction. Channelization and stream piping in agricultural areas, like in the Conasauga River drainage, leads to a disconnect between the stream and floodplain. This essentially concentrates runoff flows from fields and could eliminate preferred spawning locations.

The seasonally wet streams, seeps, and ditches where trispot darters spawn are typically dry outside of the higher flows found during winter and spring months. Because of this, these waterways may not be recognized as important aquatic systems. Alterations to the stream

22 channel and adjacent land may occur through land conversion, such as road construction, causing decline in available spawning habitat for the trispot darter.

Urbanization

Urbanization refers to a change in land cover and land use from forests or agriculture to increased density of residential and commercial infrastructure. Urbanization introduces a multitude of stressors into lotic systems that co-vary and have synergistic effects that are difficult to disentangle (Matthaei and Lang 2016, p. 179). Streams affected by urbanization have been described to exhibit an “urban stream syndrome” (Matthaei and Lang 2016, p. 180; Wenger et al. 2009, p. 1090; Walsh et al. 2005, p. 707). The “urban stream syndrome” consistently includes more variable stream flows, higher amounts of pollutants, altered channel stability and morphology, and may include reduced baseflow and increased suspended solids. Also found in urban streams is a reduced number of overall aquatic species with an increase in tolerant species. (Walsh et al. 2005, p. 712; Paul and Meyer 2001, p. 349) (Figure 3-1). The storm discharge of urban streams can be twice that of rural streams draining a watershed of similar size (Pizzuto et al. 2000, p. 81, Rose and Peters 2000, p. 1454), and the frequency of channel forming events can be ten times that of pre-development conditions (Booth and Jackson 1997, p. 1078). Therefore, urbanization is anticipated to increase the magnitude of nearly all stressors described above. Urbanization is expected to affect the trispot darter across its range due to the majority of known localities occurring in close vicinity to the growing Atlanta metropolitan area, Chattanooga, Birmingham, and intervening areas with growing populations and increasing development.

Figure 3-1. The black bars represent a rain event, the solid line represents stream discharge in a forested watershed, and the dotted line represents discharge in an urbanized watershed. From Walsh et al. 2004, p. 9.

In addition to the “urban stream syndrome”, urbanization and its associated increased human population introduce greater demand on aquatic resources (i.e., drinking water). For instance, the Metro Atlanta Water District is permitted to use up to 882 million gallons per day (mgd) (Metropolitan North Georgia Planning District 2009, p. 2 - 7). Current water use budgets anticipate permitting 1,011 mgd by 2035 (ibid, p. 6 - 1). Surface water has and will continue to be the major supply of fresh water in this region due to the bedrock geology (ibid, p. 6 - 3). To allow for the increase in water demand, storage reservoirs have been proposed in the upper Coosa River basin. Depending on the location of drinking water supply reservoirs, habitat for trispot darter may be disconnected or destroyed.

Weather Events

Weather events that effect stream flows are considered to be most relevant to the trispot darter in this assessment. Flooding in urban areas results in flashy flows that may cause stress, displacement, or mortality of fishes (Konrad and Booth 2005, p. 160 - 161). Within the range of the trispot darter, extreme flows associated with hurricanes have been recognized to have negative effects on stream fish populations (USFWS 2011, p. 9). Reduced baseflows due to droughts can cause population declines, habitat loss, reduced water quality (decreased dissolved oxygen and temperature alteration), crowding of individuals leading to stress and possibly death, and decreased reproduction in stream fish populations (Mathews and Mathews 2003, p. 1237). Climate models for the southeastern United States project that average annual temperatures will increase, cold days will become less frequent, the freeze-free season will lengthen by up to a month, temperatures exceeding 95º F will increase, heat waves will become longer, and the number of category 5 hurricanes will increase (Ingram et al. 2013, p. 32). While these climate models predict variability into the future, they suggest that the region will be subjected to more frequent large storms (hurricanes) and low flows from droughts (Ingram 2013, p. 35 and 15). Reduced spring/summer rainfall, coupled with increased evapotranspiration and water demand, could lead to local extirpations of trispot darters if streams dry out more frequently. These reductions in precipitation or groundwater recharge could also lead to low reproductive success in trispot darters. One to two years of low reproductive success in trispot darter populations could result in local extirpations due to its short life span and low fecundity (Ryon 1981, p. 71).

Conservation Actions

The tripsot darter is recognized by Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee as a species of concern. This species is listed as Priority 2/High Conservation Concern by the state of Alabama (Wood 2016, p. 19,) endangered by the state of Georgia (GADNR 2015, p. 74), and threatened by the state of Tennessee (Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency 2015, p. 13 App. C). Priority watersheds within the range of the trispot darter have been designated as Strategic Habitat Units (SHUs) by the Alabama Rivers and Streams Network (ARSN) (Wynn, et al. 2012). The SHU project was developed for species restoration and enhancement. A threats analysis is being conducted and the results will contribute to restoration projects that will improve habitat and

24 water quality for at risk and listed species. The Atlantic Coast Conservancy holds a tract of land within the Ballplay Creek MU which will preserve the land and offer protection in the watershed. Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) partnership within the basin will help farmers develop and implement strategies to improve water quality.

Figure 3-2. Trispot darter species needs and the stressors influencing its viability.

Chapter 4: Current Management Unit Condition and Species Viability

Current habitat and population conditions are described below. This section details specific stressors acting within the occupied watershed. Additionally, collection history and qualitative abundance is provided. Current population resiliency is assessed for each watershed specifically, followed by a summary of range wide redundancy and representation.

Methods

To qualitatively assess current viability we considered five components that broadly relate to either the physical environment (“Habitat Elements”) or characteristics about the population specifically (“Population Elements”). Habitat elements consisted of an evaluation of physical habitat, connectivity, water quality, and hydrologic regime. Population elements consisted of an estimation of approximate abundance, the extent of occurrence (total length of occupied streams), and an assessment of occurrence complexity. An overall resiliency condition was estimated by combing habitat and population elements. Population elements were weighted 2X higher than habitat elements because they are considered direct indicators of population condition. Conditions were classified as “Low”, “Moderate”, or “High”. We further defined how each of these components might vary in terms of condition (see Table 4-1).

For our analysis MU’s were defined as watersheds that the species currently occupies and were grouped based on similar management strategy requirements. Genetic analysis was performed on the trispot darter that resulted in three populations: Little Canoe Creek, Ballplay Creek and Conasauga River (Fluker and Kuhajda 2011, g. 5). No genetic analysis was performed on individuals from the Coosawattee River system. The Coosawattee system is unique because of the hydroelectric dam and we determined it would require a specified management strategy compared to the other watersheds, and therefore should be analyzed as its own MU. Using this information we created four MU’s to analyze trispot darter.

Population Elements

To assess population elements, collection records from natural history museums and field notes (when available) were evaluated. Collection records were compiled and provided to the Service by state partners funded under a concurrent Section 6 status assessment for the trispot darter. Collection records were obtained through the website FISHNET2 (an online repository of ichthyological museum data) or directly from institutions (Albanese and Abouhamdan 2017, p. 5). The dataset used in this analysis is not considered to be exhaustive, but represents the best data accessible in the public domain. Each collection record is georeferenced with geographic coordinates. These records were considered recent if they represented a collection within the last 10 years (2007 or more recent) and historical if they represented a collection prior to 2007.

Trispot darter occurrence records came from multiple sources and represented a diversity of sampling techniques and methods and therefore, did not exhibit standardization. The number of

26 individuals collected was inconsistently recorded and sampling methods varied among records. Therefore, we did not analyze exact numbers collected for each record. Instead, abundance was estimated for each record categorically. Two categories were used to assess whether a record represented a “rare” (1-10 individuals) collection or a “common” (10-100 individuals) collection. The percentage of rare and common collections within a population was used to assess population level abundance. In six current collections, “present” was the only value associated with collection number. These records were not considered in abundance estimations, however these records were considered for the occurrence extent analysis. MU’s were considered highly resilient if 75% of collections were found to be common (see table 4-1).

Occurrence extent for the trispot darter was evaluated by measuring the distance between the furthest upstream record and the furthest downstream record. Historical and current records were assessed separately to determine and quantify any range reduction that may have occurred.

The historical range of the trispot darter is in the upper Coosa River basin. This includes the mainstem and tributaries of the Coosa, Conasauga, and Coosawattee rivers, and tributaries to the Oostanaula River. Within each watershed, the historical range was calculated from the furthest upstream collection point within each tributary to its confluence with the nearest downstream river (Coosa, Oostanaula, Conasauga, or Coosawattee rivers) and included the mainstem if it fell within the HUC10 watershed boundary. To calculate the current range, we used all records (field collections and genetics analyses) between 2007 and 2017. If only one recent collection existed in a tributary and habitat conditions were of poor quality, then it was not considered in the current range analysis because without current collections downstream to the confluence of the mainstem river we cannot be certain that the fish exists in these reaches. These data points will be addressed further in our description below. Currently, the trispot darter occupies approximately 20% of its historically known range using the method described above.

Occurrence complexity is a measure of the spatial complexity of the occupied habitat. For aquatic species that inhabit rivers, complex spatial occurrence relates to a species occupying multiple tributaries and the main-stem river as opposed to only inhabiting the main-stem river. If good connectivity is assumed, than the more complex and dendritic (tree-like) spatial arrangement of occupied habitat will be more resilient against extinction (Fagan 2002, p. 3244). We considered high occurrence complexity to exist when individuals occupied the main-stem river in addition to more than three major tributaries. Low occurrence complexity would exist if a species only inhabited the main-stem river and up to two tributaries.

Habitat Elements

Population abundance, spatial extent and spatial complexity are results of successful spawning, recruitment (survival of young individuals to maturity and spawning), adult survival, and dispersal. These population dynamics are related to the “needs” of a species which correspond to water quality, water quantity, structural habitat, and connectivity for the trispot darter (discussed

27 in more detail in Chapter 3 of this document). Therefore, it is useful to consider habitat elements when assessing the condition of a MU.

