United States Department of Agriculture Aquatic Resource Report

Forest Service September 2019 Foothills Landscape Project

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Habersham, Lumpkin, Murray, Rabun, and White Counties, Georgia

For Information Contact: David Vinson, Zone Wildlife Biologist Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, Chattooga River Ranger District 9975 Highway 441S, Lakemont, GA 30552 706-754-6221 [email protected]

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htm l and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Table of Contents Aquatic Resource Report ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Methodology ...... 2 Species Identified for Analysis ...... 3 Species Analyzed in Detail ...... 3

Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species ...... 3

Designated Critical Habitat ...... 3

*High Priority species in the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) (GaDNR 2015) ...... 5

Regional Forester Sensitive Species ...... 5

*High Priority species in the SWAP (GaDNR 2015) ...... 6

Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 6

Locally Rare Species (LR) ...... 6

Other Species of Public Interest ...... 7

Sources of information ...... 7

Project Design Features ...... 7

Analysis Indicators ...... 7

Measures ...... 8

Assumptions...... 8

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ...... 8

Affected Environment ...... 9 Rare Aquatic Fauna ...... 12 Freshwater Mussels ...... 12

Fish……...... 13

Amphibians ...... 14

Aquatic Insects ...... 15

Other Species of Concern ...... 15

Brook Trout and Non-Native Trout ...... 15

Environmental Consequences ...... 16 Federally-Listed Species ...... 16

i

Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 16

Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 16

Critical Habitat (CH) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) ...... 16

Cumulative Effects ...... 17

Determination of Effects ...... 18

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 19

Direct Effects ...... 19

Indirect Effects...... 24

Critical Habitat (CH) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) ...... 27

Cumulative Effects ...... 28

Determination of Effects ...... 29

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan ...... 30

Literature Cited ...... 31 Appendix A – Table of Proposed Activities ...... AP1 Appendix B - Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities...... AP7 Appendix C – Aquatic Species Evaluated ...... AP24

List of Tables Table 1 Federally-Listed Aquatic Species and Critical Habitat Units Analyzed in Detail for the Foothills Landscape Project ...... 4

Table 2. Aquatic Regional Forester Sensitive Species Analyzed in Detail for the Foothills Landscape Project ...... 5

Table 3. Cumulative Effect on Aquatic Measures ...... 18

Table 4 Alternative 2 Activities Potentially Affecting Riparian Corridor (100 Feet of Perennial and Intermittent Streams) ...... 20

Table 5 Cumulative Effect on Aquatic Measures ...... 28

Table 6 Known Past, Present, And Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on Watersheds within the Foothills Landscape Project ...... AP7

Table 7 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities That Could Affect the Aquatic Resource ...... AP19

ii

Table 8 Past, Present, And Reasonably Foreseeable Future Recreation Activities (Developed, Dispersed, and Non-Motorized Trails) In the Foothills Landscape Project Area and the Potential Effects on the Aquatic Resource ...... AP19

Table 9 Past, Present, And Foreseeable Future Roads and Motorized Trail Activities in Watersheds within the Foothills Landscape Project Area and the Potential Effects to the Aquatic Resource ...... AP22

iii Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic Resource Report ______

Introduction The Foothills Landscape Project (FLP) proposes adaptive landscape-scale ecological restoration on approximately 157,625 acres of the Conasauga, Blue Ridge, and Chattooga River Ranger Districts of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests (CONF). The overarching goal of this project is to restore the biologic integrity, resilience to disturbance, connectivity, and soil and water quality across the watersheds within the Foothills Landscape. This goal ties back to the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) where Goal 22 states that “watersheds are managed (and where needed, restored) to provide resilient and stable conditions to support the quality of water necessary to protect ecological functions and support intended beneficial water uses”. Additionally, the Watershed Condition Framework (USFS, 2011) outlines the need for water quality which addresses the expressed alteration of physical, biological, or chemical impacts to water quality. Generally, activities that disturb stream channels or alter surrounding vegetation communities can affect the water resource. The most likely properties to be affected are stream channel morphology and surface water quality. These in turn can affect beneficial uses of water such as fisheries and aquatic macroinvertebrates. More specifically, the purpose of this project associated to aquatic resources is to (1) improve aquatic habitat by restoring or maintaining aquatic ecosystem components to support viable populations of all native and desired nonnative aquatic plants and animals, and (2) improve aquatic habitat connectivity by restoring or maintaining aquatic ecosystem components to support viable populations of desired aquatic plants and animals. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the FLP and to assess effects of management on aquatic resources including federally-protected species, including proposed, endangered, threatened or candidate species (T&E), designated critical habitat (CH), the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) list and Locally Rare (LR) species as required in the Forest Plan. The principal laws and management direction relevant to aquatic habitat and species management are the Forest Plan, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, and the Forest Service Manual (FSM). The following is a summary of these laws/direction related to aquatic habitat and species: • The principal guiding document relevant to aquatic resources on the Forest is the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan contains specific goals, objectives, management direction and standards related to management of the Forest aquatic resources. • The NFMA of 1976 requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native vertebrate wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered species populations (36 CFR 219.19). • The ESA of 1973 requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems, upon which they depend, also to manage designated critical habitat and avoid adverse modifications. Forests are also required to

1 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed species. • The CWA established Federal water quality policies, goals, and programs. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Georgia have responsibility for carrying out the CWA. The objective of the Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” • FSM direction provides additional guidance for proposed and listed Threatened and Endangered species. It also requires that the Forest Service identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species (FSM 2670.31 (6)). • The FSM directs the Regional Forester to identify sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern. Under FSM 2670.32, the manual gives direction to analyze, if impacts cannot be avoided, the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. Only alternatives that do not lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability can be selected. The preceding display of the pertinent laws/direction provides the basis for this project in conserving aquatic resources and enhancing biologic integrity. The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Through consultation with the USFWS, this project is designed to minimize impacts to those T&E species while improving habitat for those species over the long term. For the RFSS, the goal is to conserve those species; this project is designed to improve the habitat that will, in turn, aid in improving species viability. This project is also designed to enhance rare communities and provide a diversity of habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS), LR, and many other species that are not identified for any of the mentioned species lists.

Methodology Potential impacts to water quality were analyzed using the following information and resources: national water quality standards established by the CWA, Forest Plan standards, project design features (PDFs) and Georgia Best Management Practices (GA BMPs) (Georgia Forestry Commission, 2009). Additionally, the following were used to evaluate proposed treatments: GIS data, professional judgement, prior experience, collaboration with other scientists, review of applicable literature, and on the ground reconnaissance. A table of all proposed activities within the FLP area can be found in Appendix A. All FLP proposed actions are presented and fully described in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Each activity was evaluated to estimate the potential effects on those species analyzed below. The Foothills alternatives include numerous activities that enhance aquatic resources and habitats in the project area, including: • Enhancing biologic integrity by improving functions within wetlands and bogs, restoring canebrakes, and improving stream and lake habitat;

2 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

• Enhancing connectivity of the aquatic species and habitats through replacing culverts and other fish passage barriers, and conversion of OHV trails to roads open for administrative use only; and • Improving water quality and soil productivity through the decommissioning of roads, trails, campsites and campgrounds, and implementing seasonal closures. Activities that are estimated to have no disturbance to the aquatic communities within the riparian corridor (see Spatial and Temporal Bounding) are not analyzed in detail in this report. The following analyses in this report focus on those project activities that are estimated to have measurable effects on the aquatic resources.

Species Identified for Analysis The information provided in this section are the methods used to identify the T&E and RFSS and/or associated habitat that are analyzed in the effect analysis. Locally rare species are evaluated to assess whether the proposed alternatives are consistent with LRMP goals, objectives, and standards, however, LR are not analyzed in detail in this report. The following information provides a more specific process for identifying those species analyzed in this report. Detailed information about each species is listed in the Affected Environment.

Species Analyzed in Detail In total, 73 aquatic species were considered, including 16 T&E, 28 RFSS and 29 LR species (see Appendix C. Since there are no aquatic MIS listed in the Forest Plan and this report only analyzes aquatic species, there are no aquatic MIS to be analyzed. After evaluating the aquatic T&E, RFSS, and LR species that may occur on the CONF, a subset of those species was analyzed in detail because the project could affect those species. Fifty species were not likely to occur in the project area or were determined to not be affected by the project. A total of 23 aquatic species, including 12 T&E and 11 RFSS, occur in the vicinity of the project area and were analyzed in detail (Table 1 and Table 2). Nine LR species occur in the project area but are not analyzed in detail.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species To determine which T&E species are known to occur or may potentially occur, within the project area, we used the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ to generate a list of T&E species and critical habitat that may occur in the project area (USFWS 2019). The IPaC system provides a list of those species that may occur in the general area of the project. Sixteen species were considered in this report (see Appendix C), however, only 12 T&E are expected to be in the project area and were analyzed in detail.

Designated Critical Habitat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated critical habitat (CH) for federally-protected mussels in the Moble River Basin (69 CFR 40084 40171). The Recovery Plan for the Mobile River Basin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) covers 26 river and stream segments (units) in the Mobile River Basin as CH for the recovery of 22 aquatic species. One of the 26 CH units, Unit 25, is the Conasauga River mainstem from its confluence with the Coosawattee River in Gordon County, Georgia; upstream through Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee; to Murray County Road 2; and Holly Creek from the Conasauga River to the confluence with Rock

3 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

(Goldmine) Creek (Unit 25). The majority of Unit 25 that lies in Georgia occurs on the CONF in the Alaculsy Valley portion of the Conasauga Ranger District. The other 25 designated CH units do not occur in the vicinity of the FLP. CH Unit 25 which was designated for seven mussles (see Table 1 below) and is the only CH unit that will be evaluated for this project. No other CH occurs within the analysis area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also designated CH units for the Georgia pigtoe (75 FR 67512 67550) and the Conasauga logperch (50 FR31597 31604). Critical habitat for these two species is located in the Conasauga River several miles down stream of the FLP boundary. Therefore these CH units are not evaluated. The only designated CH unit that occurs in the analysis area is Unit 25 with six Primary Consituant Elements (PCEs) essential for the conservation of the aquatic species covered in the recovery plan for the Mobile River Basin: 1. Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks; 2. A flow regime necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages of mussels and their fish hosts; 3. Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content; 4. Sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment; 5. Fish hosts with adequate habitat; and 6. Few or no competitive predaceous nonnative species present. PCEs that overlap with measures below are more likely to be affected by the FLP and will be quantatavely evaluated; PCEs that do not overlap with measures below are not likely to be affected by the FLP and will be qualitativly evaluated. Federal agencies, such as the Forest Service are to evaluate their actions with respect to any T&E species and its designated CH.

Table 1 Federally-Listed Aquatic Species and Critical Habitat Units Analyzed in Detail for the Foothills Landscape Project

Species Name Taxa Status Critical Habitat Unit

Unit 25: Oostanaula River/Coosawattee River/Conasauga River/Holly Fine-lined pocketbook* Freshwater mussel Threatened Creek, Floyd, Gordon, (Hamiota altilis) Whitfield, Murray Counties, Georgia; Bradley, Polk Counties, Tennessee

Alabama moccasinshell* (Medionidus acutissimus) Freshwater mussel Threatened Unit 25: see above

Coosa moccasinshell* Freshwater mussel Endangered Unit 25 (Medionidus parvulus)

4 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Species Name Taxa Status Critical Habitat Unit

Ovate clubshell Freshwater mussel Endangered Unit 25 (Pleurobema perovatum)

Southern clubshell* Freshwater mussel Endangered Unit 25 (Pleurobema decisum)

Triangular kidneyshell Freshwater mussel Endangered Unit 25 (Ptychobranchus greenii)

Southern pigtoe* Freshwater mussel Endangered Unit 25 (Pleurobema georgianum)

Georgia pigtoe* None designated on the Forest – Unit GP1: Conasauga River. Freshwater mussel Endangered (Pleurobema Occurs several miles downstream hanleyianum) of the FLP

Trispot darter* Fish Threatened None designated (Etheostoma trisella)

Blue shiner* Fish Threatened None designated (Cyprinella caerulea Etowah Darter* (Etheostoma etowahae) Fish Endangered None designated

None designated on the Forest – Conasauga logperch* Fish Endangered occurs several miles downstream (Percina jenkini) of the FLP

*High Priority species in the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) (GaDNR 2015)

Regional Forester Sensitive Species The recently updated RFSS list (updated February 2, 2018) was used as the starting list for evaluation (see Appendix C). The RFSS list is generated for each of the forests or aggregation of forests in the region. We used the CONF’s RFSS list, and of the twenty-eight aquatic species identified for the Forest, only 11 species are known from the project area and were analyzed in detail as these species may be affected by the project.

Table 2. Aquatic Regional Forester Sensitive Species Analyzed in Detail for the Foothills Landscape Project

Species Taxa Dwarf black-bellied salamander Amphibian (Desmognathus folkertsi)

5 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Species Taxa

Patch-nosed salamander* Amphibian (Urspelerpes brucei)

Holiday darter* Fish (Etheostoma brevirostrum)

Coldwater darter* Fish (Etheostoma ditrema)

Lined chub* Fish (Hybopsis lineapunctata)

Bridled darter* Fish (Percina Kusha)

Georgia beloneurian stonefly* Insect (Beloneuria georgiana)

Edmund’s snaketail* Insect (Ophiogomphus Edmundo)

Brook floater* Mussel (Alasmidonta varicose)

Alabama creekmussel Mussel (Pseudodontoideus connasaugaensis)

Alabama rainbow* Mussel (Villosa nebulosa)

*High Priority species in the SWAP (GaDNR 2015)

Management Indicator Species (MIS) There are no aquatic MIS identified in the LRMP (pg. 2-5). Therefore, the FLP will not affect any MIS.

Locally Rare Species (LR) The LRMP Goal 19 describes the need to “contribute to the conservation of State-identified LR species in cooperation with the GaDNR.” The State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) describes high priority species for GaDNR, some of which are also listed as T&E or RFSS which have a higher standard for analysis and protection. All SWAP high priority species are evaluated under the category with the highest category for analysis and protection, any high priority SWAP species not evaluated as a T&E or RFSS was evaluated as locally rare. Neither the LRMP nor any other law or regulation specifically identifies the need for an effect analysis for these species. For the purpose of this project, the LR species were qualitatively evaluated to determine whether the

6 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project project would need further protective measures to meet the LRMP goal and standard. Nine LR species occur in the project area (see Appendix C).

Other Species of Public Interest Brook, rainbow, and brown trout were identified as species of interest by several members of the public during the collaborative process and as a response to scoping.

Sources of information Generally, the species analyzed in this report are those (T&E and RFSS) species with a range that overlaps the project area and habitat that is also likely to exist in the project area. To determine which rare species are known to occur or may potentially occur within the project boundaries, the following resources were consulted: • the Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP) element occurrence records; • United States Forest Service (USFS) plant inventory records; and • Biologists from Federal, State, and other professional organizations.

Project Design Features The following analysis of the proposed action assumes the use of the Forest Plan standards to be incorporated as project design features (PDFs). Additional project-level PDFs may be used to reduce the effects to particular species that may extend beyond those described in the Forest Plan. All PDF descriptions are displayed in the EA in the proposed action section.

Analysis Indicators The potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action (and all alternatives) on aquatic resources are compared using the following indicator(s): • How does the proposed action affect T&E fish and mussels and their designated critical habitats? • How does the proposed action affect RFSS species and LR species? • How does the proposed action affect stream or lake habitats?

o Improve connectivity? o Improve streambank stability? o Increase large woody debris or other structure? o Improve or maintain water quality (decrease sedimentation, prevent chemical pollution)? • How does the proposed action affect riparian habitats?

o Maintain adequate canopy coverage (protect water temperatures)? o Maintain or improve understory vegetation? o Maybe change the above indicators?

7 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

• Trend in aquatic habitat quality. Aquatic habitat quality includes components such as temperature, sedimentation, and chemical contaminants or nutrients. • Trend in aquatic habitat connectivity. Connectivity refers to the flow, exchange and pathways that move organisms, energy and matter throughout the watershed system. • Change to designated CH. Critical Habitat is essential to the conservation of several mussel species. Critical Habitat will be evaluated to ensure consistency with the ESA.

Measures Measures are used to facilitate the comparison of alternatives and to assess the analysis indicators. The risk of affecting aquatic resources can be characterized qualitatively or quantitatively through the following measures: • Change in percent canopy cover within the riparian corridor. • Change in the amount of impervious surface in each 6th level watershed • Change in aquatic habitat connectivity. • Acres of potential ground disturbing activities in riparian corridors in the FLP.

Assumptions The following assumptions account for areas in the analysis when available information is unknown or incomplete. • TES and RFSS are considered on Forest Service lands if they occur on public lands or are within 1 mile downstream of the furthest Forest Service boundary. Those occurring farther than 1 mile downstream are considered off Forest Service lands. For those species which occur off the Forest, the ability of the Forest Service to influence the species is limited. Direct impacts to species off the forest will not be a result of Forest Service activities (LMRP-CONF 2004, p. 3-284). • Riparian corridor is a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of an intermittent or perennial stream

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area The spatial bounds of the FLP analysis area for the aquatic habitat and species analyzed is the riparian corridor of cold and cool-water streams and impoundments within the 157,623 acres of National Forest within the project boundary, plus 1 mile downstream of the project area boundary. The analysis area includes other land ownerships such as other public lands outside of the CONF (city, county and other federal government) and private lands. Riparian corridor is defined as a management prescription area applied to both sides of a perennial or intermittent stream or alongside of a pond, lake, wetland, seep or spring. It is a fixed width by stream type that may fall within or beyond the true riparian area (LMRP-CONF 2004). For designated CH, the spatial bounds are the portion of the CH that occurs in the project boundary and within 1 mile downstream of the furthest Forest Service boundary. This project boundary was selected for analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects because it includes all areas proposed for treatment and the area that could be indirectly affected by the proposed actions and is

8 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

representative of conditions on the Forest within cold and cool-water streams and impoundments. The temporal bounds used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is approximately 10 years following each treatment (proposed action). This period was used because it best reflects the expected timeframe for most anticipated direct and indirect effects to occur in association with this project and allows analysis results to contain much greater certainty and less speculation than using a different time period. Research suggests that sediment and hydrologic effects from timber harvesting can generally return to pre-harvesting levels in a period of about 5-10 years (Kochenderfer et al. 1997, Hornbeck et al. 1997, Swank et al. 2001). The duration of effects may be less for lighter vegetation treatments such as thinning or timber stand improvement treatments. Potential water quality and aquatic biota effects from the use of herbicides can also be fairly short, on the order of weeks to a few months, for the herbicide application methods and mitigations proposed in this project. The duration of effects may persist longer than 10 years for features that permanently alter the landscape (such as system roads, excavated skid roads, excavated fire lines, log landings and trails). Effects from activities that contribute to the development of new scour channels, destabilization of existing stream channels, or delivery of new sediment to streams may persist far longer (decades) than the 10-year temporal boundary. For example, stream conditions are still recovering from land management practices dating back a century or more. Effects from ameliorative activities (riparian planting, road decommissioning, aquatic passage improvements, and large wood additions) are expected to extend for decades.

Affected Environment The affected environment discussed in this report includes aquatic habitats such as streams, rivers, lakes, and riparian corridors in the Foothills Landscape analysis area. Most of the watersheds in in the FLP are listed as being of “moderate”, “high”, or “highest” global significance by the SWAP, indicating the value to wildlife and level of conservation that should be provided (GaDNR 2015). Of the approximate 1,162 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the project area, 1,058 miles (91%) are above 1,200 feet in elevation and considered cold-water streams, high gradient (2-5% slope) and very high gradient (>5%). In these streams, the diversity of fish species and number of individuals is low compared to warmer streams due to a smaller number of species adapted to cold-water temperatures, high flows, and specific water chemistry parameters (USDA Forest Service 2004). Cold water streams have water temperatures that seldom exceed 72oF in the summer. Salamanders are adapted to these conditions and are abundant in these habitats. Below 1,200 feet in elevation, the diversity of aquatic fauna increases due to increased nutrients, warmer water, lower gradients, slower currents, and increased stream widths and depths creating more habitat niches and providing habitat for rare mussels, fish, and other species. Stream habitat inventories in the Chattahoochee National Forest were completed in 2014-2017 by the Forest Service Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer (CATT), with the goals of assessing current stream conditions and hemlock condition and abundance in the riparian areas. Results indicated that pool habitat is lacking for many streams and the majority of streams had percentages >35% of streambed covered with fine sediments

9 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

(Krause et al. 2015, unpublished CATT report 2017), which is not desirable for species analyzed in this report. Land management practices prior to the current era, including forest clearing and road building, greatly accelerated rates of soil erosion and stream sedimentation (Riedel et al. 2003), leaving a legacy of sediment in many streams that still affects their structure and function (Krause et al. 2015). When deposited in streambeds, fine sediment can dramatically alter ecosystems and reduce fish and other aquatic fauna survival and growth in a number of ways (Clinton and Vose 2003). Sediment loads are highly variable across project area streams, with some streams heavily impacted by fine sediment. Stream channel sediment may originate from upslope sources, natural or man-made, such as improperly maintained roads or road/stream crossings, or from in-channel sources such as bank instability. Several streams in the Foothills landscape are identified by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and listed as a 303(d) or 305(b) stream segment, impaired or not meeting beneficial uses due at least in part to sediment (see Hydrology Resource Report). In a forested watershed in the southeastern United States, Van Lear et al. (1995) estimated that over 80% of all sources of sediment were associated with unpaved roads. Unpaved roads can function as impervious surfaces and sources of flow, and when these flows are continuous between roads and streams, or “hydrologically-connected”, they can become part of a stream network and runoff carrying sediment has a direct route to the stream (Furniss et al 2002). According to the Hydrology Report, research indicates that 10% and greater impervious watershed area typically adversely affects aquatic habitats. Although current estimates of impervious surface per watershed in the Foothills is well below this threshold (Hydrology Report), unpaved Forest Service and non-Forest Service roads in the Foothills landscape are likely sources of sediment to streams, primarily from segments located in the riparian corridors. Unpaved road conditions range from deeply rutted, fully native surfacing with little gravel embedded to full aggregate surfacing with proper drainage. Periodic road maintenance is sometimes inadequate to correct drainage problems. The effects of sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities are proportional to the distance sediment travels from its source (Clinton and Vose 2003). Therefore, actions occurring within the riparian corridor have a higher likelihood to affect aquatic habitats. Those outside the corridor, especially in a forested environment, are relatively less likely to affect sedimentation, especially in a forested landscape. Forested buffers can be very effective filters for sediment. There are approximately 28,678 acres of riparian habitat within the Foothills landscape. Riparian habitat on National Forest is almost completely forested, other than about 55 acres of permanent openings or where roads or trails cross the corridor, and the majority of the riparian habitat is late-successional stage forest. Compared to past land-use practices, present day ground-disturbing actions such as timber harvest and road and trail construction and maintenance practices result in much less erosion and sedimentation due to implementation and effectiveness of BMPs and Forest Plan standards. Research in the southeastern U.S. has shown that properly implemented BMPs are effective at preserving water quality through the control of non-point source sediment pollution (Phillips et al. 2000, Sun et al. 2004, and Stuart and Edwards 2006). Over the past 10 years, ground- disturbing activities in the Foothills landscape were completed and additional actions are planned or reasonably foreseeable (Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9). Table 7 in the Hydrology

10 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Report displays the acreage within the 6th level watersheds in the Foothills Landscape in which ground-disturbance is planned or has occurred. Of the watersheds which have had or will have ground disturbance, it is assumed that a fraction of this would affect the riparian corridor. However, ground disturbance would be minimized through the use of Forest Plan standards which restrict the type of actions which may or may not occur in the riparian corridor (Forest Plan 11-01 and 11-02); major actions are prohibited, and minor activities are highly restricted. The majority of the actions which may affect aquatic habitats include disturbance from roads, trails, dispersed campsites and user-created trails which may cause localized sediment loading. Maintenance of existing permanent openings rarely causes ground disturbance; mowing, replanting with a no-till grain drill, and periodic spraying with an aquatic-formulated herbicide are potential periodic activities. Further examination of Table 6 (see Appendix B below) indicates that there are very little past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions which have affected or could affect forest canopy coverage in riparian corridors. Forested riparian corridors are extremely important in conserving shade and woody debris inputs as well as water quality (Rosenberg et al. 2016). Wood of all sizes is an important component of streams in forested areas. Large woody debris (LWD) slows flow, traps sediments, is key to pool development, and supplies spawning substrate, and organic matter for macroinvertebrates (Webster and Jenkins 2005). CATT assessments revealed that many streams in the project area lacked large diameter wood (unpublished CATT report 2017), but that infested hemlocks were present in virtually all riparian areas and may be an important source of LWD. The non-native invasive hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) is affecting hemlock trees across its entire range. It was first discovered in north Georgia in 2002 in the Chattooga River gorge near the South Carolina border. Early forecasts of that time predicted 90% tree mortality within the first 5 to 10 years of its discovery. Today, HWA has spread across the entire Chattahoochee National Forest where it has caused severe decline in the number and/or mortality of hemlock trees. The Forest is working cooperatively with University of North Georgia, Southern Research Station, Georgia Forestry Commission, and other specialists to utilize a variety of silvicultural treatments within the hemlock conservation areas to increase the survivability of the species through this project (see the Vegetation Report for more information about HWA). Roads that cross streams may potentially affect aquatic species movements. Some crossings may act as seasonal barriers to fish movement, while others may preclude all movement, similar to the effects of dams (Warren and Pardew 1998). There are approximately 225 stream crossings in the project area (Table 6 in the Hydrology Report). Many of these stream crossings have been evaluated for barriers to aquatic organism passage (AOP) by the CATT team (unpublished reports 2009 and 2017). Severe or significant AOP barriers were documented in 13 locations in the Etowah drainage, 14 locations in the Chattooga River drainage, and 10 locations in the Mill Creek and Holly Creek watersheds within the Conasauga River drainage. Several of these have been replaced by bottomless arch culverts or bridges in the past 10 years, while others are currently planned for replacement (i.e. Rocky Flats crossing of Mill Creek in Murray County). The need for this type of work greatly exceeds Forest Service capacity; these projects are prioritized based on factors including the benefits to T&E and other high-priority species. Several small lakes (Lake Conasauga, Murrays, Peeples, and Tails Creek Lakes) are located in the Foothills landscape, all on the Conasauga Ranger District. These are managed for fishing, and are stocked with bass, bream, and catfish and periodically fertilized and limed. Artificial and

11 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

natural structure is added periodically to improve spawning potential. Peeples Lake’s dam and water intake needs heavy maintenance, and dispersed recreation use is causing sedimentation to the lake.

Rare Aquatic Fauna

Freshwater Mussels Eight T&E and three RFSS mussels (see Table 1 and Table 2 above) are potentially present in the FLP analysis area or within 1 mile downstream of the boundary. Eight of these mussels (see Table 1 and Table 2 above) are listed as high priority species in the SWAP (GaDNR 2015). All but one of these mussels occur within the Conasauga River and/or one of its major tributaries, Holly Creek, and these mussels will be discussed as a group. The brook floater (RFSS) and its Chattooga River habitat conditions will be covered at the end of this section. All of these mussels occupy cool water habitats. The Conasauga River, an upper Coosa River tributary, was historically one of the most diverse rivers within the Mobile basin for freshwater mollusks. It supported 37 species of mussels, 11 species of snails, and three species of clams (Evans 2001). Today, it still contains the highest number of high priority aquatic species in Georgia (followed by Holly Creek) (Georgia DNR 2015), but mussel distribution is fragmented and much of the diversity has been lost due to poor land-use practices, chemical pollution from agriculture and industry, eutrophication, and water withdrawals (Evans 2001). The headwaters of the Conasauga begin in the Cohutta Wilderness on the CONF, flowing into the Alaculsy Valley and converging with the Jacks River near the Tennessee state line. The Conasauga then flows westward for several miles through the Cherokee National Forest, then turns south to finally converge with the Coosawattee River near Calhoun, Georgia. Mussels are concentrated in the upper and middle Conasauga, and a large decline of both of species richness and habitat quality has been documented (Williams et al 1992). Holly Creek is a tributary flowing westward from the Cohutta Mountains near Eton, Georgia, meandering through agricultural and developed land and converging with the Conasauga River southwest of Chatsworth, Georgia. Known historically to harbor one of the richest mussel faunas in the river system, it is now seriously degraded for much of its length on private land. The headwaters of both the Conasauga River and Holly Creek are generally unsuitable for mussels due to their natural rocky substrate, steep gradients, and lower nutrient levels. Suitable habitat for the T&E and RFSS freshwater mussels can be described as sandy, gravelly, or cobbly substrate in low gradient, low to medium current in medium to large streams or rivers (cool-water habitat). Adult mussels live with most of their shells buried in the substrate. They often are found on the edge of stream pools in slow water with a small amount of silt on top of the sands and gravels. Freshwater mussels feed on micro-organisms and organic material found in the water column (Georgia Biodiversity Portal 2019). Suitable habitat is present on the Conasauga within the Foothills boundary for approximately 5 miles, including 4 miles on private land and a 1-mile section within the Alaculsy Valley, former agricultural land that is currently managed by the Forest Service as a combination of large fields and forest. The Cottonwood Patch campground and Iron Mountain Trail are in this area. Suitable habitat for rare mussels in Holly Creek begins 2-3 miles downstream of the National Forest boundary, outside the Foothills landscape.

