Fish & Water Happenings Project Updates Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Transcription

1 Fish & Water Happenings Project Updates Great Smoky Mountains National Park Matt Kulp & Caleb Abramson Fishery Biologist & Fishery Technician Great Smoky Mountains National Park Great Smoky Mountains National Park 107 Park Headquarters Road Gatlinburg, Tennessee

2 Presentation Purpose Project Updates 1. Brook trout genetics Little River metapop study? 2. Update on status of Lynn Camp Prong brook trout restoration project Others? 3. Acid deposition and critical load modelling.

3 Brook Trout Genetics What are we working on? 1. Brook trout metapopulations in GRSM do we have them? Funded by TU EAS Grant, NPS, USGS and PSU Data collected in 2013 & 2014, currently being analyzed Loss of locally adapted genes Loss of unique evolutionary legacy 2. Assortative mating study Pre- or post-reproductive isolating mechanism? Funded by TU EAS Grant, NPS, USGS, PSU, TWRA and TN Aquarium Funded in 2012; to be completed in 2017 Results of first round crosses: viable crosses to eyed stage for all combos Comparative survival to swim-up still ongoing; more crosses in Southern Appalachian Brook Trout Genetics Summary Manuscript Being led by USGS/NPS, universities & other state and federal agencies Over 16,000 individuals from 650 populations from 7 states (3 NPS units)

4 Brook Trout Genetics Summary Manuscript

5 Brook Trout Genetics Metapopulation Structure Is there evidence of metapopulation structure in upper EP Little River? Why is this important?

6 Number of Migrants per Generation (N Brook Trout Genetics Metapopulation m ) Structure <1 = NO Migration 1-10 = Limited migration Is there evidence >10 = of metapopulation Good migration structure between in populations upper EP Little River? N m = 2.50 N m = 1.40 N m = 0.53 N m = 1.75 N m = 0.79 Low to moderate gene flow among and within two major drainages. Populations above barriers exhibit no genetic sharing, complete isolation Little evidence of inbreeding except for isolated populations Upper Goshen Prong (303d) showing high inbreeding and low variation Will help identify which populations to target for transplanting

7 Brook Trout Restoration Status Why?!?...Policy & Heritage Opened 8 miles of stream to fishing 6 March 2015

8

9 Brook Trout Restoration ONLY in select streams Stream length (miles) Number Stream Year Finished Method Proposed Completed 1 Taywa Creek 1981 Annual Electrofishing Silers Creek 1981 Annual Electrofishing Lost Bottom Creek 1995 Annual Electrofishing Mannis Branch 1997 Multiple Electrofishing Leconte Creek 1999 Multiple Electrofishing Pilkey Creek 1999 No Fish Ash Camp Branch 2000 Multiple Electrofishing Winding Stair Branch 2001 Multiple Electrofishing Sams Creek 2001 Antimycin Bear Creek 2003 Antimycin Slab Camp Creek Desolation Creek Lynn Camp Prong 2005/2008 Antimycin Meigs Post Indian Creek Cannon Creek Lowes Creek MP Little Pigeon River Little Cataloochee Creek Anthony Creek

10 Percent Recovered (%) Brook Trout Restoration Time to carrying capacity? 120 Represents data from 16 sites in 7 different streams Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year Following Restoration

11 Biomass (kg/ha) Brook Trout Restoration Population Recovery? Site 5 Site 11 Site 18 Site 33 Site % Carrying Capacity Target Range 41-77% 67-81% % 10 5 Rainbow Trout

12

13 Brook Trout Restoration Plans for 2016 & Plans 1. Restore upper Anthony Creek Multiple electrofishing removals starting June 2016 Target 3-4 removals in 2016 Will need volunteer support 2. Setup Little Cataloochee Creek Redo distribution Tag sites, elevations, gradient ID refuge areas Will need volunteer support 3. Prepare funding proposals Duke Settlement (NC) EBTJV TU EAS TN Brookie License Plate Friends of the Smokies NC/TN TU Councils (?) Project Length = 2.0 miles

14 Brook Trout Restoration Plans for 2016 & Plans 1. Restore upper Anthony Creek Multiple electrofishing removals starting June 2016 Target 3-4 removals in 2016 Will need volunteer support 2. Setup Little Cataloochee Creek Redo distribution Tag sites, elevations, gradient ID refuge areas Will need volunteer support 2017 Plans 1. Finish upper Anthony Creek Target 1-2 removals in 2017 Transplant brook trout from area streams Sept 2017 Will need volunteer support 2. Treat Little Cataloochee Creek Transplant brook trout out of treatment area Aug 2017 Treatment in Sept 2017 Move brook trout back after treatment Barrier Falls

15 Acid Deposition Why is this important?

16 What is Acid Deposition? Point, Mobile, Ag. Transport Wet, Dry, Cloud Terrestrial and Aquatic Stream Acidification (Chronic & Episodic) ph & ANC

17 What is Acid Deposition? Point, Mobile, Ag. SO2 DOWN 75% NOx DOWN 71% Ammonia UP 5% Transport Wet, Dry, Cloud Sulfate DOWN 62% Nitrate DOWN 29% Ammonium 0% Terrestrial and Aquatic Rainfall ph improved from ph (10x) Stream Acidification (Chronic & Episodic) Nitrogen saturation Nutrient Loss (Ca, K, Na) Aluminum toxicity 7 brook trout populations lost ANC DOWN 5-21% ph & ANC Forest health & disease susceptibility