Physical (structural) habitat was assessed, in part, with spatial data. Specifically, land cover and use was evaluated within the Active River Area (ARA) of each occupied watershed. The ARA was developed to provide a more meaningful method for assessing riparian zones than a simple buffer. It encompasses the dynamic processes within the aquatic and riparian zones that interact with a lotic system and create the associated habitats and habitat conditions (Smith et al. 2008, pg. 1). The percentage of natural vegetation within the ARA was used as an indicator of within stream habitat quality. Land cover types considered as natural include open water, deciduous forest, mixed forest, shrub, wooded wetland and herbaceous wetland. For this analysis, the evergreen forest land cover type was considered as altered vegetation because this likely represents silviculture as dominate natural plant communities are hardwood and mixed hardwood forests within the range of the holiday darter based on the 2011 GAP/LANDFIRE (USGS GAP Analysis Program 2011). In addition to vegetation types within the ARA, we assessed other land use practices that may affect in stream habitat quality (e.g. cattle access to streams, extent of urban areas outside of ARA, channelization, etc.).

Connectivity was assessed at two scales within this assessment. Connectivity, as it relates to population resiliency, was determined using documentation of fish passage barriers within the unit. The ability for species to move upstream and downstream is important for feeding, spawning migration, seasonal movements, refuge from extreme high or low water events and predators, as well as the exchange of genetic material. The quality of connectivity was evaluated based on the amount of known impact to the species’ life history needs.

Connectivity is also important across the range of the species and was considered when assessing redundancy and representation. At this scale, long reaches of unsuitable habitat or barriers located at the lower reaches of occupied watersheds can eliminate connectivity and movement between MU’s thus affecting redundancy and representation, but not necessarily resiliency.

We evaluated water quality by determining how many impacts were identified, their severity, and if measures have been taken toward removing the issues. The EPA’s 2014 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) program (EPA 2014) and watershed reports by various groups were used to identify impacted water quality and mitigation measures if they applied.

To assess hydrologic regime conditions within MU’s of trispot darter, any land use or resource use practice that is known to affect flows and occurred within the occupied MU’s was considered. These practices were related to urbanization, agriculture, and reservoir construction. Any of these practices can cause deviations from a more natural flow regime and have negative effects on holiday darter as discussed in Chapter 3.

High Medium Low 0 Physical No known alteration Known low level Habitat heavily altered Unable to Habitat occurring within Active alterations to habitat but and recognized as support River Area (ARA),> not known to be impacting species survival 90% natural veg negatively affecting (<50% natural species (natural vegetation in ARA) vegetation 50-89% in ARA)

Connectivity No known barriers to Passage barriers known Passage barriers Unable to fish passage within a but do not impact identified as negatively support MU species within a MU impacting species survival within a MU

Water Quality Minimal or no known Issues recognized (ie WQ issues known to Unable to water quality issues 303d streams, unpaved impact populations support roads, moderate survival housing amounts)

Hydrologic Minimal or no known Issues recognized but Flow issues known to Unable to Regime flow issues low intensity (lower impact sp support density suburban (hydropeaking, water survival development, lower avail issues below amounts of reservoirs) channelization)

Approximate >75% of collections 75-50% of collections >50% of collections Extirpated Abundance classified as common classified as common classified as rare (1-10 (10-100 individuals) (10-100 individuals) individuals)

Occurrence Entire known range <30% decline from >30% decline in Extirpated Extent currently occupied known range known range

Occurrence Occupies main channel Occupies main channel Occupies main channel Extirpated Complexity and numerous and maximum of 3 and mouths of a tributaries tributaries maximum of 2 tributaries

Table 4-1. Definitions of conditions for components used to assess current conditions

For the trispot darter to exhibit high representation, MU’s should exhibit high resiliency and should occur in the ecoregion to which it is native (Ridge and Valley); these occupied MU’s should occur at the widest extent possible across the historic range of the species; and they should occupy multiple tributaries in addition to the core population within the mainstem of a river. Finally, connectivity should be maintained between representative populations because it allows for the exchange of novel and beneficial adaptations where connectivity is high or is the mechanism for localized adaption and variation where connectivity is lower and the species is naturally more isolated. To clarify, it is helpful to consider representation that is lost if extirpation occurs within a MU. Extirpation from a single watershed represents a 25% reduction in watershed variability.

High redundancy for the trispot darter is characterized by having resilient and representative populations distributed within the species’ ecological setting and across its range. For this species to exhibit high redundancy it must have highly resilient populations with connectivity maintained among them. Connectivity allows for immigration and emigration between populations and increases the likelihood of recolonization should a population become extirpated.

Little Canoe Creek MU:

Within the Big Canoe Creek watershed, one population of trispot darter exists in Little Canoe Creek and its tributaries. Big Canoe Creek is a tributary to the Coosa River. The Little Canoe Creek MU was chosen based on genetic research which indicated trispot darter in this system to be a separate population from the Ballplay Creek and Conasauga River systems (Fluker and Kuhajda 2011 p. 5). Since its discovery in 2008, three primary breeding sites have been identified – Gin Branch, Little Canoe Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Little Canoe Creek (Figure 4-1). The current known extent for the trispost darter is approximately 20 river miles (32 km) which makes up 26% of the historic known range of the darter within the watershed. Trispot darters have been collected in the mainstem of Little Canoe Creek as well as 7 of its tributaries, both perennial and ephemeral, giving this population a more complex occupancy structure although the total occupied area is not widespread. Results from survey data show that 68% of collections are considered “rare” where less than 10 individuals were collected in a sample.

Figure 4-1. Little Canoe Creek MU including historic and current range of the trispot darter.

Little Canoe Creek is near Springville, Alabama, a rapidly growing suburban area (GSA 2016, p. 51). The expansion of urban areas in Jefferson County in the Birmingham surrounding area is putting pressure on the trispot darter’s range. Sources of impairment within the Big Canoe Creek watershed include roadside erosion, urban development, fish barriers, and unstable stream banks (GSA 2016, p. 51). The lower portion of Big Canoe Creek (8.2 miles) is impounded by backwaters of the Coosa River from H. Neely Henry Lake which alters the hydrology of the river. An extensive watershed assessment was conducted by GSA (2016) that identified threats within the basin. At 20 sites within the watershed fish barriers were identified at road crossings. Specifically in the subwatershed where trispot darter is known to exist, sedimentation and habitat quality were found to be impaired with urban development and fish barriers as sources (GSA 2016, p. 51, 53). Currently the land use in the Springville area consists of rural and urban areas but the farm and pasture lands are quickly being converted to urban (GSA 2016, p. 53), resulting in increases in impervious surfaces and storm water runoff, though no waterways have been identified by the EPA as impaired in the watershed. Numerous pastures where livestock have access to streams have been identified as spawning habitat for the trispot darter in this watershed (Lee Holt USFWS pers. comm. 2017). Livestock accessing riparian buffers and, subsequently, the stream proper, lends to increased concern for future water quality issues and habitat destruction. Livestock accessing streams also de-stabilize stream banks which creates increased sediment loads within these small systems.

Several locations where trispot darters are found within this MU are privately owned by Alabama Power Company (APC). This land was originally purchased for possible development of a pumped storage hydroelectric facility but there are no current plans for construction (Jason Carlee, APC pers. comm. 2017). The Little Canoe Creek MU is isolated from other populations of trispot darter due to reservoir development in the Coosa River.

This watershed has been designated has a SHU by ARSN. The SHU project was developed for species restoration and enhancement. A threats analysis is being conducted and the results will contribute to restoration projects that will improve habitat and water quality for at risk and listed species.

In general, this watershed has available habitat for the trispot darter but the water quality is low due to the known sedimentation, livestock access, downstream impoundment and urban areas. The Little Canoe Creek MU is expected to have moderate resiliency to stochastic events because, although the occurrence complexity is high, the abundance is qualitatively low, water quality is low, Coosa River reservoirs and water quality remove connectivity to other MU’s, and the extent of the occupied habitat is small.

Ballplay Creek MU

Discovered in 2011, within the Black Creek-Coosa River watershed, one population of trispot darter exists in tributaries to Ballplay Creek. Ballplay Creek is a tributary to the Coosa River. The Ballplay Creek MU consists of one population and is separate from the Little Canoe Creek and Conasauga River populations (Fluker and Kuhajda 2011, p. 5). Approximately 3 river miles (5 km) are currently occupied within this watershed which makes up 4% of the historic known range of the darter within the watershed (Figure 4). Trispot darters have been collected in two unnamed tributaries to Ballplay Creek, giving this population a simple occupancy structure. In collections in this system this species is considered “rare” because 75% had fewer than 10 individuals. The largest collection in this MU was 19 individuals.

Figure 4-2. Ballplay Creek MU including historic and current range of the trispot darter.

Genetic analysis shows that this MU is suffering a recent genetic bottleneck (Fluker and Kuhjda 2011, p. 5). This small population has reduced genetic variation which, in turn, reduces fitness and adaptive potential (Willi et al. 2006, p. 1). The isolation due to reservoir development and possibly poor water quality prohibit other trispot darters from immigrating into this MU. This means that no new genetic material is entering the population. The project boundary of H. Neely Henry Reservoir extends 4.5 miles (7.4 km) into Ballplay Creek mainstem, ending downstream of a large wetland which likely acts as a buffer to the known locations.

This watershed has been described as low gradient with extensive emergent and forested wetlands (Johnson et al. 2013, p. 6). Although habitat for the darter appears to be fair to good quality where it is been collected in the tributaries to Ballplay Creek, entrenchment, channelization, and beaver activity have been identified in the watershed (Johnson et al. 2013, p. 40-41). Entrenchment and channelization alter the channel and may degrade spawning habitat and reduce floodplain access. The Coosa River in this watershed is listed as impaired, or polluted, by ADEM due to PCB and nutrients (total phosphorous) (EPA 2014) and due to reservoir construction on the Coosa River, the lower portion of Ballplay Creek mainstem is altered and unlikely supports trispot darter within the Project Boundary.