12 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

This majority of the Conasauga River and a portion of Holly Creek are designated as CH for 11 federally-listed mussels. Two of the 11 T&E mussel species occur in this portion of the Conasauga River within the Foothills boundary (fine-lined pocketbook, triangular kidneyshell), as well as several of the RFSS species. A portion of this CH is within the Foothills boundary (Alaculsy Valley). Four others (Alabama moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, and southern pigtoe) occur further downstream in the Conasauga but still are addressed in this document. The Coosa moccasinshell is only known to occur in Holly Creek. In addition, a more recently federally-listed species, Georgia pigtoe, is located in a very limited section of the middle and upper Conasauga River and is very rare within that reach. Its CH is more limited (from US Highway 76 near Dalton to Minnewauga Creek in Polk County, Tennessee). The upstream extent of the CH is located approximately 6-7 miles downstream of the Foothills boundary. Threats to the T&E and RFSS mussels within or just downstream of the Foothills boundary in the Conasauga River are fairly limited due to their very limited spatial distribution (personal communication, Jason Wisnewski, Georgia DNR). Existing activities within the riparian corridor in this area are limited to equestrians crossing the river near the Cottonwood Patch campground, treatment of non-native invasive species vegetation with aquatic-formulated herbicides (not within 25 feet of the river), road maintenance, and the periodic addition of artificial spawning structures (logs anchored to the stream bed) to benefit the federally-listed blue shiner. Activities which could negatively affect water quality and other above-listed PCEs in the riparian corridor of the Alaculsy Valley should be avoided. Threats to T&E and RFSS mussels in Holly Creek are also limited due to their distribution several miles downstream of National Forest. Maintaining good water quality (low turbidity and sediment inputs) and a forested landscape in the headwaters is very important. The CH segment in Holly Creek is approximately 7 miles downstream of the Foothills boundary and at least one RFSS species (Alabama rainbow) occurs within 0.5 mile of the boundary. The brook floater is rare in Georgia, at the southern extent of its range which extends from Canada to the Savannah River drainage. It is known from three locations in the Chattooga River in Rabun County, Georgia, where it occurs in gravel and boulder habitat (Georgia DNR data). Robust location populations within the Chattooga River indicate that current conditions are positive for this species. Threats to the brook floater include increased sedimentation and turbidity, and increased access to the occupied section of the river is not recommended (personal communication with Jason Wisnewski, Georgia DNR mussel biologist).

Fish Three T&E and four RFSS fish occur within the Foothills Landscape Project area, all seven fish are listed as high priority species for the SWAP (GaDNR 2015). The T&E fish are all limited in distribution within the project boundary or just downstream: the Conasauga logperch occurs in the Conasauga River only, the blue shiner occurs in segment of the Conasauga River, Holly Creek, and Rock Creek (the southernmost Holly Creek tributary), and the Etowah darter occurs in the upper Etowah River. These fish all require small to medium size streams and rivers with flowing runs and pools of cool water and gravel, cobble, or boulder substrate. Only the Conasauga logperch has designated CH, which is 6-7 miles downstream of the project boundary; the upstream extent ends at the Minnewauga Creek confluence in Polk County, TN (same

13 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

segment as Georgia Pigtoe mussel’s CH). Therefore, there is no critical habitat for these fish species within the analysis area. Threats to all three T&E fish species (blue shiner, Etowah darter, and Conasauga logperch) within the project boundary are limited due to their limited distribution (personal communication with Brett Albanese, Georgia DNR). However, maintenance of the forested buffer and efforts to reduce sedimentation are important in order to maintain healthy foraging and spawning habitats. Unpaved roads are a major source of sediment (see Hydrology Report for more information). Forest Service roads in the vicinity of the Conasauga River, Holly Creek, the Etowah River, and their tributaries are potentially contributing sediment to the streams. Blue shiners are crevice spawners and silt and sand could eliminate available crevice habitat; the logperch and Etowah darter both require sediment-free riffles and clean substrate for spawning (Georgia Biodiversity Portal). The Conasauga logperch is very sensitive to sedimentation (personal communication, J.R. Shute with Conservation Fisheries). The RFSS fish (holiday darter, lined chub, bridled darter, and coldwater darter) are more widespread in distribution within the FLP area. The holiday darter is endemic to the upper Coosa River system, occurs in multiple streams in the project area, and is soon likely to be split into up to five genetically distinct species (including upper Etowah types and Conasauga types). The holiday darter requires clean cobble size rock substrate for spawning, but threats like excess silt and sediment inputs can fill in the spaces between the cobble size rocks and make these occupied streams less desirable for this species (Georgia Biodiversity Portal). The bridled darter inhabits small, clear rivers with very good water quality in three known locations within the Foothills Landscape Project area (Holly Creek, Dill Creek, and the Conasauga River). Like the holiday darter, the bridled darter habitat can be threatened by siltation or sedimentation. This species is also likely to undergo further taxonomic refinement (personal communication with Brett Albanese, Georgia DNR). The lined chub has a widespread but spotty distribution within the upper Coosa River drainage, and remaining populations are limited in number and isolated by long distances (Georgia Biodiversity Portal). This species occurs in the North Prong Sumac Creek and in Holly Creek. They occur in small creeks over sandy substrate with gentle current. Threats are siltation and sedimentation and nutrient input from agricultural runoff. Coldwater darter is a unique species. Its primary habitat consists of limestone springs and spring runs in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province, but it is also found in the Conasauga River near the Tennessee-Georgia border (along the Foothills Project area boundary). It is unknown whether these individuals represent river-dwelling populations or strays from springs connected to the river (personal communication with Brett Albanese, Georgia DNR). Another population known from the Foothills landscape is located on private land in the North Prong Sumac watershed. Despite the occurrence of this species in nearby streams, the springs and spring runs are likely the preferred habitat for this species. There are only a few, small populations occurring in isolation which makes them vulnerable to extirpation in the event of losing spring habitats through habitat degradation (Georgia Biodiversity Portal).

Amphibians There are no T&E amphibian species but there are two RFSS amphibians (dwarf black-bellied salamander and patch-nosed salamander) are known to occur in the Foothills Landscape Project

14 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

area. The patch-nosed salamander is listed as a high priority species in the SWAP (GaDNR 2015). An additional species (green salamander) is discussed in the Terrestrial Wildlife Report, due to its association with more terrestrial habitats such as cliffs and rock outcrops. Dwarf black-bellied salamander is a recently described species and is closely related to several others. Its geographic distribution is small and not completely known, but this species occurs in several drainage basins in the Blue Ridge physiographic province in Georgia (Jensen et al. 2008, Camp et al, unpublished). There are several known sites in the project area, including in the upper Etowah and Mountaintown Creek drainages (personal communication with John Jenson and Brett Albanese, Georgia DNR). The dwarf black-bellied salamander is very abundant where it occurs. Preferred habitat is rocky high-gradient streams (Jensen et al. 2008). Little is known about the newly discovered patch-nosed salamander, including its habitat needs. Its entire known Georgia range is within the CONF, in a few small streams in Stephens and Habersham Counties near Lake Tugaloo. These locations are more than a mile downstream from the FLP boundary (Georgia Biodiversity Portal). Threats to both species include over collecting, drought, disease, and impacts to mountain streams where they occur.

Aquatic Insects No T&E aquatic insects and two RFSS aquatic insects occur in the FLP area. Both are listed as high priority species in the SWAP (GaDNR 2015). Little is known about the distribution and range of Georgia beloneurian stonefly, but its habitat is described as small spring seeps and splash zones in higher elevation streams, potentially in Murray, Rabun, and Union Counties (personal communication with Brett Albanese, Georgia DNR). Edmund’s snaketail dragonfly is known from the upper Conasauga River in Tennessee and Georgia and the upper Chattooga River in Rabun County. Larvae are found in medium-large size streams and rivers with low turbidity. Adults are found perched on streambanks or in trees within the riparian corridor (Beaton 2007). Threats to both insects include sedimentation and habitat alteration (bank destabilization, chemical runoff) (Georgia Biodiversity Portal).

Other Species of Concern

Brook Trout and Non-Native Trout The Southern Appalachians (and specifically, north Georgia) are the southern extent of the geographic range of native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and naturalized rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in eastern North America (DeRolph et al. 2014). Brook trout populations experienced shifts to upper headwater streams due to the degraded habitat caused by extensive logging and subsequent encroachment of introduced rainbow and brown trout from the 1930s to 1970s (DeRolph et al 2014), which resulted in extirpation and isolation of populations. Brook trout are native to the Tennessee and Savannah River drainages, and there is some uncertainty about the Coosa River drainage. Brook trout occur in 16 to 18 sixth-level watersheds in Georgia, but only five occur in the Foothills landscape due to the lower elevations. Threats to brook trout include sedimentation, culverts and other stream crossings which obstruct fish passage, stream acidification, and potentially a warmer climate (Habera and Moore 2005). Conservation and restoration of southern Appalachian brook trout has been emphasized in

15 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

research and management efforts, including in Georgia. Current activities include habitat improvement projects including the addition of LWD in a technique known as “chop and drop”. Brook, rainbow, and/or brown trout occur in 115 streams in the Foothills landscape. Many of these contain limited pool habitats, sediment deposits, and lack LWD (CATT report 2017). Instream habitat improvement structures with the purpose of creating pools and flushing sediments have been constructed in several streams; these structures need periodic maintenance to maintain functionality.

Environmental Consequences

Federally-Listed Species Effects to T&E and RFSS will be indicated by changes in the four measures; Change in percent canopy cover within the riparian corridor, Change in the amount of impervious surface in watersheds that are hydrologically connected to a stream, Change in the amount of aquatic habitat connectivity and acres of ground disturbing activities (see Table 3 and Table 5). Effects to CH will be qualitatively evaluated using the measures likely to affect the PCEs; Change in the amount of impervious surface in watersheds that are hydrologically connected to a stream and acres of ground disturbing activities.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Since Alternative 1 proposes no action, this alternative is expected to have a very limited change in percent canopy cover, the amount of impervious surface, the amount of aquatic connectivity or acres of ground disturbing activities. This alternative would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces or the amount of ground disturbing activities. However, in areas where hemlock provide canopy cover in riparian areas, this alternative would not attempt to conserve those trees from the loss of hemlock woolly adelgid and consequently, could result in canopy cover reduction. Under Alternative 1, small scale projects would occur, with limited timber harvest or prescribed fire and conditions in the project area are expected to continue towards recovery from past land use.

Critical Habitat (CH) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) The PCEs of the CH unit is qualitatively evaluated using professional judgement. Based on the fact that this CH unit has 7.28 miles of stream that are in the project area or within a mile downstream of Forest boundary (analysis area) and is isolated to the Conasauga River, there are very few activities that might affect these units and projects that would affect these units would not be implemented on the Forest. Unit 25: Oostanaula River/Coosawatte River/Conasauga River/Holly Creek, Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, Murray Counties Georgia; Bradley, Polk Counties Tennessee, has six PCEs (all listed below). 1. Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks. Excivating streambanks, removing all trees to the streambank, increasing impervious surface or channelizing a streambank would be examples of projects that could destablize a streambank. Instream activies that can destablize the streambank or remove trees would not be allowed without protective desigen features (LRMP-CONF 2004). There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 1 that would be expected to affect this PCE.

16 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

2. A flow regime necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages of mussels and their fish hosts. Activities that remove large quanities of forest canopy or that greatly increase the amount of impervious surface could alter the flow regime. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 1 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 3. Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content. Activities that remove large amounts of forest canopy can affect tempreature and in turn reduce oxygen content. Activities that might affect pH, hardness or turbidity might include agriculture or water treatment plants. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 1 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 4. Sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment. Activities that leave large quatiteis of bare soil or greatly increase impervious surface would introduce large amounts of fine sediment and impact sand, gravel and/or cobble. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 1 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 5. Fish hosts with adequate habitat. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 1 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 6. Few or no competitive predaceous nonnative species present (only for Unit 25). These two CH Units are in larger stream segements with water temperatures that are too high to support non-native trout species. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 1 that would be expected to affect this PCE. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, is not likely to affect the PCEs for the two CH units.

Cumulative Effects Ground disturbing activities from projects approved by other decisions that occur in the analysis area would continue. The effects estimated resulting from these other projects are described in the respective documentation and may include actions that change the quality of aquatic habitat within the boundaries of the activity areas, such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, or roads and trails. Past, present, and future activities on both federal and private lands include timber harvesting, prescribed burning, use of herbicides, grazing and agriculture, urban areas, roads and trail maintenance activities, utility corridors, developed and dispersed recreation, wildlife openings, and hemlock conservation areas. Table 3 shows the effect of cumulative affects aquatic measures.

17 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Table 3. Cumulative Effect on Aquatic Measures

Intensity of Measure Likely Context of Change Duration of Change Significance of Change Change

Change in Any effects would be short percent Low intensity Small scale timber Short term with term and small scale and canopy sales and limited -projects on vegetation recovering would have a very low level of cover within impact from existing very limited within 1-5 years effects on riparian canopy riparian prescribed fire scale cover corridor

Change in the amount of Any effects would be a very Long term: depending impervious small percentage of the There are no on the degree of surface in analysis area and not foreseeable projects compaction and the the expected to exceed 10% of Low intensity that would increase or methods used to watershed any watershed and would not decrease impervious decommission the area, (See appreciably increase the level surfaces effects could last longer Hydrology of effects on aquatic than 10 years. Resource resources. Report for details)

Acres of ground disturbing Any effects would be short Low intensity activities Increased compaction Short term with term and small scale and -projects on a potentially effecting vegetation recovering would not appreciably (See Soil limited scale soil productivity. within 1-5 years increase the level of effects Resource on aquatic resources. Report for details)

Alternative 1 would not improve aquatic habitat Change in connectivity to the desired the amount Change would result Long term beneficial level and the current aquatic of aquatic Low intensity from improved culvert effect habitat connectivity is likely to habitat persist until connectivity is connectivity improved for watersheds with barriers to connectivity.

Determination of Effects Alternative 1 will not significantly change the amount of aquatic habitat connectivity, acres of ground disturbance, the amount of impervious surface, or the amount of canopy cover, therefore; Federally-listed Mussels: Alternative 1 will have “No effect” on the finelined pocketbook, Alabama moccasinshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, Georgia pigtoe, ovate clubshell, or triangular kidneyshell.

18 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Federally-listed Fish: Alternative 1 will have “No effect” blue shiner, Etowah Darter, or Conasauga logperch. Critical Habitat: Alternative 1 will have “No effect” on Unit GP1; Conasauga River or Unit 25: Oostanaula River/Coosawatte River/Conasauga River/Holly Creek, Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, Murray Counties Georgia; Bradley, Polk Counties Tennessee. RFSS Mussels: Alternative 1 will not affect the viability of the Brook Floater, the Alabama creekmussel, or the Alabama rainbow. RFSS Fish: Alternative 1 will not affect the viability of the lined chub, bridled darter, holiday darter, or coldwater darter. RFSS Amphibian: Alternative 1 will not affect the viability of the dwarf black-bellied salamander or patch-nosed salamander. RFSS Insects: Alternative 1 will not affect the viability of the Georgia beloneurian stonefly or the Edmund’s snaketail Management Indicator Species: Alternative 1 will not affect MIS or its’ habitat since there are no aquatic MIS. The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests’ Land Resource and Management Plan does not list any aquatic species as a MIS. Locally Rare: Alternative 1 is consistent with Forest Plan goal 19.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct Effects Effects in Riparian Corridors While most activities would occur in upland habitats, a number of activities would occur in riparian corridors and could result in a change in acres of ground disturbance, change in percent canopy cover, change in amount of aquatic habitat connectivity and change in amount of impervious surface. Because riparian corridors are connected to aquatic habitat, changes in the riparian corridor have the potential to have a larger magnitude of effect on aquatic resources if not properly implemented. There are approximately 28,678 acres of riparian habitat (acres within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream) within the Foothills Landscape. Riparian corridors on the Forest are managed and protected through application of the Riparian Corridor Prescription (11) standards, which meet or exceed State BMPs. All silvicultural activities would comply with Georgia BMPs recommendation that an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained. A minimum of 100 feet from the defined stream channel (on each side) defines the riparian corridor on perennial and intermittent streams (Forest Plan page 3-175). Research in the southeastern U.S. has shown that properly implemented BMPs are effective at preserving water quality through the control of non-point source sediment pollution (Phillips et al. 2000, Sun et al. 2004, and Stuart and Edwards 2006).

19 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Table 4 Alternative 2 Activities Potentially Affecting Riparian Corridor (100 Feet of Perennial and Intermittent Streams)

Potential Riparian Corridor Projects Potential Total Acreage Projected Riparian Acreage*

Silvicultural activities: 8,100 2,250 • Canopy gap creation in mesic hardwoods: • Young forest creation in mesic 500 75 hardwoods:

• Pine plantation maintenance: 27,300 1,060 Hemlock conservation activities 600 300 (pesticide use) Permanent opening improvement 1,400 55 activities

Stream improvement projects (aquatic passage projects, stream structure ~10 maintenance, adding large woody debris to streams, streambank stabilization) ~10

Road and trail projects (decommissioning roads, ORV trails, ~860 other trails, dispersed sites; new trails, trail reroutes, improvements to parking) ~1000

Improvements to canebrakes, bogs, small-whorled pogonia sites (pesticide 88 use) 88 Total ~4700 acres *these acreage amounts are conservative estimates based on several assumptions, including: that commercial harvest activities would not be completed on steep slopes; that no new permanent openings would be created in riparian corridors; that 15% of mesic hardwood acreage would be in riparian corridors, and that 50% of new hemlock conservation areas would be in riparian corridors. The silvicultural activities planned in the riparian corridor would result in patches of open canopy. These treatments would have the potential to increase sunlight available to the stream or other waterbody through the reduction of overstory canopy and shrub layer. However, these treatments would only occur on approximately 3,385 acres within the riparian corridor of the FLP (see Table 4); that would be 11.8% of the total riparian corridor within the FLP. Over the temporal life of the project, estimated at 10 years, approximately 1.2% of riparian corridor would be affected each year as these activities would be conducted across the landscape. These treatments may have short-term negative effects to water quality regarding temperature and sedimentation, however, when these proposed actions are spread out over time and space, the effects to an individual stream is minimal. With the development and proper implementation of BMPs, negative effects of harvesting timber on water quality (sedimentation) can be minimal and short term. A small increase in water temperature may occur, however, maximum temperatures should remain below published maximum thresholds for common cold-water and cool-water species in this region. Furthermore, observed increases in water temperature within

20 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

the harvested area typically dissipates within a few hundred meters downstream (Clinton et al. 2010). The creation of canopy gaps in mid-late mesic deciduous hardwood stands could affect portions of stands that fall into the riparian corridor. Gaps in the canopy (up to 0.75 acre) would be created by retaining variable tree densities throughout the stand at relatively low intensities (less than 25% of the stand) and thinning the remainder of the stand to an average of 70-80 square feet of basal area per acre. A more diverse and complex vertical structure would result as young growth develops in the patchy canopy. This alternative proposes to treat 8,100 acres of mesic deciduous stands in this manner, and approximately 1,172 acres of this could occur in riparian corridors. Young forest creation in mesic stands is proposed on 500 acres in the Foothills. Approximately 15% of this treatment could affect riparian corridors (75 acres) across the project area, not exceeding 1-2% of each 6th level sub watershed in young forest habitat (Forest Plan objective 4.1). All silvicultural activities including canopy gap creation and young forest creation would result in a change in ground disturbance and change in canopy cover. Ground disturbance could result in an increase of sediment and the change in canopy cover could result in a slight temperature increase. These changes would be very short term and small scale for any given watershed. To keep the intensity of these changes low, all activities would comply with PDFs, with the Forest Plan, and meet Georgia Forestry BMP’s requirement that an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained. Hemlock conservation actions, approximately 50% (300 acres) of new hemlock conservation areas would occur in riparian corridors and may use a variety of techniques to save hemlock trees. A free thinning approach to manage ecozones would reduce the stand density through the cutting and removal of the most vulnerable individuals along with a diverse array of both native and off-site species. The treatment can be used alone or in combination with other eradication tools (both chemical and mechanical), to reduce potential infestation targets, enhance vigor, and minimize mortality. Light levels of 30 to 50% full sunlight appear optimum in the reduction of HWA populations, allowing more light to penetrate the canopy to be used for photosynthesis, and making hemlocks more tolerant of HWA. Young forest creation would also open stand canopies and reduce HWA. By removing competition in the hemlock stands it will give the remaining trees a chance to expand their crowns increase the vigor of remaining hemlock therefore, allowing them to produce the needed sap to pitch HWA (see Vegetation Resource Report). HCAs make up about 1% of the riparian corridor within the FLP. Using PDFs for stream/water protection (see EA, project design features) there is a low risk to aquatic species and habitat from soil injections of imidacloprid and dinotefuran (see Appendix B of the Vegetation Resource Report). These treatments could result in a change in ground disturbance and change in canopy cover. Ground disturbance could result in an increase of sediment and the change in canopy cover could result in a temperature increase within the local area of activity. These changes would be very short in duration and small in scale for any given watershed. To keep the intensity of these changes low, all activities would comply with PDFs, with the Forest Plan, and meet Georgia Forestry BMP’s requirement that an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained.

21 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Permanent opening improvements in the riparian corridor would be limited to maintenance and restoration activities of wildlife openings which includes mowing, disking, prescribed burning, herbicide, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime. Although there are approximately 275 acres of existing wildlife openings within the FLP, only 55 acres (less than 0.2% of the riparian corridor) fall within the riparian corridor. New permanent openings are prohibited in the riparian corridor (FW-11-001). Permanent opening maintenance may require the use of equipment, as well as, disturbance of the riparian vegetation close to the stream. However, soil exposed through disking has a vegetative buffer left between it and the stream. This vegetative buffer is left to maintain shade over the stream and to catch soil movement from the ground disturbance. Furthermore, many openings are planted with the no-till-drill which minimizes the amount of soil exposed close to the stream. Openings are treated with herbicide as needed to remove non-native invasive plant species that may compete with desired vegetation within the openings. Herbicides are applied based on the product label and guidelines and standards described in the EA for the district which it will be applied. Furthermore, only aquatic-labeled herbicides will be applied within the riparian corridor (see Appendix B of the Vegetation Resource Report). Openings could be fertilized and/or limed to help prepare the soil for better vegetative growth. Permanent opening maintenance would result in a change in ground disturbance and change in canopy cover. Ground disturbance could result in an increase of sediment and the change in canopy cover could result in a slight temperature increase. These changes would be very short term and small scale for any given watershed. To keep the intensity of these changes low, all activities would comply with PDFs, with the Forest Plan, and meet Georgia Forestry BMP’s requirement that an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained. Stream improvement activities including AOP projects, stream structure maintenance, adding LWD to streams and stabilizing streambanks may remove individual trees in close proximity to the stream, and would contribute a small amount of sediment and possibly an opening in the tree canopy. Aquatic Organism Passage projects would consist of removing and/or replacing existing barriers to aquatic species passage. These actions could include replacement of existing culverts or other barriers within the riparian corridor. Individual trees may be removed, with short-term increases in sedimentation, turbidity and temperature. However, long-term beneficial effects would outweigh short-term effects by eliminating or reducing the number of barriers to aquatic organisms within the project area. Most AOP projects would occur in cold-water streams which are several miles from federally-listed species, however, if AOP was improved in a cool-water stream, that would be a very high priority project due to the benefit to those species. Traditional stream structures include the maintenance of structures already placed in streams and the addition of new structures to provide aquatic species habitat and stabilize streambanks. Trees selected for structures are typically not on the streambank. Dead or dying eastern hemlocks are the preferred species. A reduction in tree canopy may occur as individual trees are removed, holes in the tree canopy created from trees selected for use are very small in size. Further, the amount of sunlight that may reach the stream would be minimal based on the residual tree canopy in the riparian corridor throughout the project area. However, stream habitat improvement through the addition of stream structures and streambank stabilization may lead to

22 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

localized short-term effects through increased sedimentation and turbidity due to the removal of soil along the streambank to help permanently anchor the structure into place. Long-term beneficial effects are fish species have additional escape cover, structures help provide shade within the stream, they create deep pools and runs where lacking, provide habitat for young of the year and recruitment of fish species, and decrease sedimentation into the stream by stabilizing streambanks. Adding LWD would generally occur in cold-water streams to benefit trout. This activity would include felling or placing selected trees directly into the streams. A short-term reduction in tree canopy may occur, however, holes in the tree canopy would be small. The amount of sunlight that may reach the stream would be minimal based on the residual tree canopy in the riparian corridor throughout the FLP area. Adding LWD could potentially affect riparian corridors by removing selected trees, but to such a small degree as to be insignificant to riparian vegetation structure and function. Stream improvement activities would result in a change in the amount of aquatic connectivity, change in ground disturbance and change in canopy cover. Ground disturbance could result in an increase of sediment and the change in canopy cover could result in a slight temperature increase. These changes would be very short term and small scale for any given watershed. To keep the intensity of these changes low, all activities would comply with PDFs, with the Forest Plan, and meet Georgia Forestry BMP’s requirement that an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained. Also, a change in the amount of aquatic habitat connectivity as it would open miles of cold-water stream habitat for the foreseeable future. Improvements to canebrakes, bogs, or small-whorled pogonia sites could involve tree removal, girdling, injection or cut-surface treatment with aquatic-labeled herbicides. These projects would affect the riparian corridor by opening the canopies or reducing competing vegetation, resulting in more open conditions. There is an increased potential for sunlight that can reach the water surface due to the removal of overstory trees that may reduce the canopy cover within the riparian corridor. However, the proposed actions would occur on only approximately 88 acres within the riparian corridor; this is approximately 0.3% of the total riparian area. Furthermore, these actions would not occur all in the same spatial and temporal boundaries within a watershed and would be spread out over time and space across the FLP area. In addition, LRMP standards and BMPs would be met to further decrease the potential for effects on aquatic resources and habitat. There is a low risk to aquatic species from cut-surface applications of aquatic labeled triclopyr (see Appendix B of the Vegetation Report). Hydrologic restoration using mechanical equipment would be used for bog restoration with the riparian corridor. The only soil disturbance activity that would occur during restoration of Foothills bogs is equipment use associated with restoring the hydrologic regime. Total acres of FLP bog are 103 acres and approximately one third of this area requires hydrologic restoration. Hydrologic restoration would result in a short-term disturbance of soil and plants. The effort should connect the stream hydrology with the floodplain, increasing the acreage of functioning bog habitat and significantly increase the amount of available bog habitat. Because the abundance of bog habitat is very limited on the landscape, increasing the available habitat by a few acres is very beneficial for those species that utilize this habitat.

23 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Other activities could occur in riparian corridors but are unlikely to alter their structure and function, such as prescribed burning. Very few acres would be affected in riparian habitats, because planned ignitions in proposed burning units would occur primarily on upper slopes and ridgetops, and fire would be allowed to back down slopes into more mesic sites. Low intensity prescribed fire burns poorly in moist, sheltered coves and drains; a mosaic of burned and unburned areas would result. Low intensity prescribed burning and associated fireline construction has little effect on riparian function or structure, water quality, or aquatic habitats (Elliot and Vose 2005). In summary, riparian corridors on National Forest in the Foothills Landscape are almost completely forested with mid-to late-successional forest. Alternative 2 includes some activities which could affect vegetation within the riparian corridor (Table 4) on an estimated 4,700 acres or 16% of the total riparian acreage. Over the temporal life of the project, estimated at 10 years, approximately 1.6% of riparian corridor would be affected each year as these activities would be conducted across the landscape. Also, these treatments are assumed to be evenly distributed across the FLP and would have the potential to impact both cool-water (.09% of the FLP) and cold-water (91% of the FLP) habitats, all of the fish and mussels evaluated in this report are cool-water species. Activities in habitats connected to cold-water habitats would buffer impacts to cool-water species. The area estimated for each potential project activities have been estimated through the use of GIS shapefiles of potential treatments, overlaid with shapefiles of riparian corridors, or through conservative estimates with stated assumptions. These estimates do not consider site-specific situations which may greatly reduce the actual affected acreage or expansion of riparian corridors due to slopes. Other activities, such as prescribed burning, could occur in riparian corridors but are unlikely to alter their structure and function. Very few acres would be affected in riparian habitats, because planned ignitions in proposed burning units would occur primarily on upper slopes and ridgetops, and fire would be allowed to back down slopes into more mesic sites. Low intensity prescribed fire burns poorly in moist, sheltered coves and drains; a mosaic of burned and unburned areas would result. Low intensity prescribed burning and associated fireline construction does not negatively affect riparian function or structure, water quality, or aquatic habitats (Elliot and Vose 2005).

Indirect Effects The proposed activities associated with the treatments being proposed that may impact the desired conditions for aquatic resources include ground based mechanical harvest, mastication, prescribed fire, scarifying, disking, de-compacting, re-contouring, mowing, mechanical planting, road, trail, and recreation site activities, parking lot expansion, hydrologic restoration, and change in motorized access (see Appendix A for a description of proposed actions with activities and the affected indicator (habitat element)). All treatments within the proposed action would not occur simultaneously but would be implemented over several years. Many of these activities could overlap in space, but most likely not in time. Therefore, the following analysis assumes a sequence of actions that occur in a shorter time period than would likely occur. Consequently, the level of effects shown below may be an overestimate of those effects to aquatic resources. Furthermore, most activities would occur in upland habitats that are not directly connected to riparian corridors and therefore would not pose a significant risk or effecting aquatic resources.

