1
50
1
-
https://omeka.library.appstate.edu/files/original/a09b87fcb823eda5bd81812a42ebad38.pdf
d49c4ebd18a02030dbbc9c6970101b6e
PDF Text
Text
�SYMPOSIUM ON
TROUT HABITAT
RESEARCH and MANAGEMENT
Proceedings
SEPTEMBER 5-6. 1974
WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
CULLOWHEE. NORTH CAROLINA
Sponsored by
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service
Western Carolina University
The Appalachian Consortium
Tennessee Valley Authority
APPALACHIAN CONSORTIUM PRESS
BOONE, NORTH CAROLINA 28607
�The Appalachian Consortium was a non-profit educational organization
composed of institutions and agencies located in Southern Appalachia. From
1973 to 2004, its members published pioneering works in Appalachian studies
documenting the history and cultural heritage of the region. The Appalachian
Consortium Press was the first publisher devoted solely to the region and many of
the works it published remain seminal in the field to this day.
With funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the National
Endowment for the Humanities through the Humanities Open Book Program,
Appalachian State University has published new paperback and open access
digital editions of works from the Appalachian Consortium Press.
www.collections.library.appstate.edu/appconsortiumbooks
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license. To view a
copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses.
Original copyright © 1975 by the Appalachian Consortium Press.
ISBN (pbk.: alk. Paper): 978-1-4696-3649-8
ISBN (ebook): 978-1-4696-3651-1
Distributed by the University of North Carolina Press
www.uncpress.org
�Citation:
USDA Forest Service
1975. Symposium on trout habitat research and management proceedings.
110 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.
�CONTENTS
FOREWORD . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
David F. Olson, Jr.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS ..
Frank R. Richardson
SESSION I.
7
PUBLIC VIEWS OF THE TROUT STREAM RESOURCE
VIEWS AND SUGGESTIONS OF N.C. TROUT UNLIMITED ON TROUT HABITAT
Marvin R. Hawes
12
OUR VANISHING TROUT STREAMS - A SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN DILEMMA . . . . . 14
Gerald D. Schuder, Sr.
TROUT, ITS HABITAT, AND THE FISHERMAN
Fred R. Dorsey
SESSION II.
18
LAND MANAGEMENT IMPACTS ON TROUT HABITAT
REVIEW OF SELECTED PARAMETERS OF TROUT STREAM QUALITY
L. B. Tebo, Jr.
FOREST MANAGEMENT IMPACTS ON COLD WATER FISHERIES
James E. Douglass and Monte E. Seehorn
MINING IMPACTS ON TROUT HABITAT
Rona 1d D. Hi 11
20
. . . . . . . . . . 33
. . . . . . . . .
. . • . . 47
STREAM CHANNELIZATION; AN ENGINEERING AND BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Raymond V. Corning
SESSION III.
. . . . 58
TROUT HABITAT RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT
PRODUCTIVITY OF SOUTHEASTERN STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
Jackson R. Webster and J. Bruce Wallace
. . . . 64
STREAM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR WEST VIRGINIA . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Randy E. Bailey, 0. Eugene Maughan, and Roy A. Whaley
STABILIZATION OF EROSION ON A MOUNTAINOUS
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Robert James Brown and Joseph Mickey, Jr.
�LIMITING FACTORS ENCOUNTERED IN THE MANAGEMENT
OF TROUT IN TAILWATERS . . . . . . .
James R. Axon
RECLAMATION OF DM1AGED STREAMS AS A TOOL IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
Don 1ey M. Hi 11
93
96
RESEARCH IN AQUATIC HABITATS AT THE SOUTHEASTERN STATION
Thomas J. Harshbarger
102
THE PLANNING APPROACH TO TROUT MANAGEMENT
Joseph R. Fatora
107
�FOREWORD
Trout habitat has been degraded in the Southern Appalachians by deforestation, fire,overgrazing, dams, mining, urban and industrial waste,
road construction, and poor agricultural practices. The result has been
a progressive reduction in the productivity of the cold water resource
and the elimination of many miles of otherwise productive trout streams
from the resource base.
Wild trout and their forested stream environment are highly valued
by the public. Mountain streams are receiving increasing fishing pressure; recreational use of cold water streams ranks high among the various
stream values; and revenues derived from these uses are vital to the economy of this area.
Demands for other forest resources are creating conflicts and competition among user groups, resulting in difficulties in resource allocation
and management. These problems will become more acute as populations expand and competition for land use intensifies. The symposium was organized
to establish a dialog between conservation groups and managing agencies,
to consolidate known information, and to offer a means of expressing new
ideas and philosophy pertinent to management of the trout resource in the
Southern Appalachians.
During this 2-day symposium, papers were presented expressing views,
opinions, ideas, and facts concerning the management of trout habitat in
mountain streams. Conservation organizations, researchers, and managers
discussed trout habitat management programs and policies, defined major
management problems, and identified present and future research needs.
It was pointed out repeatedly that the aquatic habitat of trout is
a fragile environment, easily disrupted or even destroyed by man's activities on the land. However, the means of ameliorating the adverse impacts
of land use on trout habitat are known to some extent, and new research
offers promise of greatly expanding available knowledge in the next
decade.
A number of people contributed to this symposium in addition to the
qualified and enthusiastic experts on the program. Members of the Planning Committee who worked to make this symposium a success deserve
recognition:
W. Donald Baker, Chief
Division of Inland Fisheries
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Raleigh, North Carolina
Marvin R. Hawes, Member
North Carolina Council of Trout Unlimited
Western Piedmont Community College
Morganton, North Carolina
Donley M. Hill, Limnologist
Division of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife Development
Tennessee Valley Authority
Norris, Tennessee
5
�Robert F. Raleigh, Unit Leader
Virginia Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
Jerry West, Local Arrangements Chairman
Department of Biology
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina
In addition to these willing workers, special recognition is due to
two of my colleagues at the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station for
their outstanding contributions to the planning of the symposium:
Michael R. Lennartz, Staff Assistant
Research Planning and Application
Thomas J. Harshbarger, Aquatic Ecologist
Bent Creek Experimental Forest
David F. Olson, Jr., Chairman of Planning Committee
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service
6
�KEYNarE ADDRESS
FRANK R. RICHARDSON
ASSOCIATE RIDIONAL DIRECTOR
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DENVER, COLORADO
When I was first approached by one of the Symposium organizers to take on this
assignment as your keynote speaker, the particular individual was well aware
that I was an easy mark. Talking trout and gettiug a chance to visit North
Carolina come high on my priority list. After congratulating myself on getting
this fine opportunity, I found to my delight, that keynote speakers are at
liberty to set their own rules. So I emphasize that the following remarks
represent my own personal views. They neither represent the policy of my
employer or those of conservation organizations to which I belong. They represent my philosophy and my beliefs of trout and trout fishing.
I am delighted to see that the first sesssion of this Symposium is devoted to
Public Views of the Trout Stream Resource. I have long known some of the
members of this panel and one has been a close personal friend for may years.
I would like to share a true story with you that involves him. I use this
story to illustrate the point that public views and public participation in
making management decisions on trout resources are not only good politics but
better decisions are made when the public participates. I have seen too many
incidents where public resource managers made these decisions behind closed
doors. Now let me tell you this story. About 15 years ago I opened the trout
season here in North Carolina with several friends on a favorite North Carolina
stream. We were billeted in an ancient log cabin that let in most of the night
air. Like so many opening days, the thermometer was below the freezing mark.
That night, when readying ourselves for bed, the conversation turned to how we
were going to keep warm. One of my angling friends was quite wordy in selling
the merits of new electric blankets which had been installed for each bed.
Another participant of this opening day was just as enamored with his new
thermal pajamas which were designed for subfreezing weather. These two were
sharing a room where the twin beds had each been fitted with the new electric
blanket. As they adjourned to their bedroom, you could still hear their discussion of the merits of blankets versus pajamas. Unbeknown to them, someone
had switched the blanket controls so that, in fact, they were regulating each
others heat control. The next morning at breakfast the former blanket-lover
went into great detail about the need for everyone to get these new pajamas-he had shivered through the whole night with his blanket turned all the way up,
never realizing that his roommate with the thermal pajamas had turned his own
controls off because he was benefiting from his partner's heat. The point of
this story is that, we as Resource Managers need to know what our conservation
constituent not only thinks and is doing but he must be allowed to share in
the responsibility of decisionmaking.
During the past six weeks, I have taken part in two meetings--the annual
meeting of Trout Unlimited in Seattle, and the Annual Conclave of the
Federation of Fly Fishermen in West Yellowstone. These meetings were attended
by the activist angler, the individual who wants to personally involve themselves in what happens to the resource that provides their recreation. The
people who attended included truck drivers, lawyers, salesmen, doctors,
resource managers, fishery biologists, and State Fish and Wildlife Commissioners
and all with that common interest to do a better job of looking after the
7
�fishery resources of the United States. Similar meetings that I attended a
decade ago more often pitted the resource user (the angler) against the
fishery biologist and the resource manager. rhose of us who are resource
managers no longer can afford the luxury of going it alone, and I use the
term "luxury" loosely when it might be more proper to say stupidity.
Those of us who call ourselves conservationists have always been true
believers. We often have that gut feeling that our cause is righteous,
especially when what we want is for someone else. I suppose there is a certain dignity in this attitude, although I suspect that in the minds of some,
our motives are suspect. I would recommend that whenever we can identify such
a condition, we take a few days off and go fishing. All of which to say is
that what seems both rational and moral, may not necessarily be what society
wants or requires. I have long thought that trout populations are an excellent
index in measuring the health of the human environment. In fact, I believe
that in the evolutionary future of this planet earth when the last trout
expires, man as a species will have proceeded him.
Session II of this Symposium zeros in on habitat alterations. I look forward
with great interest to the comments of this panel. Having seen trout streams
destroyed by industrial and municipal polluters, poor logging practices, strip
mining, channelization, road builders, and damming, I tend to get irrational
when trying to explain these things, though continued destruction of trout
habitat in the Southeast is not the big issue, as it is in the Rocky Mountain
West where I live, it still is one of the hottest issues going. The demand to
produce energy from coal and oil shale in the West and the need for water for
energy development and the associated growth that goes with this, will in the
next several years put more pressure on blue ribbon trout streams of the West
than all the atrocities heaped on them from mining and damming of the past.
Whole rivers may be dewatered and the Yellowstone River in Wyoming and Montana,
which is the longest undammed trout stream in our country, could be lost. To
put this in a better perspective, the Yellowstone trout ecosystem is larger
than all of the Southern Appalachian trout ecosystem. Obviously, we are going
to develop our energy resour~es, but when someone says its either coal or trout,
I'm really turned off.
One of the legislative milestones in the conservation history of our country is
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. It was first signed into law in 1934
by President Roosevelt. It was subsequently amended in 1958--16 years ago.
Presently efforts are being made in the Congress to strengthen this Act. The
Act, in theory, puts fish and wildlife on equal standing with other natural
resources--both in planning and in constructing Federal projects. Presently,
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies are
brought into planning only as consultants. Other loopholes in the present Act
have allowed certain projects of such agencies as TVA, the AEC, and the SCS to
be only partially covered or exempt. If the Act is strengthened as proposed
by some members of the subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment, I suspect that the channelization of trout streams and other issues,
such as, the Tellico--Little Tennessee River would never have occurred. For
these reasons, I can think of no single legislation that will affect total trout
habitat more than the Fish anCfWildlife Coordination Act, and we as individuals
who are concerned with this resource should support these efforts to strengthen
this Act.
Each May, for the past 15 years, North Carolina and specifically Fontana Village
has been hosting the Fontana Conservation Roundup. I'm sure all of ·you here are
8
�familiar with this event and most of you have attended one of the roundups.
When I was living in North Carolina and Tennessee, I was fortunate enough to
make several of these meetings. Last year the theme of the roundup was
Environmental Trade-Offs. When I hear those words Environmental Trade-Offs, my
antennas really extend. I can visualize trading all the water in the Colorado
River to develop oil shale, I can visualize the loss of western prairies in the
United States and Canada where most of our ducks are raised to produce wheat to
feed starving people in India and Africa. Maybe these trade-offs will be made,
but there will be some trade-offs proposed where we must "stand in the schoolhouse door" where the environmental value cannot be abused, where our answer
must be just plain "no." Many of you are familiar with the works of Barry
Commoner--I would remind you to remind yourselves once in awhile with three of
his gems that he refers to as the laws of ecology--"there's no such thing as a
free lunch," and "everything is connected to something else," and "everything
goes somewhere."
Tomorrow morning our Symposium will address Trout Habitat Research and Management. Until a few years ago, my working day, and I should add other parts of
day, revolved around Trout Management and Research. I was lucky enough to live
in and work in areas--(I use the term "work" in its loosest definition)--and
associate with people that daily dealt with the trout resource. Now every once
in awhile I wonder where I went wrong when now my day is filled with budget
reviews, personnel ceilings, coyotes and sheep, listening to the pros and cons
of steel shot, and other Fish and Wildlife Service issues. Even though I am
not as deeply involved with Trout Management and Research as in the past, my
interest and devotion to these subjects has never wavered, I like to think that
some of the things I was involved in in the past were right. However, I must
confess, I have memories of some of my actions that today I find completely alien
to present-day consensus of good trout management. Most biologists I know have
a stubborn streak when it comes to change and accepting new ideas. It seems all
of us have to try out our own ideas, even though the idea has a history of failure wherever it has been tried. (I guess I should exclude all of you gathered
here today.) However, I'm sure that each biologist here in this room can identify
some action in his past that he would rather forget. The "Pisgah System of Trout
Management" was developed here in North Carolina, and when this System came on
the scene a few decades ago, many biologists across the country claimed it as the
savior to trout fishing and it was copied in many parts of the country. Today
the "Pisgah System" is essentially something to read about but seldom seen used.
Today we are more "sophisticated," a term I use loosely. Yet in ten years what
some call good trout management today will go the way of the "Pisgah System."
Recently, a study conducted by a Montana biologist on the Madison River, at the
insistence of trout anglers of that State, showed that stocking of catchables into
an existing wild population of trout actually depressed both populations. Now,
after years of planting catchables in this fine trout river, the procedure has
been eliminated. I'm not aware of how many fish were being released each year,
but I do know that significant savings in cost of Federal hatcheries were
realized when the Fish and Wildlife Service stopped planting adults in the
Madison River involved in this study. Now, if this could happen in Montana, it
could happen here in the Southern Appalachians. With costs of producing hatchery
trout having gone up sharply in the last few years, it behooves us to examine all
facets of our stocking programs.
Somewhere in the past, I heard a fishery biologist say--maybe I said it--but
regardless who said it, the following statement is valid--"There are many ways
to manage a trout stream, but when hatchery catchables are released, you are not
9
�managing the stream--you are managing the angler." About a decade ago knowledgeable trout anglers began to question the way we manage our trout resources. They
began to organize into action groups. "Trout Unlimited" and "The Federation of
Fly Fishermen" emerged about that time and recently "The American League of
Anglers" was formed. These organizations have had a significant affect on how we
manage trout waters. Prior to this time, "Quality Regulations," "Fish for Fun,"
"Catch and Release," or whatever name you want to apply, just did not exist in
public waters. In fact, as far as I can determine, the Great Smoky Mountain
National Park was the first public area to implement regulations that, in theory,
said that a trout fishing experience is more important than catchinr- trout.
Still in some trout fishing programs, it seems that if you don't kill your limit
your fishing trip has been a failure. It seems that many managers base the
success of the trout fishing program on the creel success.
I'm sure that most of you here know of Hazel Creek in the Smokies. During a
period from 1963 to 1969, I directed a fishing success census on thw stream.
aazel Creek feeds into Fontana Reservoir and access is either by boat or dropping
off the Appalachian Trail. If I remember correctly, during that 6-year period,
fishing pressure ranged from 3,000 to 5,000 angling trips a year; catch rate was
15 to 19 per day, and the creel stayed at 2 per day. These data suggest that
nearly 100,000 fish were caught one of those years. As I recall, there are
about 70 miles of fishable water in Hazel Creek watershed, which means that
about 15,000 trout were caught per mile. Another figure I seem to recall, was
that a permanent sampling station which we looked at each year, indicated that
Hazel Creek supported about 2,000 legal trout per mile of stream--that is,
2,000 trout were 7" or larger. Of course, there are many trout under 7" and
they make up a significant part of the catch. However, I think you can safely
say that Hazel Creek is a stream where trout obviously may be caught and
released several times. The points I'm trying to make are that, (l) today a
trout is more valuable in a stream than it is in a wicker basket and, (2) that
you can have a good trout fishing where heavy pressure exists without stocking.
Now before I get carried away and suggest that we close up all of our hatcheries,
let me make it clear that I take no such position. We have many needs for
hatchery produced trout. Presently, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
conducting a Blue Ribbon study of national hatchery needs. The study group is
headed by Dr. Alex Calhoun, recently retired Chief of Fisheries of the State of
California. He is beiug assisted in this study by both Federal and State
biologists. I would expect that this report will set the trend in what we do
in hatchery production during the next decade.
It seems to me that our trout research efforts have always taken a back seat to
what we call management. If you looked at the total dollars spent on research
as opposed to that spent on management and I would have to include hatchery
production in the management category, you find that a very high proportion of
the dollar is spent on management. In general, most trout States have weak
research programs in regard to trout. Even the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
who have historically done much of the research in the fish and wildlife field,
spends only a small percentage of its fishery resource budget in trout research.
In fact, in the one issue that is questioned most by trout fishermen we have no
formal research program, and that is--What affect and success does stocking have
on trout fishing? Yet we are beginning to make inroads into the unknown. The
Montana Madison River is one example. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Beulah, Wyoming Research Center is another. At Beulah, we recently initiated
a comprehensive research program on the genetic problems associated with stocking
fish. In the past we have selected fish in our hatchery program that do well in
hatcheries with little or no concern of how well they do in the wild. Instead
we should have been doing the exact opposite.
10
�In closing, I want to emphasize the following points:
1.
We have much to do if we are to have trout fishing in our future.
The public will have to maintain its vigilance so that we are assured
that sound trout programs are supported at a level needed to maintain
fishery habitat--which means cold, clear water. Management and
research must be realistically supported by tax dollars if we are to
do justice to the trout resource.
2.
The trout resource must be recognized as a national resource. We
have a history of seeing their value being ignored when in competition for water use. The trout resource must get a "better shake" in
regard to water development projects.
3.
Fishery management must be based on sound information produced by
research efforts, not ill-founded opinion.
4. We must strive for quality in our programs.
5.
Finally and most important, protection of the trout environment is
absolutely essential. This environment has to be maintained, not
only for trout but for our own existence.
11
�VIEWS AND SUGGESTIONS OF N.C. TROUT UNLIMITED
ON TROUT HABITAT
Abstract.--North Carolina trout streams are continually being flooded and
silted as a result of land development, logging, mining and road construction,
North Carolina Trout Unlimited welcomes research into anything that affects
trout streams, urges better cooperation between agencies, and supports programs
to restore trout streams to their natural condition.
Trout Unlimited's North American Policy for Salmonid Use and Hanagement states the
belief, "that the overall quality of trout and salmon fishing has deteriorated in many
areas and that drastic and immediate action is required to restore it (Trout Unlimited
1964)." This is certainly the view of Trout Unlimited in North Carolina. Dean (1974)
points out that, "the Cane River, Thompson River, Jacob's Fork, Linville River, South
Toe River, Upper Creek Steels Creek, Caney Fork, Nantahala River, South ~fills River,
and Green River are either already or may soon be in trouble," !'lean goes on to say
that these are not the only and it would be virtually impossible to name all the streams
that are threatened with deterioration or destruction.
The primary cause of the degradation of these trout waters has been continual siltation from the exploitation of the Southern Appalachian l!ountains by land developers,
loggers, mininP, and road construction. North Carolina Trout Gnlimited realizes that other
sources of pollution have hurt some of our streams. But, the continual flooding and
siltation of our streams has resulted in thick build ups of silt in the bottoms of our
streams. Needham as far back as 1938 pointed out the potential harm to trout habitat by
sedimentation. Later work has shown that fine materials in or on redds cuts down on the
amount of oxygen laden water that can flow past the eggs as well as preventing easy egress
from the nest by young (Needham 1938),
Trout fishermen in North Carolina have continually had to fight against the siltation
of our streams. One source of siltation is stopped just to find another. Steels Creek
and Upper Creek in Burke County have been seriously damaged by the construction of the
unneeded Highway 181. Thanks to the cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service, the North
Carolina Fish and Game Commission and the North Carolina Highway nepartment, hopefully
the damage to these two native streams has been held to a minimum and that the damage is
reversable, l-Ie are now faced ~Jith the additional siltation of these two streams by logging operations. The most recent was started last month (August 1974) on u.s. Forest Service land. A steep road was cut to ;teels Creek, a bridge built across the creek, and the
road continued up the other side. No representative from the U.S. Forest Service was
present to supervise this, or it might have been prevented, Another incident was the development of several hundred acres in the South Hountains of Burke County along Jacobs
Fork. Land was cleared, numerous roads bulldozed up the sides of mountains, and several
hundred yards of stream bed and surrounding banks were completely altered by a gravel
mining operation.
The development of the Linville-Grandfather Mountain area has seriously damaged the
Linville River. Areas along Upper Creek, and Lost Cove Creek are what one might call
boulder fields. These are areas that continual flooding has destroyed the vegetation
along the stream. This has resulted in the stream becoming ~dde, shallow and the bottom
covered with silt.
1/
Instructor of Biology Western Piedmont Community College and representative for
North Carolina Trout Unlimited,
12
�Our streams in the southeast are unique. Generally, they are small, fast flo~rin!1:
streams and with one exception they are not limestone streams. This decreases their
productivity and probably makes them extremely fragile ecosystems.
We of North Carolina Trout TTnlimited woulcl like to see research i.nto anything
that effects our streams, We need research in the following areas:
1.
Productivity of our streams, including taxonomic and population studies
of the organisms present.
2.
Methods of increasing the productivity of our streams.
3.
New methods of logging and road construction, that will effectively
decrease flooding and siltation.
4.
Stocked vs. unstocked.
5.
Stream development and improvement.
He need better communication and cooperation between federal, state, and local
governments and conservation organizations.
There is a definite need for a Hountain Land Hanagement Act and county by county
land use ordinances that will have enough teeth to stop the deterioration of our streams.
Finally, we need programs that will restore our cold water habitats to a condition
in which 1~e can realize their full potential as trout streams,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dean, J., 1974 "Are We Losing Our Trout Streams,"
Wildlife in North Carolina Vol. XXXVIII
No. 8, pp 4- 7 •
Needham, P. R., 1938, Trout Streams 31 p. 2nd ed.
rev. by Bond 1969, Holden-Day, San
Francisco
Trout Unlimited, 1972, "North American Policy for Salmonid
Use and Management." Denver Company
13
�OUR VANISHING TROUT STREAMS - A
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN DILEMMA
Gerald D. Schuder, Sr.
1/
Abstract.--Man, and his manipulation of the environment, continues to diminish the available trout habitat in the Southern Appalachian region. The primary factors demeaning the cold water streams
are: Channelization, improper timber harvesting, degrading agricultural practices, dams, increased development of watersheds, and
mining.
The Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited is vitally concerned with the
accelerated decrease in cold water habitat in the Southern Appalachian States.
This loss of habitat is dramatically illustrated by the shrinking of the area
classified as cold water watersheds in Virginia. In colonial times, trout habitat boundaries included the entire region west of the Coastal Plain. Many
productive trout streams were found in the Piedmont Plateau and westward. The
first great impact on the cold water fishery came with the westward movement of
settlers, with the subsequent clearing of lands along water courses. The
removal of shade trees along streams, and the deforestation of the watersheds
for agriculture, abruptly changed the essential character of the streams from
cold water to warm water habitat. Today, after 367 years of continuous development since the original colonization, the sole remaining sanctuaries for the
Salmonids in Virginia are in the Blue Ridge Highlands and the Appalachian
Plateau. It is with this historical background that Trout Unlimited in Virginia
faces the task of protection, enhancement and restoration of the cold water
fishery.
DEFINITION OF THE RESOURCE
Before any area wide cold water management programs are undertaken , the
quantity and quality of a region's streams must be defined. After a proposal
made by Trout Unlimited, the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
is beginning a three-year study to classify the trout streams in the Commonwealth. When completed, this program will have cataloged all of Virginia's
trout streams according to productivity, resident fish species, and aesthetics.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS
In Virginia, the major threat to the cold water resource is improper land
use planning and management. I will identify the primary degrading factors.
Channelization
Channelization has a long history in Virginia, being practiced since colonial times on a small scale. It was only after the flooding caused by Hurricane
Camille in 1969 and Hurricane Agnes in 1972, that channelization reached massive
proportions in Virginia. In the aftermath of these fioods, the Soil Cons-ervation
!} President, Virginia Council, Trout Unlimited,
324 Link Road, Waynesboro, Va.
22980
14
�Service, the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service, and others, indiscriminately channelized over 500 miles of 80 different streams. The impact of
this work was largely felt on the cold water streams of Western Virginia, where
90% of the projects were done. The primary degradation to the fishery has been
the loss of habitat and siltation.
Timber Harvesting
The nationwide shortage of wood products has extracted a heavy toll on
Virginia's trout streams. The practice of clearcutting, in particular, has
caused the loss of many fine brook trout streams due to siltation and increased
water temperature. Very little attention has been given to providing proper
buffer strips along streams, or to stabilization of cut over areas and access
roads. The problem is caused by lack of supervision of contractors on Forest
Service lands, and by ths total lack of control of Silviculture on private lands.
Agriculture
In an attempt to gain maximum production from agricultural lands, producers
in Virginia have caused many acute problems for the streams of the western portion of the state. Foremost among these are excessive use of fertilizer and
elimination of streamside cover due to livestock grazing and clearing for crops.
Erosion problems are common due to the lack of contour farming and the elimination of buffer strips. Feedlots located directly on stream banks are a common
source of pollutants in valley areas.
Dams
If all the dams planned by the Corps of Engineers, power companies and the
S.C.S. were completed in Virginia, not a single major watershed in the mountains
of Virginia would be spared. The Corps of Engineers alone has 25 major impoundments in the planning stages in Virginia. The impact of these projects, if carried
through, would change the character of the surface water resources in Western
Virginia from riverine to still water impoundment ecosystems. The only remaining
trout habitat would be in the small headw~ter streams.
Recreational Development
A recent threat to the watersheds of the Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountains
of Virginia is the increased recreational use of the area. The mountains represent an attractive playground for the nearby urban masses from major cities like
Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Richmond. The recreational utilization takes
the form of campgrounds, individual camps, and large planned recreational developments such as Massanutten and Wintergreen. The inevitable result is enrichment,
siltation, and warming of headwater streams.
Mining
Acid mine drainage is not a major threat to the cold water streams in Virginia at this time. However, in our sister state of West Virginia, it is a
problem of significant proportions. The new emphasis on increased coal production as an answer to the "energy crisis" could cause a dramatic increase in the
problems associated with mine drainage, particularly with strip mining techniques.
This is a situation that will require careful scrutiny by wildlife professionals
and conservationists alike.
15
�DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS
Education
Trout Unlimited sees the lack of understanding of the interrelationships
in a watershed as the most important factor to be considered in ~Y plan to
conserve the cold water fishery. This lack of understanding permeates all
levels of those associated with watersheds, from the resource manager down to
the individual citizen. The logical first step in solving this communication
problem is a program that encourages an exchange of ideas and a discussion of
problems between the different disciplines at our colleges and universities
that offer natural resource training. The agronomist should understand the
effect of agriculture on the aquatic ecosystems. The fisheries biologist
should have a knowledge of the problems of the agricultural producers. All of
the natural resource endeavors should be included in the exchange of ideas,
including forestry, wildlife biology, mining, engineering, agronomy, and others.
The educational process that began with the exchange of information between
disciplines in the academic centers must then be expanded to include supervisory
personnel, field personnel, producers, and citizens groups. This can be accomplished by arranging regional seminars, where land use planning can be discussed
in a public forum. An effort should be made to include representatives of local,
state, and federal governments in these discussions. Members of federal and
state natural resource agencies should also be involved. Understanding of interrelationships will lead to cooperative solutions to watershed problems.
Alternatives
Any conservation effort that plans to "lock up" the nation's resources is
doomed to failure. A successful approach to solving environmental problems is
to encourage practices that utilize natural resources in a way that minimizes
environmental damage. An exception to this philosophy would be required in the
case of some fragile native trout streams and unique quality waters, where total
preservation of the watershed is required.