A portion of land within the range of trispot in this unit falls on property owned and protected by the Atlantic Coast Conservancy. No land conversion is currently planned for this property (Cal Johnson Alabama Department of Environmental Management pers. comm. 2017).

The Ballplay Creek MU is expected to have a low resiliency to stochastic events because of reduced genetic diversity, the abundance is qualitatively low, Coosa River reservoirs and water quality remove connectivity to other MU’s, impairment of the Coosa River within the watershed, and the extent of the occupied habitat is small.

Conasauga River MU

Trispot darters are currently known from the Conasauga River mainstem, Holly, Mill (GA), and Coahulla creeks, and an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek (TN). The currently unoccupied Lower Conasauga River watershed was included in this MU because the confluence of Holly Creek and the Conasauga is captured within this boundary. This MU was grouped based on genetic research indicating that trispot darter in the Conasauga basin is a separate population from the Little Canoe Creek and Ballplay Creek systems (Fluker and Kuhajda 2011, p. 5). The total extent of currently occupied waterway is approximately 39 river miles (62 km) (Figure 4-3). This was calculated by totaling the uppermost and lowermost river stretches in Mill Creek and Conasauga River. Trispot was collected at a single location in Holly Creek and a 1,000 ft (300 m) segment in Coahulla Creek, therefore these streams to their confluence of the Conasauga River were not considered as segments of current extent because without current collections we cannot be certain that the fish exists in these reaches. Low habitat quality has been noted in lower Holly Creek, contributing to the analysis of not considering lower Holly Creek as part of the current

35 extent (Brett Albense GADNR pers. comm. 2017). Also a physical barrier, Prater’s Mill Dam, exists between the known location in Coahulla Creek and its confluence with Mill Creek. The currently occupied river extent makes up 24% of the historic range in this MU. Because the majority of sample locations exist in the Conasauga River mainstem and only a short segment or single locations occur in the 3 tributaries this MU has a low occupancy structure. This species is considered “rare” in this MU because 88% of collections captured fewer than 10 individuals.

Figure 4-3. Conasauga River MU including historic and current range of the trispot darter.

The trispot darter is known from downstream of the U.S. 411 Bridge where the majority of the surrounding lands are privately owned and used for agriculture and has some low-intensity development. Physical habitat degrades with increases in bank erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity. Water quality also begins to diminish in this portion of the watershed. Pollutants from agricultural runoff have degraded water quality in the main stem Conasauga. Crops along the Conasauga River are mostly genetically modified to be "Roundup Ready". This has led to increases in spraying of glyphosate and surfactants. Declines of sensitive species within the Conasauga River have been found to correlate with the wide adoption of glyphosate resistant crops and the associate spreading of the herbicide and its surfactants (Robin Goodloe USFWS pers. comm. 2017).

Poultry farming is prevalent and spreading of chicken litter is common in the Conasauga River watershed. As a result, high levels of endocrine disruptors are present in the Conasauga River and its tributaries. Agricultural fields along the Conasauga River have also been ditched to rapidly move water off of the fields. These agricultural ditches bypass natural filtration that may occur within a naturally vegetated riparian zone and create a direct discharge of agricultural pollutants and sediments into the Conasauga River. Agricultural ditching alters stream morphology and may disconnect the stream from the floodplain, likely resulting in degraded spawning habitat for the trispot darter. Also, the construction of farm ponds likely removes spawning habitat for this darter (USFWS 1984, p. 21).

Water quality monitoring in the Conasauga River since 1997 shows comparatively higher concentrations of total nitrogen in 2011-2012 than 1999-2002 (Hagler and Freeman 2012, p. 42). Nitrogen concentrations are consistently elevated above the EPA’s reference criteria for Ridge and Valley streams. In contrast, soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) and total phosphorus concentrations have been lower in recent years than from 1997-2000, although the strong trend in the downstream reach may overshadow more subtle differences in other reaches (Hagler and Freeman 2012, p. 43). Low flows and drought in the Conasauga River in recent years may have contributed to lower mean SRP concentrations, since phosphorus cycling in streams is largely driven by precipitation events. In general, nutrient concentrations in the tributaries are much greater than those in the main-stem. The three tributaries (Perry, Sumac, and Mill (GA)) with the highest nitrate and nitrite concentrations also had the lowest SRP concentrations (Hagler and Freeman 2012, p. 42). Increases of nutrient concentrations have been occurring in the Conasauga as well as declines in occurrences and, or abundances of sensitive fish species (Hagler and Freeman 2012, p. 12).

Increasing nutrient concentrations, especially nitrogen, suggests eutrophication may be a major stressor for biota in the Conasauga River (Hagler and Freeman 2012, p. 46, Baker et al. 2013, p. 8). Eutrophication, where nutrient concentrations have exceeded some threshold and nutrient supply is greater than the river’s assimilative capacity, is associated with deteriorating water quality and diminished species diversity. Evidence of a State change to potential eutrophic conditions beginning within a 6.2 mile (10 km) reach just downstream of the Chattahoochee

National Forest boundary has been observed, based on the results of a nutrient-diffusing substrate experiment and increases in algal production (Baker et al. 2013, p. 2).

Historically, the trispot darter was found from the confluence of Holly Creek to Chatsworth, Georgia and is now only known from just upstream of Chatsworth. Within Holly Creek water quality has declined around Chatsworth and because of this urban area it is assumed that it experiences some flashiness due to the increased amounts of impervious surfaces. The lower portions of Holly Creek toward its confluence of the Conasauga River has been noted to have low habitat quality (Brett Albanese GADNR pers. comm. 2017). Pasture land surrounds other portions of Holly Creek which allow for some cattle access and causes bank erosion and increases in sedimentation. Like much of North Georgia, poultry farms are present in the watershed and litter is spread onto nearby pastures that are adjacent to Holly Creek. Increased nutrient levels and concentrations of endocrine disruptors are anticipated from the poultry litter. However, there are fewer poultry farms here than in other parts of the region. Residential development in the upstream portions of this river has been identified as causing increases in sedimentation and turbidity (USFWS 2014, p. 12). A watershed management plan has been developed by the Limestone Valley RC & D Council to improve conditions (Limestone Valley RC&D Council 2015, entire).

Trispot darters are currently known from two locations in Mill Creek and one location in Coahulla Creek. This species was historically collected in longer river stretches than it is known to occur currently. Within the Coahulla-Mill Creek watershed water quality is degraded in the upper portions due to sediment loading and excessive fecal contamination (Coahulla Creek Watershed Management Plan 2013, pg ii). Agriculture is the predominate land use type in this watershed and moderate amounts of urban development also exist, mainly in Dalton, Georgia. Prater’s Mill Dam on Coahulla Creek is a movement barrier downstream of the known location in this waterway. A watershed management plan has been developed for the Coahulla Creek watershed by the Limestone Valley RC&D Council to improve conditions. (Limestone Valley RC&D Council 2013, entire).

The Conasauga River that flows through private lands may benefit in the future from a new NRCS WLFW partnership that will help farmers develop and implement strategies to improve water quality. While this partnership will help improve the river and its biota, it is known that restoration actions can take decades before aquatic faunal assemblages are considered recovered (Harding et al. 1998, p. 14844). This MU has also been designated has a SHU byARSN. The SHU project was developed for species restoration and enhancement. A future threats analysis will contribute to restoration projects that will improve habitat and water quality for at risk and listed species.

Because of the pervasive water quality issues in the middle and lower Conasauga River, lower abundance of fish per collection record, a small and reduced distribution, and overall simple

39 occurrence spatial arrangement in the Conasauga River, this population is considered to have a low resiliency to stochastic events.

Coosawattee River MU

The Coosawattee River MU consists of the Lower Coosawattee River and Salacoa Creek. This MU was developed because of the unique management strategy that would be required due to the Carters Dam and Reregulation Dam. Trispot darters currently exist in the mainstem of the Coosawattee River below Carters Reregulation Dam and at one location in Salacoa Creek near Fairmont, Georgia. Because only one current location of the darter is known from Salacoa Creek and the habitat quality is known to be low (Brett Albanese GADNR pers. comm. 2017), this tributary was not considered as part of the current extent as we cannot be certain that this fish exists between the one known location down to the confluence with the Coosawattee River. The current known range for the trispost darter is approximately 19 river miles (30 km) which makes up 34% of the historic known range of the darter within the MU (Figure 4-4). Trispot darters have been collected in the mainstem of the Coosawattee River and at one location in Salacoa Creek giving this MU a simple occupancy structure. All collections in the Coosawattee River MU are considered “rare,” where less than 10 individuals were collected in a sample.

Figure 4-4. Coosawattee River MU including historic and current range of the trispot darter.

The Cooswattee River below Carters Dam and Reregulation Dam was altered by blasting of shoals for navigation. This segment of river is also exposed to hydropeaking from the hydroelectric dam which operation in 1975. Hydropeaking is the rapid increase and decrease is river flow due to the release of water from the reservoir hydroelectric dam. The Reregulation Dam buffers the hydropeaking releases by dampening how much the river flow fluctuates and a baseflow of 240 cubic feet per second is released below the dam. The fish assemblage downstream of Carters Dam has been documented to have reduced abundance and fish species richness when compared to the upstream, unregulated portion, indicating that conditions do not fully support the life history needs of several small-bodied fishes, though trispot darter was recently collected in the river below the dam (Freeman et al. 2011, p. 10). Although this dam exists in the watershed it is located on the divide of the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge ecoregion. The trispot darter is only found in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion and therefore the dam is not believed to be a barrier to the fish’s range. Dissolved oxygen levels were adequate for fish in the sampled reach between Carters Reregulation Dam and Highway 225. The mainstem of the Coosawattee River has been listed as impaired, or polluted, by Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) for PCB’s in fish tissue (EPA 2014). Erosion and sedimentation have also been identified as sources of impairment potentially from urban runoff and development, rural unpaved roads, forestry practices, and agriculture (GAEPD 1998, ch. 5 p. 5 - 28).

