Oun-25-36 O7:44A TTSD - li . S . EPA
' 111 IV. ft • • r.rn-t\.-\r
513 569 7566
P. 03
CLINCH YALLEY
Ecological Risk Assessment
Planning and Problem
Formulation
^ ^ * ^ .>•> ^
RISK ASSESSMENT FORUM
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DRAFT, June 13, 1996
RftF 022
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This risk assessment was prepared by a diverse team representing organizations and agencies
interested in management and protection of the biota of the Clinch and Powell River watersheds.
The risk assessment was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Water and Office of Research and Development under a Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel.
Dr. Jeroen Gerritsen of Tetra Tech, Inc. provided technical assistance to the team. The •
conclusions and recommendations presented herein are those of the Clinch Valley Watershed
Ecological Risk Assessment Team. .
TECHNICAL PANEL CHAIR:
Suzanne Marcy, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development -
TEAM CO-CHAIRS:
Roberta Hyltpn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SW Virginia Field Office, Abington,
Virginia ~ •'. . . •; , '•-'.• ,
Molly Whitworth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Washington, D.C. • •
'TEAMMEMBERS: - ." ,. -f :,. , . -.- •...•,:•'•'•
' . • i ' ••'' ' , ' • • •'• .••''-••...
; Steven Ahlstedt, U.S. Geological Survey, NorriSy Tennessee
Richard Carpenter, consultant, Chairlottesville, Virginia . .
Jerry Diamond, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Raymond Fernald, Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia
Don Gowan, Clinch Valley Bioreserve, The Nature Conservancy, Abington, Virginia
David Hubbard, Virginia Cave Board, Charlottesville, Virginia ' , .
Anne Keller, U.S..National Biological Service, Gainesville, Florida
- • / •*•* " • " - - -.''--.*'
William Kiftrell, Clinch Valley Bioreserve, The Nature Conservancy, Abington, Virginia
John MiUer, Office of Water, U1S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C-
Deborah Mills,; Virginia Department of Conservation arid Recreation, Richmond, Virginia
Ron Preston, Region 3 Environmental Protection Agency, Wheeling W. Virginia
Peggy Schute, Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee
• Dennis Yankee, Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee ; •
DRAFT—June-13, 1996
-------
11-
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ..I............. . ...... . . , . ' . i
Table of Contents . .... ..... '. . . . . .... . . . . . . ... . . . . . ; _ ; / V ^
List of Figures . . : 1 ....:.....:..:. . . . . . ... . ... ............. . . ....'.... iv
lExecutive Summary ..'.':'..'.•. . . . . . .'.. ...... . . ... .... . . ... . . .... ........ v
• Introduction
1
1.. Planning the Risk Assessment. . .,. ,. . . ,;. ...... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
,1.1 Establishing Management Goals . . . .". ... .......... .... . . ... . . . .... 3
1.1.1 Public; Private, and Governmental Groups Active in Watershed ....,:. 3
1.1.2 Process for Selecting the Management Goals ... . . ............. 3
1.1.3. Management Goals .................... ;.',, ......... . . . 4
1.2 Management Decisions , . .................................... 4
' 1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Complexity of the Risk Assessment . ....... ... .,•;•:"... 5
2, Clinch River Basin Problem Formulation . . . . ....... . . . ... ..... . 7
• 2.1 Assessment of Available Information ,.'.'.... ../... i. ^......... 7
2.1.1 Hydrology and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 Socio-economic Status of the Watershed ..''... ..,..../. 8
2.1.3 Water Quality Effects . . . . . . . ...... . ..•..;. . . . . 9
2.1.4 Sources and Stressors .................... . . ... . . . ..... 10
2.2 AssessmentEndpoints . . .... . . ... . . . . . . . . ..... . .-.. . . . . n
~ 2.2.1 Endpoint Description and Rationale >. . :'. ....... . . ....... . \ 12
2.3 Conceptual Model Development ......... ~" . . ... 15
2,3.1 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare
Mussels Species ... v. ........ ; . . . . . ...... . . ... ...';'. . ... 15
2.3.2 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare :
FishSpecies . '. 17
2.3.3 Abundance, Diversity, and Fecundity of Cave Fauna 17
2.3.4 Riparian Corridor Integrity . . . . : '. . . .... ... . . jg
2.4 AnalysisPlan .................... '... .. '. .. ..\ ........... 19
2.4.1 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare
Mussel Species . . ........ . .... -.•... . . . . ; . . . . ............ 20
2.4.2 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare
•-•'• F^ Species . . . . ............;....;.'........... : .... 23
2.4.3 Abundance, Diversity, and Fecundity of Cave Fauna . ..... ... . .^'. 24
2.4.4 Riparian Corridor Integrity .. ... . . ."-.' ... . .\. . . . . .... . . . . . . . 25
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
m
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
.3. . Literature Cited .. - '. - . ... .'. . . 29 ,
4. Tables .-.'.:..'.'.: - ,.,.39
Table 1. Public, Private, and Governmental Groups Active in the Clinch River
.Watershed ., .....;.'...: .....'.'.... 39
Table 2. Datasets,Collected for the Clinch-Powell Watershed 40
' 'Table 3. Land Uses within Clinch Valley Pilot Subwatersheds 41
Table 4. Categories of Data Available for Clinch River Subwatersheds 42
Table 5. Measurement Endpoints and Associated Measures for Assessment
Endpoints - • • • • . 43
Appendix A Population Census Information . ............,;.. 44
Table A-l. Census Population and Projections for Clinch-Powell Watershed
Localities, 1980-2000 . . .... ... . - 44
. • * ' - i •'•'.' ' 'i . •
Appendix B Aquatic and Cave Fauna Recorded in The Clinch River Basin , 45
Table B-l. Mussel Species of the Upper Clinch River Drainage .45
Table B-2. Fish Species of the Upper Clinch River Drainage ... ...,.: ..', 49
Table B-3. Cave Limited Invertebrates in the Clinch/Powell Basin 55
Appendix C Sources and Stressors in the Clinch River Basin ,......:... 56
Appendix D Pilot Study Subwatersheds ..:. - 63
AppendixE List ofFigures ...-..,.'..:.....'..'.....,;.- '. ............ : 69
i ' • . , • ' ', ' .
Figure 1 Clinch Valley Watershed Boundaries and Drainages
Figure 2 Land Uses in the Watershed (unavailable)
Figures Clinch Valley Watershed Conceptual Model
Figure 4 Conceptual Model of Risks to Mussels -
Figures . Conceptual Model of Risks to Native Fish Communities
Figure 6 • Conceptual Model of Risks to Cave Fauna ,
Figure? Conceptual Model of Risks to Riparian Corridor Integrity
IV
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Clinch Valley Watershed
The Clinch and Powell Rivers, which originate in mountainous terrain of southwestern Virginia and
extend into Tennessee, represent some of the-last free-flowing sections of the expansive Tennessee
River system (Figure 1). Untouched by either glaciation or rising seas in recent geologic time, and
isolated from other nearby river systems, the assemblage of fish and freshwater mussel species'in
these rivers is among the most diverse in North America. The Clinch River Basin supports more -
imperiled mussel and fish species than any other basin hi Virginia and most streams in North
America. The Clinch basin includes .Karst (limestone cave) formations that are extensive and
intimately connected with the surface water system. As with the surface water fauna, the
.invertebrate cave biota in the upper Tennessee River Basin are among the most biologically diverse
in North America: The unique cave assemblage is highly susceptible to water quality degradation.
Although recovery plans have been developed for most federally protected species in the Clinch
River Basin, evidence of recovery is lacking and recent fish and mussel surveys by biologists in
Virginia and Tennessee indicate that most rare species in this region continue to decline. Thus, the
Clinch and Powell Rivers, two of the few remaining refugia for these fauna, have national
significance. Reversing the decline or loss of these rich fauna! groups is a test of the commitment
to preserve biodiversity on a national scale.
The significance of this watershed has been recognized by many local, state, regional, and federal
organizations and agencies. Both the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), have taken the lead in developing' a broad-based constituency for protection and
restoration of the watershed's aquatic resources. Due to its national importance as a center of
aquatic biodiversity, the profound effects of human activities in the watershed, and the generous ,
amount of existing data, the Clinch River Valley was selected by the USEPA as one of five
Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Case Study areas.'
Management Goals
The Clinch Valley workgroup convened in 1993 in Dungannon, Virginia to receive information
from the local scientific community. Subsequently, a 1994 survey of watershed residents helped
define the ecological and socioeconomic values of this region. The survey's results indicated that
the principal environmental value was water quality. Given the large size of the watershed and the
diverse interests of the represented in of the area, the team decided to limit the assessment to the
aquatic resources resident in the Clinch and Powell Rivers drainage and the important karst
environment. The boundary for this risk assessment follows the hydrologic drainage of the Upper
Tennessee River Basin watershed boundary for the Upper Clinch and Powell Rivers, .as shown in
Figure 1. • -
The management goals were developed to guide the risk assessment toward generating answers that
could help protect the unique biological resources in the Clinch Valley and to assist all interested
parties in considering the impacts of past and future management actions on the biota of the upper
Clinch and Poweli Rivers. The over-arching goal for this watershed is:
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
-------
Establish and maintain the unique native biological qualities of the Clinch/Powell watershed
surface and subsurface aquatic ecosystem.
This goal includes the riverine, riparian, and karst ecological communities and encompasses 4
component management subgoals: .
>• Establish self-sustaining native populations of macroinvertebrates and fish
>• Improve water quality in the rivers
»• Establish and maintain functional riparian corridors of native vegetation ,
»• Safeguard water quality in a sustainable subsurface ecosystem.
' ' ,!' •
The ecological resources of the Clinch/Powell basin are. subjected to many stressors, none of which
can be considered the major source of risk for the entire watershed. Only sources and stressors
that originate within the watershed, at the present time, .were considered in this initial risk
assessment. To achieve the management goal, several management objectives were identified for
the Clinch River Basin:
»• Creating and maintaining vegetated riparian zones in'urban, agricultural, industrial, and
other developed areas to reduce non-point source pollution and enhance habitat.
»• Implementing agricultural best management practices (BMP's) to reduce non-point source
pollutants. , (•''..
>• Containing and treating runoff from mining activities to reduce pollutant load and
sedimentation.
*• Installing or improving sewage treatment faculties to reduce inputs of pollutants and
nutrients.' • • .
i . • ' ' '
. '. • •
> Adequately treating industrial discharges to reduce input of toxic pollutants.
,.'.-• ' " ' - '
»• Creating and maintaining storm water retardation and holding facilities for highways and
developed areas to reduce sedimentation and runoff.
Assessment Endpoints
Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be
protected and provide the direction of the assessment to assure that the needs of risk managers are
met. Four assessment endpoints were selected for this risk assessment:
vi • Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered, and rare mussel species
Reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered, and rare fish species
Abundance, diversity and fecundity of cave faunal assemblages
..--:.'!-:'.:" '•.•'" ' " •"•-• •'.'•; -' .-;•; i, •; - . -'• ,,. V.
Riparian corridor integrity
fe
--Jr
Protection of threatened and endangered mussel and fish speciesiiave high ecological and societal
value. These assessment endpoints have high ecological and societal value, and follow directly . .
from.the first and third comppnent management goals. '
Conceptual Model " . , .
. A conceptual nibdel was developed that attempts to relate sources of stress, specific stressprs, and
ecological effects as they relate to the four assessment endpoints chosen (Figures 3-6). This model
is not all-inclusive hi its consideration of possible sources and stressors nor does it consider all
possible relationships betweensources and stressors or betweeq stressprs and effectsin this ,
watershed. The modelprovides working hypotheses concerning what are perceived to be the
salient relationships identified by the workgroup and those actively doing research hi the Clinch and
Powell watershed.
Reproduction and recruitment of threatened and endangered mussels: Mussels are susceptible to
any land use or natural phenomenon that either: (1) ultimately reduces host fish survival and
reproduction, '(2) degrades surface water quality, (3) reduces or eliminates usable'benthic habitat,
or (4) interferes with or undermines the normal filter-feeding process. Thus, mussels are at risk
from a variety of human activities in the watershed including poor agricultural practices, urban
runoff, wastewater discharges, runoff from mining, poor forestry practices, roads and other
transportation corridors; and possibly competition from exotic species such as zebra mussels
(Dreissena polymorpha) and Asiatic Clam (Corbiculaflumined).
Reproduction arid recruitment of threatened and endangered fish species: Fish reproduction and
recruitment is especially susceptible, to sedimentation, turbidity, and exposure to toxics, each of
which can result in local extirpations, leaving disjunct populations that are even further susceptible
to extinction. Habitat alteration, either through riparian corridor destruction, hydrologic
modification, or through livestock watering, is also an important stressor for fish recruitment.
Furthermore, specific fish species serve as hosts for the obligate parasitic glochidia stage of the '
native mussel species. Thus, recruitment of nativefishspecies is an important factor hi. the
recruitment of mussel species. . ,
Abundance, diversity, and fecundity of cave faunal assemblages: Aquatic cave organisms
generally' do not migrate long distances, resulting in a high degree of eridemism. Combined with '
the fact that these species typically exhibit low reproductive rates, long life spans, delayed maturity,
and low metabolic rates, cave fauna populations, are susceptible to water quality perturbations.
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 ' : vu
-------
They are further susceptible to surface water quality conditions because aquatic cave communities
rely on nutrient input from waters that move vertically from the surface to the subterranean
environment. Toxics originating from agricultural runoff, mining activities, or trash disposal can
enter sinkholes or caves where they can. then be potentially transported over a broad subsurface
area and affect many different caves. Excess nutrients and organic matter from livestock or from
row crops could also reach the subsurface system resulting hi excessive bacterial growth and
hypoxia. .
Riparian Corridor Integrity: The composition and connectivity of riparian vegetation is potentially
affected by several different human activities in the watershed including livestock grazing,
agricultural row crops, forestry, mining, silviculture practices, urban development, wastewater
discharges, transportation corridors and hydrolqgic modification. Most of these activities result in
thinning or removal of the natural riparian vegetation (particularly the canopy) thereby altering the
species composition and connectivity of the riparian corridor as a whole. This stressor has several
potential effects including loss of soft and nutrients, soft instability, and bank erosion or failure.
Each of these stressors directly affects the abundance and composition of plant species capable of
inhabiting the riparian zone and ultimately channel stability. Loss of soil and bank failure affect
sedimentation instream which is a major stressor for the other assessment endpoints examined in
this risk assessment. „' -
Analysis Plan
! ' , '
The conceptual models described for the four assessment endpoints require a series of measures or
metrics to analyze -relationships with stressors and sources and test hypotheses. The first phase of
the risk assessment will concentrate on the Clinch River drainage itself and not the Powell drainage
for two reasons: (1) given limited current resources, it was decided that the initial risk analysis
would focus on a subset of the entire watershed for which sufficient data are readily available; and
(2) excellent data sources exist for several subwatersheds within the Clinch basin while fewer data.
are easily accessible for the Powell basin. Four subwatersheds were selected for initial analysis by
the Workgroup (Big Cedar Creek, Copper Creek, Guest River, and Stock Creek) because they
represent the range of key watershed attributes including geology, location or elevation in
watershed, and land useS. ;
GIS-based data supplemented by muMvariate statistical analyses of source and stressor effects on
measurement endpoints will be used to assess risk to the assessment endpoints identified. Results of
analyses from each of the subwatersheds, once compiled and statistically compared, will address
many of the hypotheses identified, because each subwatershed exhibits different levels of sources
and stressors identified in the conceptual models. ,
4 ' . . . • •.
The general analysis scheme will entail identifying potential patterns or relationships between
different land uses or combinations of land uses and stressor measures. Then, relationships
between land use activities and measurement endpoints representing the assessment endpoints will
be identified. Interpretation of the results from these two sets of analyses will enable inferences to
be made about the potential relationships between specific stressors, or combinations of stressors,
and assessment endpoints that can be further examined in subsequent phases of this risk assessment.
viu
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
INTRODUCTION
Originating in mountainous terrain of southwestern Virginia, and extending into Tennessee, the
Clinch and Powell Rivers are the upper reaches of the Tennessee River. While the mainstem
Tennessee River and many of its tributaries have been dammed, resulting in the loss Of habitat for
many fish and mussel species (Ahlstedt 1984; Yeager 1994), the upper Clinch and Powell Rivers
represent some of the last free-flowing sections of the expansive Tennessee River system. The
, geographic area,delineated by the watershed boundary of the Clinch/Powell Basin covers
approximately 3800 mi2. , ;
Untouched by either glaciation or rising seas in recent geologic time,, and isolated from other
nearby river systems, the assemblage of fish and freshwater mussel species in these rivers and in
the surrounding basin of the southern Appalachian are the most diverse in North America (Ortmanri
1918; Ahlstedt 1991). Recent status assessments of Virginia's.aquatic biota indicate that the
Clinch River Basin supports more imperiled mussel and fish species than any other basin in
Virginia and most streams in North America (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Neves 1991). Although
. recovery plans have been developed for most federally protected species in the Clinch River Basin,
evidence of recovery is lacking. Recent fish and mussel surveys by biologists in Virginia and
Tennessee indicate that most rare species in this region continue to decline (Angermeier and
Smogor 1993). The loss of native mussel and fish species in North America is unprecedented
amongst other wide-ranging faunal groups. Thus, the Clinch and Powell Rivers, two of the few
remaining refugia for these fauna, has national significance. Reversing the decline or loss of these
rich faunal groups is a test of the commitment to preserve biodiversity on a national scale.
Due to its importance as a., center of aquatic biodiversity, the profound effects of human activities in
the watershed, and the generous amount of existing data, the Clinch River Valley, was selected by
the USEPA as one of five Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Case Study areas.
DRAFT-June13, 1996
-------
Clinch Valfey Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
1.0 PLANNING THE RISK ASSESSMENT
Specific objectives and long-term goals were identified for the purpose of designing the watershed
ecological risk assessment so that the results will be relevant to state and federal resource agencies
and public concerns. The assessment also was designed to ensure that assumptions, rnethodologies
and conclusions resulting from this risk assessment process are scientifically, valid, and are
documented. The watersheds of concern in this risk assessment are typical of most watersheds of
the eastern United States in that they are impacted by a myriad of siressors, none of which can be
considered the major source of risk for the entire watershed. The diversity of urban, rural and
industrial land uses within the watershed necessitate a broad approach to risk assessment. 'It is'
hoped that more refined assessments can be targeted and completed on those high priority risks
identified by this initial assessment. " ' ,
, - ' • 1 /. • < ,
The present Problem Formulation and the philosophical framework behind the risk analyses
proposed were developed with the intent of providing meaningful direction to resource managers ,
and the public involved in this watershed. Therefore, only sources and stressbrs that originate
within the watershed at the present time were considered in this initial risk assessment. It is
recognized that certain sources of stress originating outside the watershed might play an important
role in influencingpresent patterns and processes in the Clinch River Basin, but thesearebf
primarily academic, interest and largely beyond the present control of resource managers and the
public within the watershed. . ,,
1.1 Establishing Management Goals
1.1.1 Public, Private and Governmental Groups Active in the Watershed
Several interested parties cooperate jointly inDeveloping various watershed management plans
within.the Clinch Valley 1 Federal, state and local managers have been working with scientists from
both Virginia and Tennessee to study the distribution of endemic aquatic resources in the
watershed. The global significance of the Clinch and Powell Rivers has drawn a great number of
scientists to-the area. A list of interested parties is presented in Table 1.
1.1.2 Process for Selecting the Management Goals
^ ~~ ' • - • • • ' ' '' ^
The team pharged with designing a risk assessment in the Clinch Valley was convened in 1993 after
receiving input from the scientific community at a meeting in Dungannon, Virginia. '
Members of the team met in Charlottesville, Virginia on February 15 and 16 1995, in part, to
formulate a set of management goals for the risk assessment. In addition.to the input received in
Dungannon in 1993, a 1994 survey of representatives from communities in the watershed helped
define the ecological and socioeconomic values of this region. The survey's results indicated that
the principal environmental value waswater quality. .
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 , , 3
-------
1.1.3 Management Goals j
The management goals for this risk assessment were developed to guide the assessment toward
generating answers that could help protect the unique biological resources in the Clinch Valley. In
doing so, this risk assessment can assist all interested parties in considering the impacts of past and
future management actions on the biota of the upper Clinch and Powell Rivers. The over-arching
goal of this risk assessment is: '•'..••'
Establish and maintain the unique native biological qualities of the Clinch/Powell
watershed surface and subsurface aquatic ecosystem.