To oppose a practice without suggesting an alternative is a completely
negative way to approach any natural resource problem. In the case of every
practice that degrades trout habitat, an alternative is available. Channelization is a good example of the possibilities of this kind of approach. The
conservationist ~be concerned with the problems of flooding and erosion.
However, he can offer the alternatives of reforestation of the watershed and
flood plain zoning as the answer to flooding problems, and riprapping and planting of streamside vegetation as the cure for erosion. Thereby, the problems are
addressed, and damage to aquatic habitat is minimized.
MANAGEMENT OF TROUT STREAMS
After the problems of habitat degradation have been dealt with, we must face
the question of how our trout streams should be managed, in order to optimize the
resource. The Trout Unlimited North American Policy for Salmonid Use and Management contains a sound plan. This policy addresses all parameters of trout stream
management, including administration, habitat maintenance and improvement, protection of rare species, protection of unique waters and selection of management
species. It is the position of Trout Unlimited that waters that have the potential for reproduction of trout be managed as wild trout habitat. and that "put and
16
�take" stocking of trout be limited to marginal waters. The emphasis should
be placed on establishing biologically sound quality fisheries, rather than
the poor substitute that "put and take" fisheries management provides. Regulations should be established for each type of stream to optimize the population of trout. An ideal formula for the administration of a region's cold
water fishery is to classify", protect, manage, and restore.
THE FUTURE
I would like to suggest that a yearly trout forum be established in the
Southeast. It is not enough to merely identify the problems associated with
trout habitat and management. A continuing program to develop and implement
solutions must be established. We, the wildlife professionals and conservationists who have a direct interest in trout habitat, are the best hope that
the wild trout will not be added to the endangered species list in the Southern
Appalachians.
LITERATURE CITED
Trout Unlimited 1964. North American Policy for Salmonid Use and Management.
Trout Unlimited, 4260 East Evans Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222.
17
�TROUT, ITS HABITAT, AND THE FISHERMAN
Fred R. Dorseyli
Regulations should be geared to the trout and its habitat
to produce a quality fishery.
The fisherman has little or no effect on a trout's habitat. The only way
to destroy a trout fishery is to destroy its habitat. Quoting from Dr. Frederic
F. Fish, former assistant chief, Division of Inland Fisheries, N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission writing in Wildlife in North Carolina, August 1969.
"The estimated contribution to the total trout harvest made by hatcherypropagated yearling trout simply will not support a contention that hatchery
fish of this size constitute essential protection against extermination of the
wild trout. Wild trout are exterminated by destruction of their habitat and,
while fishing success may be greatly reduced through intensive hook-and-line
fishing, the fish themselves will not be exterminated. Hatchery-propagated
yearling trout are just too expensive a commodity to be employed merely as
insurance for wild trout which are perfectly capable of fending for themselves."
One of the best illustrations of trout fending for themselves is found
in the Rocky Broad River. This is a stream which runs alongside a main highway and is fished heavily all season (any lure). In spite of this pressure
this stream continues to yield native fish in numbers comparable to the socalled native streams where bait is prohibited. I can cite many more examples,
such as Green River, North, East and West Forks of the French Broad. (North
Fork is now classified as native). Many others continue to produce trophy
size trout in spite of heavy fishing pressure, all types of bait. Please note,
no attempt is made to modify the trout's habitat.
The reason I mention this at this point is the fact that some attempts
have been made on private streams in Western North Carolina to alter the trout's
habitat. The feeding of trout has been undertaken with a great deal of success,
but I am certain that this is very expensive.
These streams are not open to the public, but to only a selected few of
the owners' friends. Flies and/or artificial lures only are permitted. The
great success is enjoyed only by a few. These same individuals bemoan the
fact that many of our streams are still open to the bait fisherman. They tend
to forget that only 13% of the trout fishermen use only artificial lures. They
also do not mention the prohibitive cost involved in feeding approximately
2000 miles of trout streams. I shall never forget the trip I made to one of
these private streams, Neither can I forget the other thousands of trout
fishermen who are unable to enjoy these paradises. Please allow me to recount
another trip to a "virgin" trout stream which I made a few years ago. Needless to say, I had visions of huge rainbow trout or monster brown which would
break my 4-lb. leader without any effort. It didn't take many casts to realize that the ideal trout stream is not one where the taking of trout is
prohibited.
1/North Carolina Wildlife Federation, East Flat Rock, N.C.
18
�I caught many beautifully colored rainbow trout, some of their bodies
were practically all red. They had huge heads with very small bodies, most
averaging about 6-8 inches. I vowed never to forget this important lesson.
The trout is a renewable resource; unless there is a reasonable harvest,
the available food is quickly consumed, resulting in a stream full of runts.
Our wildlife biologists are certainly aware of this situation and yet,
more streams are being added to the native or trophy concept.
Let•s have a look at what happens when a stream is placed under native
or trophy regulations. On Lost Cove Creek when the stream was closed to bait
fishing, the fishermen stayed away, fisherman trips dropped from a high of
612 to 175. The same thing happened to South Mills River, and the North Fork.
Rather than expend 95% of our efforts in trying to manage the fishermen, isn•t
it time to start managing the trout and its habitat. Isn•t it time to start
doing something about the uncontrolled development that is destroying more
habitat and fisheries in one year than millions of trout fishermen could ever
destroy.
Think of this, when our mountain lands are listed on the tax books at
the same value as business property, I think we will continue to lose more
than just trout. I think it worth repeating, the sure way to exterminate
a trout fishery is to destroy its habitat.
LITERATURE CITED
Fish, Dr. Frederic F., April 1968, Trout at the Crossroads, WILDLIFE IN
NORTH CAROLINA
Fish, Dr. Frederic F., June 1969, Study VI. Trout Fishery Surveillance,
Statewide Fisheries Research, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-19
Fish, Dr. Frederic F.i August 1969, Trout: Which Fork at the Crossroads?,
WILDLIFE IN NORTH CAROLINA
19
�REVIEW OF SELECTED PARAMETERS OF TROUT STREAM QUALITY
1/
L. B. Tebo, Jr.-
Abstract.--Physical and chemical parameters important to the
productivity of trout streams include temperature, dissolved oxygen,
water clarity, and substrate characteristics. Temperature is the
critical parameter; and maximum weekly average during the summer
should not exceed 66°F, with short-term maximums for survival of
73° to 75°F for brook and rainbow trout respectively. For optimum
production, oxygen should be maintained at natural levels. Potentially severe effects of turbidity and siltation require that every
effort be made to keep mineral solids from reaching a watercourse.
High-quality, natural trout streams are characterized by low water temperature, high water transparency, high dissolved oxygen concentrations, and by
sufficient accessible areas of clean, unsilted substrate to allow reproduction
of native and/or introduced salmonid species.
Each of the above parameters may be readily altered by perturbations
resulting from man's activities; and consequently, trout streams are among
the most sensitive ecosystems with which resource managers and regulatorx
agencies must cope. Among the activities which may seriously disrupt trout
streams may be included:
Mining.
Road Building.
Deforestation.
Channelization.
Darn construction.
Oxygen-demanding industrial and domestic wastes.
Heated wastes from industry.
Turbid wastes from industry.
Dredging.
Irrigation.
ll
Chief, Ecology Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Region IV,
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.
20
�In addition to their sensitivity, trout streams are relatively low in productivity (Needham 1939) and are limited in geographic location and total
acreage. These factors combined with the high value of trout streams for
esthetic, recreational, and economic reasons have resulted in special attention from state and federal agencies charged with the responsibility of managing natural resources and from regulatory agencies engaged in the control of
water pollution.
Recent national water pollution control legislation of importance for the
maintenance and restoration of trout-stream quality include the Water Quality
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-234) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500).
Public Law 89-234 provided for the classification of interstate waters for
various uses, including propagation of fish and wildlife and for the establishment of standards of water quality for each use. In implementation of this act
trout waters were singled out for particular attention in terms of dissolved
oxygen and temperature. Unfortunately, many excellent trout streams are not
interstate in extent and thus do not come under the terms of Public Law 89-234.
Public Law 92-500 marshalled in a new era of water pollution control with
stated national goals, including that:
The discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by
1985.
Wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1,
1983.
Navigable waters were broadly defined as "waters of the United States,
including territorial seas;" and thus, essentially all inland streams were
brought under the umbrella of this act.
The scope of this paper is limited to a discussion of the significance,
for streams only, of natural levels, degradation and regulatory standards pertaining to selected parameters of importance in determining the quality and
productivity of trout streams.
TEMPERATURE
Water temperature is the single most important environmental parameter
determining the suitability of a stream for the propagation and maintenance of
trout. Temperature limits the geographic distribution of streams suitable for
trout to areas of the U. S. where cool summertime air temperatures, dense shade,
snow melt, and input of cold subterranean waters from springs and underground
rivers act singly or in combination to maintain suitable stream temperatures.
21
�Needham (1969) reported the limiting high temperatures for brook, brown,
and rainbow trout to be 75°F, 81°F, and 83°F respectively. These temperatures
are near lethal levels, and streams having temperatures this high would be
unlikely to support a self-sustaining trout population. As stated by Brett
(1960), "a major requirement for a physical environmental factor like temperature is that it should provide for a level of activity commensurate with
maintaining the species at a population level which is more than just a token
sample." Temperature affects all metabolic and reproductive activities of fish
including such critical functions as growth, swimming, and the ability to capture and assimilate food. Accordingly, optimum temperature requirements may
vary, depending on season and life stage.
Based on an evaluation of available research USEPA (1973) provides
recommendations as to maximum temperature for critical functions of rainbow
trout and brook trout (Table 2). For long-term exposure (growth column) a
temperature that is one-third of the range between the optimum growth temperature and the ultimate incipient lethal temperature was selected. Maxima for
adult survival listed in Table 2 are based on the 24-hour median tolerance
limit minus a 2°C (3.6°F) safety factor to assure no mortality. The maximum
weekly average temperature should preferably be based on hourly readings from
a constant recording device (168 data points per week).
Table 1.--Maximum weekly average temperature for growth and spawning and shortterm maxima for survival of juveniles, adults, and embryos (centigrade
and fahrenheit).§!./
Rainbow Trout
Juvenile and adult growth during summer
Short-term maxima for survival of juveniles and
adults
Spawning
Short-term maxima for embryo survival
~I
Brook Trout
19 (66)
19 (66)
24 (75)
9 (48)
13 (55)
23 (73)
9 (48)
13 (55)
From USEPA (1973).
Numerous activities may influence stream temperatures including deforestation from logging, fires, and agricultural practices; irrigation; groundwater
overdraft; impoundment; and heated discharges from industry. The effects of
various types and levels of deforestation (strip cutting, patch cutting, complete
clearcutting, understory removal, etc.) on stream temperature have received wide
attention, and studies in general have shown that extensive removal of riparian
cover can seriously alter water temperature.
Burns (1972) found that a 140-percent increase in radiation from road construction beside a small California stream increased water temperatures by as
much as 11.1°C. Greene (1950) reported that a stream draining a deforested basin
22
�in western North Carolina had maximum temperatures 9 to 23°F higher than an
adJacent forested stream. The average increase of the maximum was approximately
12 F. Greene further reported that the farm stream temperature decreased from
80° to 68°F (12°F) after meandering through approximately 400 feet of cover.
Eschner and Larmoyeux (1963) reported an 8°F increase in temperature resulting from clearcut logging of a West Virginia watershed. These authors were of
the opinion that the increases in stream temperature were the result of heating
the entire watershed rather than the effect of direct insolation on the exposed
water surface.
The most severe increases in temperature were reported by Brown and Krygier
(1970) and USEPA (1971) for a stream draining a clearcut watershed of a small
Oregon stream where increases in maximum temperature of 28°F were recorded.
Higher temperatures persisted for 4 years, although regrowth resulted in a general decrease toward pre-logging levels in the latter years of study. The authors
predicted that summer maxima would approach pre-logging levels after 6 years.
These authors determined that the principal cause of high water temperature following logging is exposure of the stream to direct insolation, not increased
soil temperature of the drainage basin as suggested by Eschner and Larmoyeaux.
Brown (1969) showed that net thermal radiation is the predominant source of
energy for the stream, while evaporation and convection seem to play a minor
role. Brown further found that substrate plays an important role in temperature
relations of streams with solid rock serving as a significant energy sink and
source (depending on time of day) while gravel bottoms seemed to be insignificant energy sinks.
Studies of heat loss from a thermally loaded stream showed that even in the
shade, relatively small amounts of heat are added to the stream throughout the
day; thus, it would be anticipated that the stream will not cool as it flows
through a shaded reach but will continue to increase in temperature at a very
slow rate (USEPA 1971). My studies of stream temperatures at Coweeta Experimental Forest during 1953 and 1954 showed that there was a continuous and
gradual downstream increase in temperature in a 650-meter section of Shope
Creek as it flowed through alternately cleared and forested areas and thus,
confirms the conclusion of the USEPA report. These findings are in conflict
with the data of Greene (1950) mentioned previously and those of Burns (1972),
who found that downstream from a cut area on a California trout stream there
was a one-half degree centigrade decrease in stream temperature for each 100
meters of uncut area. It appears quite likely that cooling by intermittent
strips of stream cover is highly site-specific and dependent upon such factors
as intensity of shade, air temperature in cleared versus shaded areas, substrate
characteristics, and level of evaporative cooling as influenced by variable
stream turbulence.
OXYGEN
Adequate dissolved oxygen is a necessity for the propagation and survival
of trout and the instream organisms upon which they depend for food. Concentra-
23
�tions of dissolved oxygen in water are dependent upon temperature, pressure,
physical aeration, and the balance of photosynthetic and respiratory activities
of resident plants and animals.
Because of cool water temperatures and high rates of aeration, most unpolluted trout streams maintain relatively high concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
It has generally been shown that for optimum conduct of metabolic and reproductive activities, trout require high levels of dissolved oxygen; and for maximum
protection designed to fully insure unimpaired productivity, Doudoroff and
Shumway (1970), in a comprehensive summary of oxygen requirements of fishes,
indicate that oxygen concentrations should not be reduced below levels naturally
occurring during different periods of the year.
Deleterious alterations of dissolved oxygen in trout streams may result
from impoundment, from inputs of decomposable organics, and from excess growths
of aquatic plants. Reductions in dissolved oxygen below impoundments are wellknown and result from withdrawals of water from deep deoxygenated layers of the
impoundment during summer stratification or from interflows of deoxygenated water
at depths coinciding with depths of the penstocks. Excess growths of aquatic
plants may cause severe diel fluctuations in dissolved oxygen with daytime supersaturation and anoxic conditions during the night. Although severe effects of
aquatic plant growths are certainly a potential problem, I am not aware of any
trout stream studies where this phenomenon has been documented. The most common cause of oxygen depletion results from the discharge of oxygen-demanding
organic wastes from agricultural, munieipal, and industrial sources and such
occurrences are well-documented in the literature. Logging slash has been reported by Burns (1972) to have reduced dissolved oxygen in a trout stream to
5 ppm, while undisturbed sections of the same stream had 10 ppm of dissolved
oxygen. Hansmann and Phinney (1973) reported that logging slash in Oregon
streams reduced oxygen concentrations from natural levels of 10 to 12 ppm to
as low as 0.6 ppm.
TURBIDITY
Mineral solids may affect the quality and productivity of a trout stream
by creating unsightly and damaging turbidity while in suspension and by the
deposition of silt on the stream bottom. Excellent reviews of this general subject have been presented by Cordone and Kelley (1961) and by Gammon (1970).
The amount of sediment that can be transported in suspension by a stream is
directly related to stream velocity and inversely related to the particle size
of available sediments. Thus, unless influenced by continuous point discharges
of sediments or by suspensoids of colloidal dimensions, most trout streams are
quite clear during periods of low or normal streamflow. Measured turbidities of
streams draining undisturbed forest lands have been reported to normally be less
than 10 ppm (FWPCA 1970, Bartsch 1960, EPA 1971). In 1953 and 1954, I measured
the turbidity of Ball and Shope Creeks on Coweeta Experimental Forest in North
Carolina during six separate storm periods (Table 1). Turbidity of Ball Creek,
24
�which drained a relatively undisturbed watershed, ranged from approximately
3 ppm to 43 ppm. In Shope Creek, whose drainage system included small watersheds that had been subjected to logging and farming operations in earlier
years, the turbidity during storm periods ranged from approximately 31 ppm to
808 ppm. During periods of normal to low streamflow during 1953 and 1954, the
turbidity of both Ball and Shope Creeks was generally less than 5 ppm.
Table
data during storm 2eriods for Sho2e Creek and Ball Creek 1
Coweeta Ex2erimental Forest
2.--Turbidit~
Date
1953
Time
Shope Creek
Turbidity
(J2J2m)
Ball Creek
Turbidity
<rEm)
Date
1954
Time
Shope Creek
Turbidity
<rEm)
Ball Creek
Turbidity
(J2J2m)
9-25
ll-22
12-9
1000
1345
lll5
46.2*
ll2. 3
35.4
9.0*
36.1
16.7
2-20
2-20
2-20
1000
lll5
1500
63.6
31.0
808.2
4.7
3.2
43.0
*Represents the mean of three readings.
The effects of poorly planned land use practices on stream turbidities are
often quite dramatic, particularly during storm periods in areas of steep terrain. Turbidities reported during storm periods in streams draining improperly
logged watersheds have ranged from 3,500 to 70,000 ppm (FWPCA 1970, Liebermann
and Hoover 1948). Continuous high levels of turbidity from point sources such
as sand- and gravel-washing facilities and mining operations are considerably
more detrimental to stream fauna (Gammon 1970) than are the effects of intermittent turbidity from erosion products during storm runoff.
Studies by Wallen (1951) showed that there were no directly observable
effects of turbidity on fish until concentrations greater than 20,000 ppm were
reached, and most individuals of all species studied endured exposures of 100,000
ppm for a week or longer. Since the above concentrations are greater than would
be expected to occur in nature, it has generally been felt that the direct
effects of turbidity on fish are negligible. Subsequent long-term studies by
Herbert, et al. (196la and 196lb) indicate that direct effects on trout may
occur at much lower concentrations than reported by Wallen. In the studies
reported by Herbert, et al. (196la), fish were exposed to test concentrations
of mineral suspended solids for periods of approximately 6 months. Survival
was adversely affected by concentrations of 810 and 270 ppm, while 90 ppm
appeared to have some adverse effects. Herbert, et al. (196lb) found 1,000
ppm of suspended solids from china clay workings markedly reduced the abundance
of brown trout.
Indirect effects of turbidity are undoubtedly of more significance to stream
quality and productivity than is the direct mortality of trout. Trout are
sight feeders, and reductions in visibility from turbidity reduce the ability
25
�of trout to locate food. Bachman (1958) found that cutthroat trout exposed
to only 35 ppm of silt turbidity ceased to feed, while control fish fed actively
throughout the study period. Numerous authors have noted that silt-induced
turbidity reduced light penetration, with a concomitant reduction in primary
production by instream plants (Ellis 1936, Chapman 1962, Bartsch 1960, Tarzwell
1957, Cordone and Kelley 1961). Corfitzen (1939) attributed lack of light
penetration to the absence of algae in silt-laden canals. Cordone and Pennoyer
(1960) found that an abundant population of algal pads of the genus Nostoc was
virtually destroyed by sediment discharged into the Truckee River, California.
Most studies of rnacroinvertebrates have been directed toward the effects
of siltation, and few workers have attempted to differentiate the effects due
to turbidity from suspended particles. In a very interesting study of an
Indiana stream, Gammon (1970) found that when more than 80 mg/1 above background levels of inert solids were added to the stream, the population density
of macroinvertebrates decreased to about 40 percent of normal. When 20 to
40 mg/1 were present for a part of each day, the depression in population density was about 75 percent of normal. These studies further revealed an increase
in drift rate of macroinvertebrates from riffles in direct proportion to the
increase in suspended solids concentration up to about 160 mg/1.
Turbid streams have reduced esthetic appeal and, as indicated by creel
census data from a highly turbid logged stream in western North Carolina, they
support little fishermen use (Tebo 1956).
SILTATION
Characteristics of the substrate is of critical importance to the productivity of trout streams. The stream bottom is utilized for incubation and
hatching of trout eggs, for development of trout fry, and is the residence of
aquatic macroinvertebrates which serve as an important food source for trout
and for other secondary and tertiary consumer species.
Numerous studies of the effects of silt on trout reproduction have been
conducted (Peters 1965, Shumway 1960, Hobbs 1937, Shapovalov and Taft 1954,
Wickett 1954, Cooper 1956, and others). The findings of these studies overwhelmingly indicate that sedimentation in gravel riffles seriously reduces the
survival of trout embryos and fry. Peters (1965) stated:
"Continuous large sediment concentrations in a stream during the trout
incubation period can determine the recruitment of young-of-the-year
trout to the population. Without high yearly recruitment, the trout
population can be replaced by a species whose needs are better supplied
by the environment."
Most workers have judged that both water velocity and dissolved oxygen concentrations determine adequacy of the gravel environment for hatching and survival
of salmonid embryos and fry. Increases in sedimentation sufficient to alter
26
�gravel permeability reduces velocities and decreases intergravel dissolved
oxygen. As pointed out by Doudoroff and Shumway (1970), it is impossible to
separate the effects of lowered oxygen and reduced intergravel velocity in
field experiments; and indeed, the smothering effect of silt deposited directly
on developing eggs also confounds such experiments. Burns (1970) reviewed the
subject of sediment particle size on survival and states that "survival is lower
as the volume of materials less than 25 mm diameter increases." In studies on
Deer Creek in Oregon, it was found that an increase of only 5 percent in material smaller than 0.8 mm caused a 19-percent decrease in emergence of silver
salmon fry (Hall and Lantz 1969).
Although allochthonous inputs may provide as high as two-thirds of the primary energy source (organic matter) for streams (Chapman and Demory 1963, Nelson
and Scott 1962), it has also been conclusively demonstrated that benthic macroinvertebrates are of critical importance in the diet of trout (Leonard 1948,
Henry 1949, Allen 1951, Tarzwell 1938, Tebo and Hassler 1963), and a serious
reduction in this component of the trout food supply would be detrimental.
Substrate characteristics of streams is one of the most important variables
determining the composition and productivity of benthic macroinvertebrates (Smith
and Moyle 1944, Weber 1973). Of the mineral substrates, rubble is reportedly
most productive, with decreases in productivity as particle size decreases to
the fineness of sand and silt (Sprules 1947, Smith and Moyle 1944, Tarzwell
1937). Organic sediments in pools are also high in productivity (Sprules
1947, Tarzwell 1938).
An extensive review of literature by Cordone and Kelley (1961) led to the
conclusion that the deposition of silt can and often has destroyed insect and
mussel populations. Studies by Tebo (1955 and 1957) in North Carolina streams
showed that during periods of silt accumulation below a logged watershed, there
were significant reductions in standing crops of bottom organisms and further
that organisms inhabiting the unstable substrate in the silted area were subject
to severe decimation by floodwaters. Bartsch (1960) reported that turbid waters
from gold-dredging operations in Oregon streams decreased the density of fish
food organisms to almost zero.
DISCUSSION
Trout streams are exceptionally sensitive aquatic systems requiring the
maintenance of high standards of water purity. Parameters of critical importance in determining the productivity of trout streams and reviewed in this
paper, include temperature, dissolved oxygen, water transparency, and physical
nature of the substrate.
Water temperature is the key parameter and final determinant of whether a
stream can or cannot support salmonids. Thus, if a stream is to be maintained
for trout, there can be no compromise regarding activities which will increase
temperatures above those necessary for maintenance and propagation of trout.
Currently available evidence indicates that maximum average summertime tempera-
27
�tures for trout-producing waters should be near 66°F, with maximum upper shortterm limits below 73° to 75°F.
Dissolved oxygen is of critical importance for trout-producing waters
through its influence on physiological and reproductive activities of trout.
Minimum levels of dissolved oxygen for survival of adult and fingerling salmonids is apparently near 2.0 ppm; however, much higher levels must be available
to support a viable trout fishery and for optimum production, dissolved oxygen
should be maintained at natural levels.
Water clarity and substrate are influenced by turbidity and associated siltation from mineral solids. Accordingly, both clarity and substrate are highly
sensitive to alterations in the mantle of protective vegetation which maintains
soil stability and integrity. Turbidity sufficient to appreciably reduce water
clarity impairs the esthetic and recreational value of trout streams; may cause
trout mortality from gill clogging and abrasive effects; reduces instream production by plants; and may directly reduce the production of invertebrates which
serve as an important food source for trout.
Silt settling on a stream bed fills the productive interstices in gravel
and rubble riffles, making them unsuitable for fish spawning and for production
of food organisms; it blankets productive deposits of organic matter in pools,
and deep pools which provide cover and living space for trout may be completely
obliterated.
Because of their recognized value, trout streams have received special consideration from regulatory agencies involved in the control of water pollution.
A check of the water quality standards of three southeastern states and three
western states reveals that stringent standards have been promulgated for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and turbidity in trout waters (Table 3).
Table 3.--Water quality standards for trout waters in three southeastern states
and three western states
State
NC
GA
TN
co
MT
WY
1/
I_!
Turbidity
Temperature
6 .ol-1
68°F~1 maximum- No increase No limit specified
over ambient permitted
No limit specified
No change permitted
None harmful to fish life
68°F maximum - 5.4°F over
ambient
6.0
68°F maximum - 2°F over
10 Jackson units over background
background
68°F maximum - 2°F over
5 Jackson units over background
7.0
background
68°F maximum - 2°F over
10 Jackson units over background
6.0
background; no increase
over spawning beds
5.0 mg/1 for put-and-take trout waters.
70°F maximum with 3°F increase for put-and-take waters.
5.0
6.0
28
�REFERENCES
Allen, K. R. 1951. The Horokiwi stream: A study of a trout population.
New Zealand Mar. Dept., Fish. Bull. No. 10, 231 p.
Bachman, Roger Werner. 1958. The ecology of four north Idaho trout streams
with reference to the influence of forest road construction. Master's
Thesis, Univ. Idaho. 97 pp.
Bartsch, Alfred F. 1960. Settable solids, turbidity, and light penetration
as factors affecting water quality. Biological Problems in Water Pollution,
Trans. 1959 Seminar, USDHEW, Cincinnati, Ohio. Tech. Rep. W60-3,
R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Brett, J. R. 1960. Thermal requirements of fish- Three decades of study,
1940-1970. Biological Problems in Water Pollution, Trans. 1959 Seminar,
USDHEW, Cincinnati, Ohio. Tech. Rep. W60-3, R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Brown, George W. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams.
Resources Res., 5(1): 68-75.
Water
Brown, George W. and James T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on
stream temperature. Water Resources Res. 6: 1133-1139.
Burns, James W. 1970. Spawning bed sedimentation studies in northern California
streams. Calif. Fish & Game, 56(4): 253-270.
Burns, James W. 1972. Some effects of logging and associated road construction on northern California streams. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 101(1):
1-17.
Chapman, D. W. 1962. Effects of logging upon fish resources of the west
coast. Jour. Forestry, 60(8): 533-537.
Chapman, Donald W. and Robert L. Demory. 1963. Seasonal changes in the food
ingested by aquatic insect larvae and nymphs in two Oregon streams.
Ecol. 44: 140-146.
Cooper, A. C. 1956. A study of the Horsefly River and the effect of Placer
mining operations on sockeye spawning grounds. Inter. Pacific Salmon
Fish. Comm. Publ. 3: 1-58.
Cordone, Almo J. and Don W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. Calif. Fish & Game, 47(2): 189-228.
Cordone, Almo J. and Steve Pennoyer. 1960. Notes on silt pollution in the
Truckee River drainage. Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Inland Fish. Adm. Rept.
No. 60-14. 25 pp. (mimeo).
29
�Corfitzen, W. E. 1939. A study of the effect of silt on absorbing light
which promotes the growth of algae and moss in canals. USDI, Bur.
Reclamation, 14 pp. (mimeo).
Doudoroff, P. 1957. Water quality requirements of fishes and affects of
toxic substances. In Margaret E. Brown (ed.), The Physiology of
fishes, pp. 403-430-.- Academic Press, New York, NY
Doudoroff, Peter and Dean L. Shumway. 1970. Dissolved oxygen requirements
of freshwater fishes. FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper No. 86, 290 p.
Ellis M. M.
29-42.
1936.
Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments.