18 Percent (%) Park Streams Acid Deposition Current ANC Results 60% 50% Mean ANC values based upon 390 sites sampled from Not Sensitive 1,479 miles 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Chronically Sensitive 157 miles 5.4% Extremely Sensitive 377 miles 13.0% 31.0% 51.0% < 0 ueq/l 0-20 ueq/l ueq/l >50 ueq/l - Near or complete loss of fish and aquatic insects. - Low diversity of plankton communities, dominated by acid tolerant species. - Reproductive failure of some species of amphibians. - Fish species richness greatly reduced. - Brook trout experience lethal effects. - Diversity & distribution of plankton declines sharply. Sensitive 899 miles - Fish species richness reduced >½. - Brook trout reduced health & reproduction. - Diversity & distribution of plankton declines. - Fish species richness unaffected. - Brook trout populations thrive. - Aquatic insects & plankton diversity unaffected.

19 Acid Deposition Critical Load Modelling What level of emission reductions will be needed to get stream ph to >6.0?

20 Acid Deposition Summary of Biological & Chemical Effects Terrestrial Effects: Alters soil chemistry and fertility; Depletes soil nutrients (soil calcium loss into streams); Soil aluminum toxicity in soils (Al:BC/Ca ratios) damage vegetation; Forest health concerns (growth reduction and composition changes); Stress from depleted cations makes trees more susceptible to insects and diseases; Calcium is important for bird egg shell and snail shell development. Aquatic Effects: Excess soil nitrate leaks into streams making them more acidic; Lowers stream acid buffering capacity (ANC) and ph; Leads to chronic and episodic acidification; Release of toxic soil Al into surface waters kills fish; Loss of aquatic species diversity, trout range and survival 7 brook trout populations lost within last 40 years (13 miles). Previous research indicates recovery of soils, streams and biota may take decades (excess nitrate & sulfate in soils have to leak out for calcium to increase).

21 Roadmap for Stream Recovery in GRSM 5. Stakeholders engaged 6. Emissions reduced to levels allowing stream recovery 4. Park stream targets developed 1. Stream impairment detected 3. AQ and ecosystem modeling conducted 2. TMDL plan developed

22 ANC (ueq/l) Stream Recovery Over Time Do Nothing 100 Stream Recovery Business As Usual or "Do Nothing" (Constant Dep) Background ANC = (µeq/l) Year

23 ANC (ueq/l) Stream Recovery Over Time On the Books (OTB) 100 Stream Recovery On The Books (Deposition<22%) by 2020 then Constant Background ANC = (µeq/l) Year

24 ANC (ueq/l) Stream Recovery Over Time OTB & 60% by Stream Recovery % by 2080 (OTB by 2020 then Constant) Background ANC = (µeq/l) Year

25 ANC (ueq/l) Stream Recovery Over Time OTB & 80% by Stream Recovery % by 2060 (OTB by 2020 then Constant) Background ANC = (µeq/l) Year

26 ANC (ueq/l) Stream Recovery Over Time OTB plus 100% Reduction 100 Stream Recovery OTB to 2020 plus Reduction to Background Dep by 2020 then Constant Background ANC = (µeq/l) Year

27 Stream Recovery Summary Will Take Some Time. Most recovery scenarios will take years to show improvement naturally. Short target years (e.g., 2020, 2040) unrealistic as will not afford enough time for ecosystem recovery Most aggressive goals would reduce ANC levels below background levels. Therefore not considered. Care should be taken not to reduce emissions too much too quickly. Rapid reductions in NO x and SO x would release large amounts of sulfate to streams. There appears to be a sweet spot of target years that would reduce pollutants within reasonable timeframes. Watershed liming is not being considered at this time, however the U.S. Forest Service in NC is researching this option.

28 Determining a GRSM Critical Load Implementation Strategy What is our implementation strategy? GRSM Briefing GRSM Supt, Deputy Supt, RMS Chief 7 Dec 2015 SERO Briefing - Regional Director (Stan Austin), Deputy Directors (Barclay Trimble & Sherri Fields) a) Target Feb 2016; location Atlanta, GA Stakeholder Technical Meeting TDEC Air/Water, NCDENR, EPA a) One-day workshop focusing on technical approach and NPS recommendation (Here s what we re thinking how do you see it?) b) Target March-April 2016; target location GRSM NPS Letter to States Air/Water Div. Chiefs (TN/NC) Target April 2016 Stakeholder Workshop for all federal, state, NGO s and other partners a) One-day workshop focusing on technical approach and NPS recommendation b) Target April-May 2016; target location GRSM c) General topics to include: background (fish loss, terrestrial affects, ANC declines), PNeT results, NPS recommendation, discussion GRSM will feed data to EPA NOx/SOx Secondary Standard process Regulatory Metric (AAI) Linking Atmospheric and Biogeochemical Models to Assess Potential Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery

29 WHAT IS OUR GOAL? To leave GRSM aquatic ecosystems as good or better than we inherited them for the enjoyment of future generations.

30 Thank you Other questions???