This goal incorporates the following subgoals for the riverine, riparian, and karst ecological ,
communities: . ' ; ,
1. Establish self-sustaining native populations of macroinvertebrates and fish.
2. Improve-water quality in the rivers. .
5. Establish and maintain functional riparian corridors of native vegetation.
4. Safeguard water quality in a sustainable subsurface ecosystem.
1.2 Management Decisions
' "\ *.''"• • ' - '••" - ', . •••• .. . •
To achieve the management goals, several management objectives or needs were identified for the
Clinch River Basin: .
>- Create and maintain vegetated riparian zones in agricultural areas to intercept sediment,
nutrient, and pesticide runoff; enhance fish habitat; reduce thermal stress in smaller
headwater streams; and exclude cattle from stream beds.
>• Create and maintain vegetated riparian zones in urban, industrial, and developed areas to
dimmish sedimentation from storm water runoff and reduce instream habitat alteration.
' I • ',
*• Implement agricultural best management practices (BMP's) such as rotational grazing to
reduce sedimentation, pathogens, and nutrient enrichment instream.
• "
> Contain and treat of runoff from mining activities to reduce pollutant load and sedimentation
instream. • > •
*• Install or improve of sewage treatment facilities hi streamside rural and urban communities to
reduce inputs of toxic pollutants, pathogens, and nutriente instream.
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
> Adequately treat of industrial discharges to reduce input of toxic pollutants instream.
f Create and maintain storm water retardation and holding facilities for, highways and
developed areas to reduce sedimentation runoff instream. . }
1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Complexity of the Risk Assessment
An initial description of the risks to the area were described in an earlier draft document during that
first year and decisions regarding, the scope of the assessment were made. Due to the significant
reduction in fish and mussel diversity caused by impoundment of the Clinch and Powell Rivers
behind Norris Dam (Masnik 1974; Ahlstedt 1991), the assessment does not include waters within or
downstream of Norris Lake that impounds the two rivers in northeastern Tennessee. Given the
.. large size of the watershed and the interests represented in the area, members decided to limit the
assessment to the aquatic resources resident in the Clinch and Powell Rivers drainage, but including
the important karst environment. The boundary for this risk assessment follows the hydrologic
drainage of the Upper Tennessee River Basin watershed boundary for the Upper Clinch and Powell
Rivers as shown in Figure 1.
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
-------
Clinch Valley Watershed,Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
2. CLINCH RIVER BASIN PROBLEM FORMULATION
2.1 Assessment of Available Information
2.1.1 Hydrology and Climate
The- Clinch River Basin encompasses nearly' all of the western portions of southwestern Virginia
and northeastern Tennessee (Figure 1). Above Norris Dam, the Clinch and Powell.Rivers drain
areas of approximately 2912 square miles and 938 square miles, respectively. Both rivers flow in a
southwesterly direction through parallel valleys. Both are contained within the Appalachian
Plateaus and "the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces, with only small portions of the Clinch
River (mainly tributaries) residing within the Appalachian Plateaus, (USCS 1992); , ,
Historically, the Powell River was a tributary to the Clinch River. Today, the Tennessee Valley
Authority impoundment, Norris Lake, on the upper Tennessee River, receives the-flow from both
the Clinch and the Powell Rivers. Resource managers hi the; area continue to manage both rivers
together as one basin or watershed because they share many features in common (including many
endemic aquatic species) and because there are certain land use activities that affect both drainage
simultaneously. There is also the possibility that fish and perhaps other fauna travel between the
two rivers through Norris Lake. \ . ; '
The Powell River begins in Wise County, Virginia, and flows approximately 120 miles, where it
enters the Clinch River as an impounded arm of Norris Lake. The headwaters of the Powell,
including the mainstem and tributaries, primarily drain the Appalachian Plateaus, while,the
majority of the river is contained within the Valley and Ridge province. The Appalachian Plateaus
are chiefly comprised of Pennsylvanian sandstone and shale and is. a coal bearing region.
' .* ' '.-••* '••'..
The Appalachian Plateaus, in general, are composed of mostly horizontally bedded strata deposited
during the carboniferous period. Topographically, this region includes "dramatic relief, wiui highly .
irregular mountains and valleys. Steeper slopes and deeper stream channels lead to higher storm
runoff in the Powell than the Clinch. In addition, the tipper Powell River watershed is generally
characterized by Dekalb-Berks-Weikeri soils and calcium magnesium sulfate type water: Acidity
problems are found locally hi small tributaries.
As the Powell leaves the Appalachian Plateaus, it enters the Valley and Ridge province, which is
underlain by folded rocks forming extensive parallel ridges with varying sized valleys. Extensive
subsurface drainage is common, wiui broad areas of karst dotted with sinkholes, caves, and sinking
streams. Waters found within the Valley and Ridge province also are generally calcium magnesium
sulfate type, with soils of generally Calvin-Berks and Dekalb-Berks-Weikert types derived from '
Cambrian and Ordovjcian limestone, dolostone, and shale. Localized areas of low pH resulting
from drainage from the Appalachian Plateaus are buffered by these carbonate rocks.
Major tributaries to the Powell include the South and North Fork Powell Rivers. Daily average
flow data indicate that the Powell River hi Virginia ranges from 130 ft Vsec on the North Fork
Powell near Pennington Gap, to 537 ftVsec at Jonesville with 7Q1.0 values of 1.0 ft 3/sec and 24.5
fWsec respectively. ....
DRAFT-June13, 1996 . -.1
-------
The Clinch River begins in Tazewell County, Virginia, and flows for approximately 200 miles
before reaching Norris Lake. The majority of the Clinch drains the Valley and Ridge :
physiographic province; though, several tributaries on the western side of the Clinch, notably the
Guest River, Stock Creek, Swords Creek, Dumps Creek, and Lewis Creek flow from the
Appalachian Plateaus. Major tributaries to the Clinch include me Little River, Big Cedar Creek, ,
Guest River) Copper Creek, and the North Fork Clinch River. Both provinces are \mderlain by
sedimentary rocks of Cambrian through Pennsylvanian age with mostly sandstone, shale, limestone,
and dolostone. The geology of the Clinch River basin is characterized by large expanses of
limestone and dolostone, resulting in broad regions of karst. Sinkholes; caves, springs and sinking
streams are common throughout the area. Soil types are generally Dekalb-Berks-Weikert,
Calvin-Berks, and Frederick-Elliber formed from limestone, shale, and sandstone. Daily average
flow data indicate that the Clinch River in Virginia ranges from 190 ft3/sec at Richlands near the
headwaters, to 1593 ftVsec at'Clinchport, with 7Q10 values of 15.7 ft3/sec and 99.7 ft 3/sec
respectively. Low flows near Tazewell, Tennessee, average 105.9 ft 3/sec during late summer ,
months. • -•-;
The semi-flat to rolling topography and valley floors of the watershed are part of a large karst
landscape developed in milestone and dolostone rocks. The karst surface is characterized by
sinkholes, cave entrances, exposed bedrock, natural bridges, sinking streams, and springs. Surface
runoff is drained to sinkholes which are underdrained by cave systems. Sinkholes are important
groundwater recharge features in karst. Groundwater in karst occurs as streams in shallow caves
or completely occupies the passages of deeper caves. This groundwater is the major source of
potable water for the karst regions of the Tennessee River Basin.
The climate of the Clinch and Powell River basin is moderate with an average temperature of 12° C
(53° F). Thus, this watershed is comprised of warm water streams. Precipitation varies across the
region from 50 inches to 38 inches annually. The highest levels are found near the western edge of
the Powell River basin and the lowest amounts in the east section of the Clinch drainage in
Tazewell County, Virginia. Wide variability of both precipitation and soil types at the local level is
common throughout the region and leads to a high degree of plant diversity.
2.1.2 Socio-economic Status, of the Watershed I " : ,
Due to its rugged terrain, the region has traditionally been somewhat isolated since European-
settlement. Thus, it has faced a unique and complex set of economic, social and geographic
challenges, For example, population within the state of Virginia grew nearly 16% in the decade .
between 1980 and 1990, butpopulation within the Clinch and Powell watersheds declined 10%
during the same period (see Table A-l, Appendix A). Virginia's population growth is projected to
slow between 1990 and 2000, and the rate of population decline in the Clinch and Powell region is
anticipated to slow as well. Over the next twenty year period,, the state's population is predicted to
increase by 28 % while the population hi the targeted watershed is' predicted to decline by 20 %. ,
Such a decline in population also means a decline in the workforce and regional income—grim
news to an area where per capita income is already 30% less than the national average.
The economy of the region is driven by coal, agriculture and logging. With more than 40% of
Virginia's coal production in the five counties of the watershed and.the remaining 60% in adjoining
Buchanan and Dickenson counties (Figure 2), the region has relied on this industry for the past 100
years. While production increased during the early to mid-1980's, it is declining primarily due to
-. ._ ' •__ ' - • ' '— ^—— •
8 ' Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment.
-------
depletion of coal resources. The decline of the coal industry, which is not anticipated to reverse,, is
prompting fundamental economic changes in the region. -
Economic development is aggressively sought for the region. Proposed expansion and
improvement of U.S. Hwy.58, alternate U.S. Hwy. 58 and U.S. 23 highway corridors (Figure 2)
aim to spur economic growth. A federal prison facility has been proposed in Lee County, a
County Airport is proposed in the environmentally sensitive Cedars area, and,a state prison
complex is under construction in Wise Countyl Growth and development, while potentially
providing some economic stability to a region already economically challenged, may also provide
land use, site planning, and environmental protection challenges to those concerned with managing
biological resources in the region.
Agriculture is a critical component of the social and economic fiber of the region. With nearly
35 % of the watershed devoted to agricultural production in an area constrained by topography,
agricultural land uses dominate'the floodplain and lowland areas of the watershed (Figure 2).
Primary income-generating commodities are beef and Burley tobacco (USCS 1992). Pasture and
intense row crop and tobacco production witiiin floodplain, karst, and lowland areas pose serious ,
risks to sensitive aquatic and subterranean resources. ' • '
The watershed was intensively logged for agricultural production in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. Another logging boom, spurred by tremendous national industrial growth as
well as salvage harvest of the American chestnut* flourished in the late nineteenth .and early
twentieth century. Logging and forest industry in general declined though hardwoods, saw timber,
and pulp were continually exported from the region. The 1980's and 1990's have seen a resurgence
of the forest industry due to several factors. In the mid 1980's, an oriented strand board plant was
- opened in Dungannon and several large timber-related industries have recently been established in
nearby West Virginia and Tennessee. Many former miners or support workers to the mining
industry have entered the forests of southwest Virginia to provide logs to these new timber
industries. While growth of the timber industry is helping to offset the loss of mining jobs, logging
can, without proper use of Best Management Practices, impair sensitive karst and aquatic
resources, degrade water quality, and potentially pose other environmental threats.
2.1.3 Water Quality Effects
Improving water quality is important to all the residents of southwest Virginia. Not only do the
rivers and springs provide drinking water for many households and municipalities in the region,
they also provide water for livestock and wildlife and are occasionally used to irrigate croplands.
Additionally, the rivers are important for providing recreational opportunities for residents and
tourists. Several water quality problems have been identified m the watershed.
The 1991 report Understanding surface water quality trends in southwestern Virginia reviewed
much of the current and historic water quality data for the Clinch and Powell watersheds (Zipper
et.al. 1991). While this report indicated improvements in water quality trends in the Clinch and
Powell Rivers, the report also demonstrated high median fecal coliform concentrations at three of
the four monitoring stations on the Powell River and increasing filterable residue values over time
(a measure of total dissolved solids) in some regions of the Powell River and the Guest River:
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 , 9
-------
The 1994 Virginia Water Quality 305(b) Assessment Report identified violations of the fecal
colifqrm standards at various sites in the Guest River and Stock Creek, tributaries to the Clinch
River. These problems were attributed to poorly treated or untreated sewage. Recent fish and
benthos surveys by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA 1989-1993) have also demonstrated
potential water quality problems in several areas of the Clinch, and Powell watersheds, especially in
the headwater areas of the Powell River and the Guest River where abandoned mine acid drainage
may be contributing to poor water quality. :
i • • •
2.1.4 Sources and Stressors \ •
Stressors are any physical, chemical, or biological entity that induces an adverse response to valued
ecological characteristics of this watershed. Initially, the team characterized sources of stress,
•specific Stressors, and their presumed ecological effects.. The perceived/expected impact of each
stressor was then ranked by the team. The identification and ranking was done qualitatively based
on prior knowledge of the watershed and the professional judgement of researchers and regulators
in the watershed. Several land use activities were identified as the major sources of stress on the
chosen assessment endpoints because of their prominence in vajtious parts of the watershed and ,
because there is ample evidence that each of these activities has caused pronounced, effects on
aquatic life at some point in the recent past. The sources initially considered in this risk assessment
included:
Transportation Corridors
»• Industrial Discharges
Recreation
illegal harvesting of aquatic species
> Municipal Discharges
»• Livestock and Pastureland
Row Crop Agriculture
»• Urbanization
>• Abandoned Minelands
Active Coal Mining and Processing
Silviculture
> Migration and competition of exotic
species
*• Future hydrologic changes
> Acid rain and atmospheric deposition of
toxics
>• Prediction from muskrats
i
> Leaking underground storage tanks and
sewer lines '
> Failed septic systems
10
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Major stressors that were identified from the above listed land use activities and other sources
include: , , .',''•'
v .»• Toxics '> Riparian zone modification ;
> Nutrient Enrichment - Eutrophication »• Overexploitation-Harvesting "- Predation
*. Instream habitat destruction . . V Competitive exclusion
'*• Sedimentation ' - * Pathogens - Disease ,
• The team conducted a riverine stressor ranking exercise, on October 7 1993. Each member of the
work group ranked the perceived severity of each identified stressor. Severity of each stresspr
impact was qualitatively defined by frequency, duration,- magnitude, potential to exacerbate other
: stressors, and spatial extent. A scale from 0 to 3 was used to rank each effect, with 0 defined as
"no impact" and 3 defined as "major impact". The team identified exotic species and-riparian zone
modification as having the highest potential for introducing stress to the riverine system. However;
..some stressors thought to be significant (e.g. competition from exotic species), were not pursued in
this initial risk assessment because either (1) information was lacking on the magnitude, duration,
and frequency of the stresspr in the watershed; (2) locations or sources of the stressors were poorly
identified or outside the boundaries and control of watershed resource agencies; or (3) resource
managers felt that they would have few managerial options for controlling the source or its
stressors. A discussion of each source and its stressors in the Clinch / Powell watershed is
presented in Appendix C. Based on the source and stressor ranking exercise performed,by the
team, four conceptual models were, developed, one for each assessment endpoint, which capture
the primary relationships to be evaluated in this initial risk assessment.
2.2 Assessment Endpoints ,
' • - / * : ' , V ' ' _ • " ' '',-"' f ' ' •
Assessment endpoints are those measurable valued elements of the ecosystem being assessed (Suter
1993); measurement of risks to these endpoints should help identify what must be done to reach
.stated management goals. Assessment endpoints are critical to the success of the risk assessment
because they provide the direction of the assessment, the basis for risk hypotheses and conceptual
model development, and the Analysis Plan. Four assessment endpoints were selected for this risk
assessment: < • - -
'' ' ' ' : ' ; '• • •' •; ' V
> Reproduction and recruitment of threatened., endangered, and rare mussel species.
> Reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered, and rare fish species.
* Abundance, diversity, and fecundity of cave fauna! assemblages.
, > Riparian corridor integrity
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 •••'.'-: 11
-------
The following section summarizes the justification for selecting each of the assessment e;ndppints in
this risk assessment. ' - • : •
i , ' '•'.'''.
2.2.1 Endpoint Description and Rationale ,
Assessment Endpoint 1: Reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered, and rare
mussel species . .
Threatened and endangered mussel species are susceptible to a range of stressors including
sedimentation, toxics, and eutrophication, particularly hi the glochidia or larval stage. They are
excellent indicators of.benthic macroinvertebrate habitat quality (subgoals 1 and 2) and stream water
quality hi general (Neves and Zale 1982; Warren et al. 1984; Zeto ,et al. 1987; Way et al. 1990).
The Clhich and Powell River watershed has the greatest number of. federally listed endangered
aquatic species (18) and also the largest concentration of endemic species (19) in the U.S. for an
area of this size (see Table B-l, Appendix B; Ahlstedt 1991). The endemic and endangered
mussels are all members of the family Unionidae, the most diverse family of freshwater molluscs.,.
Protection of threatened, and endangered mussel species and their habitats have high ecological and
societal value. Reproduction and recruitment are the endpoint attributes identified because, hi
principle, they are measurable for many mussel species hi the Clinch River and they provide an
indication of a species ability to maintain viable populations over time hi a- given region. These
attributes are directly related to the subgoal identified by the team of maintaining or restoring self-
sxistaining native macroinvertebrate fauna. - :
Unionid mussels are sedentary, filter feeding macroinvertebrates which burrow into a gravel/cobble
substrate and remove unicellular algae, zooplankton, detritus, and silt from the water column
(Neves 1991). Unionids have a unique life cycle which entails an obligate parasitic larval stage or
glochidia, that must attach onto the fins, epidermis or gills of a, suitable host fish (Kat 1984). Large
numbers of glochidia are released, 100,000 - 3.5 million either in spring or mid-summer,
corresponding to migration and spawning activities of many resident fish species but also
corresponding to relatively low stream flow, and potentially high concentration of toxics (Zale and /
Neves 1982ab; kitchel 1985). The relatively low occurrence of glochidia on host fish indicates that
most do not reach this point hi the life cycle. The small glochidial infestation success rate
•apparently ensures the dispersal of populations. Following the one to three week parasitic phase,
the glochidia drop to the substrate and begin their free-living phase. ' .
Owing to the fact that they are sedentary and that they have a complex life cycle, unionid mussels
can not readily migrate or recolonize new stream areas. These characteristics, combined with .
natural and anthropogenic sources of stress, results hi geographically isolated populations, greater
potential for genetic inbreeding, and possible reduced adaptive potential (Stein 1971; Stansbery et
al. 1986; Ahlstedt 1991). Clearly, the survival of unionids is dependent, hi part, upon the
reproductive success and distributional range of the appropriate host fish species (Young and
Williams 1984; Neves et al. 1985).
12 Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Assessment Endpoint 2: Reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered, and rare fish
species . . ' • ':'/',' • \ •''-'• ' -,.•• - • '.' •>./''.;,'[', • ; •;
The degree of native fish species recruitment is related to several habitat and water quality features
that are important to the survival and reproduction of many fish and invertebrate species in the
Clinch basin (subgoals 1 and 2). Furthermore, specific fish species serve as hosts for the obligate
parasitic glochidia stage of the'native mussel species (Masnik 1974). Thus, recruitment of native
fish species is an important factor in me recruitment of mussel species. "Their decline in the Clinch
basin suggests degradation of water and habitat quality over time and therefore represents an
endpoint of high ecological and societal value. . , ,-
The Southeast U.S. has the highest diversity of freshwater fishes in the United States (Etnier and
Starnes 1993). These obligate riverine fishes have historically existed in relatively stable
environments (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994), but this has changed rapidly over the past century.
Some species are not able to withstand the physical and chemical alterations to their habitats that
have occurred due to human pressures in the watershed (Yeager 1994).; As a result, local
extirpations and extinctions have taken place indicating downward trends in the quality of
southeastern aquatic habitats. The free-flowing portions of the Clinch and Powell Rivers upstream
of Norris Dam are major refugia for many fish species endemic to the Tennessee River drainage.
Of the 85 fish species reported from these systems, about one-third are federally listed as
^endangered or threatened, are candidates for listing, or are listed for protection by Tennessee or
Virginia (Table B-2, Appendix B; Etnier, et. al. 1993). About 30% of the federally listed
endangered fish species,.and 40% of the species that are proposed candidates for listing, are located
in the Southeast U.S. ; ,
Within the past century, the entire Tennessee River proper, and many of its tributaries have been
physically altered by impoundment, resulting in destruction and fragmentation of these rich riverine
communities (TVA 1970; Feeman 1987; Angenneier and Smogor 1993; O'Baraet al. 1994).
Many of these rare fishes are primarily benthic or have precise aquatic habitat specificity for
spawning, and most are relatively short-lived (Masnik 1974; Etnier and Staines 1993). Therefore,
protection of native fish species' habitat also protects the habitat of rare .fish species. The
attributes of reproduction and recruitment are specified for this endpoint because the goal of self-
sustaining populations of native fish species, identified in this risk assessment, requires successfully
reproducing populations within the watershed. Similar to mussels, native fish species are also
subject to the negative impacts brought about by geographic isolation and immediate loss of habitat
due to impoundment. Small isolated populations of fish not only suffer from lack of gene flow, but
are also highly susceptible to localized extirpations from catastrophic events such as toxic spills and
various cumulative impacts over time.