Ecol. 17:
Eschner, Arthur R. and Jack Larmoyeux. 1963. Logging and trout: Four experimental forest practices and their effect on water quality. Prog. FishCult., April 1963.
FWPCA. 1970. Industrial waste guide on logging practices.
Office, FWPCA, U. S. Department of the Interior.
Greene, Geoffrey E. 1950.
Cons. 5(3): 125-126.
Land use and trout streams.
N. W. Regional
Jour. Soil & Water
Gammon, James R. 1970. The effect of inorganic sediment on stream biota. EPA,
Water Quality Office, Water Poll. Control Research Series No. 18050DWC12/70.
Leonard, J. W. 1948. Importance of fish food insects in trout management.
Mich. Cons. 17(1): 8-9.
Lieberman, J. A. and M. D. Hoover, 1948. Protecting quality of stream flow
by better logging. So. Lumberman, Dec. 15, 1948.
Hall, J. D. and R. L. Lantz. 1969. Effects of logging on the habitat of Coho
salmon and cutthroat trout in coastal streams, page 355-375. In T. G.
Northcote (Ed.), Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams, Uni~ Brit.
Columbia.
Hansmann, Eugene W. and Harry K. Phinney. 1973. Effects of logging on
periphyton in coastal streams of Oregon. Ecol. 54(1): 194-199.
Henry. K. W.
1949.
Michigan trout waters.
Mich. Forester 30: 13-15, 41.
Herbert, D.W.M., J. S. Alabaster, M. C. Dart, and R. Lloyd. 196lb. The effect
of China-clay wastes on trout streams. Int. J. Air & Water Poll., 5(1):
56-74.
Herbert, D. W. M. and J. C. Merkens. 196la. The effect of suspended mineral
solids on the survival of trout. Int. J. Air & Water Poll., 5: 46-55.
30
�Hobbs, Derisley F. 1937. Natural reproduction of Quinnat salmon, brown and
rainbow trout in certain New Zealand waters. N.Z. Mar. Dept. Fish Bull.
No. 6, 104 pp.
Hynes, H. B. N.
Liverpool.
1960.
The biology of polluted waters.
Needham, P. R. 1939. Production in inland waters.
Conf., 3: 353-358.
The University Press,
Proc. 6th Pacific Sci.
Needham, Paul R. (Revised by Carl F. Bond). 1969. Trout Streams- Conditions
that determine their productivity and suggestions for stream and lake
management. Holden-Day, San Francisco, Calif.
Nelson, D. J. and D. C. Scott. 1962. Role of detritus in the productivity
of a rock-outcrop community in a Piedmont stream. Limnol. & Oceanogr.
7: 396-413.
Peters, John C. 1965. The effects of stream sedimentation on trout embryo
survival. Seminar on Biol. Problems in Water Pollution, US DREW, PHS,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1962.
Shapovalov, Leo and Allan C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerii gairdnerii) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Calif. Dept. Fish & Game Fish Bull. 98, 375 pp.
Shumway, Dean Lee. 1960. The influence of water velocity in the development
of salmonid embryos at low oxygen levels. Master's Thesis, Ore. St. Univ.,
49 pp.
Smith, Lloyd L., Jr. and John B. Moyle. 1944. A biological survey and fishery
management plan for the streams of the Lake Superior north shore watershed.
Minn. Dept. of Conservation, Div. Game & Fish, Tech. Bull. No. 1, 228 p.
Sprules, William N. 1947. An ecological investigation of stream insects in
Algonquin Park, Ontario. Univ. Toronto Studies, Biol. Ser. No. 56,
Publ. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. No. 69, 81 pp.
Tarzwell, C. M. 1937. Experimental evidence as to the value of trout stream
improvement in Michigan. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 66: 177-187.
Tarzwell, C. M. 1938. An evaluation of the methods and results of stream
improvement in the Southwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 3: 339-364.
Tarzwell, Clarence M. 1957. Water quality criteria for aquatic life. In
Biological problems in water pollution, USDHEW, Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engr. Ctr., pp. 246-272.
31
�Tebo, L. B., Jr. 1955. Effects of siltation resulting from improper logging
on the bottom fauna of a small trout stream in the southern Appalachians.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 17(2): 64-70.
Tebo, L. B., Jr. 1956. Effects of siltation on trout streams.
Proc. 1956 Meeting, p. 198-202.
Soc. Am. For.
Tebo, L. B., Jr. and W. W. Hassler. 1963. Food of brook, brown, and rainbow
trout in streams in western North Carolina. Jour. Elisha Mitchell Sci.
Soc. 79(1); 44-53.
USEPA. 1971. Studies on effects of watershed practices on streams.
Agcy., Water Pollution Control Res. Ser. 13010EGA 02/71.
Env. Prot.
USEPA. 1973. Proposed criteria for water quality -Volume I. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC Oct. 1973, 425 pages.
Wallen, I. Eugene. 1951. The direct effect of turbidity on fishes.
Okla. A&M, Biol. Ser. No. 2, 48(2);1-27.
Bull.
Weber, Cornelius I. (ed.). 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for
measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. U. S. Env. Protection
Agcy., Env. Monitoring Ser. 670/4-73-001.
Wickett, W. Percy. 1954. The oxygen supply to salmon eggs in spawning beds.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 11(6): 933-953.
32
�FOREST MANAGEMENT IMPACTS ON COLD WATER FISHERIES
James E. Douglass and Monte E. Seehorn
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station and Southern Region, USDA Forest Service
Abstract.--Erosion is the mechanism likely to damage the
aquatic resource when a forest is managed. Roads, logging, site
preparation, and fire all increase erosion and stream siltation.
Cutting forests increases streamflow when it is needed most, but
conversion from hardwood to pine significantly reduces streamflow
and, therefore, the size of the aquatic habitat. Herbicides and
pesticides are constant threats, but pollution from these sources
can usually be prevented. More research is needed to fully assess
the effects on the aquatic community of logging debris in streams,
channel clearing, increasing stream temperature from logging along
the stream, and changing the nutrient budget of streams by fertilization or silvicultural practices.
Additional keywords: Forest management, aquatic environment, trout,
soil erosion, erosion control, sediment control, hydrologic properties, forest burning, forest soils, water yield, fertilization.
An undisturbed forest produces water of relatively high quality. Any disturbance to the forest through use or management affects the system, and water
is one of the first characteristics to be affected. Alteration of cover density or type changes the volume, timing, and quality of flow, and one of the
greatest changes is to the quality of water. Turbidity is the most obviously
affected. Turbidity, for example, has been shown to increase by 4,000 to
5,000 fold following logging where roads were "logger's choice" compared with
an undisturbed forest (Reinhart, et al., 1963).
Dr. Tebo (this symposium) has already presented information on the biological consequences of sediment and some other pollutants on the aquatic
environment. We shall deal specifically with the importance of forestry
operations on streams and how careful planning and execution can minimize the
potentially harmful effects of management.
EROSION AND ITS CAUSE
Erosion takes place when energy available for detachment and transportation of soil exceeds the energy which binds soil particles in place. In the
East, the major source of erosive energy is rainfall. Transportation of dislodged soil particles is also primarily by either falling rain or water flowing
over the surface of the soil.
Raindrops reach a maximum diameter of only about 5 mm, but they strike
exposed soil like tiny bombs; they "explode," digging craters and blasting
soil into surrounding areas. An inch of moderately intense rainfall delivers
over 1,000 times more potential energy for erosion than an equivalent volume
of water flowing uniformly over the soil surface.
Overland flow is both an eroding force and a transporting medium for dislodged soil particles. As velocity of flow increases, energy available for
erosion increases exponentially. The weight of soil which can be carried and
the size of the particle which can be moved are increased by the 5th and 6th
power of velocity.
33
�Erosion is proportional to both length and steepness of slope. Little or
nothing can be done about these factors on forest land, and silvicultural
practices may have to be modified on steep, long slopes. On man-made structures such as roads, length and steepness of slope can be controlled.
Physical properties of soils determine their erodibility and influence
stream turbidity (Middleton, 1930; Anderson, 1954). Indices of erosion hazard
have been developed by the Soil Conservation Service for all southern soils.
Cover conditions and conservation practices exert the greatest influence
on erosion. Wischmeier and Smith (1965), who prepared a universal equation
for estimating soil loss from agricultural lands, demonstrated that man•s
management and conservation practices are more important in determining soil
loss than all other factors combined.
In the forest, the litter layer is the most important mechanism for soil
conservation. A 2-inch depth of litter (about 2 tons per acre) is sufficient
to minimize erosion on forest lands (Wischmeier, in press; Rowe, 1955). Litter
serves two very important functions. First, it absorbs the erosion energy of
raindrops. Secondly, as litter decomposes and is incorporated into mineral
soil, soil density is reduced, porosity is increased, and infiltration rates
of about 20 to over 100 inches per hour are common. Since rain nearly always
falls at rates of less than 8 inches per hour, virtually all rainfall infiltrates into forest soils, and surface runoff from upland forest soils is rare.
Consequently, annual soil losses are small, normally less than 150 pounds per
acre from undisturbed forests and not much greater from depleted hardwoods or
pine plantations growing on eroded soil (Ursie, 1963; Ursie and Duffy, 1972;
Rogerson, 1971). In the Blue Ridge Mountains, losses are normally less than
100 pounds per acre (Douglass and Swank, 1974) and less than 250 pounds from
a clearcut watershed and a grass-to-forest successional forest (Johnson and
Swank, 1973). Although expressed on a per-acre basis, much of the soil loss
from undisturbed forests is normal geologic erosion from the micro- and macrodrainage network rather than accelerated erosion.
FORESTRY OPERATIONS WHICH INCREASE SILTING OF STREAMS
From this discussion of erosion, it becomes clear that any activity which
reduces energy absorption by the litter and allows raindrops to strike mineral
soil will increase erosion and stream siltation. Similarly, any activity
which compacts soil or reduces porosity will lower the infiltration rate. If
infiltration is reduced and surface runoff occurs, increased erosion is a
virtual certainty.
Roads
One of the most damaging aspects of forest management is erosion from
roads. Megahan (1972) found that soil loss from roads was 220 times greater
than from undisturbed forests. Turbidities as high as 56,000 ppm have been
reported for 11 logger's choice 11 roads in West Virginia (Reinhart et al., 1963),
and Packer (1967) reported that roads are the major source of increased turbidities during forest operations.
Figure 1 shows the annual cycle of stream turbidities at Coweeta for an
undisturbed and a logged watershed where roads were logger•s choice. Although
the values shown are instantaneous and depend partly on whether samples were
34
�taken during storm or nonstorm periods, the general trend is unmistakable.
Turbidity from the logged watershed is consistently higher in both storm and
nonstorm periods.
10,000~
Exploltive Logging
1000
100
e
ci.
D.
.
>-
"U
~
I Undisturbed
~
10
May
June July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Figure 1.--Comparison of stream turbidity on an undisturbed
watershed and an exploitively logged watershed.
Douglass and Swank (1974), Lieberman and Hoover (1948), Hoover (1945),
and Reinhart et al. (1963) all reported that poorly constructed logging roads
are a major cause of high soil losses and stream siltation. However, erosion
and stream siltation can be held within reasonable bounds if roads are properly
located, properly maintained, and properly stabilized. Since the road surface
and unstabilized cuts and fills receive the energy of falling raindrops and
running water, careful attention should be given to grades, length of slope,
and drainage of accumulations of water. While all soil loss from roads cannot
be eliminated, we have road construction and maintenance criteria which will
maintain a healthy aquatic community (Hewlett and Douglass, 1958; Kochenderfer,
1970).
Logging
Improper logging can be a major source of erosion. Although erosion data
associated with logging in the East are not available, evidence indicates that
erosion loss is proportional to the area disturbed by exposure of mineral soil
or compaction. The area disturbed varies with sale layout and design, supervision provided during the sale, and the logging equipment used to harvest the
timber.
Timber sale design and layout can greatly m1n1m1ze erosion by minimizing
road, skid trail, and logging deck disturbance. Careful layout of logging
roads well away from streams, requiring no blading off of mineral soil on skid
35
�trails, no crossing of streams except on roads, and setting gradient limits for
off-road use of wheeled and track vehicles are other measures which reduce disturbance.
The best sale design and layout, however, are of little value if supervision is inadequate and provisions of the contract are not enforced. Hatchell
et al. (1970) showed that the area disturbed ranged from 3.2 to 22.8 percent
for primary skid trails, 8.8 to 42 percent for secondary skid trails, and 0.3
to 4.6 percent for log decks in the Coastal Plains. Obviously, sale layout,
supervision, or both were responsible for the 5- to 10-fold difference in disturbance during logging.
The logging equipment used determines to some extent the degree of disturbance during logging. Dickerson (1968) found that clearcutting sawtimber in
the Coastal Plains disturbed 50 percent more soil and clearcutting pulpwood
disturbed 50 percent less soil than selection cutting. He found no appreciable
difference in total area disturbed by log-length skidding by mule, A-frame, or
crawler tractor but skidding with rubber-tired tractor disturbed the most (17%)
area.
In the West, Dyrness {1972) found that soil compaction varied: Tractor>
high lead>skyline>balloon. He also found that tractor logging disturbed more
area than high-lead logging (1965). Klock (1973) found cable skidding>tractor>
skidding on bare soil>tractor skidding on snoW>helicopter logging. Meyer et al.
(1966) found that articulated rubber-tired skidders caused greater damage than
crawler tractors, particularly when skidding tree-length logs. Fredriksen
(1970) found sediment losses of 0.15 tons per acre from undisturbed forests
compared to 0.48 tons per acre after skyline logging with no roads. About 4
tons per acre were lost from high-lead logging by clearcutting where 25 percent
of the area was cut in patches and 1.65 miles of road were used. Although not
collected on southern Appalachian soils, these data probably illustrate range
of disturbance by different logging equipment and operators in any area.
Erosion loss attributable to felling and skidding per se is slight.
Dissmeyer (1973) estimates that logging produced only 0.6 percent of the forestry related sediment production in the Santee River Basin. The remainder
came from fire, skid trails, spur roads, landings, and mechanical site preparation. This small percentage can probably be reduced further by careful
planning, supervision, and use of proper equipment and methods.
Site Preparation
Forecasts indicate that 30 million southern acres require planting or conversion from low-grade hardwoods to pine if our future timber needs are to be
met. Heavy equipment (and perhaps fire) will be used extensively to prepare
many sites for planting. This preparation bares mineral soil to the erosive
force of falling rain and flowing water. Preparation with heavy equipment
closely approximates agricultural practices and has the greatest potential for
increasing erosion and stream siltation of any forestry practice. Dissmeyer
(1973) estimates that 81 percent of the forestry-related erosion in the Santee
River Basin is caused by site-preparation work. There are no quantitative data
on soil losses associated with alternative site-preparation methods which might
achieve the desired conditions while causing less erosion. Additional research
on this subject is badly needed because of the potential damage to the soil,
water, and aquatic resource.
36
�Fire
The results from prescribed burning studies are variable. Some indicate
that erosion is not increased and physical properties which affect infiltration
are not adversely affected. However, fire bares soil to raindrop and crown
drop. Copley et al. (1946) found that annual burning of second-growth hardwoods for 7 years caused erosion to increase from about 200 pounds per acre to
28.7 tons per acre per year. Prescribed burning and deadening hardwoods increased erosion in Mississippi (Ursie, 1970). Soil loss increased by 48 to
119 percent, but the maximum increase was less than 500 pounds per acre. Thus,
it appears that prescribed burning may increase soil losses, but periodic prescribed burning of woodlands does not appear to be a threat to aquatic life in
the mountains. Annual burning, however, can result in excessive erosion, stream
siltation, and damage to trout.
FOREST MANAGEMENT CHANGES STREAMFLOW
A wealth of information is available to show that changes in forest cover
conditions affect both the timing of flow and total annual flow. Douglass and
Swank (1972; 1974) presented models for estimating the magnitude and duration
of yield increases when hardwood forests are cut. On an annual basis, complete
clearcutting of Appalachian hardwood forests will increase streamflow by from
8 to 18 area inches the first year after cutting; when hardwood forests are cut
on a sustained-yield basis, annual flow will be about 0.5 to 2.5 inches greater
than from an unmanaged or wilderness forest.
Changes in flow distribution are more important to the aquatic community
than total flow. Figure 2 shows the average change in monthly flow for 7
years when a hardwood-covered watershed was clearcut annually. Flow was approximately doubled during late summer, fall, and early winter, when it is normally
low. Low flows can cause stress for trout, and increases in minimum flows may
be of great value.
Figure 3 compares the average monthly flow for a hardwood forest and the
flow which occurred 16 years after this watershed was converted to a white pine
plantation. The reduction in flow was attributed to greater interception and
transpiration by the pine. Streamflow was reduced by over 8 inches annually.
The greatest reduction in flow came during December through May, but reductions
occurred in all months. Although small, the reductions during July through
November are important because they occur when the trout population may be
under stress.
From these and numerous other watershed studies, it is clear that manipulating forest cover in the Applachians strongly influence streamflow and,
therefore, the aquatic community. Hardwood management can increase the amount
of water in streams thus enlarging the aquatic habitat. The largest increase
comes the year after cutting, and increases diminish with time. Small increases in flow will occur on larger streams where sustained-yield management
is practiced, and this additional water comes mostly during the period when
the physical habitat is minimal. On the other hand, conversion of hardwood to
pine will reduce flow after the pine has reached about 10 years of age. Thereafter, flow will probably remain significantly lower in all months until the
pine forest is regenerated. This reduction will almost certainly have a negative effect on the aquatic resource, particularly if substantial portions of
the watershed area are converted.
37
�COWEETA
MAY-APRIL
6
5
EJIITI
CJ
MEAN
17
WATERYEAR
35
FLOW
INCREASE
:I:
u
z
4
~
0
...
"
c(
w
3
"'
....
"'
>
c(
MAY JUN JULYAUGSEPTOCT
NOV DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APRIL
Figure 2.--Comparison of the mean monthly flow from a hardwood-covered watershed with the average increase in streamflow during a ?-year period when that watershed was clearcut
annually.
OTHER MANAGEMENT EFFECTS
Streamside Cuttings
Water temperature is a limiting factor in both the geographical distribution and local occurrence of trout. If temperatures are not within the optimum range and trout cannot move to a more favorable habitat, the population is
stressed. Certain forest management practices can increase water temperature
in streams.
Swift and Messer (1971) compared water temperature in streams draining
undisturbed watersheds with those subjected to treatments which ranged from
mountain farming to understory cuts. Opening streams to direct sunlight raised
both winter and summer weekly maximum temperatures. Summer maximums were increased up to 12° F by clearing the forest and farming the land. The maximum
weekly temperature increased 5 to 6 degrees after a complete clearcut. Summer
weekly maximums declined somewhat as a coppice forest regrew.
Hassler and Tebo (1958) found little change in temperature from clearcutting streamside vegetation along a third-order stream at Coweeta. Swift and
Baker (1973) studied temperature changes inside clearcut and streamside shade
38
�strips on a commercially logged area near Asheville, N. C. Temperatures increased from 52° to 66° F in the clearcut. As the water flowed through an 800foot thinned buffer strip, a 200-foot clearcut, and another 900-foot buffer
strip, temperature declined to 57° F. After flowing through 700 feet of uncut
forest, the temperature dropped to 55° F. The study confirmed that a narrow
buffer strip of uncut trees or shrubs along streams does moderate those increases in water temperature which might otherwise be caused by a forest
cutting.
Coweeta
Watershed
May. April
7
6
CJ
Predicted
Q
Actual
1
1972- 73
StreamflowiHardwoodsl
StreamflowiPinel
5
...
E
Figure 3.--Comparison of predicted streamflow by months for a
hardwood watershed with actual streamflow when that watershed
supported a 16-year-old white pine plantation.
While potentially harmful temperatures can result from removal of streamside vegetation, such occurrences should be rare. On Forest Service lands,
clearcutting are normally smaller than 50 acres and frequently along streams
too small to support trout. Even though stream temperature may increase within
the cut area, when this water mixes with cooler water from uncut areas or with
inflow along the stream below the cutting, the increase is very quickly dissipated by dilution. In the water-influence zone of larger streams, cutting
practices are modified to provide shade.
Even on private land where cutting
size is not rigorously controlled, the very small proportion of the total forest area which is likely to be clearcut at one time tends to prevent acute
thermal pollution problems.
39
�There are exceptions. We do not, for example, have data on what length
of stream has to be cut before heating of water becomes a serious problen1. A
390- to 750-foot clearing does not appear to create excessive temperatures, but
cutting l ,000 or more feet along streams might cause excessive temperature increases. Cutting extensive areas of swamps where large volun1es of water are in
storage could also raise stream temperature dangerously. Water temperature
naturally increases as elevation decreases. While some increases in temperature
can be tolerated at higher elevations, at lower elevations where summer maximun1s
are already at critical levels, no temperature increase can be tolerated.
Not all effects of opening up the channel are adverse. Some increase in
temperature may be beneficial. The increase in temperature and greater lighting
of unshaded streams may stimulate photosynthetic activity. Hassler and Tebo
(1958) found that a 390-foot cleared stretch of stream at Coweeta generally
contained a greater volume of invertebrates per sample than a wooded stretch of
the stream. Although untested, limited clearing along streams offers potential
as a management tool for increasing trout food production.
Wallace et al. (1970) found that stonefly nymphs (Peltoperla maria) showed
definite feeding preferences for elm, alder, sourwood, and dogwood over rhododendron, white pine, white oak, and chestnut oak leaves. Since leaf material
is one of the most important food sources for invertebrates (r·1inshall, 1967),
manipulation of terrestrial plant cover adjacent to streams by complete or
selective cutting may provide opportunities for improving the quality of food
available to the aquatic community.
Effects of
Cutti~
on Nutrient
Bud~
Since the initial reporting of high nutrient losses from a clearcutting
followed by 3 successive years of herbicide treatment in New Hampshire (Likens
et al ., 1970), fear has been expressed that clearcutting reduces site productivity. Also, the higher-than-normal nutrient concentrations are pollution by
some definitions, and the nitrate concentrations at times exceeded drinking
water standards. At Coweeta, detailed nutrient balance studies on four watersheds (undisturbed forest, grass-to-hardwood successional forest, young white
pine plantation, and a regrowing coppice forest; Johnson and Swank, 1973) and
on other watersheds subjected to a variety of forest-cutting practices have not
shown appreciable changes in the ion budget, excert for nitrates (Douglass and
Swank, 1974). Annual concentrations of N0 3 - N were increased by factors of
four to 150, the highest concentration being 1.23 ppm for the grass-to-forest
successional forest. This forest watershed has been limed, fertilized twice,
and the grass was killed for 2 successive year~ with herbicides prior to the
grass-to-hardwood succession study. Studies at the Bent Creek Experimental
Forest confirm the findings at Coweeta that, except for nitrates, forest cuttings have little effect on stream nutrient concentrations.
Streams in undisturbed forests in the Blue Ridge Mountains are normally
low in nutrients. Nitrate concentrations at Cov1eeta, for exan1ple, normally
range from .002 to .013 ppm. Because of the low fertility of streams, increases in calcium, phosphate, nitrates, and potassium might improve the
productivity of aquatic habitat. Only nitrates seem to be increased by forest
cuttings, and these small increases in nitrates may not be sufficient to produce a favorable response in the aquatic community.
40
�Fertilization
Fertilizer is being used increasingly in forestry to improve the growth
of trees. Hilmon and Douglass (1968) and Hornbeck and Pierce (1973) concluded
that fertilization may stimulate water use by forest vegetation. Hornbeck and
Pierce point out that direct application of fertilizer to the stream channel
and an increase in nutrients contributed to the stream by subsurface flow might
affect water quality. This, in turn, could produce changes in aquatic life.
Aubertin et al. (1973) measured nutrients in streamflow from a West Virginia watershed before and after application of 500 pounds per acre of urea,
about 11 pounds of which fell directly into the stream. Nitrate-N and ammonium-N concentrations increased immediately after application of the urea.
Compared to the year before fertilization, there was a 10-fold increase in
N03 - N vs. approximately a 50-percent reduction in ammonium in streamflow
during the year after fertilization. If one considered the increased loss of
N as coming entirely from the urea fertilization, then 17.8 percent of the
applied N was discharged during the first year after treatment. Although not
wholly attributable to the urea fertilization, increases in concentration of
Ca, Mg, K, Cu, Zn, and decreases in Fe, total phosphate, and Mn were noted.
The N03 - N concentration at times exceeded Public Health drinking water standards. Since N0 3 - N readily leaches from soils, nitrate and urea are the fertilizers most likely to affect water quality.
Nand Pare of particular concern to limnologists. Werner (1973) points
out that minerals are cycled through plant tissue and introduced to the stream
as leaf detritus or from leaching through soil. His main conern was eutrophication, as commonly happens following agricultural applications of fertilizer.
While eutrophication is a potential problem, a large percentage of the applied
fertilizer is retained in the upper few inches of soil. For example, Sapper
and Sagmuller (1966) found that 2 inches per week of sewage effluent applied
at the equivalent of 2,500 pounds per acre of 10-10-10 fertilizer was largely
retained in the surface foot of soil. Later applications of 4 inches per week
showed that greatest changes in concentration of P and K percolate occurred in
the surface foot, and N0 3 - N, Ca, Mg, and chloride concentrations equilibrated
at 48 inches (Pennypacker et al., 1967). Because of this filtering action,
only a small percentage of the applied fertilizer should reach streams from
leaching. If enrichment is not excessive, some enrichment may stimulate primary
productivity in our low fertility streams. Also, fertilizer-enriched leaf
detritus might increase invertibrate populations. Additional study of the
effects of forest fertilization on the aquatic community is planned.
Pollution from Herbicides and Pesticides
Herbicides are sometimes used to control vegetation on road, powerline and
other right-of-ways, and in site preparation and timber stand improvement activities. They are also used to increase productivity in the aquatic food chain,
but if present in sufficient concentrations, they are toxic to fish. The toxicity of different herbicides is variable; death occurring within 48 hours from
concentrations ranging from 0.13 to 4,800 ppm depending on the formulation
(Alabaster, 1969). Because herbicides operate on both the food chain and the
fish themselves (Walker, 1971; 1972), efforts should be made to use the least
toxic chemicals to nontarget organisms in forestry operations. Norris (1971)
concludes that commonly used brush control chemicals can be used with minimum
hazard to the environment.
41
�Pesticides are designed to kill, and numerous examples of fish kills and
other aquatic problems are attributable to pesticides. However, the bulk of
evidence indicates that herbicide and pesticide pollution can be reduced or
eliminated by careful woods operations. At CovJeeta, for example, maintaining
an unsprayed 10-foot buffer strip along the stream was sufficient to prevent
atrazine and 2,4,5-T from reaching streams; Grzenda et al. (1964) found that
DDT residues appeared in streams at Coweeta after spraying the entire basin
for elm spanworm by fixed-wing aircraft. The following year, DDT 1·1as carefully applied by helicopter to upper slopes, and ridges and residues were not
found in stream or sediment samples. Since most pesticides reach streams
either attached to soil particles, from spray deposited in streams, or from
drip from exposed plant material, a cardinal rule is to avoid spraying streamside areas. Because a wide variety of chemical compounds exist, use of rapidly
degradable rather than persistent pesticides and herbicides can reduce both the
initial hazard and the duration of hazard.
~ng
Debris and Channel
Clean~
Logging debris that falls into streams can create barriers to fish movement, cause unproductive sediment bars, and accelerated channel and bank cutting. It is virtually impossible to prevent some debris from entering stream
channels during logging. When the quantity or size of detritus becomes excessive or when flow during storms is sufficient to cause debris jams or excessive bank cutting, debris should be removed. This is a judgmental decision,
but generally, flow volume in the southern Appalachians is not sufficient to
move logs in streams draining 50- to 100-acre watersheds. If debris is left
in streams, it becomes an important and long-lasting food source for invertebrates. Additional study is needed to evaluate the overall effects of leaving
detritus in small feeder streams.
On National Forests, channels are cleared of old logging slash, blowdowns,
old logs, and other debris. The practice can increase trout populations in
certain situations but, like any management practice, it may be beneficial or
detrimental. Productivity of the aquatic system can be improved by selectively
removing barriers to fish movement and sediment bars while retaining debris
which provides necessary cover. Carried to extremes, the practice can destroy
productive gravel beds and eliminate fish cover. Guidelines have been developed for National Forest channel-cleaning work, but the effects of clearing
debris on the aquatic community is another practice which has not been evaluated quantitatively.
