A Stream Classification for the Appalachian Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Stream Classification for the Appalachian Region The Nature Conservancy Eastern Conservation Science Arlene Olivero Sheldon, Analie Barnett, and Mark G. Anderson Arlene Olivero Sheldon, Analie Barnett, and Mark G. Anderson The Nature Conservancy Eastern Conservation Science Eastern Regional Office 99 Bedford St, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Please cite as: Olivero Sheldon, A., Barnett, A. and Anderson, M.G. 2015. A Stream Classification for the Appalachian Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Eastern Regional Office. Boston, MA. Funding for this project was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Cover photo credits Top Left: Shavers Fork of the Cheat River at The Conservancy's Upper Shavers Fork Preserve in West Virginia. PHOTO CREDIT: © Kent Mason Top Right: Confluence of the smaller Tradewater River and the Ohio River in Crittenden County, Kentucky. PHOTO CREDIT: Mark Godfrey © The Nature Conservancy Bottom Left: Smoke Hole Canyon on the South Fork of the Potomac River in West Virginia. PHOTO CREDIT: © Kent Mason Small Middle Top: Forest view of the split channel in the upper Rappahannock River above Culpepper in northern Virginia. © Mary Porter Small Middle Bottom: The south fork of Red Creek flowing through the forest at Dolly Sods Wilderness. in the Allegheny Mountains of eastern West Virginia . PHOTO CREDIT: © Kent Mason Bottom Right: The Falls of Hills Creek in the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. PHOTO CREDIT: © Kent Mason Acknowledgements This project reflects decades of work by many organizations and dedicated individuals. Without their hard work and willingness to share their knowledge, this classification could not have been produced. We would particularly like to thank the Fish and Wildlife Service Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative for envisioning this project, and providing the funds to make it a reality. We are deeply indebted to the many organizations that provided data to help develop and calibrate the models used in this classification. We would like to particularly thank Ryan A. McManamay, Aquatic Ecologist, with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for his excellent work in development of the hydrologic classes. We also wish to specifically thank Dylan Harrison-Atlas for his help modeling the detailed gradients, bankfull widths, and his advice regarding the confinement calculations. We extend a large thank you to Daren M. Carlisle, Ecological Studies Coordinator with the National Water-Quality Assessment Program of the U.S. Geological Survey, for sharing stream temperature data from USGS gages and the resultant modeled reference summer stream temperatures for these gages. We would also like to thank Yin-Phan Tsang and Dana Infante of Michigan State University for their data extract from the USGS NorEaST: Stream Temperature Data Inventory. We also appreciated additional stream temperature data shared with us from Tyrell DeWeber with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at The Pennsylvania State University. This dataset included data from C. Andrew Dolloff of USFS, Anthony Raburn of GA DNR, Mark Hudy of USGS, and David Thorne of WV DNR who we would also like to acknowledge and thank. We also particularly appreciated the detailed feedback and consistent review provided by John Faustini, Regional Hydrologist of USFWS. We would like to thank the members of the Appalachian LCC Stream Classification workgroup who provided feedback on our calls, sent us relevant reports, and reviewed our products. Members included Mary Kate Brown (TNC AL), Pat O'Neil (AL), Paul Freeman (TNC AL), Kathleen Owens (TNC GA), Sara Gottlieb (TNC GA), Cassie Hauswald (TNC IN), Todd Davis (IN), Danna Baxley (KY), Jeff Sole (TNC KY), Mike Floyd (USFWS KY), Andres Leslie (NC), Chris Goodreau (NC), Erin White (NY), Jeff Thomas (ORFP OH), John Stark (TNC OH), Diana Day (PA), Dustin Shull (PA), Mary Walsh (PA Heritage), Gary Walters (PA), Andrew Henderson (TVA TN), Sally Palmer (TNC TN), Joseph Wisby (TNC TN), Brad Fink (VA), Braven Beaty (TNC VA), Paul Angermeier (VA Tech University / USFWS Coop), Todd Janeski (VA), Keith Fisher (TNC WV), Walt Kordek (WV), Mary Davis (SARP), Dylan Harrison Atlas (Colorado State University, PhD candidate), Shannon Brewer (Oaklahoma State University), Jennifer Fulton (USEPA), Lou Reynolds (USEPA), Donovan Henry (USFWS), Emily Granstaff (USFWS), John Faustini (USFWS), Mark Cantrell (USFWS), Peggy Shute (USFWS), Nathanial Hitt (USGS), Jeff Frey (USGS Indiana Science Center), and Ryan McManamay (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). Abstract We developed a hierarchical classification system and map for stream and river systems in the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative region encompassing parts of 17 states. The product is intended to complement state-based stream classifications by unifying them into a single consistent system that represents the region’s natural flowing-water aquatic habitats. The results may be used to understand ecological flow relationships and inform conservation planning for aquatic biodiversity in the region. The classification used six primary attributes to define stream habitats: size, gradient, temperature, hydrology, buffering capacity, and confinement. These variables were identified and agreed upon by a steering committee of stream and river experts representing the states and region. All mapped stream reaches (1:100,000) were tagged with information on each variable based on extensive data compiled, or modeled, for each reach. For each variable, ecologically meaningful class breaks were identified and the variable classes were combined to yield a regional taxonomy. The complete set of types was simplified using recommended prioritization and collapsing rules as follows: headwaters and small rivers were classified based on gradient, temperature, and hydrology (e.g., high gradient, cold, flashy, headwater) and medium to great rivers were classified based on confinement, temperature, and hydrology (e.g., low gradient, warm, unconfined, large river). The simplification identified 62 stream types within the study area. Table of Contents 1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Area ............................................................................................................................. 1 Classification Process .......................................................................................................... 2 Base Hydrography Data ...................................................................................................... 4 Base Flowline Attributes ..................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 4 2 Regional Scale Classification ........................................................................... 5 Omernick Level 3 Ecoregions ............................................................................................ 6 Freshwater Ecoregions ........................................................................................................ 7 Ecological Drainage Units .................................................................................................. 8 Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) ......................................................................................... 9 3 Reach Scale Classification ............................................................................. 10 4 Size ......................................................................................................................... 11 Ecological Importance ....................................................................................................... 11 Approach ................................................................................................................................ 11 Methods and Results ......................................................................................................... 12 5 Gradient ................................................................................................................ 19 Ecological Importance ....................................................................................................... 19 Approach ................................................................................................................................ 19 Methods and Results ......................................................................................................... 20 6 Temperature ........................................................................................................ 27 Ecological Importance ....................................................................................................... 27 Approach ................................................................................................................................ 27 Methods and Results ......................................................................................................... 29 7 Hydrology ............................................................................................................