Assessment Endpoint 3: Abundance, diversity, and fecundity ofcavefaunal assemblages
'The karst region of the Clinch basin is extensive and intimately connected with the surface water
system. A unique cave fauna is adapted to the subsurface cave system that is highly susceptible to
water- quality degradation. Protection of both subsurface and surface water quality (subgoals 2 and
4) are perhaps the most important factors affecting; cave fauna.
.The invertebrate cave biota in the upper Tennessee River Basin are one ofthe most biologically
diverse in North America (Holsinger and Culver 1988; see Table B-3, Appendix B). Within, the
DRAFT-June.13, 1996 13
-------
Clinch and Powell River watershed the Virginia Cave Board has designated five unique Significant
Karst Areas. Of the more than 900 known caves in the Clinch and Powell drainages, the Virginia
Cave Board has designated 90 caves as significant for archaeological, biological, depth, economic,
aesthetic, geological, historical, hydrological, length, paleontological, and/or recreational criteria.
Of these Significant Caves, 35 of the 51 Clinch basin and 34 of the 39 Powell basin caves are
designated based on biological criteria.' Researchers have identified 51 cave-limited and 24
endemic invertebrate species in the karst of the Clinch basin and 44 cave-limited and 27 endemic
invertebrate species in the karst of the Powell basin (Holsinger and Culver 1988). Thus, cave
fauna have high ecological and societal value in this watershed. Aquatic cave organisms generally
do not migrate long distances resulting in a high degree of endemism. Combined with the fact that .
these species typically exhibit low reproductive rates, long life spans, delayed maturity, and low
metabolic rates, cave fauna populations are susceptible to water quality perturbations resulting in
local extirpations, or species extinction. They are further susceptible to surface-water quality
conditions because aquatic cave communities rely on nutrient input from waters that move
. vertically from the surface to the subterranean environment. Particulate organic matter, carried by
flowing and dripping waters, represents the primary food source for aquatic cave organisms. This
endpoint is directly, linked to the goal of improved water quality in both the subsurface and surface
water ecosystems. . '
Assessment Endpoint 4: Riparian Corridor Integrity
Riparian corridors, defined for this risk assessment as.the strejtm channel, banks, -adjacent flood
plain, and terrace areas, can be highly productive and diverse systems that provide many water
quality and habitat benefits to aquatic life if the corridor is stable over time and exhibits integrity
(subgoal 3). Riparian corridor integrity is defined as riparian reaches exhibiting high bank stability
(i.e., low incidence of bank failure, sloughing, undercutting, or collapse) and vegetative
composition, cover density and connectivity typical of the terrain, geology, and elevation in areas
relatively undisturbed by human activity in the region.
Prior to European settlement of the region, riparian zones and, indeed, much of the landscape in
southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee, were shaded by a thick canopy of trees. Forests
within the nearby Coastal Plain province may have been managed with slash and burn techniques
employed by Native American inhabitants. In contrast, the canopy of the mote mountainous upper
Tennessee River basin was historically continuous: not just from ridgetop to ridgetop, but probably
also from bank to bank along at least some.of the smaller tributaries in the watershed. Evidence
suggests there may have been extensive cane breaks of native cane (locally known as beargrass)
along portions of the Clinch and possibly the Powell. /
Riparian corridor integrity is essential to continued maintenance and eventual improvement of
water quality and aquatic biological resources of the watershed!. These streamside forests not only
help regulate water temperature (Barton et al, 1985), but they also reduce the rate of sediment
runoff and erosion. Streamside forests also contribute energy to the aquatic ecosystem in the form
of leaves and other detritus (Cummins et al. 1989) and dissolved nutrients via surface water
recharge areas (Fisher arid Likens. 1973). Inputs of both small and large woody debris influence
the hydrologic pattern within a stream by adding channel "roughness" which dissipates water flow
energy and increases the retentive characteristics of the stream channel (Speaker et al.. 1984;
Mulholland et al. 1985). Root wads and vegetative undergrowth stabilize stream banks and filter
organic pollutants from streams (Hunsaker and Levine 1995). In addition to physicochemical
14 - " Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
functions, riparian forests also provide either temporary or permanent habitat for a host of aquatic
species, including some with life cycles inexorably linked to the flowing water ecosystem.
2.3 Conceptual Model Development I.
"'-•: ' • .' ''"''.-> ' '
Conceptual model development requires an evaluation of the ecological resources of vahie
(assessment endpoints), the stressors affecting them, and the interactive relationships between
resources and stressor effects. An overall model was developed that attempts to relate sources of
stress, specific stressors, and ecological effects as they relate to the four assessment endpoints
chosen (Figure 3). It is recognized that mis model is not all-inclusive in its consideration of
possible sources and stressors nor does it claim to consider all possible relationships between
sources and stressors.or between stressors and effects in this watershed. The model does however
provide a working hypothesis concerning what are perceived to be the salient relationships
identified by the team and those actively .researching;the Clinch and Powell watershed.
2.3.1 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Mussels Species
. " • •/"<•: •• , • • .':-.-.
Mussels are susceptible to any land use or natural phenomenon mat either: (1) ultimately reduces
host fish survival and reproduction, or (2) degrades surface water quality, or (3) reduces or
eliminates usable benthic habitat, or (4) interferes with or undermines me normal filter-feeding
process. Thus, mussels are at risk,from a variety of human activities in the watershed including
poor agricultural practices, urban runoff, wastewater discharges, runoff from mining, poor forestry
practices, roads and other transportation ebrridbrs, and possibly competition from the introduction
of exotic species such as zebra mussels (Dreissend polymorphd) and Asiatic Clam (Corbiculd
flumined) (Figure 4). . ,
ftost fish survival and reproduction will be affected by several of the same sources and stressors as
mussels (see Figure 5 and next section) thus accentuating these stressor effects on mussels. Toxics
such as heavy metals or chlorine from dechlorination failures, which are discharged by some
municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers in the watershed, or pesticides originating from
agricultural activities hi the watershed, are known to have severe effects on mussel survival and <
recruitment (Home and Mclntosh 1979; Havlikand Marking 1987; Sheehan et al. 1989; Goudreau
et al.. 1993; Reed 1993). Mine water discharges frequently contain other pollutants such as
hydraulic oils, foaming agents, surfactant materials, and greases that can be extremely toxic to
filter-feeders such as mussels (J. Diamond, unpublished data). These pollutants may enter the
stream via either surface water discharges, or via underground springs and caves that surface
somewhere else hi the watershed. Thus, mussels may be affected by subsurface as well as surface
water quality. Urban storm water runoff and untreated of failing septic system waste may also
release pollutants, compounding toxic stress to mussels^ The fact that mussels are sedentary and
benthic makes them a target for sediment, as well as water pollutant exposure (Weber 1981;
Sheehan et al. 1989). The siphoning mode of feeding used by mussels also makes them susceptible
to bioaccumulative effects of organic pollutants (Brooks and Rumsby 1965; Tessier arid Campbell ,
1987; Luoma 1989; Warren et al. 1995).
A variety of activities in the watershed cotild result hi deterioration of benthic' habitat instream.'
Any activity resulting in increased sediment deposition and substrate embeddedness instream will .
reduce the amount of available benthic habitat necessary for successful mussel larval settlement,
DRAFT-June 13, 1996 , ' ': . -.15
-------
growth, and survival (Bates and Dennis 1978; Way et al. 199"Q). This in turn directly affects
recruitment of mussel populations. Thus, soil runoff resulting from poor agricultural practices,
livestock trampling instream, elimination of the riparian corridor (Figure 7 and section 4.5), and
urbanization could directly influence the amount of available benthic habitat for .mussels.
Lack of an intact and connected riparian corridor is expected to reduce mussel recruitment through
other habitat related stressors as well. Riparian canopy removal or thinning increases light and heat
penetration to the stream resulting in higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen saturation
instream, both of which could be deleterious to .mussels (Burky 1983). Also, removal of the
natural riparian corridor (either from agricultural, urban, transportation, or forestry activities)
reduces or eliminates the important exchange of nutrients and allochthonous energy between the
stream and its floodplain resulting, perhaps in reduced food availability for mussels and other
invertebrates (Gregory et al. 1991).
' ' ' i
Significant alterations in stream flow or channel modification are, other stressors that could directly
affect mussel habitat availability and therefore mussel recruitment, m addition to large scale human
activities that can severely modify mussel habitat, such as dams and dredging, more subtle forms
of habitat alteration may be important in the Clinch watershed such as (a) riparian corridor and
stream bank destabilization due to transportation corridors, and poor silviculture practices, (b) high
flow regions and benthic scour due to large industrial and municipal wastewater discharges and
urban storm water runoff, and ® bank failure, channel widening, and subsequent channel depth and
current velocity reduction due to livestock watering instream. Turbidity resulting from
sedimentation or livestock watering instream further affects mussel survival and recruitment by
interfering with, or reducing the effectiveness of, normal filter-feeding (Stansbery et al. 1986;
Aldridge et al. 1987).
Due to a lack of information at. this time, effects of transportation corridors, illegal harvesting,
predation and failed septic systems will not be evaluated for this endpoint. Effects of introduced
exotic species such as zebra mussel will also not be included in this initial risk assessment phase
because: (a) there does hot at present appear to be any way to prevent the zebra mussel from
invading'the Clinch River watershed (it is already present in the lower Tennessee River; O'Neil
1991) thus there are no known management decisions that would reduce this future source of stress
in the watershed; and (b) information concerning effects of zebra mussels or Corbicida on native
species in the region is conflicting (Fuller and Irnlay 1976; Gardner et al. 1976; McMahon 1983;
Sickel 1986; Goudreau et al. 1993). This is a stressor source ithat will be considered hi future
phases of this risk assessment.
Pathogens originating from poorly treated municipal wastewater or from failed septic systems and
leaking sewers, have been shown to cause deleterious effects cm fertilized ova (eggs) in the
marsupia of female mussels thus affecting reproduction (Fuller 1974; van der Schalie 1938),
However, the extent of this stressor in the watershed is unknown and may be minor hi comparison
with other identified stressors. Therefore, for this initial risk assessment, pathogens will not be
explicitly considered in risk analyses.
Acidic deposition from the atmosphere is an issue only at high elevations where soils and bedrock
are poorly buffered; it is not a problem in the calcereous Clinch Valley watershed. Like the zebra
mussel, atmospheric deposition originates outside the Clinch/ Powell watershed and.there are
currently no local management solutions, beyond the national controls on sulfur and nitrogen oxide
16 / . Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
emissions established in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, that could reduce or eliminate this
, source of stress: Therefore, effects of acid deposition will not be further evaluated in this risk
assessment.' " ' .'-.''. , , <-
2.3.2 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Fish Species
Fish reproduction and recruitment is especially susceptible to sedimentation, turbidity, and
exposure to toxics, each of which can result in local extirpations, leaving disjunct populations that
are even further susceptible to extinction (Figure 5). Habitat alteration, either through riparian
corridor destruction, hydrologic modification, or through livestock watering, is also an important
stresspr for fish recruitment. There are several sources of toxics-. Runoff of pesticides, herbicides,.
metals, oils, and greases from urban, .row-crop, mining, silviculture areas, and transportation
corridors, or from atmospheric deposition are potential sources of toxics. The last two sources
listed are believed to be relatively minor compared to the other sources present and there are few
data available with which to analyze their effects adequately in this risk assessment. Therefore
transportation corridors and atmospheric deposition, and their stressors, will not be evaluated
further in this problem formulation. Toxics affect potential invertebrate prey, as well as the fish '~
.themselves. This could result in either reduced food for fish consumption or bioaccumulatioh of
certain.pollutants through the food chain. • • ,
Sedimentation is believed to be a potentially strong stressor to native fish populations in this system
because it reduces suitable spawning sites and thereby fish recruitment. This stressor originates
from a number of sources of which the major ones are livestock watering, and soil erosion from
urban, mining, and agricultural runoff, riparian corridor modification, arid poor silviculture
practices. Sedimentation also has indirect effects on fish by changing the type of prey that may be
available.
Direct fish habitat alteration is possible if the riparian corridor is eliminated or greatly reduced.
Stream bank cover, clean benthic gravel and rubble for spawning, and bank cover can be important
habitat features for many native fish species in the Clinch watershed (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
All of these habitat features are in jeopardy if the riparian corridor is degraded. Furthermore,
. these same features are necessary for the survival and reproduction of many of the invertebrate
prey used by native-fish in this watershed. -
2.3.3 Abundance, Diversity, and Fecundity of Cave Fauna ,
Several activities in the watershed could directly or indirectly affect subsurface water quality or
cave fauna habitat, two of the major influences affecting cave fauna abundance, diversity and
population structure (Figure 6). Toxics originating from agricultural, residential, and urban runoff,
and silviculture, and transportation corridor activities can enter sinkholes or caves where they are
transported along the natural subsurface conduits that underdrain karstlands. Leaking underground
storage tanks (UST) are a major threat to karst groundwater. Leakage of petroleum products into
, underdraining cave systems have been encountered within the study area (Hubbard and Balfour,
1993). Excess nutrients and pathogens from'livestock grazing in highlands, agriculture, or
silviculture may reach the subsurface drainage system resulting hi excessive bacterial growth,
anoxia, and perhaps increased disease rate of cave fauna. Such nutrient and bacterial pollution of
the karst aquifers have been documented within the Valley and Ridge province outside the study
basin (Boyer and Pasquarell, 1995 and Pasquarell and Boyer, ,1995). Runoff of the leachate of
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 17
-------
sawmill waste into a karst aquifer component in the Powell River Basin resulted in the local .
extirpation of an aquatic isopod (Culver et al, 1992), serving as the impetus to the subsequent
listing of the Lee County Isopod as a Federally Listed Endangered Species. A widespread problem
to karstland aquifers in the study area are effuents from improperly installed and failed septic
systems (Holsinger, 1966; Hubbard'and Balfour, 1933; Simon., 1994). Degradation of water
quality, due either to toxics, excessive nutrients, or pathogens, is expected to have direct effects on
cave fauna survival and reproduction and therefore their abundance, diversity, and fecundity.
> i "*•
A second type of stress on cave fauna is habitat modification dine to either drastic changes in
subsurface .water flow or to increased sedimentation. A single incident of sedimentation impact on
cave fauna from a limestone quarry operation within the Powell River Basin is known (Hubbard,
1995, personal observations), but minining t impacts to karst in the study area are believed to be
minor. Sedimentation due to poor agricultural or silviculture practices are believed to be a
potentially important stressor to cave fauna by habitat alteration and possible anoxia. Residential,
'transportation corridor, and industrial development typically results in sedimentation problems in
karst due to inadequate siltation control. In addition, use of sinkholes for soil and debris disposal
can cause back-flooding and siltation of groiindwater. The effects of sedimentation in relation to
cave fauna abundance and diversity are poorly documented at this time. Therefore, sedimentation
effects on cave fauna will not be evaluated in this risk assessment.
Effects of other potential activities in this watershed such as fcmc atmospheric deposition,
transportation corridors, failed'septic systems, or leaking sewers are also poorly documented for
this watershed but may be inferred from land use analysis of cave fauna data (see Analysis Plan).
Hydrologic modification could conceivably alter cave and subsurface water quality depending on
the location of the activity in the watershed. Also, many of these activities could result in
deleterious changes in subsurface flow or sedimentation for aquatic cave fauna. Unfortunately,
little information is available at this time concerning the relationships between these activities and
cave fauna in general, and particularly in the Clinch / Powell watershed. Therefore, the potential
risks to cave fauna due to these activities, will not be directly evaluated in this initial risk
assessment.
2.3.4 Riparian Corridor Integrity j
The composition and connectivity of riparian vegetation is potentially affected by several different
human activities in the watershed including livestock grazing, agricultural row crop, forestry,
mining, silviculture practices, urban development, wastewater discharges, transportation corridors,
hydrologic modification, and perhaps atmospheric deposition (Minshall 1993; Richards and Host
1995; Figure 7). Most of these activities result in thinning or removal of the natural riparian
vegetation (particularly the canopy) thereby altering the species composition and connectivity of the
riparian corridor as a whole. This stressor has several potential effects including loss of soil and
nutrients, soil instability, and bank erosion or failure (Cooper et al. 1987; Lpwrance et al. 1984).
Each of these stressors directly affects the abundance and composition of plant species capable of
inhabiting the riparian zone and ultimately channel stability. Loss of soil and bank failure affect
sedimentation instream which is a major stressor for the other iissessment endpoints examined in
this risk assessment.
Livestock grazing and watering could create an additional stress on the riparian corridor by
accelerating bank erosion or failure and channel widening. These stressors further reduce channel
18 • Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
stability and increase sedimentation instream. Thus, livestock watering creates both direct effects
(excess nutrient input, pathogens,'and sedimentation) and indirect effects (riparian corridor
degradation, bank failure, channel widening, reduced channel depth, and reduced current velocity)
on aquatic fauna. ; ~ •
^ • ' ,,"•-, •.-...• ' • -' •
Modification of stream channels by dredging, straightening natural meanders, and removal or
thinning the riparian vegetation results hi increased stream velocities arid peak flows during storm
,events which can greatly impact the river's ability to, transport sediments efficiently through the
stream system. Further hydrologic modifications such as bridge supports, wing walls, culverts and
impoundments compound the problem. This results in deposits of silts, sands and cobbles into
point bars and islands that divert stream flow from the middle of the channel to stream banks,
eventually causing bank and channel instability and bank collapse. Stream .banks cleared of
vegetation or impacted by livestock grazing arid watering are even more susceptible 19 collapse,
adding to sediment loads and further habitat declhie. .
Removal of riparian forests can greatly dimmish sediment and nutrient trapping capabilities of areas
immediately adjacent to streams. .Certain native aquatic fauna decline due to there being fewer
riparian refugia during floods and other periods of environmental stress (Minshall 1993) and due to
reduction in detritus and woody debris which historically served as the major energy source in most
tributaries of the Clinch Basin. Thus, the integrity and extent of riparian corridors in the watershed
has high ecological .and societal value. The attributes selected for this endpoint are measurable
qualities that directly reflect surrounding land use-based stressors,and that directly affect valued
aquatic life habitat in the watershed.
2.4 Analysis Han . .
'••••-'' ' .rv • ' • - • :' • ' '' " '•'•••'".•.'•'••.•'••''•'.' • ••' ' '••'
Each conceptual model described for the four assessment ehdpoints requires a series of
nieasurement endpoints or metrics to analyze relationships with stressors and sources and test
hypotheses. The analysis of risk is retrospective hi that it relies on current and past land use
practices and measurements taken at specific sites in strategic subwatersheds of the Clinch/Powell
Basin to evaluate the future risks of similar sources and stressors hi other parts of the watershed.
Evaluations of risk hypotheses, based on analyses for the subwatersheds will be validated for other
areas of the watershed, in subsequent phase of this risk assessment. In the first phase of the risk
assessment, analysis concentrates on the Clinch River drainage itself and not the Powell drainage.
for two reasons: (1) given limited current resources, it was decided that the initial risk analysis
would focus on a subset of the entire watershed for which sufficient data are readily available; and
(2) excellent data sources exist for several subwatersheds within the Clinch basin while fewer data ^
are easily accessible for the Powell basin. It is intended that latter phases of this risk assessment •..
will more explipitly examine hypotheses for the Powell River basin as well as other portions of the
Clinch River. _ , ,
• . / • ' ' ' ' f. ' • ••
To assess risks to the assessment ehdpoints identified, this ecological risk analysis will use GIS-
based data supplemented by multivariate statistical analyses of source and stressor effects on'
measurement endpoints. In addition, best professional judgement (BPJ) will be used to evaluate
relationships between stressors and endpoints. Formal methods for incorporating BPJ into the risk
analyses might include the Delphi or nominal group techniques. Recently, professional judgement
has been incorporated hi ecological risk assessment and threat ranking/pripritization (TNC 1993;
,1994; 1995a,b; 1996; Noss and Peters 1995). The quantitative statistical methods described below
DRAFT-June 13, 1996 • , * -19
-------
will also serve as a check on the conclusions derived from BPJ, Using various analysis methods .
will help to identity data gaps and prioritize future data collection efforts. , .