CONCLUSION
Hydrology research in the Appalachians has defined many of the impacts of
forest management practices on the water resource. For the most part, the information needed to protect the trout resource is available. However, the
aquatic community is highly complex, and we do not know how some practices
affect the food chain and ultimately the productivity of the trout resource.
The ultimate objective of the research program in cold water fisheries is to
develop the ability to predict how man's use of the forest will influence the
trout resource and how the productivity of trout can be protected and enhanced.
42
�LITERATURE CITED
Alabaster, J. S. 1969. Survival of fish in 164 herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, wilting agents and miscellaneous substances. Int. Pest Control
11 (2): 29-35.
Anderson, H. W. 1954. Suspended sediment discharge as related to streamflow,
topography, soil, and land use. Amer. Geophys. Union Trans. 35: 268-281.
Aubertin, G. M., Smith, D. W., and Patrie, J. H. 1973. Quantity and quality
of streamflow after urea fertilization on a forested watershed: first year
results. In Forest Fertilization Symposium Proceedings. USDA For. Serv.
Gen. Tech.lRep. NE-3, p. 88-100. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.
Copley, T. L., Forrest, L.A., Augustine, M. T., and Lutz, J. F. 1946. Effects
of land use and season on runoff and soil loss. N.C. Agric. Stn. Bull.
347, 27 p.
Dickerson, B. P. 1968. Logging disturbance on erosive sites in North Mississippi. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. S0-72, 4 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New
Orleans, La.
Dissmeyer, G. E. 1973. Evaluating the impact of individual forest management
practices on suspended sediment. Paper presented at Natl. Meet. Soil Conserv. Soc. Amer., Hot Springs, Ark.
Douglass, J. E., and Swank, W. T. 1972. Streamflow modification through management of eastern forests. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-94, 15 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.
Douglass, J. E., and Swank, W. T. 1974. Effects of management practices on
water quality and quantity--Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory. In Symposium on
management of municipal watersheds. Northeast. For. Exp. St~, Upper Darby,
Pa. (In Press).
Dyrness, C. T. 1965. Soil surface condition following tractor and high-lead
logging in the Oregon Cascades. J. For. 63: 272-275.
Dyrness, C. T. 1972. Soil surface conditions following balloon logging. USDA
For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-182, 7 p. Pac. Northwest For. Exp. Stn., Portland,
Oreg.
Fredrikson, R. L. 1970. Erosion and sedimentation following road construction
and timber harvest on unstable soil in three small western Oregon watersheds.
USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-104, 15 p. Pac. Northwest For. Exp. Stn.,
Portland, Oreg.
Grzenda, A. R., Nicholson, H. P., Teasley, J. L., and Patrie, J. H. 1964.
residues in mountain stream water as influenced by treatment practices.
Econ. Entomol. 57: 615-618.
Hatchell, C. E., Ralston, C. W., and Foil, R. R.
logging. J. For. 68: 772-775.
43
1970.
DDT
J.
Soil disturbances in
�Hassler, W. W., and Tebo, L. B., Jr. 1958. Fish management investigations on
trout streams. N.C. Wildl. Resour., Fish Div., Proj. Completion Rep.,
Proj. F-4-R, 118 p.
Hewlett, J. D., and Douglass, J. E. 1958. Blending forest uses. USDA For.
Serv. Res. Pap. SE-37, 15 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.
Hilmon, J. B., and Douglass, J. E. 1968. Potential impact of forest fertilization on range, wildlife and watershed management. In Symposium on Forest
Fertilization, Theory and Practice. Tenn. Val. Auth.--197-202.
Hoover, M. D. 1945. Careless skidding reduces benefits of forest cover for
watershed protection. J. For. 43: 765-766.
Hornbeck, J. W., and Pierce, R. S. 1973. Potential impact of forest fertilization on streamflow. In Forest Fertilization Symposium Proceedings. USDA
For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-3, p. 79-87. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,
Upper Darby, Pa.
Johnson, P. L., and Swank, W. T. 1973. Studies of cation budgets in the southern Appalachians on four experimental watersheds with contrasting vegetation.
Ecology 54: 70-80.
Klock, G. 0. 1973. Helicopter logging reduces soil surface disturbance, p. 20.
In Proc. 46th Annu. Meet. Northwest. Sci. Assoc., Whitman Coll ., Walla
Walla, Wash.
Kochenderfer, J. N. 1970. Erosion control on logging roads in the Appalachians.
USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-158, 28 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Upper
Darby, Pa.
Lieberman, J. A., and Hoover, M. D. 1948. The effect of uncontrolled logging
on stream turbidity. Water and Sewage Works 95: 255-258.
Likens, G. E., Bormann, F. H.,Johnson, N. M., Fisher, D. W., and Pierce, R. S.
1970. Effects of forest cutting and herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook Watershed Ecosystem. Ecol. Monogr. 40: 23-47.
Megahan, W. F. 1972. Logging, erosion, sedimentation--are they dirty words?
J. For. 70: 403-407.
Meyer, G., Ohman, J. H., and Oettel, R. 1966. Skidding hardwoods--articulated rubber-tired skidders versus crawler tractors. J. For. 64: 191-196.
Middleton, H. E. 1930. Properties of soils which influence erosion.
Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 178, 16 p.
U. S.
Minshall, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure
of a woodland springbrook community. Ecology 48: 139-149.
Norris, L.A. 1971.
69: 715-720.
Chemical brush control:
assessing the hazard.
J. For.
Packer, P. E. 1967. Forest treatment effects on water quality. Natl. Sci.
Found. Adv. Sci. Semin., Int. Symp. Forest Hydrol. Proc. 1965: 687-699.
44
�Pennypacker, S. P., Sapper, W. E., and Kardos, L. T.
wastewater effluent by irrigation of forest land.
Fed. 39(2): 285-296.
1967. Renovation of
J. Water Pollut. Control
Reinhart, K. G., Eschner, A. R., and Trimble, G. R., Jr. 1963. Effects on
streamflow of four forest practices in the mountains of West Virginia. USDA
For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-1, 76 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby,
Pa.
Rogerson, T. L. 1971. Hydrologic characteristics of small headwater catchments in the Quachita Mountains. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note S0-117, 5 p.
South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.
Rowe, P. B. 1955. Effects of forest floor on dispostion of rainfall in pine
stands. J. For. 53: 342-348.
Sopper, W. E., and Sagmuller, C. J. 1966. Forest vegetation growth responses
to irrigation with municipal sewage effluent. Paper presented at First Pan
Amer. Soil Conserv. Cong., San Paulo, Brazil.
Swift, L. W., Jr., and Baker, S. E. 1973. Lower water temperatures within a
streamside buffer strip. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-191, 7 p. Southeast.
For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.
Swift, L. W., Jr., and Messer, J. B. 1971. Forest cuttings raise temperatures
of small streams in the southern Appalachians. J. Soil & Water Conserv.
26: 111-116.
Tebo, L. B. 1974. Impacts of sediments and other impurities. In Symposium
on Trout Habitat Research and Management in the Southern Appalachians.
(In Press).
Ursie, S. J. 1963. Sediment yields from small watersheds under various land
uses and forest covers. In Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference. ARs-Misc. Publ. No. 970, p. 47-52.
Ursie, S. J. 1970. Hydrologic effects of prescribed burning and deadening
upland hardwoods in northern Mississippi. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. S0-54,
16 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.
Ursie, S. J., and Duffy, P. D. 1972. Hydrologic performance of eroded lands
stabilized with pine, p. 203-216. In Proc. Miss. Water Resour. Conf., Water
Resour. Res. Inst., Miss. State Uni~, State College, Miss.
Walker, C. R. 1971. The toricological effects of herbicides and weed control
of fish and other organisms in the aquatic ecosystem, p. 119-127. In Proc.
Eur. Weed Res. Counc. 3rd Int. Symp. Aquat. Weeds.
Walker, C. R. 1972. Ecological implications of pesticides used in or near
aquatic environments, p. 235-250. In Proc. Tech. Sess. 18th Annu. Meet.
Inst. Environ. Sci., New York, N.Y.
Wallace, J. B., Woodall, W. R., and Sherberger, F. F. 1970. Breakdown of
leaves by feeding of Peltoperla maria nymphs (Peltoperlidae). Annals
Entomol. Soc. Amer. 63: 562-567.
45
�Werner, R. G. 1973. Water-quality-limnological concerns about forest fertilization. In Forest Fertilization Symposium Proceedings. USDA For. Serv.
Gen. Tech--.Rep. NE-3, p. 72-78. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.
Wischmeier, W. H. 1974. Estimating the cover and management factor for undisturbed areas. In Proc. 1972 Sediment Predict. Workshop, Oxford, Miss.
{In Press).
Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. 1965. Rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. USDA-ARS Agric. Handb. 282, 47 p.
46
�MINING IMPACTS ON TROUT HABITAT
Ronald D. Hil111
Abstract.--Mining by its very nature is a destructive process. Environmental damages from mining such as sediment, acid
mine drainage, and heavy metals are discussed in terms of their
effect on trout habitat and their control. Pollution control must
be considered during all phases of mining, i.e., pre-mining planning, active mining, closure, and abandonment.
Additional keywords: Acid mine drainage, heavy metals, sediment,
surface mines, underground mines.
INTRODUCTION
Mining is an extraction process. The disruption of the earth's surface and subsurface to remove the mineral wealth entombed therein, dictates
that changes and possible damages will result to the environment. A certain
price in environmental damage usually must be paid to obtain the minerals
and energy required for our standard of living. The basic questions facing
us are: (1) What is the price we must pay? (2) Can this price be reduced
or eliminated? and (3) In what form do we desire to pay this price, i.e.,
loss of land values, recreational opportunities and fish, or higher prices
for our commodities and energy? None of these questions are easy and the
answers will vary from situation to situation. The only rational answer
is to optimize both short-term and long-term costs and benefits to society.
He must have mining if we are to survive, but this does not mean we must
sacrifice the environment. Mining must be conducted in such a manner that
environmental damages are held to a minimum.
The U. S. Bureau of !,~ines reported (Paone 1974) that the land utilized
by the mining industry from 1930 through 1971 amounted to 3.65 million acres
or 0.16 percent of the land mass of the United States. Land was utilized
for surface mining, wastes from underground and surface mining, and wastes
from mill operations. Some land was also lost to subsidence. The following
figures were presented for land utilization by commodity over the 1930-71
period and 1971 alone.
These figures show that 58 percent of the land utilized is by the coal
and sand-gravel industries. The following discussion on the impact of
mining on trout habitat will cover the major sources of pollution from
mining, and will emphasize the coal and sand-gravel industries.
~/Chief, Mining Pollution Control Branch, Industrial Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, National Environmental Hesearch Center, U. 8. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
47
�1930-71
Acres
Bituminous Coal
Sand and Gravel
Stone
Clay
Copper
Iron Ore
Phosphate Rock
All Other Minerals
1,470,000
660,000
516,000
167,000
166,000
108,000
77,300
493,000
1971
Acres
73,200
46,400
25,000
7,460
19,100
8,620
10,200
16,400
WATER PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH MINING
Acid Mine Drainage
One of the most troublesome mine drainage problems is caused by
acidity. Although the exact mechanism of acid mine drainage formation
is not fully understood, it is generally believed that pyrite (Fes 2 ),
which is usually associated with coal and heavy metal m2n1ng, is oxidized
by oxygen (equation 1) or ferric iron (equation 2) to produce ferrous
sulfate and sulfuric acid.
(1)
(Pyrite) ---~Jo
(Ferrous Iron) + (Sulfuric Acid)
FeS + 14Fe 3 + 8H2 0 ---;,.~
(Pyrite) + (Ferric Iron)
15Fe 2+
2-
+ 2S0 4 + 16H+
(Ferrous Iron)
(2)
+ (Sulfate) (Acid)
The reactions may proceed to form ferric hydroxide and more acid:
4FeS04 + 20 2 + 2H2 so 4 ~
Fe2 (S04) 3 + 6H2 0
p
2F~ (S04) 3 + 2H2 0
2Fe(OH)3
+
3H2 S04
(3)
( 4)
A low pH water is produced (pH 2-4.5). At these pH levels, the
heavy metals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and
zinc are more soluble and enter into the solution to further pollute the
water. A list of common pollutants found in acid mine drainage follows:
Pollutant
Range of Concentration
pH
Acidity
Sulfate
1.5 - 6.5
50 - 50,000 mg/1
50 - 50,000 mg/1
48
�Iron
Al
10
0
0
0
0
50
10
0
0
0
Mri
Cu
Zn
Ca
Mg
Cd
Na
Ti
-
5,000
200
100
500
400
3000
1000
10
5000
100
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Other heavy metals are occasionally found in acid mine drainage.
The above pollutants can harmtrout habitat by several means including immediate or long-term toxicity to f~sn, inhibition of !"~sn reproduction, (notably spawning and fish egg and larvae survival), and reduce or
destroy the availability of fish food fauna. It is beyond the scope of this
paper to discuss each of the pollutants and its toxicity limits, conditions,
etc. The reader is referred to a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency publication by Kemp (1973).
An estimated 10,000 miles of streams have been degraded by acid mine
discharges in Appalachia (Applachian Regional Commission, 1969). Additional
acid problems have been documented in all of the coal and mineral producing
states.
Alkaline Mine Drainage
Alkaline mine drainage may result where no acid-producing material is
associated with the mineral seam or where in situ neutralization of that
-- ---acid which is produced has taken place. Alkaline mine drainage may be, but
is not usually, as bad as acid mine drainage. Drainage from freshly exposed
strata usually has a higher mineral content than that from undisturbed land
because the strata has high levels of readily leachable materials.
Curtis (1972) reported that he found the concentration of Ca, Mg, Al,
S04, Fe, Mn, and Zn increased in three eastern Kentucky watersheds when surface mining occurred. The water had an alkaline pH.
Some alkaline waters have high concentrations of ferrous iron and, upon
oxidation and hydrolysis, form acid which lowers the pH and changes the drainage to the acid type. These types of discharges are more common to underground
mines than surface mines.
49
�The western coal mines present new problems. In many areas the overburden material is highly alkaline and sometimes saline (Hodder 1973). Documentation of the alkaline and saline problem is almost non-existent.
Sedimentation and Erosion
The removal of the vegetation and the loosening and breaking up of
the overburden by blasting, shovels, draglines, and dozers creates materials
and conditions conducive to erosion. Curtis (1969) and Collier (1966) have
documented the increased sediment and suspended solid from surface mine areas.
Mine waste piles, haulroads, tailings ponds, coal and ore stockpiles, and benefication plants are all sources of sediment. Collier (1966) showed that
a partially stripped watershed (6.4 percent of area) had an erosion rate of
5.9 tons per acre per year as compared to 0.7 tons per acre for an unmined
area. While conducting a study on the environmental effects of the sand and
gravel industry, Newport (1974) made a review of the effects of sediment
on benthic communities, planktonic communities, fish population, fish reproduction, and fish species composition. He concluded that sediment had
a major impact on fish. Although he concluded that a precise minimum concentration of inorganic solids for good fisheries had not been unequivocally
established, the following were meaningful approximations:
0
25
100
4oo
-
25
100
400
above
No harmful effects of fisheries
Good to moderate fisheries
Unlikely to support good fisheries
Poor fisheries
Several states will not allow the suspended solids to increase more
than 10 mg/1 in streams classified for trout.
Erosion if influenced by the soil type (sand, cl~, salt. infiltration
rate, and percolation rate); the climate (temperature and amount and type of
rainfall); the topography (steepness, length of slope, land configuration
and exposure); and the vegetation cover. Each of these factors should
considered in the planning, development, and reclamation of a surface mine
to prevent erosion.
SOURCES OF MINE DRAINAGE
Surface Mines
Surface mines fall into two broad types: area and contour. Area surface mining is practiced on relatively flat terrain and usually encompasses
a large tract of land, up to several hundred or more acres. Area surface
mining can be found mainly in Ohio, Western Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana,
and west of the Mississippi River. Contour mining is practiced on rolling
to very steep terrain. Usually only a few cuts are made into the hillside
and the coal seam is followed along the edge of the hill or mountain, leaving
a trace which appears as a "contour line."
50
�In general, the pollution from area mines is not as severe as that
from contour mines. During area mining, overburden can be more easily
segregated and the acid producing or saline material more easily buried.
Silt from erosion can often be confined to the mining area. The overburden can be graded to a slope that is less erosive. Final cuts can be
filled with water to prevent oxidation of the pyrite material. Areas
that have been area shown have been shown to have lower peak flows and
increased base flows. (Grubb 1972) (Corbett 1965).
The common practice in the past was the placement of the overburden
from a contour mine onto the downslope of the adjacent area. This material
was subject to severe erosion and landslides. Plass (1967) made a survey of
eastern Kentucky and found that 12 percent of the outslope area had failed
(landslides). Because of the landslide problem, West Virginia has limited
the bench width on steep slopes greater than 65 percent. Even with these
precautions, landslides still occur. Many water problems arise from contour mining. Because of their long, bare, steep uninterrupted slopes, the
highwalls and spoil piles are subject to severe erosion. Sediment coming
off these slopes has been known to clog stream channels; cover highweys;
settle on cultivated land and kill crops; cover fish spawning beds; fill
water courses and thereby subject adjacent land to flooding.
Even when spoil piles are graded, problems occur. If the grading is
toward the highwall, the water mey accumulate in an area of poor quality
spoil (i.e., a spoil high in pyritic material) and mey, therefore, be degraded in quality. Where underground mines are located behind the highwalls, grading toward it often causes water to flow into the underground
mine. This flow often flushes toxic material from the mine.
When spoil piles are graded away from the highwall, erosion may be
as bad or worse as when graded toward it unless good ~ater management
practices are followed such as diversion ditches across the top of the
highwall, ditches or terraces across the slope to break the slope length,
and control structures to remove the water from the mining area.
Underground Mines
During the period when an underground mine is active, water must be
removed either by gravity or by pumpage. The characteristics of this water
will vary from seam to seam and even within the same mine. Following active
mining, mines below drainage usually fill with water and are often no longer
a source of pollution. However, those above drainage continue to discharge
polluted water for decades.
The Appalachian Study (1969) reported that active underground mines
produced 18.8 percent of the acid mine drainage and inactive underground
mines 52.5 percent. An additional 9.2 percent came from a combination
surface-underground mm.ng. Thus , underground mines were involved with
80.5 percent of the acid mine drainage.
51
�Siltation is not usually associated with underground mines; however, the waste "gob" removed and piled outside the mine is a major
source of silt, acid mine drainage, and often air pollution.
Whereas control technology for surface mines is highly developed,
the technology for underground mines is severely limited.
Refuse Piles and Slurry Ponds
Associated with many coal mines is a cleaning or processing plant
where the coal is processed to remove dirt and impurities present in
the coal. Two types of wastes - refuse and slurry - are discharged
from a cleaning plant. The refuse is the coarse portion of the waste
consisting largely of coal intermixed with pyrites, sandstones, clays,
and shale. Historically, refuse has been piled adjacent to the
cleaning plant and has created major silt and acid water pollution
and air pollution. Slurry is the fine reject material which contains
mostly coal, shale, and clay. The slurry is usually placed in lagoons
adjacent to the plant. Slurry can create major sediment problems in
streams when it is discharged directly to the stream or escapes from
lagoons because of poor design, construction, or maintenance. Upon
abandonment, slurry lagoons continue to be a menace unless they are
stabilized. Often slurry ponds are not acidic.
CONTROL OF MINE DRAINAGE
Acid Problems
The ultimate solution to the acid mine drainage problem is preventing its formation. As noted in equations 1 through 4, the reaction
is dependent on air (oxygen) and water coming in contact with the sulfides. In addition to water being a reactant, it serves as the transport media for removing the pollutants, All prevention techniques are
based on excluding water and/or air from the mining environment.
Air: Air is necessary during the active operation of an underground mine. After the minerals have been extracted, excluding air
should be an integral part of the mining plan. As areas are worked out,
blockages should be made to prevent air from entering that section of
the mine. Mines should be developed downdip so that they flood when
abandoned. In this manner, water serves as an oxygen barrier. Injecting
solid material into the mine, such as stope filling, should be encouraged
and expanded. Not only can the mine drainage problem be decreased by
blocking the flow of air, but a solid waste disposal problem can be
resolved simultaneously.
52
�Sealing adits to prevent air from entering an underground mine
has been in practice in the coal fields since the 1920's. This procedure at its best has only been marginally effective. Seals can be
built to prevent air from entering the adit, but air reaches the mine
readily through the fractured outcropping and overburden. With each
change in barometric pressure, air is pumped in and out of the mine.
Air sealing should not be considered as an acceptable method.
Bulkhead or hydraulic mine seals have been shown to be successful
(Foreman 1972). For this method, a seal is built in the adit and the
outcrop is grouted to prevent water from leaving the mine. In time,
the mine workings are flooded and oxygen is excluded from the sulfides.
Excluding oxygen from the active surface mine is not feasible.
Usually there is a delay between the time the sulfides are exposed to
air and acid mine drainage is formed. High sulfide bearing material
should be exposed for the shortest time possible. As part of the
mining operation, this material should be covered with material containing little or on sulfides. The saving and replacement of top
soil should be practiced. The cover material acts as an oxygen
barrier. Wind and diffusion are the only driving torces for moving
air through the cover material to the sulfides. The cover material
should be vegetated with grasses, legumes, shrubs, forbs, etc. Not
only does the vegetation serve to stabilize the cover material and
prevent it from eroding, but upon dying, the vegetation decays and
acts as an oxygen absorber.
Refuse dumps at mines are major sources of mine drainage and
should be constructed to prevent air movement into them. Sound
techniques are compacting waste material as it is deposited at the
dump and sandwiching layers of compacted clay between layers of waste.
The slopes of the dumps should be kept to 33 percent or less to prevent wind from driving air into the pile. Upon abandonment, the
surface of the pile should be sealed with an air barrier. Although
many different materials have been evaluated, soil still remains
the best. As in the case of surface mines, the surface should be
vegetated.
Water: Enough water is usually available in the moist air within
an underground mine or within the material itself in a surface mine or
waste dump to meet the requirement for the formation of mine drainage.
The other function of water is as a transport media. It flushes the
oxidation products from the sulfide and carries them into the environment. By controlling the water, these products can be contained.
53
�Provisions should be made to prevent water from entering the IDlnlng environment, except where it is to be used for flooding and as an oxygen
barrier. Diversion ditches, dewatering of the mine, and sealing of fractures
are just a few of the methods available. Water that does enter the mine
should be removed as rapidly as possible.
Silt Problems
The control of silt from surface mines starts in the mine planning
stage and follows through mining and final reclamation. During the
planning stage, water handling throughout the operation should be carefully planned. This stage includes the location of diversion ditches to
keep water out of the mine working, protection of natural drainageways,
location of silt traps and basins, and the selection of a mining method
to minimize erosion and landslides. The states of Kentucky (1973) and
West Virginia (1972) have developed drainage handbooks as guidelines.
In recent years several new mining methods such as slope reduction, box
cut, and block cut have been developed to reduce silt and slides
(Grim 1972). The removal, storage, and replacement of topsoil are
other valuable tools in erosion control. Backfilling and planting
should follow mining closely to minimize the period that bare material
is exposed. Grading should be planned to keep slope length and steepness to a minimum. Terraces and benches should be included to reduce
runoff rate. Final grading should be across the slope.
Grasses should be planted on all areas for rapid erosion control,
and trees may then be planted if needed or desired. Before planting,
soil analysis should be made and the proper fertilizer and lime added.
On steeper slopes, mulches may be needed.
In some cases the silt basins may not be capable of reducing the
sediment load to an acceptable level because of the colloidal nature
of the material. The addition of lime, alum, and other flocculating
chemicals might be reQuired in conjunction with the silt basin.
Treatment
Treatment has three places in the acid mine drainage scheme:
(1) during active operations to produce a water acceptable for discharge
to a stream, (2) in those situations where the production of acid mine
drainage cannot be prevented, and (3) in those cases where water is
needed for industrial or domestic use.
Neutralization: The most commonly used method for treating acid mine
drainage and removing heavy metals is neutralization. A typical system
would include adding an alkaline reagent and mixing, aerating, and
removing the precipitate. Alkaline reagents that may be used are ammonia,
sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, limestone, and lime. In most cases,
lime is used because of its lower cost and higher reactivity.
54
�Most heavy metals tend to precipitate as the pH is raised. Metals
such as copper, zinc, iron, aluminum, manganese, nickel, and cobalt can
be reduced to low levels (less than one-half mg metal/1) with pH adjustment, precipitation, and solids separation.
In removing iron, aeration is used to convert the ferrous form to
the ferric form to take advantage of the precipitation of ferric iron at
a lower pH.
In most cases, lime is used for neutralizing. Except for limestone,
lime is the cheapest reagent and reacts rapidly. Lime and limestone unfortunately result in a voluminous sludge. Although limestone is cheaper
and produces a denser sludge,it is not effective above a pH of 6.5 because
of the slow attack of limestone by acidity at higher pH's. Two-stage
treatment with limestone followed by lime appears to offer the advantages
of both reagents.
Although neutralization can be used to remove heavy metals and a
portion of the sulfate, the resulting water is high in dissolved solids
and sulfate. The disposal of the sludge is also a problem.
Ion Exchange: Various ion exchange schemes had been applied to the
treatment of coal acid mine drainage (Holmes 1972). These schemes can
upgrade the water quality to potable use. Modification can be incorporated to recover heavy metals. Ion exchange has not received wide
acceptance because of difficulties encountered with resin fouling, interfering ions, limited loading capacity, cost of operating and disposal of
regenerating solutions. Further development is needed.
Reverse Osmosis: Reverse osmosis (R.O.) has effectively removed
multivalent ions from mine drainage, producing a near potable water.
All heavy metals should be removed at about this same level (99 percent
or better). Reverse osmosis is a concentrating process in which the
pollutants are contained on one side of a membrane while the water
passes through. Water recoveries (percent of water fed to unit that
is available as treated water) have been as high as 90 percent. Water
recovery is limited by the precipitation of material on the membrane
when they have been concentrated beyond the materials saturation point.
Calcium sulfate is usually the first material to be precipitated in
mine drainage. Equations have been developed to predict the highest
water recovery allowable under any influent condition (Wilmoth 1972).
Summary
Disturbing the earth to remove any material, whether by surface
or undergroundmethods, will change the environment. Trout habitat
will suffer if measures are not taken to control the pollutional aspects
of mine drainage. We must strive to develop methods of controlling
these discharges, enact strong mining laws, and pursue strong enforcement of the laws.
55
�With our present technology, most acid mine drainage problems can
be controlled during active mining and upon abandonment of surface mines
and refuse piles. This statement cannot be made of underground mines.
In the majority of cases, acid mine drainage cannot be controlled from
abandoned or orphaned underground mines.
We have limited technology for controlling silt and landslides
from surface mines. Great strides are being made in these areas,
and we can be optimistic.
REFERENCES
Appalachian Regional Commission 1969. Acid Mine Drainage in Appalachia.
125 pp. Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, D. C.
Collier, C. R. et al 1966. Influence of Strip Mining on the Hydrological
Environment of Beaver Creek Basin, U. S. Geological Survey, Prof. Paper
427-B and 427-C, Washington, D. C.
Corbett, D. M. 1965. Water Supplied by Coal Surface Mines, Pike County,
Indiana. Water Research Center Report of Investigation No. 1, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Curtis, Willie R. 1969. 'I'he Effects of Strip Mining on the Hydrology of
a Small Mountain Watershed in Appalachia, U. S. Forest Service Paper,
Berea, Kentucky.
Curtis, Willie R. 1972. Chemical Changes in Streamflow Following Surface
Mining in Eastern Kentucky. In Proceedings Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine
Drainage Research, pp. 19-31, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville,
Pennsylvania.
Foreman, John W. 1972. Evaluation of Mine Sealing in Butler County,
Pennsylvania. In Proceedings Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage
Research, pp. 83-95, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville,
Pennsylvania.
Grim, E. C. and Hill, R. D. 1972. Surface Mining Method and Techniques.
National Environmental Research Center Paper, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Grubb, H. F. and Ryder, P. D. 1972. Effects of Coal Mining on the Water
Resources of the Tradewater River Basin, Kentucky. U. S. Geological
Survey, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1940, Washington, D. C.
Hodder, Richard L. 1973. Surface Mined Land Reclamation Research in
Eastern Montana. In Proceedings Research and Applied Technology
Symposium on Mined~and Reclamation, pp. 82-91, Bituminous Coal
Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
56
�Holmes, J. and Schmidt, K. 1972. Ion Exchange Treatment of Acid
Mine Drainage. In Proceedings Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage
Research, pp. 179-200, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville,
Pennsylvania.
Kemp, Homer T., Little, R. L., Holeman, V. L., and Darby, R. L. 1973.
Water Quality Criterin Data Book -Vol. 5, Effects of Chemicals on
Aquatic Life. 515 pp. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Pollution Control Research Series No. 18050HLA09/73, Washington, D. C.
Kentucky 1973. A Manual of Kentucky Reclamation. Kentucky Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky.
Newport, Bobby D. and Moyer, J. E. 1974. State-of-the-Art: Sand and
Gravel Industry. 40 pp. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Protection Technology Series Report EPA-660/2-74-066,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Paone, James, Morning, JohnL., and Giorgetti, Leo 1974. Land Utilization
and Reclamation in the Mining Industry, 1930-71. 61 pp. U. S. Bureau
of Mines Information Circular IC8642, Washington, D. C.
Plass, William T. 1967. Land Disturbances from Strip Mining in Eastern
Kentucky. U. S. Forest Service Research Notes, Berea, Kentucky.
West Virginia 1972. Drainage Handbook for Surface Mines. West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Charleston,
W. Va.
Wilmoth, R. C., Mason, D. G., and Gupton, M. 1972. In Proceedings Fourth
Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research, pp. 115-15~ Bituminous Coal
Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
57
�STREAM CHANNELIZATION;
AN ENGINEERING AND BIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Raymond V. Corning.!(
ABSTRACT - Peak rate of runoff estimates, estimated by different personnel and
formulas, but for the same channels, disclosed variations exceeding 100%. Error or willful bias in
the Manning equation for water discharge apparently shifts results logarithmically as the value of n
(a judgmental value) increases or decreases. Most for channelization computations can vary widely
depending on competency and bias of estimators, data collected or available, choice of formulas,
and inherent error.
Objectives of channelization were shown to be to modify the right hand side of the
equation Q = L·W·D·a/T, in order to influence Q, or stream discharge. Since current velocities,
cover, surface area, volumes and depths of streams are vital in determining variation in numbers of
trout present in streams (all parameters influenced by the Q = L.W·D·a/T relationship),
channelization markedly reduces trout populations. Channel straightening also reduces sport
fishing 30 to 300% per mile of stream straightened.
Means for reducing channelization problems include development of a watchdog attitude;
impartial reviews of all computations; requiring benefit-cost ratios other than 1+: 1; hiring of
appraisers to obtain benefit-cost information; developing State agency overseers, and research into
which physical parameters affecting stream discharge can be modified with the least effect on
stream environment.
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Variability in estimating channel needs. Physical factors of
channelization. Relation of physical to biological factors. Possible solutions to problems.
Turmoil in environmental areas is now common because of the shifting in fundamental ways of life and
thought. Stream channelization practices are no exception. Historically, our past has been tied to exploitation of
natural resources as a necessary and accepted practice. Because the reserves of most natural commodities and
resources like unchannelized rivers and streams have declined drastically, rapidly increasing numbers of people
recognize that the price tags of exploitation are too high to sanction further resource losses without a careful
analysis of other alternatives. Hopefully, all parties will soon recognize that it is not in the National interest to return
to old ways, and that the era of true conservation of natural resources has arrived to stay.
This paper, while not an exhaustive treatise on stream channelization, is an attempt to clarify some basic
stream channelization procedures and problems, to describe major changes in physical, chemical and biological
parameters resulting from channelization and, to suggest ways for conserving, rather than exploiting, our rivers and
streams. Perhaps what little clarification of stream channelization issues this paper might provide will in some small
way help to reduce the pains of transition.
REASONS FOR EMPLOYING CHANNELIZATION
Stream channelization, sometimes called stream improvement, stream stabilization, or streambank shaping
and grading, is carried out by a number of agencies, groups and individuals of varied responsibilities. In all cases
channelization has two basic functions; 1) Channel enlargement increases cross sectional area of a channel, thereby
increasing the capacity of the channel to convey water, and 2) Channel straightening increases stream gradient while
decreasing stream length, allowing water to pass downstream more rapidly.
Reasons given by the Federal Soil Conservation Service for stream channelization include the following; 1)
drainage channels to remove surplus water from fields, towns and residential areas, 2) floodwater channels to carry
floodwater in quantities sufficient for preventing or reducing the duration of flooding, and 3) diversion channels to
intercept runoff, thereby protecting lower lying areas. Stream channelization is also used by this agency for reducing
stream sediment transport rates and for reducing groundwater tables.
Jj
Fish Management Coordinator, Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.
58
�The Corps of Army Engineers, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Farmers Home
Administration, Office of Emergency Preparedness (recently replaced by a new agency), and municipalities, employ
channelization for much the same reasons as the Soil Conservation Service. In addition, the U.S. Corps of Army
Engineers employs channelization for improving navigation (by eliminating oxbows and deepening and/or widening
channels).
State Highway Departments employ channelization to; 1) reduce the size of bridges at stream crossings, 2)
reduce the number of bridges needed at stream crossings, 3) increase stream discharge rates, thereby reducing the
probability of roadway flooding, 4) lower and/or maintain minimal water table levels near road beds, and 5) relocate
stream channels when existing stream sections are wanted for road construction purposes.
From an engineering or hydraulics viewpoint, the objective of stream channelization is to increase the rate
of downstream discharge. 0, or the rate of stream discharge in feet per second is often defined as follows:
L ·W · D ·a
0=----
length of stream used to determine rate of stream flow for timeT.
stream width
D=
average stream depth at W.
a =
resistance of streambed and other obstructions to stream flow
(usually a constant)
T=
O=h·W·D·a
L=
W=
T
time it takes water particles in cross section W · D to traverse length L.
T
Obviously, if 0 increases as a result of channelization and if the last stated formula defines 0, then one or
more variables on the other side of the equation 0 = V·W·D·a must also have been affected by stream channelization.
Channel enlargement, (the most common form of stream channelization) increases cross sectional area of a
channel, or both W and D and has some effect on a. Channel straightening (another common channelization
practice) increases stream gradient by decreasing stream length, thereby increasing the speed at which water passes
downstream, or V. Again, a is affected to some extent. The variable a, in addition to being affected as above, can be
modified further by removing stream blockages such as downed trees and debris accumulations. Lining the channel
with other materials, such as cement can also change a.
PROBLEMS IN DETERMINING NEED FOR CHANNELIZATION
The source of funds for stream channelization activities is an important element when it comes to deciding
what techniques will be used to determine whether stream channelization is or is not needed. Most Federal and State
funded projects utilize standardized criteria for determining need, except when an emergency is deemed to exist.
Standardized criteria are seldom employed when funds are provided by private sources or when Federal or State
agencies feel an emergency exists. Municipalities may or may not employ criteria.
PROBLEMS IN COLLECTING AND ANALYZING DATA
A number of computational methods are used for determining anticipated storm runoffs, maximal flood
stages, and water discharge capacities of natural and planned stream channels. The methods employed are somewhat
dependent on amounts of information on hand or to be collected; for instance whether stream gaging records and
rainfall information are available. Generally, this means the less hydrologic information available or collected, the
greater the error involved in runoff and flood stage estimates. Certain types of information, no matter how carefully
collected or analyzed, are subject to experimental error. This error can be substantial, even if large quantities of information are available.
Competency of the individuals selecting and employing storm runoff, peak flood flow and channel capacity
formulas, are of paramount importance. It is up to the individuals in charge to see that available information is used
to the fullest, in the most appropriate formulas and to determine what additional information is needed. Should any
major factors be overlooked or incorrectly interpreted, additional errors are introduced into final estimates. As aresult of the above, channels may be recommended when they are not needed and not recommended when construction would be appropriate.
59
�For further amplification of the above, estimated peak rates of runoff for the same stream sections are
provided in Table 1. Rates determined by the rational and U.S.G.S. Dan Anderson methods compare favorably for
the information provided. However, both methods are very similar in estimating techniques and the estimates were
made by the same personnel. Estimates derived using S.C.S. procedures and other personnel vary widely from the
others. Part of the difference is thought to be due to some judgmental error involving the first two estimating
methods. Nevertheless, the Table illustrates how markedly flood peak estimates for identical waters can vary when
carried out by separate personnel and by separate methods. Obviously, such profound differences could affect
decision making and the results of benefit-cost analyses.
Table 1.-
Point
ESTIMATED PEAK RATES OF RUNOFF USING THREE SEPARATE ESTIMATING PROCEDURES
(Adapted from An non., 1972, Environmental Evaluation, Pohick Creek Watershed Project, Fairfax, Co.
Virginia).
S.C.S.
Method
Ultimate
Flow
Dam3
A
B
c
D
46
453
582
608
887
Rational
Method
Ultimate
Flow
U.S.G.S.
Method
Ultimate
Flow
46
672
1'149
1,065
1,567
Rational
%Difference
From S.C.S.
Estimate
U.S.G.S.
%Difference
From S.C.S.
Estimate
Rational
% Difference
From U.S.G.S.
Estimate
0
+48.3
+97.4
+75.2
+76.6
0
+ 69.5
+1 07.6
+ 79.8
+ 76.4
0
-12.5
4.9
2.6
+ .1
46
768
1,208
1,093
1,565
Water discharge capacities of natural and planned stream channels are often estimated with the aid of an
open-channel, slope-area formula. The Manning equation is the most used slope-area formula (Chow, 1964). One
constant and four unknowns are incorporated into the formula; Q = 1.49/n A R2/3 S1/2. Three of the unknowns
can be measured precisely in the field. The fourth, n or coefficient of roughness, involves a judgmental decision
regarding the degree of retardation of flow as a result of roughness of the sides and bottom of the channel, variation
in shape and size of cross sections, types and sizes of obstructions present, amounts and types of vegetation in the
channel and channel meandering. Partiality on the part of the estimator, incompetency, inexperience, or lack of
sufficient field review data can have a marked effect on final computations (See Table 2). Error tends to vary
logarithmically as the value of n increases or decreases.
Table 2.-
SOLUTIONS OF THE MANNING EQUATION FOR A TRAPAZOIDAL CHANNEL HAVING ALL
FACTORS CONSTANT EXCEPT MANNING'S n (22' bottom width, 1%:1 sideslope, 5.8' design
depth, 0.00391 ft/ft hydraulic gradient).
n
Value
Channel Capacity in
Cubic Feet/Second
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
4,073
2,037
1,358
1,018
815
Water Velocity of Channel
in Feet/Second
24.0
12.0
8.0
6.0
4.8
PROBLEMS IN BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
Benefit-cost analyses are used to evaluate benefits of a project against costs, with a 1+ to 1 ratio acceptable
by Federal Agencies. Normally, costs and benefits are determined in dollar values. Because many intangibles are
associated with stream oriented environnnental values (such as educational, photographic, etc.), environmental
damages have often been neglected. As a result, some costs have been vastly underestimated, while the practice has
encouraged a lack of consideration for environmental values and needs.
60
�Land values, flood losses, and flood control gains estimated for use in benefit-cost analyses have been
considered restricted information by some agencies and thereby made unavailable to the public or to critical
interests. The major reason given has been that land values, etc. were solicited from land owners with the
understanding information would not be divulged to others. Obviously, reviews by other agencies or persons wishing
to verify the accuracy of projected benefits are blocked by the practice, and the question of proper or improper
ratios cannot be decided. Successful isolation of benefit-cost data from outside critiques obviously encourages
partiality to creep into projections. It also heightens suspicions of non-privileged groups, even if unfounded.
CHANGES IN PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Stream channelization destroys stream habitat for most fish and other stream inhabitants as well as for
some wildlife by modifying the existing physical, chemical and biological conditions.
CHANGING OF STREAM WIDTH, DEPTH AND VELOCITY RELATIONSHIPS
Stream channelization profoundly affects stream width, depth and velocity relationships as evidenced
previously when the formula 0 = V · W · D · a was discussed. Post-channelization stream velocities generally increase
during high flows and decrease during low flows when compared to pre-channelization conditions. Average and
maximum stream depths follow the same general pattern. Stream width (wetted surface width) after channelization
tends to be slightly greater during low flows. Cover along streams is also eliminated during channelization activities
as a by-product of width and velocity changes.
Seventy to seventy-seven percent of the variation in numbers of trout (6.9 inches or over) inhabiting a
Montana trout stream was attributed to differences in current velocities, stream cover, surface area, stream volumes
and stream depths (Lewis, 1969). Current velocity and cover were found to be the two most important factors.
Together, the two factors accounted for 66, 66 and 59 percent of the variation in numbers of total trout, brown
trout and rainbow trout utilizing the stream. Any changes of stream velocity and cover as a result of channelization,
therefore, could be expected to modify the numbers of larger trout maintained by the stream. This relationship must
also hold for warmwater fishes, since studies by Tarplee, Louder and Weber ( 1971) indicated harvestable fish (6
inches or greater) were 75 percent less plentiful in channelized streams of North Carolina.
Maximum estimated stream velocities for artificial channels constructed in Virginia by the S.C.S. have
commonly varied from 4 to 7 feet per second. These velocities are in excess of the rates of speed many fishes can
attain and are well in excess of those tolerated for sustained periods of time. According to studies carried out by
Brett ( 1965) small sockeye salmon (one of the speediest of river fish) are only capable of maintaining maximum
sustained swimming rates of 2.7 feet per second, with adults able to maintain maximum sustained rates of 5 feet per
second. From the foregoing, it is obvious fishes can only maintain a continued presence in channels with fast moving
water if down logs, rough streambeds and other obstructions adversely affecting the parameter 'n' of the Manning
formula are present. Findings of Baldes and Vincent (1969) verify this assumption. They found that as stream
velocities increased trout (like other fishes) depended more and more heavily on channel irregularities as resting
areas. Hartman ( 1963) also found that as rates of flow increased brown trout became more dependent on the
microhabitats provided by physical obstructions.
CHANGES IN STREAM SINUOSITY
Stream sinuosity (defined as the ratio of the length of the channel in a given curve to the wavelength of the
curve) ranged between 1.3: 1 to 4:1 for 50 typical meanders selected from different streams in the U.S. (Leopold &
Langbein, 1966). Based on these findings, a mile of channelized stream forming a straight line would reduce natural
stream length by 0.3 to 3 miles. Percentage wise. sport fishing opportunities (or standing crops of organisms) would
be reduced 30 to 300 percent for each mile channelized.
OTHER CHANGES
Maximum, minimum and overall ranges of stream temperatures, pool riffle ratios; dry season and wet
season flows, streambed substrate compositions, allochonthous energy cycles; turbidity levels; pH; nitrate and
phosphorus levels; food chain relationships and reproductive cycles are other parameters adversely affected by
stream channelization. Is it any wonder that a study carried out by Elser ( 1968) confirmed that standing crops of
trout were greatly reduced in channelized stream sectors? Trout were 78 percent more abundant in the unaltered
mountain sections than in channelized sectors of the mountain stream.
61
�MEANS FOR REDUCING CHANNELIZATION IMPACTS
A principal overseeing agency in each state, as an arm of State Government, would provide the best assurance that stream channelization activities were reviewed impartially for error and channelization needs. It would also
allow proper regulation of activities. The appointed agency should not have parallel responsibilities for furthering or
for carrying out stream channelization (no vested interests). Only a State agency would be in a position to properly
police Federal, State and private stream channelization activities. Appeal procedures should be developed by this
agency along with criteria which would apply to any proposed stream channelization.
Authorities for seeing that designated criteria were followed should be granted to the selected agency.
While many States already have adequate regulatory statutes for bringina about necessary compliance, for the most
part these authorities are scattered among agencies. Necessary authorities should be consolidated and transferred
collectively, or if no authorities exist, statutes should be drafted. In either event, legislative action would probably
be required.
An additional advantage of single agency control would be that the accumulation of channelization projects
over time and on a watershed basis, could be monitored and evaluated as to possible increases in flood hazard.
RESEARCH NEEDS
Not all elements on the right hand side of the equation 0 = L·W·D·a/T, or 0 = V·WD·a must be modified
in order to accomplish the aim of stream channelization, that is an increased rate of flow for channelized sectors.
Properly designed studies are now needed to test the impact that individual elements have on stream biota. The
element or elements most adversely affecting stream environments can thus be detected. Also, the elements exhibiting minimal impacts can be studied to determine the latitudes within which they can be modified without undue
consequences. Hopefully, results from such studies can be used to develop new stream channelization criteria. These
criteria could be used to determine the desirability of channelization and would minimize environmental damages
when channelization was deemed essential.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A basic review of engineering practices used in determining need for channelization leads one to conclude
no estimates are absolute, with marked variations in results and conclusions possible. Due to the chance for errors, a
1+: 1 ratio of benefits to costs appears highly inappropriate for justifying stream channelization. A minimal ratio of
2: 1 (benefits: costs) appears more acceptable. The need for complete computational reviews by sources other than
vested interests on whether sufficient hydrologic data was available or collected, is also obvious. Competency of personnel, bias of estimators, available information, choice of formulas and inherent error of formulas bear heavily on
final calculations. Benefit-cost procedures need to be modified in a way which takes into account intangibles. Also,
to avoid any problems involving restricted information in benefit-cost analyses, independent land appraisers (rather
than landowners) should be hired to provide data. Additionally, a principal overseeing agency in each State should
be selected and authorized to develop emergency and non-emergency channelization criteria, to carry out reviews
and to enforce adopted regulations. The need for computational reviews, as well as checks on whether sufficient
hydraulic data was available or collected by sources other than vested interests, is also obvious.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1972. Environmental evaluation, Pohick Creek Watershed project, Fairfax County, Virginia.
N. Va. Soil and Water Conservation Distr. Publ.
Baldes, R. & R. Vincent. 1969. Physical parameters of micro-habitats occupied by brown trout in an
experimental flume. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 98(2):230-238.
Brett, J. 1965. The swimming energetics of salmon. Sci. Amer. 213(2):80-85.
Chow, V. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Co. :29 Chpt.
Elser, A. 1968. Fish populations of a trout stream in relation to major habitat zones and channel
alterations. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 97(4):389-397.
Hartman, G. 1963. Observations on the behavior of juvenile brown trout in a stream aquarium during
winter and spring. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can 20:769-787.
62
�Leopold, L. &
W.l..._~ngbein.
1966. River meanders. Sci. Amer. 213(6):60-69.
Lewis, S. 1969. Phystcal factors influencing fish populations in pools of a trout stream. Trans. Amer. Fish
Soc. 98(1):14-19.
Tarplee, W. Jr., D. Louder and A. Weber. 1971. Evaluation of the effects of channelization on fish_
populations in North Carolina's coastal plain streams. N. C. Wildlife Res. Comm. Raleigh, N.C
ji3
�PRODUCTIVITY OF SOUTHEASTERN STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
Jackson R. Webster and J. Bruce Wallace
ll
Abstract.--Streams differ from terrestrial ecosystems in
a number of characteristics. Most studies indicate the main
source of energy to streams is in allochthonous inputs. A generalized Southeastern United States trout stream model is proposed and examples of organisms performing various functions
are described.
Additional keywords:
Model
Ecologists have used the words "productivity .. and "production" in a variety of ways. In his classic paper on trophic dynamics, Lindeman (1942) used
productivity as the rate of contribution of energy from one trophic level to
the next. Ivlev (1945) made a clear distinction between production and productivity. He used production as the formation of new biomass by a group of
organisms in a given time and productivity as the capacity of a body of
water to produce a specified "product of interest 11 • This distinction has been
preserved by most aquatic biologists (Warren 1971); however the terms are used
interchangeably by ecologists (Odum 1971, p. 43; Phillipson 1966, p. 6; Collier
et ~· 1973, p. 375).
Production may be defined at several levels of biological organization.
At the individual level, production is essentially the growth rate of the organism. Material that is ingested (I) can be partitioned into egestion (E) and
assimilation. Assimilation can be further partitioned into respiration (R) and
production (P}, so the P = I-E-R.
Production at the population level is usually estimated from growth rates,
using the formula P = GB, where P is production, G is growth rate and B is biomass. The problem is complicated because different age classes have different
growth rates. Methods of performing these calculations have been developed by
a number of authors, e.g. Ricker (1946} and Allen (1951). The various methods
have been applied to a population of mayflies by Waters and Crawford (1973).
Two points should be brought out. First, production in this sense is
Lindeman 1 s productivity minus respiration. Second, as used by biologists working at this level of organization, production is total tissue elaboration by
the population whether or not it survives to the end of the period.
A similar concept of production can be extended to trophic levels. Production by plant trophic levels is termed primary production. Total fixed
11
Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602. Research was supported in part by the Coweeta site of the Eastern Deciduous Forest
Biome, US-IBP, funded by the National Science Foundation under interagency
Agreement AG-199, 40-193-69 with the Atomic Energy Commission-Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and NSF Grant GB-41938.
64
�carbon is gross primary production and net primary production is gross primary production minus plant respiration. Methods of measuring production at
higher levels are not well defined, primarily because of lack of a good
definition of trophic level. A method developed by Hynes and Coleman (1968)
has some usefulness, but is clearly an approximate method.
Production at a community or ecosystem level usually refers to net production. Net community production is the rate of storage of organic matter
not used by consumers. Clearly an ecosystem which is at a steady state has
zero net production.
In the time and space allotted to us it would be impossible to consider
all factors affecting stream productivity (or production). A number of
factors are important in controlling benthic invertebrate populations. Some
of these are: current speed, temperature, substratum, oxygen, water acidity,
alkalinity, shade, and floods. Hynes (1970) gives an excellent review of existing literature on these topics, their interrelations and effects on stream
bottom fauna. This manuscript has been oriented toward trophic aspects of
stream productivity, and problems of a theoretical approach to stream ecology.
THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO STREAM ECOLOGY
In the past several decades there has been a shift by many ecologists from
an individual and population oriented approach to a community and ecosystem
oriented approach. This trend has only recently become apparent in stream
ecology.
Shelford and Eddy (1929) noted that plant ecologists usually assumed that
there were no permanent fresh water communities. Armitage (1958) found that
species occurred along a continuously fluctuating environment and that discreet
communities could not be described. Shelford and Eddy 1 s hypothesis that permanent stream communities do exist has been upheld by a number of other studies
(Sedell 1972). The study by Gersbacher (1937) Suggested the existence of but
a single major community and its developmental stages 11 in the Sangamon River.
Many previous and subsequent studies (reviewed by Hynes 1970) have shown distinct faunal zonations in streams associated with physical changes of the stream
environment. Precise definitions of stream zones are probably not possible
(Hynes 1970), but the notion of stream communities and stream ecosystems should
be as useful and stimulating to stream ecology as it has been in other areas of
ecology. With few exceptions, stream ecology has been dominated by zoologists
(Cummins 1972) and only recently have any stream studies considered streams as
interacting wholes (e.g. Sedell 1972; Boling, Peterson and Cummins 1974;
Krumholz and Neff 1970).
11
Stream ecosystems are different from other ecosystems in several ways.
Odum (1971) lists six ecosystem characteristics: 1. energy circuits, 2. nutrient cycling, 3. foodchains, 4. diversity, 5. development and evolution and 6.
control. In the first three of these characteristics stream ecosystems have
distinct differences from the commonly held view of ecosystems. The energy circuits of stream ecosystems are often not dependent on photosynthetic fixation
65
�of energy but instead are supported by allochthonous energy inputs. Nutrient cycles are essentially non-existent in streams. Instead there is a
direct flowthrough of materials. The food chain concept of Latka (1925)
and Lindeman (1942) has not been very useful in theoretical approaches to
stream ecology. Instead a conceptual framework specifically related to the
stream biota has proven more useful.
THE ENERGY CIRCUIT OF STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
Primary production may be very important in lotic ecosystems. In Table
we have accumulated a number of estimates of primary production in flowing waters. These values may be compared with estimates of gross primary
production in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The minimum gross primary
production Odum (1971) lists is 40 gjmZ/yr. (5000 cal. = 1 g) for deserts
and tundras. The maximum is 4000 gjm2jyr. for estuaries, reefs and wet tropical and sub-tropical forests. In small headwater streams such as Bear Brook
and Walker Branch primary production is extremely small. In larger streams
however the estimates of production are in the range of the highest that have
been examined.
In Table 2 we have compared estimates of gross primary production with
allochthonous leaf fall inputs. In most cases allochthonous inputs exceed
autochthonous fixation. It should be pointed out that in this table we have
considered only leaf fall. In large streams particulate detritus and dissolved
organic matter carried by the stream water may be significant energy inputs.
In the Thames River, for example, community respiration in places exceeded primary production (Mann et al. 1972). This is a common occurrence in polluted
streams. Even in headwater streams the dissolved organic matter input from
ground water may be significant. At Bear Brook, Fisher and Likens (1973)
measured this source of energy as 300 g/m2/yr. Considering all allochthonous
inputs, leaf fall, sub-surface flow and stream flow, the ratio of allochthonous
to autochthonous inputs at Bear Brook was 628.
The importance of detritus to marine organisms has been studied for a number of years (Darnell 1967), however, the importance of allochthonous detritus
to stream ecology has only recently been recognized. Egglishaw (1964) noted
that in Macan's reviews of stream ecology (Macan 1961, 1962) there was no mention of any statistics which considered plant detritus as an ecological factor.
Scott (1958) considered the importance of dead leaves from the adjacent land to
the biological balance of streams. Nelson and Scott (1962) first quantified
the role of allochthonous detritus in streams. The importance of imported organic matter was emphasized by Hynes (1963). Ross (1963) found that the distribution of Trichoptera species in small streams was significantly influenced
by the surrounding vegetation. In Doe Run, Minckley (1963) found a major dependence of primary consumers on detrital material. Darnell (1964) reported
that the overwhelming mass of plant detritus consumed by benthic organisms in a
Mexican stream was of terrestrial origin. The paper by Egglishaw (1964) in which
he showed a significant correlation between the bottom fauna and plant detritus
was probably most influential in reorienting stream ecology. Since that time
considerable stream research has concerned detrital energy sources (Table 2).
66
�Table 1 .--Gross Primary Production Estimates in Flowing Waters
Stream
Truckee River, Nevada
Root Spring, Massachusetts
Bear Brook, New Hampshire
Madison River, Wyoming
White River, Indiana
Florida springs
Itchen River, England
Lark River, England
Thames River, England
Oconee River, Georgia
Red Cedar River, Michigan
Hope Creek, North Carolina
Drift Creek, Oregon
Cone Spring, Iowa
Artificial stream
Artificial stream
Ohanapecosh Hot Springs,
Washington
Drakesbad Hot Springs,
California
Silver Springs, Florida
Streams, North Carolina
Ivel River, England
Walker Branch, Tennessee
Columbia River, Washington
Reference
GPP {g/m2/.z::r}
Thomas and O'Connell 1966
Teal 1957
Fisher and Likens 1972, 1973
Wright and Mills 1967
Denham 1938i/
Odum 1956
Butcher/ Pentelow and Woodley,
1930.!.
Butcher/ Pentelow and Woodley,
1930.!.
Mann et al. 1972
Nelson and Scott 1962
Ball, Kervern and Linton 1969,
Grzenda, Ball and Kervern 1968~
Hall 1972
Lane and Hall 1971
Tilly 1968
Kervern and Ball 1965
Mcintire et al. 1964
Stockner 1968
807
1562
4-831
a/
a,c/
155
97-486
384
487
465-914
612
b,e/
D,Cf,e/
a,c/
a,d/
b,d,e/
Lenn 1966.b!
5110-8759 d ,e/
Odum 1957
Hoskin 1959i!
Edwards and Owens 1962
Elwood and Nelson 1972
Cus hi ng 196 7
4102
3577
1862
10-16
33-460
~ 5000 cal.= 1 g.
1715-6022
142
2
1314
88-20805
219-21535
146-5110
67
a/
a,e/
d/
w
rjj
193-14235 rjj
1 go 2;m2/yr. = 3.76 gC;m2/yr. (Stockner 1968).
Y Gross production= 1.8 net production.
rJ! 1 g/m 2/yr. = 365 gjm21Yr., probably results in an overestimate since
most measurements are made during the summer.
!Y
gC/m2fyr. = 2 g biomassjm2/yr. (Odum 1971).
il From Odum (1956).
~ Data from Grzenda (1960) and King (1964).
hi Reported by Stockner (1968).
i/
- Reported by Thomas and O'Connell (1966).