Salacoa Creek, where one location of trispot is currently known, has many of the same stressors that are present in other North Georgia streams. Some channelization in the watershed during past agricultural practices has occurred and a reduced amount of suitable habitat and decreased stream residence times (increased flashiness) occur as a result. Chicken farms are present in this watershed and some pasturelands adjacent to occupied streams receive chicken litter from poultry farming practices. This MU has been designated has a SHU by ARSN. The SHU project was developed for species restoration and enhancement. A future threats analysis will contribute to restoration projects that will improve habitat and water quality for at risk and listed species.

Because of the PCB’s known in the Coosawattee River and hydrologic alteration from the hydroelectric dam, lower abundance of fish per collection record, a small and reduced distribution, and overall simple occurrence spatial arrangement in the Coosawattee River, this population is considered to have a low resiliency to stochastic events.

MU Little Canoe Ballplay Conasauga Coosawattee

Physical Habitat Low Low Low Moderate

Connectivity Low Low Moderate Moderate

Water Quality Low Low Low Low

Hydrologic Regime Low Low Low Low

Combined Habitat Low Low Low Low Factors Approximate Low Low Low Low Abundance

Occurrence Extent Low Low Low Low

Spatial Complexity High Low Low Low

Combined Population Moderate Low Low Low Factors

Current Condition Moderate Low Low Low

Table 4-2. Current species resiliency summary of the trispot darter.

Current Species Representation

Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time and encompasses the “ecological and evolutionary patterns and processes that not only maintain but also generate species” (Shaffer and Stein, p. 308).

The trispot darter currently does not exhibit high representation due to evidence indicating that this species was wider ranging in the Coosa River basin. We estimate that the trispot darter currently has low adaptive potential due to limited representation in the four MU’s and 3 MU’s have low resiliency and 1 MU has moderate resiliency. The trispot darter is no longer found in four of the watersheds it was historically collected from across its range and this species has experienced a reduction of approximately 80% in spatial extent occupied within the ecoregion to which it is native. Additionally, collections have mainly been from mainstem rivers in Georgia; however, historically, trispot darter was collected from numerous tributaries to these rivers. Weiss Dam has completely isolated the Alabama MUs from Georgia’s MU’s and backwaters in lower Big Canoe and Ballplay creeks isolate these watersheds from the mainstem Coosa River. Ballplay Creek MU is currently experiencing reduced genetic diversity. No recent records of trispot darters exist in the lower Conasauga, therefore movement between the Conasauga and lower Coosawattee is unlikely. This lack of connectivity prevents novel, adaptive, genes from being exchanged between MU’s, reducing adaptive potential of the species as a whole.

Current Species Redundancy

Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. It “guards against irreplaceable loss of representation” (Redford et al. 2011 p. 42; Tear et al. 2005 p. 841) and minimizes the effect of localized extirpation on the range-wide persistence of a species (Shaffer and Stein, p. 308).

The trispot darter currently does not exhibit high redundancy due to evidence indicating that this species was wider ranging in the Coosa River basin. We make the assertion that the trispot darter would not naturally display “High” redundancy because the loss of any one population would represent an approximate 25% reduction in total redundancy. Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. It is characterized by having multiple, resilient populations distributed throughout the species ecological setting and across its range. For a species to exhibit greater redundancy the populations should not be completely isolated and immigration and emigration between populations should be achievable. The trispot darter is estimated to have low redundancy due to 3 MU’s having low resiliency and 1 MU having moderate resiliency, the occupied MU’s are not broadly distributed throughout the basin but are in patches, each MU has seen a reduction in occupied extent, and connectivity among MU’s is not possible due to Weiss Dam and H. Neely Henry Reservoir. Because all MU’s have experienced declines and collections are in low numbers, each of the MU’s have a greater likelihood of a catastrophic event causing extirpation, which translates to a greater likelihood for

44 the species to become extinct. Connectivity has also been reduced for the species range-wide due to Weiss Dam and backwaters of H. Neely Henry Reservoir.

Chapter 5: Future Scenarios and Species Viability

In this chapter, we describe how current viability of the trispot darter may change over a period of 50 years. Like current conditions, we evaluate species viability in terms of resiliency at the population scale, and representation and redundancy at the species scale (3 Rs). Here we describe three plausible future scenarios and whether there will be a change, from current conditions, to any of the 3 Rs under each scenario. Our future scenarios differ by considering variations that are predicted in two main elements of change, urbanization and climate. These scenarios capture the range of likely viability outcomes that the trispot darter will exhibit by the end of 2070.

The human population in the southeastern United States has grown at an average rate of 36.7% since 2000, making it the fastest growing region in the country (U.S. Census 2016). The trispot darter has been witness to this fact because it inhabits small rivers of the upper Coosa River basin that are in close proximity to Birmingham as well as Atlanta, one of the largest metropolitan areas in the Southeast. As a result, urbanization has been identified as a stressor to this species and its habitat. Growth will continue at a rapid pace within Birmingham and Atlanta and the surrounding areas. Therefore, development and urban sprawl is expected to expand and influence areas that previously were unaffected by urbanization. Rapid growth in the Birmingham and Atlanta areas and across the southeastern U.S. as a whole is expected to be a major driver of change and an important consideration when evaluating future viability of the trispot darter. In this section, we consider how land use across the trispot darter’s range is predicted to change and develop. Further, we assess how this increase in developed areas affects populations and the species as a whole.

Methods

To forecast future urbanization, we consider future scenarios that incorporate the SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, Excluded area, Urban area, Transportation, Hillside area) model, which simulates patterns of urban expansion that are consistent with spatial observations of past urban growth and transportation networks, including the sprawling, fragmented, “leapfrog” development that has been dominant in the southeastern United States. (Terando et al. 2014, p. 2). The extent of urbanized areas has been predicted to increase across the southeastern United States by approximately 100 - 192 % based on the “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario that expects future development to match current development rates (Terando et al. 2014, p. 1). We use this range of percent change in urbanization to develop our future scenarios described below.

Figure 5-1. a) “Business-as-usual” scenario for the Southeast United States where red indicates urban extent (Terando et al. 2014, p. 3); b) is the initial urban land cover as of 2009; c) is the projected urban land cover in 2060; and d) is the projected land cover in the piedmont ecoregion.

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that “continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” (IPCC 2013, p. 8). Therefore, we expect climate change to be a driver of change that should be addressed when evaluating future viability of the trispot darter.

The IPCC utilized a suite of alternative scenarios in the AR5 to make near-term and long-term climate projections. These scenarios, called “representative concentration pathways” (RCPs) are plausible pathways toward reaching a target radiative forcing (the change in energy in the atmosphere due to greenhouse gases) by the year 2100 (Moss et al. 2010, p. 752). RCPs help scientists capture the most plausible range of outcomes for climate futures based on uncertainties inherent in the natural and socio-economic environment. In this assessment, we used RCPs to help understand how climate may change in the future and what effects may be observed that impact the trispot darter in the Coosa River basin.

There are four RCPs (Table 2) that have been utilized by the IPCC. These RCPs correspond to a high radiative forcing trajectory pathway (RCP8.5), a low radiative forcing trajectory (RC2.6), and two intermediate radiative forcing trajectories (RCP6.0 and RCP4.5). We used these RCPs to consider what conditions would exist for the trispot darter under extremely altered climate conditions, moderate level of climate change, and low levels of climate change.

Name Radiative forcing Concentration (ppm) Pathway -2 RCP8.5 >8.5 W m in 2100 >1,370 CO2-equiv in 2100 Rising without stabilization

-2 RCP6.0 ~6 W m at ~850 CO2-equiv (at Stabilization without stabilization after 2100 stabilization after 2100) overshoot

-2 RCP4.5 ~4.5 W m at ~650 CO2-equiv (at Stabilization without stabilization after 2100 stabilization after 2100) overshoot

-2 RCP2.6 Peak at ~3 W m Peak at ~490 CO2-equiv Peak and decline before 2100 and then before 2100 and then declines declines

Table 5-1. Description of the four RCPs from Moss et al. 2010, p. 753.

In the Southeast through the 21st century, climate models project that average annual temperatures will increase, cold days will become less frequent, the freeze-free season will lengthen by up to a month, temperatures exceeding 95° F (35° C) will increase, heat waves will become longer, sea levels will rise an average of 3 feet, the number of category 5 hurricanes will increase, and air quality will decline (Ingram et al. 2013, entire). Aquatic systems will be impacted by increasing water temperatures, decreasing dissolved oxygen levels, altered streamflow patterns, increased demand for water storage and conveyance structures, and increasing toxicity of pollutants (Ficke 2007, p. 585, 586, 589; Rahel and Olden 2008, p. 522 and 526). Reduced spring/summer rainfall, coupled with increased evapotranspiration and water demand, could lead to local extirpations if streams dry out more frequently. Regardless of RCP and scenario evaluated, we anticipate some or all of these events to occur. We attempt to capture the range of plausible climate outcomes by considering that the frequency and probability of extreme climate scenarios will be greatest under RCP8.5, minimal under RCP2.6, and intermediate under RCP6.0 and RCP4.5. For instance, we assume there will be a greater likelihood of a category 5 hurricane negatively impacting the trispot darter under RCP8.5 than under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, or RCP6.0.

Status Quo

In the Status Quo Scenario, current environmental regulations and policy, land use management techniques, and conservations measures remain the same over the next 50 years. We anticipate the current trend in greenhouse gas emissions to continue and moderate impacts from extreme weather events including intense drought, floods, and storm events to occur. Rapid urbanization will continue at the current estimated rate for the piedmont region of the southeastern U.S. (~165 % growth, Terando et al. 2014, p. 5) which will increase demand for water resources and introduce multiple additional stressors into local streams and rivers (see pg. 5-1). Despite an overall growth in population and increases in developed areas, some regions will remain predominantly in agriculture and experience associated water quality declines. In pace with

48 current trends we anticipate declines in habitat and water quantity and quality as a result of rapid urbanization, climate change, agricultural practices, and an overall lack of voluntary conservation measures being implemented.