The Tennessee Valley Authority, under the supervision of a Tesam member, will develop and enter
data into a GIS to support analysis of most,-if not all, impacts to the assessment eridpoints identified
in this risk assessment. Table 2 lists many of the databases currently available in GIS analysis.
Four subwatersheds were selected for initial analysis by the Team, these subwatersheds were
selected to represent the range of key watershed attributes including geology, location or elevation
in watershed, and land uses (Table 5 and Appendix D). In addition, significant data were available
for these subwatersheds and they have societal interest to various groups. The pilot watersheds and
their selection criteria are: • •'.'*'
>• Big Cedar Creek: local interest, data intensive, agriculture and urban land uses .
»• Copper Creek: livestock and deciduous forest land uses, significant karst area
>• t Guest River: coal mining and processing, urban land uses
>• Stock Creek: significant karst area, industrial discharge land uses.
Table 3 summarizes categories of data available for these watersheds. GIS maps will be produced
to provide visual information that address each risk hypothesis examined. Information will be
• stored with location (latitude and longitude), and temporal descriptors along with information about
the resolution of the location and temporal data. Assumptions regiarding GIS data layers will be
documented to assist hi uncertainty analysis. Data bases from the Clinch River, and its tributaries,
include political boundaries, population densities, sub-basin boundaries, land use and intensity,
transportation corridors, estimates of impervious surfaces, soil types, erosion rates, significant karst
areas, NPDES and point source wastewater discharges, farm intensity and crop use, biological and
physical data for stream segments, .locations of threatened, endtangered species and other native
species, and general area locations of cave entrances (Table 2). Data will be stored hi Arc Info.
the standard EPA-recognized GIS software, and submitted hi electronic form to EPA.
Critical data on environmental stressors, their sources, and measurement endpbints will be mapped
. for each of the four pilot subwatersheds and the data analyzed .using multivariate statistics including
regressions, discriminant analysis, and principal components analysis. Results of analyses from
each of the subwatersheds, once compiled and statistically compared, will address many of the
hypotheses identified, because each subwatershed exhibits different levels of sources and stressors
identified hi the conceptual models. The general analysis scheme will entail identifying potential
patterns or relationships between different land uses or combinations of land uses and stressor
measures. Then, relationships between land use activities and measurement endpoints representing
the assessment endpoints will be identified. Interpretation of the results from these two sets of
• analyses will enable inferences to be made about the potential relationships between specific
stressors, or combinations of.stressors, and assessment endpoints that can be further examined hi
subseqiient phases of this risk assessment. . . -
The following section summarizes the hypotheses, objectives of the analysis, measurement
endpoints, data requirements, and specific analyses for each assessment endpoint.
• '20 ' Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
2.4.1 Reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered, and rare mussel species
Risk Hypotheses '
(1) Mussel abundance, species diversity, and recruitment are inversely related to areal extent of
stream bed sedimentation over time.
(2) The distribution, abundance, and recruitment of mussels, over time, are inversely related to '
increasing concentrations of water column and sediment pollutants.
N / « "'_',,
(3) Stream reaches downstream of either agricultural, urban, livestock, mining, or silviculture
land uses have equally poor recruitment and diversity of mussels over time and all the above'
land uses have lower mussel recruitment and diversity than unimpacted forested areas of the
watershed. , ,
.(4) There is a direct relationship between riparian corridor integrity (defined as vegetative cover,
areal extent, and connectivity of the riparian corridor) and mussel abundance, diversity, and
recruitment over time. * ' -. • " . ,
(5) In the absence of catastrophic spills, point source municipal and industrial dischargers have
little or no'effect on mussel abundance, diversity, and recruitment over time.
(6) Mussel abundance and diversity are inversely related to the, amount of abandoned mine lands
upstream.
Objectives *
In this initial risk assessment, effects of three general types of stressors will be evaluated with
respect to mussel abundance, diversity, and recruitment in the Clinch Basin: (1) w,ater column
pollutants (toxics), (2) sedimentation of the benthic substrate, and (3) instream habitat modification
(channel and bank instability, increased current velocity) resulting from riparian corridor thinning,
removal, or livestock trampling. The extent and frequency of these three stressors will be
evaluated based on the presence and magnitude of several potential sources including agricultural, -
livestock, urban, silviculture, and.mining land uses and municipal and industrial wastewater .
discharges, '
These objectives will be addressed by first quantifying land use stressor relationships for the three
stressors listed above using actual land use data and measures of the different stressors from several
sites within the subwatersheds known to have resident mussel populations (Copper Creek and Stock
Creek). . .. .
Stfessor-endpoint relationships will men be quantified by coupling measures representing mussel
abundance, species diversity, and recruitment from sites in the same pilot subwatersheds with
stressor-source relationships defined in the first part of this analysis.
Quantifying Land Use Stressor Relationships
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 21
-------
Although all four pilot sub-watersheds identified in Tables 3 and 4 are predominantly forested and
contain significant areas of pastureland, they differ with respect to the amount of urbanization,
agricultural lands, mining influences, and municipal, and industrial wastewater dischargers. This
risk analysis will take advantage of these land use differences to extract land use-stressor
relationships. High resolution GIS land use data available for. Copper and Stock Creek
subwatersheds will be digitized and mapped to identify areas representing the different land uses
identified in the conceptual model for the mussel assessment endpoint (Figure 8). Where sufficient
temporal land use data are available, land use maps of these subwatersheds or parts thereof from
different time periods will be produced to further establish relationships between different stressors
and land uses over time. .
' * • 'I '
Land use data for different regions within a subwatershed will be coded and entered into a
relational database along with several measurement endpoints (representing the pollutant,
sedimentation and habitat modification stressors cited above), for sites downstream of each of the
different land uses as well as various mixtures of land uses. .The latter sites will be used to examine
potential multiple stressor-multiple source relationships. Based on a cursory examination of data
available, there are several different sites available representing different land use categories that
should function as statistical replicates within each subwatershed; i.e., geomorphic characteristics
of sites within- a subwatershed (such as stream order, drainage area, and geology) are roughly
similar. Whether differences in sedimentation, instream habitat or bank instability, or water quality
among sites within a subwatershed are due primarily to differences in upstream, land use will be
able to be tested. Even stronger inferences will be made using temporal data in which land uses
and resultant stressor magnitudes have changed over time for the same sites. .
Multiple discriminant analysis will be used to determine., whether the type of surrounding land
use(s) based on measured properties of the water and benthic habitat (including sedimentation) can
be predicted. This analysis will entail using several different measures of water and instream
habitat quality to define water/habitat quality, classes (e.g., acid, low DO, embedded substrate) and
to find the linear combination of land uses mat most accurately discriminate one water/habitat
quality class from another. Results of this analysis will be used to determine the proportion of the
data variability that is explained by the stressor measures (i.e., land use) identified. This procedure
will also be used to define land use classes (e.g., urban, mining, cropland, pasture) and •
subsequently whether water quality and habitat can predict thesie classes. This analysis will
quantify the amount of unexplained variability in the .data and to that extent, the degree Of
uncertainty in the jesults.
Canonical correlation will be used to find the combination of site variables that best explain the
variability observed hi stressor data.. This analysis (Offers from multiple disciminant analysis in that
it considers many more characteristics of each site including many of the data obtained through GIS
analysis (e.g., population density, estimates of impervious surface area, soil types, and soil erosion
rates). Land use category will be just one of several variables in this analysis. Canonical variables
that explain a significant proportion of the variability in habitat characteristics will be subjected to
correlational analysis to determine which specific site characteiistics or sources correspond best to
the significant canonical variable. Results of .this analysis may help to simplify the number of
dimensions necessary to define relationships between land uses and stressors and may also identify
additional testable hypotheses regarding the effects of several simultaneously acting sources oh
habitat and water quality measures. ' •
22 ' Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Quantifying Source/Stressor-Endpoint Relationships
Several useful measurement endpoints are available that represent the assessment endpoint for
mussel recruitment and reproduction (table 4). Mussel abundance and distribution records are
available for sites in the Copper Creek and Stock Creek subwatersheds (Table 3) and some of these
records include size (age) class data for certain threatened or endangered mussel species. At some
sites, these records are available for a number of years so that temporal patterns can also be
examined. In addition, benthic macroinvertebrate (insects, Crustacea, and other non-unionids)
species abundance and distribution data available for these sites as a surrogate for the mussel
recruitment measurement endpoint will also be used. There is ample evidence from the Clinch •
Basin (TVA 1970; Angermeier and Smogor 1993; O'Bara et aL 1994) and similar systems
(Rosenberg and Resh 1993) that macroinvertebrates, such as mayflies, amphipods, and certain
pleuirocerid snail species (Goudreau et al. 1993; Reed 1993), are sensitive to the same stressors as
unionids and share similar;habitat preferences. Benthic macroinvertebrate measurement .endpoints
will include multimetric community scores (e.g., ICI, Rapid Bioassessment scores), taxa richness
measures, and certain specific metrics that are known to be sensitive to habitat and water quality
changes in the Valley and Ridge provinces of the mid-Atlantic Highlands based on work done by
the EPA R-EMAP program in this region. '.
Two types of analyses will be performed: those examining effects of different land uses (sources)
on biological measurement endpoints and those examining effects of different specific stressors
(sedimentation, water quality, and instream habitat alteration) on biological endpoints. .In the
former analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients will be derived for each combination of land use '
category and biological measure. In addition, multiple regression analyses will be used to examine
the degree to which different land uses (or mixtures) are related to specific biological measures
such as mussel species diversity and juvenile mussel abundance and distribution over time at
selected sites in relation to surrounding land use changes. If the data are available, linear
regression analyses at sites in which land uses have not changed significantly over the same period
of time as a control for this analysis will also be performed.
. ' • • ' • ' " * * * " ' - -
The second type of analysis (stressor, biological endpoint analysis) will consist of the same '
statistical procedures described above except that stressor measures will be used in place of land
use categories. Results of these analyses will help quantify habitat characteristics that are important
to the survival and recruitment of threatened and endangered mussel species. Where sufficient data
are available, juvenile mussel abundance and distribution at certain sites (and surrogate biological
measures)'will be related to the different stressors measured over time using multiple regression
analyses., "" , ' .
2.4.2 Reproduction and Recruitment of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Fish Species
Risk Hypotheses - ' . .
(1) Stream reaches in, or directly downstream of, areas that have intensively or poorly managed
• livestock have less'abundantand diverse fish communities over time thanBother stream
reaches. . „ .
PRAFF-June 13, 1996 . , 23
-------
(2) Threatened or endangered fish abundance and species diversity in a stream reach are directly
related to the size and integrity of the riparian corridor upstream. '• •-
(3) The decline in threatened and endangered fish populations over time is directly related to the
increased frequency and magnitude of toxic pollutants.
Objectives - i , , , .
The objectives for this analysis are similar to those identified ibr mussels in the previous section.
Three primary stressors will be initially examined with respect to native fish species recruitment:
sedimentation, .instream habitat alteration from livestock and riparian corridor modification, and
water quality degradation as indicated by the concentration of toxic instream pollutants. Statistical
analyses are similar to those described for mussels. Locations of sites for which fish (data available
for Cedar Creek, Copper Creek, and the Guest River), habitat, and water quality data are available
and will be overlaid on the GIS land use maps. Correlative as well as exploratory analyses will be
used to identify relationships between different land uses and fish measurement endpoints. The
previous analyses described for mussels will examine relationships between land use sources and
resultant instream habitat quality. Results of these analyses will be used directly to test the fish
measurement endpoint hypotheses.
i- • • .' • . -...-.
2.4.3 Cave fauna abundance, diversity, and fecundity j
Risk Hypotheses , ' v
. . , • |. . ' . , i
(1) Cave fauna are most significantly degraded in areas with failing septic systems, failing sewer
lines, and•failing underground storage tanks. i , .
(2) Cave fauna demonstrate increases hi the abundance of pollution tolerant species and
decreases in community diversity in intensively or poorly managed agricultural lands as
opposed to better managed agricultural lands or lands synonymous with biological integrity.
(3). Caves that are hydrologically connected to roadways, oilier transportation corridors, and
urban or industrial development have fewer species than caves not hear such sources.
','•'.
Objectives
Cave fauna are dependent on surface water recharge areas for food and adequate water quality.
Hypotheses identified for this endpoint are intended to promote further examination of key land
uses and stressors thought to be most significant to cave fauna survival and reproduction. The
objectives of this analysis are '(1) decipher relationships between land use activities and water
quality of recharge areas and (2) relate those dynamics to cave: fauna species richness measures.
Because nearly all of the data for cave .fauna are in the form of presence/absence measures and
cave environmental data (water quality or habitat measures) are generally unavailable.for most of
the cave sites at this time, the analyses for this endpoint will necessarily be highly qualitative. It is
hoped that these analyses will further define important data gaps and testable hypotheses in future
risk-assessment phases. .
24 - , Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Relationships between land uses and cave faum species richness measures
.Similar to the analyses, described for mussels and fish, taxa richness will be related to adjacent .land
use composition using multiple regression analyses. Land use composition will be based on;both a
'near-field' radius of approximately 200 ni and a 'far-field' radius of approximately 1 km. This
two-zone spatial analysis is an attempt to define the surface area over which subsurface cave habitat
and water quality conditions, and hence, cave fauna species richness, are controlled., This spatial
land use analysis is expected to be particularly important in examining the effects .of transportation
corridors and septic systems (as inferred from population density) on cave fauna richness.
. Exploratory analyses such as ordination and clustering will also be used to determine whether
certain cave species are found in some types of land uses more than others. The results of this
analysis may provide preliminary information and testable hypotheses concerning species sensitivity
to certain stressors associated with those land uses (determined from previous analyses described)'
and the possibility of deriving indicator cave species for certain types of stressors.
2.4.4 Riparian Corridor Integrity
As discussed previously in the conceptualmodel, this endpoint consists of various; attributes,"
pertaining to Vegetative cover, floodplain and stream bank stability, arid channel morpKology. This
analysis will focus primarily on effects of land uses on riparian corridor integrity and subsequently,
effects of varying stages of riparian corridor degradation .on channel stability and instream habitat
for macroirivertebrates and fish. The following risk hypotheses will be examined.
Risk Hypotheses _ .>..':- . ,
, . ' - \. ' ' ~ ; ' * . .
(1) Areas with intact riparian corridors have less instream sedimentation and correspondingly
better benthic and fish habitat.
(2) Poorly or intensively managed agricultural and livestock land uses are associated with the
most degraded riparian corridors in terms of vegetative coyer, stream bank stability, and
connectivity. ,
Objectives . . - . '
' . ' • ' - " • "'"•/'
Research in other watersheds has suggested that riparian corridor integrity is important in
maintaining lower nutrient and sediment loading to the stream (Diamond and Founder 1981;
Sivertun et al. 1988; Hunsaker and Levine 1995). However, there is some controversy concerning ._.
the effects of watershed size on the influence of the riparian corridor and whether land uses closer
to the riparian corridor have more effect on instream habitat than upland land uses (Wilkin and
, Jackson 1983; Osborne and Wiley 1988). The risk analyses for this endpoint will attempt to
address these issues by examining multiple land uses at sites in the four pilot subwatersheds both at
broad spatial scales (approximately 2 kilometer width either side of the stream) and at a finer spatial
scale (approximately 200 meter width either side of the stream). By comparing effects of land uses
at these two different spatial scales, it may be possible to determine: (l) the aereal .extent and
.connectivity of riparian corridor necessary for each type of land use to minimize instream effects,
, (2) the degree to which riparian buffers can be expected to mitigate certain land uses given different
DRAFT-June 13, 1996 , . ' . •;. 25
-------
intensities of those land uses, and (3) relationships between various land use combinations (both
near- and far-field relative to the stream) and instream habitat measures that were determined to be
important indicators of mussel and fishhabitat in the previous analyses.
Determine the afeal extent and connectivity of riparian corridor necessary to minimize
instream habitat degradation as a function of land uses
t ' • ".,',' . . ','*..
Instream habitat degradation in this analysis is.limited to the following measures: substrate size
(Da) and substrate embeddedness, turbidity, nutrients and toxic pollutants in excess of EPA and
Virginia DEQ water quality standards, bank stability, channel width to depth ratio, and current
velocity. Riparian corridor measures include vegetative cover extent (in square kilometers),
riparian corridor width, (total riparian corridor length on both sides of channel upstream of .site
divided by 2X total upstream channel length), and connectivity (Table 4). Using GIS maps, ;
riparian corridor measures-and land uses will be determined for a 2 kilometer and a 200 meter
width on either side of the stream. Linear regression analyses will be used to relate riparian
measures at the different spatial scales to the different.instream habitat measures. If resources and
data permit, threshold values for habitat measures that relate to minimum requirements for mussel
and native fish recruitment may also be derived. If so, these threshold habitat values will be used
in multiple discriminant analyses to determine the combination of riparian corridor characteristics
that are best related to achieving at least the minimum threshold habitat values at a given, site over
time. , '...-• ''", T "/'.' ' ;. ••.. •'••' ''•. • /
Determine the degree to which riparian buffers can be expected to mitigate certain land uses
Results of the foregoing analyses will relate riparian corridor measures with instream habitat
measures for several stream reaches in the four subwatersheds, many with different land use
characteristics. In the present objective, riparian corridor attributes will be related to land use
characteristics at both fine (200 meter width) and large (1 kilometer width) spatial scales. Three
different analyses will be performed to address this objective. First, results of the analyses
presented in the previous section will be used to develop multimetric scores for both instream
habitat and riparian corridor integrity. Riparian corridor scores will then be regressed against
habitat scores for each land use category separately. The significance and slope of each land use
regression analysis will be compared to determine whether particular land uses significantly affect,
the relationship between riparian corridor integrity and instream habitat integrity. Riparian and
stream habitat measures will be regressed against different intensities of each land use individually.
Land use intensity will be determined initially based on land cover or area. As a subset of this
analysis, specific riparian corridor attributes will be examined., such as width, length, or percent ,
woody vegetation and, using regression, instream habitat scores will be related to different land use
characteristics, different levels of the same land uses, and stream channel distance from the location
of habitat measurements to. the centroid of a given land use. These analyses may help to determine
whether certain size riparian corridors are needed to ensure acceptable instream habitat conditions
for certain land uses and whether distance between a given land use and stream location affects
habitat. . , . .
t • '
In a second analysis, PCA will be used to relate riparian and land use characteristics to instream
habitat scores. Significant principal components will be regressed against the various riparian
measures and land use characteristics to determine those variables that best explain variability in a
26 • ' Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
given component and therefore instream habitat scores: Results of this analysis will indicate the
interplay of riparian corridor characteristics and land uses as they affect instream habitat quality..
In a third analysis, riparian .corridor integrity scores'will be qualitatively categorized as low
(narrow, short, riparian corridors with low connectivity), medium (average riparian corridor width,
length, and connectivity), or high (above average width, length, and connectivity) based on.riparian
corridor data available for a number of stream reaches in the four subwatersheds. .These l
categories, along with land use categories, will serve as levels within the two class variables:
riparian corridor integrity and land, use type. Using two-factor MANOVA, these two class
variables (main effects and interactions) will be analyzed with respect to instream habitat scores.
Significant differences among.land uses in terms of effects on instream habitat (determined using a
priori multiple means tests such as Tukey's HSD) .will indicate whether instream habitat
deterioration can be minimized depending on extent and integrity of the riparian corridor.
Determine relationships between land use combinations and instream habitat measures
The analyses for this objective will be similar to those described previously except that land uses
will be based on larger spatial scales (1 to 10 kilometers) resulting in more mixtures or
combinations of land use. Land use combinations will be treated in two ways. First, various levels
of specific land use combinations that are dominant throughout the Clinch Basin will be examined.
- Forest-pasture and forest-agriculture combinations are two land use combinations likely to be
examined. Multiple regression analysis will be used to relate various combinations of each use -
(e.g., 50 percent forest and 10 percent pasture versus 40 percent forest and 20 percent pasture) to ,
riparian corridor integrity attributes and instream habitat integrity. . •'.".;
"in a second analysis, different combinations of land use types will be categorized as separate levels
of the. class variable land use combination. Initially, only those combinations that occur over at
least 20 percent of the area of a given subwatershed will be examined. Effects of the different land
use combinations on instream habitat score will be determined using two-way ANQVA with
combination type and subwatershed as the two main effects. This analysis may help to identify
which mixtures of land use have significant effects on instreamjiabitat quality and whether those
effects vary with thesubwatershed (and presumably physicochemical differences among
subwatersheds). Comparisons between results of .this, analysis and those obtained looking at single
land uses in the previous sections, will indicate whether additive _or compounded effects on
instream habitat quality are.likely given certain combinations of land use.
