Part V: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity and the Index of Well-Being to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee River Basins of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section Stream Survey Team April 15, 2011 1 Table of Contents Introduction...............................................................................3 Figure 1: Map of Blue Ridge Ecoregion.............................................6 Table 1: Listed Fish in the Blue Ridge Ecoregion..................................7 Table 2: Metrics and Scoring Criteria.................................................8 Table 3: Iwb Metric and Scoring Criteria...........................................10 Figure 2: Multidimensional scaling ordination plot................................11 Table 4: High Elevation criteria......................................................12 References...............................................................................13 Appendix A.............................................................................A1 Appendix B.............................................................................B1 2 Introduction The Blue Ridge ecoregion (BRM), one of Georgia's six Level III ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2001), forms the boundary for the development of this fish index of biotic integrity (IBI). Encompassing approximately 2,639 mi2 in northeast Georgia, the BRM includes portions of four major river basins -- the Chattahoochee (CHT, 142.2 mi2), Coosa (COO, 1257.5 mi2), Savannah (SAV, 345.3 mi2), and Tennessee (TEN, 894.2 mi2) -- and all or part of 16 counties (Figure 1). Due to the relatively small watershed areas and physical and biological parameters of the CHT and SAV basins within the BRM, and the resulting low number of sampled sites, IBI scoring criteria have not been developed for these basins. Therefore, only sites in the COO and TEN basins, meeting the criteria set forth in this document, should be scored with the following metrics. The metrics and scoring criteria adopted for the BRM IBI were developed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (GAWRD), Stream Survey Team using data collected from 154 streams by GAWRD within the COO (89 sites) and TEN (65 sites) basins. Fish communities in streams with watershed areas less than one square mile cannot be assessed using this SOP due to inherently low diversity within headwater streams. Benthic macroinvertebrate assessments may serve as an alternate biological assessment tool for these streams (contact GA Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) at 404-675-1646 for guidance regarding the appropriateness of benthic macroinvertebrate assessment). The GAWRD collected a total of 88 of the 108 species known to inhabit wadeable BRM streams in the COO and TEN basins (Appendix A). Species of concern in the BRM include one federally endangered species (Etowah darter, Etheostoma etowahae), three federally threatened species (blue shiner, Cyprinella caerulea; goldline darter, Percina aurolineata; Cherokee darter, Etheostoma scotti), one federal species of concern (sicklefin redhorse, Moxostoma sp.), and 21 state-listed species (GAWRD--Nongame Conservation Section, 2010; Table 1). Inherent differences in species richness warranted separate scoring criteria for the COO and TEN basins. Scoring information related to tolerance rankings, feeding guilds, and 3 species categories are included in Appendix A. Table 2 shows the scoring criteria developed for the thirteen BRM IBI metrics (for metric descriptions refer to GAWRD 2005, Part I, http://www.georgiawildlife.org/node/913). Maximum Species Richness (MSR) graphs are included in Appendix B. Scores for the BRM IBI ranged from 12 to 56 (potential range 8 to 60) with a median of 36. Based on IBI classes (GAWRD 2005, pg 40), 12 (10 COO, 2 TEN) sites ranked EXCELLENT, 37 (22 COO, 15 TEN) ranked GOOD, 45 (26 COO, 19 TEN) ranked FAIR, 39 (18 COO, 21 TEN) ranked POOR, and 21 (13 COO, 8 TEN) ranked VERY POOR. Fish abundance data was standardized for each site, and sites were grouped based on community similarities. We used Primer 6.0 statistical software for ecological data to determine Bray Curtis similarities between sites (Clarke and Gorley 2001; Clarke and Warwick 2006). We categorized each site by basin and IBI class as determined by the metrics presented here, and averaged fish community data across these categories. Figure 2 illustrates the relative ability of the current metrics to separate