24 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Ground Based Harvest (Mechanical Equipment) The following treatments include ground based harvest with mechanical equipment and are included in this section: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Young Forest Creation, Woodland, Canopy Gaps, Hemlock Conservation, Chestnut Orchards, Canebrakes, Wildlife Opening Creation, Pine Plantation Maintenance, Insect/Disease Response, And Wildland Urban Interface (see Appendix A). The potential total number of acres proposed for mechanical harvest would be 80,681 acres or 51% of the FLP. This number was derived by summing up all the acres proposed in Alternative 2 that listed mechanical harvest as a potential activity (see Appendix A). See the FLP Vegetation Report appendix for details of the vegetation management activities. Ground-based in upland habitat is not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources, see the discussion on silvicultural activities in the section on Effects in Riparian Corridors above. Mastication The following treatments include mastication and are considered in this section: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Young Forest Creation, Woodland, Canopy Gaps, Hemlock Conservation, Chestnut Orchards, Canebrakes, Pine Plantation Maintenance, Insect/Disease Response, And Wildland Urban Interface (see Appendix A). Mastication is described as an option for small tree thinning, release, and mid-story work. Many of these treatments may include a combination of the use of hand tools or herbicides or mastication to obtain the desired condition. Mastication activities change the forest structure and may thin or remove the canopy and mid- story. Changes in the forest structure can change the amount of sunlight available to herbaceous vegetation and alter the availability of water and other resources. Potential number of acres proposed for mastication is 83,850 acres. This number was derived by summing up all the acres proposed in Alternative 2 that listed mastication as a potential activity (see Appendix A). Mastication includes use of mechanical equipment therefore the acres all are under a 35% slope. Mastication in upland habitat is not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources, see section on Effects in Riparian Corridors above. Prescribed Burning The following treatments include possible prescribed burning either in established burn blocks or in new burn blocks: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Woodland, Canopy Gaps, Bog Restoration, Canebrakes, Small Whorled Pogonia, Wildlife Opening Creation And Maintenance, Pine Plantation Maintenance, Insect/Disease Response, And Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Acreage proposed for prescribed fire would be 50,000 acres of ecological fire use (31.7% of the FLP area), plus 2,000 acres WUI (1.3% of FLP area) equaling a total of 52,000 acres or 33% of the FLP area. Prescribed burning changes the forest structure and may thin or remove the canopy and mid- story. Changes in the forest structure can change the amount of sunlight available to herbaceous vegetation and alter the availability of water and other resources. The intent of prescribed burning in many of the proposed treatments are to a) reduce fuel loading, and b) aid in site

25 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project preparation. The proposal would attempt to mimic a natural fire (historic role). Prescribed burning in upland habitat is not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources, see section on effect in Riparian Corridors above. Scarifying, Disking, De-Compacting, Re-Contouring The following treatments that may include these activities and that are considered in this section are: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Young Forest Creation, Hemlock Conservation, Chestnut Orchards, Canebrakes, Insect/Disease Response, Wildlife Opening Creation And Maintenance, Decommissioning User Created Trails/Undesired Camp Sites, Decommissioning Campgrounds, Decommissioning Low Use Trails, And Decommissioning Roads. Acreage proposed for scarifying, disking, de-compacting, or re-contouring totals 39,781 acres or 25% of the FLP area. De-compaction or sub-soiling would be done by utilizing a sub-soiler attachment in areas that are compacted. The effects to the surface cover and erosion are similar to that of scarification, but with slightly larger incisions where the equipment goes into the soil. Periodic disking would be common in wildlife openings with the overall size (average wildlife opening is 1 acre), and the occurrence of disking is usually once every 3-5 years. These areas are disked to promote desired vegetation growth. Re-contouring closed trails, campsites, landings, or roads would attempt to restore the site back to natural conditions. As the slope becomes revegetated over time, however, erosion levels eventually mimic natural slope conditions. Re-contouring could also be used to restore channelized streams in bog habitats. Scarifying, disking, de-compacting and re-contouring in upland habitats is not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources, see the discussion on permanent openings in the section on effect in Riparian Corridors above. Mowing, Mechanical Planting, Application of Fertilizer and Lime These activities are considered together since they would most likely all be done within the same treatment, and because the end goal for these activities is to enhance plant growth. The following treatments include mowing, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime and are considered in this section: Wildlife Opening Creation and Maintenance, and Chestnut Orchards. Acreage proposed for mowing, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime totals 1,131 acres or 0.7% of the FLP area. Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime in upland habitats are not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources; see section on effect in Riparian Corridors above. Access Restriction Access restrictions are proposed directly or indirectly in the following treatments: Road to Trail Conversion, Trail to Road Conversion, Decommissioning User Created Trail/Undesired Dispersed Camp Sites, Decommissioning Low Use Developed Campgrounds, Decommissioning Low-Use Trails, Decommissioning Roads, Decreasing Maintenance Level (ML), and Seasonal Closures of Roads. Acreage proposed for access restrictions equals 1,650 acres or 1.0% of the FLP area. Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Access restrictions would not directly affect the aquatic measures evaluated in this report.

26 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Outplanting Desired Vegetation There are several species of plants analyzed in this report that have populations that have declined due to a lack of habitat. In order to supplement the recovery of desired species seed from local wild plants would be collected and grown in botanical gardens. As restoration efforts create the appropriate forest conditions (e.g. forest structure, fire regime, and hydrology) plants would be outplanted. This effort would be done in coordination with partners including Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance, GaDNR, and USFWS. Outplanting would increase the abundance of plants, supplement diversity on the forest and increase the viability of species but would not affect the aquatic measures evaluated in this report.

Critical Habitat (CH) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) The PCEs of the CH unit is qualitatively evaluated using professional judgement. Based on the fact that the CH unit only has 7.28 miles of stream that are in the project area, there are very few activities that might affect these units and projects that would affect these units would not be implemented on the Forest. Unit GP1; Conasauga River has five PCEs and Unit 25: Oostanaula River/Coosawatte River/Conasauga River/Holly Creek, Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, Murray Counties Georgia; Bradley, Polk Counties Tennessee, has the same five PCEs plus a sixth PCE (all listed below). 1. Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks. Excavating streambanks, removing all trees to the streambank, increasing impervious surface or channelizing a streambank would be examples of projects that could destablize a streambank. Instream activies that can destablize the streambank or remove trees would not be allowed without protective desigen features (LRMP-CONF 2004). There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 2 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 2. A flow regime necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages of mussels and their fish hosts. Activities that remove large quanities of forest canopy or that greatly increase the amount of impervious surface could alter the flow regime. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 2 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 3. Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content. Activities that remove large amounts of forest canopy can affect tempreature and in turn reduce oxygen content. Activities that might affect pH, hardness or turbidity might include agriculture or water treatment plants. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 2 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 4. Sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment. Activities that leave large quatiteis of bare soil or greatly increase impervious surface would introduce large amounts of fine sediment and impact sand, gravel and/or cobble. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 2 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 5. Fish hosts with adequate habitat. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 2 that would be expected to affect this PCE. 6. Few or no competitive predaceous nonnative species present (only for Unit 25). These two CH Units are in larger stream segements with water temperatures that are too high to

27 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

support non-native trout species. There are no actions reasonably certain to occur in Alternative 2 that would be expected to affect this PCE. Alternative 2, the Proposed Action Alternative, is not likely to affect the PCEs for the two CH units.

Cumulative Effects Ground disturbing activities from current conditions, or in projects approved by other decisions, that occur in the project area would continue. The effects estimated for these other projects are described in the respective documentation and may include actions that change aquatic habitat within the boundaries of the activity areas, such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, or roads and trails. Past, present, and future activities on both federal and private lands include timber harvesting, prescribed burning, use of herbicides, grazing and agriculture, urban areas, roads and trail maintenance activities, utility corridors, developed and dispersed recreation, wildlife openings, and hemlock conservation areas. Table 5 shows cumulative effect on measures.

Table 5 Cumulative Effect on Aquatic Measures

Intensity of Significance of Measure Context of Change Duration of Change Likely Change Change

Any effects would be Low intensity Small scale timber short term and small Change in percent Short term with sales and limited scale and would have canopy cover within -projects on vegetation recovering impact from existing a low level of effects riparian corridor very limited within 1-5 years scale prescribed fire on riparian canopy cover.

Any effects would be a very small Change in the Long term: depending percentage of the amount of There are no on the degree of analysis area and not impervious surface foreseeable projects compaction and the expected to exceed in the watershed Low intensity that would increase methods used to 10% of any watershed (See Hydrology or decrease decommission the area, and would not Resource Report impervious surface effects could last longer increase the level of for details) than 10 years. effect on aquatic resources.

Any effects would be Acres of ground Increased short term and small Low intensity Short term with disturbing activities compaction scale and would result -projects on a vegetation recovering (See Soil Resource potentially effecting in a low level of limited scale within 1-5 years Report for details) soil productivity. effects on aquatic resources.

28 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Intensity of Significance of Measure Context of Change Duration of Change Likely Change Change

Any effect would be long term and small scale where barriers Change in the Change would are resolved but Long term beneficial amount of aquatic Low intensity result from would benefit aquatic effect habitat connectivity improved culvert resources for watersheds with improved aquatic connectivity.

Determination of Effects Alternative 2 may result in some small disturbances to habitats occupied by species evaluated in this report but will not significantly change the amount of aquatic habitat connectivity, acres of ground disturbance, the amount of impervious surface, or the amount of canopy cover, therefore; Federally-Listed Mussels: Alternative 2 “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Finelined pocketbook, Alabama moccasinshell, Coosa moccasinshell, Southern clubshell, Southern pigtoe, Georgia pigtoe, Ovate clubshell, Triangular kidneyshell. Federally-listed Fish: Alternative 2“May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Blue shiner, Etowah Darter, and the Conasauga logperch. Critical Habitat: Alternative 2 will have “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” on Unit GP1; Conasauga River or Unit 25: Oostanaula River/Coosawatte River/Conasauga River/Holly Creek, Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, Murray Counties Georgia; Bradley, Polk Counties Tennessee. RFSS Mussels: Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the Brook Floater, the Alabama creekmussel or the Alabama rainbow. RFSS Fish: Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the lined chub, bridled darter, holiday darter or the coldwater darter. RFSS Amphibian: Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the Dwarf black-bellied salamander or the patch- nosed salamander. RFSS Insects: Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the Georgia beloneurian stonefly or the Edmund’s snaketail Management Indicator Species: Alternative 2 will not affect MIS or its’ habitat since there are no aquatic MIS. The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests’ Land Resource and Management Plan does not list any aquatic species as a MIS. Locally Rare Species: Alternative 2 is consistent with Forest Plan goal 19 by determining whether project design or project design features would conserve these species. Although Alternative 2 does not specifically attribute project design features to locally rare species, many

29 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

of the other resource areas (e.g. soil and hydrology) indirectly conserve several LR aquatic species.

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan Compliance with the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests The Forest Plan is the guiding document for all Forest projects. It incorporates specific standards and guidelines that direct implementation of different projects on the Forest. The FLP and its proposed actions within Alternative 2 are consistent with the Forest Plan specific goals, objectives, management direction and standards related to management of the Forest aquatic resources. Compliance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native aquatic wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered species populations (36 CFR 219.19). The FLP and its proposed actions within Alternative 2 are designed to maintain the viability of all native and desirable non-native aquatic wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered species populations. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) There are no anticipated effects under either alternative that would jeopardize the continued existence of any T&E species or would cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce species viability of any RFSS. Alternative 1 does not include any actions for the benefit of T&E species. However, Alternative 2 is compliant with the ESA requirement that the Forest Service manage for the recovery of T&E species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 This project is also consistent and compliant with the Clean Water Act, 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987. Potential effects of the proposed actions of Alternative 2 do not constitute a significant degradation of quality or impair existing beneficial uses of the waters within and surrounding the FLP. Furthermore, Alternative 2 provides long-term beneficial effects to the streams and the aquatic resources while preventing point and nonpoint source pollution and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. In addition, PDFs have been established to minimize effects on the aquatic resources while following GA BMPs and Forest Plan standards. Compliance with the Forest Service Manual (FSM) Alternative 2 of the FLP follows GA BMPs and Forest Plan standards to prevent adverse modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species. PDFs have been developed to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat and species based on the proposed actions within Alternative 2. Furthermore, Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for RFSS.

30 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Literature Cited Armour, C.L., 1991. Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect fish (Vol. 27). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Arnold, C.L.; Gibbons, C.J.1996. Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. J. Am. Plan. Assoc., 62, 243–258. Beaton, G. 2007. Dragonflies and damselflies of Georgia and the Southeast. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 354 pp. Camp, C.D., J.B. Jensen, and M. Elliot. Unpublished. Salamanders of the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests. 115 pp. Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface types in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Forestry, Vol. 27, No.2. Clinton, B.D., J.M. Vose, and D.L. Fowler. 2010. Flat Branch Monitoring Project: Stream Water Temperature and Sediment Responses to Forest Cutting in the Riparian Zone. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SRS-51. Coffman, J. S., M. Minter, J. Zug, D. Nuckols, C. Roghair, and C. A. Dolloff. 2005. Fish passage status of road-stream crossings on selected National Forests in the Southern Region, 2005. Unpublished File Report. Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Center or Aquatic Technology Transfer. 93 pp. DeRolph, C.R., S.A.C. Nelson, T.J. Kwak, and E.F. Hain. 2015. Predicting fine-scale distributions of peripheral aquatic species in headwater streams. Ecology and Evolution 2015:5(1):152-163. Elliot, K.J., J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial effects of prescribed fire on quality of soil solution and stream water in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29, 5–15. Evans, R.R. 2001. Historical and contemporary distributions of aquatic mollusks in the Upper Conasauga River system of Georgia and Tennessee. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Cohutta, Georgia. 277 pp. Fair, B., Krause, C., and Beard, T. 2017. Summary of Stream Habitat Inventories on the Conasauga, Blue Ridge, and Chattooga River Districts of the Chattahoochee National Forest, Georgia 2017. USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer Report. Federal Register. 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status and of Critical Habitat for the Amber Darter and Conasauga Logperch; Final Rule. Volume 50. No. 150 (August 5, 1985), pp 31597-31604.

Federal Register. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin; Final Rule 69 Federal Register 126 (1 July 2004), pp 40084-40171.

Federal Register. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing with Designation of Critical Habitat for the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail; Final Rule Volume 75, Issue 27 (February 10, 2010) pp. 6613-6616. Furniss, M.J., S. Flanagan, and B. McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically-connected roads: an indicator of the influence of roads on chronic sedimentation, surface water hydrology, and exposure to toxic chemicals. Stream Notes. USDA Forest Service Stream Systems Technology Center, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

31 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Gascho-Landis, A.M., 2013. Stage specific responses of freshwater mussels to temperature and suspended solids. Dissertation, Auburn University, 162 p. Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry. 71 pp. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Wildlife Conservation Section Biotics Database. Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle.; Available at http://www.georgiawildlife.com (Accessed: June 2018-May 2019) Habera, J. and S. Moore. 2005. Managing Southern Appalachian brook trout: a position statement. Fisheries Vol. 30 No. 7. Hornbeck, J.W., S.W. Bailey, D.C. Buso, and J.B. Shanley. 1997. Streamwater chemistry and nutrient budgets for forested watersheds in New England: variability and management implications. Jenson, John B., Carlos D. Camp, Whit Gibbons, and Matt J. Elliot, editors. 2008. Amphibians and Reptiles of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 575 pp. Johnson, Matthew D. 2005. Habitat Quality: A Brief Review for Wildlife Biologists. Transactions of the Western section of the Wildlife Society 41:31–41. Kochenderfer, J.N., P.J. Edwards, and F. Wood. 1997. Hydrologic Impacts of Logging an Appalachian Watershed Using West Virginia's Best Management Practices, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 14, Issue 4. Pp 207–218. Krause, C., C. Roghair and C. Dolloff. 2015. Summary of stream habitat inventories on the Blue Ridge and Chattooga River Ranger District of the Chattahoochee National Forest, Georgia 2014. Unpublished File Report. Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 75 pp. LeBlanc, R.T., Brown, R.D. and Fitz-Gibbon, J.E., 1997. Modeling the effects of land use change on the water temperature in unregulated urban streams. Journal of Environmental Management, 49(4), pp.445-469. Newcombe C.P., 2003. Impact assessment model for clear water fishes exposed to excessively cloudy water. J. Am. Water Resource Assoc. 39:529–544 Phillips, M.J., Swift, L.W. Jr., and Blinn, C.R. 2000. Best Management Practices for Riparian Areas. In Verry, E.S., Hornbeck, J.W., and Dolloff, C.A. (eds.) Riparian Management of Forests of the Continental Eastern United States (pp. 273-286). New York: Lewis Publishers. Poole, G.C. and Berman, C.H., 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environmental management, 27(6), pp.787-802.

Riedel, M.S. and J.M. Vose. 2002. Forest road erosion, sediment transport and model validation in the southern Appalachians. In Proc. Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Rosenberg, K. V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 119 pp.

32 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Ryan, P.A., 1991. Environmental effects of sediment on New Zealand streams: a review. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 25, 207–221. Stuart G.W., & Edwards, P.J. (2006). Concepts about forests and water. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 23(1), 11-19. Sun, G., Riedel, M., Jackson, R., Kolka, R., Devendra, A. & Shepard, J. (2004). Influences of Management of Southern Forests on Water Quantity and Quality. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-75. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose, and K.J. Elliot. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143 (2001) 163-178. USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan Revision. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Management Bulletin R8-MB 113 B. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. R8-MB 113 A. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-977. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 55 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Recovery Plan for Georgia pigtoe mussel, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail. Atlanta, Georgia. 55 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. IPac; Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Van Lear, D.H., G.B. Taylor, and W.F. Hansen. 1995. Sedimentation in the Chattooga River Watershed. Tech. Pap. No. 19, Dep. Of For. Resour, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 61 p. Warren, M.L., and M.G. Pardew. 1998. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:637-644. Webster, C. R. and M.A. Jenkins. 2005. Coarse woody debris dynamics in the southern Appalachians as affected by topographic position and anthropogenic disturbance history. Forest Ecology and Management 217:319-330. Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 908 pp. Wood, P.J. and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21:203-217. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/whaf/about/5-component/dimensions.html.

33 Aquatics Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Appendix A – Table of Proposed Activities

AP1 Foothills Landscape Project - Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Overview

BIOLOGIC INTEGRITY WHAT HOW SIZE WHERE Measures for Aquatic Analysis Activities RX Fire Commercial (max. extent) (conditions or known locations) Forest Composition and Structure (Forest Plan Goals: 1,2,3,7, 8,10) Southern Yellow Pine Ground-based thinning, herbicides, Yes - Required Yes 12,400 acres Condition: mid to late successional shortleaf pine stands and/or stands Change in acres of ground Maintenance mastication; possible scarification, hand- immediately post- that contain pitch or table mountain pine, where midstory conditions disturbance planting treatment and are prohibiting natural regeneration intermittently thereafter; or preferred for site-preparation if expanding gap treatments used

Southern Yellow Pine Restoration Ground-based harvest, herbicides, mastication, Yes - Required site-prep Yes 5,800 acres** Condition: dry sites dominated by mid to late successional Virginia or Change in acres of ground scarification, hand-planting and after 10+ years white pine disturbance

Yes - Required initially Yes 1,700 acres** Condition: off-site pine plantations of pole-sized white pine or loblolly Change in acres of ground and for site-prep, where regeneration to suitable southern yellow pine is desired disturbance preferre d over-time

Oak and Oak-Pine Maintenance Mid-story reduction; herbicide, mastication Maybe - Preferred No 14,800 acres Condition: where mid to late successional oak exists on moderate to Change in acres of ground high productivity sites disturbance

Intermediate thinning and mid-story reduction; Yes - Required Yes 9,200 acres Condition: where mid to late successional oak exist on low to moderate Change in acres of ground ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication productivity sites disturbance

Expanding gap treatments (ground-based No Yes 14,600 acres Condition: where mid to late successional oak exist but where Rx fire Change in acres of ground harvest, herbicide, mastication, scarification, cannot be used regularly to achieve desired outcomes disturbance hand-planting)

Crown-touching release (slashed down w/ Maybe - Preferred over No 3,200 acres Condition: where immature oak exists in competition with itself or less- Change in acres of ground chainsaws, mastication, herbicide) time (long-term as desired species disturbance needed)

Shelterwood regeneration harvests (ground- Yes - Required pre and Yes 2,000 acres** Condition: low to moderate productivity sites where adequate Change in acres of ground based harvest, herbicide, mastication; potential post harvest, then population of oak seedlings (~greater than 4 feet height) exist in disturbance scarification/hand-planting ) potentially after 10 understory to naturally replace current overstory years

43,800 total acres of Oak/ Oak-Pine Maint Oak and Oak-Pine Restoration Ground-based harvest, herbicides, mastication, Yes - Required initially Yes 1,700 acres (same as Condition: off-site pole-sized pine plantations with low pine stocking Change in acres of ground scarification, hand-planting and for site-prep, above in SYP where adequate oak exists in either the understory or overstory disturbance preferre d over-time restoration)

Create Canopy Gaps Overstory and midstory reduction w/ variable No Yes 8,100 acres Condition: mid to late successional mesic deciduous stands of yellow Change in acres of ground tree density retention; gaps implemented at poplar dominated stands and more mesic oak forests, not suitable for disturbance and change in <25% of stands up to 3/4 acre size; mechanical grouse habitat percent canopy cover in riparian ground based harvest, mastication corridor (est. 2,250/ 8,100 = riparian acres)

Unique and Threatened & Endangered (Rare) Habitat (Forest Plan Goals: 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 39, 40, 43) Restore Woodland Habitat Ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication Yes - Required, on going Yes 7,400 acres Condition = where woodland species persist (long-lived canopy trees Change in acres of ground (Pine and Oak) serve as indicators for relic woodland) and combine w/ desired aspect, disturbance elevation and ability to use Rx fire

Restore Wetlands/ Bogs Raise stream profiles by filling or plugging Maybe Maybe 1 known bog footprint: Condition = where mountain bog habitat exists and natural processes no ditches and removing encroaching vegetation; 35 acres/ longer function, contributing to threatened/ endangered species decline Change in acres of ground herbicides, planting rare species Surrounding disturbance, change in percent restoration area: 103 canopy cover in riparian corridor, acres and change in amount of aquatic habitat connectivity

Restore Canebrakes Potential ground-based harvest, herbicide, Yes - Required in areas Maybe 50 acres Condition = where small scattered patches exist, i.e. north of Hwy 28 Change in acres of ground mastication, scarification, hand-planting, with variable intensity bridge disturbance and change in possibly transplant existing cane percent canopy cover in riparian corridor

Expand Hemlock Conservation Soil injections of insecticides No No 600 additional acres Known locations: where areas of hemlock associated forest types are Change in acres of ground Areas (HCA)* adjacent to existing HCAs and viable trees are present disturbance and change in percent canopy cover in riparian corridor

Ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication, No Maybe where feasible/ Adaptive Management/ Research: where additional areas with existing scarification, hand-planting, pesticides, applicable hemlock trees, may or may not be adjacent to existing HCA insectaries

Designate Chestnut Orchards Plant chestnuts; install deer fencing, tree tubes No Maybe Estimate 6 acres Adaptive Management/Research: where trees can be cultivated, grown, Change in acres of ground (rodent control), irrigation systems, fertilizer, inoculated and regularly evaluated for their performance when disturbance herbicides and pesticides, and ground challenged by chestnut blight and/or Phytophthora cinnamon Rands cloth/plastic mulch

Conserve Small Whorled Pagonia Possible thinning w/ chainsaws, mid-story Yes No Where feasible/ Adaptive Management/ Research: where SWP are extant or historic and Change in percent canopy cover control, herbicides, invasive species control applicable management could generate a positive response in riparian corridor

Aquatic Habitat Improvement for Biologic Integrity (Forest Plan Goal 26) Improve Stream Habitats Add large woody debris to stream channels No No Variable locations Condition: perennial and intermittent streams with multiple stream Change in acres of ground through cut and leave operations, maintain and along 1,162 miles of crossings & decreased connectivity where lack of wood is impairing disturbance, change in percent enhance existing in-stream structures; stabilize project area streams hydrologic and biologic processes; structure is lacking; severe erosion canopy cover in riparian corridor streambanks occurring , and for stream structure and stabilization work - change in amount of aquatic habitat connectivity

Improve Lake Habitats Install structures in lakes/ ponds to improve No No 120 acres Known locations: where lakes are lacking sufficient structure for vernal No fisheries (i.e. Christmas trees); create vernal pool creation; lower than desired fish abundance (Jones Creek, pools; fertilize and lime lakes at desired time Murrays, Peeples and Tails Lake)

Non-Native Invasive Species (Forest Plan Goals 1, 12, 39, 40) Non-native invasive species (NNIS) of plants and pests threaten the biologic integrity of ecosystems by degrading natural habitats and decreasing biodiversity. Addressing the existing risks and mitigating for potential spread of NNIS is a connected purpose of the project, but already authorized under existing NEPA decisions. The ongoing NNIS treatments (manual, mechanical, and herbicide) would continue to occur under both alternatives of the FLP.

RESILIENCY Protect Communities from Wildfire (Forest Plan Goals 57, 58) Reduce Hazardous Fuels in RX fire; Mechanical treatments including Yes Maybe 2,000 acres (overlap Condition: in areas of highest risk where NFS lands are downslope of Change in acres of ground Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) mastication, mechanical ground bases harvest, with areas above) private land and with high probability of successful mitigation, where disturbance and change in construction of fire lines vegetation condition most "departed" and fuels are highly flammable percent canopy cover in riparian and/or non-fire tolerant species corridor

Expand Ecological Role of Fire (Forest Plan Goals 8, 61) Prescribe (Rx) Burning Establish new and/or re-align existing Rx burn Yes Yes and No 50,000 acres (overlap Condition: where Rx burning is required or preferred to meet Change in acres of ground blocks to achieve controlled burn and w/ areas above) silvicultural objectives. (i.e., advanced regen recruitment) and can be disturbance and change in silvicultural objectives accomplished safely percent canopy cover in riparian corridor

Reduce Risks to Forest Health (Forest Plan Goals 12, 39, 40, 41, 43) Pine Plantation Treatments 13,800 acres of thinning <80 BA using ground- Yes - Required as 13,800 acres - 17,300 total Condition: young, overstocked, even-aged pine stands susceptible to For 13,800 of commercial based harvest and RX fire; 3,500 acres of needed YES forest pest (i.e. ips, bark beetle, gypsy moth) outbreaks thinning: change in acres of thinning to <80 BA of smaller trees using 3,500 acres - ground disturbance and change ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication, NO in percent canopy cover in handtools, and Rx fire riparian corridor (est. 1,060/ 13,800 = riparian acres)/ for 3,500 acres non-commercial: change in ground disturbance only

Insect & Disease Outbreak Site and pest-specific (i.e. bark beetle = cut and Maybe - for site prep Maybe - Treatments will occur Condition: when and where infestations are significant, rapidly forming Change in acres of ground Response leave operations or salvage/ reforestation if following salvage salvage when needed and spreading (Est. 24,725 acres currently at risk for ips or bark beetle distrubance and change in access allows); herbicides, Rx fire, planting if infestation and 20,185 acres at risk to Gypsy moth). percent canopy cover in riparian appropriate; rapid response required for corridor (variable acres) effectiveness

Maintain Resilience to Climate Change (Forest Plan Amendment #5) Addressing climate change is incorporated into the purpose of this project as an overarching risk to the forests of Georgia. Forestlands across the region are experiencing increased threats from fire, insect and plant invasions, disease, extreme weather, and drought. The need to increase the forests' resiliency to these forthcoming threats is woven through the many integrated efforts aimed at improving overall forest health across the foothills landscape.