DRAFT—June 13,1996
27
-------
28
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
3. LITERATURE CITED
Ahlstedt; iS.A. 1991, Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch V
River: (Tennessee and Virginia). Walkerana, 5(13):73-122.
, 1991. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program: mussel surveys in six Tennessee Valley
streams. Walkerana, 5(13): 123-160. ,
Ahlstedt, S.A., and Brown, S.R., 1979. The naiad fauna of the Powell River in Virginia and :
Tennessee. Bulletm of me American Malacolpgical Union, Inc., p. 40-43. r .
Ahlstedt, S.A., and Tuberville, J;, in press, Quantitative reassessment of me freshwater mussel
fauna in the Clinch and Powell rivers, Tennessee and Virginia. Mussel Symposium Proceedings!of
the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. .
Aldridge, D., B. Payne, and A. Miller,, 1987. The effects of intermittent exposure to suspended
solids and turbulence on three species of freshwater mussels. Envir. Poll. 45:17-28. •
Angermeier, P;L. and R.A Smogor. 1993. Final Report: Assessment of Biological Integrity as a
Tool in the Recovery of Rare Aquatic Species. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,
Richmond, Virginia (June, 1993). ~ .
Barr, W.C., Ahlstedt, S. A., Hickman, G.D., and Hill, D.M., 1993-4. Cumberlandian Mollusk
Conservation Program. Activity 8: Analysis of macrofaunal factors. Walkerana, 7(17/18): 159-224. '
Barton, D., W. Taylor, and R. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to
maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. ,North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 5:364-378. •
Bates, J.M. and Dennis, S.D. 1978. The mussel fauna of the Clinch^ River, Tennessee and
Virginia. Sterkiana, 69-70:3-23. ' .
Black, M. C.,J. R. Ferrell, R. C. Horning, and L. K. Martin, Jr. 1996. DNA strand breakage in
freshwater mussels (Anodonta grandis) exposed to lead in the laboratory arid field. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 15:802-808.
Boepple, J.F., 1912. Mussel resources of the Holston and Clinch Rivers of eastern Tennessee.
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document no. 765.
Bogan, A.E., and Parmalee, P.W. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife Volume II: The mollusks.
Knoxville, Tennessee. . . . , ' , .
' ', ' ' ''.""' " • • -' " :'•''•
Boyer, D.G. andPasquarell, G.C. 1995. Nitrate concentrations in karst springs in an
extensively grazed area. Water Resources Bulletin 31 (4): 729-736.
DRAFT—June 13, 1996. ' ' ." V ,29
-------
Brooks, R. and M. Ruinsby.' 1965. The biogeochemistry of trace element uptake by some New '
Zealand bivalves. Limnol. Ocean. 10:521-527.
Burky, A. 1983. Physiological ecology of freshwater bivalves. Pages 281-327 in W.Russell-
Hunter (editor). The mollusca. Volume 6: Ecology, Academic Press, New York.
Cairns, J., Jr., J.S. Grossman, K.L. Dickson, and E.E. Herrieks. -1971. The recovery of damaged
Streams. Am. Soc. Biol. Bull. 18(3):79-106. I .. .' ,
Cherry, D.S., L.G.-Rutherford, M.G. Dobbs, C. Zipper, and J. Cairns, 1995. Acidic pH and
heavy metal impacts into stream watershed and river ecosystems. Abandoned Mined Lands, Powell
River, Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.,
Church, G.W. 1991. Survey of the family unionidae in the Upper Clinch and Little River,
Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Cooper, J. R., and J. W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorous redistribution from cultivated areas into
riparian areas. Soil Scientist Society of America Journal 57:416-420.
Cooper, J. R., J. W. Gilliam, R. B. Daniels, and W. P. Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters
for agricultural sediment. Soil Scientist Society of America Journal 51:416-420.
Grossman, J.S. 1973. The biological recovery of the Clinch River following pollutional stress.
Doctoral Dissertation. Biology Dept.,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia. 173 pp. , , .
Grossman, J.S., J. Cairns, Jr., and R.L. Kaesler. 1973. Aquatic invertebrate recovery in the s
Clinch River following hazardous spills and floods. Virginia Water Resources Research Center,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. ,
Culver, D.C., Jones, W.K., and Holsinger, J.R. 1992. Biological and hydrological
investigation of the Cedars, Lee County, Virginia, An ecologically significant and threatened
karstarea. First International Conference on Ground .Water Ecology, American Water .
Resources Association, p. 281-290.
/ ~ ' '
1 |.
Qimmins, K., M. Wilzbach, D. Gates, J. Perry, and W. Taliaferro. 1989. Shredders and riparian
vegetation. BioScience 39:24-30. .
DelRegno, K. J., and S. F. Atkinson. 1988. Nonpoirit pollution and watershed management: a
remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) approach. Lake Reservoir Management
4:17-25. ' ' .
I ' , ' ' ' , , . :
- ' ' I '
• - ; ','.,*'
Dennis, S.D.' 1981. Mussel fauna of the Powell River, Virgiiiia and Tennessee. Sterkiana, 71:1-7.
30 Clinch VaKey Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment .
-------
__ 1985. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River system
with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Tennessee Wildlife Resources -
Agency, Nashville, Tennessee, no; 85-2, 171 p. .
_ 1989. Status of the freshwater mussel fauna, Pendleton Island Mussel Preserve, Clinch River
Virginia. Sterkiana 72:19-27.
Diamond, J. and A. Fournier. 1981. Analysis and evaluation of forestry management practices
relating to stream and fisheries habitat maintenance and stability. U. S. Forest Service, Siuslaw
National Forest, Mapleton District, OR., ^
Etnier, D.A., and Starnes, W.C. 1994. Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. . • "'. '• . r . , .-'
Feeman, Jr., J,C. 1987. Results offish surveys in the Tennessee River drainage, 1979-1981
Brimleyana, 13:99-121.
Fisher, S. and G. Likens. 1973. Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an interpretive
approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol. Monogr. 43:421-439. ,
Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework
for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental
Management 10:199-214. / r
Fuller, S. L., and M. J. Imlay. 1976. Spatial competition between Corbicula manilensis (Philippi)
and freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Waccamaw River basin of the Carolinas. Association
Southeastern Biological Bulletin 23:60.
Fuller, S. 1974. Clams and mussels. Pages 215-273 in C. Hart, Jr., and S. Fuller (editors).
Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, New Yiirk.
Gardner, J. A., W. R. WoodaU, Jr., A. A. Staats, Jr., and J. F. Napbli. 1976. The invasion of
the asiatic clam in the Altamalia River, Georgia. Nautilus 90:117-125.
• 's ' ' ' . ' -.'• •-'''.." • * '''..,•'
Goodrich, C., 1913. Spring collecting in southwest Vurginia. The Nautilus 27( 7):81-95.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1993. Effects of wastewater treatment plant
effluents on freshwater molluscs in the Upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA. Hydrobiologia '
'252:211-230. ' : .
Graham, R. L., C. T. Hunsaker, R. V. O'Neffl, and B. L. Jackson: 1991. Ecological risk
assessment at the regional scale.'Ecological Applications 1:196-206.
I, ' " . -• r ' •_•--= - . ;
Green, D. M., and J. B. Kaufman. 1989. Nutrient cycling at the land-water interface: the
importance of the riparian zone. ^Pages 61-71 in R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L. Kershner
DRAFT—June 23, 1996 ;, ,31
-------
(editors). Practical approaches to riparian resource management. Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of Interior. BLM-MT-PT-89-001. . . !
Gregory, S.V., F: J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem
perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551. j "
• i . . .- • • , ' ' •
Havlik, M. E., and L. L. Marking. 1987, Effects of contaminants on naiad molluscs (Unionidae):
a review. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Research Publication 164:1-20.
Hickman, M.E. 1937. A contribution to themollusca of East Tennessee. M.S. Thesis, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. •
Holsinger, J. R., and D. C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of'Vifginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology: Brimleyana-14:1-162. -
Holsinger, J.R. 1966. A preliminary study on the effects of organic pollution of Banners Corner
Cave, Virginia. International Journal of Speleology 2:75-89. '..,'.
Home, F. and S. Mclntosh. 1979. Factors influencing distribution of mussels in central Texas.
Nautilus 94:124-135. , • , .'..'.
Hubbard, D.A., Jr. and Balfour, W.M. 1993. An investigation of engineering and .
environmental concerns relating to proposed highway construction in a karst terrain.
Environmental Geology 22: 326-329.
Hunsaker, C. T., and D. A. Levine! 1995. Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality
in rivers. BioScience 45:193-203. , , , ' .
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish conimunities. Fisheries, 6(6): 21-27.
Jenkins, R.E., and Burkhead, N.M. 1994. The freshwater fishes of Virginia. Airier. Fish Society,
Bethesda, MIX
Jenkins, R.E., and Burkhead, N.M.( in press). The fishes of Copper Creek, upper Tennessee river
drainage Virginia. . . . ' .
,1 ••"•'•
Jenkinson, J. J. 1979. The occurrence and spread of Corbicula manilensis in east-central
Alabama. Nautilus 94:149-153. ~. .
Karr, J,R . 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish coinomunities. Fisheries, 6(6): 21-27.
?, ' ' ' ' ' '
Kat, P. 1984. Parasitism and the unionidae. Biological Review 59:189-207.
32
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Kitchell, H. E. 1985. Life history of the endangered shiny.pigtoe nearly mussel, Fusconaiq
endgdriana, in the North Fork Holston River, Virginia. M. S". Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
.• ••' ' ^ ••.--.'•'•': •••"'.'. • • '. ' ' • - "-••
Lenat, D. R. 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: a biological evaluation of erosion
controlpractices. Environmental Management 8:333-344. .
Lewis, J. B.-, and P. N. Riebel. 1984. The effect of substrate on.burrowing in freshwater mussels
(Unionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:2023-2025. -
Lowrance, T.,R.Todd, J. Fail, Jr., O.Hendrickson, Jr., R.Leonard, C.Asmussen. 1984.
Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. Biological Science 34:374-377.
Luoma, S. 1989. Can we determine the biological availability of sediment-bound trace elements?
Hydrobiol. 176/177:379-396.
Masnik, M.T. 1974. Composition, longitudinal distribution and zoogeography of the fish fauna of
the Upper Clinch system in Tennessee arid Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
McMahon, R. 1983. Ecology of-'an invasive pest bivalve Corbicula. Pages 505-561 in W.
Russell-Hunter (editor). TheMullusca. Volume 6: Ecology. Academic Press, New York.
Michaelson, D. L., and R. J. Neves. 1995. Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedge mussel Atosmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: uriionidae). Journal of North American '
Benthological Society 14:324-340.
Milici, R.C. and Campbell, E.V.M. 1992. The long-term outlook for coal production in
Virginia. Virginia Mining Journal 4(3): 17-21.
Minshall, G. W. 1993. .Stream-riparian ecosystems: rationale and methods for basin-level
assessments of management effects. In M. E, Jensen and P. S. Bourgeron (editors). Eastside
forest ecosystem health assessment. Vol. 2. Ecosystem management: principles and applications.
Pacific Northwest Research Station, U. S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
Mulholland, P., J. Newbold, J. Elwood, and J. Webster. 1985. Phosphorous spiraling in a
woodland stream: seasonal variations. Ecology 60:1012-1023.
Muncaster, B. W., P. D. Hubert, and R. Lazar. 1990. Biological and physical factors affecting
the body burden of organic contaminants in freshwater mussels. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 19:25-34. ~ .
Neves, R. and A. Zale. 1982. Freshwater mussels of Big Moccasin Creek, southwestern Virginia,
Nautilus 96:52-54. .
DRAFT—June-13, 1996 , 33
-------
Neves, R., L. Weaver, and A. Zale. 1985. An evaluation of host fish suitability for glochidia of
Villosa. Am. Mid. Natur. 113:13-18; ' ,
Neves, R.J., and M.C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in,
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:(4) 934-941. , , . *
Neves, RJ. 1991. Mollusks, Pages 251-320 in Terwilliger, K. (editor).. Virginia's endangered
species. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Noss, R.F. and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered ecosystems. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, ',
D.C.
O'Bara, C.J., Eggleton, M.A.; McAddo, L.M., and Q'Brien,
assessment part 1: Macrobenthic and fish communities. Tennessee
Nashville; Tennessee.
S.K. 1994. Clinch River biotic
Wildlife Resources Agency,
Omemik, J. M., A. R. Abernathy, and L. M. Male. 1981.
of agricultural and forest land to streams: some relationships.
Conservation 36:227-231.
Stream
nutrient levels and proximity
Journal of Soil and Water
O'Neil, C.R., Jr. 1991.. The zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorphd): an unwelcome North
American invader. New York Sea Grant, Cornell Cooperative Extension, State University of New
York, Brockport.
Ortmann, A. E. 1918. The Nayades (Freshwater Mussels) of the Upper Tennessee drainage with
notes on synonymy and distribution. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 52.
* - '
Osborne, L. L., and M. J. Wiley. 1988. Empirical relationships between land use/cover patterns
and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Management •
26:9-27. • ;
\ ,
Pasquarell, G.C. and Boyer, D.G. 1995. Agricultural impacts on bacterial water quality in
karst groundvvater. Journal of Environmental Quality 24:959-969.
Reed, D.K. 1993. Impact zone delineation for biological assessment of power plant effluent
effects on snail populations hi the Clinch River. Doctoral Dissertation. Biology Dept.,Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. '
Richards, C., and G. Host. 1954. Examining land use influences on stream habitats and -
macroinvertebrates: a GIS approach. Water Resources Bulletin 30:729-738.
» ;• ,--''.
Richards,' E., and K. Bacon. 1994. Influence of fine sediment on macroinvertebrate colonization
of surface and hyporheic stream substrates. Great Basin Naturalist 54:106-118.
34
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Rosenberg, D. and V. Resh. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates.
Chapman and Hall, Inc., Great Britain. "
Saylor, C.F., and Ahlstedt, S.A. 1990. Application of index of biotic integrity (mi) to fixed water
quality monitoring sites. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources Aquatic Biology .
Department, Norris, Tennessee.
Sheehan, R. J., R. J. Neves, and H. E.. Kitchel. 1989. Fate of freshwater mussels transplanted to
formerly polluted reaches of the Clinch and North Fork Holston rivers, Virginia. Journal of
- Freshwater Ecology 5:139-149.
Sickel, J. B., C. C. Chandler, and G. L. Pharris. 1993. Unionid distribution and abundance
relative to habitat characteristics. Pages 169-183 in A.- C. Miller (editor). Report of Freshwater
Mussels Workshop, St. Louis, Missouri. , .: .
Simon, K.S. 1994. Response of a cave aquatic community to groundwater pollution. MvS.
Thesis. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 78p.
Sivertun, A., L. E. Reirielt, and.R. Castensson. 1988,. A GIS method to aid in nonpoint-spurce
critical area analysis. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 2:365-378.
Spar, Michael A. 198,9. Virginia Statistical Abstract. Center fof Public Service, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. • ;
Speaker, R., R. Moore, and S: Gregory. 1984, Analysis of the process of retention of organic
matter in stream ecosystems. Verh. Int. Verein. Theor. Aug. Limnol. 22:1835;1841. ,
. ' ' '- >'"-.-••-•'' '/ '_...' "
Stansbery, D.H., C.D. Stein, and G.T. Walters. 1986. The distribution and relative abundance of
unionid mollusks in the Clinch River in the vicinity of Appalachian Power Company's Clinch River
Plant at Carbo, Virginia (Clinch River miles 264-270). The Ohio State University Research
Foundation, Project 764801/71733. Columbus, Ohio.
Stansbery, D. H., and C. B. Stein. 1976. Changes in the distribution ollofluvialis (say) in the
Upper Tennessee River system (Gastropoda: Pleuroceridae). Bulletin of American Malacologist
Union 1976:28-33. ;
Stansbery, D.H. 1973. A preliminary report on the naiad fauna of the Clinch River in the
southern Appalachian Mountains of Virginia and Tennessee (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae).
Bulletin of the American Makcological Union, Inc. -'•'-.
Statenei, B., J. A. Goire, andV. H. Resh. 1988. Hydraulic stream ecology: observed patterns
and potential applications. Journal of North American Benthological Society_7:307-360. '
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 35
-------
Stein, C. 1971. Naidae life cycles: their significance in the conservation of the fauna. Page,s 19-
25 in Jorgensen and Sharp (editors). Proceedings of a symposium on rare and endangered
mollusks. U. S. D. L, FWS:-
Suter, G., 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boc Raton, FL.
i '" - i' -
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1970. Tennessee Valley streams: then: fish, bottom fauna, and aquatic
habitat, Powell River Basin. Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and
Wildlife Department, Norris, Tennessee. . ,
Tennessee Valley Authority, unpublished. 1989-93. Fish collected at Clinch River (RM 172.3)
during annual.EBI sampling.
Tennessee Valley Authority, unpublished. 1989-1993. Fish collected at Pbwell River (RM 65.4)
during annual IBI sampling. i . ,
r ' - *
* , !i ' '
Tennessee/Virginia Joint Task Force. 1985. Conserving the unique values of the Clinch and
Powell rivers: A report to the governors of Virginia and Tennessee. • ,
Tessier, A., P. G. Campbell, J. P. Anclair, and M. Bisson. 1984. Relationships between the ,
partitioning of trace metals in sediments and their accumulation in the tissues of the freshwater
mollusc Elliptic complanata in a mining area. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
41:1463-1472. ;; • " . ..-. ''.'.
• i • . '"'''..
• i. •
Tessier, A. and P. Campbell. 1987. Partitioning of trace metals in sediments relationships with
bioavailability. Hydrobiol. 149:43-52.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 1993. Strategic plan for the Tennessee portion of the Clinch
Valley Bioreserve. Clinch Valley Bioreserve Program, Abingdon, VA.
•> ' X
* . '
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 1994. Fish Creek system site conservation plan. TNC, Angola,
IN. .... ,; '.-;.•• .'•'.'''.-.•,. •;
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 1995a. Workbook for site conservation planning workshops.
Arlington, VA. • .
* ,
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 1995b. Quicksand Pond/Goosewing Beach site conservation
plan. TNC Rhode Island Field Office, Providence, RI.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 1996.. Conserving biodivensity on military lands, pp. 100, 112-
115. DoD and TNC, Washington, D.C. .
Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annals of Ecological
Systems Review 20:171-197.
36 • , ' Clinch Vall'ey Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel recovery plan.
Atlanta, Georgia.
__ 1983. Dromedary pearly,mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia.
[ 1983. Green-blossom pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia .
. 1983. Appalachian monkeyface pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia.. '
___ 1983. Birdwing pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia..
;_ 1983. Shiny pigtoe pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia..
^ .1984. Tan riffle shell pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia:
^. 1984. Fine-rayed pigtoe pearly mussel recovery plan; Atlanta, Georgia. '
1 • . ' ~ ' ' ' - " • i '-'.•' • s • , .
1984. Rough pigtoe pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia.
. 1984. Cumberland bean pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. ;
___ 1985. Pink inucket pearly mussel recovery plan. Atlanta; Georgia.
•_ 1990. Cracking pearly mussel (Hemistena (=Lqstena) latd) recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S.,S6il Conservation Service. 1992. Clinch River Basin Land and Water Resources Study for
Hydrological Units. •
Van der Schalie, H. 1938. Contributing factors in the depletion of naiades in eastern U. S. ,
Basteria.3:51-57. ' ^ -
. • ' • ' ' • . '.."•'. " -•" •>' • ' - \ ', -• • ''
Van Hassel, J.H. and A.E. Gaulke. 1986.' Site-specific water quality criteria from instream
monitormg data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5(5):417-426.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, April 1994. Virginia Water Quality Assessment
1994. Information Bulletin #597. , '•
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 1996. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 1996.
In Prep. " . . ' \ '•.'-'..,' ••,.".•••..';. , '.'. \ •.._•-
Warren, M. D.'Cicerello, K, Camburn, and G. Fallo. 1984. The longitudinal distribution of the
freshwater mussels of northeastern Kentucky. Am. Malac. Bull. 3:47-53. .
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 .' . ,l ' 37
-------
Warren, L. W., S. J. Klaine, and M. T. Finley. 1995. Development .of a field bioassay with
juvenile mussels. Journal of North American Benthological Society 14:341-346.
Way, C., D. Hornbach, and A. Burky, 1980. .Comparative, life history tactics ofspherid clams.