sites based on fish community health. The modified Index of well-being (Iwb) scores for the BRM (Table 3) ranged from 2.8 to 9.7 with a median of 7.5. Regional Diversity High elevation and high gradient watersheds are common in the BRM, and fish diversity is relatively high when compared to other ecoregions in Georgia. However, some BRM streams represent unique systems where high elevation effects (e.g., cooler water temperatures, widely fluctuating flows, and steep gradient) pose insurmountable barriers to colonization by many fishes. These physical characteristics, plus trout dominance from stocking, often result in low fish diversity. Due to these natural and anthropogenic characteristics affecting diversity, 27 COO and TEN sites were excluded from this analysis in addition to the BRM sites located in the CHT and SAV basins. We designated these 27 sites as high-elevation/trout-dominated (HETD) streams. The IBI is designed to assess biotic integrity through the use of fish community metrics representing species richness, species composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition (Fausch et al 1984). Due to the low diversity of the HETD 4 streams, the attributes of fish communities represented in this BRM IBI are not appropriate for assessing biotic integrity of HETD streams. Criteria for using this BRM IBI, based on river basin, elevation, number of native species, and trout population characteristics, are presented in Table 4. Fish samples not meeting these criteria should be assessed using alternative methods. 5 Figure 1. Level III Blue Ridge ecoregion (outlined in red) in Georgia. Major river basins include the Chattahoochee, Coosa, Savannah, and Tennessee Fannin Towns M urr ay Union Gilm er Gordon Pickens Bartow Cherokee Wh ite DawLsuomn pkin Fo rsyth Habersha m Rabun Stephens Altamaha Chattahoochee Coosa Flint Ochlockonee Ocmulgee Oconee Ogeechee Saint Marys Satilla Savannah Suwannee Tallapoosa Tennessee 6 Table 1. State and federal rankings for fish found in the Coosa and Tennessee portions of the Blue Ridge ecoregion of Georgia (Georgia Department of Natural Resources Nongame Conservation Section, 2010). Species State Federal Basin Blotched chub (Erimystax insignis)* E TEN Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea)* E T COO Bridled darter (Percina kusha)* E COO Burrhead shiner (Notropis asperifrons)* T COO Cherokee darter (Etheostoma scotti)* T T COO Coosa chub (Macrhybopsis sp. Coosa chub) E COO Dusky darter (Percina sciera) R TEN Etowah darter (Etheostoma etowahae)* E E COO Fatlips minnow (Phenacobius crassilabrum)* E TEN Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata)* E T COO Greenfin darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium)* T TEN Holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum)* E COO Lined chub (Hybopsis lineapunctata)* R COO Olive darter (Percina squamata) E TEN River redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum)* R COO/TEN Rock darter (Etheostoma rupestre) R COO Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp. sicklefin redhorse) E C TEN Silver shiner (Notropis photogenis) E TEN Tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca) E TEN Trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella)* E COO Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum) E TEN Status: E = endangered; R = rare; T = threatened; C = candidate Basin: COO = Coosa; TEN = Tennessee *Collected by GAWRD-SST 7 Table 2. Index of Biotic Integrity metrics for wadeable streams within the Coosa and Tennessee portions of the Blue Ridge ecoregion of Georgia, that are not high-elevation, trout-dominated (see Table 4). Scoring criteria include slopes of each trisection line (and coordinates where slope of trisection line becomes zero) for metrics 1 6 and numerical breaks for metrics 7 - 13. Metric Species Richness Metrics 1. Number of native species Basin Group Scoring Criteria 5/3 Breaks 3/1 Breaks COO y = 5.12x + 10.20 (1.91, 20.00) y = 2.56x + 5.10 (1.91, 10.00) TEN y = 3.94x + 7.78 (1.72,14.67) y = 1.97x +3.89 (1.72, 7.33) 2. Number of benthic fluvial specialist species COO TEN y = 1.38x + 2.75 (2.35, 6.00) y = 0.69x + 1.38 (2.35, 3.00) y = 1.01x + 2.00 (1.31, 3.33) y = 0.50x + 1.00 (1.31, 1.67) 3. Number of native sunfish speciesa COO TEN y = 0.94x + 1.87 (0.84, 2.67) y = 0.47x + 0.93 (0.84, 1.33) y = 0.64x + 1.27 (2.17, 2.67) y = 0.32x + 0.63 (2.17, 1.33) Number of native centrarchid speciesb COO TEN y = 1.21x + 2.40 (1.86, 4.67) y = 0.60x + 1.20 (1.86, 2.33) y = 0.87x + 1.72 (1.82, 