Q!
rjj
y
gr
!Y
a/
d/
b,e/
c,~/
0
�Table 2.--Comparison of Gross Primary Productivity with Allochthonous Leaf Fall Inputs
Stream
Thames River, England
Stream, Pennsylvania
Shallow, fast-flowing streams
Streams, Oregon
Root Spring, Massachusetts
Morgan S Creek, Kentucky
Bear Brook, New Hampshire
1
Oconee River, Georgia
Hope Creek, North Carolina
Bere Stream, England
Cone Spring, Iowa
General stream model
Coweeta, WS 6, old field
Coweeta, WS 17, white pine
plantation
Coweeta, WS 18, hardwood forest
Leaf
Reference
Mathews and Kowalczewski
1969; Mann et al. 1972
Vannote 1969
Egglishaw 1968
Chapman 1966; Chapman and
Demory 1963
Teal 1957
Minshall 1967
Fisher and Likens 1972,
1973
Nelson and Scott 1962
Ha 11 1972
fa~l input
g/m /yr
Leaf fall input/
Gross primary
productivity
23.2
200-800
coho salmon production
47Q'Q/
input to Gammarus minus
528b,d/
input to consumers
476
Westlake et al. 1972
Tilly 1968
Cummins 1971
Webster, unpublished
Webster, unpublished
800
Webster, unpublished
.03
2
4
9.7
3.3
9
a/
~
a/
~
264
2
1 o. 6
1-2
7.3
352
125!?1
267
2
.3
289
~
A qualitative estimate.
Q/ 5000 cal.= 1 g.
£I For Hope Creek, the first figure was obtained from Hall
Hall 1 S estimate for utilized energy.
Q! Includes litter blow-in.
1
S
I
f.
stream input data, the second figure is
�NUTRIENT CYCLING IN STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
Terrestrial and lake ecosystems are characterized by nutrient cycles. Regeneration of nutrients by decomposition is essential for energy flow in these
ecosystems. Because of the dominance of allochthonous inputs, streams are not
dependent on nutrient regeneration. Also the flow of water essentially pre·
vents any nutrient cycling (Scott 1958).
The physical effects of the unidirectional flow of water were discussed
by Krumholtz and Neff (1970) who emphasized that this flow is the key to understanding stream ecosystems. Thienemann (1953, as cited by Margalef 1960) compared the microcosmic character of lakes and the "flow of a river, a spatial
manifestation of a continuous state of change 11 {quote from Margalef 1960).
The movement of biotic and abiotic materials downstream is well documented
(e.g., Leopold 1949, Waters 1972). Margalef (1960) pointed out that in a watercourse with only laminar flow no population could maintain itself, but turbulent flow is just one of the reasons why" ... all organisms do not end up in the
estuary" (Patrick 1970). The "colonization cycle" of Muller (1954, as reviewed
by Waters 1972, and Elliott 1971) in which emergent females migrate upstream to
oviposit has been hypothesized as the method by which the fauna of upper reaches
of streams are replenished. A number of examples of upstream movements by emergents have been reported in support of this hypothesis (e.g., Roos 1957, Elliott
1969). Additionally, a number of other papers (Minckley 1964, Momot 1966,
Brusven 1970, Elliott 1971, and others listed by Elliott 1971) noted the upstream movement of benthic organisms. More than nutrient cycling, however,
these upstream movements represent a cycling of genetic information essential
for the maintenance of stream populations.
Juday et al. (1932) suggested that the upstream migrations of salmon may be
important in resuQP,lying essential nutrients to upstream areas. Donaldson (19670')
and Krokhin (1967ft) have demonstrated the role of migrating adult salmon in
phosphorus budgets of lakes and Fittkau (1970) has hypothesized a similar situation in Amazon effluents. Following a release of radiophosphorus, Ball, Wojtalik,
and Hooper (1963) found a significant number of tagged insects upstream from the
release site. However, Hall (1972) showed that the upstream movement of phosphorus by migrating fish was an extremely small percentage (<.1%) of total downstream movement of phosphorus.
MODELING STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
The modeling of ecosystems in trophic levels has been extremely valuable
to theoretical studies in ecology. However, the typical trophic model consisting of producers, herbivores, carnivores, and decomposers has distinct limitations to stream ecology because, as discussed above, photosynthetic production
is often not the primary source of energy. Odum (1956) used a simple trophic
model, but his interest was in systems with high levels of primary production
(Table 1). Other models have taken one of essentially three different approaches,
physical, taxonomic or functional.
As reviewed by Hall (1972).
69
�The model structure used by Fisher and Likens (1973) which emphasized inputs and outputs to the stream ecosystem, can be categorized as a physical
model. The wide variety of hydrologic and hydrologic transport models currently in use can also be placed in this category.
Minshall (1957) used a taxonomic approach. In his synthesis he placed
each species in a specific trophic level based on its most common food habit.
He used the trophic level concept to apply to both algae and detritus consumption. This taxonomic approach was generally followed by Hynes (1970) and Mann
et al. (1972) though taxonomic groups were not placed in trophic levels but in
functional categories such as filter feeders, browsers, grazers, and predators.
Coffman, Cummins, and Wuycheck (1971) and others have noted that most insects eat a variety of foods making it difficult to define a species as herbivore, detritivore, or carnivore. Even organisms which have a fairly specific diet
at one stage of the life cycle may alter their feeding habits at another stage
of the life cycle. Based on this experience Cummins (1971) presented a stream
model which emphasized the functional aspects of detritus utilization. Expansion of this model necessitated the introduction of the "paraspecies" concept
(Boling et al. 1974a). A paraspecies grouping may combine various immature
stages of different insect species, all with common feeding habits. The dynamics of microbial and mechanical detritus breakdown were expanded in another
submodel (Boling et al. 1974b).
At Coweeta where we are studying three very small first order streams we
used both a functional approach and a taxonomic approach. We placed insects
into three categories, shredders, collectors, and predators but placed crayfish
and salamanders in separate categories because of their abundance and importance
in these streams.
Any stream model must be specific to the actual stream being studied. However in most cases a functional approach emphasizing the role of organisms in
detritus breakdown will be preferable to a trophic or strictly taxonomic approach.
GENERAL SOUTHEASTERN TROUT STREAM MODEL
As a model structure which seems appropriate to streams that can be categorized as Southeastern trout streams we propose the model structure shown in
Fig. 1.
There are numerous examples of organisms in streams performing the functions in Fig. 1. With the exception of crayfish and vertebrate predators most
of these are aquatic insects. As previously mentioned for most of our trout
streams in the Southern Appalachians the main source of energy is allochthonous,
primarily leaf litter from terrestrial communities. This leaf material, large
particulate organic matter, LPOM in Fig. 1, is colonized by fungi and bacteria
(Triska 1970). Studies have indicated there may actually be an increase in
nitrogen content of leaves after wetting, apparently due to assimilation by
the fungi and bacteria populations on the leaf surface (Kaushik and Hynes 1968).
70
�Photosynthesis
D, drift, stream flow, excretion
L,leachinQ
E, emeroence
M, mechanical breakdown
R, respiration
P, particle formation
Figure 1.--Generalized Southeastern Trout Stream Ecosystem Model.
The large leaf material and associated microflora are fed on by large
particle detritivores or shredders (Cummins 1973). In the southern Appalachians some of the common examples of shredders are Peltoperla maria
Needham and Smith (Plecoptera) (Wallace et al. 1970), Pteronarcys-sco-fti
Ricker (Plecoptera) (McDiffett 1970), T~~?~) (Diptera) (Vannote 1969),
Pycnopsyche spp. (Trichoptera) (Mackay
and crayfish. The feeding of
these shredders results in a large number of smaller detritus particles (from
mechanical breakage and feces) or fine particulate organic matter, FPOM in
Fig. 1. During the initial period that leaves are in water they may lose a considerable portion of their weight by leaching. Recently (Lush and Hynes 1973)
it has been shown that this leachate, dissolved organic matter or DOMin Fig. 1,
can form aggregates (FPOM in Fig. 1). These particles are formed both
abiotically and biotically and such particles represent another possible food
source for fine particle feeders (Lush and Hynes 1973).
The aquatic insects have numerous adaptations for collecting fine particulate organic matter. Isonychia spp. {Ephemeroptera) possess a fringe of
fine hair on their forelegs with which they filter organic matter from the
water as they face directly into the current. A number of insects spin webs
at the apex of silk tubes and use these webs to capture drifting organic particles, e.g. Calopsectra spp. (Diptera). Perhaps some of the most sophisticated
71
�structures for collecting food materials in streams are found in the net spinning Trichoptera or caddisflies. Various ~pecies spin nets with individual
mesh openings ranging from less than 100 ~ to over 200,000 ~2. By microdistributional patterns with respect to current velocity, individual species
are able to utilize a wide variety of drifting particle sizes at any one
locality. Thus, within a taxonomic group there may be considerable partitioning of food resources in regards to both type and size of food (Wallace unpubl. data).
Although most studies have indicated allochthonous detritus as the major
energy input to streams (Table 2) there are a number of insects that feed primarily on periphyton. Blepharicerids (Diptera) and Neophylax spp. (Trichoptera)
are two examples of 11 grazers 11 that feed primarily upon periphyton.
Examples of predaceous aquatic insects that are fairly abundant in the
southern Appalachian streams are immatures of Odonata, Perlidae (Plecoptera)
and Corydalidae (Megaloptera).
Tebo and Hassler (1963) studied the food of trout in Western North Carolina and concluded that trout are opportunistic feeders. All examples of
shredders, collectors, grazers and predators cited above (and numerous others
fitting the above categories but not specifically listed) were found in trout
stomachs in Tebo and Hassler's study.
The data in Table 2 and Fig. 1 show that successful trout management practices from the standpoint of available food is related to terrestrial management practices. Undoubtedly, actions that reduce or impede the inputs of terrestrial litter into our streams (Table 2, compare Coweeta data) are going to
result in decreased production of trout food organisms. We presently need much
more information on various aspects of these land-water interactions.
SUMMARY
Until recently much of the work on streams has been largely descriptive
in nature. Future work must proceed toward an ecosystem approach and large
scale modeling of streams. However, such an approach cannot ignore the internal dynamics of the ecosystem. We need considerably more information about
the individual processes that occur in the stream. One of the more pressing
needs is adequate information on the precise roles of fungi and bacteria as
they influenc~ large and fine particle detritivore feeding. Also adequate
information on seasonal cycles of individual species, including feeding habits
and partitioning of food resources as influenced by age, species, temporal and
spatial microdistribution patterns is essential. For example, some of the
problems associated with the conceptualization in Fig. 1 have been mentioned
with respect to the net spinning Trichoptera since within this one group considerable food partitioning is occurring. Finally, there are two basic areas
that consistently impede stream studies. These are adequate, reliable sampling
techniques and the problem of identification of stream organisms, especially
the immature insects.
72
�LITERATURE CITED
Allen, K. R. 1951. The Horokiwi Stream.
10:1-231.
Bull.
New Zealand Dept. Fish
Ball, R. C., N. R. Kevern and J. K. Linton. 1969. The Red Cedar River
report II. Bioecology. Pub. Museum Mich. St. Univ., Biological Series
Vol. 4, No.4.
Ball, R. C., T. A. Wojtalik and F. F. Hooper. 1963. Upstream dispersion of
radiophosphorus in a Michigan trout stream. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts and
Letters 48:57-64.
Boling, R. H., Jr., R. C. Peterson and K. W. Cummins. 1974a. Ecosystem
modeling for small woodland streams. In B. C. Patten (ed.). Systems
analysis and simulation in ecology. VOl. III. Academic Press, New
York. In press.
Boling, R. H., Jr., E. D. Goodman, J. 0. Zimmer, K. W. Cummins, S. R. Reice,
R. C. Peterson and J. A. VanSickle. 1974b. Toward a model of detritus
processing in a woodland stream. Submitted to Ecology.
Brusven, M. A. 1970. Drift periodicity and upstream dispersion of stream
insects. J. Ent. Soc. British Columbia 67:48-59.
Butcher, R. W., F. T. K. Pentelow and J. W. A. Woodley. 1930. Variations
in composition of river waters. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 24:47-80.
Chapman, D. W. 1966. The relative contributions of aquatic and terrestrial
primary producers in trophic relationships of stream organisms. In K. W.
Cummins, L. A. Tryon, Jr. and R. T. Hartman (eds.). Organism-substrate
relationships in streams. Pymatuning Symposium in Ecology. Edwards
Bros., Ann Arbor, pp. 116-129.
Chapman, D. W. and R. Demory. 1963. Seasonal changes in the food ingestion
by aquatic insect larvae and nymphs in two Oregon streams. Ecology 44:
140-146.
Coffman, W. P., K. W. Cummins and J. C. Wuycheck. 1971. Energy flow in a
woodl a1:d stream ecosystem: I. Tissue support trophic structure of the
autumnal community. Arch. Hydrobiol. 68:232-276.
Collier, B. D., G. W. Cox, A. W. Johnson and P. C. Miller. 1973.
ecology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Dynamic
Cummins, K. W. 1971. Predicting variations in energy flow through a semicontrolled lotic ecosystem. Tech. Rep. Mich. St. Univ. Inst. Water Res.
No. 19.
Cummins, K. W. 1972. What is a river?-- A zoological description. In
R. T. Oglesby, C. A. Carlson and J. A. McCann (eds.). River ecology and
man. Academic Press, New York, pp. 33-52.
Cushing, C. E. 1967. Periphyton productivity and radionuclide accumulation
in the Columbia River, Washinqton, USA.
Hydrobiologia 16:125-139.
73
�Darnell, R. M. 1964. Organic detritus in relation to secondary production
in aquatic communities. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 15:462-470.
Darnell, R. M. 1967.
88:374-375.
The organic detritus problem.
Estuaries, AAAS Publ.
Denham, S. C. 1938. A limnological investigation of the West Fork and common branches of White River. Invest. Indiana Lakes and Streams 1:17-72.
Donaldson, J. R. 1967. Phosphorus budget of Iliamna Lake, Alaska, as related to the cyclic abundance of sockeye salmon. Ph.D. dissertation,
Univ. Wash., Seattle.
Edwards, R. W. and M. Owens. 1962. The effects of plants on river conditions IV. The oxygen balance of a chalk stream. J. Ecol. 50:207-220.
Egglishaw, H. J. 1964. The distributional relationship between the bottom
fauna and plant detritus in streams. J. Anim. Ecol. 33:463-476.
Elliott, J. M. 1969. Life history and biology of Sericostoma personatum
Spence (Trichoptera). Oikos 23:295-303.
Elliott, J. M. 1971.
district stream.
Upstream movement of benthic invertebrates in a lake
J. Anim. Ecol. 40:235-252.
Elwood, J. W. and D. J. Nelson. 1972. Periphyton production and grazing
rates in a stream measured with a 32p material balance method. Oikos
23:295-303.
Fisher, S. G. and G. E. Likens. 1972.
budget. BioScience 22:33-35.
Stream ecosystem:
organic energy
Fisher, S. G. and G. E. Likens. 1973. Energy flow in Bear Brook, New
Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism.
Ecol. Monogr. 43:421-439.
Fittkau, E. J. 1970. Role of caimans in the nutrient regime of mouth-lakes
of Amazon effluents (an hypothesis). Biotropica 2:138-142.
Gersbacher, W. M. 1937.
Ecology 18:359-390.
Development of stream bottom communities in Illinois.
Grzenda, A. R. 1960. Primary production, energetics and nutrient utilization in a warm-water stream. Ph.D. dissertation, Mich. St. Univ., East
Lansing.
Grzenda, A. R., R. C. Ball and N. R. Kevern. 1968. Primary production,
energetics, and nutrient utilization in a warm-water stream. Tech. Rep.
Mich. St. Univ. Inst. Water Res. No. 2.
Hall, C. A. S. 1972. Migration and metabolism in a temperate stream ecosystem. Ecology 53:585-604.
Hoskin, C. M. 1959. Studies of oxygen metabolism of streams of North
Carolina. Publ. Inst. Marine Sci. Texas 6:186-192.
74
�Hynes, H. B. N. 1963. Imported organic matter and secondary productivity
in streams. Proc. 16th Int. Congr. Zool. 4:324-329.
Hynes, H. B. N. 1970.
Press, Toronto.
The ecology of running waters.
Univ. of Toronto
Hynes, H. B. N. and M. J. Colemen. 1968. A simple method of assessing the
annual production of stream benthos. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13:569-573.
Ivlev, V. S. 1945. The biological productivity of waters. (Translation by
W. E. Ricker, 1960) J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 23:1727-1759.
Juday, C., W. W. Rich, G. I. Kemmerer and fl.. Mann. 1932. Limnological
studies of Karluck Lake, Alaska, 1926-1930. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 57:
407-436.
Kaushik, N. K. and H. B. N. Hynes. 1968. Experimental study on the role of
autumn shed leaves in aquatic environments. J. Ecol. 56:229-243.
Kevern, N. R. and R. C. Ball. 1965. Primary productivity and energy relationships in artificial streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10:74-87.
King, D. L. 1964. An ecological and pollution-related study of a warm-water
stream. Ph.D. dissertation, Mich. St. Univ., E. Lansing.
Krokhin, E. M. 1967. Effects of size of escapement of sockeye salmon spawners
on the phosphate content of a nursery lake. (original in Russian). Fish
Res. Bd. Canada. Trans. Ser. No. 1186:31-54.
Krumholz, L. A. and S. E. Neff. 1970. The freshwater stream, a complex system.
Water Res. Bull. 6:163-174.
Lane, C. B. and J. D. Hall. 1971. A direct method of measuring benthic primary production in streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16:822-824.
Lenn, R. C. 1966. Primary productivity of a thermal spring.
Univ. Calif., Davis.
Leopold, A.
1949. A sand county almanac.
Lindeman, R. L.
399-418.
M.S. thesis,
Oxford Univ. Press, New Yo·,·k.
1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology.
Ecology 23:
Latka, A. J. 1925. Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins, Co.,
Baltimore. (Reprinted as elements of mathematical biology, 1956, Dover,
New York.)
Lush, D. L. and H. B. N. Hynes. 1973. The formation of particles in freshwater leachates of dead leaves. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18:968-977.
Macan, T. T. 1961. A review of running water studies.
Verein. Limnol. 14:587-602.
Macan, T. T.
1962.
Ecology of aquatic insects.
75
Verh. Internat.
Ann. Rev. Ent. 7:261-288.
�Mackay, R. J. 1972. The life cycle and ecology of P¥cnopsyche gentilis
(Mclachlan), P. luculenta (Betten), and t· scabr1pennis (Rambur) in West
Creek, Mont St. Hilaire, Quebec. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill Univ.,
Montreal.
Mann, K. H., R. H. Britton, A. Kowalczewski, T. J. Lack, C. P. Mathews and
I. McDonald. 1972. Productivity and energy flow at all trophic levels
in the River Thames, England. In Z. Kajah and A. Hillbricht-Ilkowska,
(eds.). Productivity problems 1n fresh waters. Proc. IBP-UNESCO Symposium, Kazimierz Dolny, Poland, pp. 579-596.
Margalef, R.
waters.
1960. Ideas for a synthetic approach to the ecology of running
Int. Revue Ges. Hydrobiol. 45:133-153.
Mathews, C. P. and A. Kowalczewski. 1969. The decomposition of leaf litter
in the River Thames. J. Ecol. 57:543-552.
McDiffett, W. F. 1970. The transformation of energy by a stream detritivore
Pteronarcys scotti (Plecoptera). Ecology 51:995-998.
Mcintire, C. D., R. L. Garrison, H. K. Phinney and C. E. Warren. 1964. Primary production in laboratory streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 9:92-102.
Minckley, W. L. 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Run, Meade Co.,
Ky. Wildl. Monogr. 11:1-124.
Minckley, W. L. 1964. Upstream movements of Gammarus (Amphipoda) in Doe
Run, Meade County, Kentucky. Ecology 45:133-153.
Minshall, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure of a woodland springbrook community. Ecology 48:139-149.
Momot, W. T. 1966. Upstream movement of crayfish in an intermittent Oklahoma stream. Amer. Mid. Nat. 75:150-159.
Muller, K. 1954. Investigations on the organic drift in North Swedish
streams. Rep. Inst. Freshwater Res. Drottningholm 35:135-148.
Nelson, D. J. and D. C. Scott. 1962. Role of detritus in the pl"(l•..~uctivity
of a rock outcrop community in a Piedmont stream. Limno1. Oceanogr.
7:396-413.
3rd Ed. W. B. Saunders, Co.,
Odum, E. P. 1971.
Philadelphia.
Fundamentals of ecology.
Odum, H. T. 1956.
1:102-117.
Primary production in flowing waters.
Patrick, R.
Benthic stream communities. Amer. Sci. 58:546-549.
1970.
Phillipson, J.
Limnol. Oceanogr.
1966. Ecological energetics. St. Martins Press, New York.
Ricker, W. E. 1946. Production and utilization of fish populations.
Monogr. 16:373-391.
Ecol.
Roos, T. 1957. Studies on upstream migration in adult stream-dwelling insects. Rep. Inst. Freshwater Res. Drottningholm 38:167-193.
76
�Ross, H. H. 1963. Stream communities and terrestrial biomes. Arch. Hydrobiol. 59:235-242.
Scott, D. C. 1958.
1159-1173.
Biological balance in streams.
Sewage Ind. Wastes 1958:
Sedell, J. R. 1972. Studying streams as a biological unit. Proc. Research
on Coniferous Forest Ecosystems - A Symposium. Bellingham, Wash.
Shelford, V. E. and S. Eddy.
Ecology 10:382-392.
1929.
Methods for the study of stream communities.
Stockner, J. G. 1968. Algal growth and primary production in a thermal
stream. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 25:2037-2058.
Teal, J. M. 1957. Community metabolism in a temperate cold spring.
Monogr. 27:283-302.
Ecol.
Tebo, L. B., Jr. and W. W. Hassler. 1961. Seasonal abundance of aquatic insects in western North Carolina trout streams. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci.
Soc. 77:249-259.
Thienemann, A. 1953. Fluss and See, ein limnologischer Vergleich.
und Abw~sser 1:13-30.
Gewasser
Thomas. N. A. and R. C. O'Connell. 1966. A method for measuring primary
productivity by stream benthos. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11:386-392.
Tilly, L. J. 1968. The structure and dynamics of Cone Spring.
Monogr. 38:169-197.
Ecol.
Triska, F. J. 1970. Seasonal distribution of aquatic hyphomycetes in relation to the disappearance of leaf litter from a woodland stream. Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. Pittsburg, Pittsburg.
Vannote, R. C. 1969. Detrital consumers in natural systems.
The stream ecosystem. AAAS Symposium. Tech. Rep. Mich.
Water Res. No. 7, pp. 20-23.
InK. W. Cummins (ed.).
Univ. Inst.
S~
Wallace, J. B., W. R. Woodall and F. F. Sherberger. 1970. Breakdown of leaves
by feeding of Peltoperla maria nymphs. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 63:562-567.
Warren, C. E. 1971. Biology and water pollution control.
Philadelphia.
Waters, T. F.
W. B. Saunders Co.,
1972. The drift of stream insects. Ann. Rev. Ent. 17:253-272.
Waters, T. F. and G. W. Crawford. 1973. Annual production of a stream mayfly population: a comparison of methods. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18:286-296.
Westlake, D. F., H. Casey, H. Dawson, M. Ladle, R. H. K. Mann and A. R. H.
Marker. 1972. The chalk-stream ecosystem. In Z. Kajak and A. HillbrichtIlkowsa (eds.). Productivity problems of freshwaters. Proc. IBP-UNESCO
Symposium, Kazimierz Dolny, Poland, pp. 615-635.
Wright, J. C. and I. K. Mills. 1967. Productivity studies on the Madison
River, Yellowstone National Park. Limnol. Oceanogr. 12:568-577.
77
�STREAM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR WEST VIRGINIA
by
Randy E. Bailey, 0. Eugene Maughan, and Roy A.
Whale~
ABSTRACT
A classification system based on four factors--esthetics, access,
use ,and productivity--was developed for \-lest Virginia streams. Each
factor was weighted according to its importance to coldwater fish productionand was rated numerically from 1 through 5 with a 5 rating given
to the most desirable condition. Productivity ratings were determined
by computation of a numerical score based on optimal water quality characteristics for coldwater fish production. Each characteristic was assigned
a weighting factor based upon its judged importance. Classification
was determined by the summation of the products of each factor and its
respective multiplier. Classification categories ranged from pristine
streams of multistate importance (class 5) to highly polluted streams
of only local importance (class 1). Data from Rich Creek, West Virginia
was used to demonstrate the use of the classification system.
1/R. E. Bailey and R. A. Whaley are Graduate Students and 0. E. Maughan
is Assistant Unit Leader, Virginia Cooperative Fishery Research Unit,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
24061.
78
�INTRODUCTION
The protection of existing stream ecosystems from pollution, overuse,
and channelization is necessary if the increasing demands for fishing
are to be met. Stream management is one mechanism to insure protection.
However, some streams are more valuable and/or more fragile than others.
Protection of these streams is especially critical. The first step
toward intelligent stream management is to describe these streams.
Identification of a stream's value to man requires that '.ve obtain baseline
data on fish populations, water quality, and angler utilization. Several
states have recognized the importance of rating the value of their streams
and have integrated baseline information and professional judgment into
stream classification systems.
Montana's stream classification system is based on a numerical rating
utilizing an evaluation of esthetics, productivity, availability to the
angler (access), and angler use. These factors are weighted according
to their judged relative importance, and a total numerical score is
determined. Classification is based on this numerical score. Idaho
currently uses the same format as Montana except that an alphabetical
rating is used instead of a numercial rating.
Classification systems in New Jersey and North Carolina are based
on the fauna in the stream. The New Jersey classification system is
based on standing fish populations as determined by a stream survey.
Streams are classified as: 1) trout production waters --waters suitable
for spawning and/or nursery purposes, 2) trout maintenance waters -waters that support trout throughout the year, and 3) non-trout waters -waters that will not support trout because of physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of the stream. A fourth category is currently
being developed that would identify and classify those streams containing
yellow perch (Perea flavescens) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui)
(Robert Soldwedel, personal communication).
North Carolina classifies streams according to fish fauna present
and physical and chemical factors such as stream width, pool depth and type,
bottom type, flow, maximum summer temperature, turbidity, alkalinity,
and pH (Richardson, 1964). North Carolina further classifies trout
waters into trophy trout, native trout, or general trout waters (Hayden
Ratledge, personal communication). Special seasons and gear restrictions
are applied to each class of trout water.
Montana's stream classification system is perhaps the most complex
classification system we have reviewed. This system is based on four major
factors. These factors include: esthetics, availability or access,
productivity, and angler use or fishing pressure. Esthetics are
rated on a scale of 1 (only fair esthetics or a polluted stream)
to 5 (a clean and clear stream with wilderness characteristics and high
natural beauty). The availability or access rating is also rated from
1 (access nearly impossible) to 5 (access good but not excessively good),
The productivity ratings are based on the relative abundance of trout
populations. The highest rating is given to streams with fish populations that will support heavy fishing pressure, as determined by fishery
biologists. Use or angling pressure ratings are based on creel census
79
�data, U.S. Forest Service campsite use counts, and the subjective opinions
of state fishery biologists (Gary Wood, personal communication).
Many states recognize the desirability of a stream classification
system and have developed such systems. Many additional states recognize
the need to develop such a system as a means of helping protect their
diminishing stream resources. New Jersey is currently developing
water quality criteria (i.e., criteria for limiting the amount of thermal
effluent that can be discharged into any particular class of stream)
based on their stream classification system. Virginia, having recognized
the value of various stream classification systems, is currently developing
a trout stream classification system based on a combination of the systems
from North Carolina and Montana (Robert Wollitz, personal communication).
West Virginia has also expressed interest in a coldwater stream classification
system.
We have proposed a system for describing West Virginia's stream
situation to meet the need for a coldwater stream classification system
in West Virginia. This system has the same basic framework as the Montana
system. However, each factor has been redefined or rewritten to more
accurately reflect West Virginia stream conditions. Fishing pressure
ratings and values are from Zurbuch's (1962) creel census of five major
trout streams. These figures were updated or confirmed by West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources personnel (Harvey Beall, personal
communication). We developed several subset rating systems within the
productivity rating in an attempt to quantify the potential productivity
of a stream. The subsets are biological, physical, and chemical parameters
considered critical by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
(Don Phares, personal communication).
The purpose of this classifcation system is threefold. First, to
provide a framework for measuring each stream's relative value to the
fishery resources of the state; evaluation of worth is essential if
streams that satisfy recreational needs are to be protected from destruction. Second, to give fishery biologists a format outlining the
types of data needed for stream management; identification of data gaps
can help biologists by emphasizing data necessary for stream classification. Third, to provide a standardized stream survey format requiring
field data that are easy to collect and are useful for the evaluation of
the potential fishery.
80
�OUTLINE OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The classification system developed for West Virginia provides the
methodology for rating the relative value of each stream. Evaluation
is accomplished when the stream is placed into one of five classes on the
basis of its esthetic value, access, use, and potential productivity.
These classes provide a rough measure of the relative value of each
stream.
The five class rating system was selected because it is simple to
use and easy to understand, and involves no large or complicated measurements or numbers. In addition, the five class rating system has been
successfully used in Montana since 1959 and more recently in Wyoming
(Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 1971).
Although all the factors evaluated in the classification system are
important to the potential fishery, some factors are more important
than others. We assigned a multiplier of 1 to 4 to each factor to
quantify its relative importance, The multipliers, which allow the
judged proportional effect of each factor to be applied to stream
classification, were selected on the basis of professional judgment
of biologists, and were assigned as follows: esthetics, 1; access, 2;
use, 3; and productivity, 4.
The final classification of a stream results in its placement
into one of the five following classes, based on a derived composite
numerical value.
Class 5
cold water fishery of multistate importance
Class 4
cold water fishery of statewide importance
Class 3
cold water fishery of regional importance
Class 2
cold water fishery of local importance
Class 1
stream unsuited for cold water species
The first factor we considered in classifying a stream was esthetic
beauty. Ratings are based on natural beauty of the surroundings plus
the degree of human development. Although esthetics are important other
factors are considered more important, Therefore, the esthetic rating
was assigned a multiplier of one with the following descriptions of each
rating:
Esthetics x 1
Description
Rating
5
Outstanding natural beauty, unique, and
possessing wilderness characteristics;
pollution free.
4
Comparable with a stream of rating five but
lacking wilderness characteristics; some
human development present, such as roads or
farms.
81
�Rating
Description
3
Some natural beauty but more common than
rating 4 or 5; usually clear with little
pollution; flows through attractive agricultural areas.
2
Unimpressive and not uncommon esthetic
qualities; human development present but
land is not abused; scenery is appealing.
1
Esthetic qualities poor; water quality
problems include continuous high turbidity
and pollution; lack of stream bank cover.
Includes all newly channelized streams.
The second factor considered in classification
of fishermen access. Ratings are based on quantity
access, such as a road bordering a stream, promotes
and hatchery truck following by fishermen. Limited
fishing pressure on the fishery. The access rating
multiplier of two with the following ratings:
was a~ailability
and quality. Excessive
stream bank degradation
access can curtail
was assigned a
Access x 2
Rating
Description
5
Satisfactory for modern cars; not excessive;
(i.e., no road bordering the stream). Access
in terms of posting and availability very
good.
4
May be excessive (road bordering the stream).
Posting not extensive. Stream bank not
restrictive to fishermen access
3
Restricted to roads or trails suitable for
4 wheel drive vehicles, horseback, or foot
traffic. Posting not restrictive.
2
Limited by posting, or otherwise restricted.
1
Inadequate because natural or man made
restrictions nearly exclude fishermen.
The third factor considered in the classification system was the
amount of use or fishing pressure a fishery receives. Very heavy fishing
pressure is undesirable because stocked fish are quickly removed from the
stream and natural trout populations are generally unable to support such
fishing pressure. Very light fishing pressure is also undesirable because
underexploitation or underutilization of existing trout populations is
likely. Therefore, no one or two ratings are given. According to West
Virginia fishery biologists, moderate fishing pressure is the most
desirable (Harvey Beall, personal communication). A stream with moderate
82
�fishing pressure receives the highest rating (5). The fishing pressure
ratings are based on stocked streams because a large number (196) of
West Virginia's trout streams are stocked. The ratings are based on the
following figures and were assigned a multiplier of three.
Use
X
3
Rating
Description
3
Very heavy
500 angler hours/acre/year
4
Heavy
300-500 angler hours/acre/year
5
Moderate
150-299 angler hours/acre/year
4
Light
3
Very light
50-149 angler hours/acre/year
50 angler hours/acre/year
The fourth and most important factor considered in this classification
system, and by far the most difficult and complex factor to access, is
stream productivity. Productivity was therefore assigned a multiplier of
four. Nine characteristics have been integrated into the productivity rating
system. Each characteristic has been assigned a weighting factor, ranging
from 1 to 3, based on each characteristic's judged relative importance.
Four characteristics have weighting factors of three (pH, water temperature,
total alkalinity, invertebrate abundance), one characteristics has a
weighting factor of two (turbidity), and four characteristics have weighting factors of one (total hardness, conductivity, phosphates, nitrates).
The range of values expected in West Virginia for each parameter
was selected after consultation with state fishery biologists and
evaluation of state water quality records (West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources, 1969). The range of possible values was divided into
5 subranges that were rated from 1 through 5. The highest rating (5)
was assigned to the subrange considered to give optimal coldwater fish
production.
We determined the score for each characteristic by multiplying
the appropriate subrange rating by its respective weighting factor.
The summation of scores for the nine parameters yields a productivity
subtotal, which, in turn, is used to determine the productivity class.
The productivity class is based on a range of subtotals determined by
an acceptable range of ratings for each characteristic. A maximum and
minimum productivity subtotal is calculated for each productivity class
with the following ranges:
Productivity Subtotal
Productivity Class
5
90-80
4
80-57
3
61-46
2
44-35
1
22-18
83
�The possibility of overlap in the ranges of productivity subtotals
exists between productivity classes 5 and 4 and 3. If overlap occurs,
the biologist must subjectively decide which productivity class is appropriate for that particular stream.
To determine the classification for a particular strea~, the biologist multiplies each factor's rating by the appropriate multiplier.
The summation of the products for each factor determines the overall
classification,
The stream class determination is based on a possible total score
derived from optimum ratings. Total scores for different stream classes
are: 5, 50-45; 4, 44-36; 3, 35-26; 2, 25-20; 1, less than 20. The range
of acceptable ratings for each factor was determined after consultation
with state and federal fishery biologists in West Virginia.
Data from Rich Creek, West Virginia are used to demonstrate the
operation of this stream classification system. Rich Creek has some
natural beauty, has little pollution, and flows through an attractive
agricultural area, Therefore, the total score for esthetics is 3 (rating)
x 1 (multiplier) = 3. The access factor total score is 4 x 2 = 8 (a
state-secondary road borders Rich Creek). As determined from a creel
census, Rich Creek is subject to heavy fishing pressure. The resulting
rating of 4 x 3 yields a use total score of 12. The productivity rating
is determined on the basis of the values shown in Table 1. A productivity
subtotal of 72 gives a productivity rating of 4. Multiplying the rating
by its multiplier (4) yields a total productivity score of 16. The
summation of the values for esthetics, access, use and productivity
yields an overall score of 39 (Table 2). This score results in Rich
Creek being placed in the class 4 stream category.
Conclusion
Stream classification has considerable potential for use in stream
management, because classification forces a resource agency to evaluate
streams, Evaluation allows identification of data gaps and identification of resources in critically short supply. Classification also
forces an agency to consolidate existing data, thereby faL_;_Jj_tating maximum use of that data,
Stream classification may not be widely used for many years.
Streams will, however, continue to lose the ability to support desirable
fish populations as the result of pollution, channelization and other
activities. These decreases in the number of fish-producing streams with
an increase or stabilization in fishing demand will necessitate decisions.
Fishery biologists must decide which streams must be protected to minimize the impact of stream loss on the fisheries resource. This classification system will assist in decision making. To meet future demand,
managers must intensely manage the streams protected from destruction
if the full potential productivity of such streams is to be realized.
This classification system indicates a stream's potential value. The
more intense the management, the more apparent the value of this classification system will become. The energy crises of the 1970's and the
presence of huge coal reserves in West Virginia make its streams highly
susceptible to destruction. The assignment of classifications in accordance
with the systems described here could be a valuable step in protecting
West Virginia's aquatic resource.
84
�Table 1.
Data values used to determine a productivity subtotal for Rich Creek.
Parameter
Actual
Data
Value
Rating
Weighting Factor
Score
pH
00
4
3
12
vJater Temperature
U1
7.0
78F 0
2
3
6
Alkalinity
140 ppm
5
3
15
Invertebrate Abundance
6.0 cc/ft 2
5
3
15
0 JTU
5
2
10
Nitrates
0.6 ppm
3
1
3
Phosphates
6.0 ppm
1
1
1
Total Hardness
160 ppm
5
1
5
Conductivity
220 micromhos
5
1
5
Turbidity
Productivity Subtotal
72
�Table 2.
Classification of Rich Creek, West Virginia.
Rating
Multiplier
Score
Esthetics
3
1
3
Access
4
2
8
Use
4
3
12
Productivity
4
4
16
Factor
Overall Score
39
LITERATURE CITED
Richardson, F. R. 1964. Survey and classification of the Wataga
River and tributaries, North Carolina. North Carolina \Vildlife
Resources Commission. 8 p.
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. 1969. West Virginia
water quality network, compilation of data, 1969. West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources.
151 p.
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. 1971. Wyoming stream fishery
classification. Fish Division, ~.Jyoming Game and Fish Commission.
Zurbuch, P. E. 1962. A census of five major West Virginia trout
streams. Prog. Fish-Culturist 24(1):31-36.
86
�STABILIZATION OF EROSION ON ~
MOUNTAINOUS ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Robert James Brown and Joseph Mickey, 0r.1/
Abstract.--The successful control of erosion from a mountainous road
construction project in Western North Carolina resulted in the preservation
of trout habitat. Cooperation between a citizen conservation organization,
state and federal agencies and private enterprise was instrumental in the
project's success. Methods of erosion control in mountainous terrain are
stated and evaluated.
Additional keywords: Highway construction, erosion control, trout habitat,
trout, siltation, and sedimentation.
The detrimental effects of siltation on trout streams are well-known (Lagler
1956, Tebo 1955). Siltation adversely affects trout reproduction, trout food
supply and by changing the physical characteristics of the stream to make it
unsuitable for trout. Siltation is the major cause of trout habitat destruction
in Western North Carolina.
The reconstruction of fourteen miles of North Carolina Route 181 located
between Morganton and Linville, North Carolina involved extensive widening and
straightening of the existing road bed. Construction in mountainous terrain
(1094 to 3779 feet above sea level) resulted in major cuts and fills. Total
construction cost approached four million dollars.
As expected, the reconstruction has adversely affected the water quality of
Steels and Upper Creeks which parallel either side of the project. Since 1962,
these two high quality trout streams have been managed as a wild trout fishery
based upon natural reproduction. The objective was to minimize siltation and
save the trout fishery of Steels Creek and Upper Creek.
The cooperation of federal and state agencies, Trout Unlimited and private
enterprise, was instrumental in the successful preservation of two high quality
trout streams. Damage to the streams was minimized and it is estimated that the
streams will return to normal within three to five years.
The North Carolina Highway 181 project was not required to have an environmental impact statement and all phases of erosion control were negotiated through
the cooperating agencies.
1/ Fisheries Biologist and Fisheries Technician, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Morganton, North Carolina.
We would especially like to thank Mr. John Kennedy and Mr. Floyd Brooks
of the United States Forest Service, Mr. David Patton and Mr. Robert Crisp
of the North Carolina State Highway Commission, and the Asheville and Blyth
Construction Companies for their energy, time, and assistance. In addition
we thank Trout Unlimited and the lOlst Airborne Division from Fort Campbell,
Kentucky for volunteering their services. Mr. Hayden M. Ratledge reviewed and
criticized the manuscript.
87
�PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
The erosion control measures utilized in construction of Route 181 are
listed in Table 1 along with an evaluation of their effectiveness. A diagramatic view of the location and construction of erosion control methods is
shown in Figure 1.
Trout standing crops and reproductive success (Table 2) were estimated
using electrofishing techniques. These estimated were made following the two
year construction period.
Catch rates as reported to Wildlife Protectors in 1974 were 1.4 trout per
hour for Steels Creek and 1.8 trout per hour for Upper Creek (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Although erosion on the road construction project allowed siltation of both
Steels Creek and Upper Creek, the successful reproduction of brown and rainbow
trout occurred in the fall of 1973 and the spring of 1974 (Table 2). Further
evidence of success in erosion control is the catch rates for trout taken during
construction years which are comparable to those catch rates prior to construction
(Table 3).
Sources of erosion were the road bed, the surfaces of cuts and fills and waste
areas. All three sources were problematic and no one source can be singled out
as the worst.
Experience on this project has produced several quidelines for successful
erosion control:
1)
Maintaining minimum areas of exposed earth (work and complete shorter
sections of road);
2)
Timing of earth moving to coincide with periods when revegetation is
possible;
3)
Designing of cuts and fills in critical areas to incorporate erosion
control considerations (anticipate erosion);
4)
Stopping and stabilization of erosion as close to its source as possible;
5)
Utilization of rapid revegetation and heavy fertilization of revegetated
MeMj
6)
Mulching with straw or hay and using jute mats in drainage ditches;
7)
Acquiring right of way easements or other permission to permit erosion
control on or off right of way or on private property if necessary.
Previous road construction projects have allocated from three to five
percent of their total funds for erosion control (conversation with Mr. David
Patton, Resident Engineer, North Carolina State Highway Commission). The total
cost of Route 181 will closely approach four million dollars of which an estimated
15 percent will have been spent to control erosion.
88
�TABLE 1
EVALUATION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
UTILIZED IN RECONSTRUC'·.'ION OF ROUTE 181
MEASURE
FUNCTION
EVALUATION
Road Shoulder
Maintenance (Berm)
Channels road bed run off into
plastic drains and into erosion
control devices, used during
road bed construction.
Very effective when maintained
large enough to effectively
channel water thus preventing
erosion of surfaces of cuts
and fills, mandatory.
Plastic Down Drains
Channels road bed run off into
brush barriers minimizing erosion
in area of water channelization
Very effective and necessary
Silt Basin
Allows settling of suspended
solids
Very effective, mandatory
Brush Barrier
Filters run off from surfaces of
of fills and road bed
Very effective, mandatory in
forested areas
Temporary Silt Fence
Filters large suspended solids
from water run off
Effective in filter action,
but temporary nature allows
trapped silt to move before
stabilization occurs.
Extensive use not recommended.
Brush Check Dam
Filters water once it passes
initial brush barriers and silt
fences.
Not effective, log dams
preferred
Log Check Dam
Allows settling of suspended
solids during heavy run off
peaks, semi-permanent nature
allows for stabilization and
reve etation.
Very effective
Seeding and
Fertilization
Covers exposed earth, use 150
pounds seed with 1200 pounds
8-8-8 fertilizer and 4000 pounds
of lime er acre
Very effective
Top Dressing
Applied to 2-1 or greater slopes
Very effective
of cuts and fills to insure ground
cover, accompanied by Sericea lespedega at 50 pounds per acre and
750 pounds 8-8-8 fertilizer per
acre
Mulching
Breaks impact of rain drops upon
earth and seed, holds moisture
and soil
Very effective, mandatory
Jute Mats
Placed in median, berm and lateral
ditches where road bed run off would
erode seed before ground cover becomes
established.
Very effective, mandatory
89
�lf.oo..d be.)
be.AI. m r;o-..J .sl.ou.f./e"-)--------------=:::~S~·
;o/t1-s fi' c slo!'e. JrcuN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' t - ' - :
b.
C.
d.
e.
' j __ /.. -,_.;
--I
f3Ac.J. IJieLU o I A Ll?.J J4m
.showi!VJ
def~tile d c..oN..sf R.u c 7/oll/, q_) /.oj-£ f'i,ved
f o~ .sw.fr o,._f. .6) "';~ «- 614 ._kln;.J. c) ;o J..,.sf:".sJ.. e-1-l"".!J. c/J bu.IC./AJ", e) b~IA.Sh
FRoNt view of
a.. /orJ d~m
90
�TABLE 2
TROUT ~ STANDING CROP ESTIMATES AND REPRODUCTIVE
SUCCESS FOR STEELS AND UPPER CREEK - 1974
STREAM
POUNDS OF TROUT PER ACRE
TROUT REPRODUCTION PER ACRE (No.)
Right Fork Steels
(Silted)
24.2
60
Left Fork Steels
(Unaffected)
3.6
120
Gingercake Creek
(Unaffected)
34.2
65
Main Steels Creek
Below Forks (Silted)
22.3
8
Upper Creek
Upper Portion (Silted)
42.1
451
~
Rainbow
(~
gairdneri) and brown (Salmo trutta) species combined.
TABLE 3
CREEL CENSUS RESUEITS FOR STEELS AND UPPER CREEK
CATCH PER MAN HOUR OF EFFORT
STREAM
Pre-construction Years
Construction Years
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Steels Creek
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.7
1.4
Upper Creek
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.8
YEAR
91
�CONCLUSION
Cooperation, surveillance and public op1n1on favoring protection of trout
habitat have been the keys to the protection of the trout resources of Steels
and Upper Creeks. More time and money than ever before has been expended to
protect wild trout and their habitat. We hope that the experience gained and
the lessons taught by this project will be beneficial to other agencies which
will face similar problems in protection of mountain trout resources.
LITERATURE CITED
Lagler, Karl F., 1956.
Dubuque, Iowa.
Freshwater Fishery Biology.
Wm.
c.
Brown Company,
Tebo, L.B., Jr., 1955. Effects of Siltation, Resulting from Improper -Logging,
on the Bottom Fauna of a Small Trout Stream in the Southern Appalachians.
Progressive Fish Culturist 17:64-70.
92
�LIMITING FACTORS ENCOUNTERED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF
TROUT IN TAILWATERS
James R. Axonl/
Abstract.--The major obstacle that prevents nearly
every tailwater trout fishery from reaching its potential
is unregulated releases for fish management. Under highflow conditions, the tailwater is not ideal for fishing.
Bottom fauna productivity and consequent fish growth are
retarded because of extreme flow. High water temperatures
and low-oxygenated water sometimes occur during the summer
and fall months when there is low flow or no discharge.
Some of these problems have been solved by: providing a
minimum flow, providing a minimum volume of water during a
specified time period, and providing cold water releases
that will maintain suitable temperatures in the tailwater
for trout. Poor growth rate, predation and intense fishing
pressure were once considered limiting factors in tailwaters
where fingerling trout were stocked; these factors were nullified by stocking catchable-size trout.
INTRODUCTION
Tailwater trout management procedures have been vastly improved over the
past decade as a result of intensive research; many tailwater trout fisheries
are now being utilized to their maximum. There remain a few limiting factors
that prevent most tailwater fisheries from reaching their maximum potential.
It is the purpose of this paper to describe those limiting factors and discuss
techniques that will minimize their limiting effects.
DISCUSSION
Fingerling trout, or catchable-size trout, or both are recommended for
stocking in tailwaters, based on the criteria described below. In most tailwaters, catchables are preferred because of the lack of an adequate food supply
for desirable growth of fingerlings, or the presence of predatory fishes that
would cause low survival of fingerlings, or heavy fishing pressure; or any
combination of the aforementioned factors. The rate and frequency of stocking
trout are determined by fishing pressure and harvest. Boat fishing has been
instrumental in increasing the fishing success and harvest on tailwaters having
sufficient flow.
ll Principal Fishery Biologist, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Frankfort, Kentucky
93
�Certain tailwaters that were once stocked with fingerling trout are now
being stocked with catchables because of overexploitation. The trout fishery
on the White River below Bull Shoals Lake in Arkansas was initially maintained
by stocking fingerling trout (Baker, 1959). Eventually, because of intense
fishing pressure, stocking of catchable-size trout was necessary to maintain
a quality fishery. Little (1967) recommended additional stockings of catchable
trout in the Dale Hollow tailwater in Tennessee to reduce pressure on fingerlings
that were also stocked. It may be desirable to impose a size limit on trout in
situations similar to that below Dale Hollow Dam, thereby essentially preventing
the harvest of fingerlings before they are able to grow and provide a quality
fishery. A size limit would permit fingerlings to grow to a preferable size,
and a quality fishery would be maintained without supplemental stocking of
catchables. Their growth potential would be fully utilized in the tailwater
(e.g., trout grow in the Dale Hollow tailwater at a rate of 0.9 inch per month),
and rearing and stocking costs would be reduced.
A major problem of great complexity often encountered in tailwater trout
management is that of erratic flow. High flows create water conditions that
are unfavorable for fishing. If high flows could be limited, the tailwater
would receive more fishing pressure, resulting in an increase in harvest.
Boles (1974*) reported that the major fishing effort on the Norris tailwater
in Tennessee occurred during low flow or no discharge periods, particularly
on the weekends. High flows were also detrimental to bottom fauna productivity
and trout growth below Norris Dam.
The Norris tailwater receives low-oxygenated water in the fall from the
hypolimnion of Norris Lake, which is also detrimental to trout growth. The
growth rate and condition of trout in the fall of both 1971 and 1972 decreased
because the tailwater was deficient in dissolved oxygen (DO). During the most
critical period in 1971, DO content remained below 4.5 ppm for 9 miles below
the dam. The oxygen situation was improved, however, when the TVA began to
schedule daily 2-hour shutoffs that allowed DO content to recover to 4.0 ppm
at a distance of nearly 3 miles below the dam. Several aeration methods are
available to correct the problem of low DO concentrations (described by Ruane,
1972). Most of these methods need further refinement before they become
efficient enough to be economically feasible.
Elevated water temperatures during the summer and fall months are a problem
below Tenkiller Ferry Dam on the Illinois River in Oklahoma. Hicks (1966)
recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) provide a minimum flow
of 25 to 50 cfs, and water temperatures of less than 70F. Water temperatures
were the main limiting factor in the tailwater below Bull Shoals Dam before
the COE agreed to provide water temperatures below 70F.
A minimum flow of 5 million cubic feet during any 48-hour period was
assured by the COE for the Dale Hollow tailwater, in order to maintain water
temperatures suitable for trout. A continuing effort is needed to secure
cooperation from the tailwater regulatory agency in following the discharge
program recommended by the tailwater fishery manager.
*Personal Communication
94
�LITERATURE CITED
Baker, Robert F. 1959. Historical review of the Bull Shoals and Norfork Dam
tailwater trout fishery. Proc. 13th Ann. Conf. SE Assoc. Game and Fish
Comm.: 299-236
Hicks, Don. 1966. Determination of how or if releases can be manipulated
from Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir to improve habitat for trout. OK Dept.
of Wild!. D-J F-15-R-1. Job Comp. Rep. 3 pp.
Little, James D. 1967. Dale Hollow tailwater investigations.
Wild!. Res. Agency. D-J F-30-R. 71 pp.
TN Dept. of
Ruane, R. J. 1972. Investigations of methods for increasing dissolved oxygen
concentrations downstream from reservoirs. Eleventh Environ. and Water
Res. Eng. Conf.: 33 pp.
95
�RECLAMATION OF DAMAGED STREAMS
AS A TOOL IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Donley M. Hill
Tennessee Valley Authority
Norris, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION
For decades water resource managers, fisheries biologists, laymen, and others
have viewed with dismay the degradation of increasing numbers of streams by a
vast array of industrial, agricultural, and domestic wastes. A national movement
toward environmental awareness, coupled with strict legislation such as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, offer the prospect
for reversal of this pollution trend.
While the amended Act implies "zero discharge" by 1985, realities such as the
current energy crisis and legitimate economic complaints
goal to slip.
may
cause such a
Hopefully, resulting compromises will be ones in which discharges are
based upon known assimilative capacities of the receiving streams on a regional
watershed basis. Whatever the tactic, extensive pollution abatement already
under way will probably continue, even under adverse political and economic
circumstances. Assuming functional biological recovery, currently degraded
streams could contribute significantly to the stream fishery resource. The
following is a discussion of factors which influence biological recovery of
damaged streams and includes some case histories of stream recovery.
FACTORS AFFECTING STREAM RECOVERY
Biologists have long recognized that individual organisms and communities of
organisms must be resilient and adaptable to survive even the adversities of
96
�natural events. Add to the vagaries of nature the innumerable perturbations man
exerts upon aquatic systems and these attributes become even more important.
Cairns et al. (1971) state that aquatic ecosystems have the ability to assimilate
a certain amount of waste material and maintain near normal function.
They
found that when a system's assimilative capacity is overloaded, the system is
disrupted, and the rate of recovery depends upon (1) severity and duration of the
stress, (2) number and kinds of associated stresses, (3) recolonization of the
area by useful aquatic organisms, and (4) residual effects upon nonbiological
units (e. g., substrate, etc.). Larimore et al. (1959) stressed the importance of
the ratio of damaged to undamaged reaches of a stream in their study of the rate
of reinvasion of a small Illinois stream by fish and invertebrates. Additionally,
they found that within a given year the rate of reinvasion is strongly influenced
by water levels and seasons of the year.
While any one of the factors mentioned above may affect the rate and extent of
biological recovery, there are only two circumstances in which recovery would
not take place: (1) if there are residual effects which make the area unsuitable
for diverse communities of aquatic organisms; or (2) if there is not an adequate
pool of organisms outside the affected area for effective recolonization. While
extreme instances of these two circumstances are rare, it is equally uncommon
that their influence upon recovery processes cannot be measured to some degree.
The following case histories illustrate the manner in which conditions discussed
above may affect stream recovery.
TURBIDITY AND SILTATION
Hill's investigation of the recovery of damaged streams following manganese
strip mine reclamation on the headwaters of the South Fork Holston River (1971)
97
�indicated that,six years after reclamation of spoil areas by the U. S. Forest
Service, functionally complete stream recovery had taken place. While recovery
probably occurred earlier, no observations were available for those periods.
Although extreme turbidities and siltation affected the entire lengths of these
tributary streams and reduced faunal populations by 90 percent or more, recovery
in streams draining fully reclaimed areas was complete in that conservatively
estimated time period. However, streams draining partially reclaimed areas
showed no more improvement than those below unreclaimed spoils. While this
must be termed incomplete abatement, similar results could be expected from
residual effects.
A LKA I.JNE STRESS
In June 1967 a fly ash holding pond at a power plant on the Clinch River broke,
releasing approximately 130 million gallons of caustic materials. It was
estimated that 216, 000 rough and sport fish were killed in 90 miles of the stream
in Virginia and Tennessee. The Virginia State Water Control Board reported a
drastic reduction in the number and kinds of bottom-dwelling fish food organisms
for 77 miles below the spill. Snails and mussels were eliminated for 11. 5 miles
downstream of the spill.
Two years after the spill, Cairns et al. (1971) reported the reestablishment of
diverse communities of fish and bottom fauna adequate to support a productive
sport fishery, even though recovery still was not complete.
Molluscs especially
were slow in recolonizing, and the plant continued discharges of some effluents.
Although the stress in this case certainly was severe, the absence of a residual
effect, combined with extensive areas from which recolonization could take
98
�place made recovery rapid. The fact that recovery still was not complete after
two years can probably be ascribed in large part to the high ratio of damaged to
undamaged reaches of the river.
TOXIC INORGANICS
A large chemical plant located on the banks of the North Fork Holston River
approximately 80 miles above its mouth discharged large quantities of chlorides
and other inorganic substances into the river for more than 70 years.
Over
extended periods of time, the plant was discharging approximately 950 tons per
day of calcium chloride and 575 tons per day of sodium chloride.
Beginning in
the 1950's the plant began using mercury in a caustic soda-chlorine process, and
substantial amounts of the mercury found its way into the North Fork (Bailey, 1974).
Unable to meet water quality standards, the plant closed July 1972.
(unpublished)
found that after two years
Hill,~
al.
limited recovery of fish and bottom
fauna communities has taken place in the lower part of the river, but that there
is no evidence of substantial recovery in the river several miles downstream of
the plant. River sediment and fish tissue analyses (Bailey, 1974) show the
persistence of high mercury concentrations which can probably be attributed to
a continuing input from extensive abandoned waste lagoons (Hill, unpublished).
Again, this is an instance in which incomplete abatement limits recovery.
An additional limiting circumstance in the recovery of the North Fork Holston
River is the nonavailability of certain groups of organisms for recolonization.