American Midland Naturalist 104:319-327. , • '
Weber, C. 1981. Evaluation of the effects of effluents on aquatic life: an overview. Pages 3-13 in
J. Bates and C. Weber (editors). Ecological assessment of communities. ASTM STP 730.,
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
. ' | . . • , _ ,!
Wilkin, D. and R. Jackson. 1983. Nonpoint water quality contributions from land use. J. Envir.
Syst. 13:127-136. ' ' . : . .
Woodley, S., J.Kay, and G. Francis, ed. Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems.
St. Lucie Press, 1994. ' ^ \
Yeager, B.L. 1994. Impacts of reservoirs^on the aquatic environment of regulated rivers.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Resource Group, Water-Managemient, Norris,' Tennessee.
Young, M. and J. Wiliams. 1984. The reproductive biology of the freshwater pearl mussel
Margaritifera in Scotland. Archiv. filer Hydrobiol. 100:29-43.
Zale, A. V., and R. J. Neves. 1982a. Fish hosts of four species of Lampsilae mussels (Unionidae)
in Big Moccasin Creek, Virginia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60;2535-2542.
. 1982b. Reproductive biology of four freshwater mussel species (Unionidae) in Virginia.
Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 1:17-28.
Zeto, M., W. Tolin, and J. Smith. 1987. The freshwater mussels of the upper Ohio River. West
Virginia. Nautilus 101:182-185. . -
Zipper, C.E.; G.I. Holtzmari; S. Rheem, and G.K. Evanylp. 1991. Understanding Surface Water
Quality Trends in southwestern Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, Va. 91-1:61
38 Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
7.0 TABLES
Table 1. Public, Private, and Governmental Groups Active in the Clinch and Powell River Watersheds
Federal
Government
TVA, Clinch River Action Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dept. of Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .
U.S. Geological Survey ' ..••..'
National Biological Service
Office of Surface Mining
Dept. of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
Rural Economic and Community Development
State
Government
VIRGINIA
Dept. of Conservation & Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
• Division 6f Soil &'Water Conservation
. Division of Parks & Recreation
Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Dept. of Forestry " .
Dept. of Game & inland Fisheries
Dept. of Mines, Minerals, & Energy
Division of Mined Land Reclamation
(& other divisions)
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Virginia Cave Board
•TENNESSEE '
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Dept. of Environment & Conservation
Division of Natural Heritage
Division of Water Pollution Control
Division of Abandoned Mine Land
Reclamation
Dept. of Agriculture "
Division of Forestry
Division of Plant Sciences
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Planning District Commissions
Organizations
VIRGINIA
The Nature Conservancy
Black Diamond Resource Conservation &
Development Council
Coalition for Jobs and the Environment
Clinch Powell Sustainable Development
• Initiative - ' '
Southern Environmental Law Center
Sierra Club
Audubon Naturalist Society
TENNESSEE
The- Nature Conservancy
Clinch-Powell Resource Conservation &
> Development Council , 1
Citizens for .Wilderness Planning
Save Our Cumberland Mountains
Tennessee Ornithological Society
Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association
Friends of the Clinch & Powell Rivers
Sierra Club
Universities
and Colleges
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
Tennessee Technological University
University of Tennessee
East Tennessee State University "
Tusculum College . , . .
Virginia Highlands Community College
Southwestern-Virginia Community ;Coflege
Empire Community College
Clinch Valley College
University of Virginia ' ' • .
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
39
-------
Table 2. Datasets Collected for the Clinch-Powell Watershed
Template layers
Cities
Political Boundaries (TIGER Data)
Federal Land Ownership
Transportation
Hydrologic Unite - TVA, USGS .
Major Dams ; ' .
Hydrography - Streams (RF3)
Transmission Lines (from TIGER data)
Other Datasets
Landsat Thematic Mapper Classified imagery (25 meter resolution, 12 class)
Landsat Multispectral Scanner imagery (triplicates - 80 meter resolution) classified imagery, 3 times periods
AVHRR Landcover data (1 kilometer resolution) - USGS EROS
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (1:24,000 scale, 30 meter resolution) _-: .
Digital Elevation Model (3 arc second resolution) . ' -
Human Population - Census ;
Ecoicgions (Omemik) ' . '
Ecorcgions (Bailey) |
Potential Vegetation (Kuchler) •
Continuous Forest Inventory Points (CFI) - TVA
Forest Inventory Analysis Points (FIA) - USFS - locations are "fuzzed"
Forest Type Groups - USFS ' '''•'""..
STATSGO 1:250,000 Soils data - SCS
IBI data- TVA, VPI, Tennessee Tech '. ..
Modified Rapid Biomass Assessment data (MRBA)-TVA ... .
Significant Karst Areas-Virginia Cave Board ' |
Hazardous Waste Handlers - EPA .
Hazardous Materials Releases (Emergency Response Notification System - ERNS - EPA
CERCLIS sites inch - Superfund Sites - EPA , '
Mine locations - EPA ' -
Water Access Sites - State of Virginia
Rail accident sites & information - EPA ' , j • • , ." '.
Mussel Concentration Sites - TNC
' Datasets available as part of SAMAB Southern Appalachian Assessment
T&E Species occurance
Climate & air quality data (ozone, acid deposition)
Climate divisions
Palmer Drought Severity Index (monthly)
Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index (monthly)
Palmer "Z" Index (monthly)
Average Temperature (monthly)
Average Precipitation (monthly)
Air Quality Monitoring Sites point
NOAA Cooperative Climate Observers Sites point
Toxic Release Inventory Sites point
Ozone - Seasonal W126 Index (1985-1989) Modeled
(app. 1,2,000,000)
pH (Annual - 1990) Modeled (app. 1,2,000,00)
NO3 Deposition (Annual- 1990) Modeled (app.
1,2,000,000) ,
S04 Depositioni (Annual -1990) Modeled (app.
1,2,000,000)
NH4 Deposition (Annual - 1990) Modeled (app.
1,2,000,000) -
, Pollution point sources
40
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table 3. Land Uses within Clinch Valley Pilot Subwatersheds
Stream Name
Big Cedar Creek
Big Cedar Creek ,
Big Cedar Creek
Big Cedar Creek
Big Cedar Creek . ,
Big Cedar Creek
Big Cedar Creek
Big Cedar Creek
Big Cedar Creek Total
Copper Creek
Copper Creek
Copper Creek
Copper Creek
Copper Creek
Copper Creek
Copper Creek
Copper Creek Total
Guest River
Guest River
Guest River .
Gue.st River
Guest River
Guest River
Guest River
Guest River .
Guest River
Guest River •
Guest River Total ,
Stock Creek
Stock Creek
Stock Creek
Stock Creek
Stock Creek '
Stock Creek
Stock Creek • .".•;••.
Stock Creek
Stock Creek Total
GRAND TOTAL
Description
AGRICULTURE
CONIFEROUS FOREST
DECIDUOUS FOREST
FORESTED WETLAND
NON-FORESTED WETLAND
OPEN WATER
PASTURE . v
URBAN ,--.'-.
AGRICULTURE
CONIFEROUS FOREST
DECIDUOUS FOREST
MINES
NON-FORESTED WETLAND
OPENWATER
PASTURE '•--..
AGRICULTURE
CONIFEROUS, FOREST
DECIDUOUS FOREST
FORESTED WETLAND
MINES .
NODATA
NON-FORESTED WETLAND
OPEN WATER
ASTURE
URBAN ' ' .
AGRICULTURE :
CONIFEROUS FOREST
DECIDUOUS FOREST
ORESTED WETLAND
MINES
NON-FORESTED WETLAND
OPENWATER
ASTURE
Hectares
129.87
246.06
'11646:54
2.52
11.43
. 12.6
9850.05
254.88
22153.95
' * 432.81
276.66
19555.65
10.44
1.89
1.98
, 14064.66
34344.09
0:72
27,36
. 21380.58
78.57
534.69
9.99
,11.7
128.34
•2647.17
658.35
25477.47
201.33
493.83
24511.5
6.57
•.<'23.13
5.13
311.49
5574.33
31127.31
113102.82
Acres
320.92
608.03
- 28779.23
6.23
/ 28.24
,31.14
24340.01
629.82
54743.61
1069.5
683.64
48323.07
25.8
''•'• 4.67
, 4.89
34754.54
84866.1
1.78
. 67.61
. 52832.57
194.15
1321.25
24.69
28.91
317.14
6541.3
1626.82
62956.21
497.5
1220.28
60569.24
16.23
, . '., 57.16
12.68
769.71
.13774.47
76917.27
279483.18
%
0.59
1.11
52.57
0.01
0.05
0.06
'44.46
1.15
100
1.26
0.81
56.94
0.03
0.01
0.01
40.95
100
0.00
0.11
83.92
0,31
2.1
0.04
0.05 .
0.5
10.39
2.58
100
0.65
1.59
78.75
0.02
0.07
0.02
1
17.91
100
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
41.
-------
Table 4. Categories of Data Available for Clinch River Subwatersheds (Source: Don Gowan, Nature
Conservancy—personal communication)
Subwatershed
Major Characteristics
Data Categories Available
Cedar Creek
>• Agricultural, with, some
urban land use (Lebanon)
>• Few mussels due to
bedrock stream substrate
> Few cave fauna
Water quality: ambient and stormwater
data—parameters include pesticides, nutrients, TSS,
precipitation, flow (VA Tech)
Fish (P. Angermeier, VA Tech)
Benthic macroinvertebrates (TVA)
Copper Creek
>• Good mussel habitat
>• Good fish populations
»• Some cave fauna
> Livestock and deciduous
forest land use
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Mussels ' • . - .
Habitat i
Fish (DGEF, TVA)
Water quality: limited—sources include VA DEQ,
STORET, NAWQA (may have pesticides, etc.?)
Guest River
>• Most impaired and
heavily populated of the
subwatersheds
>• Urban, mining influences
> High gradient
,»• Little mussel or fish
habitat
*• Sparse historic data
f Fish (IBI, P. Angermeier, VA Tech)
>• " Benthic macroinvertebrates (TVA)
> Water quality: limited—fecal coliform and
sedimentation to be obtained this summer; sediment
tox (AEP, multi-year study, many sites)
Stock Creek
>• Foote Mineral located in
subwatershed
> Limited data
»• Mussels found at
confluence of Stock Creek
and Clinch River
>• Karst topography, aquatic
cave fauna present
* Mussel transplanting in
Stock Creek failed
(Ahlestedt, USGS)
> Mussel data: seasonal
> Benthic macroinvertebrate: luriited .
(TVA)—performed RBP in 2nd, 4th, and 5th order
streams :
>• Water quality: available only near foote mineral; may
be available in Rye Cove for caves and streams
42
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table 5. Measurement Endpoints and Associated Measures for Assessment Endpoints. (Most endpoints
have data for more than one time period.)
Mussel Recruitment
Mussel species
presence/absence
Mussel population size
classes* .
Mussel species abundance*
Benthic macroinvertebrate
ICI scores
Macroinvertebrate taxa
richness ,
Macroinvertebrate RBP
scores
Macroinvertebrate
community metrics (EPT, %
shredders, etc,.)
Pleurocerid snail species
abundance* .
Water-column pollutant and
nutrient concentrations*
Sediment toxicity to mussels
(various species and life
stages) and'other
invertebrate fauna*
Aquatic acute and chronic
toxicity to mussels (various
species and life stages) arid
other invertebrate fauna*
Benthic habitat quality
scores; geomorphology
metrics*
• Fish Recruitment
,T&E fish presence/absence
Madtom population
abundance* •
Darter population
abundance*
FishlBrscores
Habitat suitability indices
Aquatic acute and chronic
toxicity to surrogate fish
species*
j
Surrogate fish species*
Sediment toxicity to'
surrogate fish species*
T _ - '"-
•- ' • .
Riparian Corridor •
Integrity
Stream substrate ••..
embeddedness
Channel velocity .
. ,•• • . #
Base flow
Channel width '
Channel depth
Flood plain width .
Vegetative cover
Bank integrity
Sediment erosion rate
Spatial area of vegetative
cover
Substrate particle size -••-••
Presence/absence of wood
vegetation ,
Case Fauna Diversity,
Fecundity
Species presence/, absence
.Cave location
' "*'.'•
' •'••• • '•- : - •
, " .-. ' • ,
* Data available for limited number of sites within watershed^'.
Measurement endpoints are measurable responses to a stressor that are related to the valued
DRAFT—June. 13, 1996'•,
43
-------
APPENDIX A: POPULATION CENSUS INFORMATION
Table A-l Census Population and Projections for Clinch-Powell Watershed Localities,
1980-2000.
County
or City
Lee
Scott
Wise
City of Norton
Russell
Tazewell
TOTAL
VIRGINIA
TOTAL
Historic Census Data Population
1980
25956
25068
43863
• 4757
31761
50511
181916
5346818
1990 ,
24496
23204
39573
4247
28667
45960
166147
6189314.
Avg. Annual
Rate of
Change
-0.6%
-0.8%
-1.0%
-1.1%
-1.0%
-0.9%
• -0.9%
1.5%
Projected Population Changes
1995
24185
22771
L 38641
4090
27711
44422
, 161820
6551559
2000
23888
22359
. . 37754
3940
26800
42958
157699
6896557
Avg.
Projected
Annual Rate
of Change
-0.3%
-0.4%
. -0.5%
•-0.7%..
-0.7%
-0.7%
-0.5%
1.1%
44
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
APPENDIX B: AQUATIC AND CAVE FAUNA RECORDED
IN THE CLINClf RIVER BASEV
Table B-l Mussel Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage *
LJC = Upper Clinch, CC = Copper Creek; LR = Little River, PR = Powell River. Hist = Historical, Ext = Extant.
Species
(** = Cumberlandian)
Actinonaias ligamentina
Actinonaias pectorosa **
Alasmidonta marginata
r
Alasmidonta viridis •
Amblema plicata
Cumberlandia monodonta
Cyclonaias tuberculata
Cyprogenia stegaria
Dromus dromas '**
"Elliptic crassidens
. - :
Elliptic dilatata
Epioblasma arcaeformis**
Epioblasma biemarginata
Epioblasma brevidehs **
UC
Hist
7, 13, 16 .
/
.13, 16
'13,16
13, 16
16
8, 16
16
7
8,20
16
13, 16, '
8
8
8, 16
UC
Ext
1, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
17« 18 ,
1, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
17, 18
1, 4, 5, 6,
9,11,17,
18 ' "
16, 17
1, 4, 5, 6,
11, 12; 17,
18 ,
1, 4, 5, 6,
8, 9, 11, 15
17 . .,,
1, 4, 5, 6,
11, 12, IT.
r; 4, 5, e,
11, 12, 15,
17,31 '
1,5,6,8, ..
11, 15; 17,
20
l,-4,5i6,
11, 15,: 17
1, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
17, 18 '
— ..: .
'— .-.. .
1, 4, -5, 6,
11, 12, 15,
1,7
CC
Ext
'
2
2
"2- .
2,5, •
-
' ' ..
LR
Ext
9 "
9
•
PR
Hist.
7, 16
16
14,16
17
7, 16
14
8, 14, 16,
20
16
16.
8,16
PR
-•• " Ext ' •
2,3,4,5,
10, 11
2, 3,: 4, 5,
10, 11
2,3, 10,. 11
— • ... ••
2, 3, 4, 5, .
10, 11
8
2,3,4,5,
10, 11 "
— - '
2, 3, 4, 5,
8, 10, 11,
15, 20
2, 3, 4, 10,
15-: •• • ;
2, 3, 4, 5,
10,11 ,
2, 3; 4, 5,
8, 10, 11,
15
DRAFTr-June 13, 1996
45
-------
Table B-l Mussel Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(** s Cumberlandian)
Epioblasma capsaeforrais **
Epioblasma florentina
walked**
Epioblasmathaysiana**
Epioblasma lenoir**
Epioblasma lewisi**
Epioblasma tortulosa
gubemaculum**
Epioblasma triquetra
^Fusconaia bamesiana**
Fusconaia cor **
Fusconaia cuneolus **
Fusconaia subrotunda
Hemistena lata
Lampsilis abmpta
Lampsilis fasciola
Lampsilis ovata
i
Lampsilis ovata ventricosa
Lasmigona costata
Lasmigona hblstonia
UC
' Hist
13,16
25
8, 13, 16
16
8
8, 16, 21
16
13, 16
8,13,16,
24
8, 16, 26
13, 16
8, 13, 16,
30
13,16 ,,
7,16
7,16
13, 16
13, 16
UC
Ext
1, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
15, 17
4, 15, 17
17
_
— •
6, 8, 11,
15, 17, 21
1, 4, 5, 6,
11, 12, 15,
17
1, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
17, 18
1,4,6,11,
12, 15, 17,
18,24
.1,4,5,8,
12, 15, 17,-
26
1, 4, 5, 9,
12, 17, 18
1,4,5,6,.
11, 15, 17,
30
1, 29
1. 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
17,18
1,4,5,6,
9, 11,17 .
12, 17, 18.
1, 4, 5, 6, -
9, 11, 12,
17, 18
15,17
CC
Ext
2,5
•- -
"•• „
2,5
/ *
2,5
2,5
2,5
2
2 .'
LR
Ext
. .' \
9
9
/
9
9
PR
. Hist
16
8, 16
8, 16 .
8, 14, 16,
21
16
16
8, 16, 24
8, 16, 26
16
30
16
14, 16
16 .
•16
16
PR
Ext
2, 3, 4, 5,
10, 11, 15
— .
— - ;
—
2, 3, 4, 5,,
10, 11, 15
2,3,4,5,
10, 11
2, 3, 4, 10,
11, 15,, 24
3, 4, 5, 8,
15,26
2, 3, 4, 5
2, 3, 10,
15, 30 ;
2, 3, 4, 5,
10, 11
2,3,4,5,,
11
10
2,3,4,5,
10, 11
_i ,
46
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table B-l Mussel Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(**, = Cumberlandian)
Lemiox rimosus **
Leptodea fragilis
" . •' " ,,' , •.•
Lexingtonia dolabelloides**
Ligumia recta
Medionidus conradicus **
*. «
Pegias fabula**
Plethbbasus cyphyus
Pleurpbema coccineum
Pleurobema cordatum
" Pleurobema oviforme**
\
Pleurobema plenum
• v
Pleurobema rubrum '
Potamilus alatus
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris
:>tychobranchus subtentum **
Quadrula cylindrica ,
••• UC
Hist
8, 13, 16,
23.
8,16
7, 13, 16
13,- 16
8'
16 , :
7, 13, 16
16
13, 16 .
16
13, 16
8, 13, 16
UC
Ext
1, 4, 5, 6,
8, 11, 12,
15, 17, 23
1,4,6,9,
11, 12, 17,
18
1, 4, 8, 9,
12, 15, 17,
18
1,4,5,6,
11, 12, 15,
17, 18
1,4,5,6,
9,' 11, 12,
17, 18 '••
9, 15, 17
1, 4, 5, 6,
11, 12, 15,
17
17
1,5,6, 11,
12^ 15
4;4,,5,6,
9, 12, 17,
18
1, 15, 17,
32
1-, 4, 16, 17
1,4,5,6,
9, 11, -12,
17, 18
1,4,5,6,
9,11,12,
17, 18 •
1,4,5,6,
8, 9, 11,
12, 17, 18
5, 6, 11, 12-
CC
Ext
2, 5 .
• -
2,5
2
2
LR
..-'Ext-
,
9 . " '
9 •
.
9
9
PR
Hist
8, 16, 23
14, 16
8, 16
7, 15, 16
16
16 ;
14, 16
16
16
16 .,:
8, 16
PR
Ext
2, 3,' 8, 10,
11, 15,23
2, 3, 5, 10,
11 '
2, 4, 8, 15
2,3,4,5,
,10, 15
2,3,4,5;
10, 11
•. _ •
2,3,-4,5,
10, 11, 15 '
2,3,, 4, 5,
10 ;. .
:
2,3,4,5,
10
2,3,4,5,
10, 11
2,3,4,5,
8, 10, 11
3,5, 11
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
47
-------
Species
(+* = Cumberlandian)
Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica
Quadrula cylindrica
strigillata
Quadrula intermedia**
Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa
Quadrula sparsa**
Strophitus undulatus
Toxolasma lividus**
Truncilla truncate
Villosa fabalis
Villosa iris
Villosa perpurpurea **
Villosa trabalis** ?