CONNECTIVITY Forest Successionall Diversity (Forest Plan Goal 1,2,3,4, 10, 20) Create Young Forest (ESH) Ground-based harvest, herbicides, mastication, Maybe - as needed Yes 10,500 total acres Conditions: 500 acres in mesic hardwoods suitable for grouse habitat; For 500 acres of mesic: change in scarification, Rx fire (site-prep), hand-planting 500 acres of daylighting roads, and where restoration needs overlap acres of ground disturbance and from above treatments: 5,800 acres in SYP, 1,700 acres in pine percent canopy cover in riparian plantations, 2,000 acres in oak/oak-pine corridor (est. 75/ 500 = riparian acres) For 500 acres of daylighting (and all other): change in acres of ground disturbance Designate Old-Growth Allocate small blocks of old-growth, arranged in Maybe - if possible No 5,050 acres Known locations: 3,578 acres in 14 applicable watersheds not meeting No mosaic connected by other habitat types the 5% minimum; 720 acres additional in watersheds already meeting standard; see old-growth stands proposed in Appendix D in EA

Maintain, Expand or Construct Mowing, disking, Rx fire, planting, herbicides in Maybe - as needed Maybe 1,400 acres (275 acres Condition: where opportunities exist to maintain, expand or create new Change in acres of ground Permanent Wildlife Openings existing open areas to maintain as wildlife existing) openings. Approx. 1-3 acres/ ea. primarily connected to harvest distrubance and change in openings (food plots, native grasses, shrubs, or activities percent canopy cover in riparian pollinator habitat) corridor (55 existing riparian acres)

Aquatic Habitat Improvement for Connectivity (Forest Plan Goal 26) Replace Barriers to Aquatic Remove structures (mainly culverts), install new No No Where necessary and Condition: where existing culverts are limiting aquatic organism passage Change in acres of ground Organism Passage (bottomless culverts, bridges, or low-water feasible; ≈ 225 stream and/ or in need of repair. There are an estimated minimum of 225 disturbance, change in percent fords), reconstruct road if necessary crossings stream crossings on FS lands in FLP canopy cover in riparian corridor (variable acres), and change in amount of aquatic habitat connectivity

Enhance Recreation Opportunities (Human Connectivity) (Forest Plan Goals 31, 32, 47) Trail Construction and Re-routes Manual and/or mechanical veg removal and No No 50 miles (12 acres) of Known locations: Hiking, horse, bike, and OHV use trails (i.e. sections of Change in acres of ground tread construction, installation of drainage new construction; 111 Willis Knob, Bear Creek, Jake and Bull systems, Pinhoti, Rocky Flats, disturbance, change in percent structures (i.e. culverts, waterbars, bridges, miles (27 acres) of re- Tatum Lead, Murrays Lake, Peeples Lake, Sumac Creek, Oakey of canopy cover in riparian etc.), signs/ markers, and structure construction routes Mountain, Tibbs and Milma trails); and Chattooga W&SR Corridor corridor (crossings only), and (turnpikes, causeways, retaining walls, etc.) change in amount of impervious surface

Convert Roads to Trails Narrow road surface mechanically (excavate No No ≈ 6 miles Known locations: areas of Bear Creek, Pinhoti trails Change in acres of ground road embankment/ landing fill, stabilize to trail disturbance, change in percent standard) canopy cover in riparian corridor, change in amount of impervious surface

Improve Parking Areas Comply w/ FHA specs; possible veg removal, No No 3 acres Known locations: Holly Creek Day Use Area and Pinhoti, Bear Creek, Jake Change in acres of ground grading, barrier installation and Bull, Willis Knob, Dicks Creek, Stonewall/White Twister Trailheads distrubance, change in percent of canopy cover in riparian corrior (est. 1 acre), and change in amount of impervious surface

Improve Trail System and Enhance Developed Rec Sites Install Accessible Fishing Piers Clear area for expansion and grade using No No ≈ 1 acre Known location: Holly Creek Day Use Area Change in acres of ground mechanical equipment disturbance, change in percent canopy cover in riparian corridor, change in amount of impervious surface Convert Roads and Motorized Administratively change/ update MVUM; install No No ≈ 57 miles total: 54.3 Known locations: see Table 13 in EA Change in acres of ground trails to ML 1 or ML 2 - Admin Use barriers such as berms, rocks, or gates to miles of ML2/ ML1 disturbance, change in percent Only restrict access road; 2.9 miles of canopy cover in riparian corridor, Tibbs ATV Trail change in amount of impervious surface

Implement Seasonal Closure on Administratively change to ML 2 - Seasonal No No ≈ 20 miles total Known locations: see Table 13 in EA No roads and motorized trails Restriction/ update MVUM; Install gates Motorized Access Changes

IMPROVE SOIL AND WATER QUALITY Reduction of Sediment Delivered to Streams (Forest Plan Goals 22, 24, 25, 34, 47, 48, 49) Improve Existing Roads System Curve widening, upgrade culverts, stream No No Where applicable Condition: Where system roads are in need of repair to address soil and Change in acres of ground (above and beyond normal crossings, upgrade or reconstruct drainage across ≈ 260+ miles of water quality concerns due to their proximity to streams and/or in disturbance, change in percent maintenance) features, spot reconstruction if needed, system road watersheds with 303 (d) or 305 (b) listed streams or streams with canopy cover in riparian corridor, upgrade surface material and configuration Threatened and Endangered species habitat change in amount of impervious using Georgia BMPs surface

Decommission Forest Roads and Close road/ trail to public; may include full No No ≈ 20 miles total: Known locations: See Table 14 in EA Change in acres of ground Motorized Trails obliteration of roadbed, removal of stream Roads: 8.3 miles of disturbance, change in percent crossing fills/ culverts, crushing and burying ML2; 6.5 miles of ML1; canopy cover in riparian corridor, inlets, restoring stream channels, seeding, Trails: 5.3 miles total change in amount of impervious fertilizing, mulching, scarifying, waterbar (1.8 miles of OHV surface installation, scattering slash, etc. (Tatum); 3.5 miles of ATV (Milma))

Improve Sustainability of Decommission low use trails and user=created No No ≈ 15 miles (4 acres) of Known locations (some): low use trails in areas such as Murray's Lake Change in acres of ground Recreational Experience trails, decom dispersed camping areas and low-use trails; 300 Trail, Peeples Lake Trai; Boggs Creek (280 acres) and Oakey Mountain disturbance, change in percent developed (2) campgrounds; develop official acres of developed Campgrounds (20 acres) and various unwanted dispersed sites of canopy cover in riparian trail system and improve recreation adjacent to campgrounds; 653 throughout the project area; user-created trails or areas contributing to corridor (1 riparian acre - low use Chatooga River; improve sites where feasible acres of undesired resource damage in the Chatooga River Corridor trails; 240 riparian acres - dispersed campsites developed campgrounds, 653 across FLP (including riparian acres - undesired WSR Corridor); dispersed campsites), and unknown amount of change in amount of impervious user-created trails surface

= colors identify multiple *Treatments may occur in Inventoried Roadless ** Treatments create "young forest" aka early successional purpose and needs met Areas habitat (ESH) Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Appendix B - Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

Table 6 Known Past, Present, And Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on Watersheds within the Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Slick Shoals 2009, 2014 1816 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Rx Burn

Bridge Creek No - no Hazard Tree 2010 10 X equipment Bridge Creek Removal used 030601020106 Tom’s Swamp Bog No - no Maintenance 2008-2018 2 X X X equipment & used Restoration

Paul S. Rx No - 2009, 2011 25 X BurnP private

Stevens No - Grant-EG Rx 2011 23 X private BurnP Cane Creek 031300010603 Stevens No - Grant-SB Rx 2011 13 X private BurnP

William G. No - 2010 182 X Rx BurnP private

Cochrans Bob L. GFC No - Creek 2015 145 X Rx BurnP private 031501040203

AP7 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Gayle A. Rx No - 2014 5 X BurnP private

Sanitation 2011 37 X Yes Mechanical harvest Cut

No - no Plant Trees 2012 37 X equipment used Dicks Creek 031300010501 Plantation Survival 2013, 2015 37 X No Survey

Boggs Creek No - Private Rx 2013 95 X private BurnP

Boggs Creek 2013 85 X Yes Prescribed burning Rx Burn

Sumac GA Intermediate 2015 196 X Yes Mechanical harvest Harvests

Sumac GA Restoration 2015 127 X Yes Mechanical harvest Sumac Creek Harvests 31501010201 Sumac GA 2017 17 X Yes Herbicide NNIS

No - no Sumac GA 2021 117 X equipment Tree Planting used

AP8 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Sumac GA Site Prep 2020 113 X Yes Prescribed burning Burn

Sumac GA Site Prep 2020 113 X Yes Herbicide chemical

Sumac GA Tree Release 2022 113 X Yes Herbicide and Weed

Sumac GA Control of 2015 105 X Yes Herbicide understory

Sumac GA W/L Mech. 2015 64 X Yes Mechanical harvest Trt

Sumac GA W/L opening 2015 8 X Yes Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime rehab

Sumac GA W/L 2015 29 X Yes Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime Corridors

Oak 2014 134 X Yes Herbicide Midstory

SLP Crown 2016 86 X Yes Herbicide Release

Sumac III 2018 110 X Yes Mechanical harvest Restoration

AP9 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Sumac III Site Prep 2024 88 X X Yes Prescribed burning Burns

Sumac III Site Prep 2024 53 X Yes Herbicide Herbicide

Sumac III 2027, 2029 88 X Yes Herbicide Tree Release

Sumac III Intermediate 2018 372 X Yes Mechanical Harvest Harvest

Sumac III W/L Corridors 2018 22 X Yes Mechanical harvest (harvest and slashdown)

Sumac III 2018 13 X Yes Mechanical harvest Canopy Gaps

Sumac III 2018 99 X X Yes Herbicide NNIS

Sumac III 2024 354 X X Yes Prescribed burning Burns

No - no Sumac IIII 2025 53 X equipment Planting SLP used

Sumac III Control 2018, 2024 92 X X Yes Prescribed burning understory

AP10 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Hickey Gap 2009, 2014 387 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Burn Unit

Pleasant Gap 2013, 2016 1330 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Burn Unit

Hickory Ridge Burn 2013, 2016 1494 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Unit

Muddy Branch Burn 2014 553 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Unit

Alaculsy 2009 258 X Yes Prescribed burning Valley Burn Conasauga River East Cowpen 2010, 2013, 422 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Headwaters Burn Unit 2016 031501010101 David B. Rx No - 2009 7 X BurnP private

North Prong Bob Jones Sumac Creek 2009, 2015 1191 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Burn unit 31501010202

Jacks River Buffalo Burn 2010, 2013, 26 X X X Yes Prescribed burning 31501010102 Unit 2016

Mooneyham 2010, 2013, 100 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Burn Unit 2016 Perry Creek 031501010105 Boyd J. Rx No - 2009 24 X BurnP private

AP11 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Mooneyham 2010, 2013, 205 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Burn Unit 2016 Bogden Creek 031501010103 Turkey 2012, 2015, Beard Burn 435 X X X Yes Prescribed burning 2017 Unit

Rocky Flats 2015, 2018 1172 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Mill Burn Unit Creek/Rockflat Branch Songbird 031501010206 W/L Habitat 2015 64 X Yes Mechanical harvest Mech. Trt

Cohutta Overlook 2015 4 X X Yes Prescribed burning Underburn Holly Creek Headwaters Cohutta 31501010401 Overlook No - no Thinning for 2014 2.2 X equipment hazardous used fuels

Lower Mill Emily C. No - Creek GFC Rx 2015 27 X private 031501010207 BurnP

Pre commercial 2009 29 X Yes Mechanical Harvest Muskrat Creek Thin 031501010402 TSI-Thinning 2009 9 X Yes Mechanical Harvest

AP12 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Goldmine Ft. Mtn. State Part - No - Creek 2013 15 X Chipping of private 031501010403 FuelsP

Alan R. Rx Sugar Creek No - Burn- GFC 2008 30 X 31501020801 private GrantP

Jeff A. Rx No - 2014 5 X BurnP private

Gary T. Rx No - 2012 10 X BurnP private Headwaters Etowah River Montgomery 2014 171 X Yes Prescribed burning 031501040101 Creek Rx

Forest Health South IRTC 2019 145 X Yes Mechanical harvest (commercial thinning)

Commercial 2014 30 X Yes Mechanical harvest Thin

Pre- Commercial 2015 58 X Yes Mechanical harvest Jones Creek thin 031501040102 Bill S. Rx No - 2012 26 X BurnP private

Cynthia M. No - 2012 32 X Rx BurnP private

AP13 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Jones Creek 2012 815 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Rx Burn

Jones Creek 2013, 2018 446 X Yes Prescribed burning East Rx Burn

Turner Creek 2013 608 X Yes Prescribed burning Rx Burn

Montgomery 2014 162 X Yes Prescribed burning Creek Rx

Forest Health South IRTC 2019 55 X Yes Mechanical harvest (commercial thinning)

Wildlife 2014 220 X Yes Mechanical harvest Habitat Slash

Tallulah Gorge North Rim Co-Op Rx Burn – 2014 101 X X Yes Prescribed burning 1316 ac. Lower (USFS- Chattooga 101/State- River 1215) 030601020210 Deaden Timber Rx Burn (formerly 2009 882 X X Yes Prescribed burning Camp Creek/Wolf Creek)

AP14 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Cliff Creek TS (1st thin 2012 212 X Yes Mechanical harvest SYP)

Watergauge 2011 220 X Yes Mechanical harvest 1 TS

Watergauge 2014 1020 X X X Yes Prescribed burning Rx Burn

Watergauge No - no Bog Maint & 2010 7 X X equipment Restoration used

P&M Black No - 2013 10 X X Rx BurnP private

Panther Creek Walter L. Rx No - 2015 7 X 030601020401 BurnP private

Laura W. No - 2015 22 X GFCP private

Doug B. Rx No - 2010, 2012 80 X BurnP private

Commercial 2019 125 X Yes Mechanical harvest Upper Thin Warwoman Creek Non- 030601020205 commercial 2022 100 X Yes Mechanical harvest thin

No - no Sandy Ford 2017 2 X equipment ROW used

AP15 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Hale Ridge Rx Burn – 2012, 2016 60 X X Yes Prescribed burning Bog

West Fork Hale Ridge 2016 32 X X Yes Prescribed burning Chattooga East Rx Burn River 030601020203 Hale Ridge Bog No - no Maintenance 2008-2018 5 X X X equipment & used Restoration

Jim C. Rx No - 2014 56 X BurnP private

Pre- Nimblewill Commercial 2015 22 X Yes Mechanical harvest Creek Thin 031501040103 Forest Health South IRTC 2019 45 X Yes Mechanical harvest Commercial thin

Thomas D. No - 2012 35 X Rx BurnP private Upper Chestatee Keneth D. No - 2012 99 X River Rx BurnP private 031300010502 Dave I. Rx No - 2008, 2009 150 X BurnP private

Tamera B. Town Creek No - GFC Rx 2015 6 X 31300010503 private BurnP

AP16 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Margaret T. No - 2010 5 X Rx BurnP private

Gary M. Rx No - 2015 4 X BurnP private

Robert S. Rx No - 2009 9 X Chickamauga BurnP private Creek 031300010104 Jim W. Rx No - 2011 52 X BurnP private

Lower Soquee No - no Low Gap River 2009 10 X equipment ROW 31300010202 used

Upper Soquee Mark L. Rx River 2014 19 X No BurnP 031300010201

Michael C. No - 2010 7 X Rx BurnP private

Rabun Beach Campground Rx Burn(Rec 2008 76 X X Yes Prescribed burning Related Lower Tallulah Maintenance) River 030601020108 Tallulah Gorge North Rim Co-Op Rx Burn – No - 2014 640 X X 1316 ac. private (USFS- 101/State- 1215) P

AP17 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Aquatic 6th Level Year(s) Acres Reasonably Project Past Present Resource Activity Watershed Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

Ricky F. No - GFC Rx 2008 38 X private BurnP Lower Stekoa Pearce A. Rx No - Creek 2010 1 X BurnP private 030601020208 Deaden Timber Rx 2009 116 X X Yes Prescribed burning Burn

Bynum Sarahs Creek Branch 2010 56 X Yes Mechanical harvest 30601020206 Commercial Thin

Bynum Branch 2010, 2014 29 X Yes Mechanical harvest Middle Commercial Chattooga Thin River 030601020209 Boyce S. Rx No - 2013 47 X BurnP private

BRRD Wildlife - 80 X X X Yes Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime Openings- Maintenance

CRRD Wildlife Foothills - 60 X X X Yes Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime Openings - Maintenance

CRD Wildlife - 126 X X X Yes Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime Openings- Maintenance

AP18 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

PActivities on private lands within the Foothills Landscape Project boundary.

Table 7 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities That Could Affect the Aquatic Resource

Reasonably Activity Past Acres Present Acres Foreseeable Acres

Herbicide 342 325 240

Mechanical harvest 1,373 762 225

Mowing, mechanical planting, application of fertilizer and lime (wildlife opening restoration or 303 266 266 maintenance)

Prescribed burning 13,967 11,613 12,771

Table 8 Past, Present, And Reasonably Foreseeable Future Recreation Activities (Developed, Dispersed, and Non-Motorized Trails) In the Foothills Landscape Project Area and the Potential Effects on the Aquatic Resource

Activity by Year(s) Acres Reasonably Soil Resource Past Present Activity Ranger District Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

CRD- Conversion of Murray’s Lake 2005 0.01 X No Foothills Campground to Landscape Day Use site (All watersheds CRD- Within Decommission FLP) well at Lake Con. 2008 0.01 X No Overflow camping area

AP19 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Activity by Year(s) Acres Reasonably Soil Resource Past Present Activity Ranger District Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

CRD – Decommission Loop B, Lake Scarifying, de- Conasauga 2008 1.5 X X Yes compacting, re- Cmpgrd ( 4 sites, contouring chemical toilet, access road and access trail)

CRD – Scarifying, de- Decommission 2008 0.25 X Yes compacting, re- Arrowwood Shelter contouring

CRD- Decommission 2005 0.01 X No Peeples Lake

CRD – Cottonwood Patch 2013 0.05 X No highline hitching addition

CRD – Dennis Mill Pinhoti Trail New trail 2014 0.58 X Yes Section – new construction construction

CRD- Dennis Mill Parking lot Parking lot 2014 0.75 X Yes expansion construction

CRD- Decommission SST toilet; Install CXT in new 2014 0.1 X No location: Cottonwood patch campground

AP20 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Activity by Year(s) Acres Reasonably Soil Resource Past Present Activity Ranger District Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

CRD -Lake Conasauga cabin 2016 0.01 X No construction

CRD- Decommission 2018 0.01 X No well: cottonwood patch campground

CRD-Culvert Replacements on Lake Conasauga 2018 1 X No Campground Access Road

CRD- Songbird New trail 2019 0.24 X Yes Trail Reroute construction

BRRD-Jones Creek Campground 2005 34 X No Decom/Conversion to dispersed camping

BRRD-Waters Creek Campground 2005 87 X No Conversion to dispersed camping

New trail, BRRD-Jake Mtn 2008, 2009, scarifying, de- Trail Reroutes, X X Yes 2014, 2020 compacting, re- Decommissioning contouring

BRRD-Cochran Scarifying, de- Creek Falls Trail 0.47 X Yes compacting, re- Decommissioning contouring

AP21 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Activity by Year(s) Acres Reasonably Soil Resource Past Present Activity Ranger District Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

BRRD-Dicks Creek Campground 1990’s 184 X No Decom/Conversion to dispersed

BRRD-Boggs Creek campground 2013 280 X No converted to day use area

BRRD-Boggs Creek chemical toilet decommissioning 2018 1 X No – 5 chemical toilets, 1 storage building

Table 9 Past, Present, And Foreseeable Future Roads and Motorized Trail Activities in Watersheds within the Foothills Landscape Project Area and the Potential Effects to the Aquatic Resource

Soil Activity by Ranger Year(s) Acres Reasonably Past Present Resource Activity District Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

BRRD-Whissenhunt New trail, 2009, 2010, OHV Trail re-route, scarifying, de- 2013, 2016, X X Yes maintenance, compacting, Foothills 2018, 2020 Landscape decommissioning re-contour (All watersheds BRRD-Dicks Creek Within FLP) Dispersed area 2014 13.0 X No access FSR 34 maintenance

AP22 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Soil Activity by Ranger Year(s) Acres Reasonably Past Present Resource Activity District Implemented Affected Foreseeable Affected?

BRRD-Jake Mtn. Trail Access, road X X No maintenance

Scarifying, CRD-Tibbs OHV disking, de- Trail – partial 2015 0.73 X Yes compacting, decommissioning re-contour

CRD-Seasonal Access Closures of OHV 2015 6.79 X Yes restrictions trails

CRD-Emergency Closure of Rocky 2015 2.4 X X No Flats OHV due to culvert

CRD-Bi-Annual maintenance of OHV 2020, 2022, 9.4 X No systems

CRRD-Annual OHV maintenance of 2016, 2018 6.79 X X X No Oakey trail system

AP23 Aquatics Report Foothills Landscape Project

Appendix C – Aquatic Species Evaluated

AP24 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. This list was generated from Ipac

Probability of Magnitude of Effects per Occurrence Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Unit Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or Stressors informed by the Final Are additional Determination, see Comments Coordination with State & Additional Comments Common Name designated for the suspected range and project/treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) components Environmental Impact Statement, surveys necessary Aquatic Resource Federal Partners (GA DNR species/Critical habitat there is suitable habitat Appendix F, Table F-1. to further inform Report for analysis Office in Social Circle within the project area w/in project area the Decision maker 8/30/2018) ("Yes" only if both are regarding risks to true) species? Fresh water Upland Epioblasma Federally Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Chattooga, Gordon, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Small to medium sized rivers Point-source pollution (OFF, Forest May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to No effect. Species mussel Combshell metastriata Endangered/State Complex, GA, TN Murray, Whitfield design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, Service only known from historical likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the extirpated/extinct JW Endangered, GH/SX USFWS ECOS records prior to 1969) affect proposed action. Fresh water Finelined Hamiota altilis Federally Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Bartow, Carroll, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Small streams to large rivers; sand, Absence of stressors (ON Forest & May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to Genus changed? Hamiota altilis mussel Pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) Threatened/State Complex, GA, TN Chattooga, Cherokee, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, gravel, and cobble substrates; usually OFF, Improvements could be made to likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the or Lampsilis altilis Threatened, G2G3/S2 Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer, USFWS ECOS not in swift current improve local conditions but would affect proposed action. Gordon, Haralson, not improve conditions on a Murray , Paulding, watershed scale); Sedimentation & JW concurs Pickens, Polk, Walker, Point-source pollution (OFF, Forest Whitfield Service opportunity to affect outcomes for species is limited due to species occurs off forest)

Fresh water Alabama Medionidus Federally Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Large rivers to medium sized creeks; Sedimentation (OFF, Found no where May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to mussel Moccasinshell acutissimus Threatened/State Complex, GA, TN Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, sand and gravel substrate; slow to else in Coosa watershed) likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Threatened, G2/S1 Gilmer, Gordon, Murray , USFWS ECOS swift current affect proposed action. JW concurs Pickens, Walker, Whitfield

Fresh water Coosa Medionidus Federally Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Shoal areas of large rivers to medium Sedimentation & Point-source May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to mussel Moccasinshell parvulus Endangered/State Complex, GA, TN Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, sized creeks with sand and gravel pollution (OFF, Forest Service only likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Endangered, G1Q/S1 Gordon, Murray, Walker, USFWS ECOS substrates. known from historical records prior to affect proposed action. Whitfield 1929 & Forest Service opportunity to JW concurs affect outcomes for species is limited due to species occurs off forest)

Fresh water Southern Pleurobema Federally Endangered Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Large rivers to medium sized streams Sedimentation & Point-source May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to mussel Clubshell decisum Complex, GA, TN Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, with flowing water; gravel with pollution (OFF, Forest Service only likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Gilmer, Gordon, Murray , USFWS ECOS interstitial sand known from historical records prior to affect proposed action. JW concurs Pickens, Polk, Walker, 1989) Whitfield

Fresh water Southern Pigtoe Pleurobema Federally Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Large rivers to medium sized creeks Absence of stressors (ON Forest, May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to mussel georgianum Endangered/State Complex, GA, TN Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, in riffles, runs, and shoals; sand and Improvements could be made to likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Endangered, G1/S1 Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, USFWS ECOS gravel substrate improve local conditions but would affect proposed action. Pickens, Polk, Walker, not improve conditions on a Whitfield watershed scale); Sedimentation (OFF, Forest Service opportunity to JW concurs affect outcomes for species is limited due to species occurs off forest); Point source pollution (OFF, Forest Service only known from historical records prior to 1989)

Fresh water Georgia Pigtoe Pleurobema Federally Yes/Yes Unit PG1: Conasuga Yes - Fannin, Gilmer, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Large rivers to medium sized creeks; Absence of stressors (ON Forest, May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to mussel hanleyianum Endangered/State River Gordon, Murray, Walker, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, mainstem only, not in tribs Improvements could be made to likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Endangered, G1S1 Whitfield USFWS ECOS improve local conditions but would affect proposed action. not improve conditions on a watershed scale); Absence of JW concurs stressors (OFF, Forest Service opportunity to affect outcomes for species is limited due to species occurs off forest) Fresh water Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema Federally Endangered Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Fannin, Gilmer, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR This species occupies sand/gravel Absence of stressors (OFF, Forest May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to citations from NatureServe mussel perovatum Complex, GA, TN Murray, Whitfield design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, shoals and runs of small rivers and Service opportunity to affect likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the USFWS ECOS large streams (USFWS, 2000). outcomes for species is limited due to affect proposed action. Parmalee and Bogan (1998) list species occurs off forest) Does not occur in GA, western habitat in Tennessee as a sand and mobile basin species JW fine gravel substrate in stretches of 8/30/2018 river with moderate current and typically at a depth of less than three feet. Fresh water Triangular Ptychobranchus Federally Endangered Yes/Yes Unit #25 - Oostanaula Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, No "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR This species appears most prevalent Sedimentation & Point-source May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to citations from NatureServe mussel Kidneyshell greenii Complex, GA, TN Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, in sections of river three feet in depth pollution (OFF, Forest Service likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, USFWS ECOS and having a good current and a firm opportunity to affect outcomes for affect proposed action. Species split with fomenaianus Pickens, Walker, substrate as opposed to coarse gravel species is limited due to species in GA and greeenii in the west Whitfield and sand (Parmalee and Bogan, occurs off forest) JW 1998) in shoals and runs of small rivers and large streams (USFWS, 2000). Fish Blue Shiner Cyprinella Federally No Yes - Fannin, Gilmer, Yes, multiple occurrences known "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Flowing runs and pools in streams Sedimentation (ON Forest & OFF, May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to Possibly extirpated in Gilmer and caerulea Threatened/State Gordon, Murray, Walker, within the project area or within 1 design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, with cool water and firm substrates Forest Service opportunity to affect likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Pickens Counties Endangered, G2/S2 Whitfield mile downstream of the USFS USFWS ECOS outcomes for species is limited due to affect proposed action. BA concurs boundary species occurs off forest)

Fish Etowah Darter Etheostoma Federally No Moble Basin Aquitic Yes - Bartow, Cherokee, Yes, one site known within the "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Moderate to high gradient streams Absence of stressors (ON Forest, May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to etowahae Endangered/State Ecosystem Recovery Dawson, Fannin, Forsyth, project area in Lumpkin County design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, over cobble to gravel in areas of swift Improvements could be made to likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Endangered, G1/S1 Plan Gilmer, Lumpkin, USFWS ECOS current improve local conditions but would affect proposed action. Paulding, Pickens, Polk, not improve conditions on a Union watershed scale); Sedimentation BA concurs (OFF, Forest Service opportunity to affect outcomes for species is limited due to species occurs off forest)

Fish Cherokee Etheostoma scotti Federally No Moble Basin Aquitic Yes - Bartow, Cherokee, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Small to medium-sized creeks with Sedimentation (OFF, Forest Service No Effect This species is not considered further in this Darter Threatened/State Ecosystem Recovery Dawson, Forsyth, Heritage data, NatureServe data, moderate current and rocky opportunity to affect outcomes for analysis because it is not expected to occur Threatened, G2/S2 Plan Lumpkin, Paulding, USFWS ECOS substrates species is limited due to species within the area affected by the project. BA concurs Pickens occurs off forest) Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Fish Trispot Darter Etheostoma Federally Threatened/ Yes/No Yes - Floyd, Gordon, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Breeding: vegetated spring seepage Point-source pollution (OFF, Forest No Effect This species is not considered further in this trisella State Endangered, Murray, Whitfield Heritage data, NatureServe data, areas. Nonbreeding: clear streams in Service opportunity to affect analysis because it is not expected to occur BA lower Holly Creek, check There is no designated critical G1/S1 USFWS ECOS vegetated shallow slackwater areas outcomes for species is limited due to within the area affected by the project. occurences in Rock Creek habitat on the Chattahoochee- species occurs off forest) Therefore, this project will not affect this against FS boundary Oconee NF. species. Fish Amber Darter Percina antesella Federally Yes/No Yes - Bartow, Cherokee, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Riffles and runs of medium-sized Absence of stressors (OFF, Forest No Effect This species is not considered further in this Endangered/State Dawson, Fannin, Forsyth, Heritage data, NatureServe data, rivers, patches of sand and small Service opportunity to affect analysis because it is not expected to occur Endangered, G1G2/S1 Gilmer, Gordon, USFWS ECOS gravel, riverweed outcomes for species is limited due to within the area affected by the project. BA concurs, mainstem of Lumpkin, Murray, species occurs off forest) Therefore, this project will not affect this Conesauga and Etowah, well Pickens, Union, Walker, species. downstream of FS boundary Whitfield

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 1 of 2 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. This list was generated from Ipac

Probability of Magnitude of Effects per Occurrence Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Unit Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or Stressors informed by the Final Are additional Determination, see Comments Coordination with State & Additional Comments Common Name designated for the suspected range and project/treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) components Environmental Impact Statement, surveys necessary Aquatic Resource Federal Partners (GA DNR species/Critical habitat there is suitable habitat Appendix F, Table F-1. to further inform Report for analysis Office in Social Circle within the project area w/in project area the Decision maker 8/30/2018) ("Yes" only if both are regarding risks to true) species? Fish Goldline Darter Percina Federally Proposed Critical Moble Basin Aquitic Yes - Dawson, Fannin, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Shallow rocky riffles with swift Sedimentation (OFF, Forest Service No Effect This species is not considered further in this BA species occurs in the aurolineata Threatened/State Habitat Ecosystem Recovery Gilmer,Gordon, Murray, Heritage data, NatureServe data, current in medium-sized rivers opportunity to affect outcomes for analysis because it is not expected to occur Mountaitownn Creek , possibly Endangered, G2/S2 Plan Pickens USFWS ECOS species is limited due to species within the area affected by the project. well downstream, proposed occurs off forest) Therefore, this project will not affect this actions could benefit water species. quality Fish Conasauga Percina jenkinsi Federally Yes/No Yes - Fannin, Gilmer, Yes, 1 known occurrence inside of "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Fast-flowing chutes and pools over Absence of stressors (ON Forest, May Affect, but not The project design features are designed to Logperch Endangered/State Murray, Whitfield project area in Murray County design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, clean substrates of gravel or cobbles Improvements could be made to likely to adversely minimize the potential direct effect of the Endangered, G1S1 USFWS ECOS improve local conditions but would affect proposed action. BA concurs not improve conditions on a watershed scale)

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 2 of 2 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this fo no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2018 RSSL from Georgia