3.33) y = 0.44x + 0.86 (1.82, 1.67) 4. Number of native insectivorous cyprinid species COO TEN y = 1.16x + 2.28 (2.04, 4.67) y = 0.58x + 1.14 (2.04, 2.33) y = 1.21x + 2.40 (2.39, 5.33) y = 0.61x + 1.20 (2.39, 2.67) 5. Number of native round-bodied sucker species COO TEN y = 0.67x + 1.57 (2.28, 3.33) y = 0.33x + 0.78 (2.28, 1.67) y = 0.60x + 1.20 (2.43, 2.67) y = 0.30x + 0.60 (2.43, 1.33) 6. Number of sensitive speciesa COO TEN y = 0.67x + 1.30 (2.05, 2.67) y = 0.33x + 0.65 (2.05, 1.33) y = 0.87x + 1.73 (1.84, 3.33) y = 0.43x + 0.87 (2.05, 1.67) Number of intolerant speciesb COO TEN y = 0.83x + 1.63 (5.20, 6.00) y = 0.42x + 0.82 (5.20, 3.00) y = 1.00x + 2.00 (1.33, 3.33) y = 0.50x + 1.00 (1.33, 1.67) 8 Table 2 continued. Metric Species Composition Metrics 7. Evenness Basin Group COO TEN 8. % of individuals as Lepomis species COO TEN 9. % of individuals as insectivorous cyprinids 10. % of individuals as generalist feeders and herbivoresa % of individuals as top carnivoresb COO TEN COO TEN COO TEN 11. % of individuals as benthic fluvial specialists Abundance and condition metrics 12. Number of individuals per 200 meters COO TEN COO TEN 13. % of individuals with external anomalies COO TEN a used at sites with an upstream drainage basin area < 15 square miles b used at sites with an upstream drainage basin area 15 square miles 9 5 74.6 70.5 Scoring Criteria 3 65.3 74.6 57.0 70.5 1 < 65.3 < 57.0 11.4 9.3 22.7 11.4 18.5 9.3 > 22.7 > 18.5 31.2 29.4 15.6 31.2 14.7 29.4 < 15.6 < 14.7 38.1 < 53.2 64.6 38.1 < 71.9 53.2 > 64.6 > 71.9 4.8 6.6 5.4 7.8 3.0 4.8 > 6.6 8.4 3.1 5.4 > 7.8 10.2 < 3.0 > 8.4 < 3.1 > 10.2 54.0 61.4 34.6 54.0 39.8 61.4 < 34.6 < 39.8 825.9 737.1 487.8 825.9 440.7 737.1 < 487.8 < 440.7 > 47 subtract 4 points from total score > 71 subtract 4 points from total score Table 3. Index of well-being (Iwb) scoring criteria and integrity classes for wadeable streams within the Coosa and Tennessee portions of the Blue Ridge ecoregion of Georgia that are not high-elevation, trout-dominated (see Table 4). Score 8.3 9.1 7.5 - 8.3 8.8 - 9.1 6.6 - 7.5 8.0 - 8.8 5.6 - 6.6 7.7 - 8.0 DBA (mi2) < 15 > 15 < 15 > 15 < 15 > 15 < 15 > 15 Integrity Class Excellent Attributes Comparable to the best regional conditions; all expected species for basin and ecoregion are present given the habitat and stream size; species, including the most intolerant, are present and represented by a full array of size classes; species diversity is high; number of individuals and total biomass are high and evenly distributed; each level of the food web is represented, indicating a balanced trophic structure. Good Species richness somewhat below expectation; evenness scores decrease as species diversity falls, especially due to loss of the most intolerant species; high number of individuals in the sample, with several species of benthic fluvial specialists and insectivorous cyprinids present; some decrease in total biomass as trophic structure shows signs of stress. Species richness and diversity decline as several expected species are absent; number of individuals declines; total biomass continues to decline with some levels of the Fair food web in low abundance or missing; trophic structure skewed toward generalist feeders and/or Lepomis species as the abundance of insectivorous cyprinid and benthic fluvial specialist species decreases. Number of individuals is low; species richness and diversity are very low, with benthic fluvial specialist and insectivorous cyprinid species in low abundance or Poor absent; sample dominated by generalist feeders, herbivores, and Lepomis species; increase in the proportions of non-native species and hybrids; growth rates depressed as sample is heavily skewed to the smaller size classes; total biomass low. < 5.6 < 7.7 < 15 > 15 Very Poor Sample represented by few individuals, mainly generalist feeders and Lepomis species; some sites dominated by non-native species; total biomass very low. 10 Figure 2. Multidimensional scaling ordination plot of average Bray Curtis similarities for Coosa (COO) and Tennessee (TEN) basins. Sites are grouped by fish community similarities and averaged across basin and IBI class. 11 Table 4. Criteria for determining if streams in the Blue Ridge ecoregion (BRM) of Georgia should be scored using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) described in this document. Sites meeting all of the components of criteria 1 OR criteria 2 should not be scored using the BRM IBI outlined in this document. Criteria Elevation DBA (mi2) Number Native Species % Trout by Number 1 > 1400' (COO) > 1800' (TEN) < 15 5 20% 2 50% Trout by Weight 12 References Boschung, H.T. and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution. Washington D.C. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A). Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: An approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, Second Edition. PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK. Clarke, K.R. and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER Version 6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, Tennessee. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A). Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional Application of an Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Stream Fish Communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 113:39 55. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Conservation Section. 2010. Protected Speces of Georgia. Available from: http://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/text/html/protected_ species/Fish.html Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, S. Lawrence, and T. Foster. 2001. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Georgia (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society. Methesda, Maryland. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A). Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A). Lyons, J. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure Environmental Quality in Warmwater Streams of Wisconsin. North Central Forest Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-149. Straight, C.A., B. Albanese, and B.J. Freeman. Updated 2009 March 25. Georgia Museum of Natural History. Available from: http://fishesofgeorgia.uga.edu Vannote, R.L, G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol 37: 130 137. Appendix A Coosa and Tennessee Blue Ridge Ecoregion Fish List Including Tolerance Rankings, Feeding Guilds, Species Categories, and Federal and State Rankings GWRD Stream Survey Team A1 Marcinek April 2011 Fishes of the Coosa and Tennessee River Basins within the Blue Ridge Ecoregion of Georgia. Species Chestnut Lamprey* Ichthyomyzon castaneus Southern Brook Lamprey* Ichthyomyzon gagei Mountain Brook Lamprey* Ichthyomyzon greeleyi Least Brook Lamprey Lampetra aepyptera Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum* Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense Central Stoneroller* Campostoma anomalum Largescale Stoneroller* Campostoma oligolepis Rosyside Dace* Clinostomus funduloides Blue Shiner* Cyprinella caerulea Alabama Shiner* Cyprinella callistia Whitetail Shiner* Cyprinella galactura Tricolor Shiner* Cyprinella trichroistia Blacktail shiner* Cyprinella venusta Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio Blotched Chub* Erimystax insignis Tolerance Feeding Species Ranking Guild Category Petromyzontidae PR Drainage Basin COO, TEN Federal Status State Satus HB COO INT HB TEN INT HB COO Lepisosteidae CR COO, TEN Clupeidae OM COO, TEN OM COO, TEN Cyprinidae HB TEN HB COO, TEN IN TEN INT IN BFS COO T E IN BFS COO IN BFS TEN IN COO IN COO GE EXOTIC OM BFS TEN E GWRD Stream Survey Team A2 Marcinek April 2011 Species Bigeye Chub* Hybopsis amblops Lined Chub* Hybopsis lineapunctata Striped Shiner* Luxilus chrysocephalus Warpaint Shiner* Luxilus coccogenis Bandfin Shiner* Luxilus zonistius Mountain Shiner* Lythrurus lirus Coosa Chub Macrhybopsis sp. Coosa Chub Bluehead Chub* Nocomis leptocephalus River Chub* Nocomis micropogon Golden Shiner* Notemigonus crysoleucas Burrhead Shiner* Notropis asperifrons Rainbow Shiner* Notropis chrosomus Tennessee Shiner* Notropis leuciodus Longnose Shiner Notropis longirostris Yellowfin Shiner* Notropis lutipinnis Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis Mirror Shiner* Notropis spectrunculus Silverstripe Shiner* Notropis stilbius Telescope Shiner Notropis telescopus Coosa Shiner* Notropis xaenocephalus GWRD Stream Survey Team Tolerance Ranking Feeding Guild IN Species Category BFS Drainage Basin TEN Federal Status State Satus INT IN BFS COO R IN COO, TEN IN TEN IN COO** INT IN COO INT IN BFS COO E OM COO, TEN** OM COO**, TEN GE COO, TEN INT IN COO T HWI IN COO IN TEN IN BFS COO IN COO, TEN IN TEN E IN BFS TEN IN COO IN TEN IN A3 COO Marcinek April 2011 Species Riffle Minnow* Phenacobius catostomus Fatlips Minnow* Phenacobius crassilabrum Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax Blacknose Dace* Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose