oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EPA/903/R-00/015
August 2000
www.epa.gov
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Assessment
-------
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands study region includes the area from the Blue Ridge Mountains in
the east to the Ohio River in the west and from the Catskill Mountains in the north to Virginia in
the south.
Cover Photo by: Alan Herlihy
-------
EPA-903-R-00-015
August 2000
Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Streams Assessment
by
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
Office of Research and Development
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333-4902
&
Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Final Report
Printed on recycled paper
-------
Notice
The information in this report was funded in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Office of Research
and Development) through the Western Ecology Division. This report was subject to EPA's
peer and administrative review, and has received approval for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
The suggested citation for this report is EPA 2000. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Assessment. EPA/903/R-00/015. US Environmental Protection Agency Region 3.
Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
This report assesses the ecological condition of streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands and
ranks the potential stressors affecting stream condition. This study used an innovative
statistical survey, like a political poll, to sample almost 500 stream reaches throughout the
Highlands. The report defines stream condition in terms of the health of the biological
organisms in the stream, rather than just focusing on chemicals in the streams. The study,
however, also measured stream chemistry as well as the physical habitat in which these
organisms live. It found that a greater number of stream miles had biological organisms in
poor condition than in good condition throughout the Highlands. Overall, 31 % of the stream
miles were in poor condition based on a fish Index of Biotic Integrity and 27% were in poor
condition based on an aquatic insect index. Only 17% of the stream miles were in good
condition based on the fish Index of Biotic Integrity while 25% were in good condition based
on the aquatic insect index. For the first time, we have a benchmark for stream condition
across the Highlands and a scorecard against which we can compare future changes in stream
condition.
Key Words: assessment, stream, fish, aquatic insect, scorecard, management,
Region 3, stressors, stream condition, biotic index, watershed, ecoregion.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Foreword
Water - the blood of life! If water is the
blood of life, then streams are the arteries
carrying that life-giving and life-sustaining
fluid from the uplands to the estuaries.
Streams have always been an integral part of
our society. Streams were the highways for
the western expansion in the early history of
this country. From rafts and river boats
moving people, goods, and materials to
markets along the Susquehanna, Allegheny,
and Ohio Rivers and their tributaries to
providing life sustaining water for drinking
and fish and wildlife, streams have sustained
the life-blood of the Mid-Atlantic region and
the nation.
Streams remain an important part of society
today - for recreation, for navigation, for
water supply, for peaceful, tranquil settings
that provide a respite from the daily grind.
The health of our streams is the responsibility
of all our citizens, but to protect and manage
these valuable resources, we need, first,
to know their current condition. The
innovative research study that is presented in
this report provides us with that knowledge.
Unfortunately, it is not good news. We have
come a long way in controlling pollution and
damage to our streams, but we still have
a long way to go. We can make those
improvements through programs like this that
help us understand what the condition of our
streams is, where the problems are, and
what factors are contributing to those
problems.
Unlike many previous studies that focused
only on chemical pollutants, this study used a
unique survey approach that emphasized the
biological condition of streams. This project
is the result of the joint efforts of many
individuals and organizations and represents
the way regional studies will be conducted in
the future. The US Environmental Protection
Agency Region 3 worked in conjunction
with the states of Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, the
EPA Office of Research and Development,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, local
universities, and private contractors to design,
collect, analyze, interpret and present this
information. It is through the collective efforts
of all these organizations and individuals that
this innovative program was accomplished.
We now have a baseline of the condition of
Mid-Atlantic Highland streams we can use to
chart our progress in the future. We have a
scorecard of current conditions and a way to
generate future report cards on the condition of
Highland streams. Through the concerted
effort of all of us, we will continue to improve
the health of our streams so that all our citizens
can benefit and enjoy this unique resource.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) Team and the Office of Research and Development National Health and Ecological
Effects Research Laboratory Western Ecology Division.
The following individuals contributed to the Highland Streams Assessment Project and this report:
List of Contributors
EPA Region HI
DeMoss, Tom
Donaghy, Bob
Eaton, Richard
Green, Jim
Kanetsky, Chuck
Lorentz, David
Passmore, Maggie
Petrone, Frank
Preston, Ron
Rose, Carole
Walbeck, Eric
EPA-NHEERIVAED
Bradley, Pat
Pheiffer, Tom
EPA-NHEERIVWED
Kaufmann, Phil
Larsen, Phil
Olsen, Tony
Omernik, Jim
Paulsen, Steve
Peck, Dave
Stoddard, John
EPA-NERL/EERD
Hill, Brian
Klemm, Don
Lazorchak, Jim
Lewis, Phil
McCormick, Frank
EPA-NERL/ESD
Kutz,Rick
EPA-OEI
Davis, Wayne
OAOCorp.
Burch Johnson, Colleen
Cappaert, Marlys
OAOCorp.
Cassell, Dave
Comeleo, Pam
Hjort, Randy
Pierson, Sue
Rosenbaum, Barb
Oregon State University
Herlihy, Alan
Urquhart, Scott
Dvnamac Corp.
Bryce, Sandy
Hughes, Bob
Woods, Alan
Seniors in Environmental
Employment
Hails, Marge
TAICorp.
Brewer, Sandy
Herrin, Lori
Kneipp, Ann
McMullen, Dennis
Scopel, Darren
Smith, Mark
Wilts, John
Yeardley, Roger
USFWS
Drummond, Mike
Jenkins, Felton
McGowan, Peter
Pitt, Leslie
Delaware
Maxted, John
Maryland
Bo ward, Dan
Kazyak, Paul
Maryland
Klauda, Ron
Primrose, Niles
Rule, Tim
Pennsylvania
Bogar, Dan
Harris, Milt
Hepp, Joe
Kelly, Kein
Kime, Rod
Shaw, Tony
Shertzer, Rick
Virginia
Bolganio, Ralph
Cumbow, Ed
Gregory, Jean
Kain, Don
Seivard, Lou
Willis, Larry
West Virginia
Arcuri, Mike
Bailey, Jeff
Boggs, Dane
Scott, Mark
Smithson, Janice
FTN Associates. Ltd.
Benton, Jon
Frank, Bernadette
Remington, Robyn
Thornton, Kent
Science Applications
International Corp.
Scott, John
Tetra Tech. Inc.
Gerritsen, Jeroen
Jessup, Ben
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to assess the
ecological condition of streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands and to identify and
rank stressors that might be affecting stream
condition. The first step in managing the
stream resources is to determine their current
condition.
To provide this information, an innovative
research, monitoring and assessment program
was initiated. This program, called the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), used a unique statistical
survey, like a political survey poll, to sample
almost 500 stream reaches across the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands during 1993 and 1994.
This sampling occurred in partnership with the
Mid-Atlantic States, the US Environmental
Protection Agency Region 3, the EPA Office
of Research and Development, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, multiple universities, and
private contractors One innovative feature
of EMAP was that it used the health of
biological organisms living in these streams to
define the condition of the streams. It also
sampled the physical habitat in which these
organisms lived and the chemical quality of
the water. This permitted an assessment of
the condition of the Mid- Atlantic Highland
streams and a ranking of the stressors or
factors that were potentially affecting this
condition. For the first time, we have a
benchmark of stream condition across the
Highlands and a scorecard against which we
can compare future changes in condition.
STREAM CONDITION
What was the condition of the Highland
streams? In general, the results of this
assessment were not good news. Many
streams throughout the Highlands were in
poor condition. Over 31 % of the stream
miles in the Highlands were in poor condition
based on a fish Index of Biotic Integrity and
27% of the stream miles in the Highlands
were in poor condition based on aquatic
insect indicators. Only 17% of the Highland
stream miles were in good condition based
on the fish Index and 25% were in good
condition based on aquatic insects. More
stream miles were in poor condition than in
good condition.
FACTORS AFFECTING CONDITION
What factors might be contributing to these
problems? The major stressor throughout
the Highlands is habitat destruction. Urban
sprawl and land use change are altering the
landscape throughout the Mid-Atlantic
region. Habitat destruction is occurring both
in the stream and along the stream banks,
removing trees and shrubs that provide
cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Some of the chronic problems that have
existed for decades such as mine drainage
and acid rain still persist. However, high
nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations,
which are major problems in other areas
of the country, are not apparent in most
Highland streams.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
Stream conditions do vary throughout the
Highlands, however, and it is useful to look
at stream condition from several different
perspectives such as ecoregions, water-
sheds, or at the state level. These different
perspectives help us see and understand
what is and what is not working and why.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
In the North-Central Appalachian ecoregion,
for example, 43% of the stream miles were in
poor condition based on fish indicators. If a
watershed perspective were used, 41 % of the
stream miles in the Kanawha-Upper Ohio
would be found in poor condition based on fish
indicators. Atthe state level, West Virginiahad
44% of their stream miles in poor condition
based on fish indicators. Habitat destruction
was still a major stressor in streams, regardless
of the geographic perspective. Other stressors,
however, varied depending on the geographic
boundary. For example, mine drainage
resulted in poor quality in 24% of the
North-Central Appalachian ecoregion stream
miles, but less than 1 % of the stream miles in
the Valley ecoregion had poor quality based on
mine drainage. Although nutrients were not a
problem throughout the Highlands, 20% of the
stream miles in the WesternAppalachian
ecoregion didhave high nitrogen concentrations.
A SCORECARD
A scorecard was developed for the
condition of streams throughout the region,
based on the different geographic areas and
management perspectives. This scorecard
provides a summary of stream condition and
stressors and can be used to target areas for
different protection, management, and
restoration programs.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Some of the implications for protecting,
managing and restoring streams in the
Highland region included:
You can't play the game without a
scorecard.
You can't develop a scorecard using
existing monitoring networks.
A single indicator only tells part of
the story.
Chemical indicators don't tell the
whole story.
Just one management perspective is
not enough.
You can't evaluate the success
of management actions without
repeated monitoring.
THE FUTURE
We now have a baseline of the condition of
Mid-Atlantic Highland streams that can be
used to chart our progress for the future.
The scorecard can tell us where we need
greater management attention for streams in
poor condition as well as better protection
for streams currently in good condition.
Through the concerted efforts of us all, we
can become good stewards of our stream
resources and leave a legacy for future
generations to enjoy.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Table of Contents
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
BACKGROUND 1
STREAM CONDITION 2
REGIONAL STATISTICAL SURVEYS 5
THE HIGHLAND STREAM POPULATION 6
ECOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS 9
FISH ASSEMBLAGES 10
AQUATIC INSECT ASSEMBLAGES 12
COMPARISON OF FISH AND AQUATIC INSECT SCORES 13
STRESSORS 15
ACIDIFICATION OF STREAMS 16
NUTRIENT RUNOFF 18
PHYSICAL HABITAT ALTERATION 20
FISH TISSUE CONTAMINATION 22
WATERSHED DISTURBANCE 24
NON-NATIVE FISH: STRESSOR OR SUCCESS STORY 25
SUMMARY RANKING OF STRESSORS 26
ECOREGIONS, WATERSHEDS, AND STATES: ANOTHER
PERSPECTIVE ON STREAM CONDITION 29
ECOREGIONS 29
WATERSHEDS 36
STATES 40
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
I vii
-------
Table of Contents (cont)
DEVELOPING A SCORECARD: SUMMARIZING STREAM
CONDITION 45
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 49
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 51
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Additional Readings 53
Appendix B - Stream Population Estimates 57
Appendix C - Glossary 61
viii | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to:
1) Assess and report on the ecological
condition of streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands (the Highlands).
2) Identify and rank the relative
importance of stressors* affecting
stream condition.
The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
(MAIA) is an interagency, multidisciplinary
research, monitoring, and assessment
program to develop high-quality scientific
information on the region's natural resources,
current condition, stressors, trends, and
vulnerabilities. MAIA results and information
are intended to satisfy a broad group of
stakeholders' needs, convey important
information relevant to their assessment
questions and issues, and be useful in making
management decisions. Assessing the
condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highland
streams was a critical MAIA
project. Information in this
report is based on the
scientific data, analyses, and
results documented in the
literature cited in Appendix A.
BACKGROUND
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands
encompass approximately
79,000 square miles and extend from the Blue
Ridge Mountains in Virginia in the east to the
Ohio River in the west, and from the Catskill
Mountains in the north to the North Carolina-
Tennessee-Virginia state borders in the south
This report
assesses Highland
stream condition
and ranks
stressors.
(see inside front cover). West Virginia is the only
state entirely within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.
The Highlands contain many unique natural
features that combine to form a complex,
interconnected mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. Streams run through forests
interspersed with wetland, residential, and
agricultural areas and integrate contributions
from all types of land use and cover. The
Highland landscape contains diverse hard-
wood forests, as well as many rare, threatened
or endangered plant and animal species. The
Shenandoah National Park, which lies within the
Ridge and Valley Province, is world renowned
for its beauty and variety of animal and plant life.
In addition to providing a home for a unique
variety of plants and animals, the Highlands are
also home to approximately 11.5 million people.
Residents of the Highlands can leave the hustle
and bustle of an inner city business at the end of
the work day and enj oy rural settings less than
an hour away. They can find tranquility while
fishing a Highland stream or hiking a mountain
trail. A system of roads and interstate highways
(see inside front cover) allows
them to enjoy the best of both
worlds: natural settings and
vibrant, active cities.
Human desires for nature and
civilization can be at odds with
one another. The same roads
and highways that provide a
bridge between the two
worlds pose a potential threat to the ecosystems
surrounding them: road construction contributes
to soil erosion and the siltation of streams
(Figure 1); vehicular traffic contributes to air
pollution and adds contaminants to the highways
*Terms in the glossary are bolded at first usage.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Figure 1. Road construction can contribute suspended
sediment to streams during and following rain storms.
that subsequently wash into streams during
storms. We depend on the electrical energy
provided by coal-fired boilers, as well as the
use of agriculture fertilizers and chemicals to
increase the production of food and fiber for
our nourishment and survival. Some of the
ecological effects associated with these
human activities include the accumulation of
trash in streams, drainage from mines and
mine tailings, nutrient runoff, and stream
channelization (Figure 2).
We are faced with a daily dilemma: we
want ready access to the conveniences of
modern society, and we want to sustain
environmental quality because it provides
links to our cultural past and inner peace.
People with different, sometimes opposing,
perspectives are asking, "How do we
provide goods and services to society in an
environmentally sound manner?" The first
step toward deciding this is to simply, but
objectively and rigorously, assess the current
status of our ecological resources - where
are we right now? With this perspective and
baseline, our social and political
institutions can assess where we
are, where we want to be in the
future, and what actions are needed
to move us in that direction. An
assessment of the ecological
condition of streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands is one of
the first steps in this process.
STREAM CONDITION
Most historic assessments of stream
quality have focused on describing
the chemical quality of streams and,
occasionally, on sport fisheries
impacts. As we have made progress in
controlling chemical problems it has become
obvious that the ultimate concern is actually the
health of the plants and animals that inhabit
these streams and rivers.
In this assessment we have tried to address this
concern not by ignoring physical and chemical
measurements, but by shifting the focus to
direct measurements of the biota themselves.
In this assessment, the ecological condition of
t *•
INDICATORS:
• An indicator is a sign that relays a
complex message in a simplified and use
ful manner.
• An ecological indicator is a measure
that describes the condition of an
ecosystem or one of its critical
components.
Example — The presence of trout in a stream
indicates cool, well-oxygenated water, with lots of
aquatic life; therefore, the presence or absence of
trout is an indicator of stream condition.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Figure 2. Unauthorized dumping, mine drainage, logging,
management practices, and similar human activities can lead
to degraded stream quality.
streams is defined by biological indicators.
The biological organisms in a stream integrate
the many physical and chemical stressors
and factors, including other biota
(parasites, predators, or i
competitors), that are
acting in, and on, the
stream ecosystem. Stream
condition can be determined
by assessing appropriate
biological indicators (Table 1),
or combinations ofthese
indicators, called indices.
Informationonthe ecologicalconditionof
streams is supplemented by measurements of
other stream characteristics, especiallythose
physical, chemical, or other biological factors
that might influence or affect stream condition.
These stream characteristics allow us to assess
the stressors of stream condition, based on
expected signals from maj or environmental
perturbations (e.g., habitat modification, mine
Historic assessments of
stream quality were
limited and too
narrowly focused on
chemicals.
drainage, acid rain, agricultural
nutrients, etc.). The combination
of ecological and stressor
indicators listed in Table 1
represents our best current
understanding of the biological,
physical and chemical factors that
collectively determine stream
quality.
Working in partnership with the
states (Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS),
U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), multiple universities,
and Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA)
Region in, the EPAEnvironmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) assembled
crews in 1993 and 1994 to collect samples on
448 first- through third-order streams (see
pp. 6-7 for definition)
across the Mid-Atlantic
Ffighlands. All of the
crews had been trained to
use identical sampling
methods, so that com-
parisons across the region
could be made.
Perhaps the most unique aspect of this
assessment is that it uses data from a regional
statistical survey of streams to describe the
condition and characteristics of the entire
population of first - through third - order
streams in the Mid-Atlantic Ffighlands. It is
intended to answer, as directly as possible, the
question, "What is the condition of Ffighland
streams?"
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Table 1
Examples of ecological indicators measured in Highland streams.
Indicators of Condition Purpose
Fish Important indicators of stream condition; middle to upper end of
food web; accumulate contaminants that are then consumed by
humans, other mammals, and birds. Caution: Some smaller streams
may naturally not have fish. No fish in small streams does not
automatically mean there are problems.
Aquatic insects
Indicators of stream condition and sensitive to environmental factors
such as pollutants, pH, and loss of algae. Insect populations can
recover rapidly when conditions improve.
Indicators of Stress
Water chemistry
Purpose
Chemical criteria and standards established for envionmental and
human health; nutrients and contaminants affect aquatic insects and
fish
Stream channel sedimentation Sedimentation can smother algae and plants, aquatic insects, and fish
feeding and spawning areas.
Riparian habitat
Fish tissue contaminants
Stream bank alteration (removal of trees, shrubs, grasses, change of
grade) affects channel habitat structure, aquatic insects, and fish
Contaminants accumulate in fish tissue, and can adversely affect
humans and wildlife
Watershed condition
Different land uses can adversely affect stream biology, chemistry,
and physical habitat
In this assessment, stream
condition is defined by the
health of the living organisms.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
REGIONAL STATISTICAL
SURVEYS
In the past, EPA and the states addressed
municipal and industrial point sources of
chemicals as major threats to streams and
rivers. This led to focusing monitoring,
assessments, and controls very locally on
individual segments of streams above and
belowpoint source discharges. Monitoring
locations were selected to evaluate the
effectiveness of improved treatment of these
municipal and industrial discharges. As these
point sources were cleaned up, it became
apparent that a wider range of stressors also
was threatening our aquatic resources. Some
attempts were made to combine existing data
and use them in regional assessments, but the
limitations of this approach became apparent
J_
EPA's EMAP develops indicators
and other research tools to track
status and trends in the condition of
the nation's ecological resources.
These resources include estuaries,
wetlands, inland lakes and streams,
forests, and mixed landscapes.
Figure 3. Statistically selected stream sites permit
objective estimates of stream quality. About 450
stream reaches were sampled in the Highlands
during 1993 and 1994.
because the local sites were not representative
of other streams or areas in the region.
Another approach was needed to assess
stream quality on a regional basis.
EPA and the states in the Highlands wrestled
with this problem and came up with a different
approach for stream monitoring. In addition to
implementing direct measures of the ecological
condition of the biota themselves,
they devised away to pick monitoring
locations that do not focus on known
problem areas (e.g., sewage outfalls).
Instead, monitoring sites were chosen
through a statistical approach that provides
a clear and obj ective view of the condition
of all streams. It is hoped that this
approach, and this assessment, can serve
as models for future National Water
Quality Inventories: A Report to Congress
(also known as the 305 [b] Reports, after
the section of the Clean Water Act that
mandated the reports).
To describe the condition of all streams
within the Highlands, without sampling all
of them, EMAP worked with EPA
Region in and the states to develop a
regional statistical survey of streams, with
the goal of providing statistically unbiased
estimates of stream condition throughout
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
the Highlands (Figure 3). With this approach,
we can describe the condition of the streams,
the proportion of stream miles that are impaired
or degraded biologically, and characterize the
relative importance of stressors, such as mine
drainage or stream sedimentation.
A statistical survey of streams operates in the
same manner as the public opinion polls used
to project winners and losers of political
campaigns. A subsample of stream reaches
is selected at random to represent the
population of streams in a region, j ust as the
subsample of individuals in apublic opinion poll
is selected to represent the voting population as
a whole. Regional statistical surveys have been
used for many years in forestry and agricultural
monitoring programs to determine the condition
of forests and agricultural lands, but their use in
assessments of aquatic ecosystems is just
beginning. Additional information on the
EMAP stream design can be found in the
references listed in Appendix A.
THE HIGHLAND STREAM
POPULATION
Historically, management practices have
focused on large streams, which are best
known to the public due to their use in
navigation and boating, and their visibility
from major road crossings. Small streams,
on the other hand, dominate the total stream
length in the region, contribute to the quality
and condition of larger streams and rivers,
and are critical to determining the condition
of all Highland streams and rivers.
Small, first-order streams are the dominant
stream class in the Highlands; over
51,000 stream miles (i.e., 63% of the total
length) are classified as first-order streams
(Figure 4). Second-order streams are larger
and start at the point where two first-order
streams join. Over 12,000 stream miles in the
Highlands (i.e., 15%) are in second-order
streams. Third-order streams consist of two
Figure 4. The majority of streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (i.e., 89% or 72,200 stream
miles) are classified as first- through third-order streams. This stream classification is illustrated
above for one hypothetical watershed in the Highlands. The confluence (joining) of two first
order streams forms a second order stream; the confluence of two second order streams
forms a third order stream, etc. (See Strahler 1956 for more information.)
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
o
S
Irt
(or more) second-order streams coming
together and about 8,850 stream miles in
the Highlands (i.e., 11%) are in third-order
streams. All higher-order streams
(i.e., fourth-order and higher) constitute
only 11% or 8,000 stream miles.
The size or order of a stream not only
affects its natural characteristics, but also its
capacity to handle both point source and
nonpoint source pollutants. Stream size
frequently affects the size and type of biotic
community present, particularly for fish, and
may control the relative importance of
factors to which the biota respond. Very
small streams (first-order, headwater
streams) are often quite clear and shaded
by trees; they are likely to be dominated by
Leaves, Debris, Clear Water,
Canopy Covered, Small Fish, if
any fish
I
Small streams are an
important Highland
resource. 63% of the
stream miles are in
headwater streams.
aquatic insects in the stream bottom and
with small fish that feed on these bottom
organisms. Large streams (sixth- to
seventh-order rivers) are often muddy with
canopy cover only along the banks and are
dominated by larger fish that feed along the
shoreline. While streams larger than third
order are not covered in this assessment,
this continuum in stream size and
characteristics is an important controller of
what we expect to find in
streams of different sizes
(Figure 5).
Aquatic Plants, Surface
Exposed to Sunlight,
Game Fish
Turbid, Floating
Algae, Larger Fish,
Navigation,
Recreation
Figure 5. Streams change their characteristics as their size
or order increases. Smaller first- to third-order streams
dominate in the Highlands. Their quality is critical to sustaining
the quality of larger rivers.
The stream network used for
selecting sampling sites in this
assessment, and for estimating
the total length of streams in the
region, was the EPA River
Reach File, Version 3. This
digital database includes all
streams that are represented on
USGS maps at a scale of
1:100,000. The map scale
used is important because it can
affect the estimate of stream
miles. The stream network
shown on 1:100,000 scale
maps was considered a good
index of the population of
Mid-Atlantic streams.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
ECOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS
To assess the overall condition of Highlands
streams, we looked at multiple biological,
chemical, and physical indicators. To answer
the specific question "What is the ecological
condition of Mid-Atlantic Highland
Streams? "we rely on direct measures of the
biological communities that inhabitthe
streams. Throughout this report, ecological
condition - good, fair, or poor - is determined
Biological organisms
integrate all of the
stressors to which they are
exposed. Their health
defines stream condition.
by biological indicator or index scores. The
fish, aquatic insects, and other animals and
plants in a stream serve as "integrators" of all
the stressors to which they are exposed. The
fish and insects respond to the cumulative
effects of chemical contaminants, modification
of their physical habitat, and changes in both
the amount and the timing of the flow of
water. Historically, sport fish (e.g., trout,
smallmouth bass) have been the primary biotic
component of interest to the public, and an
emphasis has been placed on the condition of
sport fisheries in larger rivers. This emphasis
on sport fish and large rivers has resulted in a
narrow, incomplete view of the status of
Highland streams, where large rivers make up
only about 10% of the total stream length.
Some people have defended this large river/
sport fish perspective by claiming that small
streams do not support fish. On the contrary,
we find that headwater streams can be very
important in providing suitable habitat for both
fish (e.g., minnows, chubs) and sport fish (e.g.,
brook trout, smallmouth bass) (Figure 6). One
interesting exercise to put this number in
perspective is to assume that all fourth - order
and larger streams have sport fish present.
If so, then second -, third-, and fourth and larger
- order streams all have approximately the same
total length with sport fish present (8,100,8,200,
and 8,900 miles, respectively). We estimate first-
order streams have nearly twice those lengths
(i.e., 14,300 miles) with sportfish.
By sampling both fish and aquatic insect
assemblages throughout the Highlands, we
have the opportunity to move beyond a
narrow, sport fisheries focus, and look instead
at the biological integrity of stream ecosystems.
Biotic integrity has been defined as, "the
capacity of an ecosystem to support and
maintain a biota that is comparable to that
found in natural conditions." Most people
100
O)
CD 60-
E
CO
g) 40-
I I Sport fish
I I Fish, but no spc
I I No fish caught
1
rtfi
sh
— I
n
— 1
1st Order
(42,830 miles)
2nd Order
(13,770 miles)
3rd Order
(7,800 miles)
Figure 6. Fish distribution in 90% of Highland
streams (i.e., first through third order), by stream
order. Even first order streams have sport fish.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
would agree (as would the stipulations of the
Clean Water Act) that maintaining the biotic
integrity of streams is a worthy goal. This
assessment is one of the first steps toward
achieving that goal.
FISH ASSEMBLAGES
Streams must meet a number of requirements
if they are to support healthy fish assemblages -
providingasufficientvariety of foods, clean
bottom gravel for spawning, and a habitat
with diverse forms offish cover, among
others. In analyzing the Highlands fish data, a
series of indicators, or metrics, was used to
measure how well the stream is meeting these
requirements. Examples offish metrics are:
the number offish species present who
cannot tolerate pollution; the proportion of
individuals present that require clean gravel
for spawning; or the number of bottom vs
water column species present. Each metric
was scored against our expectations of what
value was possible for each stream (based
on reference conditions - see box), and then
combined to create an overall Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI), whose values range
from 0 to 100.
Reference Condition
In order to measure the biotic integrity of streams, we must rely on some estimate of the
streams' reference condition. This is the minimally disturbed, or "natural", condition referred
to in the definition of biotic integrity (see text). In order to understand how we approached
estimating reference condition in MAHA, it's useful to employ an analogy with which we are
all familiar. Suppose that you wanted to use human body temperature as an indicator of
human health (as is commonly done). One of the first things you would need is information
on the normal range of temperatures. In order to estimate this range, or distribution, you
might draw a subsample of the human population that is validly 'healthy.' The range of
temperatures measured in this subsample is an estimate of reference condition for this
indicator. Next, we'd want to know how far away from this distribution (or how extreme) a
temperature needs to be before we'd consider it to be unhealthy. In the case of body
temperature, we might have very high confidence that we've correctly identified a healthy
subpopulation, and the range of temperatures might be fairly small. In this case, we could use
something like the ends or extreme values from the reference distribution (e.g. the lowest 5%
or highest 5% of body temperatures measured from a large group of people), as thresholds
beyond which we identify a temperature as unhealthy. We use a similar approach for the
biological data we report in MAHA - identifying a healthy subsample of sites, collecting
indicator information at each one, and describing a distribution of reference condition values
- but have less confidence that all of the sites we identify as 'healthy' truly are. For this
reason, we use more conservative thresholds than we used in the body temperature example.
Commonly, the 25^ percentile value (of the reference distribution) is used as a threshold
between sites in good condition, and those in fair, or marginal, condition. We also adopt the
1 ** percentile as the threshold between sites in fair condition and those in poor condition. For
these sites, we can be 99% confident that their biotic integrity values are below anything
found in our subsample of sites in minimally disturbed, or natural, condition.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Using fish indicators, almost
twice as many Highland
stream miles were in poor
condition (31%) as in good
condition (17%).
on the development of the Highlands fish IBI,
and the setting of thresholds, please see the
references listed in Appendix A.
In the Highlands as a whole, approximately 17%
of the stream length is considered to be in good
condition; that is, 17% of the Highlands stream
length had IBI scores greater than 72 (Figure 7).
36% ofthe streamlength was infair condition,
The definition ofbiotic integrity
described above introduces the
concept of "natural conditions" against
which each stream's biotic integrity
should be compared. Our best
description of natural conditions is
derived from measurements made at
reference sites. For MAHA, we
established a small collection of sites
that represent the best conditions that
are observable today, i.e., sites that are
free of influences from mine drainage,
nutrients, habitat degradation, etc. The
IBI scores calculated for these sites
range from 57 to 98; this range
describes a distribution, which we use
to estimate reference conditions for the
Highlands region (see box). The 25^
percentile of this distribution (72) is the
value we use to distinguish sites that
are in good condition from those in fair
condition. The 1 ** percentile value (57)
separates sites in fair condition from
those in poor condition. Another way
to describe (statistically) this setting of
thresholds is to say that we are 99%
certain that any value less than 57 is
below the range of values we see in
reference sites. For more information
Highland Region
Overall
Figure 7. Fish IBI scores in Highland streams showing the
proportion ofthe stream miles in good, fair, and poor condition.
Red, yellow and green markers on the map correspond to
individual sites in poor, fair or good condition. About 31% of
the Highland stream length has poor fish assemblages, relative
to those found in reference sites. Streams with 'no fish were
caught' were sampled, but most are too small for us to predict
reliably whether they should be expected to have fish. Within
the Highland region are subareas that represent management
areas such as ecoregions (shaded areas above), watersheds
and states. These are discussed in later sections.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 11
-------
and 31% was in poor condition; that is, 31 %
of the stream miles have IBI scores less than 57
(Figure 7). About 16% of the Highlands
stream length drains watersheds that are too
small for us calculate an IBI reliably. Most of
these streams had very few (or no) fish
collected, and may be too small for us to
expect to find healthy fish populations present.
AQUATIC INSECT
ASSEMBLAGES
An additional picture of stream condition
can be derived from examining the aquatic
insects (and other bottom-dwelling
invertebrates) in streams (Figure 8). These
animals provide food for fish and other
wildlife, and serve as a link between plants
and higher levels of the food web. One
aquatic insect index, EPT, has been used
extensively to evaluate stream condition
throughout the United States. It is calculated
from the number of species that are found in
three orders of aquatic insects - mayflies
(Ephemeopterd), stoneflies (Plecoptera),
and caddisflies (Trichopterd); the index gets
its names from the first initials of these three
orders (EPT). Many of the species in these
three orders are sensitive to pollution and
other stream disturbances, and the total
number of species is a good gauge of how
disturbed any given stream may be. EPT
scores from least-disturbed Highland streams
were used to set expectations (very analogous
to the best attainable condition perspective for
the fish IBI). Expectations were set separately
for streams with fast-moving sections or
"riffles" (the vast majority of Highlands streams)
and slow-moving streams where "pools"
dominate, because fewer EPT species naturally
occur in pools. For riffles, 75% of the least-
disturbed streams had at least 17 species of
EPT present, so we used this as our definition
for good condition. In pools, the corresponding
number of EPT species was 6. The remainder
of the least-disturbed streams had between 9
and 16 species (riffles) or 3-5 species (pools),
so we used these criteria to define fair condi-
tion. All streams with fewer than 9 (riffles) or 3
EPT species (pools) were classified as in poor
condition.
Figure 8. Sampling aquatic insects during
May-July in Highland streams. Biological
organisms are used to define stream conditions.
12 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Highland Region
Overall
<*«
^ s °
• V1 3oDo^l
a
-------
Table!
Comparison between fish index scores and aquatic insect scores for the condition of stream
miles in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.
% Stream Miles in Poor Condition
Area
Highlands Region
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Estimated
Aquatic Insects
25
48
27
0
Fish Index
17
36
31
16
Because the fish and aquatic insect groups
respond differently to different stressors, it is
important that we do not rely on just one
index. We run the risk of missing some
problems if we use just one or the other.
Although there are differences, both indices
indicate over one quarter of all stream miles
in Highland streams are in poor condition.
Why?
Both fish and insect
indices indicate over
25% of Highland
stream miles are in
poor condition.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
STRESSORS
In the previous section, the ecological
condition of the streams in the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands was described based on direct
measurements of stream biota. Here we
present our findings on the stressors to the
streams of the Highlands region. These are
based on direct measures of physical,
chemical or biological characteristics of
streams and their watersheds. There are
stream attributes that can be directly or
indirectly altered as a result of human activity
or intervention in the stream system, and
that have been known to have harmful effects
on stream biota. They are described as
"potential" stressors because analyses to date
have examined only the extent and distribution
of these stressors. We have yet to establish
the statistical relationships between these
stressors and the biological conditions
described above. We present this information
in the belief that comparisons of stressors will
be useful to regional managers in determining
where best to focus their limited resources for
stream protection and restoration, when it is
warranted. Additional technical information on
the stressors and their measurement can be
found in the references listed in Appendix A.
The heterogeneous nature of the land use
and land cover in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
is evident from satellite imagery (Figure 10).
Agricultural areas, urban and suburban
clusters, forests, mining sites, and other
features are interwoven into the landscape.
• Urban
[HI Agricultural
• Rarest
EH Water
EH Barren
Figure 10. Land use classified from satellite imagery showing
the complex mosaic of ecological systems in the Highlands.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 15
-------
Human activities have the potential to alter
stream quality and affect the biota that lives
in these streams. The characteristics or
stressors in Highland streams and their
watersheds included in this report are:
• Stream acidification,
• Nutrient runoff,
• Habitat alteration,
• Fish tissue contamination,
• Watershed disturbance, and
• Non-native fish introductions.
A brief description of each stressor is
provided, followed by results. Where
standards for the individual stressors are
generally accepted, they were used to
separate streams (or watersheds) into
good, fair and poor quality classes. Where
such standards do not already exist, we
summarize the results using a scale that we
believe is a defensible interpretation of
information for that stressor. At the end of
this section, the stressors are compared
or ranked against one another so that the
reader can develop some appreciation for
differences and similarities in the extent
and distribution of these stressors. This
"comparative" or "relative" ranking simply
compares the length of stream resource in
poor quality for that stressor.
ACIDIFICATION OF STREAMS
Streams can become acidic through the effects
of acid deposition (deposition of nitrogen and
sulfur compounds produced by burning fossil
fuels) or when water percolates through mines
and mine tailings (mine drainage) (Figure 11).
The Highland region is unusual because it
receives some of the highest rates of acid rain in
the U.S., has geology that makes large areas
within the region susceptible to acidification,
and has a high incidence of coal mining.
Mountainous areas have shale and hard,
igneous rocks that don't neutralize acids very
well while some of the valleys have limestone,
which does neutralize acids (see box on acid
rain and mine drainage). Evaluations of stream
chemistry (e.g., acid neutralizing capacity
[ANC, in units of ueq/L], is a measure of the
stream's ability to neutralize acids and buffer
or prevent large pH changes) allow us to
determine if streams are acidic (ANC<0) and
whether the acidity is due to acid rain or to
mine drainage (see text box on next page).
Streams may be acidic throughout the year
(chronically acidic) or only for short periods
when flows are high such as during storm
events (episodically acidic). Because Highland
streams were sampled during spring base flow,
and not during storms, the data are best suited
to estimating chronic acidity. Across the
Highlands as a whole, less than 4% of the total
stream length was chronically acidic (ANC<0)
due to acid rain. How would this number
Figure 11. Both acid rain and mine drainage
can make a stream acidic, but mine drainage
can contribute sediment and metals that further
degrade streams downstream.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Acid Rain vs Mine Drainage
What is acidity? The acidity of a substance
is measured using a pH scale that ranges
from 0 (very acidic) to 14 (very alkaline). A
value of 7 is considered neutral, and each
number on either side is logarithmically more
acidic or alkaline (for example, pH 6 is ten
times more acidic than a pH of 7, and pH 5
is one hundred times more acidic than pH 7).
"Normal rain", measured at pH 5.6, is now
rare for most of North America. Today the
rain over the Mid-Atlantic is often over 100
times more acidic than "normal".
How does acidity effect stream biota?
At a 6.5 reading on the pH scale, large fish
begin to die. At 5.0 all zooplankton disappear,
at 3.0 all fish disappear, and at 2.0 all insects
disappear.
What is acid neutralizing capacity
(ANC)? ANC is a measure of the capacity
of dissolved constituents in the water to react
with and neutralize acids. ANC is used as an
index of sensitivity of streams to acidification.
The higher the ANC, the more acid a stream
can assimilate before experiencing a decrease
in pH. When ANC approaches zero, the
stream loses the capacity to buffer acid.
What is acid rain? Acid rain is rain that is
more acidic than normal. The smoke and
fumes from burning fossil fuels rise into the
atmosphere and combine with the moisture in
the air to form acid rain. Acid rain usually
forms high in the clouds where sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides react with water, oxygen,
and oxidants. This forms a mild solution of
sulfuric acid and nitric acid. Rainwater,
snow, fog, and other forms of precipitation
containing those mild solutions of sulfuric and
nitric acids fall to the earth as acid rain.
Acid rain may affect the soils, vegetation and
water throughout a watershed. Controlling
acid rain requires the regulation of sources
often hundreds of miles away from the
affected stream.
What is Acid Mine Drainage? Mine
drainage is metal-rich water formed from
chemical reaction between water and rocks
containing sulfur-bearing minerals. The runoff
formed is acidic and frequently comes from
areas where ore- or coal mining activities
have exposed rocks containing pyrite - a
sulfur bearing mineral. This produces sulfuric
acid and releases a number of metals such as
iron, aluminum and manganese into streams.
Mines, especially when they occur near
streams, usually have drainage that goes
directly into the stream, contributing
sediment, toxic metals, and acids. Treating
mine drainage, often by constructing
catchment basins below the mines, must be
done at a local scale.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 17
-------
change if we considered both chronic
and episodic acidity? The National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program
(NAPAP) concluded in 1990 that streams
with ANC values lower than 50 ueq/L are
susceptible to episodic acidification. These
streams may experience fish kills and
changes to their insect communities during
short-term pukes of acid ramrunoff. When both
chronic and episodic acidity are considered,
about 11 % of the total stream length in the
Highlands would be considered to be affected
by acid rain (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Proportion of stream miles that are
acidic or susceptible to acid rain. Note some areas
are more susceptible to acid rain because of low
buffering capacity in the soils and bedrock.
Streams that are acidic due to mine drainage
are much less common in the Highlands
than streams acidified by acid rain. But mine
drainage effects extend far beyond acidification,
including downstream sedimentationand toxic
metal contamination (metals reside primarily in
bottom sediments in non-acidic streams).
These less well-known stresses can have
pronounced effects on bottom-living organisms.
While about 1 % of stream miles in the
Highlands are acidic because of mine drainage,
14% of the stream length is non-acidic, but
degraded by mine drainage (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Proportion of stream miles that are
affected by mine drainage. Coal is found in some
Appalachian areas.
NUTRIENT RUNOFF
The introduction of excessive nutrients into
streams can increase algal growth. If it
becomes extensive, algal growth can deplete
the oxygen in the water, choke out other
forms of biota, and significantly alter the
animal communities present. The increase
in nutrients typically can be seen as higher
concentrations of phosphorus, and the
dominant sources are usually municipal/
industrial discharges and runoff from
agricultural fields (Figure 14). In general,
phosphorus concentrations are low in
18 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
JI
Chronic problems
with acid rain and
mine drainage
still persist in
Highland streams.
Highland streams, with about 90% of the
stream length having concentrations less than
Figure 14. Nutrient enrichment to streams can
come from animal wastes such as livestock
(cattle, hogs, and chickens); agricultural
fertilizer applications to fields; and municipal
and industrial waste treatment discharges.
50 parts per billion (ppb) (Figure 15). Only
5% of the stream miles have total phosphorus
concentrations that are considered high
(greater than the EPA guideline of 100 ppb).
Nitrogen is another nutrient that can stimulate
plant growth, especially in the presence of high
phosphorus concentrations. Like phosphorus,
nitrogen is commonly found in agricultural
fertilizers, but may also originate from acid rain
(nitrogen deposition) and sewage discharges.
There are no nitrogen guidelines for streams as
Figure 15. Total Phosphorus concentrations
in most Highland streams are low (<50 ppb)
or moderate (50-100 ppb).
there are for phosphorus, although EPAis
currently developing new criteria for both
nutrients. However, the ratio between nitrogen
and phosphorus can serve as an indicator for
when aquatic plants grow near their optimum
rate. For the purposes of this assessment, we
set total nitrogen thresholds by multiplying the
total phosphorus thresholds by a nitrogen:
phosphorus ratio (15:l)typicalofundisturbed
sites. This gave us nitrogen thresholds of
750 (for the division between good and fair
condition) and 1,500 ppb (forthe division
between fair and poor condition).
T_
Stream nutrient
concentrations in the
Highlands are in the
good quality range
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 19
-------
Based on these total nitrogen thresholds,
85% of the Highland stream miles were
scored good, 10% fair, and 5% poor
(Figure 16). Overall, nitrogen problems
appear to be slightly greater in extent in the
Highlands than do phosphorus problems, but
the use of different nutrient criteria could
alter this conclusion.
Figure 16. Total Nitrogen criteria for Highland
streams were based on a ratio between total
nitrogen and total phosphorus. 85% of stream
miles were scored good compared to only 5%
scored poor for nitrogen.
PHYSICAL HABITAT
ALTERATION
High quality physical habitat is an important
and often overlooked ingredient for good
stream condition. In the course of EMAP
sampling, data were collected on many aspects
of both riparian and instream habitat known to
be important to biota. These data also can be
used to diagnose the possible causes of habitat
degradation. In this assessment, we focus on
two characteristics of stream physical habitat
(riparian habitat and sedimentation) that play
perhaps the largest roles in establishing high
quality streams for both fish and insects.
Riparian (or streamside) vegetation shades
streams, particularly small streams, maintaining
cool water temperatures required by
many biological organisms for growth and
reproduction. It also strengthens and stabilizes
stream banks and helps to prevent silt and
associated contaminants from entering the
stream. Riparian vegetation that washes into the
stream can be a source of food for stream
organisms. Instream large woody debris
derived from riparian frees creates complex
habitat and pools for stream fish and aquatic
insects. Complex physical habitat within the
stream itself provides areas where fish and
aquatic insects can reproduce, feed, and hide
from predators. Human beings alter stream
physical habitat in a variety of ways: clearing
vegetation from the banks and riparian areas,
logging or farming up to the stream edge,
building roads across streams, dredging and
straightening the stream channel, and building
dams or other diversion structures in the
stream channel (Figure 17).
Habitat is the place or environment where a
plant or animal naturally or normally grows
and lives. Habitat combines food, water,
shelter, and nesting or nursery areas. All
plants and animals have specific habitat
requirements that must be satisfied in order
to live and thrive. Think of habitat as a "Life
Support System."
In general, good stream habitats have the
following basic characteristics: 1) wide,
naturally vegetated riparian areas, 2) mean-
20 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Figure 17. Removing trees, shrubs and other tall grasses from stream banks
contributes to poor riparian habitat.
dering channels, 3) a variety of substrate types
(such as wood, roots, and rocks), and 4) a
variety of water depths and water velocities.
The Index of Riparian Habitat Quality mea-
sures the condition of the riparian areas along
the banks of the stream (characteristic # 1,
above). The metrics in the Index are: area
covered by vegetation, types of vegetation
(canopy, mid-layer and ground layer as well as
coniferous and woody), and the intensity of
human-generated activities (logging, agricul-
ture, pipes, dams, etc.).
The Index of In-Stream Habitat measures the
condition of the stream itself
(characteristics #2-4, above). Some of the
metrics in this Index are channel sinuosity
(meandering vs straightness), amount of various
types of substrates (sand, clay, rock, gravel,
bedrock, wood or detritus), and water depth
and velocity characteristics (dry channel,
pools, riffles, falls).
Results of this assessment indicate that habitat
degradation is a widespread problem in the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Management actions
that can be directed at this problem include
protecting existing riparian forests, replanting
protective vegetation along stream banks, and
restoring streams to more natural flow regimes.
We incorporated aspects of riparian vegetation
cover, riparian vegetation structural complexity,
and the intensity ofhuman disturbances into an
index of Riparian Habitat Quality for use in this
assessment. Based on historic literature and
the judgement of experts, we assumed that
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 21
-------
Figure 18. Riparianhabitat quality forHighlandstreams.
24% of stream miles were in poor condition and 48%
were in good condition for riparian habitat quality.
the pre-colonial reference condition for
riparian vegetation in the Highlands is a
multi-storied corridor of woody vegetation,
with canopies that are closed (or nearly
closed), and free of human disturbance. The
resulting index varies from 0 to 1, with values
less than 0.5 indicating streams with poor
Almost 25% of
Highland stream miles
have poor riparian
habitat and excess
channel sedimentation.
quality, values from 0.5 to 0.63 indicating
streams with fair quality, and values greater
than 0.63 suggesting streams with good
riparian habitat.
In order to assess stream sedimentation, we
compared measurements of the amount
of fine sediments on the bottom of each
stream with expectations based on each
stream's ability to transport fine sediments
downstream (a function of the slope,
depth and complexity of the stream). When
the amount of fine sediments exceeds
expectations, it suggests that the supply of
sediments from the watershed to the stream is
greater than the stream can naturally process.
For the purpose of this assessment, streams
containing 90% or less of the predicted value
of fine sediments were rated good. Those
streams where the fine sediments ranged from
90% to 120% of the predicted value were
rated fair, while those streams where fine
sediments exceeded 120% of the predicted
value were rated poor.
Physical habitat results for the Highlands as a
whole indicate that 24% of the total stream
length had poor riparian habitat, and 25%
of the regional stream length had excess
sedimentation (Figures 18 and 19). A higher
proportion of stream miles have riparian zones
with good habitat (48%) than have low
sedimentation (35%) (Figures 18 and 19).
FISH TISSUE CONTAMINATION
EPA has established criteria to protect
bothhuman beings and fish-eating wildlife from
chemical contaminants that can be concentrated
infish tissue. During EMAP sampling in the
Highlands, fish tissue samples were collected
and analyzed for selected organic and metal
contaminants. These contaminants included the
potentially cancer-causing organic contaminants
chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and DDT, and
the toxic metals arsenic and mercury. In the
22 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Figure 19.25% of stream miles had poor quality
while 35% had good instream habitat based on
excess sedimentation.
analyses require a relatively large amount of
fish tissue, and not enough fish could be
caught in many streams to get sufficient
tissue.
For streams with sufficient fish tissue for
analysis, about 10% of the stream miles in
the Highlands had at least one organic
contaminant that exceeded human health
criteria for carcinogens (Figure 20).
The only metal contaminant that exceeded
wildlife criteria for fish-consuming mammals
was mercury. Mercury concentrations in fish
tissue exceeded the mammalian wildlife
criteria in 4% of the Highland stream length
(Figure 21).
case of the organic contaminants, fish tissue
concentrations were compared to human
health carcinogenic criteria. For the metals,
we used mammalian wildlife protection
criteria, which are lower than human health
criteria. If fish tissue concentrations for any
of the chemicals exceeded any of the criteria,
the stream reach was classified as having
contaminated fish tissue.
For the Highlands, 44% of the stream miles
did not have sufficient quantities offish tissue
collected to do the analyses (Figure 20). The
About 10% of stream
miles had fish
contaminated by
organic chemicals.
Figure 20. Fish tissue from about 10% of the
stream miles in the Highlands had at least one
organic contaminant that exceeded human health
criteria. Note: No fish or insufficient fish tissue
available for analysis occurred in 44% of the
stream miles.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 23
-------
• No Contaminants
• Contaminated Fish Tissue
O No Fish Data
Figure 21. About 4% of the Highland stream
miles had fish tissue mercury concentrations that
exceeded mammalian wildlife criteria. Note that
fish quantities were not sufficient for analysis in
about 44% of the stream miles.
WATERSHED DISTURBANCE
With increased population growth, a more
mobile population, and the economic pressures
of development, the effects ofhuman activity
also become more widespread. Streams reflect
the quality of the watersheds they drain. To
gauge the intensity of watershed disturbance in
the Highlands, a watershed condition index
was used to rank the disturbance in water-
sheds upstream from the EMAP stream
sampling locations. The condition rank ranged
from 1 for watersheds that were minimally
disturbed (low road density, limited or no
agriculture, no buildings, etc.) to 5 for water-
sheds that were heavily disturbed (crop
production, urban development, mining, oil
drilling, stream channelization, etc.). Forthe
purposes of this assessment, we classified
watersheds with condition scores of 1,2 or 3
as minimally disturbed. Those with scores of 4
we classified as moderately disturbed, while a
score of 5 indicated a heavily disturbed
watershed.
Forthe entire Highlands, about 45% of
stream miles were located in watersheds
ranked in minimally disturbed condition,
30% in watersheds ranked as moderately
disturbed, and 25% in watersheds ranked in
heavily disturbed condition (Figure 22).
J_
25% of Highland
stream miles were in
heavily disturbed
watersheds.
The kinds of watershed disturbance that
contribute to watershed condition scores
also produce the "signals" that we associate
• Minimally Disturbed
O Moderately Disturbed
• Heavily Disturbed
Figure 22. Forthe Highlands, 45% of the stream
miles were in watersheds that were minimally
disturbed, 30% moderately disturbed, and 25%
were highly disturbed.
24 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
with the other stressors discussed in this
section. A large number of mines, for example,
will lead to a poor watershed condition score,
and will produce the high sulfate concentrations
that we use as an index of mine drainage
effects. Because the watershed condition
classes are, in this sense, more cumulative
measures of stress than any of the other
indicators discussed in this section, we do not
include them in the relative stressor rankings
discussed below.
NON-NATIVE FISH: STRESSOR
OR SUCCESS STORY?
"Great brown trout stream!" to some people
means a successful fisheries management
program. To others, it can mean the loss of
biotic integrity and a threat to native fish
species. In other words, some people
consider fish stocking of non-native species
to be a potential stressor in the stream.
However, many states have specifically
designated a stocked trout fishery as the
aquatic life use for certain streams (see text
box). In these streams, non-native fish, such
as rainbow or brown trout, have been
stocked and are managed by the states as a
sport fishery. Non-native fish do not necessarily
imply poor stream condition, but introduced
species have been known to replace native fish
by direct predation or by out-competing them
for available habitat, food or both. In the
Highlands, approximately 32% of the total
stream length had at least one non-native fish
species present (Figure 23). 17% of streams
had no fish. Again, the lack offish does not
necessarily mean the streams are in poor
Definition of Designated Use
One of the goals of the 1972 Clean Water
Act was to "restore and maintain the biological
integrity of the Nation's waters." To
achieve this goal, the Act calls for the formal
designation of beneficial uses such as drinking
water supply, primary contact recreation (e.g.,
swimming), and aquatic life support (e.g., fish)
for each stream. Each designated use has a
unique set of water quality requirements or
criteria that must be met for the use to be
attained. The familiar phrase "fishable and
swimmable" is used to refer to the aquatic life
support and primary contact recreation
beneficial use categories. Some states have
created subcategories of aquatic life use for
specific types of fisheries, such as cold or
warm water, to satisfy the public desires
to fish for brown trout, rainbow trout, or
smallmouth bass. Often these fish are not
native to the stream or watershed, but rather
have been artificially introduced.
The definition of biotic integrity used to
develop the fish Index of Biotic Integrity
reported in this assessment considers the
stream to be of lower quality or condition if
nonnative fish species are present in the
stream because it is not the "natural" condition
for the stream. The Clean Water Act does not
define biotic integrity. This is an instance
where the desire to maintain and protect the
natural fisheries and the desire to designate a
stream as an outstanding trout fishery can
come in conflict. Designated stream uses
currently take precedence over the ecological
definition of biotic integrity.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 25
-------
• Native Fish Only
O 0 -10% Non-native Fish
• >10% Non-native Fish
O No Fish
Figure 23. About 32% of the stream miles
throughout the Highlands contain normative fish,
including species stocked and managed for sport
fisheries.
health. Some streams, particularly first-order
streams, do not have fish but do have healthy
aquatic insect communities.
SUMMARY RANKING OF
STRESSORS
An important part of making future policy
and management decisions is understanding
the relative magnitude and extent of current
stressors. Decision-makers may choose not
to focus their efforts on the most common
problems, but knowing which stressors are
the most widespread should certainly be part
of the information considered. In Figure 24,
stressors were ranked according to the
proportion of stream length impaired or in
poor quality with regard to that particular
indicator. The potential stressor that occurs in
the highest proportion of streams is
non-native fish (32% of all stream length
in the Highlands). As discussed earlier in
this report, many people do not consider
introduced fish (often sport fish) to be a
stressor; we list it here to highlight the broad
extent of non-native fish in the Highlands, and
leave it up to the reader to decide whether it
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
] 25%
24%
14%
11%
10%
5%
5%
32%
0
10
20
30
% Stream Miles
Figure 24. Overall ranking of stressors influencing the condition of Mid-Atlantic Highland streams.
26 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
should be considered a stressor in the
same way as other stressors. The next most
common stressors are both elements of
stream physical habitat: channel sedimentation
(25% of stream length) and riparian habitat
disturbance (24% of stream miles). These
stressors are followed by mine drainage
(14%), acid rain (11%), fish tissue
contamination (10%), and stream enrichment
by total phosphorus (5%) and total nitrogen
(5%) (Figure 24).
I
Habitat destruction is a
major stressor in
Highland streams.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 27
-------
28 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
ECOREGIONS, WATERSHEDS, AND STATES:
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON STREAM CONDITION
The statistical survey approach, measuring
multiple indicators of the condition of
Mid-Atlantic Highland streams, offers us a
panoramic view of stream quality across the
Highlands. By knowing first how many streams
are in poor ecological condition, or are affected
by particular stressors, we can begin to
make informed decisions about what level of
impairment we are willing to accept. In the
Highlands as a whole, between 27 and 31 % of
the stream length is in poor ecological condition
(depending on whether we use aquatic insect
or fish data to make the
assessment). The most i
significant stressors (e.g.,
those that are present in
the largest proportion of
stream length) are alterations
to habitat (in-stream
and riparian). While this
assessment is informative,
most management decisions
aren't made at the scale or
perspective of the Highlands
as a whole.
ECOREGIONS
A different, but useful, management
perspective can be gained by looking at
stream quality by ecoregions (Figure 25).
Ecological regions (or ecoregions) are areas
that have similar soils, vegetation, climate,
and physical geography. An ecoregion
perspective highlights the differences, for
example, between mountain areas with their
steep slopes, shallow soils, and cool climate,
and valley areas that are relatively flat, have
deep soils, and warm temperatures.
One of the maj or strengths
of the sample survey design
used in the Highlands is that
it can be used and interpreted from various
management perspectives or scales. We can
use the same sort of approach (assessing
first the ecological condition, then identifying
the major stressors) to look at different
geographic areas in the region such as
ecoregions, large watersheds, or states. In this
section, we present results for these different
geographic areas, along with some ideas of
how environmental managers and policy
makers might choose to use these results.
An ecoregion
perspective helps us to
understand why
streams respond to
various human
disturbances as they
do and which
management
solutions might be
applicable.
Ecoregional differences
play a maj or role in
determining which streams
have been affected by, or
are susceptible to, different
stressors: acid rain, mine
drainage, and nutrient
runoff. Management
practices within an
ecoregion typically are
applicable for many
streams with similar
problems because the
stream characteristics in
the ecoregion are similar.
Some problems or issues are more extensive
in some ecoregions than others.
While looking at the Highlands as a whole
can give us an idea which problems or
stressors most require our attention, a spatial
perspective can help focus management
actions in the geographic areas that most need
help. Focusing restoration efforts where
problems are most extensive can make more
effective use of limited resources.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 29
-------
r~ 4.
z
T
Ecoregions
I I Ridge and Blue Ridge
I I North-Central Appalachian
I I Valley
I I Western Appalachian
Atlantic
Ocean
Figure 25. Ecoregions are areas with similar physical geography, soils, climate, and vegetation types. The
Mid-Atlantic Highlands can be represented by four aggregated ecoregions. Ecoregions provide a useful
perspective in viewing stream condition and characteristics (the Highlands area is enclosed by a bold
black outline).
30 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
WESTERN APPALACHIAN PLATEAU
The Western Appalachian ecoregion runs
from western Pennsylvania into western West
Virginia (Figure 25). The hilly and wooded
terrain of this ecoregion is less rugged and not
as forested as the ecoregions to the east.
Much of this region has been mined for
bituminous coal. Once covered by a maple-
beech-birch forest, this region is now largely
in farms, many of which are dairy operations.
This ecoregion is characterized by low
rounded hills and extensive areas of wetlands.
the worst with respect to fish biotic integrity
(Figures 26 and 27). 37% of stream miles in
the Western Appalachians exhibited poor
scores for the aquatic insect index, and only
2% of stream miles exhibited good scores.
In the case offish, 30% of stream miles had
poor fish biotic integrity (35% of stream
length could not be assessed for fish due to
small stream size); only 3% of stream miles
in the Western Appalachians exhibited good
fish biotic integrity (Figure 26). Environmental
managers in this ecoregion might well decide
Figure 26. Fish IBI scores ranged from 14% in poor condition in the Ridge and Blue
Ridge to 43% in poor condition in the North-Central Appalachian ecoregion.
Based on the principles described above, the
ecological condition of streams in the Western
Appalachians would be considered the
poorest of any ecoregion in the Highlands
with respect to aquatic insects, and among
that these results are unacceptable, and
begin looking for ways to improve stream
quality. But where should they begin; which
stressors should they target when they begin
looking for restoration objectives?
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 31
-------
Figure 27. Aquatic insect index scores ranged from 14% in poor condition in the
Ridge and Blue Ridge to 37% in poor condition in the Western Appalachian ecoregion.
Far and away the most common stressor in
the Western Appalachians is sedimentation,
with more than 38% of the stream length in
the region exhibiting excessive fine sediments
(Figure 28). Riparian habitat alteration (28%
of stream length) and mine drainage (24% of
stream length) are also common in the
Western Appalachians. High phosphorus
concentrations are also more common in this
ecoregion (20% of stream length) than in any
other. It is very likely that these high-ranking
stressors are interrelated. While mining is
most commonly thought of as having a
chemical impact, it actually has a much larger
effect on habitat, particularly on rates of
sediment runoff to streams. Agricultural land
use, which is common in the Western
Appalachians, is also correlated with
sediment problems; these are often
associated with high phosphorus concentrations,
because phosphorus attaches to fine soil
particles and runs off into streams during the
same high discharge storms that carry
sediments into streams. It is very likely that
managers who focused on measures to
control runoff into streams from mines and
agricultural fields could have a major impact
on improving the ecological condition in this
ecoregion.
On the positive side, fish tissue contamination
is found in only 7% of the stream miles and
the effects of acidic deposition and nitrogen
runoff are essentially absent from the Western
Appalachians (Figure 28). Non-native fish
species are less common (19% of stream
length) in the Western Appalachians than in
any other Highland ecoregion.
32 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
NORTH-CENTRAL APPALACHIAN PLATEAU
The North-Central Appalachians in northern
and central Pennsylvania and central West
Virginia (Figure 25) are a vast elevated
plateau of high hills, open valleys, and 1
ow mountains (Figure 28) with sandstone,
siltstone, and shale geology and coal deposits.
Much of the eastern part of the ecoregion is
farmed and in pasture, with hay and grain for
dairy cattle being the principal crops. There
In the North-Central Appalachians, (43% of
stream miles in poor condition) based on fish
IBI scores (Figure 26). The relatively good
scores for aquatic insects in the North-
Central Appalachians (24% of stream miles
in poor condition; 33% in good condition,
Figure 27) almost certainly result from the
fact that sedimentation is much less prevalent
in this ecoregion (only 10% of stream miles
have excessive fine sediments) (Figure 28).
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
0
ZI5
11
]1
I ?8
8 Ridge
and
Blue Ridge
119
• 10
131
1 24
]1
H2
1 24
North-Central
Appalachian
1 36
I 28
I 34
0
H2
116
Zl 3 Valley
lib 40
138
128
124
0
120 Western
Appalachian
119
0 10 20 30
% Stream Miles
10 20 30
% Stream Miles
40
Figure 28. Ranking of stressors by ecoregion based on proportion of stream miles scored as
impaired or with poor quality.
also are large areas in oak and
northern hardwood forests. Land use
activities are generally related to forestry
and recreation, but some coal and gas
extraction occurs in the west.
Many aquatic insect species, and other
bottom-dwelling organisms, live in the gaps
and spaces between boulders and gravels
that disappear when sedimentation becomes
a problem in streams.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 33
-------
The most common stressors in the
North-Central Appalachians are
riparian habitat alteration (31 % of
stream length), mine drainage and
acidic deposition (both are found in
24% of stream miles in this ecoregion)
(Figure 28). These are the problems
that environmental managers might want
to target for restoration efforts. Introduced
fish species are also very common in the
North-Central Appalachian Plateau,
with 36% of stream miles having one or
more non-native species. Nutrient
runoff (<2% of stream length affected)
is relatively unimportant in this largely
non-agricultural ecoregion.
VALLEY
The Valley ecoregion extends from
eastern Pennsylvania southwesterly
through southwestern Virginia (Figure 25).
The valleys generally are of two types,
those underlain by limestone and those
by shale. The nutrient rich limestone
valleys contain productive agricultural
land (Figure 29). By contrast, the shale
valleys are generally less productive,
more irregular, and have greater
densities of streams. Most of the
streams in the limestone valleys are
colder and flow all year, whereas those
in the shale valleys tend to lack flow in dry
periods. Large poultry operations can be
found in many parts of the valleys.
The proportion of stream length in poor
ecological condition in the Valley based on
aquatic insect scores (36%) was comparable
to the poor stream condition measured in the
WesternAppalachians (Figure 27). Fish
Figure 29. The Valley ecoregion extends from eastern
Pennsylvania southwesterly through southwestern
Virginia and contains productive agricultural land.
assemblage scores indicated about 31% of
the stream length was in poor ecological
condition in the Valley (Figure 26).
Over one-third of the stream miles (34%) had
poor scores for riparian habitat alteration and
28% of the stream miles were scored poor
for excess sedimentation (Figure 28). Physical
habitat alteration, both riparian habitat and
excess sedimentation, almost certainly
contributed to the poor biological condition of
34 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
the streams. The aquatic insects are particularly
sensitive to excess sedimentation. Non-native
fish species were found in about 40% of
the stream miles in the Valley. Fish tissue
contamination (16%) and total nitrogen
(15%) each represent about half the number
of stream miles associated with poor scores
for physical habitat alteration. Agriculture
and poultry operations might be contributing
to the elevated nitrogen concentrations. Total
phosphorus concentrations and acid rain are
associated with less than 3% of the stream
miles and mine drainage is not a problem in
the Valleys. Managers might target physical
habitat restoration in the Valley ecoregion to
reduce this major environmental problem.
Targeting physical habitat restoration should
also help reduce nitrogen runoff.
RIDGE AND BLUE RIDGE
The Ridge and Blue Ridge ecoregion is a
series of linear mountainous ridges with
elevations from approximately 1,000 feet to
5,700 feet (Figure 25). This mostly forested
ecoregion contains cool, clear streams with
steep slopes which occur over mostly
sandstone and shale bottoms. The ecoregion
has no major urban
areas and has a low
population density.
However, due in large
part to the close proximity
of metropolitan areas to
the east (Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Washington,
D.C., Richmond) (see
inside front cover), recreational development
in the region has increased considerably in
recent years.
Only the Ridge and
Blue Ridge ecoregion
has less than 25% of
the stream miles in
poor condition.
Habitat destruction
is a major stressor in
every ecoregion.
The Ridge and Blue-Ridge had the smallest
number of stream miles with fish assemblage
(14%) (Figure 26) and aquatic insect scores
(14%) (Figure 27) indicating poor ecological
condition. This region also had the greatest
number of stream miles in good ecological
condition based on fish IBI (28%) and
aquatic insect (46%) scores. The Ridge and
Blue-Ridge region is relatively undeveloped,
with the predominant land use being forests.
Even in this region, however, about 19%
of the stream miles have non-native species
and 28% of the stream miles have excess
sedimentation (Figure 28). The other
stressors - poor riparian habitat, acidic
deposition, fish tissue contamination and total
phosphorus and total
nitrogen concentrations - are
each associated with less
than 10% of the stream
miles. Mine drainage is not a
problem in the Ridge and
Blue-Ridge region.
COMMON THEMES
Physical habitat alteration -
both riparian habitat and excess channel
sedimentation - were prevalent and common
in all the ecoregions. Targeting physical
habitat restoration would reduce a major
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 35
-------
potential stressor throughout the Highlands
and in all of the ecoregions.
WATERSHEDS
Watersheds are considered the primary
management unit for many aquatic problems
(Figure 30). Sediment transport and
sedimentation, increased nutrient and
contaminant loading, and similar problems are
associated with water running off the land
and washing sediment, nutrients and
contaminants into the stream. Considering
stream condition by watersheds can indicate
which watersheds might be high priority
candidates for management and restoration.
Stressors can also be ranked by watersheds
just as they were by ecoregions.
CHESAPEAKE WATERSHED
A major portion of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed is contained in the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands. Management practices in the
Highlands portions of the Chesapeake
watershed can help control problems in
Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay
Program has recently implemented tributary
strategies to improve conditions in the Bay.
Both fish (Figure 31) and aquatic insect
Figure 30. Three watersheds or combined drainage basins can be
assessed in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. A watershed perspective is useful
in viewing stream condition.
36 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
assemblages (Figure 32) indicated about 23
and 20%, respectively, of the stream miles
in that portion of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed in the Highlands were in poor
ecological condition. The fish IBI scores for
the Chesapeake watershed indicated that
about 25% of the stream miles were in good
condition, while the aquatic insect EPT
scores indicated that about 32% of the
stream miles were in good condition.
Channel sedimentation (25%) and riparian
habitat alteration (12%) were the stressors
that were associated with the highest
proportion of stream miles in poor quality in
the Chesapeake watershed (Figure 33).
Other stressors of concern included acidic
deposition (11%), total nitrogen (7%), and
fish tissue contaminants (5%). Mine drainage
and total phosphorus were not major
stressors in the Chesapeake watershed.
Non-native fish were found in 31% of the
stream miles. The Chesapeake Bay Program
has implemented a goal of 2,010 miles of
riparian restoration by 2010. This goals
applies to the entire Chesapeake watershed
and only a portion of the restoration will occur
in the Highlands region. Initial restoration
effects are targeted toward planting trees,
which should not only improve riparian
habitat, but also help reduce excess channel
sedimentation. These are two of the biggest
problems in the Highland portion of the
Chesapeake watershed.
AlXEGHENY-MONONGAHELA WATERSHED
The Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join
at Pittsburgh, PA to form the Ohio River
Figure 31. Fish IBI scores for streams in the Highland portions of three watersheds.
Strong differences in the condition offish assemblages exist among the three
watersheds.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 37
-------
(Figure 30). This watershed is found in
the middle area of the Highland region.
Managing aquatic problems in the upper
watersheds can help reduce problems in the
Ohio River, the Mississippi River, and
ultimately the Gulf of Mexico.
About 31% of the stream miles were scored
in poor ecological condition using the fish
IBI index (Figure 31) while about 22% of
the stream miles were scored in poor
condition using the aquatic insect index
assemblages are typically more sensitive to
the riparian habitat, acidic deposition, and
mine drainage stressors.
Riparian habitat alteration (28%), acidic
deposition (26%), mine drainage (20%), and
fish tissue contamination (19%) were the
major stressors associated with stream miles
in the Allegheny-Monongahela watershed
(Figure 33). All of these stressors were
associated with at least 20% of the stream
miles in this watershed. Non-native fish
Figure 32. EPT scores for streams in three Highland watersheds.
(Figure 32). The fish index indicated that
only about 11 % of the stream miles were in
good condition while the aquatic insect index
indicated that 27% of the stream miles were
in good condition. Some of these differences
are likely due to the stressors that are
associated with the streams in the
Allegheny-Monongahela watershed. Fish
species were found in 46% of the
stream miles in this watershed. Channel
sedimentation (6%), total phosphorus (2%),
and total nitrogen (2%) concentrations were
not major stressors in this watershed. The
fish index scores indicated a greater number
of stream miles were in poor condition with
fewer stream miles in good condition than
38 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
I2b
1 12
]2_
Chesapeake
]7
131
ISO
ISO
0
121
I I O „
upper Uhio
I2U
=|6
I 28
I2U
I 26
I 19 . „ ,
n 2 Allegheny-
-| 2 Monongahela
1 46
0 10 20 30 40 5
% Stream Miles
10 20 30 40
% Stream Miles
Figure 33. Ranking of stressors among streams in three Highland watersheds. While the general
ranking of stressors is similar, there were differences among watersheds.
the aquatic insect scores. Using multiple
indicators or indices provides a better
picture of stream condition than any one
single indicator or index.
KANAWHA-UPPER OHIO WATERSHED
The Kanawha-Upper Ohio watershed is
located in the southern and western portion
of the Highland region (Figure 30). About
21% of the stream miles in this watershed
were scored in poor condition using the fish
IBI (Figure 31) and about 36% of the
stream miles were scored in poor condition
using the aquatic insect index (Figure 32).
The number of stream miles in good
condition were scored similarly by the fish
(12%) and aquatic insect indices (14%).
Channel sedimentation (30%) and riparian
habitat alteration (30%) are the two stressors
that were found in the greatest number of
stream miles throughout the Kanawha-Upper
Ohio watershed (Figure 33). These two
stressors were followed by mine drainage
(21 %) and non-native fish (20%). Total
phosphorus concentrations above the EPA
guideline were associated with about 13% of
the stream miles, the highest proportion found
for any of the three watersheds. Fish tissue
contamination was found in about 9% of the
stream miles where there was sufficient fish
tissue to measure contaminants. Acidic
deposition was an issue in about 7% of the
stream length and elevated total nitrogen
concentrations were found in less than 1% of
the stream miles in this watershed. The
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 39
-------
aquatic insect index is particularly sensitive to
channel sedimentation, which likely explains
why there were a greater proportion of
stream miles scored in
poorcondition with this
index. Again, this reinforces
the importance of using
multiple indicators or
indices to determine stream
condition.
J_
COMMON THEMES
Riparian habitat alteration
was a high ranking
potential stressor in each
of the three watersheds.
Channel sedimentation was a high ranking
potential stressor in the Chesapeake and
Kanawha-Upper Ohio watersheds, while mine
drainage was a high ranking potential stressor
in the Allegheny-Monongahela and Kanawha-
Upper Ohio watersheds. Management
practices should be targeted to these high
ranking stressors in the various watersheds.
Targeting channel sedimentation and riparian
habitat should also reduce total nitrogen and
total phosphorus concentrations. Targeting
mine drainage also will reduce excess channel
sedimentation. Stream restoration practices for
these problems include re-establishing bank
vegetation, putting riffles back in the stream
channel, and adding boulders and tree trunks to
stabilize the channel. Re-establishing vegetative
buffer zones along the stream bank helps reduce
sediment and nutrient loads to the streams.
STATES
Management at the state level is critical for
effective environmental protection, management,
Stream miles in poor
condition ranged
from 23% in the
Chesapeake
watershed to 41% in
the Kanawha-Upper
Ohio watershed.
and restoration. In many instances, the
management units for the states also are
ecoregions and watersheds. Because West
Virginiais fully within the
boundaries of the High-
lands and most of Pennsyl-
vania is located in the
Highland region, the
statistical survey design
results are also applicable
for these two states.
Management insights can
be gained by looking at the
condition of streams, and
the ranking of stressors in
these two states.
PENNSYLVANIA
The number of miles of stream scored in poor
ecological condition was 27 % using both the fish
(Figure 34)andaquaticinsectindices (Figure 35).
The number of stream miles scored in good
condition by the aquatic insect index was 25%
compared with 14% of the stream miles scored
in good condition by the fish IBI.
Riparian habitat alteration and channel
sedimentation were associated with 21 % and
19% of the stream miles, respectively, in
Pennsylvania (Figure 36). Mine drainage, acidic
deposition, and fish tissue contamination were
also associated
with about 15%
of the stream
miles. Nutrient
concentrations of
both total
phosphorus and
total nitrogen
were stressors
Habitat
destruction was a
major stressor in
all watersheds.
40 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Figure 34. Comparison of Fish Index of Biotic Integrity scores between Pennsylvania
and West Virginia showing proportion of stream miles in good, fair, and poor conditions
based on a best attainable reference.
Figure 35. Comparison of aquatic insect scores for Pennsylvania and West Virginia
streams.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 41
-------
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
Channel Sedimentation
Riparian Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue Contamination
Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)
Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)
Non-native Fish
21
J16
15
Pennsylvania
346
H26
IMS
H14
ZM5
West
Virginia
i
10
20
l
30
l
40
50
% Stream Miles
Figure 36. Comparison of stressors in streams between Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
In general, the stressors in Highland streams in these two states were similar, except for
total nitrogen enrichment and fish tissue contamination.
in about 10% of the stream miles. Pennsylvania
has many stocked trout streams so non-native
fish were found in 44% of the stream miles.
WEST VIRGINIA
In West Virginia, 44% of the stream miles
were scored in poor ecological condition
using the fish IBI (Figure 34) compared with
25% of the stream miles scored in poor
condition using the aquatic insect index
(Figure 35). Similar differences were
observed for the number of stream miles
scored in good condition. The fish IBI
scores indicated 13% of the stream miles
were in good ecological condition compared
with 20% scored in good condition using the
aquatic insect index.
Physical habitat alteration - (26%) riparian
habitat and excess channel sedimentation
(18%) - were the two highest ranked
stressors in West Virginia streams
(Figure 36). Mine drainage and acidic
deposition were each associated with about
14% of the stream miles. Total phosphorus
concentrations rarely exceeded the EPA
guidelines in West Virginia streams and fish
tissue contamination and total nitrogen
concentrations in the poor category were
associated with 1% or less of the stream
miles. Non-native fish species were found in
26% of the stream miles in West Virginia.
42 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
COMMON THEMES
Physical habitat alteration (both excess
channel sedimentation and riparian habitat)
are major stressors in both states. Mine
drainage and acidic deposition are also
stressors that are common in both states,
and are associated with similar numbers of
stream miles. Management practices in both
states might be targeted to these stressors.
Non-native fish species also were found in at
least 25% of the stream miles in both states.
Habitat destruction is
also a major stressor in
both Pennsylvania and
West Virginia.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 43
-------
44 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
DEVELOPING A SCORECARD:
SUMMARIZING STREAM CONDITION
The statistical survey approach, measuring
multiple indicators of the ecological condition
of Mid-Atlantic Highland streams, offers a
panoramic view of stream quality across the
Highlands. By knowing, first, how many
streams are in poor ecological condition, and
the ranking of the stressors, we can begin to
make informed decisions about what levels
of impairment we will tolerate and how to
target management and restoration efforts to
address those streams whose level of
impairment is not acceptable. The following
example illustrates how this information can
be integrated across the Highlands, how
tolerable and intolerable levels of impairment
might be defined, how a score card can be
developed, and how it might be used to
target geographic areas for management.
For this exercise, let's suppose that if less
than 10% of the streams are scored in poor
ecological condition we can tolerate the
situation. We don't desire impaired streams,
but we can tolerate it if less than 10% of the
streams are in poor ecological condition.
However, if the proportion of stream miles
scored in poor condition is between 10 and
25%, a yellow flag is raised. This yellow flag
indicates that additional monitoring of change
over time is needed to determine if this
percentage is increasing or decreasing. If it is
increasing, decision makers, managers and
the public need to evaluate this situation and
decide if this represents a high priority for
management. If it is decreasing, current
management practices should be continued.
If more than one-quarter - 25% - of the
stream miles are in poor ecological condition
based on any biological index, regional
Overall,
Highland
stream
condition is
poor.
stream quality would be considered
unacceptable and management or policy
actions are needed now. (NOTE: only
biological indicators or indices are used to
determine stream ecological condition.)
Similar thresholds can be used to rank the
stressors (e.g., less than 10% of the stream
miles scored poor are tolerable, between 10
and 25% of the
stream miles raises a
warning flag, and over
25% of the stream
miles might require a
management action if
the potential stressor
is associated with
poor ecological
condition). The only exception to these
thresholds is for fish tissue contaminants, which
have both human health and ecological health
implications. For fish tissue contaminants, let's
assume that less than 2% of the stream miles
with fish tissue contaminants is tolerable,
between 2 and 10% is a warning zone, and
that greater than 10% of the stream miles with
fish tissue contaminants is intolerable. We can
use this information to rank stressors similar to
the ranking of stream ecological condition.
By using these thresholds, we can prepare a
color-coded table or scorecard (Table 3) -
green for
tolerable, yellow
for warning, and
red for unac-
ceptable-that
pulls all this
information
J_
Scorecards
integrate stream
condition and
stressors.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 45
-------
together. In addition, we can summarize the
information in the same table for different
geographic areas and management
perspectives - i.e., the entire
Highland region, ecoregions,
watersheds or states.
J_
Physical habitat
destruction is the
greatest potential
stressor.
Based on the score card in
Table 3, the overall ecological
condition of the region is
poor, for both biological
indices. In fact, the only
management areain which
ecological condition is not poor is the Ridge &
Blue Ridge ecoregion, where ecological
conditionisfair.
Physical habitat alteration, overall, represents
that greatest potential stressor in almost all
the geographic areas as well as across the
Highland region as a whole. The other
stressors, in general, can be targeted in specific
geographic management areas, but are not
wide-spread across the entire Highland. Some
chronic problems such as mine drainage and
acid rain still persist. However, nutrient
problems are not as common in Highland
streams as in other regions of the country.
Non-native fish species might
be the greatest potential
stressor to the Highlands region
overall, or it might represent a
success story for trout,
smallmouth bass, or similar
fisheries management
programs. There are societal
arguments on both sides of this
issue - loss of biological
integrity versus improved recreational
opportunities. This will continue to be, and
should be, a topic of public discussion.
Score cards such as Table 3 can be used to
target geographic areas with high priority
environmental problems for implementing
management practices. A scorecard helps
pull information together and display it so
that informed decisions can be made on
where to target geographic areas and how to
prioritize management practices.
46 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
Table 3. Scorecard for Mid-Atlantic Highland Streams.
Condition &
Stressor Ranking
Ecological Conditions
- Fish
- Aquatic Insects
Highland
Region
•
Ecoregions
Western
Appalachian
NC-
Appalachian
Valley
Ridge &
Blue Ridge
Watersheds
Chesapeake
Allegheny-
Monongahela
Kanawha
Upper Ohio
14
14
23 1
20
22
States
PA
WV
I
1 1
Potential Stressors
Habitat
- Channel Sedimentation
- Riparian Streambank
Water Quality
- Mine Drainage
- Acid Rain
- Total Phosphorus
- Total Nitrogen
Fish Contaminants
- Carcinogens
- Mercury
Biological
- Non-Native Species
24
14
11
•H
4
32
24
20
7
6
19
10
24
24
8
36
15
40
5
19
12
11
5
4
31
20
46
21
13
9
20
19
21
16
14
DB
9
44
18
13
14
26
o-
M
GO
t
Note: Green = <10% of stream miles ranked as poor. Yellow = 10 to 25% of stream miles ranked as poor. Red = >25% of stream miles ranked as poor. Normative
species are managed in some streams so they are ranked as neutral.
*Fish Contaminants
Green = <5% of stream miles with any contaminant in fish tissue.
Yellow = 5 to 10% of stream miles with an contaminant in fish tissue.
Red = >10% of stream miles with any contaminant in fish tissue.
-------
48 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Some of the management implications
from assessing the ecological condition of
Highland streams are:
*° You can't play the game without
a scorecard. A score card can help
pull all the information together and
indicate environmental problems and
target areas for management.
*° You can't develop a scorecard
using existing monitoring
networks. Statistical stream survey
designs are a cost-effective and
efficient way to get information on
the condition of streams in the
Mid-Atlantic region. Survey designs
complement, not replace, existing
monitoring networks.
^ A single indicator only tells part
of the story. Multiple indicators and
indices are needed both to determine
stream ecological condition and to
identify stressors affecting stream
condition. Biological indicators or
indices should be used to assess
ecological condition.
Chemical indicators don't tell the
whole story. Biological indicators
and indices integrate across physical
and chemical indicators.
Just one management
perspective is not enough.
Different management perspectives -
region-wide, ecoregion, watershed,
state levels - are important in
determining where the high-priority
environmental problems are and
where to target management efforts.
You can't evaluate the success of
management actions without
repeated monitoring.
Monitoring the change in stream
condition after management actions
have been taken is the only
approach for evaluating the success
of these actions. Unfortunately,
monitoring networks are generally
cut-back or discontinued when
budgets get tight.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 49
-------
50 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
-------
WHERE Do WE Go FROM HERE?
There has been progress since the passage
of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Point
source discharges are now permitted, best
management practices are being implemented
to control nonpoint source runoff, and
restoration activities are underway throughout
the Highlands. Yet, over one-quarter of the
stream miles in the Highlands are in poor
condition. We still have a ways to go.
Habitat degradation is occurring across the
Highlands and is affecting the condition
and quality of our streams. Conversion of
forest land into other land uses (e.g.,
agriculture, housing developments,
commercial developments) and fragmentation
of the forests (road building, parceling areas
into lots) represents one of the greatest
sources of habitat degradation. "Smart
growth " is no longer just a catchy phrase;
it is a necessity if we are to protect and
improve stream condition throughout the
region. Best management practices must
accompany these conversions for all types
of land use.
Based on the results of this assessment,
targeted management practices can be
identified for different ecoregions,
watersheds, and states. This will include
protecting streams in some areas such as
the Ridge and Blue Ridge ecoregion,
managing stream corridors in areas such as the
Chesapeake watershed, and restoring streams
in West Virginia that have been degraded by
mine drainage.
To be able to assess future progress, we
must continue to monitor stream condition.
Monitoring is typically one of the first
activities to be cut when budgets get tight.
Yet, monitoring is the only way we can
assess our progress and determine if our
management practices are effective. The
statistical survey approach used in this study
is an innovative, cost-effective way of
complementing other monitoring networks
and provide the kind of information we need
to determine if we are making a difference.
Together, we can make a difference in
protecting, managing, and restoring Highland
streams, but it will take a team effort. Just as
we worked together with partners from the
states, other agencies, universities and the
private sector to conduct this assessment, so
do we need to continue this partnership to
improve stream conditions in the future.
Coming together is a beginning; staying
together is progress; working together is
success. We can, if we chose, be successful
in improving stream conditions throughout
the Mid-Atlantic region - we simply need the
resolve to get it done.
Together we can make
a difference, but we
must work together.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment T 51
-------
52
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
-------
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL READINGS
Technical Journal Articles in Support of the Highlands stream report:
Boward, D., Kazyak, P., Stranko, S., Kurd, M., and Prochaska, A (1999). From the Mountains
to the Sea: The State of Maryland's Freshwater Streams. EPA/903/R-99/023, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.
Bradley, M.P. and Landy, R.B. (2000). The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA).
Environmental Monitoring Assessment 63:1-13.
Bradley, M.P., Brown, B.S., Hale, S.S., Kutz, F.W., Landy, R.B., Shedlock, R.J., Mangold, R.P.,
Morris, A.R., Galloway, W.B., Rosen, J.S., Pepino, R., and Wiersma, G.B. Summary of
the MAIA Working Conference. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 63:15-29.
Bryce, S.A., Larsen, D. P., Hughes, R. M., and Kaufmann, P.R. (1999). "Assessing the relative
risks to aquatic ecosystems in the Mid-Appalachian region of the United States."
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35, 23-36.
Bryce, S.A., Larsen, D. P., Hughes, R.M., and Kaufmann, P.R. (1999). "Assessing relative risks
to aquatic ecosystems: a Mid-Appalachian case study." Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 35, 23-36.
Herlihy, A.T., Larsen, D.P., Paulsen, S.G., Urquhart, N.S., and Rosenbaum, B.J. (2000).
"Designing a spatially balanced, randomised site selection process for regional stream
surveys: The EMAP Mid-Atlantic Pilot Study." Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 63:95-113.
Herlihy, A.T., Stoddard, J.L., and Johnson, C.B. (1998). "The relationship between stream
chemistry and watershed land use data in the mid-Atlantic region, U.S." Water Air and
Soil Pollution, 105, 377-386.
Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Herlihy, A.T., Kincaid, T.M., Reynolds, L., and Larsen, D.P.
(1998). "A process for developing and evaluating indices offish assemblage integrity."
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 55, 1618-1631.
Hughes, R.M. (1995). Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference
conditions. In W. Davis and T Simon, eds., Biological assessment and criteria: Tools
for water resource planning and decision making. Chelsea, MI: Lewis.
Hughes, R.M., andR.F. Noss. (1992). Biological diversity and biological integrity: current
concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries 17(3): 11-19.
Jones, K.B., Riitters, K. H., Wickham, J.D., Tankersley, R.D., O'Neill, R.V., Chaloud, D.J.,
Smith, E.R., and Neale, A.C. (1997). "An Ecological Assessment of the Unites States
Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas." EPA/600/R-97/130, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Kaufmann, P.R., Levine, P., Robison, E.G., Seeliger, C., and Peck, D. (1999). "Quantifying
Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams." EPA/620/R-99/003, U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment T 53
-------
Landers, D.H., R.M. Hughes, S.G. Paulsen, D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. (1998). How can
regionalization and survey sampling make limnological research more relevant?
Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte
Limnologie 26: 2428-2436.
Larsen, D.P., and Herlihy, A.T. (1998). "The dilemma of sampling streams for
macroinvertebrate richness." Journal of the North American Benthological Society,
17,359-366.
Lazorchak, J.M., Klemm, D.J., and Peck, D.V. (1998). "Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the
Ecological Conditions of Wadeable Streams." EPA/620/R-94/004, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
McCormick, F.H., Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Herlihy, A.T., and Peck, D.V. (In Press).
"Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region." .
Olsen, A.R., Sedransk, J., Edwards, D., Gotway, C.A., Liggett, W., Rathbun, S., Reckhow, K.H.,
and Young, L.J. (1999). "Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural re-
sources in the United States." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 54, 1-45.
Paulsen, S.G, Hughes, R.M., and Larsen, D.P. (1998). "Critical elements in describing and
understanding our nation's aquatic resources." Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 34, 995-1005.
Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). "Rapid
Bioassessment Protocls for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish." EPA/444/4-89-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Roth, N.E., M.T. Southerland, G Mercurio, J.C. Chaillou, D.G Heimbuch, J.C. Seibel. (1999).
State of Streams: 1995-1997 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Results. Annapolis,
MD: Maryland Departmentof Natural Resources.
Roth, N., and eight coauthors. (1998). Maryland biological stream survey: development of a fish
index of biotic integrity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51: 89-106.
Stevens, D.L., Jr.,. (1994). "Implementation of a national monitoring program." Journal of
Environmental Management, 42, 1-29.
Stevens, D.L., Jr.,. (1997). "Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial
populations." Environmetrics, 8, 167-195.
Thornton, K.W., and Paulsen, S.G. (1998). "Can anything significant come out of monitoring?"
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 4, 797-805.
Winter, B.D. and R.M. Hughes. (1997). AFS position statement on biodiversity. Fisheries,
22(l):22-29.
54 | Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
-------
Other MAIA Reports:
Jones, K.B., K.H. Riitters, J.D. Wickham, R.D. Tankersley, R.V. O'Neill, D.J. Chaloud, E.R.
Smith, A.C. Neale. 1997. An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic
Region: A Landscape Atlas. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/600/R-97/130.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC
20460. EPA/600/R-98/147.
MAIA Web-based Documents:
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment:
Technical Support Document US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development and Region 3, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program, Ft. Meade, MD
20755.
Other EPA Reports:
Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments [305(b) Reports] US
Environmental Protection Agency EPA 841 B-95-001. Washington, DC.
Additional Mid-Atlantic Highlands Reading:
Ator, S.W., and Ferrari, M.J. (1997). Nitrate and selected pesticides in ground water of the
Mid-Atlantic region, U.S. Geological Survey.
Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., and Larsen, D.P. (1999). Ecoregions: A geographic framework to
guide risk characterization and ecosystem management. Journal of the National
Association of Environmental Professionals Practice 1:142-155.
Hill, B.H., Herlihy, A.T., Kaufmann, P.R., and Sinsabaugh, R.L. (1998). "Sediment microbial
respiration in a synoptic survey of Mid-Atlantic streams." Freshwater Biology, 39,
493-501.
Hill, B.H., McCormick, F.H., Stevenson, R.J., Herlihy, A.T., and Kaufmann, P.R. (In review).
"The use of periphyton assemblage data in an index of biotic integrity."
Pan, Y., Stevenson, R.J., Hill, B.H., Herlihy, A.T., and Collins, G.B. (1996). "Using diatoms as
indicators of ecological conditions in lotic systems: a regional assessment." Journal of
the North American Benthological Society, 15.
Pan, Y., Stevenson, R.J., Hill, B.H., Kaufmann, P.R., and Herlihy, A.T. (1999). "Spatial patterns
and ecological determinants of benthic algal assemblages in Mid-Atlantic Highlands
streams." Journal of Phycology, 35, 460-468.
Websites:
MAIA - www.epa.gov/maia
EMAP - www.epa.gov/emap
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment T 55
-------
ffi
f
-------
ffi
f
CT>
-------
Appendix B: Table Bl. Percent of stream miles in good condition or affected by potential stressors for the Mid-Atlantic High-
lands, four Highland ecoregions, three watersheds, and two states.
MK>-
R
Constituents
Fish IBI1
EPT Index1
Normative Fish2
Fish Tissue Contamination3
- Carcinogens
- Mercury
Mine Drainage4
Acidic Deposition4
Total Nitrogen6
Total Phosphorus5
Riparian Habitat
Instream Habitat
Watershed Condition1
§
£
1
o'
ffi
t
o-
\
Assessment
ATLANTIC
ECOREGION
EGION
North-Central Ridge &
Western
Appalachians Blue Ridge Valley Appalachians
17
25
48
46
52
86
89
85
90
48
35
45
15
33
52
66
70
76
76
93
97
40
50
52
28
46
61
36
41
100
92
98
95
92
47
77
23
16
52
37
53
100
98
70
89
19
27
18
4
3
37
41
41
76
100
68
74
35
21
2
WATERSHED
Allegheny- Kanawha-TJpper
Chesapeake Monongahela
25
32
59
47
48
97
89
85
95
52
31
45
11
27
42
59
64
81
74
91
89
58
48
47
Ohio
12
14
57
48
57
79
94
83
83
39
29
48
1 % stream miles in good condition
2 % stream miles without normative fish
3 % stream miles without at least one constituent above human health carcinogen criteria or above mammalian mercury criteria
4 % stream miles not affected
5 % stream miles with TP<50 ug/L EPA guideline
6 % stream miles with TN < 1,300 ug/L based on EPA TP guideline
STATE
West
Pennsylvania Virginia
14 13
25 20
46 58
53
59
84
86
73
84
46
33
35
56
57
87
93
41
43
64
"'••',
111
-------
Appendix B: Table B2. Percent of stream miles in fair condition or affected by potential stressors for the Mid- Atlantic
Highlands, four Highland ecoregions, three watersheds, and two states.
MID-ATLANTIC
REGION
ECOREGION
WATERSHED
STATE
Constituents
Fish IBI1
EPT Index1
Normative Fish
Fish Tissue Contamination
- Carcinogens
- Mercury
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Total Nitrogen2
Total Phosphorus3
Riparian Habitat1
Instream Habitat1
Watershed Condition1
North-Central Ridge & Western
Appalachians Blue Ridge Valley Appalachians
36 32 44 37 32
48 43 41 48 61
Chesapeake
39
48
Allegheny- Kanawha-
Monongahela Upper Ohio Pennsylvania
51
52
26
50
46
48
West
Virginia
20
55
10
5
28
40
30
5
2
28
40
21
<1
4
3
26
13
15
8
48
45
48
24
6
37
51
4
8
4
36
44
35
7
9
14
46
17
17
4
31
41
30
19
8
34
48
27
2
2
33
39
28
1 % stream miles in fair condition
2 % stream miles with TN > 1,300 Ug/L but < 3,000 Ug/L based on TP guideline
3 % stream miles with 1 00 > TP > 50 Ug/L EPA guideline
ft
-------
Appendix B: Table B3. Percent of stream miles in poor condition or affected by potential stressors for the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands, four Highland ecoregions, three watersheds, and two states.
MID-ATLANTIC
North-Central
Constituents
Fish IBI1
EPT Index1
Normative Fish2
Fish Tissue Contamination3
- Carcinogens
- Mercury
Mine Drainage4
Acidic Deposition4
Total Nitrogen6
Total Phosphorus5
§
r-K
o'
ffi
t
§
8*
;>
en
S
1
Riparian Habitat
Instream Habitat
Watershed Condition1
Appalachians
31
27
31
10
4
14
11
4
5
24
25
25
43
24
36
12
8
24
24
2
1
31
10
27
ECOREGION
Ridge &
Western
WATERSHED
Alleghenv-
Blue Ridge Valley Appalachians Chesapeake Monongahela
14
14
19
5
0
0
8
1
1
5
28
10
31
36
40
16
0
0
2
15
3
34
28
35
30
37
19
7
6
24
0
24
20
28
38
31
23
20
31
5
4
3
11
7
2
12
25
21
31
22
46
19
14
20
26
2
2
28
6
36
Kanawha-
Upper Ohio
41
36
20
9
0
21
7
17
13
30
30
22
1 % stream miles in poor condition
2 % stream miles with normative fish
3 % stream miles with at least one constituent above
4 % stream miles affected
human health
carcinogen criteria or above
mammalian mercury
criteria
5 % stream miles with TP>100 Ug/L EPA guideline
6 % stream miles with IN > 3,
000 Ug/L, based on TP guideline
STATE
West
Pennsylvania Virginia
27
27
44
15
9
16
14
21
19
38
44
25
26
1
0
13
14
1
5
26
18
"'••',
111
-------
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY
Acid Deposition: A complex chemical and
atmospheric phenomenon that occurs when
emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds
and other substances are transformed by
chemical processes in the atmosphere, often far
from the original sources, and then deposited on
earth in either a wet or dry form. The wet forms,
popularly called "acid rain," can fall as rain,
snow, or fog. The dry forms are acidic gases or
particulates.
Algae: Simple rootless plants that grow in
bodies of water (e.g., estuaries) at rates in
relative proportion to the amounts of nutrients
(e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) available in
the water.
Anthropogenic: Originating from man, not
naturally occurring.
Assessment: Interpretation and evaluation of
scientific results for the purpose of answering
policy-relevant questions about ecological
resources, including (l)determinationofthe
fraction of the population that meets a socially
defined value and (2) association among
indicators of ecological condition and stressors.
Atmospheric Deposition: The flux (flow) of
chemicals and materials from the atmosphere
to the earth's surface. Depending on the
chemical or material, "dry" deposition (e.g., by
particles) can be less than, equal to, or greater
than "wet" deposition (e.g., precipitation).
Attribute: Any property, quality, or
characteristic of sampling unit. For example,
attributes of a tree, might include height and
leaf type. For fish, such atributes would be
size, feeding, or spawning habitat.
Base Flow: Sustained flow in a stream
primarily from a groundwater discharge.
Sometimes known as non-storm or dry
weather flow.
Benthos: Plants or animals that live in or on
the bottom of an aquatic environment such as
a stream.
Biological Assemblage: A grouping of
species from the same general category of
living organisms such as fish, aquatic insects,
hard wood trees, or riparian vegetation.
Biota: Living organisms including both plants
and animals found in a given area.
Buffer: A solution resistant to pH changes, or
whose chemical make up tends to neutralize
acids or bases without a change in pH.
Carcinogenic: Cancer causing
Channelization: The artificial enlargement,
straightening, or realignment of a stream
channel.
Community: The assemblage of populations
of plants and animals that interact with each
other and their environment. The community
is shaped by populations and their geographic
range, the types of areas they inhabit, species
diversity, species interactions, and the flow of
energy and nutrients through the community.
Competitor: An organism rivaling another
organism in the same area for food, habitat,
or other resource in limited supply.
Conductivity: A measure of the capacity of
water to conduct electricity. Conductivity
provides an indication of the concentration of
dissolved minerals in the water.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
61
-------
Detritus: Non-living organic matter (e.g.,
dead organisms or leaves) in water.
Ecology: The relationship of living things to
one another and their environment, or the
study of such relationships.
Ecoregion: A relatively homogeneous
geographic area perceived by simultaneously
analyzing a combination of causal and
integrative factors including land surface form,
soils, land uses, and potential natural vegetation.
Ecosystem: A natural unit formed by the
interaction of a community of plants and
animals with their environment (physical,
chemical, and biological).
Effluent: The discharge to a body of water
from a defined or point source, generally
consisting of a mixture of waste and water
from industrial or municipal facilities.
EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program - an EPA Office of
Research and Development research program.
Eutrophication: A condition in an aquatic
ecosystem where high nutrient concentrations
stimulate blooms of algae (e.g., phytoplankton).
Algal decomposition may lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Although eutrophication
is a natural process in the aging of lakes and
some estuaries, it can be accelerated by both
point and nonpoint sources of nutrients.
Food Web: An assemblage of organisms in
an ecosystem, including plants, herbivores,
and carnivores, which shows the relationship
of who eats whom.
Habitat: The place where a population or
community (e.g., microorganisms, plants,
animals) lives and its surroundings, both living
and non-living.
Headwater: The area that is the source or
origin of a stream, above which no stream
exists.
Index: A summary of indicator scores.
Invertebrates: Animals that lack a spinal
column or backbone, including molluscs (e.g.,
clams and oysters), crustaceans (e.g., crabs
and shrimp), insects, starfish, jellyfish,
sponges, and many types of worms that live
in the benthos.
Land Cover: Anything that exists on, and is
visible from above, the earth's surface.
Examples include vegetation, exposed or
barren land, water, snow, and ice.
Land Use: The way land is developed and
used in terms of the kinds of anthropogenic
activities that occur (e.g., agriculture, residential
areas, industrial areas).
Landscape: The set of traits, patterns,
and structure of a specific geographic area,
including its biological composition, its physical
environment, and its anthropogenic patterns.
An area where interacting ecosystems are
grouped and repeated in similar form.
Mammalian: Related to animals that are
warm-blooded higher vertebrates that nourish
their young with milk and have skin with hair
Map Scale: A statement of a measure on the
map and the equivalent measure on the earth,
often expressed as a representative fraction
of distance, such as 1:24,000.
62
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
-------
Metric: A measurement or mathematical
function used to represent some property or
feature of living organisms. For example, the
number offish species intolerant of pollution
is one metric included in the fish Index of
Biotic Integrity.
Mine Tailings: Residue left from mining
coal, ores, or other material. These residues
can leach or contribute pollutants to streams.
Monitoring: The periodic or continuous
collection of data that is used to determine the
condition ecological resources.
Nonpoint Source: Refers to pollution that
enters water from dispersed and uncontrolled
sources, such as surface runoff, rather than
through pipes.
Nutrients: Essential chemicals (e.g., nitrogen
and phosphorus) needed by plants for
growth. Excessive amounts of nutrients can
lead to degradation of water quality (i.e.
eutrophication) by promoting excessive
growth, accumulation, and subsequent decay
of plants, especially algae (phytoplankton).
Order: A taxonomic unit in the scientific
classification for plants and animals, an order
is the unit in between family and class.
Organic Contaminants: Carbon containing
waste originating from domestic or industrial
sources contained in plant or animal matter
Parasite: An organism that lives off another
organism or host for survival and usually
injures the host.
Perturbation: A disturbance of motion,
course, arrangement or structure that creates
confusion.
Point Source: Refers to a source of
pollutants from a single point of conveyance,
such as a pipe. For example, the discharge
from a sewage treatment plant or factory is a
point source.
Population: A group of organisms that a
capable of interbreeding, which typically
represents a biological level of organization
equivalent to a species.
Predator: An animal that kills and consumes
other animals for its food.
ppb: Parts per billion equivalent to
micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) or
micrograms per liter (ug/L).
ppm: Parts per million; equivalent to
micrograms per gram (ug/g) or milligrams per
liter (mg/L).
Sampling Methods: Procedures and practices
used to collect or measure physical, chemical or
biological material (e.g., temperature, water,
organisms) in or from the environment.
Scale: A distinctive relative size, extent or
degree of an area. For example, one scale of
measure or study might be an individual
stream while a larger scale of measure or
study might be a watershed that contains
many streams.
Sediment: Mud, sand, silt, clay, shell debris,
and other particles that settle on the bottom
of rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans.
Species: A group of individuals similar in
certain morphological and physiological
characteristics that are capable of
interbreeding and are reproductively
isolated from all other such groups.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
63
-------
Stream Reach: Portion of a stream; typically
of a stream between the point where a stream
enters (confluence) above to the point where
a stream enters (confluence) below. Stream
reaches can be a specific distance along a
stream that was sampled for fish or aquatic
insects.
Stressor: Any physical, chemical, or
biological entity that can cause or induce an
adverse response.
Surface Water: Water in streams, lakes or
estuaries that is visible on the surface of the
earth. In contrast to groundwater, which is
below the ground and not visible.
Threatened, or Endangered: Living
organisms placed in a special category for
protection by the Endangered Species Act of
1973.
Toxic Substances (or material): Chemical
compounds that are poisonous, carcinogenic,
or otherwise directly harmful to plants and
animals.
Value: A characteristic of the environment
that contributes to the quality of life of an
area's inhabitants; for example, the ability
of an area to provide desired functions such
as food, clean water and air, aesthetic
experience, recreation, and desired animal
and plant species.
Water Column: An imaginary cylinder of
water from the water surface to the sediment
that is used to describe the location of physical,
chemical or biological properties or entities.
Watershed: The entire area of land whose
runoff of water, sediments, and dissolved
materials (e.g., nutrients, contaminants) drain
into a river, lake, estuary, or ocean.
Wetlands: Lands transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface or
where shallow water covers the land and
where at least one of the following attributes
holds: (1) at least periodically, the land
supports aquatic plants predominantly;
(2) undrained hydric soils are the predominant
substrate; and (3) at some time during the
growing season, the substrate is saturated with
water or covered by shallow water (Cowardin
et al. 1979). An area that is saturated by
surface or ground water with vegetation
adapted for life under those soil conditions.
Examples of wetlands include swamps, bogs,
fens, and marshes.
Zooplankton: Very small, some even
microscopic, animals that are suspended in
the water and have very limited powers of
moving against currents. These animals
move primarily because the water carries
or transports them.
64
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
------- |