Villosa vanuxemensis
vanuxemensis **
TOTAL:
UC
Hist
16
8, 13, 16
8, 13, 16,
19
7 •
8,22
13, 16
16
16
8, 13, 16-
13, 16
8, 13, 16
8, 16, 28
13, 46 f ,,
56
UC
Ext
—
1,4,8,9,
15,' 17, 18
8, 17
1, 4, 5, 6,
11, 12, 15,
17
1, 15, 17, -
22
1, 6, 11,
17/18
15, 17 ,
1. 5,6; 11,-
12, 15, 17 .
8,17
1, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12,
17, 18
1, 4, 9, 15,' ,
17
12, 17
1, 4, 5, 6,
11, 17, 18
56
CC
Ext
2
2,5
2,5
2
19
LR
Ext
. '
9
11
PR
Hist
16
8, 16 -
8, 19
16
8,22
16
16 '
8,116
16
8, 16
14, 16
47
PR
Ext
—
2, 4, 8, 11,
15.
2, 3, 4, 5, .
10, 11, 15,
19
2-, 3, 10, 15
2,3,4,8,
,10, 11, 15,
22
2/3, 10
—
3, 10, 15
—
2, 3, 4, 5,
10, 11
~l~"
2, 3, 4, 10
40
48
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table B-2 Fish Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage
(H = Historical record). , ' ,
Species
(** = Introduced)
Ambloplites rupestris , .
Ameiurus melas**
Ameiurus natalis
Ammocrypta clara
Ammocrypta pellucida ..
Aplodinotus grunniens
Campostoma anomalum
Carassius auratus **
Carpiodes carpio
Carpiodes cyprinus
Carpiodes velifer '. •' •
Gatostomus commersoni
Clinostomus funduloides . :
Cottus baileyi
Cottus bairdi
Cottus carolinae
Cottus sp (broadbanded sculpin)
Ctenopharyngodon idella**
Cycleptus elongatus
Cyprinella galactura
Cyprinella monacha
Cyprinella spiloptera
Cyprinella whipplei
Upper Clinch
06010205
1,2, 3, ,4, 6, 7,
8, 10
2,6 .
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
2,4 • ;...
1,2,4,6,7,8,
10
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, 10
2,6
2, 10,
1,2,4,6,7,8,
10
2,8,10^ '
1,2,4,6,7,8
1, 4, 6
1,4,6
6
1, 2, 3,,4, 6, 7,
10
1,4
4 : .. " •
2 •
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8,. 10 ."'.•• ,
H(2)
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10
Copper Creek
06010205
3,4,5,7
4,5
7
3, 4,'5, 7
4, 5 -
• 5 •-• " -
4,5.'.
4, 5, 7 ',
3,'4, 5', 7 '• • .'
' , ' - • ' •
3,4,5
Guest River
06010205
1,4,7
1,7
.1, 4, 7 ,
.
1,4,7 .,
.
' ' . ',' : _ -
1, 4, 7
- Powell River
06010206
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11 "
2-34689
11 . ' •• ;
2,3,4
6 •••'• '.
2\ 4, 6, 8, 11
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11
2,- 3- ;.' -(,
246
*'&
2, 4, (6 .
• • -
2 34 689
.11 -'
' ' •' -', r
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11 • ;
H(2)
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,"
11
2/6
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
49
-------
Table B-2 Fish Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(** =« Introduced)
Cyprinus carpio **
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoraa petenense **
Ericymba buccata**
Erimystax cahni
Erimystax dissimilis
Erimystax insignis
Esox masquinongy **
Ethcostoma blennioides
Eiheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma camurum
Eiheostoma cinereum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma kennicotti
Etheostoma percnurum
Etheostoma rufilineatum
Etheostoma simoterum
Etheostoma stigmaeum jessiae
Etheostoma swannanoa
Etheostoma tippecanoe '
Etheostoma vulneratum
Etheostoma zonale
Fundulus catenatus
Gambusia affinis **
Upper Clinch
06010205
1,2, 4, 6, 7, 8,
10
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, 10
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, --10
1,4,6
2, 3, 6
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
"1,3,4,6
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, .
8, 10
1, 2, 7
1,2, 3,' 4, 6, 7,
8, 10 -
1,2,4,6
1, 2, 4, 6, 7
2-7 . ..
4,6
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, lQ-
1,2, 3,4,6,7,
8, 10 ,
1, 4, 6 •'
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10 , . •
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1, 2, 3; 4, 6, 7,
8, 10 '
10
Copper Creek
06010205
•4,5
3,4,5. .; '
5 -
3, 4, 5, 7
3,4,5,7'
3,4,5,7
5,7 '
4,5,7
4, 5 ' : .
3,4,5,7
3,4,5,7 ' „.
3, 4, 5, 7
i
5
3,4,5 •
3, 4, 5, 7
, "\
4,5,7
I ••
Guest River
06010205
1,7 / '
1 . •
1,4,7
' ;
Powell River
06010206
2, 8, 11
2y3, 4, 6, 8, 11 '.
2, 3, 6, 8, 11
2, 3, 4, 6, 8
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11
2,3,4,6,8,11
4
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2,6
2,3,4,6,8,11
4,6
2, 12
2, 3, 4, 6,. 8, 9,
11
2,3,4,6,8,9, .,
11
2,3,4,6,8/9,,
11
4 .
2,3,4,5,9
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2, 4, 6, 8, 11 ,
50
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table B-2 Fish Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(** = Introduced)
Hiodon tergisus
Hybognathus hankinsbni
Hybopsis amblops
Hypentelium nigricans.
IchtHyomyzon bdellium
Ichthyomyzon g'agei .
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Ictalurus furcatus ;
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictiobus bubalus
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Ictiobus niger •
Labidesthes sicculus
Lagochila lacera
Lampetra aepyptera '
Lampetra appendix : • ' ••'.
Lepisosteus qculatus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomis auritus **
.
Lepomis .cyanellus •
Lepomis gibbosus**
Lepomis gulosus -
Lepomis macrochirus
'.'' - ' ." ''.'"'•
Lepomis megalotis
- - , '.-' ' "
Lepomis microlophus**
Upper Clinch
06010205
2,8, 10
1,2,3,4,6,7, '
8, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 1,
8, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
'7
1, 4, 6
2 „ - "•• •
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8,10
2 .
2 .
2 •'
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, 10 '
H(2,6)
7 "., -•'
1,2,6,7.
2
1,2,3,4,6,7, ,
s, 10 •'.'•; •
1,2,3,4,6,7, .
8,10
1,2,4,6,7
!'7 . ' '
2,7
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8,10,
1,2/3, 4, 6, 7;
8, 10
1,7'
Copper Creek
06010205
.
3, 4, 5, 7
3,4,5,7
3,4,5,7
7 -' ' ,
4,5
3,5 '
3, 5
4,5,7
5 ';'•'••.'
. • .
3, 4, 5
. . :'-. •
3, 4, 5, 7
* ,
Guest River
06010205
-
1, 7
1 .
* .
1, 7 '
1,4,7
1, 7 ' .
1,7'
4 •
• JPowell River
06010206
6
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11,
234689
• 1-1. ' ':".. .
2,3,4,6,8,11
•..'•-
2,4,6
2 34 689
ir :
2
'','-,
246911
* '
2468 11 "
2 ,.'.'".
2 . '•
4 -. - , •'.
2,11
2,4,6,8,9, 11';.
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11 .
. " -.'
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
51
-------
Table B-2 Fish Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(** ss Introduced)'
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Luxilus coccogenis
Lythrurus ardens
Lythrurus lirus
Macrhybopsis aestivalis
Vlicropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Morone chrysops **
Morone saxatilis **
Moxostoma carinatum
Moxostoma duquesnei
Moxostoma etythrurum
Moxostoma macrplepidotum
Nocomis micropogon
Notemigonus crysoleucas**
Notropis ariommus
Notropis atherinoides .
Nolropis buchanani
Notropis leuciodus
Upper Clinch
06010205
1 O 3 A f\ 7
1, Z, J, H-, O, /,
8, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1, 2, 6, 7
1, 2, 4, 6, 7
2,6 .
1', 2,3,4, 6,7,
8,10
1 O 3 A A 7
1, Z, J, **, O, /,
8, 10
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,
10
2,4,6
10
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,
10
1 O Q A • /? 7
1, Z, J, 4, Of I,
8, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10 •
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8,10
1 O 1 A f! 7
1, /, J, ^, O, /,
8, 10
1,2,7 ,
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
2, 3, 4, 6
H(2)
• 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
. 8, 10
Copper Creek
06010205
•5 4. < 7
•>» % ->5 '
3,4,5,7 • .
3, 4, 5, 7
3,4,5,7
AS
.*> J
4, 5 '
5 ' .
< '
3, 4, 5,.7 |
3,4,5,7
I-. .
- i '
•j 4. ^ 7
J, tt J) '.
. 1 .
5 . . '
•3,4,5,7
1
3,4,5
Guest River
06010205
147
I-7 - .
1,4,7
1,7
,«
1 7
- .
Powell River
06010206
2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2, 4, 6 .
2,,6 ,
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11
2,4,6,9,11
2, 3, 4, 6, 8
2,4,6,9, 11
2,3,4,6,8,11
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11 '
2, 4, 6, 8, ,tl
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
.11
2, 8
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2, 4, 6, 9
2,3,4, 6, 8, .9,.
11
2,3,4,6,8,9,
.11
52
C//HC/Z Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table B-2 Fish Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(** =* introduced)
Notropis rubellus
Notropis rubricroceus
Notropis sp. (palezone shiner)
Notropis sp. (sawfin shiner)
Notropis spectninculus
Notropis telescopus "
Notropis volucellus
• Noturus eleutherus
Noturus flavipinnis
Noturus flavus
• Noturus stanauli
Qncorhynchus mykiss **
Percina aurantiaca
i Percina burtpni
Percina caprodes
Percina copelandi . . . •
Percina evides
Percina macroqephala
Percina maculata
Percina sciera
Phenacobius crassilabrum
Phenacobius uranbps
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Upper Clinch,
06010205
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, 10 .
1, 2, 4, 6, 7
H(2)
1,2,4,6,8. .
1,4, 6; 7
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8,, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,'
8,10 .
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, 10
H(2,6)
1,4, 6; 7
2, 6 :
1, 2, 4, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10
1,2,4,6
1,2,3,4,7,8,
10
1,2,3,4,6,10
1, 2, 3, -4, 6,.-7,
8, 10
1,4,6
2,6
1,2,3,4,6,7 '
7 :
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, '10 . •
7
1,2, 3, 4,. 6, 7,
8', 10
Copper Creek
06010205
3,4,5,7
4,5 '.
/?-•'••
3, 5, 7 . -
3,4,5,7
3,4,5,7
3,4,5
3,4,5,7 ,
. ~"
4,5
3, 4, 5, 7
3,-4,5 . . .
3,4,5,7
.
3,, 4,5, 7
4,5 .
3, 4, 5 • •
-'-,''
3,4,5,7
3, 4, 5, 7
Guest River
06010205
' • ' .
•
•• '-•
4
4 •
1, 4, 7
Powell River
06010206
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, '.
11
2, 4, 6 '
2,4,6,8
4,6
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11 . - " -
2,3,4,6,8,11
2,6,9 ;
2,3,4,6
2, 3, 4, 6, 8 11
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11
2, 3, 4; 6, 8, 9,
11
2,3,4,6,8,9,
11
2 • .
2, 6
2,3,4,6
/ •
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
11
234689
11
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
53
-------
Table B-2 Fish Species of Upper Clinch River Drainage (Continued)
Species
(** = Introduced)
Pimephales promelas **
Pimcphales vigilax
Polyodon spathula
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Pylodictis olivaris
Rhinichthys atratulus
PJiinichthys cataractae
Salmo trtitta **
Salvelinus fontinalis **
Semotilus atromaculatus
Stizostedion canadense
Stizostedion vitreum
TOTAL:
Upper Clinch
06010205
2, 4, 6, 8
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
2, 4, 6
2, 3, 4, 6, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8, 10
1 2 3, 4, 6, 7
7
1,4,6,7
1,4,6
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
.2, 4, 6, 7
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,
10
129
Copper Creek
06010205
4; 5
5 ' '
4, 5
7 •
4,5
r
4, 5 .
,
74 .
Guest River
06010205
\
1,4,7
1,4,7
•
23
Powell River
06010206
2, 6, 9, 11
2., 4, 6
2,3,4 :
2,4,6,8,11
2, 11
2,3,4,6,8,9, .
U
2,3,4,6,9, 11
4.
4 ,
2, 4, 6, 9
2,4,6,8, 11
2,4,6,8,11
97 ..
54
Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table B-3 Cave-Limited Invertebrates in the Clinch /Powell Basin
(* = endemic species. TB = troglqbite or probable troglobite)
Clinch River Basin
Powell River Basin
Aquatic
Species
Geocentrophora cavernicola Caipentter (TB);
Sphalloplana (Speophila) chandleri Kenk (TB);
*Spelaedriius multiponus Cook (TB);.
Stylodrilus (Bythonomus) beattiei Cook (TB);
Fontigens orolibas Hubricht; '_
Crangonyx antennatus Packard (TB);
Stygobromus amberlandus Holsinger (TB);
S. mackini Hubricht (TB);
Gammarus minus (Form I);
•Caecidotea recurvata (Sleeves) (TB); '
C. richardsonae Hay (TB);
*Lirceus adv.eri Estes and Holsinger (TB);
*SphaIloplana (Sphalloplana) corisimitis Kenk (TB);
S. (S.) percoeca (1) (Packard) (TB); '
*Lumbriculid (sp.) (TB); '
*Fontigens sp._(TB);
*Bactrurus sp (TB); , ,
Crangonyx antennatus Packard (TB);
Stygobromus, cumberlandus Holsinger (TB);
*S.finleyi Holsinger (TB); '. '
*S. leensis Holsinger (TB); ' ••<..'
S. mackini Hubricht (TB); ,•
Caetidotea recurvata.(Steeyes) (TB);
'C. richardsbnae Kay (TB); '
*G-sp. A (TB);' .
*Lirceus usdagolun Holsinger and Bowman (TB);
Terrestrial
Species
*Amerig'oniscus paynei (Muchniore) (TB);
*KIeptochthonius (Chamberlinochthonius) binoculatus
Muchmore (TB); '
*K. (C.) regulus Muchmore (TB); .
*K. (C.) sp. A (TB);
Rhagidia varia Zacharda (TB);
Anthrobia monmouthia Tellkampf (TB);
Phanetta subterraneai (Emenori) (TB);
Porrhomma cavemicolum (Keyserling) (TB);
Nesticus carted Emerton;-
N. holsingeri Gertsch (TB);'
N.paynei Gertsch (TB);
N. tennesseensis (Petrunkevich) (TB); •''.'•;',
Pseudotremia nodosa (s. lot.) Loomis (TB);
*P. deprehendor Shear (TB); ' -. ' ,
P. tuberculata (s. lot.) Loomis (TB);
Pseiidosinella hirsute (Delamare) (TB);
P. orba Christiansen^(TB);
Sinella hoffmani Wray (TB);' '
Litocampacookei (Packard) (TB);
*L. sp. A (L. M. Ferguson, in ms.) (TB);
L. sp. C (L. M. Ferguson, in ms.) (TB); .'
*L. 'sp. D (L. M. Ferguson, in ms.) (TB); '
L. sp. E (L. M. Ferguson, in ms.) (TB);
Euhahenoecus Jragilis Hubbell;
*Pseadanophthalmus deceptivus Barr (TB);... .
*P. ,sp.. A (englhardti group) (Barr in ms.) (TB);
*P. virginicis Barr (TB); . '
*P. serious Barr (TB); '
*P. vicarius Barr (TB); . '
*P. hubrichti Valentine (TB); '
*P. sanaipauli Barr (TB); -
*P. sp. A {hubrichti group) (Barr in ms.) (TB);
*P. sp. B (hubrichti group) (Barr in ms.) (TB)-;
*P. praetermissus Barr (TB); , -
*P. longiceps.Ea.rr (TB);
*P. seclusus Barr (TB); ' , ; '
*P. thomasi Barr (TB);
*P. sp. A (jonesi group) (Barr in ms.) (TB);
*P. unionis Barr (TB);
*Amerigoniscus henroti Vandel (TB);
*Kleptochthonius (C.) affinis Muchmore (TB);
*K. (C.) gertschi Malcohn and Chamberlin (TB);
*K. (C.) lutti Malcohn.and Chamberlb (TB);
*K. (C.) proxiniosetus Muchmore (TB); ." '-
*K. (C.) similis Muchmore (TB); , .'. .
^Lissocfeagris (Microcreagris) valentine (Chamberlin)
.(TB);
Hesperochernes mirabilis (Banks);
Phanetta subterfdnea (Emerton) (TB); -
Porrhamma cavemicolum (Keyserling) (TB);
Nesticus carteri Emerton; ' ,
N.. holsingeri Gertsch (TB); " , • .,
N. paynei Gertsch (TB); . . ': '
Pseudotremia nodosa (s. lot.) Loomis (TB); '
*P. valga Loomis (TB); . ;
Pseiidosinella hirsuta (Delamare) (TB);
P. orba Christiansen (TB); • . .
Litocampa cookei (Packard) (TB); ..
Euhadanophthalmus fragilis Hubbell;
*Pseudanophthalmus engelhardti Barr (TB); . • ,
*P. holsingeri Barf (TB);
*P. rotundatus Valentine (TB); i '
*P. sidus Barr (TB);
*P. sp. B (engelhardti group) (TB); , . ,
*P. delicatus Valentine (TB); •
'.*P. hirsutus Valentine (TB); • •
*P.. cordicoltis Barr (TB); " .
*P.pallidusBarr,(TB); ,. " .
*P. sp. B '(jonesi group) (TB);
*Arianops jednneli Park'(TB);
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
55
-------
APPENDIX C: SOURCES AND THEIR STRESSORS
EVALUATED IN THIS RISK ASSESSMENT
* Source: Actiye Coal Mining and Processing .
> Stressors: Toxics, Sedimentation
Coal mining is restricted to the northwestern region of the watershed along the Cumberland Plateau
(Figure 1). Although this region comprises less than 20% of the total area, the impacts of mining
are evident throughout the watershed. Both nonpoint and point source pollution impacts occur
from mining. ?'/•..
Point source ^discharges from active mines and processing plants are threats to the riverine
ecosystem. There are 287 active coal rnining point source discharges hi the Clinch Valley (Wells
1992). Discharges from coal processing plants and mine sites are currently regulated and
monitored for pH, total iron, total manganese, and total residue. However, a wide range of
potentially toxic compounds (approximately one hundred hi number), such as hydraulic fluids,
frothing agents, modifying reagents, pH regulators, dispersing agents, fiocculants, and media
separators are used hi mining and coal processing and are discharged to the rivers, but are
unregulated and not monitored. . ' :
Areas known to be most heavily impacted by coal activities include the Upper Clinch River in the
vicinity of Swords Creek, and the Guest River and the Upper Powell River upstream from
Pennington Gap. • - " .
Sediment runoff and coal fines from haul roads, active mining sites and abandoned mine lands lead
to sedimentation of surface waters, which can inundate the mussels in the substrate with toxic
sediments; hydraulic fluid releases associated with mining activities have caused known fish kills
(Virginia Department of Environmental .Quality 1996, hi prep). The Powell River, particularly
above Pennington Gap, Virginia, has been degraded from coal mining operations. The Powell, on
Christmas Day of 1972, ran black from coal fines hi the water column. Coal fines are a major
component of the substratum and are scoured from high water flows. Obviously, this had
deleterious effects on the benthic organisms, particularly freshwater mussels which are sessile and
do not recover as easily as mobile organisms such as fish and insects. Sedimentation from
continued mining operations is still a significant ecological stress.
»• Source: Abandoned Minelands
>• Stressors: Sedimentation and Toxics
' ' • s
Acidic soils, exposed during mining activities, cause acid mine runoff that finds its way to the river
thereby reducing the pH of the water. More than 45,000 acres of disturbed mine lands occur
within the watershed, of which 9,200 acres are abandoned mine lands developed and then
abandoned prior to federal controls (Tennessee/Virginia Joint Task Force Report 1985). The
projected cost to reclaim the abandoned mine lands is over $100 million, and little or no
information is available on the water quality impacts of these lands.