Little Canoe Creek MU

The corridor between Gadsden and Birmingham, Alabama is expected to urbanize according to the SLEUTH model and will apply pressure to the trispot darter in this MU. The areas surrounding Springville and Ashville will experience further development which will negatively affect water quality and quantity in Little Canoe Creek and its tributaries. At least portions of spawning areas are expected to be converted to housing developments and associated infrastructure. Pressures on water quantity from urban development will affect aquifer recharge and possibly further reduce spawning access. No pump station is built by Alabama Power Company within the trispot range in this MU. Given the small extent of occupied area within this MU and pressures from urban development we expect this MU to persist but have low resiliency at the end of 2070.

Figure 5-1. SLEUTH Model projection of 2070 in the Little Canoe Creek MU area.

Ballplay Creek MU

The area surrounding Gadsden, Alabama is expected to grow according to the SLEUTH model. Although this area is not likely to put much pressure on the known locations of trispot darter within the MU, land conversion for supporting infrastructure is a possibility. The reduced fitness due to the genetic bottleneck of this MU makes it very vulnerable to stochastic events. A multi- year drought can disconnect the non-breeding habitat from the breeding habitat and due to the short life span of this species an event such as this could cause local extirpations. With the lack of connectivity to other MU’s, reduced fitness from the genetic bottleneck, lack of incoming genetic material, and the small occupancy extent of this MU, it is likely to be extirpated at the end of 2070.

Figure 5-2. SLEUTH Model projection of 2070 in the Ballplay Creek MU area.

Conasauga MU

According to the SLEUTH model, urbanization is expected to increase minimally within the upper Conasauga River but substantially more around Dalton, Georgia. Development will begin to merge the cities of Dalton and Chatsworth, Georgia. This expansion of urbanization is expected to negatively affect water quality and quantity in the middle and lower reaches of Holly, Coahulla and Mill creeks. Areas that are not developed will remain in agriculture. Under the Status Quo scenario, agricultural practices are expected to remain consistent with those of today. Therefore, we expect continued inputs of pollutants from herbicide applications, and excess nutrients and endocrine disruptors from chicken farming and litter spreading on pastures and fields adjacent to the Conasauga River. Due to degraded water quality in the Conasauga River adjacent to private lands, the trispot darter is likely to be extirpated from the Conasauga River MU by the end of 2070.

Figure 5-3. SLEUTH Model projection of 2070 in the Conasauga River MU area.

Coosawattee MU

Given the current low abundance of trispot darters in the Coosawattee MU, further habitat degradation from urbanization and growth of Calhoun, Georgia and moderate increases in extreme climatic events that are expected to occur under the Status Quo scenario, will likely cause loss of the darter in Salacoa Creek and further declines in the Coosawattee River. We expect the trispot darter to persist in this MU but to have low resiliency by the end of 2070.

Figure 5-4. SLEUTH Model projection of 2070 in the Coosawattee River MU area.

MU Little Canoe Ballplay Conasauga Coosawattee

Physical Habitat Low Low Low Low

Connectivity Low Low Moderate Moderate

Water Quality Low Low Low Low

Hydrologic Low Low Low Low Regime

Combined Low Low Low Low Habitat Factors

Approximate Low 0 0 Low Abundance

Occurrence Low 0 0 Low Extent

Occurrence Low 0 0 Low Complexity

Combined Population Low 0 0 Low Factors

Future Condition Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low

Table 5-2. Resiliency of the trispot darter under the Status Quo Scenario.

Representation

Representation is expected to decline under the Status Quo scenario. The total number of occupied MU’s is anticipated to decline from four to two by 2070. Under this scenario this species has lost the environmental setting found in Ballplay Creek draining, an extensive wetland, and in Conasauga River drainage, the northern most basin. There is a 50% reduction of occupied MU’s and the two MU’s that remain are completely isolated from one another due to

Weiss Dam. Due to this barrier, genetic material will not be exchanged, reducing adaptive potential of the species as a whole and results in low representation of the trispot darter by 2070.

Redundancy

The trispot darter is expected to see a decline in redundancy under the Status Quo scenario with the total number of occupied MU’s anticipated to decline from four to two by 2070. Redundancy is reduced by 50% under this scenario and the two remaining MU’s are completely isolated from one another and no gene flow can occur. Because of the loss in Salacoa Creek, the fish is only found in the Coosawatte River mainstem, making it more vulnerable to catastrophic events. Those populations that remain both exhibit low resiliency, leading to low redundancy. Therefore, the trispot darter will be more susceptible to catastrophic events across its range.

Best Case

In the Best Case scenario we predict wider adoption of conservation measures and policies which involves watershed scale conservation plans (WLFW and watershed Habitat Conservation Plans) and enacting a water policy for Alabama. We still expect rapid urban growth, albeit, at slower rate than under the status quo and worst case scenarios (~100%, Terando et al. p. 1). Under the Best Case scenario rapidly growing urban areas address environmental concerns and implement water conservation measures and green infrastructure. These actions would lessen the demand on water resources (requiring fewer drinking water supply reservoirs) and minimize urban effects on streams. While large numbers of roads will still be constructed, under the Best Case scenario, road crossings will be constructed that allow for fish passage. In this scenario we expect carbon emissions to peak before 2020 (van Vuuren et al. 2007, p. 132) resulting in a lower probability of extreme weather conditions negatively effecting stream fishes. As a result of a diverse array of conservation actions mentioned above being undertaken across the landscape, we would anticipate the species to persist or experience a slightly positive response.

Little Canoe Creek MU

Under the Best Case scenario development proceeds around Springville and Ashville, Alabama but at a slower rate than under the Status Quo scenario and urban planners incorporate green infrastructure and manage stormwater. Existing spawning areas remain intact and connected to the non-breeding habitat and land conversion does not destroy these vulnerable areas. Conservation programs (SHUs) have been successfully implemented and because of wide adoption of best management practices (BMPs) by developers and farmers habitat quality increases. No pump station is built by Alabama Power Company within the trispot range in this MU. These actions increase the potential for the trispot darter to persist in the Little Canoe Creek MU and experience a range expansion in Little Canoe Creek and its tributaries. Under the Best Case Scenario, Little Canoe Creek MU will have a moderate resilience to stochastic events because it will have moderate occupancy structure and exchange of genetic material between the mainstem and tributaries.

Ballplay Creek MU

Within the Ballplay Creek MU urban development does not negatively affect aquatic resources of the trispot darter or its habitat. BMPs are used in farming practices and habitat quality and spawning area connectivity improve. Trispot darter is anticipated to persist in Ballplay Creek; however, it is expected to retain a low resiliency because of its reduced genetic diversity and reduced fitness, lack of incoming genetic material due to isolation from other MU’s, currently low abundance, small spatial extent, and low spatial complexity.

Conasauga River MU

Under the Best Case scenario development proceeds around Dalton, Georgia at a slower rate than under the Status Quo scenario. However, urban planners incorporate green infrastructure and manage stormwater. These actions reduce the negative effects to steams that development typically causes. Much of the MU outside of Dalton is maintained for agriculture. Conservation programs (WLFW and SHUs) have been successfully implemented and because of wide adoption of BMPs by farmers, pollution from herbicide application and poultry litter are reduced. These actions lead to improved water quality in the Conasauga River and its tributaries. Prater’s Mill Dam on Coahulla Creek is removed and connectivity to the Conasauga River increases. These actions increase the potential for the trispot darter to persist in the Conasauga River mainstem and its tributaries. Range expansion, if it occurs, will be limited due to the legacy effects from current practices. Under the Best Case Scenario, Conasauga River will have a moderate resilience to stochastic events because it will have moderate occupancy structure and exchange of genetic material between the mainstem and tributaries.

Coosawattee River MU

While urbanization is expected to increase within the watershed, its effects will be reduced from conservation measures, green infrastructure, and slower rates of development. Reduced stressors from urbanization, conservation efforts by the State of Georgia, and a more natural hydrologic regime adopted in the Coosawattee River below Carters Reregulation Dam will allow this population to persist in all known locations currently occupied and potentially expand to downstream reaches, historically occupied tributaries, as well as see further expansion within the Salacoa Creek watershed. Therefore, it is expected have a moderate resiliency to stochastic events due to an increase in spatial extent occupied.

MU Little Canoe Ballplay Conasauga Coosawattee

Physical Habitat Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Connectivity Low Low High Moderate

Water Quality Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Hydrologic Low Low Moderate Moderate Regime

Combined Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Habitat Factors

Approximate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Abundance

Occurrence Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Extent

Occurrence Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Complexity

Combined Population Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Factors

Future Condition Moderate Low Moderate Moderate

Table 5-3. Resiliency of the trispot darter under the Best Case Scenario.

Representation

Under the Best Case scenario, representation is expected increase compared with current conditions. Under this scenario Little Canoe Creek, Conasauga River, and Coosawattee River MU’s will have moderate resiliency while Ballplay Creek MU remains to have low resiliency. We estimate that the trispot darter will have moderate adaptive potential because although conservation measures will improve or reduce negative impacts to water quality, limited range expansion is expected within the known MU’s and not outside of these watersheds. The lower

60 portions of the Conasauga and Coosawattee rivers improve, trispot darter expands its range in these reaches, and movement occurs between the two MU’s. Additionally, large dams that have completely isolated the MU’s will not be removed under this scenario. Therefore, representation is moderate due to the isolation of Little Canoe and Ballplay MU’s from reservoir development and their disconnect from the Conasauga and Coosawattee MU’s because of Weiss Dam. The MU’s will persist under the best case scenario and will have moderate adaptive potential.

Redundancy

With broad implementation of conservation actions and lower likelihoods of catastrophic climatic events, no populations are expected to be lost under the Best Case scenario. Three of the MU’s (Little Canoe, Conasauga, Coosawattee) are expected to improve in overall resiliency. Genetic exchange is improved from the movement of the darter between the Conasauga River and Coosawattee River MU’s and increases the likelihood of the species to withstand catastrophic events. While improvements will be present, no population will exhibit attributes of a highly resilient population. Therefore, we expect redundancy to be moderate in the Best Case scenario.