While it appears that there is an adequate pool of fish and aquatic insect species
for recolonization, species of mussels in the river have been reduced from more
than 30 to about eight species and are not available in tributary streams or the
99
�South Fork Holston which the North Fork joins. Hopefully, TVA and other agencies,
by working with the industry involved, can eliminate or reduce the continued input
of materials from the waste lagoons, and then attempt faunal transplants of
important organisms not available for recolonization.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, although a complex of factors influence the potential of a stream to
undergo biological recovery, two of the most important criteria are: (1) the
absence of limiting residual effects or the continued input of detrimental substances;
and (2) the availability of recolonizing populations of organisms adequate for the
reestablishment of diverse, functional biotic communities.
The prospects for broadening the base of stream fishery resources through the
reclamation of damaged streams are very promising. Agencies concerned with
pollution abatement should examine each situation carefully with regard to
residual effects or incomplete abatement.
Those agencies concerned with manage-
ment of the stream resource should give consideration to the possibility of
influencing faunal community structures through appropriate faunal transplants.
100
�liTERATURE CITED
Bailey, D. S. 1974. The occurrence of mercury in the fish and sediment of the
North Fork Holston River, 1970-1972.
Virginia State Water Control Board.
Basic Data Bulletin 41.
Cairns, J., Jr., J. S. Crossman, K. L. Dickson, and E. E. Herricks. 1971.
The recovery of damaged streams. ASB Bulletin, 18(3):79-106.
Hill, D. M.
tion.
1971. Stream faunal recovery after manganese strip mine reclama-
Environmental Protection Agency Water Pollution Control Research
Series.
Project No. 18050 DOH.
Larimore, R. W., W. F. Childers, and C. Heckrotte. 1959. Destruction and
reestablishment of stream fish and invertebrates affected by drought.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 88(4):261-285.
l 01
Trans.
�RESEARCH IN AQUATIC HABITATS AT THE SOUTHEASTERN STATION
Thomas J. Harshbarger
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service
Abstract.--Research is urgently needed to provide technology
necessary to restore, maintain, or improve approximately 20,000
miles of trout stream in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Studies at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in western North Carolina
have shown that man's activities change the quantity, quality, and
stability of water flowing from forest land, and that land management practices which affect these parameters also affect the stream
biota. A new program of aquatic habitat research has been started
at the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Intensive research
is needed to meet demands of trout fishermen.
Additional keywords:
Trout, research
program, research approaches.
Each year, millions of Americans visit the Appalachians, where they
camp, picnic, fish, or just relax and enjoy the soothing qualities of flowing
water. Approximately 900,000 sportsmen fish some 20,000 miles of trout water
in the southern Appalachians. The popularity of sport fishing continues to
grow, and mountain streams in our national forests are currently receiving increasing pressure from some 10 million sport fishermen who live within driving
distance of this region. Despite this large and growing public interest, the
management of trout fisheries has not received the attention on public lands
that managers extend to wildlife. Most land managers appreciate the recreational aspects of sport fishing and the importance of protecting watersheds
and water quality. But they have limited knowledge about trout stream management or the ecology of aquatic resources in general.
There are three elements involved in managing a trout stream for sport
fishing: the environment, the fish, and the angler. From the management or
research point of view, these elements are not mutually exclusive. The environment and fish are parts of an intricate ecosystem upon which the angler is
superimposed as an external predator. We know most about managing trout.
Population structure and arrangement, territoriality, physiological functioning, attributes of different species of trout, etc., have all been studied in
detail. We know considerably less about the angler and what motivates him to
seek certain experiences in conjunction with his pursuit. For the most part,
confirmed trout fishermen seem to be independent, intolerant, and demanding
when it comes to land management activities that might influence their sport.
Questions outnumber answers about managing or improving stream environments,
because such environments reflect complex patterns of local geology, climate,
and vegetation. Such patterns determine the chemical, physical, and biological
features of streams, and these features, in turn, determine the condition of
the habitat for trout. Research is needed to define those characteristics of
trout habitat in the Appalachians which are subject to management and intentional and unintentional modification. Such knowledge will provide a sound
basis for management decisions that will protect and possibly enhance the
trout resource for future generations of fishermen.
Our program for aquatic research is new; we are emphasizing trout habitat, recognizing that other aquatic habitats are also involved and equally
important. This paper indicates the relevancy of past research by the U.S.
Forest Service and describes trout habitat research that is proposed or
currently underway at the Southeastern Station.
102
�PAST RESEARCH
Research over the past 40 years at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in
western North Carolina has shown that water is a most sensitive indicator of
watershed activities. Early experiments at Coweeta documented the effects of
mountain farming, logging, and grazing practices on water quality and yield
(Lieberman and Hoover, 1948; Greene, 1950; Oils, 1952; Johnson, 1952). Later
studies verified that water yield and timing can be changed substantially by
drastically altering forest cover (Hewlett and Hibbert, 1961; Hibbert, 1966;
Swank and Miner, 1968). Other studies examined road design, construction, and
location with respect to erosion and water quality and pointed out the importance of minimizing soil movement during timber harvest (Hursh, 1935; Lieberman and Hoover, 1948; Jones, 1955).
Some of the first documented evidence of the detrimental effects of
logging on stream biology was collected at Coweeta by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in the early fifties. This investigation established
relative values for invertebrate biomass, measured effects of siltation and
stream zone clearing on bottom organisms and temperatures, and established
feeding preferences of rainbow, brook, and brown trout (Tebo, 1955; 1957).
Later studies showed that stream temperatures could be increased, decreased,
or left unchanged depending on the type of cutting practice employed (Swift
and Messer, 1971), and that temperature increases caused by clearcutting could
be moderated by streamside buffer strips (Swift and Baker, 1973).
In conjunction with the IBP Program, the processing structure of several
small streams was partially revealed by taxonomic and trophic investigations.
Studies showed that the benthic fauna in woodland streams can be altered by
cutting treatment and forest-land conversion (Woodall and Wallace, 1972) and
revealed nutrient pathways and the capacity of small streams to alter and process various kinds of material (Woodall, 1972).
Many excellent studies have been conducted at Coweeta on small watershed
streams. Investigations clearly show that man can and does change the quantity, quality, and stability of water floi'l from forest land, and that practices
which affect these parameters also affect the stream biota. These findings
provide a valuable beginning for the biologist concerned with the trout resource in the Appalachians.
CURRENT RESEARCH
The Program
Streams are biological units which process and utilize organic and inorganic materials of terrestrial origin. Such units are sensitive to change,
and activities on the land which disrupt or change the material balance between the stream and the watershed are potentially harmful to certain portions
of the stream biota. Trout are very sensitive to chemical, physical, and biological changes in their habitat. While such sensitivity has eliminated trout
from many miles of once productive water, it simplifies the research problem.
The fish themselves are excellent response variables which can be used to
determine how changes in habitat affect them.
103
�Our research program is designed to develop the technology needed to
protect and enhance the aquatic environment and the trout fishery in the
Appalachian Mountains while maintaining and enhancing other resource values.
We hope to (1) determine how variations in water quality, food cover, and
fishing pressure influence trout production; (2) establish environmental
standards for logging, road construction, land clearing, and mining to prevent adverse impacts on trout; and (3) provide methods and technology for
restoring and maintaining productive capacities of trout streams.
Research Approaches
Our approaches, when possible, are designed to predict the influences of
land management practicies on stream biology. Effects of timber harvesting,
reading, construction, and other forms of disturbance can be evaluated through
land-use impact studies. This approach is readily applicable to management
situations which could not be duplicated experimentally. The disadvantage of
this approach is that it does not fully explain the reason for observed
changes, and the results may not be directly applicable to other environmental
situations.
Another approach, and the one we will emphasize, is habitat analysis.
This is a basic approach which relates population characteristics of trout and
other organisms to the stream environment. When possible, observations will
be made over a range of stream types, rather than one as in conventional case
history studies. This technique adds realism to our models by considering
the ofttimes overlooked dimension of natural variation and its effects on results.
Current Studies
We recently began research to determine reasons for the wide disparity
among population densities, size of fish, and composition of trout in our
mountain streams. One facet of this work compares the growth rate of different fish stocks with the relative abundance of the food and of the fish population. Another facet relates population density to the physical and chemical
characteristics of streams. By measuring trout density, species composition,
and growth characteristics and relating these factors to the availability of
food and cover, water chemistry, and stream morphology, we will begin assembling fundamental data needed to formulate suitable management practices.
In one opportunistic study, we measured the effects of a severe flood
on protective cover for a large known density of trout. The flood significantly reduced quantities of logs, undercut banks, and brush, cover units used
by large fish in study sections. These losses were offset by increases in the
cover-affording capacity of stream-bottom material. The size of cover units
available to fish after the flood was disproportionately reduced, however.
As a result, study sections now primarily support a larger density of smaller
size trout.
We are also studying the effects of a small waste treatment facility on
a trout stream. Results from this study will show what effects nutrients have
on the biology of relatively sterile receiving waters.
1M
�We are planning several important new studies. One will investigate the
effects of cable logging on the aquatic resource. Such logging systems may
greatly reduce formation and transport of erosion products which frequently
damage streams during and after conventional timber-harvest operations. Another
study will evaluate forest fertilization and its effects on stream biology.
Fertilization may benefit trout by increasing overall stream productivity.
Future Direction
Our proposed program will require a team of researchers including specialists in fisheries management, aquatic ecology, and entomology. We will enlarge
the overall research effort through cooperative programs with neighboring universities, State and Federal agencies, and interested conservation groups.
We must closely examine existing food chains and webs available to trout.
Efforts must be made to relate productivity of food organisms to water chemistry, food availability, and physical habitat. We must determine how the invertebrate biota is affected by land management and how the distribution, composition, and abundance of key invertebrates vary seasonally.
We must begin to intensively evaluate the effectiveness of current guidelines for roading and logging practices as protectors of the aquatic environment. We must identify geologic, moisture, and soil conditions for which modified or new criteria are needed.
In light of current demands for both trout fishing and forest products,
we must also consider permissible ranges of alterations to the stream biota.
Some alterations may benefit the fishery by, for instance, increasing the
supply of available food or even cover without stressing other portions of the
habitat. Perhaps the careful and limited removal of streamside vegetation
could increase the growth of periphytic plants sufficiently to appreciably
raise production of grazing aquatic organisms. Or, perhaps, changing the structure or species composition of streambank vegetation could provide additional
cover and more nutritious or decomposable material to the stream biota.
These are some questions we hope to answer. Studies which deal with various facets of protection and those which have immediate management potential
will receive priority in our research program.
LITERATURE CITED
Oils, R. E. 1952. Changes in some vegetation, surface soil and surface runoff
characteristics of a watershed brought about by forest cutting and subsequent
mountain farming. Ph.D. Thesis, Mich. State Coll. Agric. and Appl. Sci.,
205 p.
Greene, G. E. 1950.
5: 125-126.
Land use and trout streams.
J. Soil and Water Conserv.
Hewlett, J. D., and Hibbert, A. R. 1961. Increases in water yield after
several types of forest cutting. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Bull. 6(3): 5-17.
Hibbert, A. R. 1945. Careless skidding reduces benefits of forest cover for
watershed protection. J. For. 43: 765-766.
105
�Hibbert, A. R. 1966. Forest treatment effects on water yield. Natl. Sci.
Found. Adv. Sci. Semin. Int. Symp. For. Hydrol. Proc. 1965: 527-543.
Hursh, C. R. 1935. Control of exposed soil on road banks.
Appalachian For. Exp. Stn. Tech. Note 12, 4 p.
USDA For. Serv.
Johnson, E. A. 1952. Effect of farm woodland grazing on watershed values in
the southern Appalachian Mountains. J. For. 50: 109-113.
Jones, LeRoy. 1955. A watershed study in putting a hardwood forest at the
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in the southern Appalachian Mountains under
intensive management. M.F. Grad. Probl., Univ. Ga. George Foster Peabody
Sch. For., 43 p.
Lieberman, J. A., and Hoover, M.D. 1948. The effect of uncontrolled logging
on stream turbidity. Water and Sewage Works 95(7): 255-258.
Lieberman, J. A., and Hoover, M. D. 1948. Protecting quality of stream flow
by better logging. South. Lumberman 177(2225): 236-240.
Swank, W. T., and Miner, N. H. 1968.
to white pine reduces water yield.
Conversion of hardwood-covered watersheds
Water Resour. Res. 4: 947-954.
Swift, L. W., Jr., and Messer, J. B. 1971. Forest cuttings raise temperatures
of small streams in the southern Appalachians. J. Soil and Water Conserv.
26: 111-116.
Swift, L. W., Jr., and Baker, S. E. 1973. Lower water temperatures within a
streamside buffer strip. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-193, 7 p. Southeast.
For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.
Tebo, L. B., Jr. 1955. Effects of siltation, resulting from improper logging,
on the bottom fauna of a small trout stream in the southern Appalachians.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 55: 64-70.
Tebo, L. B., Jr. 1957.
Proc. 1956: 198-202.
Effects of siltation on trout streams.
Soc. Am. For.
Woodall, W. R. 1972. Nutrient pathways in small mountain streams.
Deciduous For. Biome Memo Rep. 72-58, 118 p.
East.
Woodall, W. R., and Wallace, J. B. 1972. The benthic fauna in four small
southern Appalachian streams. Am. Midl. Nat. 88(2): 393-407.
106
�THE PLANNING APPROACH TO TROUT MANAGEMENT
Joseph R. Fatoral!
Abstract.--Trout management in the Appalachians under today's conditions with increasingly heavier resource demands should follow an orderly
planning process utilizing resource survey and demand input and evolving
to an operational plan considering the trout management area as a unit or
logical subunits. Classical management techniques of habitat modification
and population manipulation should be utilized when feasible and waters
identified as high-use areas and native fish management waters managed with
appropriate techniques.
Additional keywords:
Survey data, access, regulations.
Trout management practices have classically involved modification of physical or
chemical parameters to enhance the available habitat. Modifications that have been
employed and continue to be utilized by agencies responsible for management include
installation of habitat alteration structures such as splash dams, digger logs,
cover logs, gabions, rock rip-rap, and similar devices. These devices are used
variously to increase pool ratio, provide cover, increase water depth, or correct
erosion problems. Other methods employed include installation of spawning channels
or boxes, construction of fishways for spawning runs, use of barriers to prevent
downstream ingress, addition of chemicals for artificial enrichment or alteration of
pH, and revegetation of stream banks.
Population manipulation also has long been used, including rough fish control,
stream renovations, introduction of exotic species, continually supplementing the
population with stocking, or planting of eggs in gravel bars.
These classical methods have had varying success under different sets of conditions. The experienced trout manager knows what techniques to apply and can produce
successful results under the proper circumstances.
Managers are constantly being reminded that fishing "ain't what it used to be".
Mullan (1960) expressed this very well--"Trout fishing isn't what it used to be and
it never was: Regardless of how hard nature works towards primeval conditions ... it
is obvious that the whole delicate balance . . . will never again be what it once
was . . . The clock cannot be turned back." This fact is incontestable. Many miles
of trout water have been seriously degraded and will remain so. Conversely, trout
species are now found where they never occurred naturally. The productivity of trout
waters also must accommodate many more fishermen than in the "good old days". Looking
backward in time with misty eyes is a luxury that managers cannot afford.
The basic underlying concept to
today's conditions with increasingly
of the resource as a unit consisting
that fishery managers be planners, a
management of Appalachian trout waters under
heavier demands upon the resource is management
of variably managed subunits. This necessitates
function they have historically assumed. However,
l/Regional Fisheries Supervisor, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and
Fish Division, Route 13, Box 322-A, Gainesville, Georgia. Mr. Robert F. Klant, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Route 13, Box 322-A,
Gainesville, Georgia and Mr. Daniel R. Holder, Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Game and Fish Division, 270 Washington St., S. W., Atlanta, Georgia are acknowledged
for critical review of the manuscript.
l 07
�this is fraught with problems as pointed out by Libby (1974) -- "The mythology of
comprehensive planning can generate the appearance of action without the substance.
The products of planning--maps, charts, projections--can lull plannees into an illusion of improvement.
However, the maps, charts, and projections are a necessary prerequisite to the
planning process, but should not be construed as the end result. The first step involves collection of survey data. The survey data can be gathered and collected in
a format suited to the purpose and desired result. These data can be applied toward
developing various classifications based on legal, ecological, sanitation, or management criteria. Seehorn (1970) devised a survey format for evaluating and classifying
trout waters that is effective and economical. Fish (1968) compiled the survey and
inventory data of North Carolina waters. Information of this type is of direct value
to future planning efforts. The input data collected as a result of the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan in the cooperating southeastern states is definitely
of value. This developed data on existing habitat parameters and on supply, demand,
and need. Other data have evolved from the National Surveys of Fishing and Hunting
(Department of the Interior) made at 5-year intervals beginning 1955. These examples
provide the input--the maps, charts, and projections--which are of little value if
not followed to conclusion, the planning effort.
Comprehensive planning, the popular buzzword and nonentity of Libby (1974), is
the next step in the usual planning process by planners. This is very often the end
step and often only of theoretical value. Attempts at implementation often end in
utter failure. This should be the first step in the planning process for recreational
fisheries management--not the end result--but provide for development of an overall
plan for implementing detailed planning. The detailed plan, or operational plan, is
the end result, and an enormous effort involving managers, not planners, with an
intimate knowledge of the resource for which they are managing and a recognition of
the fundamental significance of fishing in outdoor recreation (Stroud, 1968).
Another problem muddling the planning process is the number of state and federal
agencies involved in planning. The in-thing today is to have a plan. It becomes
quite obvious that several agencies planning for the same parcel of land will develop
inconsistent plans. The only way to resolve this inconsistency is a single coordinated planning effort.
Planners tend to maximize, an inherent falacy in most comprehensive planning.
However, trout managers are at inconsistent odds with themselves. At one end of the
spectrum they maximize to get the highest use of the resource possible, and at the
other end, they tend to manage a resource for their conception of trout fishing,
fishing on an inaccessible stream for native trout with artificial lures.
Boiling this discourse down to basic principles more applicable to the trout
manager, he must make use of the available input data on the resource and anticipated
or generated demand and plan accordingly. It is during this operational planning
phase, or formulation of the implementation program, that the trout manager can
satisfy both ends of the management spectrum. Much emphasis has been placed upon
optimum as opposed to maximum use of a fishery resource. There definitely is valid
reasoning in planning for and obtaining use in excess of optimum on certain waters.
These would be waters located near population centers, on the periphery of the main
trout management area, or streams with well developed access patterns. These waters
would, because of their location, size, or access, be able to absorb a high degree
of fishing pressure, and would be heavily stocked to the anticipated demand. As an
example, annual pressure was estimated at 8100 anglers/km during 1973 on Tallulah
River, Georgia (England and Fatora, 1974). This stream is accessible by a proximate
parallel road with developed campsites.
108
�Waters other than those designated for high use should be classified and managed
based on existing or proposed access patterns and on biological parameters. Of primary
importance here is the access patterns of the area to be managed, especially on small,
easily fished streams. Large rough waters are more buffered against fishing pressure,
but they too are susceptable. Access should be controlled as far as feasible on
streams identified for native fish management. The desirable situation is to prevent
future road access to existing high quality native fish waters. As soon as access
is provided, these streams become degraded in quality, both from the physical impact
of the road itself, and the increased angling pressure.
Another factor of distinct importance beyond the effect of the existing and
planned road net in the trout management area is the pattern of regulations and
stocking applied to the various waters. Regulations are a highly valuable management
tool, disregarding those implemented for traditional or moral reasons.
Creel limits may be of some value on stocked streams to distribute the catch
among more anglers, but are of relatively little value in preventing overexploitation
of a native stream unless unduly restrictive. England (1974) in summarizing data on
stocked Georgia streams reported 24% of the anglers attaining the limit under an
8-trout limit and 15% under a 10-trout limit. Hunt, Brynildson, and McFadden (1962)
found little effect of a liberal 10-trout limit on harvest on a native brook trout
stream.
Minimum size limits are effective in controlling overexploitation. This insures
a population under a selected minimum size depleted only by natural mortality and
hooking loss. Minimum size limits can also be utilized for maintenance of special
management fisheries, such as catch-and-release (Fatora, 1970) and trophy streams
(England and Fatora, 1974).
The main management value of regulations other than utilization to directly
prevent overexploitation is in control of fishing pressure. Restrictive regulations
have a tendency to reduce pressure (Shetter and Alexander, 1962; Fatora, 1970; Ball,
1971; Klein, 1972). These special regulations can range from artificials only and
fly-fishing only waters to catch-and-release and trophy streams. The usual argument
against such practices is discrimination against the majority of anglers by restricting fishing to an elite group. Some trout managers find it hard to justify limiting
pressure and not obtaining heavier use. However, to manage streams as native streams
with optimum use under current pressures exerted upon the resource, some method of
reducing the pressure becomes mandatory. Restrictive regulations can accomplish the
reduction in pressure and provide what is commonly referred to as a quality experience.
The planting of catchable fish in small numbers throughout the season, generally
referred to as supplemental stocking, has long been in common practice. The effect
of stocking on the resident population has been suspected by managers, but recent
data (Vincent, 1972) have revealed the depression of a wild trout population by
catchable plants in a Montana stream. This study has reinforced the gut feeling of
many trout managers. Thus, wild trout populations should be managed as such and ·
not disrupted by planting of hatchery stock.
The reduction in pressure through application of restrictive regulations probably has more impact when anglers have access to a high use stream in the same locality. Georgia's wildlife management areas generally are provided with at least one
high use stream with streams under native management with either state-wide or
special regulations in effect. The high use streams with good access and camping
areas absorb most of the pressure.
109
�In summation, the trout manager must utilize the input data of the planning
process such as resource survey and classification data and on demand data and proceed through the planning process to development of an operational plan. Plans
should consider the trout management area as a unit or logical subunits. Classical
management techniques of habitat modification and population manipulation certainly
should be applied. Trout waters identified during the planPing process as existing
or potential high density use areas or as native fish management waters can then be
managed utilizing appropriate management techniques.
LITERATURE CITED
Ball, K. 1971. Evaluation of catch-and-release regulations on cutthroat trout in
the North Fork of the Clearwater River. Annual Completion Report, Project No.
F-59-R-2, Job No. 1. Id. Fish and Game Dept. 38 p.
England, R. H. 1974. Trout stream creel census, Study XV, Job 2. Statewide fisheries investigations, Project Final Report F-21-5, Ga. Game and Fish Div. In press.
England, R.H., and J. R. Fatora. 1974. Waters Creek--a trophy trout stream.
Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 28. In press.
Proc.
Fatora, J. R. 1970. Noontootla--a sixteen-year creel and use history of a southern
Appalachian trout stream under changing management regulations. Proc. Ann. Conf.
S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 24:622-637.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A catalog of the inland fishing waters in North Carolina. Final
Report Project F-14-R. N. C. Wildl. Res. Comm. Div. Inland Fisheries, Raleigh.
312 p.
Hunt, R. L., 0. M. Brynildson, and J. T. McFadden. 1962. Effects of angling regulations on a wild brook trout fishery. Wis. Consv. Dept. Tech. Bull. No. 26. 58 p.
Klein, W. D. 1972. Influence of special regulations and stocking on fishermen and
the trout population at Parvin Lake, Colorado. Colo. Game, Fish and Parks Div.
Tech. Publ. No. 29. 22 p.
Libby, L. W. 1974. Comprehensive land use planning and other myths.
Water Consv. May-June:l06-108.
J. Soil and
Mullan, J. W. 1960.
and Game. 94 p.
Div. Fisheries
Trout stream management in
Massachusett~.
M~~s.
Seehorn, M. E. 1970. A survey procedure for evaluating stream fisheries.
Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 24:308-315.
Proc.
Shetter, D. S., and G.R. Alexander. 1962. Effects of a flies-only restriction on
angling and on fall trout populations in Hunt Creek, Montmorency County, Michigan.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91(3):295-302.
Stroud, R. H. 1968.
No. 192:1-7.
Fishery management and state recreational planning.
SFI Bull.
Vincent, E. R. 1972. Effect of stocking catchable trout on wild trout populations.
Abstract of paper presented at Western Div., Amer. Fish. Soc. Meeting, Portland,
Ore., July 19, 1972.
110
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�JUST RELEASED- BOOKS WE ALL HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR
Superb books by, for and about
people of Western North Carolina and the Southern Appalachians
founded in Western North Carolina at the
Biltmore Estate. " It will hold your
attention-don't fail to read it. "- Journal of
Forestry
224 pages; illus.
cloth $10.95
001 " ... a right good people"
by HAROLD WARREN
"One of a limited number (of books) that
will win the approval of native mountain
people."-Loyal Jones, Director, Appalachian Center, Berea
paper $2.50
128 pages: 37 ills.
007 The Birth of Forestry in America
0
by CARL ALWIN SCHENCK
paper $4.50
002 Down to Earth-People of Appalachia
by KENNETH MURRAY
"The memory will last forever."- Ambrose
Manning, Professor of English, East Tennessee State University
128 pages; over 200 ills.
paper $2.95
003 Bits of Mountain Speech
by PAUL FINK
008 The Southern Appalachian Heritage
Seventy full four-color illustrations plus a
full color cover; 20 ,000 word text, including
ballads, recipes, folklore, history, etc.; shrink
wrapped. "Without a doubt the most beautiful, delightful. big book about our colorful
region ever produced . . Long overdue."- Borden Mace, Executive Director,
Appalachian Consortium
paper $5 .95
0
A bodacious collection of tidbits of mountain speech. "Excellent .. ."- Rogers Whitener, in Folk Ways and Folk Speech
32 pages
paper $1.25
004 Western North Carolina Since the Civil War
by DRS. INA and jOHN VAN NOPPEN
"A proud, positive history of a proud and
independent people . . . Superb ... Should
be in every home."- Dr. W. H. Plemmons,
President Emeritus, Appalachian State University
436 pages; 132 ills.; indexed
cloth $12.95
005 Western North Carolina Since the Civil War
by DRS. INA and JOHN VAN NOPPEN
paper $4.95
006 The Birth of Forestry in America
by CARL ALWIN SCHENCK
A reprint of the illustrated history of the first
school of forestry in America, which was
009 Toward 1984: The Future of Appalachia
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGIONAL CON·
FERENCE
144 pages
paper $2.95
Ordering Information:
We offer 10% discounts when three (3) or more
books are ordered
Add 3% N. C. sales tax where applicable
We pay postage and handling charges on all
prepaid orders
Order from:
The Appalachian Consortium Press
407 East Howard Street
Boone, North Carolina 28607
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Appalachian Consortium Press Publications
Description
An account of the resource
This collection contains digitized monographs and collections from the Appalachian Consortium Press.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Appalachian Consortium Press
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Appalachian Consortium Press
Date Issued
Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource.
June 1, 2017
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
<a title="Digital Scholarship and Initiatives" href="http://library.appstate.edu/services/digital-scholarship-and-initiatives" target="_blank">Digital Scholarship and Initiatives</a>
Publication
Digital Publisher
Digital Republication
Appalachian State University
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Symposium on Trout Habitat: Research and Management
Description
An account of the resource
This publication is the proceedings from a symposium on trout habitat held in 1974 at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina on trout habitat in the Southern Appalachians. Research and management issues were addressed, including challenges to trout habitats such as deforestation, fire, overgrazing, dams, mining, urban and industrial waste, road construction, and poor agricultural practices. <br /><br /><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iqlZ9vCleN_sdMKANGA-GKirYAFWr_yL" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download EPub<br /><br /></a><a title="UNC Press Link" href="https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469636498/symposium-on-trout-habitat-research-and-management" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNC Press Print on Demand</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Trout--Congresses
Trout--Appalachian Region, Southern
Fishery management--Appalachian Region, Southern
Alternative Title
An alternative name for the resource. The distinction between titles and alternative titles is application-specific.
Proceedings: September 5-6, 1974, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
USDA Forest Service
Western Carolina University
Appalachian Consortium
Tennessee Valley Authority
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1975
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Appalachian Consortium Press
Language
A language of the resource
English
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
PDF
Conference proceedings
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed</a>
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
https://www.geonames.org/4462701/cullowhee.html
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a title="UA 76 Appalachian Consortium records" href="https://appstate-speccoll.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/9" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> UA 76 Appalachian Consortium records </a>
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a title="Appalachian Consortium Press Publications" href="https://omeka.library.appstate.edu/collections/show/82" target="_blank"> Appalachian Consortium Press Publications</a>
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
||||osm
Cullowhee (N.C.)
Biology
ecosystems
fishery management
mining
Trout