Extensive development of the coalfields of southwestern Virginia, prior to the 1977 Federal Surface
Mining Law's reclamation requirements has resulted in significant watershed and stream impacts
from both acid mine drainage, including low pH and exceedingly high ^concentrations of metals
such as iron, manganese and aluminum, and embedded stream conditions from sedimentation due
to barren Or semi-barren land condition and slope instability. In specific watersheds of the Powell
River, metal concentrations have been found to surpass acute and chronic toxicity thresholds by
orders of magnitude threatening aquatic life, livestock and humans. In one heavily impacted
56 . Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
watershed, Ely Creek, pH's ranging from 2.5-2.9 resulted in measures of benthic abundance and
diversity, of zero; fishes were absent (Cherry, etal. 1995). , -
Some studies estimate that nearly 10% of the stream reaches in the northern Appalachians exhibit
effects from acid mine drainage; if one assumes that active mining point sources are being
adequately controlled through the federal Clean Water Act, then much of the observed impacts are-'
coming from abandoned mine lands (Cherry, etal. 1995). Data from the federal Office of Surface
Mining estimate reclamation costs within the Clinch watersheds at over $2 million to address -
human health concerns alone; over. $58 million would be needed to address other hazards,
including aquaticlife. .•'. .
V Source: Urbanization ~,
* Stressprs: Toxics, Pathogens/Nutrient Enrichment, Sedimentation,
Riparian Zone Modification
Historically, Southwest Virginia and Northeast Tennessee have suffered economically due to their
geographic remoteness, rugged terrain, inadequate transportation, and poor education.
Consequently, efforts are underway to encourage industrial growth in the region, as evidenced by
the Virginia General Assembly's creation of the Southwest Virginia Economic Development
Commission established to improve social and economic development in the region. Much of that
commission's focus has been on improving the transportation infrastructure (e.g. Virginia State
Highway 58), providing.assistance and incentives to business, marketing Southwest Virginia, and
: developing natural resources. Industrial park expansions, landfills, prisons, airports, as well as
. construction of a new major highway transecting the area are proposed in the watershed . . ;
An area potentially impacted by development in the Clinch and Powell watersheds is the karst area
of SW Virginia where plans for a new airport and prison are underway. It appears that the prison
. will be constructed in an area and manner that will minimize impacts to the karst system. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage and Virginia Cave Board
-will be working closely with a number of partners to mitigate negative impacts from the proposed
airport.
Non-point source pollution from urbanization is probably a very important factor in riparian zone
modification. It may contribute to elevated temperature, embeddedness, scouring, depositions, and
other instream habitat effects. The extent of future urbanization is uncertain, and the effects caused
by^future growth may be reduced with good management practices.
>• Source:, Agriculture - Livestock and Pastureland
•'* Stressors: Toxics, pathogens/nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, riparian
, zone modification, habitat destruction
The Bi-State Task Force report to the Governors of Tennessee and Virginia identified non-point
source pollution as the single most important source of water pollution in the Clinch Valley. Much.
of this can be attributed to poor agricultural practices.used throughout the Clinch Valley including:
overgrazed pastures on steep slopes, animal waste from feed lots, and livestock access to streams
and riparian corridors.
Approximately 175,000 acres of pasture land with greater than acceptable soil loss tolerances
(based upon Soil Conservation Service tolerance criteria) occur hi the Clinch and Powell basins.
Almost 75,000 head of livestock, mostly cattle, are grazed within the. watershed. The majority of
this livestock depends upon the river or other perennial streams for water creating a situation in
which degraded riparian corridors, and increased nutrient, bacterial, and viral input to the
waterways are common. . : , . , ,
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 "- • • .'"'', . . 57
-------
. I
Runoff from steep grazing lands may be significant, but the actual extent of sedimentation caused
by this type of runoff is 'unknown. Likewise, the total amount of erosion of streambanks and
organic waste pollution resulting from cattle access to streams has not been measured. However, it
is observed to be significant at a number of sites within the Clinch and Powell Rivers watersheds.
The extent of instream habitat destruction caused by cattle trampling the stream beds has not been
determined. ' . -
I
> Source: Agriculture - Row Crop
> Stressors: Toxics, Sedimentation
Currently, 28% of the land in the Clinch and Powell River Valleys is devoted to agriculture. The
extent of pesticide runoff in the watershed is unknown, but tobacco plot-associated toxics are
known to affect karst habitat. :
Sedimentation caused by.rurioff from agricultural lands is expected to have a large impact,
' especially on benthic organisms in the area. In addition, sedimentation changes cave stream
substrate and affects invertebrate habitat. Much of the land that is flat enough to be used for row ,
crops is contained within floodplain areas. Many natural resoiirce agencies and groups are working
to encourage better farming practices that include greenways to reduce runoff, but much of the
floodplain is still being cultivated without greenways. *
> Source: Point Source - Industrial Discharge
>• Stressor: Toxics
Within the Clinch and Powell Rivers there are currently thirty-four industrial point source
discharges, exclusive of coal related discharges. The majority of these discharges are associated
with small businesses and are classified as minor. Only two major industrial discharges are present
in the Clinch and Powell Rivers,.one at-Foote Mineral on Stock Creek, Scott County, Virginia and
the other the Appalachian Power Company's Clinch River Plant (APCO), a coal fired power plant
located at C.R.M. 267.5. The cumulative impact of these point sources is poorly understood.
A catastrophic spill occurred at one of the most upstream industrial dispharges into the Clinch
River, a coal-burning power plant APCO at Carbo, Virginia. Approximately 960 tons of fly ash is
produced daily at the plant as a result of the high ash content of the coal used at the plant. .Water
withdrawn from the Clinch is used to transport the ash in a slurry to large lagoons where the ash
settles. The APCO plant has been responsible for two large episodic events affecting Clinch River
ecological communities. In June of 1967, 440 acre feet of caiistic ash poured into Dump's Creek
and then into the Clinch. For four days the slug of ash traveled downstream killing all fish it
encountered in the vicinity of Carbo and many more for sixty-six miles of the Clinch in Virginia.
and twenty-four miles in Tennessee (Cairns et. aL 1971). The; alkaline excursion was reported to
be responsible for eliminating bottom dwelling fish-food organisms for approximately 5-6 km and
snail and mussel populations for 18 km. Approximately 216,600 fish were killed in Virginia and
Tennessee by the episode.' Snails and mussels were eliminated for almost twelve miles downstream
(Stansbery et. al. 1986; Grossman et. al. 1973).
Studies conducted by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPISU) (Cairns et. al.
1971) showed that fish and aquatic insects became reestablished relatively quickly following the
spill. Insect communities showed downstream recovery (i.e., further downstream stations had
higher density and diversity) in 1969, but molluscan commuriities were not recovered for at least
30 km below the spill site (Grossman 1973). Mussels .have presently not yet recolonized the nine to
ten mile portion of the river below the plant (Cairns et. al. 1971; Stansberg et.al. 1986; Ahlstedt
1991). Differences in invasion and colonization potential between the two groups of organisms
underscores the importance of monitoring molluscan populations since they were slower to recover.
58 Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
In 1970, before molluscari populations had recovered to prior density, an acid'spill occurred at the
APCO plant (Grossman et. al. 1973). The area affected was less extensive than the fly ash spill:
13.5 miles 'downstream to St. Paul, Virginia. Approximately 5,300 fish were killed by the spill
(Grossman et. al. 1973). After the spill no surviving mayfly or molluscan species were found for
18 km below the spill. Recovery again was comparatively slow for molluscs. Within six weeks,
diversity of arthropod benthic organisms had recovered, but mussel species had not.
The Cypress Fopte Mineral plant discharges various toxins to Stock Creek above Speer's Ferry
on the Clinch River. Tests in Stock Creek by Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) have verified impairment to the creek from .the plant and the discharge may be contributing
to mussel declines at Speer's Ferry. Cyprus Foote Mineral may be closing its plant on Stock Creek
(T. Frazier, pers. comm.)
The APCO plant discharges various toxins to the rivers including copper, which is especially toxic
to molluscs. Cooling tower blbwdown effluent averaged 857 ug Cu/L (3-7 ug Cu/L, ambient) in .
1977-87 (Van Hassel and Gaulke 1986), Condenser pipe replacement in 1987 reduced Cu discharge
to 100-150 ug Cu/L (Reed 1993). The plant, under order from the VA. DEQ , has retrofitted the
plant to further reduce copper concentrations in the effluent. The new copper standards for the
plant are 12 ug Cu/L. After the initial reduction to 150 ug Cu/L, snail recovery was seen two
years later at a research station 0.9 km below discharge, but molluscan recovery has been much
slower. The ability of the new standard to protect the aquatic ecosystems has not yet been , '
validated. , • . •
*-.."./.. " " . " .
+ Source: Point Source Discharge-Municipal Sewage
* Stressors: Toxics, Pathogens/Nutrient Enrichment
There are currently 119 municipal discharges within the watershed. These include discharges from
all the major municipalities in the Clinch Valley as well as treatment plants at active mining sites.
Currently, most municipalities are in the process of upgrading, to secondary treatment standards. ,~,
Final upgrades have been completed at Richlands and Tazeweil on the Clinch River, Pennington
Gap on the Powell River, and Coeburn/Norton/Wise on the Guest River . Some extremely rural
areas, such as St. Charles on the Powell River and Dante/Hamlin/Castlewood on the Clinch River
continue to discharge raw sewage to the rivers.
The State DEQ has banned the use of halogen compounds, such as chlorine, for disinfection at
municipal treatment plants because of the tpxicity of halogens to aquatic life. A few treatment
plants have not yet retrofitted with alternative disinfection systems, however, and continue to use
chlorine as a disinfectant with dechlorination mechanisms in place to treat the effluent. A failure of
the dechlorination apparatus'and subsequent discharge, of chlorine from these plants poses an ..
enormous threat to the river in areas such as Cleveland, Virginia where an exemplary mussel
community lies immediately downstream of the: plantoutfall. Cleveland has now been upgraded to
UV disinfection. . ,. .
,. > Source: Silviculture
*• Stressori Sedimentation, degradation of riparian areas J
The region was cleared extensively upon European settlement and migration of veterans of the
American Revolution to the region in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Clearing
was motivated by the need for'land for agricultural production, both commodity grain and tobacco
crops as well as cattle and sheep. Logging with large crews supported by railroad and tramway
systems was conducted at the turn of this century to support American industrial growth and to
salvage American Chestnut lumber when the American Chestnut was devastated by the Chestnut
blight. The presence of large crews in the forests supported by wood and coal burning engines '
sparked decades of devastating forest fires not really controlled until the 1930's. As logging
declined and fires were aggressively suppressed by state and federal agencies, forests began to
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 , 59
-------
regenerate. This recovery was supplemented with the creation-of the Jefferson National Forest,
whereby large federal land holdings within several ranger districts were and remain dedicated to
forest management and protection of forest resources. Today, the region experiences the greatest
forest fire risk and activity in the state, but annual losses average less than 5,000 acres per year hi
the watershed due to enforcement of the Virginia 4 PM.Burning Law, other associated fire laws
and one of the most successful- forest fire prevention efforts in the nation.
Harvesting of forest resources has continued throughout the twentieth century supplementing; the
muiing industry with mine props, providing quality hardwoods to furniture and dimension lumber
production and pulp for fine papers to a Kingsport Tennessee paper mill. During the 1980's and
1990's, new industries and availability of former mining industry workers to harvest lumber has
prompted a resurgence of forest industry hi the region. Establishment of an oriented strand board
plant in Dungannon Virginia (Scott County) has particularly influenced great increased in annual
acres logged in several of the counties of the Clinch Watershed. New forest industries in West
Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia will continue the trend of increased logging of the
region's forest resources. , ,
In a 1995 analysis of potential nonpoint source pollution in Virginia's 493 hydrologic units
performed hi concert with Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Department of Forestry,
20% of the units were assessed as having a "high" potential for nonpoint source pollution due to
•forest harvesting. Rankings were determined in part due to topography and current logging
•. activity. Of the 24 hydrologic units located within the Clinch and Powell River watersheds, fifteen
were ranked "high" for nps pollution potential from logging, with eight ranked "medium" and one
ranked "low." NPS pollution1 potential from logging includes erosion and sedimentation, with
lessor impacts of petroleum contamination from log decks and areas where equipment is
concentrated. If riparian areas are logged, removal of shade also impacts water quality and aquatic
resources through increased water temperatures and declines hi dissolved oxygen. Removal of
sources of detritus and woody debris can also negatively impact aquatic habitats. State Best
Management Practices specifications require retention of at: least 50% of the basal area in
designated Streamside Management Areas. These areas are a minimum of 50 feet on either side of
the stream with increasing widths based on topography. A two-zoned SMZ is currently under
review where areas immediately adjacent to the stream would.be more strenuously protected. V
The Department of Forestry enforces the Silvicultural Water Quality Law which can penalize
loggers, landowners and forest producers if potential arid actual nonpoint source pollution from .
silvicultural operations is not addressed via a system of informal recommendations, reviews, stop
work orders and hearings. Since passage of the law hi 1992, enforcement hi southwest Virginia
has been aggressive and is supplemented with continual formal and one-pn-one educational efforts .
targeted at loggers, landowners and forest products producers. .
Sources Considered but Not Included in the Risk Assessment
•t ••;"'. ,
*• Source: Hydrologic Changes i • " '
*• Stressors: Habitat Destruction ,
No significant manmade hydrologic changes are known to have occurred or are planned upstream
of Norris Dam, in Tennessee. Prior to completion of Norris Dam in 1936, the Powell and Clinch
Rivers were historically free-flowing,, merging with the Teitinessee, then the Ohio and eventually
reaching the Mississippi River,. Now these rivers flow into the Norris Lake impoundment at
Norris.Tennessee, isolating them from the rest of the drainage. The impact on this type of isolation
of the rivers is unknown, but it is reasonable to assume that some loss of species .exchange has
occurred. ,
60 ' .'.'.' Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
>• Source: Recreation
> Stressors: Non-Native Species, Overexploitation
The Asian clam and zebra mussels may be spread through the watershed through recreational
boating, but the likelihood is not known. Boating is not extensive in the watershed due to the lack
of extensive deep water reaches. Some Whitewater canoeing occurs in the watershed, but it is, riot
extensive. The extent of recreational fishing on the native fish populations Is unknown; both fish
shooting and snagging occur hi these reaches.
*• Source: Introductions and Migrations of Non-Native Species
> Stressors: Competition, Infection •
The Clinch Valley, like most natural systems, has been invaded by non-native species. The first
aquatic non-native mollusc species recorded was the Asian clam (Corbicula flumined) first seen in
the Clinch in the 1970's (Bates arid Dennis 1978). A second invader^ the zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) is presently found throughout the Mainstem Tennessee River and the lower 1/2 mile
of the French Broad River. Little is currently known about the impacts of, or controls for, .these
organisms. Researchers at Virginia Tech are currently studying iriipacts of Corbicula on native „
mussel populations.
The introduced Asian clam was first discovered in the Tennessee River hi 1959. Since that time, it
has become widespread arid extremely common throughout the Clinch-Valley. It is the most
common mollusk species in the region. Competitive interaction between the Asian clam and native
mussel fauna is still not clearly understood, and further research is required. ,
The zebra mussel, native to the Black and Caspian Seas, has spread extensively throughout the
Great Lalces region since its discovery hi Lake Erie in 1988 (O'Neil 1991). It has caused
devastating impacts to industrial and municipal intakes, natural food chains, and commercial and
recreational fishing. No effective means have been developed to control this species, and much
concern has been raised about the potential negative impacts of this species on native musselfauna
in the Clinch Valley. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has predicted that as many as ten species
of mussels found in the watershed are likely to become extinct with the establishment of the zebra
mussel. Little is known of the impacts of introduced fish on riative fish.
" " * • " . - - ,- f_ •_; -^ • / ____ • - .
>' Source: Other Biota - Predation
> Stressors: Overexploitation
Increasing populations of muskrats and other predators such as raccoons arid map turtles prey on
hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of mollusks in the watershed each year (Ahlstedt 1991). The
relative, uripact of predation, though not well documented, may be'a significant threat to mussels
due to the abundance of muskrats hi the watershed. In addition, muskrats tend to select for smaller
species of mussels which, hi many cases, are the most endangered species. Observations by some
scientists indicate that muskrat predation appears to be mhibiting the recovery of endangered
mussel species hi the Clinch and is likely placing some populations of the endangered pigtoe mussel
(Fuscoriaia edgarjana) in jeopardy of extirpation (Neves and Odom 1991).
*-. Source: Illegal Harvesting ,
* Stressors: Overexploitation
Earlier in the century many mussels were harvested for the button industry. Today that type of
harvesting is illegal, but still occurs to an unknown extent. Mussel shells are.being removed from .
the area and used in the pearl industry to seed the oysters in other parts of the world. .
DRAFT-June 13, 1996 . ^ : • ; 61 ,
-------
> Source: Atmospheric Deposition
*• Stressors: Toxics, Nutrient Enrichment
Nutrient enrichment from atmospheric deposition has been documented in the Chesapeake Bay.
Atmospheric deposition of toxicants has been documented in many areas of the Eastern United
States. The extent of present and future atmospheric deposition in the watershed is not-known with
certainty, though it has been suggested that the increasing rarity of many high elevation lichen
species and the federally endangered spruce-fir moss spider from the nearby Smokey Mountains
National Park is due m part to "acid rain".
> Source: Transportation Corridors
>• Stressors: Toxics, Sediments ,
Catastrophic spills are known to occur in the watershed. The most recent 1996 Virginia Water
Quality Report identifies six known fish kills ranging in size from 11 - 11,355 fish; four were the
result of accidental spills of cement during construction activities.
Historical examples include an October 1993, 42-car coal train derailment, resulting in 4200 tons
of coal spilled adjacent to the Clinch River at Dungannon, VA. This spill was not reported toDEQ
for several days, and cleanup of the site required several weeks. ,
\ • "" - .
The potential for future spills is not clear. A catastrophic spill can originate at industrial facilities
located along the rivers, or from accidents along transportation corridors which cross or parallel
the waterways and karst systems. Additionally, catastrophic spills can result from illegal dumping
into waterways or sinkholes. These spills can pose a potentially enormous threat to the riverine .
ecosystem, as previously described]
Unfortunately, little information has been accumulated on storage and transportation: of toxic
materials in the basin and the full potential for impacts to the: fauna is unknown. Consequently, the
development of contingency plans is limited until additional information on toxic material transport
and storage can be obtained. ,
62 . Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
APPENDIX D: PILOT STUD Y WATERSHEDS
DRAFT—June 13, 1996
63
-------
-------
"O
j
'
o
u
JS
-------
-------
-------
-------
i|
1
5 T3
oo 3
18 1
i-
:i
:i
-------
-------
-------
-------
:g
I-
-------
-------
APPENDIX E: LIST OF FIGURES
DRAFT—June 13, 1996 '•'•-', . .' ' '69
-------
-------
o
o
•if,
-------
-------
Figure 2
Unavailable at Press Time
-------
-------
CLINCH VALLEY WATERSHED CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Atmosphere
Agriculture
Urban/Residential
Development
Industrial
Activities
Habitat Modification
Riparian Zone
Modfficatton
Instream Habitat
sedimentation
scow .• :
cover , _. ";
fight temperature :
velocity
frequency & magnitude of flow
physical heterogeneity
•(riffle/pool, shade,
Native fish
survival &
recruitment
Reproduction, Recruitment of
Threatened & Endangered
Mussels
Recruitment & Reproduction
of Threatened & Endangered
Rsh Species
Abundance, Diversity, & Age
Class Structure of Cave
... Fauna
Cover, Composition,
Connectivity.
-------
-------
Sources
Conceptual Model for Mussels
Reproduction, Recruitment of Threatened &
Endangered Mussels
-------
-------
Conceptual Model for Fish
Sources
Instream
Habitat
Destruction
Riparian
Corridor
Removal
Channel Widening, Decreased
Decreased Energy Base for
Decreased Allochtbooous
input to stream
Decreased Habitat for Bentfaic
bnertebrata
Decreased Itoive Fish Habitat
Decreased Rsh Prey
Decreased fa*ertebratx
(insect/crustacea) survival &
Recruitment and Reductionof Threatened and Endangered
Fish Species
-------
-------
Sources.
Transportation
Corridors
Underground
Storage Tanks
Urban
Induslrial.ctevelnnmenl
Leaking sewer"
Residential
Sqilic systems '.
Leaking severs
Altered
Hydrologic
Regime
Sediments
Hydrplogic Regime
'Altered
Altered Nutrient
Balance/Eutrophicatio
creased Oxygen
-------
-------
Riparian Corridor
Trampling
Flopdplain Loss of Soil
Nutrients
Floodplain Soil
Instability
Floodplairi Loss of Soil
, Composition, Connectivitv. Channel Stability,
of Riparian Corridor
-------
------- |