Probability of Occurrence Magnitude of Effects per Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or components Stressors informed by the Final Are additional Determination, see Comments Common suspected range and there is project/ treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) Environmental Impact Statement, surveys necessary Botanical report for analysis Name suitable habitat w/in project Appendix F, Table F-1. to further inform area ("Yes" only if both are the Decision maker true) regarding risks to species? Amphibian Hellbender Cryptobranchus State Threatened, Catoosa, Dade, Fannin, Gilmer, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Clear, cool, mountain streams and rivers with large None are required No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis alleganiensis G3G4T3T4 Rabun, Towns, Union Heritage data, NatureServe data, rocky substrates because it is not expected to occur within the area alleganiensis USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Amphibian Dwarf black- Desmognathus G2/S2 Yes - Gilmer, Habersham, Yes, 2 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Rocky streams and seeps in montane hardwood May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize bellied folkertsi Lumpkin, Rabun, Stephens, area design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, forests not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. salamander Towns, Union, White USFWS ECOS towards federal listing

Amphibian Patch-nosed Urspelerpes brucei G1/S1 Yes - Habersham, Stephens No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Headwater streams May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize salamander Heritage data, NatureServe data, not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. USFWS ECOS towards federal listing

Crustacean Conasauga blue Cambarus cymatilis State Endangered, Murray, Whitfield No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Sandy clay burrows up to 1 mile from nearest stream No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis burrower G1/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Crustacean Chickamauga Cambarus State Threatened, Catoosa, Walker, Whitfield No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Small to medium shallow rocky streams with No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis crayfish extraneus G2/S2 Heritage data, NatureServe data, moderate current because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Crustacean Little Tennessee Cambarus georgiae State Endangered, No, Rabun No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Flowing parts of medium size rivers with sandy-clay No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis crayfish G2G3/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, substrate because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Crustacean Hiawassee Cambarus parrishi State Endangered, Towns No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Rocky areas between riffles in clear headwater No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis headwaters G2/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, streams because it is not expected to occur within the area crayfish USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Crustacean Beautiful Cambarus State Endangered, Gilmer, Murray, Pickens No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Medium-sized streams with clear water and moderate No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis crayfish speciosus G2/S2 Heritage data, NatureServe data, to swift current with rock-littered substrate because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Fish Bluestripe shiner Cyprinella State Rare G2G3/S2 Habersham, Lumpkin, White No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Flowing areas in large creeks and medium-sized rivers No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis callitaenia Heritage data, NatureServe data, over rocky substrates because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Fish Blotched chub Erimystax insignis State Endangered Fannin, Towns, Union No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Medium to large clear streams in moderate current No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis G4/S2 Heritage data, NatureServe data, with substrate of gravel to cobble because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Fish Holiday darter Etheostoma State Endangered, Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Yes - multiple known sites within the "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Small creeks to moderate sized rivers in gravel and May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize brevirostrum G2/S1 Lumpkin, Murray project area design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, bedrock pools not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. USFWS ECOS towards federal listing

Fish Coldwater Etheostoma State ndangered, Bartow, Chattooga, Floyd, Yes - 1 known site within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Vegetated springs and spring runs or small streams May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize darter ditrema G2,S1 Gordon, Murray, Polk, Whitfield area or within 1 mile downstream of design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, with spring influence not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. the USFS boundary USFWS ECOS towards federal listing

Fish Wounded darter Etheostoma State Endangered, Fannin No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Fast rocky riffles of small to medium rivers No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis vulneratum G3/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Fish Lined chub Hybopsis State Rare, G3G4/S2 Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, Yes - 2 known site within 1 mile "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Upland creeks over sandy substrate with gentle May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize lineapunctata Cherokee, Floyd, Gordon, downstream of the USFS boundary design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, current not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. Murray, Walker, Whitfield USFWS ECOS towards federal listing Fish Robust redhorse Moxostoma State Endangered, No - Appling, Baldwin, Bryan, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Medium to large rivers, shallow riffles to deep flowing No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis robustum G1/S1 Bulloch, Burke, Butts, Chatham, Heritage data, NatureServe data, water; moderately swift current because it is not expected to occur within the area Columbia, Effingham, Elbert, USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will Emanual, Franklin, Houston, not affect this species. Jasper, Jefferson, Jekins, Johnson, Jones, Laurens, Lincoln, Madison, Monroe, Pulaski, Putnam, Richmond, Screven, Twiggs, Washington, Wilkes, Wilkinson

Fish Apalachicola Moxostoma sp. 1 G3/S3 Carroll, Clay, Coweta, Decatur, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Pools, runs, and riffles (shoals) of large rivers and their No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis Redhorse Early, Hall,Harris, Heard, Heritage data, NatureServe data, tributaries because it is not expected to occur within the area Macon, Lee, Meriwether, USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will Muscogee, Quitman, Seminole, not affect this species. Talbot, Taylor, Terrell, Troup, White

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 1 of 2 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this fo no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2018 RSSL from Georgia

Probability of Occurrence Magnitude of Effects per Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or components Stressors informed by the Final Are additional Determination, see Comments Common suspected range and there is project/ treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) Environmental Impact Statement, surveys necessary Botanical report for analysis Name suitable habitat w/in project Appendix F, Table F-1. to further inform area ("Yes" only if both are the Decision maker true) regarding risks to species? Fish Frecklebelly Noturus munitus State Endangered, Yes - Dawson, Murray No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Shoals and riffles of moderate to large streams and No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis madtom G3/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, rivers because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Fish Bridled darter Percina kusha State Endangered, Yes - Dawson, Fannin, Lumpkin, Yes, 3 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Flowing pools and runs in large streams and small to May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize G2/S1 Murray, Pickens, Whitfield area (2 of the sites are off Forest but design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, medium sized rivers with clear water not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. within 1 mile downstream of USFS USFWS ECOS towards federal listing boundary Fish Olive darter Percina squamata State Endangered, Fannin, Rabun No None Forest Service records, GaDNR High gradient upland rivers with large rocky substrate No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis G3/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, in moderate to swift current because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Gastropod Upland Pleurocera G2Q/S1 Floyd, Gordon, Murray No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Medium sized rivers No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis hornsnail showalteri Heritage data, NatureServe data, because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Insect Georgia Beloneuria G2/S2 No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Small spring seeps and splash zones in southern May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to beloneurian georgiana Heritage data, NatureServe data, Appalachien streams not likely to result in a trend minimize the potential direct effect of the proposed stonefly USFWS ECOS towards federal listing action.

Insect Cherokee Gomphus State Threatened, Catoosa, Chattooga, Floyd, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Spring-fed moderately-flowing forest streams, No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis clubtail consanguis G3/S2 Gordon, Walker, Whitfield Heritage data, NatureServe data, especially where they drain small ponds because it is not expected to occur within the area dragonfly USFWS ECOS affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Insect Edmund’s Ophiogomphus State Endangered, Rabun, Murray, White No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Clear, moderately flowing streams and rivers with May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize snaketail edmundo G1G2/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, riffles. not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. USFWS ECOS towards federal listing

Fresh water Brook floater Alasmidonta G3/S2 Yes, Rabun Yes, 3 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Medium rivers and creeks with gravel and boulders May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize mussel varicosa area design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. USFWS ECOS towards federal listing Fresh water Alabama Pseudodontoideus G3/S1 Yes - Gilmer, Murray, Whitfield Yes, 1 known site within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR This is a small to medium sized river species that May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize mussel creekmussel connasaugaensis area in Murray County design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, inhabits shallow embayments of larger rivers. It is not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. ( formily Strophitis) USFWS ECOS most often found in substrates composed of fine towards federal listing gravel, sand, and silt, typically in stretches with soem current in less than two feet of water (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Fresh water Sothern purple Toxolasma G1/S1? No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Flowing waters of creeks to medium rivers; Lack of No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis mussel lilliput corvunculus Heritage data, NatureServe data, recent records for this species hinder the evaluation because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS of habitat requirements (J. D. Williams, pers. comm. affected by the project. Therefore, this project will 10/10/1997). Mirarchi et al. (2004) lists habitat as not affect this species. creeks and rivers, usually found in sand or silt substrata in areas exposed to variable flows.

Fresh water Purple Lilliput Toxolasma lividum G3Q/SH No None Forest Service records, GaDNR This species can inhabit fine-particle substrates and No Effect This species is not considered further in this analysis mussel Heritage data, NatureServe data, also sand, gravel, or cobbles and boulders in riffles or because it is not expected to occur within the area USFWS ECOS flats immediatly above riffles (Gordon, 1989). This affected by the project. Therefore, this project will species is reported from the headwaters of small to not affect this species. medium sized rivers. They have been collected from various substrates including sand, mud, and gravel. Like other members of this genus Toxolasma lividus seems to adapt to lentic environments as many have been found in the Wheeler Reservoir in the Tennessee River Drainage (Roe, 2002). It is often the first species encountered in headwater areas. It generally occurs at depths < 1 m. It very rarely is encountered in a big river habitat or reservoirs (Gordon and Lazer, 1989).

Fresh water Alabama Villosa nebulosa G3/S2 Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Yes, 1 known site outside the "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Large rivers to small streams; flowing water with May impact individuals, but is The project design features are designed to minimize mussel rainbow Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, project area, but within 1 mile design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, gravel and sand substrates, may be found in fine not likely to result in a trend the potential direct effect of the proposed action. Polk, Walker, Whitfield downstream of USFS boundary in USFWS ECOS sediments among cobble and boulders towards federal listing Murray County

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 2 of 2 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Sp documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Probability of Magnitude of Effects per Occurrence Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or components, Are additional Determination, see Comments Common suspected range and project/ treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) informed by the Final Environmental surveys necessary Botanical report for Name there is suitable habitat Impact Statement (Appendix E, Table JJ) to further inform analysis w/in project area ("Yes" the Decision maker only if both are true) regarding risks to species? Amphibian 4-toed Hemidactylium G5/S3 Floyd, Habersham, Yes, 2 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Swamps; boggy streams and ponds; May impact The project design features are designed to salamander scutatum Lumpkin, Walker, White area (both sites are off Forest within design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, hardwood forests individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the 1 mile downstream of USFS USFWS ECOS not likely to result in proposed action. boundary in White County) a trend towards federal listing

Amphibian Mudpuppy Necturus G5/S1 Catoosa, Fannin No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Georgia habitat information not available No impacts No further analysis required maculosus Heritage data, NatureServe data, USFWS ECOS Crustacean Mountain Cambarus G3/S3 Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Yes, 2 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Aquatic May impact The project design features are designed to Crayfish conasaugaensis Lumpkin, Murray, Pickens area (both sites are off Forest within design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the 1 mile downstream of USFS USFWS ECOS not likely to result in proposed action. boundary in White County) a trend towards federal listing

Crustacean Coosawattae Cambarus State Threatened, Yes - Fannin, Gilmer, Yes, 1 known site within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Riffle habitats in the Coosawattee River May impact The project design features are designed to crayfish coosawattae G2/S2 Pickens area (on Forest in Gilmer County) design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, system individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the USFWS ECOS not likely to result in proposed action. a trend towards federal listing Crustacean Etowah crayfish Cambarus State Threatened, Yes - Dawson, Lumpkin Yes, 1 known site within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Lotic habitats under rocks in flowing water May impact The project design features are designed to fasciatus G3/S2 area (off Forest directly upstream, design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the but adjacent to USFS boundary in USFWS ECOS not likely to result in proposed action. Lumpkin County) a trend towards federal listing Crustacean Hiawassee Cambarus G3G4/S3 Fannin, Towns, Union No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Clear streams with swift flow and rocky No impacts No further analysis required crayfish hiwasseensis Heritage data, NatureServe data, substrate USFWS ECOS

Crustacean Greensaddle Cambarus G4/S1? Chattooga, Floyd, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Rocky riffles in streams with moderate to No impacts No further analysis required crayfish manningi Murray, Whitfield Heritage data, NatureServe data, swift current USFWS ECOS Crustacean A crayfish Cambarus nodosus G4/S2 No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Cambarus nodosus is a primary burrowing No impacts No further analysis required (Knotty Heritage data, NatureServe data, crayfish which is found in pools, seepage burrowing USFWS ECOS areas and occasionally in the riffle areas of crayfish) streams. This species can also be found in sphagnum bogs. The substrate of the river is sand and mica with stretches of bed rock and scattered small to large rocks (Bouchard and Hobbs 1976). This species is probably a generalist as females with eggs and young has been found in ditches next to roads in more than one locality (Bouchard and Hobbs 1976).

Fish Rosyside dace Clinostomus G5/S4 Fannin, Habersham, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Upland streams in upper Savannah and No impacts No further analysis required funduloides Rabun, Towns, Union Heritage data, NatureServe data, Little Tennessee drainages; Habitat includes USFWS ECOS small to medium streams with clear to turbid water and moderate current (Lee et al. 1980), and rocky flowing pools of headwaters, creeks, and small rivers; this fish is most common in small clear streams (Page and Burr 2011). It spawns on gravelly riffles and sometimes uses the nests of chubs. Eggs are scattered.

Fish Greenfin darter Etheostoma State Threatened, Yes - Rabun No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Cool to cold high elevation creeks and No impacts No further analysis required chlorobranchium G4/S2 Heritage data, NatureServe data, rivers in swift current with boulder to USFWS ECOS bedrock substrate; Habitat includes fast riffles of cool and warm, clear, high- elevation creeks and small to medium rivers with moderate to high gradient, usually over gravel, boulders, and/or rubble at depths of 10-30 cm (Lee et al. 1980, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, Page and Burr 2011).

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 1 of 3 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Sp documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Probability of Magnitude of Effects per Occurrence Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or components, Are additional Determination, see Comments Common suspected range and project/ treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) informed by the Final Environmental surveys necessary Botanical report for Name there is suitable habitat Impact Statement (Appendix E, Table JJ) to further inform analysis w/in project area ("Yes" the Decision maker only if both are true) regarding risks to species? Fish Coosa darter Etheostoma G4/S3 Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, Yes, 5 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Habitat includes rocky pools and adjacent May impact The project design features are designed to coosae Cherokee, Dawson, area (3 of the 5 sites are off Forest design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, riffles of clear creeks and small to medium individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, within 1 mile downstream of USFS USFWS ECOS rivers with gravel, cobble, or rubble not likely to result in proposed action. Murray, Pickens, Polk, boundary in Murray County) substrates; usually in areas of slow to a trend towards Walker, Whitfield moderate current; in larger streams this federal listing darter is mainly limited to shallow gravelly portions of riffles (Lee et al. 1980, Boschung and Mayden 2004, Page and Burr 2011). Spawning occurs on surfaces of rocks and small boulders (O'Neil 1981).

Fish Greenbreast Etheostoma G4/S3S4 Bartow, Chattooga, Yes, 4 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Adults typically occur in riffles of clear May impact The project design features are designed to darter jordani Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, area (2 sites are off Forest within 1 design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, creeks and small to medium rivers, in individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the Murray, Pickens, Walker, mile downstream of USFS boundary) USFWS ECOS moderate to strong current with gravel or not likely to result in proposed action. Whitfield in Murray County rubble substrate (lee et al. 1980, Page and a trend towards Burr 2011). Eggs are buried in middle of federal listing sand-gravel riffle 10-30 cm deep; not all eggs laid in one location (Orr and Ramsey 1990). Fish Redline darter Etheostoma G5/S1S3 Catoosa, Dade, Fannin, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Habitat includes swift shallow riffles in No impacts No further analysis required rufilineatum Towns, Union, Walker, Heritage data, NatureServe data, clear creeks and small to medium rivers Whitfield USFWS ECOS (Page and Burr 2011). Smaller individuals occupy areas where current is less swift. Eggs are buried in gravel riffles (Page 1983). Fish Rock darter Etheostoma State Rare, G4/S2 Dawson, Lumpkin, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Swift rocky riffles often associated with No impacts No further analysis required rupestre Murray Heritage data, NatureServe data, attached vegetation such as Podostemum USFWS ECOS

Fish Banded darter Etheostoma zonale G5/S3 Catoosa, Fannin, Towns, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Habitat includes rocky riffles of creeks and No impacts No further analysis required Union, Walker Heritage data, NatureServe data, small to medium rivers (Page and Burr USFWS ECOS 2011); streams of moderate gradient with bottoms of coarse gravel to rubble, often at depths over 25 cm at or near midchannel. In Arkansas, spawning occurred in runs about 0.6-1.6 meters deep with moderate current velocities (Walters 1994). Trautman (1981) reported spawning at depths of less than 0.6 meters. Eggs are laid on algae and moss growing on stones and boulders in riffles or runs (Becker 1983, Walters 1994).

Fish Bigeye chub Hybopsis amblops G5/S3 Catoosa, Dade, Union, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Habitat includes small to moderate size, No impacts No further analysis required Walker, Whitfield Heritage data, NatureServe data, clear-water tributaries with sand, gravel, or USFWS ECOS rocky bottom; usually near riffles in quiet water; often associated with aquatic vegetation (Page and Burr 2011). This species is exceptionally intolerant of siltation. Fish Etowah chub Hybopsis sp. 9 G1Q/S1S2 Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Generally in creeks and small to medium No impacts No further analysis required Floyd, Forsyth, Paulding Heritage data, NatureServe data, rivers over sand-silt bottom, usually in USFWS ECOS pools adjacent to riffle areas. Tends to occupy smaller streams in east than in west

Fish River redhorse Moxostoma State Rare, G4/S3 Floyd, Gordon, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Swift waters of medium to large rivers May impact The project design features are designed to carinatum Murray,Pickens, Towns, Heritage data, NatureServe data, individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the Union, Whitfield USFWS ECOS not likely to result in proposed action. a trend towards federal listing Fish Sicklefin Moxostoma sp.2 State Endangered, Towns No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Riffles, runs and pools in large creeks and No impacts No further analysis required redhorse G2Q/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, small to medium-sized rivers. Juveniles may USFWS ECOS also occur in reservoirs downstream of spawning sites Fish Brassy Moxostoma sp.4 G4/S3 Rabun No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Medium to large streams with rocky No impacts No further analysis required jumprock Heritage data, NatureServe data, substrate USFWS ECOS

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 2 of 3 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Aquatics PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Sp documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Probability of Magnitude of Effects per Occurrence Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known or Known sites exist in proposed Magnitude of Effects (high, Source of Survey Information (cite Habitat association and/or components, Are additional Determination, see Comments Common suspected range and project/ treatment area (Yes/No) moderate, low) source including range map) informed by the Final Environmental surveys necessary Botanical report for Name there is suitable habitat Impact Statement (Appendix E, Table JJ) to further inform analysis w/in project area ("Yes" the Decision maker only if both are true) regarding risks to species? Fish Burrhead shiner Notropis State Threatened, Chattooga, Floyd, Yes, 4 known sites within the project "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Small streams to medium-sized rivers in May impact The project design features are designed to asperifrons G4/S2 Murray, Walker, area (2 sites are off Forest within 1 design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, pools, slow runs, and backwater areas individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the Whitfield mile downstream of USFS boundary) USFWS ECOS not likely to result in proposed action. in Murray County a trend towards federal listing Fish Silver shiner Notropis State Endangered, Catoosa, Rabun, Towns No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Large creeks to small rivers in riffles to No impacts No further analysis required photogenis G5/S1 Heritage data, NatureServe data, flowing pools over firm substrates USFWS ECOS Fish Tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca State Endangered Fannin, Union No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Deep riffles and runs with boulders, cobble, No impacts No further analysis required G4/S2 Heritage data, NatureServe data, or bedrock in large to moderate USFWS ECOS headwaters of Tennessee River Fish Bronze darter Percina palmaris Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Yes, multiple known sites within the "low" with the use of project Forest Service records, GaDNR Small to medium rivers; in swift riffles over May impact The project design features are designed to Dawson, Gilmer, Gordon, project area, on and off Forest design features Heritage data, NatureServe data, large gravel or rubble. Largest individuals in individuals, but is minimize the potential direct effect of the G4/S3 Haralson, Lumpkin, within 1 mile downstream of USFS USFWS ECOS very swift water, smaller individuals in not likely to result in proposed action. Murray, Paulding, Pickens boundary in Gilmer County smaller slower riffles over gravel or a trend towards sometimes in gravel raceways. federal listing Fish Dusky darter Percina sciera State Rare G5/S3 Catoosa, Dade, Fannin, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Large creeks and rivers in moderate current No impacts No further analysis required Walker, Whitfield Heritage data, NatureServe data, associated with woody debris, undercut USFWS ECOS banks, or vegetation Fish River darter Percina shumardi State Endangered, Murray No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Large to medium rivers, deep chutes and No impacts No further analysis required G5/SX Heritage data, NatureServe data, riffles, coarse gravel substrate USFWS ECOS

Fresh water Delicate spike Elliptio arctata State Endangered, Murray, Whitfield No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Creeks and rivers with moderate current; No impacts No further analysis required mussel G2G3Q/S2 Heritage data, NatureServe data, mainly in crevices and under large rocks in USFWS ECOS silt deposits Fresh water Georgia Elliptio dariensis G3/S3 Appling, Ben Hill, Coffee, No None Forest Service records, GaDNR It is found on sand bars in currents ranging No impacts No further analysis required mussel elephantear Jeff Davis, Long, Tatnall, Heritage data, NatureServe data, from swift to sluggish (Johnson, 1970). In Telfair, Toombs, Wayne USFWS ECOS the main channel of the Altamaha River it was found in a range of habitats, from silty sand and detritus to silty clay and sand, to small gravel (J. Brim Box, pers. obs.).

Fresh water Altamaha Lampsilis G3G4/S3 Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff No None Forest Service records, GaDNR Frequently found in silty sand or mud along No impacts No further analysis required mussel pocketbook dolabraeformis Davis, Telfair Heritage data, NatureServe data, stable banks, but Lampsilis dolabraeformis USFWS ECOS is one of a few mussels that is also found along sand bars in moderately coarse sand in current (Heard, 1975). It can also live in shifting sand bars (G. Keferl, pers. comm., 2000).

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 3 of 3 This list was generated from Ipac

Taxa CommoScientific Name Legal StaHabitat Threats Survey Notes Chattahoochee-Oconee Counties References Clam Upland Epioblasma Federally The preferred habitat for this species is poorly Excess sedimentation due to Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Chattooga, Gordon, Murray, Whitfield. Haag, W.R. Upland combshell, Epioblasma metastriata. 2004. Pp. 20 in R.E. Combshell metastriata Endangered/Stat documented. However, it has been inadequate riparian buffer zones, when female Historically collected from various locations in Mirarchi, J.T. e Endangered, collected from medium to large rivers with development, and individuals are spawning or brooding as this species the Conasauga River as well as the Chattooga, Garner, M.F. Mettee, P.E. O’Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife, Volume 2, Imperiled GH/SX moderate current and gravel or sand agriculture covers suitable habitat may have higher detection rates during this Etowah, and Oostanaula Rivers near Rome, Aquatic substrates.Small to medium sized rivers and could potentially suffocate period. However, since basic life history information Georgia.The upland combshell is not known to Mollusks and Fishes. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. mussels. Poor agricultural practices for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, occur on any state Hartfield, P.W. 2006. Five-year review of 11 listed mussels in the Mobile River may also cause eutrophication and sampling during periods when closely related species properties in Georgia. Basin. U.S. Fish degrade water quality. Industrial are spawning or brooding may increase and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Jackson, Mississippi. 38 pp. effluents as well as probability of detection. Since the upland combshell Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing sewage treatment plant discharges is thought to be extinct, it is possible that bivalves in also degrade water quality. the species may still occur but in extremely low freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. densities. Due to the potentially low densities, it Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama may be necessary to sample sites multiple times in and the multiple seasons to account for lower Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama detection probabilities. Press, Tuscaloosa.

Clam Finelined Hamiota altilis Federally Small streams to large rivers; sand, gravel, and Currently, the Mobile Basin of Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Bartow, Carroll, Chattooga, Cherokee, Fannin, Haag, W.R., R.S. Butler, and P.D. Hartfield. 1995. An extraordinary reproductive Pocketboo Threatened/State cobble substrates; usually not in swift current. Georgia is experiencing substantial when female individuals are spawning or brooding as Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, Haralson, Murray , strategy in k Threatened, small streams to large rivers in sandy to muddy development and this species may have higher detection rates during Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Walker, Whitfield. In freshwater bivalves: prey mimicry to facilitate larval dispersal. Freshwater Biology G2G3/S2 sand substrates or timber removal along the banks. this Georgia, this species is currently extant in the 34: 471-476. gravel shoals with slight to moderate current. Excess sedimentation due to period. However, since basic life history information Tallapoosa and Conasauga Rivers as well as in Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing inadequate riparian buffer zones, for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, several tributaries to the bivalves in development, and agriculture sampling during periods when closely related species Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. A lone individual freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. covers suitable habitat and could are spawning or brooding may increase was collected from Euharlee Creek in the Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama potentially suffocate mussels. Poor probability of detection. Etowah River Basin in Georgia during a 2002 and the agricultural practices may also survey but the status of this population is Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama cause eutrophication and degrade uncertain. Press, water quality. Tuscaloosa.

Clam Alabama Medionidus Federally Large rivers to medium sized creeks; sand and Excess sedimentation due to Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, Haag, W.R., and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1997. Host fish and reproductive biology of six Moccasins acutissimus Threatened/State gravel substrate; slow to swift current. small inadequate riparian buffer zones, when female individuals are spawning or brooding as Gilmer, Gordon, Murray , Pickens, Walker, freshwater hell Threatened, streams to large rivers with sand, gravel, or development, and this species may have higher detection rates during Whitfield mussel species from the Mobile Basin, U.S.A. Journal of the North American G2/S1 cobble substrates agriculture covers suitable habitat this Benthological and swift flowing shoal areas.medium streams and could potentially suffocate period. However, since basic life history information Society 16: 576-585. to large rivers with gravel substrates and swift mussels. Poor agricultural practices for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, Haag, W.R. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2003. Host fishes and infestation strategies of flowing shoal areas. may also cause eutrophication and sampling during periods when closely related species freshwater degrade water quality. Industrial are spawning or brooding may increase mussels in large Mobile Basin streams, U.S.A. Journal of the North American effluent as well as probability of detection. Benthological sewage treatment plant discharges Society. 22: 78-91. may also be degrading water Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing quality. bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Clam Coosa Medionidus parvulus Federally Shoal areas of large rivers to medium sized Excess sedimentation due to Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Bartow, Chattooga, Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer, FVaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing Moccasins Endangered/Stat creeks with sand and gravel substrates. Typically inadequate riparian buffer zones, when female individuals are spawning or brooding as Gordon, Murray, Walker, Whitfield.restricted bivalves in hell e Endangered, occupies small streams to large rivers with sand, development, and this species may have higher detection rates during to the upper Conasauga River and several of freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. G1Q/S1 gravel, or cobble substrates agriculture covers suitable habitat this its tributaries. The Coosa moccasinshell is not Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama and swift flowing shoal areas.. and could potentially suffocate period. However, since basic life history information known from any state or federal lands in and the mussels. Poor agriculturalpractices for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, Georgia. Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama may also cause eutrophication and sampling during periods when closely related species Press, degrade water quality. Industrial are spawning or brooding may increase Tuscaloosa. effluent as well as probability of detection. sewage treatment plant discharges may also be degrading water quality

Clam Southern Pleurobema decisum Federally Large rivers to medium sized streams with Excess sedimentation due to Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, Haag, W.R. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2003. Host fishes and infection strategies of Clubshell Endangered flowing water; gravel with interstitial sand. large inadequate riparian buffer zones, when female individuals are spawning or brooding as Gilmer, Gordon, Murray , Pickens, Polk, freshwater streams to large rivers with moderate flow and development, and this species may have higher detection rates during Walker, Whitfield. Was found throughout mussels in large Mobile Basin streams, U.S.A. Journal of the North American sand or gravel substrates; sometimes found in agriculture covers suitable habitat this most of the upper Coosa River Basin Benthological pools with slow or no current. and could potentially suffocate period. However, since basic life history information in Georgia. However, the southern clubshell Society 22: 78-91. mussels. Poor agricultural practices for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, currently appears to be restricted to the Haag, W.R. and J.L Statton. 2003. Variation in fecundity and other reproductive may also cause eutrophication and sampling during periods when closely related species Conasauga traits in degrade water quality. Industrial are spawning or brooding my increase River drainage and Salacoa Creek in the freshwater mussels. Freshwater Biology 48: 2118-2130. effluent as well as probability of detection. Coosawattee River watershed in Georgia. Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing sewage treatment plant discharges bivalves in may also be degrading water freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. quality. Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Clam Southern Pleurobema Federally Large rivers to medium sized creeks in riffles, Excess sedimentation due to Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, Haag, WR. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2003. Host fishes and infection strategies of Pigtoe georgianum Endangered/Stat runs, and shoals; sand and gravel substrate. inadequate riparian buffer zones, when female individuals are spawning or brooding as Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, Pickens, Polk, freshwater mussels e Endangered, Medium size streams to large rivers with development, and this species may have higher detection rates during Walker, Whitfield. This species is endemic to in large Mobile Basin streams, U.S.A. Journal of the North American Benthological G1/S1 moderate flow and sand agriculture covers suitable habitat this the upper Coosa River basin of Alabama, Society or gravel substrates. and could potentially suffocate period. However, since basic life history information Georgia, and 22:.78-91. mussels. Poor agricultural practices for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, Tennessee and is historically known from the Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing may also cause eutrophication and sampling during periods when closely related species Coosa, Chattooga, Coosawattee, Etowah, and bivalves in degrade water quality. Industrial are spawning or brooding my increase Conasauga Rivers in Georgia. The southern freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. effluent as well as probability of detection. pigtoe currently appears to be restricted to Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama sewage treatment plant discharges the and the may also be degrading water Conasauga River and several of its tributaries Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama quality. in Georgia but is extremely rare. Press, Tuscaloosa. Clam Georgia Pleurobema Federally Large rivers to medium sized creeks; mainstem Excess sedimentation due to Surveyors should consider sampling during periods Fannin, Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, Walker, Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing Pigtoe hanleyianum Endangered/Stat only, not in tribs. coarse sand and gravel inadequate riparian buffer zones, when female individuals are spawning or brooding as WhitfieldIn Georgia, historic occurrences bivalves in e Endangered, substrates in medium sized creeks to large development, and this species may have higher detection rates during included the Chattooga, Conasauga, freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. G1S1 rivers. agriculture covers suitable habitat this and Coosawattee Rivers and Armuchee, Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama and could potentially suffocate period. However, since basic life history information Coahulla, Holly, Swamp, and Telloga Creeks. and the mussels. Poor agricultural practices for many of Georgia’s unionids is lacking, Currently, the Georgia pigtoe appears to be Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama may also cause eutrophication and sampling during periods when closely related species restricted to a small section of the Conasauga Press, degrade water quality. Industrial are spawning or brooding may increase River watershed in Whitfield and Murray Tuscaloosa. effluent as well as probability of detection. counties. sewage treatment plant discharges may also be degrading water quality.

Clam Ovate Pleurobema Federally Occupies sand/gravel shoals and runs of small Habitat modification, It no longer occurs in Tennessee stretches of the Fannin, Gilmer, Murray, Whitfield .Williams •Johnson, P.D. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Results of a brief survey for freshwater Clubshell perovatum Endangered rivers and large streams (USFWS, 2000). sedimentation, and water quality Conasauga River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) but and Hughes (1998) cite potential records for mussels in the Yellow Creek Watershed, Lowndes County, Mississippi and Lamar Parmalee and Bogan (1998) list habitat in degredation are the major threats; this may have been a misidentification anyway. the Conasauga River drainage in Georgia, but and Fayette Counties, Alabama. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee as a sand and fine gravel substrate in may also be threatened by both Paul Johnson and Paul Hartfiled believe Daphne, Alabama. Unpainated. stretches of river with moderate current and overutilization for commercial, that Georgia records for Pleurobema typically at a depth of less than three feet. recreational, scientific, and perovatum actually represent another •Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels educational purposes (USFWS, Pleurobema (probably Pleurobema (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77- 1993). hanleyianum), but a consensus has not yet 92. been reached. •McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.

•McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails, and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.

•Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.

•Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

•Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennesee. 328 pp.

•Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P M Mikkelsen R J Neves C F E Roper G Rosenberg B Roth A Scheltema Clam Triangular Ptychobranchus Federally Most prevalent in sections of river three feet in Loss of habitat due to Critical habitat has been designated in Alabama in Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Fannin, Floyd, •Haag, W. R., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1997. Host fishes and reproductive biology of Kidneyshel greenii Endangered depth and having a good current and a firm impoundments is the primary the Coosa Rive and the lower Coosa River; in Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, Pickens, Walker, 6 freshwater mussel species from the Mobile Basin, USA. Journal of the North l substrate as opposed to coarse gravel and sand reason for the decline of the Georgia Whitfield. Conasauga River American Benthological Society, 16(3): 576-585. (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) in shoals and runs species. It may also be threatened of small rivers and large streams (USFWS, by overutilization for commercial, •McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater 2000). recreational, scientific and mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. educational purposes (U. S. Fish and Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237. Wildlife Service, 1993). Disappearance from significant •Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama portions of its range are primarily wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama due to changes in river and stream Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp. channels due to dams, dredging, or mining, and historic or episodic •Ortmann, A.E. 1923. Notes on the anatomy and taxonomy of certain pollution events. The species is not Lampsilinae from the Gulf drainage. The Nautilus 37(3):56-60. known to survive in impounded waters and more than 1700 km of •Pierson, J. M. 1992. A survey of freshwater mussels of the upper North River large and small river habitat in the system in the vicinity of the proposed Tom Bevill Reservoir, Fayette and Basin have been impounded by Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama. Unpublished report submitted to Almon dams for navigation, flood control, Associates. 31 pp. + fieldnotes. water supply, and/or hydroelectric production purposes (USFWS, •Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, 2004). P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

•U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered status for eight freshwater mussels and threatened status for three freshwater mussels in the Mobil River drainage Final rule Federal Register 58(60) 14330 14340 Fish Blue Cyprinella caerulea Federally Flowing runs and pools in streams with cool degradation of tributary Yes,\ Seining is a good method for collecting Fannin, Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, Walker, Anderson, P. G., B. G. H. Browne, M. H. Hughes, B. J. Freeman and Z. E. Kovats. Shiner Threatened/State water and firm substrates. small to medium streams and the main channel of minnows. Whitfield Multiple occurrences known within 1997. Endangered, streams that the upper Conasauga River in Snorkeling is also effective for presence-absence 1 mile downstream of the USFS boundary. Conasauga baseline monitoring pre-operation of the River Road Reservoir, G2/S2 include rocky substrates. Fish are found in riffles Georgia and Tennessee. surveys. Dalton, Ga. and runs, as well as pools with The Georgia range is very restricted, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, by Golder moderate to swift current, over gravel to cobble with all known populations Associates, or boulder substrate. occurring in the cooler Inc. Project No. 883-3613 84 pp. + 6 Append. portions of the upper Conasauga Etnier, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee River. Recent collections in the Press, Conasauga River Knoxville. 681pp. demonstrate the decline in Krotzer, R. S. 1984. The ecological life history of the blue shiner, Notropis population size as habitat becomes caeruleus increasingly degraded in a (Jordan), from the upper Conasauga River, Georgia. M. S. Thesis, Samford downstream direction. Stream University, degradation resulting from failure to Birmingham, Alabama. 37pp. employ Best Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. Management Practices (BMPs) for R.Stauffer. forestry and agriculture, failure to 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. Hist. 867pp. control soil erosion Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North from construction sites and bridge America crossings, and increased north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. stormwater runoff from Pierson, J. M. and R. S. Krotzer. 1987. The distribution, relative abundance, and developing urban and industrial life areas further threaten the blue history of the blue shiner, Notropis caeruleus (Jordan). Prepared for the Alabama shiner where populations still exist. Nongame Coordinator. 105pp. Fishes like the blue shiner, that Pierson, J. M., W. M. Howell, R. A. Stiles, M. F. Mettee, P. A. O'Neil, R. D. Suttkus, depend upon small crevices in which and to lay their eggs, are especially J. S. Ramsey. 1989. Fishes of the Cahaba River System in Alabama. Geological vulnerable to impacts of excessive Survey sedimentation as these of Alabama Bull 134 183pp Fish Etowah Etheostoma Federally Moderate to high gradient streams over cobble habitat loss because of its narrow seine or observed while snorkeling. Bartow, Cherokee, Dawson, Fannin, Forsyth, Anderson, G. B. 2009. Confronting incomplete detection to address questions Darter etowahae Endangered/Stat to gravel in areas of swift current.swift riffle distribution, which is restricted to a Gilmer, Lumpkin, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, about distribution and reproductive season for four imperiled stream fishes. e Endangered, habitat over cobble and gravel substrata. geographic area currently Union. only in the Etowah River system in Master of Science thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. 94pp. G1/S1 experiencing rapid urban and Georgia. Once thought to be restricted to the Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. suburban development as the metro- upper Etowah (upstream from Allatoona R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. Atlanta area expands. Land Reservoir), recent work has shown that Hist. 867pp. disturbance associated with Etowah darters also occur in the lower portion Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the commercial development, and of the basin (downstream of Allatoona dam), Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. home and road construction where they co-occur with the closely related Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North threatens to degrade river and greenbreast darter. Etowah darters have been America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp.Ritchea, S. B. 2002. stream habitat by accelerating the collected in the lower Etowah mainstem and Genetic population structure of the federally endangered Etowah darter, runoff of sediment and in Raccoon Creek, a tributary to the lower Etheostoma etowahae. Master of Science thesis, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh. contaminants. Increased impervious Etowah River. In the upper Etowah, Etowah 139pp. surface cover results in flashy storm darters occur in the mainstem and some of its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and events that can scour stream larger tributaries, including Long Swamp plants: proposed threatened status for the Cherokee darter and proposed channels, alter the water Creek, Amicalola Creek, and Shoal Creek endangered status for the Etowah darter. 1993. Pages 53695-53702 in Federal temperature regime, accelerate (Dawson County). Etowah darters also occur in Register. Vol. 58(199). 58(199). delivery of contaminants, and lower Stamp Creek, a tributary to Allatoona Wood, R. M. and R. L. Mayden. 1993. Systematics of the Etheostoma jordani baseflows during non-runoff Reservoir species group (Teleostei: Percidae), with descriptions of three new species. Bull. periods. Lowering of baseflow Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. 16: 31-46. conditions may be a significant threat to the Etowah darter and other species that depend on swiftly- flowing, sediment-free riffles to complete their life cycle. Water- supply development threatens habitat directly, but the operation of reservoirs may also pose a threat to the species if water flow and thermal regimes in main channel Fish Cherokee Etheostoma scotti Federally Small to medium-sized creeks with moderate Habitat loss due to excess silt and A single egg is attached to the substrate during a Bartow, Cherokee, Dawson, Forsyth, Bauer, B. H., D. A. Etnier, and N. M. Burkhead. 1995. Etheostoma (Ulocentra) Darter Threatened/State current and rocky substrates. Found in sediment runoff, reduced water spawn, and it is not further acknowledged by the Lumpkin, Paulding, Pickens. endemic to the scotti (Osteichthyes:Percidae), a new darter from the Etowah River system in Threatened, association with gravel and cobble bed quality and stream pair, Etowah River watershed within the upper Georgia. Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. 17:1-16. G2/S2 sediments. Cherokee darters may impoundment. Coosa River system in Georgia. Currently, this Burkhead, Noel M. 1993. Results of a status survey for two freshwater fishes, the also occur in pools at the head or tail of riffles. species is known from only about 20 Cherokee and Etowah darters (Pisces: Percidae), endemic to the Etowah River Not found in streams with moderate or thick small tributaries to the Etowah River. The system of North Georgia. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27pp. deposits of silt and sediment, as they require upper Found in the Camp,Proctor, Palmer, Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. clean bed Russell and Shoal Creek tributary systems, as R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. sediments for spawning.Requires well as in other unnamed tributaries to the Hist. 867pp. moderate to swiftly flowing stream habitat, and Etowah River, primarily in Lumpkin and Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the cannot survive in impoundments. Dawson Counties. The Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. downstream limit of the upper ESU is near the Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North mouth of Shoal Creek (Dawson County). America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. The middle ESU can be found between Yellow Storey, C. M. 2003. Genetic population structure and life history aspects of the Creek (likely upstream limit) and two federally threatened Cherokee darter, Etheostoma scotti. Master of Science tributaries to Allatoona Reservoir: Kellog thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. 89pp. Creek (southern) and Sweetwater Creek Storey. C. M., B. A. Porter, M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2006. Analysis of (northern). Major tributary systems within the spawning behavior, habitat, and season of the federally threatened Etheostoma middle ESU include Long Swamp, Sharp scotti, Cherokee darter (Osteichthyes: Percidae). Southeastern Naturalist 5(3):413- Mountain, Canton, and Shoal (Cherokee 424. County) Creeks. To date, the upstream-most U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and collections of the lower ESUs have been in the plants: proposed threatened status for the Cherokee Darter and proposed Stamp Creek system and Allatoona Creek endangered status for the Etowah darter. Pages 53695-53702 in Federal Register. system, both now tributaries to Allatoona Vol. 58(199). reservoir. The downstream ESU is also found in the Pettit, Pumpkinvine and Raccoon Creek systems. Raccoon Creek is the downstream-most limit

Fish Trispot Etheostoma trisella Proposed Breeding: vegetated spring seepage areas. Habitat loss and degradation, Easily collected using a seine Floyd, Gordon, Murray, Whitfield. In Georgia, Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Darter Federally Nonbreeding: clear streams in vegetated including loss of access to spawning the trispot darter occurs in: the Conasauga Institution, Washington D.C. 736pp. Threatened/ shallow slackwater areas. shallow (less than 1.5 areas in seepage streams. River and some of its tributaries, including Etnier, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee State ft (0.46 m)) main channel habitats of larger Swamp Creek, Holly Creek, Coahulla Creek, Press, Knoxville. 681pp. Endangered, streams, and in smaller tributary streams. Mill Creek (Whitfield County), and Sugar Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. G1/S1 Adults usually occur over cobble, gravel and Creek; the Coosawattee River and three R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. sand substrata, often near aquatic vegetation tributaries below Carters Reservoir (Gordon Hist. 867pp. such as clumps of water willow (Justicia County); and tributaries to the Oostanaula Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the americana). River system, including Johns Creek (Floyd Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. County). Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Ryon, M. G. 1986. The life history and ecology of Etheostoma trisella (Pisces: Percidae). American Midland Naturalist 115: 73-86. Fish Amber Percina antesella Federally Riffles and runs of medium-sized rivers, patches Loss of quality habitat resulting Can be difficult to collect because of their rarity and Bartow, Cherokee, Dawson, Fannin, Forsyth, Freeman, B. J., and M. C. Freeman. 1994. Habitat use by an endangered riverine Darter Endangered/Stat of sand and small gravel. Riffles or shoals with from suburban and urban relatively low abundance. Seining over gravel areas is Gilmer, Gordon, Lumpkin, Murray, Pickens, fish and implications for species protection. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 3: 49-58. e Endangered, cobble and gravel, and moderate to swift development in the Etowah an effective sampling approach. Backpack Union, Walker, Whitfield. Endemic to the Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. G1G2/S1 currents, typically 30-70cm/sec. Often found in watershed and parts of the electrofishing is discouraged due to the increased upper Coosa River System in Georgia and R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. shoals with riverweed (Podostemum Conasauga watershed, as the risk of incidental mortality. southeastern Tennessee, also occurs in an Hist. 867pp. ceratophyllum).Rarely occur in very shallow human population is rapidly approximate 55 km reach of the Conasauga Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North (<20cm) or low-velocity (<10 cm/sec) areas, or increasing River, from the America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. areas with accumulated silt. The vicinity of the U.S. 411 bridge in Polk County, Starnes, W. C. 1977. The ecology and life history of the endangered snail darter TN to the vicinity of Browns Bridge Road Percina (Imostoma) tanasi Etnier. Tenn. Wildl. Res. Agency, Tech. Rep. No. 77-52. outside of Dalton, GA (Murray and Whitfield U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and Counties). A single amber darter was collected plants; determination of endangered status and of critical habitat for the amber in the Coosawattee River, downstream of darter and the Conasauga logperch. Federal Register 50(150): 31597-31603. Carter’s Lake Reservoir, in 2010. Williams, J. D., and Etnier, D. A. 1977. Percina (Imostoma) antesella, a new percid fish from the Coosa River system in Tennessee and Georgia. Proc. Biol. Soc. of Washington 90: 6-18.

Fish Goldline Percina aurolineata Federally Shallow rocky riffles with swift current in Increasing urbanization and Can be collected using a seine, with or without the Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer,Gordon, Murray, Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. The Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Darter Threatened/State medium-sized rivers. Occupies medium-sized residential development in the use of a backpack electrofisher. They may also be Pickens. known only from two widely Institute, Washington. 736pp. Endangered, rivers and large tributary streams. Their Coosawattee River system, resulting observed by snorkeling, but poor water clarity often separated localities, the Coosawattee River Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. G2/S2 preferred habitat comprises riffles and runs with in deleterious effects on water limits this survey technique in many streams within system in Georgia and the Cahaba River R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. swift current over gravel, cobble, quality and stream habitat, pose the its range. system in central Alabama. In Georgia, this Hist. 867pp. bedrock and boulder substrate, often with major threat in Georgia. Stream species is historically known from the Cartecay Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the patches of sand and riverweed bank trampling and nutrient and Ellijay Rivers, Mountaintown Creek, the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. enrichment associated with cattle mainstem Coosawattee River, and Talking Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North grazing is also a significant threat to Rock Creek America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. the population in the Ellijay River. Powers, S.L. 2008. Distribution and status of Cyprinella caerulea (Cyprinidae) and Water quality degradation has Percina aurolineata (Percidae) in the upper Coosa River drainage of North significantly reduced the goldline Georgia and Southeast Tennessee. Unpublished report to United States Fish and darter's range in the Cahaba River in Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. Alabama, and further deterioration Suttkus, R. D. and J. S. Ramsey. 1967. Percina aurolineata, a new percid fish from in water quality (from urbanization, the Alabama River system and a discussion of ecology, distribution, and sewage, and mining activities) hybridization of darters of the subgenus Hadropterus. Tulane Studies in Zoology continues to threaten the species. 13: 129-145. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for the fish the goldline darter (Percina aurolineata) and blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea). Fed. Reg. 56(76):16054-16059.

Fish Consauga Percina jenkinsi Federally Fast-flowing chutes and pools over clean Loss of habitat and deteriorating Snorkeling or seining in and near shoals along the Fannin, Gilmer, Murray, Whitfield. Endemic Etnier, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee Logperch Endangered/Stat substrates of gravel or cobbles. Inhabits riffles water quality in the upper Conasauga River are the best means of encountering to the Conasauga River (upper Coosa River Press, Knoxville. 681pp. e Endangered, and runs in the main channel of the Conasauga Conasauga River threaten the Conasauga logperch, but they are hard to detect due system) in southeastern Tennessee and Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North G1S1 River, generally occurring at water depths continued survival of the Conasauga to their rarity and low abundance. Additionally, it can northwestern Georgia.Critical habitat America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. greater than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) with swift current logperch. The threat to this species be difficult to distinguish the Conasauga logperch designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Thompson, B. A. 1985. Percina jenkinsi, a new species of logperch (Pisces, (often greater than 0.5 m/sec or 1.6 ft/sec) over is acute due to its extremely limited from the more common Mobile logperch while Service includes the reach of the Conasauga Percidae) from the Conasauga River, Tennessee and Georgia. Occasional papers cobble and gravel. range – only 45 kilometers of river snorkeling, especially if stream turbidity is elevated. River between the confluence of Half-way of the Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State Univ., Number 61. 24pp. within the entire upper Coosa River Electrofishing for the Conasauga logperch is Branch in Polk County, Tennessee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and basin. The Conasauga logperch does discouraged due to the increased risk of incidental downstream approximately 18 km (11 miles) plants; determination of endangered status and of critical habitat for the amber not appear to be abundant mortality of this rare animal. to the Georgia Highway 2 bridge in Murray darter and the Conasauga logperch. Federal Register 50(150): 31597-31603. anywhere within its range, in County, Georgia. contrast with the more common and widespread Mobile logperch. Development of water storage reservoirs adjacent to the Conasauga River may also adversely affect habitat conditions in the lower portion of the Conasauga logperch's range by altering stream flow and water temperatures.

2018 RSSL from Georgia Taxa CommoScientific Name Legal StaHabitat Threats Survey Notes Chattahoochee-Oconee Counties References Amphibian Hellbender Cryptobranchus State Clear, cool, mountain streams and rivers with Habitat resulting from stream Hellbenders feed almost entirely on crayfish. Catoosa, Dade, Fannin, Gilmer, Rabun, Towns, Humphries, W. J., and T. K. Pauley. 2000. Seasonal changes in nocturnal activity alleganiensis Threatened, large rocky substrates. Swiftly flowing with impoundment, chemical pollution Hellbenders are most easily found by lifting large, flat Union of the alleganiensis G3G4T3T4 rocky bottoms. Although small streams may be from agricultural and industrial rocks and hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, in West Virginia. Journal of inhabited, those with widths greater than 5 m runoff, and siltation originating looking underneath. Individuals emerge from rock Herpetology 34: 604- (16 ft) from adjacent land shelters during the evening and, with the aid 607. seem to provide more suitable conditions. disturbance. Acid of a flashlight, can be observed while foraging Humphries, J. W. 2005. Georgia hellbender status assessment: historic and rain,sedimentation, people killing current distribution, them directly or by collecting habitat associations, and the influence of land use on abundance. Unpublished 'spring lizards' with report to Georgia bleach.Forested buffer strips Department of Natural Resources. 77 pp. adjacent to streams Humphries, J. 2008. Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Pp. 154-156 in containing hellbender populations Jensen, J. B., C. should be left intact or be restored to reduce the amount of D. Camp, J. W. Gibbons, and M. J. Elliott (eds.). Amphibians and Reptiles of chemical runoff and siltation Georgia. reaching the streams, and to University of Georgia Press, Athens. 575 pp. shade and cool the streams. Nickerson, M. A., K. L. Krysko, and R. D. Owen. 2003. Habitat differences affecting Impoundment, channelization, age class and stream diversion should be distributions of the hellbender salamander, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. avoided in these streams. Southeastern Naturalist 2:619-629. Phillips, C. A., and W. J. Humphries. 2005. Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Pp. 648- 651 in Lannoo, M. J. (ed.). Declining Amphibians: the Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wheeler, B. A., E. Prosen, A. Mathis, and R. F. Wilkinson. 2003. Population declines of a longlived salamander: a 20+ year study of hellbenders, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Biological Conservation 109:151 156 Amphibian Dwarf Desmognathus G2/S2 Rocky streams and seeps in montane hardwood The major threats are unknown. This species was formerly included in Desmognathus Gilmer, Habersham, Lumpkin, Rabun, Camp, C. D. 2004. Desmognathus folkertsi. Catalogue of American Amphibians black- folkertsi forests quadramaculatus. It was recognized as a distinct Stephens, Towns, Union, White. This species is and Reptiles 782:1-3. bellied species on the basis of adult size, body proportions, known from tributaries of the west fork of Camp, C. D., S. G. Tilley, R. M. Austin, Jr., and J. L. Marshall. 2002. A new species salamande colour pattern, and fixed differences at four allozyme Wolf Creek and Helton Creek, in Union of black-bellied salamander (genus Desmognathus) from the Appalachian r loci (Camp et al. 2002). County, Georgia, USA. These streams flow Mountain of northern Georgia. Herpetologica 58:471-484. independently into the Nottely River, which is Rothermel, B. B., J. B. Jensen, C. D. Camp, and T. D. Schwaner. 2007. Geographic a tributary of the Hiwassee River, in the distribution. Desmognathus folkertsi. Herpetological Review 38: 213. Tennessee River drainage. This species might be more widespread in the Nottely River watershed. Amphibian Patch- Urspelerpes brucei G1/S1 Headwater streams. leaf litter or under rocks The apparent restricted range of th All adult specimens collected to date have been Habersham, Stephens. Georgia Conservation Camp, C. D., W. E. Peterman, J. R. Milanovich, T. Lamb, J. C. Maerz, and D. B. nosed within or along the banks of the non-inundated found by flipping rocks or sorting through leaf litter Status: The entire known Georgia range of this Wake. 2009. A new genus and species of lungless salamander (family salamande part of first-order streambeds. along the banks of small seepage streams. Larvae salamander is contained within the Plethodontidae) from the Appalachian highlands of the south-eastern United r can be caught from stream pools by agitating the Chattahoochee National Forest. States. Journal of Zoology 2009:1-9. water and sweeping an aquarium net through, or by setting and checking leaf-litter bags or traps.

Crustacea Conasauga Cambarus cymatilis State Sandy clay burrows up to 1 mile from nearest Small range size makes this Active burrows are found from about mid-March to Murray, Whitfield. Georgia Conservation Hobbs, Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1970. New crayfishes of the genus Cambarus from n blue Endangered, stream. Complex burrows adjacent to streams species vulnerable to extirpation. mid-November if the water table is within Status: There is a single population known Tennessee burrower G1/S1 or in low areas where the water table is About one-halfof the known about 2 feet of the surface of the ground. from state-owned property, the Conasauga and Georgia (Decapoda: Astacidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of near the surface of the ground. populations of this species occur River Natural Area. Washington 83(23): 241-259. within the Chatsworth city limits. Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to One location is in a eighborhood, Zoology 318:1-549. and the other was along a street Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes that has now been paved over. (Decapoda: Areas with burrows should be Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to protected from land disturbing Zoology 480:1-236 activities. Environmental education programs should include information about burrowing crayfishes and encourage protection of burrows. Crustacea Chickamau Cambarus extraneus State Small to medium shallow rocky streams with Small range size makes this Most easily collected by holding a net perpendicular Catoosa, Walker, Whitfield. The Chickamauga Hagen, H. A. 1870. Monograph of the North American Astacidae. Illustrated n ga crayfish Threatened, moderate current. underneath rocks or in leaf species vulnerable to extirpation. to the current downstream of a large rock, crayfish is known only from the South Catalogue G2/S2 material and woody debris in slow moving to Heavy then lifting the rock and disturbing the substrate Chickamauga Creek system in Catoosa, of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 3:1-119 moderately flowing sections of small streams. sedimentation resulting from poor beneath it. Walker, and Whitfield Counties of Georgia, Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to development and land and Hamilton County, Tennessee. All of these Zoology 318:1-549. management practices may locations lie in the Ridge and Valley Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes cover substrates and other physiographic province. It (Decapoda: daytime hiding places on which has been collected in about 15 locations in the Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to crayfishes rely to avoid Georgia portion of its range. Zoology 480:1-236 predation. The introduction of non- Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, native crayfishes is a threat to all H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A native crayfishes. reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 372-389.

Crustacea Little Cambarus georgiae State Flowing parts of medium size rivers with sandy- Small range of this species and Most easily collected by holding a net perpendicular Rabun. The Georgia range lies within the Blue Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to n Tennessee Endangered, clay substrate. stream dwelling species and can the high development rates to the current downstream of a large rock, Ridge physiographic province. In Zoology 318:1-549. crayfish G2G3/S1 be found in within that then lifting the rock and disturbing the substrate Georgia, the species appears to be restricted Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes leaf litter or other debris in moderately flowing range are significant threats to beneath it. to the Little Tennessee River and Betty’s (Decapoda: water as well as under rocks in quieter the Little Tennessee crayfish. Creek. Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to parts of the stream. Heavy sedimentation Zoology 480:1-236 resulting from poor development Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, and land management practices H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A may cover substrates reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and and other daytime hiding places Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 372-389. on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation. The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native crayfishes. Crustacea Hiawassee Cambarus parrishi State Rocky areas between riffles in clear headwater The small range of this species Most easily collected by holding a net perpendicular Towns. known only from the extreme Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to n headwater Endangered, streams. stream dweller and is usually collected and the high development rates to the current downstream of a large rock, headwater Zoology 318:1-549. s crayfish G2/S1 from beneath large within that then lifting the rock and disturbing the substrate portions of the Hiwassee River system in Hobbs, H. H., r. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes rocks in flowing water, usually near riffles. range are significant threats to beneath it. Tennessee and Georgia in the Blue Ridge (Decapoda: Occasionally they can be found in packs of the Hiwassee headwater crayfish. physiographic province. In Georgia, the Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to leaf litter. Heavy sedimentation species is restricted to the Hiwassee River Zoology 480:1-236 resulting from poor development system upstream of Blairsville in Towns Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, and land management practices County. H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A may cover substrates reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and and other daytime hiding place Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 72-389. on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation. The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native crayfishes. Crustacea Beautiful Cambarus speciosus State Medium-sized streams with clear water and Small range of this species and Most easily collected by holding a net perpendicular Gilmer, Murray, Pickens. The beautiful Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to n crayfish Endangered, moderate to swift current with rock-littered the high development rates to the current downstream of a large rock, crayfish is endemic to the Coosawattee River Zoology 318:1-549. G2/S2 substrate. medium-sized streams from within that then lifting the rock and disturbing the substrate system (Upper Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes beneath rocks in moderate to swift current. range are significant threats to beneath it. Coosa River system) in northwest Georgia. (Decapoda: the beautiful crayfish. Heavy Records are known from Talking Rock Creek Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology sedimentation resulting from and several other streams and rivers upstream 480:1- poor development and land of Carter’s Lake Reservoir. Almost all of 236 management practices may the occupied watersheds fall within the Blue Schuster, G.A. 2001. A study of the current status of two species of crayfishes, cover substrates and other Ridge physiographic province. Cambarus daytime hiding places on which coosawattae, and Cambarus speciosus, both endemic to the Coosawattee River crayfishes rely to avoid predation. system, in northern Georgia. Final Report, Georgia Forest Watch, Ellijay, Georgia. The introduction of 9 pp. non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native crayfishes. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 72-389.

Fish Bluestripe Cyprinella callitaenia State Rare Flowing areas in large creeks and medium-sized Highscale shiners have a limited raThis species is vulnerable to seining and backpack Habersham, Lumpkin, White. Sparsely Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian shiner G2G3/S2 rivers over rocky substrates. tributary streams, electrofishing. distributed upstream of Lake Lanier and most Institution, Washington D.C. 736pp. often near stream confluences with larger records in this area pre-date the 1960s. The Dahlberg, M. D., and D.C. Scott. 1971. The freshwater fishes of Georgia. Bull. rivers. These shiners inhabit runs and pools over Tallulah River system record dates 1955. Georgia Acad. Sci. sand and bedrock substrates 29:1-64. Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. Hist. 867pp. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Suttkus, R. D. and E. C. Raney. 1955. Notropis hypsilepis, a new cyprinid fish from the Apalachicola River system of Georgia and Alabama. Tulane Studies in Zoology 2: 161-170. Fish Blotched Erimystax insignis State Medium to large clear streams in moderate depends on good water quality and This species can be surveyed using underwater Fannin, Towns, Union. Twenty-nine randomly Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee chub Endangered current with substrate of gravel to cobble. observation methods or by backpack electrofishing. selected sites, located upstream and Press, Knoxville. 681pp. G4/S2 moderate-sized creeks and small upland rivers, downstream of Lake Blue Ridge on the Harris, J. L. 1986. Systematics, distribution, and biology of fishes currently usually in riffles and runs with coarse, rocky mainstem Toccoa River, were surveyed by allocated to Erimystax Jordan, a subgenus of Hybopsis (Cyprinidae). Ph.D. substrates (e.g., gravel, cobble, bedrock). snorkeling during summer 2008. The blotched Dissertation, Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville. 335pp. chub was observed at 12 of these sites (41%), Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. Am. Fish. all of which were located upstream of Lake Soc., Bethesda, Md. 1079pp. Blue Ridge Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. Hist. 867pp. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Fish Holiday Etheostoma State Small creeks to moderate sized rivers in gravel As with the Cherokee darter, potenHoliday darters can be collected using kick-seine Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Murray Anderson, G. B. 2009. Confronting incomplete detection to address questions darter brevirostrum Endangered, and bedrock pools. small- to medium-sized methods, with or without the use of a backpack about distribution and reproductive season for four imperiled stream fishes. G2/S1 streams with relatively steep gradient. They electrofisher, or they may be observed by snorkeling. Master of Science thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. 94pp. often inhabit moderate to swift currents, but Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian can be found in slower pools and along stream Institution, Washington D.C. 736pp. margins where the substrata is composed of Etnier, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee gravel, cobble and sand. Holiday darters often Press, Knoxville. 681pp. occur in depths of approximately 30 cm (11.8 Johnston, C. E. and J. R. Shute. 1997. Observational notes on the spawning in). behavior of the blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) and the holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum), two rare fishes of the Conasauga River, Georgia and Tennessee. Proc. Southeastern Fishes Council 35:1-2. Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. Hist. 867pp. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Suttkus, R. D. and D. A. Etnier. 1991. Etheostoma tallapoosae and E. brevirostrum, two new darters, subgenus Ulocentra, from the Alabama River drainage. Tulane Stud. Zool. Bot. 28: 1-24. Fish Coldwater Etheostoma ditrema State ndangered, Vegetated springs and spring runs or small Small number of extant Seining and dip-netting are effective methods, Bartow, Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Murray, Boschung, H.T., and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books. darter G2,S1 streams with spring influence. limestone springs populations is the greatest threat especially in heavily vegetated areas. Polk, Whitfield. endemic to the Coosa River Etnier, D. A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee and spring runs in the Ridge and Valley to the persistence basin of Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Press, physiographic province (see photo below). They of this species in Georgia. Almost However, a recent phylogenetic analysis Knoxville. 681pp. are all populations are isolated from concluded that the coldwater darter Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Protected Animals of Georgia. found in association with aquatic plants and each other by long comprises at least three valid species, one of Wild. organic debris in areas with slow or no water distances, which limits which is largely restricted to Georgia. Within Res. Div., Nongame Wildlife & Natural Heritage Section, Social Circle, GA. 247 pp. current. Aquatic plant species utilized include opportunities for recolonization Georgia, this species is Kuhajda, B.R., and R.L. Mayden. 2002. Status survey of the Coldwater Darter, after local population loss. watercress, milfoil, eelgrass, and aquatic known from the Etowah, Conasauga, Coosa, Etheostoma ditrema, in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Final report to the mosses. Oostanaula, and Conasauga River systems, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. but is presumed extirpated from the Etowah. Mayden, R.L., K.E. Knott, J.P. Clabaugh, B.R. Kuhajda, and N. J. Lang. 2005. Systematics and population genetics of the coldwater (Etheostoma ditrema) and watercress (Etheostoma nuchale) darters, with comments on the Gulf darter (Etheostoma swaini) (Percidae: subgenus Oligocephalus) Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 33(5) : 455 –478. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham. 820pp. Ramsey, J. S., and R. D. Suttkus. 1965. Etheostoma ditrema, a new darter of the subgenus Oligocephalus (Percidae) from springs of the Alabama River basin in Alabama and Georgia. Tulane Studies in Zoology 12(3):65-77. Seesock, W. C. 1979. Some aspects of the life history and ecology of the coldwater darter, Etheostoma ditrema, from Glencoe Spring, Etowah County, Alabama. M.S. thesis, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala. 70pp. Utter, P. S. 1984. A taxonomic review of the darters referred to Etheostoma swaini and Fish Wounded Etheostoma State Fast rocky riffles of small to medium rivers. Impoundments throughout the upp This species can be surveyed using underwater Fannin. The wounded darter occurs only in the Etnier, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee darter vulneratum Endangered, rmoderate to large rivers, inhabiting deep runs observation methods or by backpack electrofishing upper Tennessee River system in east Press, Knoxville. 681pp. G3/S1 with gentle to moderate current over boulders upstream of a stationary seine. Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North and large cobble substrates. Georgia. In Georgia, it inhabits the mainstem America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Toccoa River and downstream portions of Stiles, R.A. 1972. The comparative ecology of three species of Nothonotus larger tributary streams. Most records are (Percidae-Etheostoma) in Tennessee’s Little River. Ph.D. Dissertation, The from the mainstem Toccoa River upstream University of Tennessee, 97 pages. from Blue Ridge Reservoir; the only record downstream of the reservoir is from the Fightingtown Creek system.

Fish Lined chub Hybopsis State Rare, Upland creeks over sandy substrate with gentle This species has a wide but very Minnows are very vulnerable to seining and other Yes - Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Floyd, Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, lineapunctata G3G4/S2 current. pools in small and medium-sized spotty distribution within the standard sampling techniques. Gordon, Murray, Walker, Whitfield. endemic Washington streams and near upper Coosa River to both the Coosa and Tallapoosa river D.C. 736 pp. the shoreline in sections of rivers with moderate system. Long distances separate systems (Alabama Clemmer, G.H., and R.D. Suttkus. 1971. Hybopsis lineapunctata, a new cyprinid current. most populations, which makes River drainage) within the states of Alabama, fish from the them especially vulnerable to Georgia, and Tennessee. Most of the Coosa upper Alabama River system. Tulane Studies of Zoology and Botany 17(2):21-30. local extinction. This distribution River Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of pattern also exposes the lined system records in Georgia are from the Ridge Tennessee Press, chub to a wide array of threats, and Valley physiographic province Knoxville. 689 pp. including urbanization, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Protected animals of Georgia. impoundments, and failure to Wildlife Resources follow agricultural best- Division, Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Section, Social Circle. 247 pp. management practices. Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp. Skelton, C.E. and B. Albanese. 2006. Field guide to the fishes of the Conasauga river system. U.S. Forest Service, Gainesville, Georgia. 251 pp.

Fish Robust Moxostoma robustum State Medium to large rivers, shallow riffles to deep Large hydroelectric facilities have Consult the Robust Redhorse Conservation No - Appling, Baldwin, Bryan, Bulloch, Burke, Bryant, R. T., J. W. Evans, R. E. Jenkins, and B. J. Freeman. 1996. The mystery fish. redhorse Endangered, flowing water; moderately swift current Committee Butts, Chatham, Columbia, Effingham, Elbert, Southern Wildlife. Vol. 1 (2) 26-35. G1/S1 Emanual, Franklin, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, Grabowski, T.B., and J.J. Isely. 2006. Seasonal and diel movement and habitat use Jekins, Johnson, Jones, Laurens, Lincoln, of robust redhorses in the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina. Madison, Monroe, Pulaski, Putnam, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1145-1155. Richmond, Screven, Twiggs, Washington, Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Wilkes, Wilkinson. a small population persists Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md. 1079pp. in a stretch of the Oconee River from Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North Milledgeville south to just above Dublin, America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Georgia. Fish Apalachico Moxostoma sp. 1 G3/S3 Pools, runs, and riffles (shoals) of large rivers Protect Apalachicola river system from modification. Carroll, Clay, Coweta, Decatur, Early, •Harris, P. M., and R. L. Mayden. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of major clades la and their tributaries Hall,Harris, Heard, Macon, Lee, Meriwether, of Catostomidae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) as inferred from mitchondrial SSU and Redhorse Muscogee, Quitman, Seminole, Talbot, Taylor, LSU rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:225-237. Terrell, Troup, White. Endemic to Apalachicola drainage, Florida, Georgia, and •Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Alabama, USA, including the Flint River system Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State of Georgia, the Chattahoochee River system in Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp. Georgia and Alabama, and the Apalachicola River system in Florida. •Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.

•Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

•NatureServe. Unpublished. Concept reference for taxa which have not yet been described; to be used as a placeholder until a citation is available which describes the circumscription of the taxon.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

•Smith G R 1992 Phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae Fish Frecklebell Noturus munitus State Shoals and riffles of moderate to large streams Dams and impoundments. High leFrecklebelly Darters are regarded by some as fairly Dawson, Murray. Etowah River, northern NatureServe. 2013. Noturus munitus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species y madtom Endangered, and rivers resistant to non-destructive intrusion (S. Shively pers. Georgia; Conasauga River, northern Georgia 2013: e.T14904A19034582. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- G3/S1 comm. 1997), but others consider them fragile and and southeastern Tennessee 1.RLTS.T14904A19034582.en. Downloaded on 03 October 2018. susceptible to non-destructive intrusion (P. Shute pers. comm. 1997). Fish Bridled Percina kusha State Flowing pools and runs in large streams and Limited geographic range and the Annual, seasonal, and diurnal shifts in habitat use Dawson, Fannin, Lumpkin, Murray, Pickens, Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, darter Endangered, small to medium sized rivers with clear species’ restriction to clear have been documented for the population in the Whitfield. 3 known sites within the project Washington G2/S1 watersmall, clear rivers and the lower branches. flowing pools in Conasauga River population. Often found in low area (2 of the sites are off Forest but within 1 D.C. In association with a medium-sized rivers make the numbers, and it may be necessary to sample a site mile downstream of USFS boundary. Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of variety of substrates and cover types, including bridled darter vulnerable to repeatedly in order to determine presence. Polpulations occur in the upper Conasauga Tennessee sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock, woody habitat degradation. Land River and tributaries; Talking Rock Creek Press, Knoxville. debris,aquatic plants, and detritus. disturbance (Coosawattee River system) and the upper Johnson, C.E., Kleiner, K.J. & Herrington, S.J. 2002. Seasonal, diel, and spawning associated with residential and Etowah River and tributaries (e.g., Amicalola habitat of the urban development in the north Creek, Cochran Creek, Long Swamp Creek, rare muscadine darter (Percina sp.) in the Conasauga River, Georgia. Georgia mountains could Shoal Creek). Southeastern Fishes threaten Council Proceedings 44: 1-11. populations, especially in the Williams, J.D., D. A. Neely, S.J. Walsh, and N.M. Burkhead. 2007. Three new upper reaches of the Etowah River and Long Swamp Creek percid fishes where from the Mobile Basin drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Zootaxa development is imminent. Failure 1549: to follow agricultural best- management practices is a threat to the Conasauga River population.

Fish Olive Percina squamata State High gradient upland rivers with large rocky Depends on good water quality and fast-water habitats in upland streams. Impoundm Fannin, Rabun. tTe Toccoa and Little Etnier, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee darter Endangered, substrate in moderate to swift current. deep, Tennessee River systems. Almost all of Press, Knoxville. 681pp. G3/S1 swift, rocky habitats of high elevation rivers, Georgia’s records are from the mainstem Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. where the fish forages in very fast current Toccoa River upstream of Lake Blue Ridge, but R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. around boulders. there a few records known from the lower Hist. 867pp. reaches of larger tributary streams (e.g., Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North Coopers Creek). America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. Rhode, F.C., M.L. Moser, and R.G. Arndt. 1998: Distribution and status of selected fishes in North Carolina, with a new state record. Brimleyana 25: 43-68. Thompson, B.A. 1977. An analysis of three subgenera (Hypohomus, Odontophilis, and Swainia) of the genus Percina (tribe Etheostomatini, family Percidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, Tulane University, 398 pages. Gastropod Upland Pleurocera showalteri G2Q/S1 Medium sized rivers Siltation, pollution, riparrian degregThis species was only found in three sites in the Floyd, Gordon, Murray. Found in three sites in •Bogan, A.E. and J. M. Pierson. 1993b. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the hornsnail Coosa River in Alabama (Lydeard, C. pers. comm. the Coosa River in Alabama (C. Lydeard, pers. Coosa River basin, Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in February, 1993 to 2000) primarily in Shelby and Talladega Cos. comm., 2000), and it is also known from a few Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Montgomery Alabama, Contract Number Endemic to upper Coosa River (Mirarchi, 2004). sites in Georgia in the Oostanaula watershed, 1923. 10 pp. Bogan and Pierson (1993) include Kelly Creek in St. but little else is known and the range, threats, •GOODRICH, C. 1944D. PLEUROCERIDAE OF THE COOSA RIVER BASIN. Clair Co., Yellowleaf Creek in Shelby Co., and and trends are poorly understood. NAUTILUS, 58(2):40-48. Wewoka Creek in Tallapoosa Co., Alabama. Sides •Goodrich, C. 1941b. Pleuroceridae of the small streams of the Alabama River (2005) was unable to locate specimens matching the system. Occasional Papers of the University of Zoology, University of Michigan description of this species in the Mobile basin for his 427: 1-10. dissertation work. It is known historically from the •Johnson, P.O. and R.R. Evans. 2001. The status of Leptoxis downiei (formani) in Oostanaula watershed in Georgia (Goodrich, 1937). the Upper Coosa River system of Georgia and Alabama. Report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Aquarium Research Institute •Sides, J.D. 2005. The systematics of freshwater snails of the genus Pleurocera (Gastropoda: Pleuroceridae) from the Mobile River basin. PhD dissertation, University of Alabama. 224 pp. •Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

Insect Georgia Beloneuria georgiana G2/S2 Small spring seeps and splash zones in southern Acid deposition Murray, Union: Murray (west of Ft. Mountain •DeWalt, R.E. and B.D. Heinold. 2005. Summer emerging Ephemeroptera, beloneuria Appalachien streams State Park), Union (Conner Mountain; Neel Plecoptera, and Trichoptera of Abrans Creek, Great Smoky Mountains National n stonefly Gap) Cos., Georgia; Jackson (Mull Creek), Park. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 107(1): 34-48. Macon (Robin Branch), Swain (Nantahala Gorge; Collins Creek) Cos., North Carolina. •LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Recently discovered in Abrams Creek Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North drainage, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp. (DeWalt and Heinold, 2005). LeGrand et al. (2006) cite high elevation spring brooks in •Stark, B. P. and A. R. Gaufin. 1976. The Nearctic species of Acroneuria Macon Co., North Carolina. (Plecoptera: Perlidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 49(2):221-253

•Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online. Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.

•Stark, B.P. 2004. Perlidae (The stones). Pages 61-148 in B.P. Stark and B.J. Armitage (eds.) The Stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Eastern North America. Volume II. Chloroperlidae, Perlidae, and Perlodidae (Perlodinae). Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey New Series 14. 192 pp.

Insect Cherokee Gomphus consanguis State Spring-fed moderately-flowing forest streams, many factors that degrade stream Cherokee clubtails may be surveyed for as adults or Catoosa, Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Walker, Beaton, G. 2007. Dragonflies and damselflies of Georgia and the southeast. clubtail Threatened, especially where they drain small ponds. Larvae habitat quality in as larvae, but are most easily surveyed for as adults. Whitfield. As of 2008, this species is known University of dragonfly G3/S2 are usually found in small first- and second- the region, including Adult surveys should focus on the correct habitat from ten streams in six counties within Georgia Press, Athens. 368 pp. order streams with silty pool impoundments, destruction of during northwest Georgia (Catoosa, Chattooga, Beaton, G. 2008. Results of 2006-2007-2008 Georgia stream surveys for bottoms; occupied streams are often spring-fed. riparian forests, and runoff of June, on sunny or partly cloudy days with the Floyd, Gordon, Walker, and Ophiogomphus Adults utilize these same habitats during the sediment, temperature above 24ºC (75ºF). Immature adults Whitfield counties). edmundo and Gomphus (Gomphurus) consanguis. Georgia Department of breeding season, but are also found in nearby nutrients, and toxins associated are more difficult to find as they are spread out away Natural Resources, fields and other areas of open habitat. with poor development and from the stream in open habitat. Larvae are Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Conservation Section, Social Circle. 5 pp. agricultural practices. fairly easy to find in the small streams in which this Bick, G.H. 2003. At-risk Odonata of conterminous United States. Bulletin of species is found, and occur in silt and American detritus along the edge of and at the bottom of slow Odonatology 7: 41-56. pools. Donnelly, T.W. 2004. Distribution of North American Odonata. Part I: Aeshnidae, Petaluridae, Gomphidae, Cordulegastridae. Bulletin of American Odonatology 7: 61-90. Dunkle, S.W. 2000. Dragonflies through binoculars. New York, Oxford University Press, 266 pp. Mauffray, B., and G. Beaton. 2005. The distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in Georgia. Bulletin of American Odonatology 9: 21-66. Moore, N.W. 1997. Dragonflies – status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Odonata Specialist Group, Cambridge, England. 28 pp. Needham, J.G., M.J. Westfall, Jr., and M.L. May. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida. 939 pp. Tennessen, K.J., J.D. Harper, and R.S. Krotzer. 1995. The distribution of Odonata in Alabama. Bulletin of American Odonatology 3: 49-74. Tennessen K J and A E Hopper 2007 New distribution records of Gomphus Insect Edmund’s Ophiogomphus State Clear, moderately flowing streams and rivers habitat alteration associated with best accomplished during the flight season in late Rabun, Murray, White. Two of the adjacent Beaton, G. 2007. Dragonflies and damselflies of Georgia and the southeast. snaketail edmundo Endangered, with riffles.medium- to large-sized, clear agricultural April through June, but winter larval surveys could county pairs (Murray in Georgia and Polk in University of G1G2/S1 streams and rivers with moderately practices and commercial and also be effective. Tennessee; and Rabun in Georgia and Oconee Georgia Press, Athens. 368 pp. fast currents. Adult males are found mostly on residential development in the in Beaton G. 2008. Results of 2006-2007-2008 Georgia stream surveys for rocks in riffles or rapids while territorial, but north Georgia mountains. Failure South Carolina) really only represent single Ophiogomphus appear to spend much of their lives in the to populations. This species was thought extinct edmundo and Gomphus (Gomphurus) consanguis. Georgia Department of treetops. follow agricultural best- in the 1970s and 1980s, but was rediscovered Natural Resources, management practices results in in North Carolina in 1994. Surveys during Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Conservation Section, Social Circle. 5 pp. sedimentation and bank 2006-2008 Bick, G.H. 2003. At-risk Odonata of conterminous United States. Bulletin of destabilization documented healthy populations occurring American and potential degradation of within long stretches of both the upper Odonatology 7: 41-56. water quality from pesticide and Conasauga Donnelly, T.W. 2004. Distribution of North American Odonata. Part I: Aeshnidae, fertilizer runoff. One of the known streams in Georgia, Smith Creek, and upper Chattooga Rivers. However, Petaluridae, is in danger of being impacted by Edmund’s snaketail was not detected at the Gomphidae, Cordulegastridae. Bulletin of American Odonatology 7:61-90. development occurring near other known Dunkle, S.W. 2000. Dragonflies through binoculars. Oxford University Press, New the city of Helen. Georgia site, Smith Creek in White County York. 266 (Chattahoochee River system) during this pp. same Mauffray, B., and G. Beaton. 2005. The distribution of dragonflies and damselflies survey effort. (Odonata) in Georgia. Bulletin of American Odonatology 9: 21-66. Moore, N.W. 1997. Dragonflies – status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Odonata Specialist Group, Cambridge, England. 28 pp. Needham, J.G., M.J. Westfall, Jr., and M.L. May. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida. 939 pp. Tennessen, K. and S. Krotzer. 1999. Population survey of Ophiogomphus edmundo in the Conasauga River: results of the 1999 search. U.S. Forest Service.

Mussel Brook Alasmidonta varicosa G3/S2 Medium rivers and creeks with gravel and Particularly sensitive to Protect land and maintain healthy riparian habitat Rabun, Chattooga River. The •ADKINS, JENNY E. 1995. FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE CHATTOOGA RIVER. floater boulders. high relief streams among boulders in sedimentation, flow alteration and adjacent to streams with populations of most viable southern population may be in the FINAL RPT. USDA FOREST SERV. & USDA NAT. RES. CONS. SERV. 14PP. sand. low oxygen brook floaters. Chattooga River near the South conditions (Taxonomic Expertise Carolina/Georgia state line. It is also found in •Alderman, J.M. 1998a. Survey for the endangered Carolina heelsplitter Committee 2004).Pollution of Flat Creek and the Lynches River; (Lasmigona decorata) in South Carolina. A final report prepared for the South small rivers from waste water Carolina Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina. 67 pp. plant releases, releases from poultry processing plants and •Allen, W.R. 1914. The food and feeding habits of freshwater mussels. Biological other point sources of pollutants Bulletin 27(2):127-147. is believed to have impacted this species. Other threats come from •Allen, W.R. 1921. Studies of the biology of freshwater mussels. Experimental impoundments, rip-rapping and studies of the food relations of certain Unionidae. Biological Bulletin 40(4):21- siltation and zebra mussels. 241.

•Amyot, J.P. and J.A. Downing. 1991. Endo- and epibenthic distribution of the unionid mollusc Elliptio complanata. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10(3):280-285.

•Bauer, G. 1988. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Biological Conservation 45:239-253.

•Bauer, G. 1992. Variation in the life span and size of the fresh water pearl mussel. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:425-436.

•Burch, J.B. 1975c. Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America: Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No 11. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 176 pp.

•CLARK, A. 1985. THE TRIBE ALASMIDONTINI (UNIONIDAE: ANODONTINAE), PART II LASMIGONA AND SIMPSONAIAS SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO Mussel Alabama Pseudodontoideus G3/S1 This is a small to medium sized river species that Excess sedimentation due to inadePeriods when female individuals are spawning or Gilmer, Murray, Whitfield; In the Mobile River Vaughn C.C. and C.C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing creekmuss connasaugaensis inhabits shallow embayments of larger rivers. It brooding as this species may have higher detection basin of Georgia, the Alabama Creekmussel bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431-1446. el ( formily Strophitis) is most often found in substrates composed of rates during this period. However, since basic life appears to occur only in the Conasauga River. Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama fine gravel, sand, and silt, typically in stretches history information for many of Georgia’s unionids is Extensive surveys have not found the species and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of with soem current in less than two feet of water lacking, sampling during periods when closely related elsewhere in the upper Coosa River basin in Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).sand-gravel species are spawning or brooding may increase Georgia. substrates in medium sized creeks to larger probability of detection.y rivers with moderate current Mussel Sothern Toxolasma G1/S1? Flowing waters of creeks to medium rivers; Lack dregradation of quality habitat make the species susceptible to extinction. In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is •Branson, B.A. 1982. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part I - purple corvunculus of recent records for this species hinder the known historically from the Coosa, Ambleminae. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 67: 38-45. lilliput evaluation of habitat requirements (J. D. Oostanaula, and Conasauga River drainages Williams, pers. comm. 10/10/1997). Mirarchi et but has not been collected there recently •Branson, B.A. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the al. (2004) lists habitat as creeks and rivers, (Williams and Hughes, 1998). Its current range Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy usually found in sand or silt substrata in areas is unknown, although according to recent of Science, 63: 49-59 exposed to variable flows. conservation assessment, it may still persist in Georgia in a Coosa River tributary •Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

•Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

•Hurd, J.C. 1974. Systematics and zoogeography of the Unionacean mollusks of the Coosa River drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Auburn University. Ph.D. dissertation. 240 pp., 10 tables, 6 fig., + 63 maps.

•Isely, F.B. 1924. The fresh water-mussel fauna of eastern Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 4: 43-118.

•Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102- 201.

•Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

•Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan U S A Mussel Purple Toxolasma lividum G3Q/SH This species can inhabit fine-particle substrates chemical and organic pollution, siltation from agriculture and clear-cutting, channel aThere is a record from Lookout Creek in •Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna Lilliput and also sand, gravel, or cobbles and boulders Georgia of the Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of in riffles or flats immediatly above riffles Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 102 pp. (Gordon, 1989). This species is reported from the headwaters of small to medium sized rivers. •Ahlstedt, S.A. and S.R. Brown. 1980. The naiad fauna of the Powell River in They have been collected from various Virginia and Tennessee (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Bulletin of the American substrates including sand, mud, and gravel. Like Malacological Union, 1979: 40-43. other members of this genus Toxolasma lividus seems to adapt to lentic environments as many •Baker, F.C. 1906. A catalogue of the mollusca of Illinois. Bull. Ill. State Lab. Nat. have been found in the Wheeler Reservoir in the Hist. 7:53-136. Tennessee River Drainage (Roe, 2002). It is often the first species encountered in headwater •Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North areas. It generally occurs at depths < 1 m. It Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. very rarely is encountered in a big river habitat 101 pp. or reservoirs (Gordon and Lazer, 1989). •Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

•Burch, J.B. 1975a. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications: Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.

•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. Petition submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

•Clark, C. F. 1977. The freshwater naiads of Ohio, Part 1: St. Joseph River of the Maumee. Sterkiana 65-66:14-36.

•Cummings K S and J M Berlocher 1990 The naiades or freshwater mussels Mussel Alabama Villosa nebulosa G3/S2 Large rivers to small streams; flowing water Excess sedimentation due to Recently reported from the Conasauga River inside Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Floyd, Gilmer, •Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to list 404 aquatic, riparian and rainbow with gravel and sand substrates, may be found inadequate riparian buffer zones, and adjacent to the Cherokee and Chattahoochee Gordon, Murray, Polk, Walker, Whitfield. wetland species from the southeastern United States as threatened or in fine sediments among cobble and boulders development, and agriculture National Forests, Polk and Bradley Cos., Tennessee, Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known from endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Petition submitted to the U.S. Fish covers suitable habitat and could and Murray Co., Georgia; as well as Holly Creek, the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and Wildlife Service. potentially suffocate mussels. adjacent to the Chattahoochee National Forest, and Coosawattee River drainages with few live Poor agricultural practices may Murray Co., Georgia (Johnson et al., 2005). individuals recently (Williams and Hughes, •HERRIG, JIM. 2002. CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST THREATENED, ENDANGERED also cause eutrophication and 1998), except in the Conasauga River. AND SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST (TES), 9/16/02 UPDATE. USDA FOREST SERVICE, 10 degrade water quality. PP.

•Haag, W. R., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1997. Host fishes and reproductive biology of 6 freshwater mussel species from the Mobile Basin, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16(3): 576-585.

•Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

•Isom, B.G., P. Yokley, Jr., and C.H. Gooch. 1973. Mussels of Elk River Basin in Alabama and Tennessee- 1965-1967. American Midland Naturalist 89(2):437- 442.

•Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102- 201.

•McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.

•Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82 85 2015 locally rare list

Taxa Species Scientific Name Species Status Habitat Threats Survey Notes Chattahoochee-Oconee Counties Refferences Group Common Name Amphibian 4-toed Hemidactylium G5/S3 Swamps; boggy streams and ponds; hardwood Loss of bog habitat Floyd, Habersham, Lumpkin, Walker, White. Buhlmann, K. A., and C. A. Pague. 1989. Field notes: Hemidactylium scutatum salamande scutatum forests. Adults live under stones and leaf litter in Although found throughout the eastern United (Four-toed Salamander). Catesbeiana 9(2): 33. r hardwood forests surrounding boggy areas; the States, four-toed salamanders are patchily need for this special habitat accounts for its distributed and are absent from many areas of Hess, Zachary J. and Reid N. Harris. Eggs of Hemidactylium scutatum are spotty distribution. Breeding occurs during apparently suitable habitat. Within our region unpalatable to insect predators. Copeia 2000 (2), 597-600. evening rains in late winter or early spring. Eggs this species is almost completely restricted to are attached to sphagnum moss or other the Piedmont and lower elevations of the vegetation at the water's edge. Females, often mountains. Found under logs and rocks in in groups, guard the eggs until they hatch six to bogs, boggy streams, and floodplains; almost eight weeks later. The larvae remain aquatic for always in association with sphagnum moss. about nine weeks and mature in two to three years.

Amphibian Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus G5/S1 Larger streams and resevoirs. Require shelter Water pollution and siltation. Mostly nocturnal Catoosa, Fannin. More surveys are needed. Jenson, Camp, Gibbons and Elliot. 2008. Amphibians and Reptiles of Georgia. such as logs, rocks and leaf packs. Sometimes killed by fishermen. Expected to be in larger streams of the TN University of Georgia Press, Athens GA. river drainage. Crustacea Mountain Cambarus State The small range of this species and Since this species is usually found in flowing water, it Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Murray, Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to n Crayfish conasaugaensis Threatened, the high development rates within is Pickens. endemic to the Coosawattee River Zoology 318:1-549. G3/S3 that most easily collected by holding a net perpendicular system (Upper Coosa River system) in Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes range are significant threats to the to the current downstream of a large northwest Georgia. Records are known from (Decapoda: beautiful crayfish. Heavy rock, then lifting the rock and disturbing the Talking Rock Creek and several other streams Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology sedimentation resulting from poor substrate beneath it and rivers upstream of Carter’s Lake 480:1- development and land management Reservoir. Almost all of 236 practices may cover substrates and the occupied watersheds fall within the Blue Schuster, G.A. 2001. A study of the current status of two species of crayfishes, other Ridge physiographic province. Hobbs Cambarus Medium-sized streams from daytime hiding places on which (1981) reported it from 10 locations and coosawattae, and Cambarus speciosus, both endemic to the Coosawattee River beneath rocks in moderate to swift current. crayfishes rely to avoid predation. Schuster (2001) documented it at five system, in northern Georgia. Final Report, Georgia Forest Watch, Ellijay, Georgia. The introduction of additional 9 pp. non-native crayfishes is a threat to sites. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, all native crayfishes. H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 72-389. Crustacea Coosawatt Cambarus State Riffle habitats. Adults are typically found under The small range of this species and Since this species is usually found in swift water, it is Fannin, Gilmer, Pickens. known only from the n ae crayfish coosawattae Threatened, rocks in relatively fast currents within streams. the high development rates within most easily Coosawattee River system in Gilmer Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian G2/S2 Juveniles may be found in leaves or woody that range are collected by holding a net perpendicular to the County, Georgia. Records are from streams Contributions to debris in slower moving water. significant threats to the current downstream of a large rock, then lifting and rivers upstream of Carter’s Lake and are Zoology 318:1-549. Coosawattee crayfish. Heavy the rock and disturbing the substrate beneath it. within Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes sedimentation resulting from poor the Blue Ridge physiographic province. (Decapoda: development and land management Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to practices may cover substrates and Zoology 480:1-236 other daytime hiding places on Schuster, G.A. 2001. A study of the current status of two species of which crayfishes rely to avoid crayfishes, Cambarus predation. The introduction of non- coosawattae and Cambarus speciosus, both endemic to the Coosawattee native crayfishes is a threat to all River native crayfishes. system in northern Georgia. Final Report, Georgia Forest Watch, Ellijay, Georgia. 9 pp. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 372-389.

Crustacea Etowah Cambarus fasciatus State Lotic habitats under rocks in flowing water. The small range of this species and Collected by holding a net perpendicular to the Dawson, Lumpkin. known only from the n crayfish Threatened, Usually found beneath rocks in moderately to the high development rates within current downstream of a large rock, then lifting Etowah River system, primarily Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian G3/S2 swiftly flowing areas of streams. It is that above Allatoona Dam. All of the records of this Contributions to occasionally found in association with woody range are significant threats to the species are from the Piedmont Zoology 318:1-549. debris or Etowah crayfish. Heavy physiographic province. Only three collections Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes aggregations of leaves. sedimentation resulting from poor have been made downstream of Allatoona (Decapoda: development and land management Dam and it is possible that this form Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to practices may cover substrates and represents an undescribed species. Zoology 480:1-236 other Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. daytime hiding places on which Eversole, P. Hamr, crayfishes rely to avoid predation. H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A The introduction of reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States non-native crayfishes is a threat to and all native crayfishes. Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 372-389.

Crustacea Hiawassee Cambarus G3G4/S3 Clear streams with swift flow and rocky The small range of this species and Collected by holding a net perpendicular to the Fannin, Towns, Union. The Hiwassee n crayfish hiwasseensis substrate .A stream dweller and is usually the high development rates within current downstream of a large rock, then lifting. headwater crayfish is known only from the Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian collected from beneath large that extreme headwater portions of the Hiwassee Contributions to rocks in flowing water, usually near riffles. range are significant threats to the River system in Tennessee and Georgia in the Zoology 318:1-549. Occasionally they can be found in packs of Hiwassee headwater crayfish. Heavy Blue Ridge physiographic province. In Georgia, Hobbs, H. H., r. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes leaf litter. sedimentation resulting from poor the species is restricted to the Hiwassee River (Decapoda: development and land management system upstream of Blairsville in Towns Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to practices may cover substrates County. Zoology 480:1-236 and other daytime hiding place on Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. which crayfishes rely to avoid Eversole, P. Hamr, predation. The H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A introduction of non-native reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States crayfishes is a threat to all native and crayfishes. Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 72-389.

•Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes Crustacea Greensadd Cambarus manningi State Rocky riffles in streams with moderate to swift The small range of this species and Chattooga, Floyd, Murray, Whitfield (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian n le crayfish Endangered, current. found under rocks in riffle areas of the high development rates within Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236. G4/S1? clear, moderate to swift flowing streams (Hobbs that 1981). range are significant threats to the •McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, Hiwassee headwater crayfish. Heavy R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. sedimentation resulting from poor Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard, E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. development and land management Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R. practices may cover substrates Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. and other daytime hiding place on Newman, R.M. Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. which crayfishes rely to avoid Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F. Schram, C. Shih, L. predation. The Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific introduction of non-native names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: crayfishes is a threat to all native Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp. crayfishes. •Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil. 2004d. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.

•Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.

•Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3): 493-504.

•Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs III, H.W. Robison, C.E. Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007 A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United Crustacea A crayfish - Cambarus nodosus G4/S2 Cambarus nodosus is a primary burrowing The small range of this species and in complex burrows in ditches and seepage areas. Lumpkin, Rabun, Towns and White. n Knotty crayfish which is found in pools, seepage areas the high development rates within The constructed burrows often have multiple Headwater areas of the Hiwassee (Ocoee, Burrowing and occasionally in the riffle areas of streams. that branches and passageways. The openings of the Nottely, and Toccoa river basins), Savannah Crayfish This species can also be found in sphagnum range are significant threats to the burrow are usually marked with poorly constructed (Chattooga, Tugaloo, and Koewee river bogs. The substrate of the river is sand and mica Hiwassee headwater crayfish. Heavy chimneys (mounds of sand or mud placed around basins), and Chattahoochee river systems in with stretches of bed rock and scattered small sedimentation resulting from poor openings above ground). This species is also Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, to large rocks (Bouchard and Hobbs 1976). This development and land management sometimes found under rocks in seepage areas and and Georgia” (Hobbs Jr. 1989) The University of Georgia Museum of Natural History. 2008. species is probably a generalist as females with practices may cover substrates ditches. http://fishesofgeorgia.uga.edu/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/ai_s eggs and young has been found in ditches next and other daytime hiding place on pecies_page&key=cnodosus to roads in more than one locality (Bouchard which crayfishes rely to avoid and Hobbs 1976). predation. The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native crayfishes. •Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Fish Rosyside Clinostomus G5T3Q/S3 Upland streams in upper Savannah and Little No major threats are known. Home range averaged less than 20 m of stream Habersham, Rabun Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 736 pages. dace funduloides Tennessee drainages. small to medium streams length in NC with clear to turbid water and moderate current •Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ. Press, (Lee et al. 1980), and rocky flowing pools of University Park, PA. headwaters, creeks, and small rivers; this fish is most common in small clear streams (Page and •Davis, R. M. 1972. Age, growth, and fecundity of the rosyside dace, Burr 2011). It spawns on gravelly riffles and Clinostomus funduloides Girard. Chesapeake Science 13:63-66. sometimes uses the nests of chubs. Eggs are scattered. •Deubler, E. E., Jr. 1955. A taxonomic study of the cyprinid fish Clinostomus vandoisulus (Valenciennes) in the eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Hill, J., and G. D. Grossman. 1987. Home range estimates for three North American stream fishes. Copeia 1987:376-380.

•Mettee, M.F., P. E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pages.

•Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29 Bethesda Maryland 386 pp Fish Greenfin Etheostoma State Cool to cold high elevation creeks and rivers in Stream degradation Kick-seining or backpack electrofishing upstream of a Rabun. Little Tennessee River system darter chlorobranchium Threatened, swift current with boulder to bedrock substrate; resulting from failure to employ stationary net are effective methods G4/S2 Habitat includes fast riffles of cool and warm, Best Management Practices (BMPs) clear, high-elevation creeks and small to for forestry and agriculture, failure medium rivers with moderate to high gradient, to control soil erosion from Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. usually over gravel, boulders, and/or rubble at construction sites and bridge Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681pp. Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. depths of 10-30 cm (Lee et al. 1980, Etnier and crossings, Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, Md. 1079pp. Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, Page and increased stormwater runoff Lee, S. L., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and and Burr 2011).Riffles with swift currents over from developing urban and J. R.Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State bedrock, boulder, or industrial areas. Increasing Mus. Nat. Hist. 867pp. cobble substrata in medium to large, high- commercial, residential and Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of elevation streams with cool to cold water highway development utilizing poor North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 432pp. temperatures. construction and riparian management practices pose a significant threat to stream habitat quality in North Georgia. •Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny Fish Coosa Etheostoma coosae G4/S3 Habitat includes rocky pools and adjacent riffles No major threats are known Bartow, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dawson, Floyd, on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R.L. darter of clear creeks and small to medium rivers with Gilmer, Gordon, Murray, Pickens, Polk, Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American gravel, cobble, or rubble substrates; usually in Walker, Whitfield. Coosa River system (Mobile freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 areas of slow to moderate current; in larger Bay basin) of Alabama, Georgia, and pp. streams this darter is mainly limited to shallow southeastern Tennessee (Page and Burr 2011). gravelly portions of riffles (Lee et al. 1980, •Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Boschung and Mayden 2004, Page and Burr Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 960 pp. 2011). Spawning occurs on surfaces of rocks and small boulders (O'Neil 1981). •Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

•Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i- x + 854 pp.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•O'Neil, P. E. 1981. Life history of Etheostoma coosae (Pisces: Percidae) in Barbara Creek, Alabama. Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany 23:75- 84.

•Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific •Bart,names H. L., of fishesJr., and from L. M. the Page. United 1992. States The Canada influence and of sizeMexico and Seventhphylogeny Fish Greenbrea Etheostoma jordani G4/S3S4 Adults typically occur in riffles of clear creeks No major threats are known. Bartow, Chattooga, Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R.L. st darter and small to medium rivers, in moderate to Locally, this darter may be Murray, Pickens, Walker, Whitfield Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American strong current with gravel or rubble substrate threatened by habitat destruction freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 (lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 2011). Eggs are and degradation resulting from land pp. buried in middle of sand-gravel riffle 10-30 cm development and other activities deep; not all eggs laid in one location (Orr and that cause siltation. •Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Ramsey 1990). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 960 pp.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

•Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i- x + 854 pp.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•Orr, J. W. 1989. Feeding behavior of the greenbreast darter, Etheostoma jordani (Percidae: Etheostomatini). Copeia 1989:202-206.

•Orr, J. W., and J. S. Ramsey. 1990. Reproduction in the greenbreast darter, Etheostoma jordani (Teleostei: Percidae). Copeia 1990:100-107.

•Bart, Page H. L L., M Jr., H and Espinosa L. M. Page. Pérez 1992. L T TheFindley influence C R ofGilbert size and R phylogenyN Lea N Fish Redline Etheostoma G5/S1S3 Habitat includes swift shallow riffles in clear No major threats are known. Spawns late May to early August in eastern Catoosa, Dade, Fannin, Towns, Union, Walker, on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R.L. darter rufilineatum creeks and small to medium rivers (Page and Tennessee; eggs not guarded. Age range of breeding Whitfield. Hiwassee and Toccoa Drainage. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American Burr 2011). Smaller individuals occupy areas females is 1-3 years (Bart and Page 1992). freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 where current is less swift. Eggs are buried in pp. gravel riffles (Page 1983). •Etnier, D. A., and J. D. Williams. 1989. Ethestoma (Nothonotus) wapiti (Osteichthyes: Percidae), a new darter from the southern bend of the Tennessee River system in Alabama and Tennessee. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 102:987-1000.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz- Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter- Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

•Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

•Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i- x + 854 pp.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes•Boschung, from the H.United T., and States R. L. Canada Mayden. and 2004. Mexico Fishes American of Alabama. Fisheries Fish Rock Etheostoma rupestre State Rare, Swift rocky riffles often associated with attached Habitat in larger rivers has been Spawns March-April Dawson, Lumpkin, Murray. Coosa River Basin, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 960 pp. darter G4/S2 vegetation such as Podostemum much reduced by impoundments, Conasauga + Coosawattee River systems but most habitat and populations in •Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. creeks and medium rivers are University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp. secure (Boschung and Mayden 2004). •Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

•Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i- x + 854 pp.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Boston xix + 663 pp •Adamson, S.W. and T.E. Wissing. 1977. Food habits and feeding Fish Banded Etheostoma zonale G5/S3 Habitat includes rocky riffles of creeks and small No major threats are known. Spawns April-May Catoosa, Fannin, Towns, Union, Walker, periodicity of the rainbow, fantail, and banded darters in Four Mile Creek. darter to medium rivers (Page and Burr 2011); streams Hiwassee + Ocoee River Systems Ohio Journal of Science 77(4):164-169. of moderate gradient with bottoms of coarse gravel to rubble, often at depths over 25 cm at •Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and or near midchannel. In Arkansas, spawning phylogeny on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553- occurred in runs about 0.6-1.6 meters deep with 572 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North moderate current velocities (Walters 1994). American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Trautman (1981) reported spawning at depths xxvi + 969 pp. of less than 0.6 meters. Eggs are laid on algae and moss growing on stones and boulders in •Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, riffles or runs (Becker 1983, Walters 1994). Madison. 1052 pp.

•CROSS, F.B., AND J.T. COLLINS. 1975. FISHES IN KANSAS. UNIV. KANS. MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED.SERIES NO.3.

•CROSS, F.B.1967.HANDBOOK OF FISHES IN KANSAS. E. RAYMOND HALL.UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, LAWRENCE, KANSAS.

•Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ. Press, University Park, PA.

•Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1986. Etheostoma lynceum removed from the synonymy of E. zonale (Pisces, Percidae). Copeia 1986:832-836.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Greenberg, L.A. 1982. First record of the banded darter in the New York part of the Susquehanna River drainage. New York Fish and Game J. •Burr, B.M. 1991. The fishes of29(2):215 Illinois: an 216 overview of a dynamic fauna. Ill. Fish Bigeye Hybopsis amblops G5/S3 Habitat includes small to moderate size, clear- This fish is intolerant of water Spawns from late spring to early summer Catoosa, Dade, Union, Walker, Whitfield. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 34:417-427. chub water tributaries with sand, gravel, or rocky impoundment, siltation, and Hiwassee + Ocoee River Systems bottom; usually near riffles in quiet water; often pollution. •Coburn, M. M., and T. M. Cavender. 1992. Interrelationships of North associated with aquatic vegetation (Page and American cyprinid fishes. Pages 328-373 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Burr 2011). This species is exceptionally Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. intolerant of siltation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.

•Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ. Press, University Park, PA.

•Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ. No. 45. 357pp.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Grose, M. J., and E. O. Wiley. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the Hybopsis amblops species group (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Copeia 2002:1092-1097.

•Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

•Herkert, Jim. 1998. Proposed additions, deletions, and changes to the Illinois List of Threatened and Endangered Animals. 101st ESPB Meeting, August 21, 1998. 16pp.

•Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication Fish Etowah Hybopsis sp. 9 G1Q/S1S2 Generally in creeks and small to medium rivers Hybopsis sp. cf. H. winchelli Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Floyd, Forsyth, •Berendzen, P. B., T. Gamble and A. M. Simons. 2002. Phylogeography of chub over sand-silt bottom, usually in pools adjacent Paulding. Etowah Watershed the bigeye chub Hybopsis amblops (Teleostei: Cypriniformes): early to riffle areas. Tends to occupy smaller streams Pleistocene diversification and post-glacial range expansion. Journal of Fish in east than in west Biology 73: 2021-2039.

•Grose, M. J., and E. O. Wiley. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the Hybopsis amblops species group (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Copeia 2002:1092-1097.

•Shaw, K., E.O. Wiley, and T.A. Titus. 1995. A phylogenetic analysis of the Hybopsis amblops group. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 172: 1-27. •Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des Fish River Moxostoma State Rare, Swift waters of medium to large rivers Habitat alteration, such as Spawns in spring at water temperatures of 18-24 C Floyd, Gordon, Murray,Pickens, Towns, Union, poissons du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 9 redhorse carinatum G4/S3 channelization, impoundments, Whitfield. Conasauga, Coosawattee , pages. turbidity, siltation, and other forms Oostanaula, Etowah and Coosa water of pollution are the major threats. drainages. •Beaulieu, H. 1992. Liste des espèces de la faune vertébrée susceptibles These act as limiting factors because d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Ministère du Loisir, de la the redhorse seems to be inflexible Chasse et de la Pêche. 107 p. in its habitat requirements and is intolerant of pollution and heavy •Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, siltation. Siltation may be the reason Madison. 1052 pp. the redhorse has such a disjunct distribution (Scott and Crossman •Becker, L.R. 1982. Fishes of the Allegheny River and its tributaries 1973). One major reason for the between Salamanca and Alleghany, Cattauraugus County, New York. river redhorse's intolerance of Unpublished M.S. thesis. St. Bonaventure University. turbidity and siltation is that the major food items of this fish require •Bernatchez, L. et Giroux, M. 1991. Guide des poissons d'eau douce du clean gravel-sand stream bottoms Québec: leur distribution dans l'Est du Canada. Éditions Broquet Inc. 304 and are very susceptible to p. reduction or extirpation through excessive siltation (Gilbert 1978). •Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Food resources also are sensitive to Symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, toxicants. Food resource reductions Virginia. in turn reduce redhorse populations (Becker 1983). •COSEPAC 2006. Évaluation du rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Chevalier de rivière (MOXOSTOMA CARINATUM) au Canada - Mise à jour. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada. Ottawa. Vii+ 36p.

•COSSARO. 2016. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for River Redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum). June 2016 (final). 14pp. Fish Sicklefin Moxostoma sp.2 State Riffles, runs and pools in large creeks and small pollution and hydroelectric dams; A sucker Fish Towns. Hiawassi River System redhorse Endangered, to medium-sized rivers. Juveniles may also Erosion from poorly-managed land G2Q/S1 occur in reservoirs downstream of spawning disturbance activities, leading to silt- sites covered stream bottoms; Pollution run-off and discharge from industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other sources; Stream changes from straightening streams, •Harris, P. M., and R. L. Mayden. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of major dredging, and in-stream mining; clades of Catostomidae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) as inferred from Predation and habitat impacts by mitchondrial SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and nonnative animals. Recent efforts to Evolution 20:225-237. reduce sedimentation, and erosion and pollution controls, have •Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz- resulted in some improvements in Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. water quality, but sedimentation is Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter- still an issue Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of (SSA_SicklefinRedhorse_Final2016). imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries Problems caused by dams include 33(8):372-407. blockage of spawning migrations; •Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater reduced water temperatures; fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin unstable water levels; bed scouring Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp. from power-generating releases; reduction of gravel required for spawning and as a habitat for invertebrates (a redhorse food source); and low oxygenation from hypolimnetic releases from some dams (R. E. Jenkins). Climate change causing extreme events, increasing water temperatures and droughts •Harris, P. M., R. L. Mayden, H. S. Espinosa Perez, and F. Garcia de Leon. Fish Brassy Moxostoma sp.4 G4/S3 Medium to large streams with rocky substrate. Extirpated/possibly extirpated Spawns probably in spring; may reach sexual Rabun 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Moxostoma and Scartomyzon jumprock Silty to rocky pools and slow runs of large creeks maturity in two years. (Catostomidae) based on mitochondrial cytochrome b sequence data. and small to medium rivers; impoundments Journal of Fish Biology 61:1433-1452. (Page and Burr 1991, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). •Harris, P. M., and R. L. Mayden. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of major clades of Catostomidae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) as inferred from mitchondrial SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:225-237.

•Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxiii + 1079 pp.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

•Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 222 pp.

•Smith, G. R. 1992. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae, •Etnier,freshwater David fishesA. and of Wayne North AmericaC. Starnes. and 1993. Asia ThePages Fishes 778 826of Tennessee. in R L Fish Burrhead Notropis asperifrons State Small streams to medium-sized rivers in pools, Localized threats may exist, but on a Probably spawns April to June Chattooga, Floyd, Murray, Walker, Whitfield. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp. shiner Threatened, slow runs, and backwater areas range-wide scale no major threats Conasauga and Coosawattee River Systems G4/S2 are known •Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

•Page, LM, H.Espinoza-Perez, L.Findley, C.Gilbert, R. Lea, N. Mandrak, R.Mayden and J.Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 7th edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

•Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp. •Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ. Press, Fish Silver Notropis photogenis State Large creeks to small rivers in riffles to flowing Localized threats may exist, but on a Spawns in late spring or early summer in north. Rabun, Towns. Hiwassee River System University Park, PA. shiner Endangered, pools over firm substrates range-wide scale no major threats Sexually mature usually in 2nd summer in north G5/S1 are known. (Parker and McKee 1983) •Dowling, T. E., and W. M. Brown. 1989. Allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, and levels of phylogenetic resolution among four minnow species (Notropis: Cyprinidae). Systematic Zoology 38:126-143.

•Eaton, S.W., R.J. Nemecek and M.M. Kozubowski. 1982. Fishes of the Allegheny River above Kinzua Dam. New York Fish and Game J. 29(2):189- 198.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•McKee, P.M. and B.J. Parker. 1982. The distribution, biology, and status of the fishes Campostoma anomalum, Clinostomus elongatus, Notropis photogenis (Cyprinidae), and Fundulus notatus (Cyprinodontidae) in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 60: 1347-1358.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

•Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: •Bart,North H. L., America Jr., and north L. M. of Page. Mexico 1992. Houghton The influence Mifflin Company of size and Boston phylogeny Fish Tangerine Percina aurantiaca State Deep riffles and runs with boulders, cobble, or Distribution has been fragmented Spawns May to June or July Fannin, Union .Hiwassee and Ocoee River on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R.L. darter Endangered bedrock in large to moderate headwaters of by many reservoirs, but the species Systems Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American G4/S2 Tennessee River "continues to be reasonably freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 widespread and abundant" (Etnier pp. and Starnes 1993). •Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Greenberg, L. A. 1991. Habitat use and feeding behavior of thirteen species of benthic stream fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 31:389- 401.

•Howell, J. F. 1971. The life history and ecology of Percina aurantiaca (Cope). Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

•Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxiii + 1079 pp.

•Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

•Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i- x + 854 pp.

•Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 227 pp •Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1991. An analysis of Tennessee s Fish Bridled Percina kusha State Flowing pools and runs in large streams and Warren et al. (2000) and Freeman In the Conasauga River, this darter tends to occur in Dawson, Fannin, Lumpkin, Murray. jeopardized fish taxa. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science darter Endangered small to medium sized rivers with clear water et al. (2005) categorized P. kusha as sandy runs with moderate water velocity and Conasauga, Coosawattee + Etowah river 66(4):129-133. G2/S1 vulnerable (may become relatively shallow water depth (Johnson et al. 2002). basins endangered or threatened by It has been found among leaf packs in pools in winter •Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. relatively minor disturbance to its (Williams et al. 2007). University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp. habitat or that deserves careful monitoring of its distribution and •Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. abundance). University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Freeman, M. C., E. R. Irwin, N. M. Burkhead, B. J. Freeman, and H. L. Bart, Jr. 2005. Status and conservation of the fish fauna of the Alabama River system. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45:557-585.

•Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz- Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter- Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

•Johnson, C. E., K. J. Kleiner, and S. J. Herrington. 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.

•Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland. •Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny Fish Bronze Percina palmaris Small to medium rivers; in swift riffles over large Impoundments for water supply, Apparently spawns between March and June (Page Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Dawson, Gilmer, on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R.L. darter gravel or rubble. Largest individuals in very swift navigation, or hydropower 1983). Age range of breeding females is 1-3 years; 3 Gordon, Haralson, Lumpkin, Murray, Paulding, Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American water, smaller individuals in smaller slower production have eliminated some spawns/lifetime (Bart and Page 1992). Pickens. Conasauga River System freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 riffles over gravel or sometimes in gravel populations. Some habitat pp. raceways. degradation is tolerated, but the species is sensitive to siltation. •Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

•Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i- x + 854 pp. G4/S3 •METTEE, M.F., P.E. O'NIEL, AND J.M. PIERSON. 1996. FISHES OF ALABAMA AND THE MOBILE BASIN. OXMOOR HOUSE, INC., BIRMINGHAM, AL. 820PP.

•Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

•Page, L. M. 1983a. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 271 pp.

•Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific •Allen,names C.of R.,fishes S. Demarais,from the United and R. States S. Lutz. Canada 1994. andRed Mexicoimported Seventh fire ant Fish Dusky Percina sciera State Rare G5/S3 Large creeks and rivers in moderate current Localized threats may exist, but on a Spawns late May to early July Catoosa, Dade, Fannin, Walker, Whitfield impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59. darter associated with woody debris, undercut banks, range-wide scale no major threats or vegetation are known •Anderson, Allison A., C. Hubbs, K. O. Winemiller, and R. J. Edwards. 1995. Texas freshwater fish assemblages following three decades of environmental change. The Southwest Naturalist 40(3):314-321.

•Bandoli, James H. 1998. Status and Distribution of Darters in Southwestern Indiana, with Special Emphasis on the Spottail Darter, an Indiana Endangered Species. Submitted to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. 22 pp.

•Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553- 572 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.

•Douglas, Neil H. 1974. Freshwater fishes of Louisiana. Claitor's publ. div. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 443 pp.

•Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

•HUBBS, CLARK, EDIE MARSH-MATTHEWS, WILLIAM J. MATTHEWS, AND ALLISON A. ANDERSON. 1997. CHANGES IN FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN EAST TEXAS STREAMS FROM 1953 TO 1986. TEXAS J. SCI. 49(3)SUPPL.:67-84.

•HUBBS, CLARK. 1985. DARTER REPRODUCTIVE SEASONS. COPEIA 1985(1): 56-68. •Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant Fish River Percina shumardi State Large to medium rivers, deep chutes and riffles, Destruction of habitat seems to be Spawns February-March Murray. Conasauga and Coosa River Systems impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59. darter Endangered, coarse gravel substrate the biggest threat. Impoundments, G5/SX channelization, and dredging have •Anderson, Allison A., C. Hubbs, K. O. Winemiller, and R. J. Edwards. led to extirpation and declines in 1995. Texas freshwater fish assemblages following three decades of some rivers due to loss of shallow environmental change. The Southwest Naturalist 40(3):314-321. water and riffle habitat (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Lowe-McConnell •Bandoli, James H. 1998. Status and Distribution of Darters in 1990). Pollution may be a threat, Southwestern Indiana, with Special Emphasis on the Spottail Darter, an but this species is more tolerant of Indiana Endangered Species. Submitted to the Indiana Department of turbidity than are some darters. Not Natural Resources Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. 22 pp. clear to what extent threats are ongoing, as efforts to improve water •Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, quality are ongoing in parts of Madison. 1052 pp. range, and dam construction has tapered off. •COSSARO. 2016. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for River Darter (Percina shumardi). December 2016 (final). 23pp.

•CROSS, F.B., AND J.T. COLLINS. 1975. FISHES IN KANSAS. UNIV. KANS. MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED.SERIES NO.3.

•CROSS, F.B.1967.HANDBOOK OF FISHES IN KANSAS. E. RAYMOND HALL.UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, LAWRENCE, KANSAS.

•Dalton, K. W. 1990. Status of the river darter, Percina schumardi [sic], in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 104:59-63.

•Dalton, K.W. [1989]. Status report on the river darter, Percina shumardi, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 11 pp + appendices. •Blalock, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Freshwater mussels Mussel Delicate Elliptio arctata State Creeks and rivers with moderate current; mainly Sedimentation as a result of poor Murray, Whitfield (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of the Pea River Watershed of Alabama and Florida. spike Endangered, in crevices and under large rocks in silt deposits land management practices, Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 G2G3Q/S2 chemicals from industrial runoff, pp. reservoirs, bank and streambed destabilization, and water •Brim Box, J., and J. D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the withdrawals are all significant Apalachicola Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Bull. Alabama Mus. threats but have not been studied in Nat. Hist. 21:1-143. detail. •Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.

•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. Petition submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

•Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 1(3): 97-239.

•Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Chapter 8: Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273 in: C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press: New York. 389 pp.

•Gangloff, M.M. and P.W. Hartfield. 2009. Seven populations of the southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi) discovered in the choctawhatachee River basin, Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist 8(2):245- 254. •Anonymous. 1995. Status survey on three endemic fresh-water mussels Mussel Georgia Elliptio dariensis G3/S3 It is found on sand bars in currents ranging from Excessive sedimentation, Elliptio dariensis reaches much larger sizes and Appling, Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, found in the Altamaha River system. Triannual Unionid Report, 7: 6-7. elephante swift to sluggish (Johnson, 1970). In the main destabilization of banks and thickness than Elliptio monroensis, and the latter Tatnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne ar channel of the Altamaha River it was found in a sandbars, chemical pollution, and species generally has a more pronounced posterior •Butler, R.S. 1994. Untitled. Triannual Unionid Report, 4: 2 pp. range of habitats, from silty sand and detritus to extremely low water levels are ridge; with E. dariensis endemic to the Altamaha silty clay and sand, to small gravel (J. Brim Box, postulated threats, otherwise River system in Georgia, and E. monroensis endemic •Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the pers. obs.). threate information is largely to the St. Johns River in Florida (Butler, 1994). The Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11. lacking. intervening Satilla River has its own Elliptio downiei and intervening St. Mary's River has E. downiei •Johnson, R.I. 1970a. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (although Johnson (1970) called it Elliptio crassidens) (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the (Butler, 1994). Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 140(6):263-449.

•Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

•Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

•Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

•Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

•Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258. •Anonymous. 1995. Status survey on three endemic fresh-water mussels Mussel Altamaha Lampsilis G3G4/S3 Frequently found in silty sand or mud along Sedimentation as a result of poor O'Brien (2002) identified Gambusia holbrooki Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis, Telfair found in the Altamaha River system. Triannual Unionid Report, 7: 6-7. pocketboo dolabraeformis stable banks, but Lampsilis dolabraeformis is land management practices and (eastern mosquitofish) and Micropteris salmoides k one of a few mussels that is also found along urbanization, pollution, (largemouth bass) as glochidial hosts. •Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North sand bars in moderately coarse sand in current eutrophication, extremely low water Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North (Heard, 1975). It can also live in shifting sand levels due to withdrawls, and bank Carolina. 101 pp. bars (G. Keferl, pers. comm., 2000). and streambed destabilization are considered primary threats. •Heard, W.H. 1975. Determination of the endangered status of freshwater Although nutrient concentrations in clams of the Gulf and Southeastern states. Report for the Office of the Altamaha River system are Endangered Species, Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of lower than many other rivers on the the Interior. Washington, D.C. 31 pp. U.S. East Coast, there appears to be some impact of development in the •Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the watershed with the greatest threat Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11. increased water withdrawel that will decrease flushing times thereby •Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and increasing the otherwise minor artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of impact found from nutrient loading Fisheries 30:102-201. in the system (Weston et al., 2003). •Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

•O'Brien, C. 2002. Host identification for three freshwater mussel species endemic to the Altamaha River, Georgia. Ellipsaria, 4(1): 17.

•Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.

•Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan U S A Freshwater Biology 13:253 264