Worst Case

In the Worst Case scenario we anticipate major negative effects in aquatic ecosystems as a result of rapid urbanization (~250% increase in urban areas; Terando et al. 2014, p. 5). In conjunction with rapid urban growth, we predict that there will be a general lack of conservation measures and policies being implemented at the local, regional, or national levels. Water demand will increase with population and new reservoir construction will take place. In addition to rapid urbanization, carbon emissions are projected to continue to increase above the current levels in this scenario, resulting in a higher probability of extreme weather events that can negatively affect fish species. In areas that remain in agricultural use, there will be no protective measures implemented to address water quality issues. Under this scenario, we anticipate a general decline in available suitable habitat and population size and abundance.

Little Canoe Creek MU

Under the Worst Case scenario this MU is exposed to rapid development of the Springville and Ashville, Alabama areas causing degraded habitat, water quality, and destruction of spawning areas. Connectivity to these spawning areas is expected to reduce from increased road density and poor road crossing construction, extreme multi-year droughts, and increases in groundwater withdrawal for water supply. Alabama Power Company constructs the pump storage facility, inundating a portion of known trispot darter locations and reducing the connectivity and genetic diversity within this MU. Due to these impacts and current small occupied range, trispot darter will likely be extirpated from this MU by 2070 in the Worst Case scenario.

Ballplay Creek MU

Within the Ballplay Creek MU urban development expands from Gadsden, Alabama and puts suburban pressure such as housing developments on trispot darter and its habitat. Poor farming practices and degraded habitat quality from lack of BMPs further reduces available habitat for the fish. Connectivity to spawning areas is expected to reduce from increased road density and poor road crossing construction, extreme multi-year droughts, and increases in groundwater withdrawal for water supply. The current low genetic diversity and lack of new genetic material into the watershed make this MU extremely vulnerable to stochastic events. Trispot darter is likely to be extirpated in the Ballplay Creek MU by the year 2070 due to its reduced genetic diversity and reduced fitness, lack of incoming genetic material due to isolation from other MU’s, currently low abundance, small spatial extent, and low spatial complexity.

Conasauga River MU

Under the Worst Case scenario, increased rates of pollutants, nutrients, herbicides and pesticides, and endocrine disruptors originating from agricultural practices being discharged into the river will be observed. This increase in the rate of pollutants being input into the river will result in higher concentrations than observed under the Status Quo scenario. Extreme climate events, particularly drought, will further stress the fish and reduce connectivity to spawning areas. Rapid development in downstream reaches will further degrade habitat and water quality and destroy spawning grounds. Additional water supply reservoirs are built and inundate known locations or reduce connectivity in the watershed. Due to degraded water quality, reduced spawning areas and access to, and extreme climate events in the Conasauga River and tributaries adjacent to private lands, we expect the trispot darter to be extirpated from these reaches. We anticipate the trispot darter to be extirpated in the Conasauga River MU by the end of 2070.

Coosawattee River MU

Under the Worst Case scenario rapid urbanization causes further habitat degradation and reduced connectivity. Additional water supply reservoirs are built and inundate known locations or reduce connectivity in the watershed. Increases in extreme climatic events that are expected to occur under the Worst Case scenario, will likely cause loss of the darter in Salacoa Creek and further declines in the Coosawattee River. Changes to the flow regime released from Carter Reregulation Dam cause declines in habitat quality in the lower Coosawattee River. We expect the trispot darter to be extirpated in this MU by 2070.

MU Little Canoe Ballplay Conasauga Coosawattee

Physical Habitat Low Low Low Low

Connectivity Low Low Low Low

Water Quality Low Low Low Low

Hydrologic Low Low Low Low Regime

Combined Low Low Low Low Habitat Factors

Approximate 0 0 0 0 Abundance

Occurrence 0 0 0 0 Extent

Occurrence 0 0 0 0 Complexity

Combined Population Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Factors

Future Condition Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated

Table 5-4. Resiliency of the trispot darter under the Worst Case Scenario.

Representation

Representation is expected to decline under the Worst Case scenario. The total number of occupied MU’s is anticipated to decline from four to zero by 2070. Under this scenario this species has lost all the environmental settings found in its native range. There is a 100% reduction of occupied MU’s therefore this species would have no representation under this scenario. Due to degraded habitat, lack of connectivity, reduced gene flow, impacts from urban

63 development and extreme weather events, this species would be highly susceptible to stochastic events and therefore would not persist under this scenario by 2070.

Redundancy

The trispot darter is expected to see a decline in redundancy under the Worst Case scenario with the total number of occupied MU’s anticipated to decline from four to zero by 2070. Redundancy is reduced by 100% under this scenario and there is no environmental setting that would be occupied by the trispot darter. This species would not have the ability to withstand catastrophic events due to degraded habitat quality, lack of connectivity, and no genetic exchange. There will be no redundancy because no occupied MU’s remain by 2070.

Status Summary

Future Viability

The future scenario assessment has sought to understand how viability of the trispot darter may change over the course of 50 years in the terms of resiliency, representation, and redundancy. To account for considerable uncertainty associated with future projections, we defined three scenarios that would capture the breadth of changes likely to be observed in the Coosa River basin to which the trispot darter will be exposed. These scenarios considered two primary elements of change: urbanization (Terando et al. 2014, p. 2) and climate change (IPCC 2013, p. 8). While we consider these scenarios plausible, we acknowledge that each scenario has a different probability of materializing at different time steps. To account for this difference in probability, a discretized range of probabilities was used to describe the likelihood a scenario will occur (Table 5-5).

Confidence Terminology Explanation

Very likely Greater than 90% certain

Likely 70-90% certain

As likely as not 40-70% certain

Unlikely 10-40% certain

Very unlikely Less than 10% certain

Table 5-5. Explanation of confidence terminologies used to estimate the likelihood of a scenario (after IPCC guidance, Mastrandrea et al. 2011)

Status Quo Best Case Worst Case

10 years Very likely Unlikely As likely as not

50 years Likely Unlikely Likely

Table 5-6. Likelihood of a scenario occurring at 10 and 50 years.

In the Status Quo scenario two extant MU’s of trispot darter are expected to become extirpated. This will decrease overall redundancy for the species as well as representation. This scenario is very likely and likely within 10 and 50 years, respectively (Table 5-6).

The Best Case scenario assumed slightly slower rates of development and wider implementation of conservation activities that reduced the impact of development on streams. Additionally, this scenario assumed that through broad climate policies greenhouse gas emissions would begin to peak and decline, decreasing the likelihood of pervasive extreme climate events. Under this scenario, all extant MU’s of trispot darter would persist. Due to continued urban growth and delayed response from conservation actions being implemented, we considered range expansions to be unlikely even under this scenario. As a result, the trispot darter is expected to slightly benefit under the Best Case scenario due to increased resiliency of some populations. This scenario is considered unlikely to occur in both 10 and 50 year projections because it is unlikely that the broad conservation actions and policies will be implemented that require this scenario to play out.

In the Worst Case scenario urban growth proceeds more quickly than current rates, conservation actions are not implemented widely, and the likelihood of extreme climate events increase as greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. As a result, the four MU’s are no longer occupied. Like the Status Quo scenario, the Worst Case scenario sees an overall loss in redundancy and representation. This scenario has is “as likely as not” to occur within 10 years and “likely” to occur within 50 years.

Uncertainty

Our analysis of current and future conditions contains uncertainty because we are unable to know the exact current status of the trispot darter and our future scenarios are projections based only on current trends. The following are uncertainties recognized in the report:

 The trispot darter’s historic range is within the Ridge and Valley ecoregion in the middle to upper Coosa River Basin. This could be an over or underestimate of historic range.  Historic distribution includes the uppermost known location in the stream to the confluence of the main channel of the Coosa, Oostanaula, Conasauga, or the Coosawattee rivers within the watershed boundary. This method could over or underestimate the historic distribution.  Current distribution did not include the known locations (or short reach) downstream to the confluence in Coahulla, Holly, or Salacoa creeks due to the lack of current known

locations and habitat conditions. This method could underestimate the amount of currently occupied waterway.  Approximate abundance of current collections was used in our current resiliency analysis to inform us of the frequency of collecting high numbers of trispot darters in a sample. Sampling methods were not standardized and our analysis did not mitigate against the different sampling techniques. This method may over or underestimate the abundance of trispot darters.  The overall percent of currently occupied waterway in comparison to the historic distribution considered only the watersheds where current locations are known. The mainstem rivers of the Coosa, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and Cooswattee were not considered in the analysis if they fell outside of the MU boundary and therefore this is likely an underestimate of the percent of occupied historic range.  Slackwater darter and Arkansas darter were used to help inform possible needs and threats of the tripsot darter because these species have similar life history strategies and behaviors.  Our ARA landcover analysis may have overestimated natural landcover because the analysis considered the ARA in the entire watershed, not only where trispot darters occur. Within several watersheds large tracts of National Forest property exist and this likely overestimates the amount of natural lands.  Our Future Scenario analysis was based on current trends in climate and urban sprawl. It is uncertain how well these projects will align with our analysis and their impacts to the trispot may be over or underestimated.

Overall Summary

Currently, the trispot darter is known to occur in eight watersheds within the Coosa Basin which we categorized into four distinct MU’s. Based on genetic information and historical collections this species likely had a widespread range in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion within the Coosa Basin. No MU’s of trispot darter currently exhibit high resiliency due to the reduction in extent of occupied habitat, low abundance of individuals per collection record, spatial arrangement of records, as well as stressors affecting habitat and water quality. Similarly, representation and redundancy are currently low for this species because multiple resilient populations are lacking and no connectivity exists among the Little Canoe Creek MU, Ballplay Creek MU, and the Georgia/Tennessee MU’s. The major threat to this species is reduced connectivity between the non-breeding habitat and the breeding habitat during spawning season that may occur due to excess groundwater withdrawal, drought, or made made structures such as dams and improper road crossings.

66 trispot darters were not expected to expand outside of historical and current range boundaries and resiliency was expected to be moderate at best for three MU’s and remained low for one MU. Two out of the four MU’s were extirpated under the Status Quo scenario and all were expected to be extirpated under the Worst Case scenario. Resiliency, representation, and redundancy declined in the Status Quo scenario and no resiliency, representation, or redundancy exists for the Worst Case scenario due to further range contractions and increased likelihoods for extreme climatic events that will impact the species.

Literature Cited

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 2003. Mid-Coosa River Basin management plan. http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/water/nps/files/MiddleCoosaBMP.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2017.

Albanese, B. and Z. Abouhamdan. 2017. Conservation status of bridled darter, holiday darter, trispot darter, and frecklebelly madtom: progress report April 2017. Unpublished manuscript in the files of Alabama Ecological Services, Daphne, Alabama.

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall. New York.

Anderson, G.B. 2009. Confronting incomplete detection to address questions about distribution and reproductive season for four imperiled stream fishes. M. S. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Aravindakshan, J., V. Paquet, M. Gregory, J. Dufresne, M. Fournier, and D. J. Marcogliese, and D. G. Cyr. 2004. Consequences of xenoestrogen exposure on male reproductive function in spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius) Toxicological Science.s 78:156-165.

Arnold, C. L., P. J. Boison, and P. C. Patton. 1982. Sawmill Brook: An example of rapid geomorphic change related to urbanization. Journal of Geology. 90: 155-166.

Bailey, R. M. and W. J. Richards. 1963. Status of Poecilichthys hopkinsi Fowler and Etheostoma trisella, a new species, percid fishes from Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Number 630, June 1963.

Baker, C.L., M. M. Hagler, and B. J. Freeman. 2013. Determining current threats to protected and rare aquatic species of the Conasauga River system. Unpublished document in FWS files. Athens, GA.

Bannerman, R., D. Owens, R. Dodds, and N. Hornewer. 1993. Sources of pollutants in Wisconsin stormwater. Water Science and Technology. 28: 241-259.

Barling, R. D. and I. D. Moore. 1994. Role of buffer strips in management of waterway pollution: a review. Environmental Management. 18: 543-558.

Barton, D. R., W. D. Taylor, and R. M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. NA J. Fisheries Management. 5: 364-378.

Beeson, C. E., and P. E. Doyle. 1995. Comparison of bank erosion at vegetated and no-vegetated channel bends. Water Resources Bulletin. 31: 983-990.

Bolan, N. S, A. A. SzogI, T. Chuavasathi, B. Seshadri, J. R. M. J Rothrock, and P. Panneerselvam. 2010. Uses and management of poultry litter. Poultry Science 2010. 66(12):673- 698.

Booth, D. B. 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin. 26: 407-417.

Booth, D. B. and C. R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. J. Am. Water Resources Association. 33: 1077-1090.

Brazier, J. R. and G. W. Brown. 1973. Buffer strips for stream temperature control. Research Paper 15. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Oregon.

Bringolf, R.B., W.G. Cope, S. Mosher, M. C. Barnhart, and D. Shea. 2007. Acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate compounds to glochidia and juveniles of Lampsilis sililquoidea (Unionidae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(10):2094-2100.

Bunn, S. E., and A. H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management. 30: 492-507.

Burkhead, N. M. and H. L. Jelks. 2001. Effects of suspended sediment on the reproductive success of the tricolor shiner, a crevice-spawning minnow. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 130: 959-968.

Cavalcante, D. G. S. M., C. B. R. Martinez, and S. H. Sofia. 2008. Genotoxic effects of Roundup on the fish Prochilodus lineatus. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 655:41-46.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. April 20, 2010.

Chapin, F. S., III , P. A. Matson , and H. Mooney. 2002. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Polychlorinated biphenyls update: Impact on fish advisories. EPA-823-F-99-091 Fact Sheet. September 1999.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Water Quality Assessment and TMDL Information. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.home. Accessed May 15, 2017.

Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Fagan, W. F. 2002. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology. 83(12): 3246-3249.

Fam, S., M. K. Stenstrom, and G. S. Silverman. 1987. Hydrocarbons in Urban Runoff, Journal of Environmental Engineering. 113(5): 1032-1046.

Ficke, A. D., C. A. Myrick, and L. J. Hansen. 2007. Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 17: 581–613.

Fluker, B. L. and B. R. Kuhajda. 2011. Genetics of the Trispot Darter, Etheostoma trisella. Final report submitted to Steve Rider (Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division) and Jeff Powell (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Unpublished manuscript in the files of Alabama Ecological Services, Daphne, Alabama.

Freeman, M. C., Z. H. Bowen, K. D. Bovee, and E. R. Irwin. 2001. Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications. 11:179- 190.

Freeman, M. C. and P.A. Marcinek. 2006. Fish assemblage responses to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in piedmont streams. Environmental Management. 38: 435-450.

Freeman, M. C., M. M. Hagler, B. Albense, B. J. Freeman. 2011. Inventory of small-bodied fishes and their habitat below two United Stated Army Corps of Engineers hydropower facilities in the Upper Coosa Watershed. Unpublished draft manuscript in the files of Alabama Ecological Services, Daphne, Alabama.

Fuzzen, M. M., C. J. Bennett, G. R. Tetreault, M. E. McMaster, M. R. Servos. 2015. Severe intersex is predictive of poor fertilization success in population of rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum). Aquatic Toxicology. 160 (2015): 106-116.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan. Social Circle, Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD). 1998. Coosa River Basin watershed protection plan. https://epd.georgia.gov/coosa-river-basin-watershed-protection-plan. Accessed June 15, 2017.

Gido, K. B., J. E. Whitney, J. S. Perkin, T. F. Turner. 2016. Fragmentation, connectivity and fish species persistence in freshwater ecosystems. Pages 292-323 in G.P. Closs, M. Krkosek, and J.D. Olden, ed. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes. Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Hagler, M. M. and B. J. Freeman. 2012. Assessing causes of decline of aquatic species in the Conasauga River system. Report to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2011-2012 Summary Report. Unpublished report in FWS files. Daphne, Alabama.

Harding, J. S., E. F. Benfield, P. V. Bolstad, G. S. Helfman, and E. B. D. Jones. 1998. Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 95: 14843-14847.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Ingram, I., K. Dow, L. Carter, and J. Anderson, eds. 2013. Climate of the Southeast United States: variability, change, impacts, and vulnerability. Washington, DC. Island Press.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA.

Jacobs, W. N. 2015. An integrated assessment of environmental estrogens in the upper Conasauga River, GA, USA. M.S. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Johnson, C. E., Kleiner, K. J. & Herrington, S. J. 2002. Seasonal, diel, and spawning habitat of the rare muscadine darter (Percina sp.) in the Conasauga River, Georgia. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings. 44: 1-11.

Johnson, C. J., P. E. O’Neil, T. E. Shepard, J. B. Smith, E. A. Wynn, A. Henderson, E. Spadgenske, and J. R. Powell. 2011. Status survey of the trispot darter, Etheostoma trisella, in Alabama 2008-2010: Tuscaloosa, Alabama Geological Survey Open-File Report 1009.

Johnson, C. J., T. E. Shepard, P. E. O’Neil, J. B. Smith, E. A. Wynn, A. Henderson, E. Spadgenske, and J. R. Powell. 2013. Status survey of the trispot darter, Etheostoma trisella, in Alabama 2008-2013: Tuscaloosa, Alabama Geological Survey Open-File Report 1302.

Karr, J. R., and I. J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science. 201:229-234.

Kidd, K. A., P. J. Blanchfield, K. H. Mills, V. P. Palace, R. E. Evans. J. M. Lazorchak and R. W. Flick. 2007. Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. PNAS. 104: 8897–8901.

Konrad, C. P., and D. B. Booth. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 47:157–177.

Langiano, V. C. and C. B. Martinez. 2008. Toxicity and effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on the Neotropical fish, Prochilodus lineatus. Comparative Biochemistry Physiology - Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology. 147:222-231.

Limestone Valley RC&D Council. 2015. Coahulla Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared by Limestone Valley RC&D Council, D. Huser and J. Smith. Calhoun, Georgia.

Limestone Valley RC&D Council. 2015. Holly Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared by Limestone Valley RC&D Council, D. Huser and J. Smith. Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.

Martinovic D., W. T. Hogarth, R. E. Jones, and P. W. Sorensen. 2007. Environmental estrogens suppress hormones, behavior, and reproductive fitness in male fathead minnows. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 26: 271-289.

Matthaei, C. D and K. A. Lang. 2016. Multiple stressor effects on freshwater fish: a review and meta-analysis. Pages 178-214 in G.P. Closs, M. Krkosek, and J.D. Olden, ed. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes. Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Matthews, W. J. and E. Marsh-Mathews. 2003. Effects of drought on fish across axes of space, time and ecological complexity. Freshwater Biology. 48: 1232-1253.

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. 2009. Water supply and water conservation management plan. Prepared by AECOM, Maddaus Water Management, and R2T, Inc. May 2009.

Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Birmingham, Alabama: Oxmoor House.

McPherson, A. K., R. S. Moreland, and J. B. Atkins. 2003. Occurrence and distribution of nutrients, suspended sediment, and pesticides in the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee, 1999-2001. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4203. US Geological Survey, Montgomery, Alabama.

Millington, H. K. 2004. Developing engineering design criteria for ecologically sound road crossings for endangered fish in Georgia. M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Mitchell, D. G., P. M. Chapman and T. J. Long. 1987. Acute toxicity of Roundup and rodeo herbicides to rainbow trout, chinook, and coho. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39:1028-35.

Moss, R. H., J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard, M. R. Manning, S. K. Rose, D. P. vanVuuren, T. R. Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, S. J. Smith, R. J. Stouffer, A. M. Thompson, J. P. Weyant, and T. J. Wilbanks. 2010. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature. 463:747-756. doi:10.1038/nature08823

Nakano, S., H. Miyasaka, and N. Kuhara. 1999. Terrestrial-aquatic linkages: riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology. 80: 2435-2441.

Near, J. N., C. M. Bossu., G. S. Bradburd, R. L. Carlson, R. C. Harrington, P. R. Hollingsworth Jr., B. P. Keck, D. A. Etnier. 2011. Systematic Biology. 60(5): 565-595.

Newcombe, C. P. and D. D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Management. 11: 72-82.

Noel, D. S., C. W. Martin, and C. A. Federer. 1986. Effects of forest clearcutting in New England on stream macroinvertebrates and periphyton. Environmental Management. 10: 661- 670.

O’Neil, P. E., T. E. Shepard, C. C. Johnson, E. Spadgenske, and J. R. Powell. 2009. Rediscovery of the Trispot Darter, Etheostoma trisella, in Alabama: Alabama Geological Survey Open-file report 0909.

Osborne, L. L. and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology. 29: 243-258.

Paul, M. J. and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 32: 333-365.

Peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of riparian forest. Ecology. 65: 1466-1475.

Kegley, S.E., Hill, B.R., Orme S., Choi A.H. 2016. PAN Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network, Oakland, California. North America http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAll.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33138&Taxa_Group=Fish&offset= 0. Accessed June 14, 2017.

Pizzuto, J. E., W. C. Hession, and M. McBride. 2000. Comparing gravel-bed rivers in paired urban and rural catchments of southeastern Pennsylvania. Geology. 28: 79-82.

Power, M. E., W. E. Dietrich, and J. C. Finlay. 1996. Dams and downstream aquatic biodiversity: potential food web consequences of hydrologic and geomorphic change. Environmental Management. 20: 887-895.

Pusey, B. J., and A. H. Arthington. 2003. Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fish: a review. Marine and Freshwater Research. 54: 1-16.

Redford, K. H., G. Amoto, J. Baillie, P. Beldomenico, E. L. Bennett, N. Clum, R. Cook, G. Fonseca, S. Hedges, F. Launay, S. Lieberman, G. M. Mace, A. Murayama, A. Putnam, J. G. Robinson, H. Rosenbaum, E.W. Sanderson, S. N. Stuart, P. Thomas, and J. Thorbjarnarson. 2011. What does it mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? Bioscience. 61:39-48.

Ritz, C. W. and W. C. Merka. 2013. Maximizing poultry manure use through nutrient management planning. University of Georgia Extension. Athens, Georgia.

Robinson, J. L. 2003. Comparison between agricultural and urban ground-water quality in the Mobile River Basin 1999-2001. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4182. US Geological Survey, Montgomery, Alabama.

Rose, S. and N. E. Peters. 2000. Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): a comparative hydrological approach. Hydrological Processes. 15: 1441-1457.

Ross, S. T. 2013. The Ecology of North American Freshwater. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Roy, A. H., C. L. Faust, M. C. Freeman, and J. L. Meyer. 2005. Reach-scale effects of riparian forest cover on urban stream ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 62: 2312-2329.

Ryon, M. G. 1981. The life history and ecology of Etheostoma trisella (Pisces: Percidae). M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tennessee.

Ryon, M. G. 1986. The life history and ecology of Etheostoma trisella (Pisces: Percidae). American Midland Naturalist. 115:73-86

Schofield, K. A., C. M. Pringle, and J. L. Meyer. 2004. Effects of increased bedload on algal and detrital-based stream food webs: experimental manipulation of sediment and macroconsumers. Limnology and Oceanography. 49: 900-909.

Shaffer, M.L. and B.A. Stein. 2000. Safeguarding our precious heritage. In: Stein B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. Adams, eds. Precious Heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press: pp. 301-321.

Sharpley, A.N., S. Herron, and T. Daniel. 2007. Overcoming the challenges of phosphorus-based management in poultry farming. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 62:375-389.

Smith, M.P., R. Schiff, A. Olivero, and J. MacBroom. 2008. The Active River Area: A Conservation Framework for Protecting Rivers and Streams. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, Massachusetts.

Stolz, J. F., E. Perera, B. Kilonzo, B. Kail, B. Crable, E. Fisher, M. Ranganathan, L. Wormer, and P. Basu. 2007. Biotransformation of 3-Nitro-4-hydroxybenzene arsenic acid (Roxarsone) and release of inorganic arsenic by Clostridium species. Environmental Science and Technology. 41:818-823.

Sutherland, A. B. 2005. Effects of Excessive Sedimentation on the Stress, Growth and Reproduction of Two Southern Appalachian Minnows, Erimonax monachus and Cyprinella galactura (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Sutherland, A.B. and J.L. Meyer. 2007. Effects of increased suspended sediment on growth rate and gill condition of two southern Appalachian minnows. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 80: 389-403

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2003. Reduction of reaction distance and foraging success in smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu, exposed to elevated turbidity levels. Environmental Biology of Fishes 67: 342-347.

Szarek, J., A. Siwicki, A. Andrzejewska, E. Terech-Majewska and T. Banaszkiewicz. 2000. Effects of the herbicide Roundup™ on the ultrastructural pattern of hepatocytes in carp (Cyprinus carpio). Marine Environmental Research. 50:263-266.

Tear, T. H, P. Kareiva, P.L. Angermeier, P. Comer, B. Czech, R. Kautz, L. Landon, D. Mehlman, K. Murphy, M. Ruckelshaus, J. M. Scott, and G. Wilhere. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience. 55: 835-849.

Tennessee State Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2015. Tennessee State Wildlife Action Plan 2015. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Nashville, Tennessee.

Terando, A. J., J. Costanza, C. Belyea, R. R. Dunn, A. McKerrow, and J.A. Collazo. 2014. The Southern Megalopolis: Using the Past to Predict the Future of Urban Sprawl in the Southeast U.S. PLOS ONE 9(7): e102261. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102261.

Tetreault, G. R., C. J. Bennett, K. Shires, M. R. Servos, M. E. McMaster. 2011. Intersex and reproductive impairment of wild fish exposed to multiple municipal wastewater discharges. Aquatic Toxicology. 104 (2011): 278-290.

U.S. Census. 2016. United Stated Population Growth by Region. https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=growth. Accessed June 9, 2017.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Pesticides in the nation’s streams and ground water, 1992-2001-A Summary. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior Fact Sheet 2006-3028.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.1984. Slackwater Darter Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

------. Georgia Ecological Services. 2011. Conasauga Logperch: Five-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.

------. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of native species that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened; Annual notice of Findings on resubmitted petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions; Proposed rule. Vol. 77, No. 25 Federal Register.

------. Mississippi Ecological Services. 2014. Blue Shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.

------. 2016. USFWS Species Status Assessment Framework: An integrated analytical framework for conservation. Version 3.4 dated August 2016.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program. 2011. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011. http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gaplandcover/. doi:10.5066/F7ZS2TM0.

Van Hassel, J. H., J. J. Ney, and D. L. J. Garling. 1980. Heavy metals in a stream ecosystem at sites near highways. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109: 636-643. van Vuuren, D. P., M. G. J. den Elzen, P. L. Lucas, B. Eickhout, B. J. Strengers, B. van Ruijven, S. Wonink, and R. van Houdt. 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change. 81: 119-159.

Vought, L. B., J. Dahl, C. L. Pedersen, and J. O. Lacoursiere. 1994. Nutrient retention in riparian ecotones. Ambio. 23: 343-348.

Wallace, J. B., S. L. Eggert, J. L. Meyer, and J. R. Webster. 1999. Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecological Monographs. 69: 409-442.

Walsh, C. J., A. W Leonard, A. R. Ladson, and T. D. Fletcher. 2004. Urban stormwater and the ecology of streams. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology and Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Canberra, Australia.

Walsh, C. J., A. H. Roy, J. W. Feminella, P. D. Cottingham, and P. M. Groffman. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 24: 706-723.

Wenger, S. and M. Freeman. 2007. Stressors to imperiled fishes in the Etowah Basin: mechanisms, sources and management under the Etowah HCP. Report for the Etowah Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. http://researchweb8.wpengine.com/rivercenter/wp- content/uploads/sites/17/2015/03/Stressors-to-Imperiled-Fishes-in-the-Etowah-Basin.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Wenger, S. J., A. H. Roy, C. R. Jackson, E. S. Bernhardt, T. L. Carter, S. Filoso, C. A. Gibson, W. C. Hession, S. S. Kaushal, E.Marti, J. L. Meyer, M. A. Palmer, A. H. Purcell, A. Ramirez, A. D. Rosemond, K. A. Schofield, E. B. Sudduth, and C. J. Walsh. 2009. Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. Journal of North American Benthological Society. 28(4): 1080-1098.

Williams, J. D. and H. W. Robinson. 1980. Ozarka, a new subgenus of Etheostoma (Pisces: Percidae). Brimleyana. 4: 149-156.

Wolf, S., B. Hartl, C. Carroll, M. C. Neel, D. N. Greenwald. 2015. Beyond PVA: Why recovery under the Endangered Species Act is more than populations viability. BioScience. 65: 200-207.

Wolman, M. G. 1967. A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels. Geografiska Annaler. 49A: 385-395.

Wood, T. 2016. Alabama Wildlife Action Plan 2015 – 2025. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Recourses. Terwilliger Consulting Inc. and Conservation Southeast Inc.

Wynn, E. A., P. E. O’Neil, S. W. McGregor, J. R. Powell, J. M. Pritchett, A. D. Ford, and P. D. Johnson. 2012. Strategic habitat and river reach units for aquatic species of conservation concern in Alabama: Tuscaloosa, Alabama Geological Survey Special Map 248.

Yang, Y.-C. E., X. Cai, and E. E. Herricks. 2008. Identification of hydrologic indicators related to fish diversity and abundance: A data mining approach for fish community analysis. Water Resources Research. 44, W04412, doi:10.1029/2006WR005764.

Yonkos, L. T., D. J. Fisher, P. A. Van Veld, A.S. Kane, B. L. McGee and K.W. Staver. 2010. Poultry liter-induced endocrine disruption in fathead minnow, sheepshead minnow, and mummichog laboratory exposures. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 29: 2328-2340.

Zappia, H. 2002. Organochlorine compounds and trace elements in fish tissue and streambed sediment in the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, 1998. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4160. US Geological Survey, Montgomery, Alabama.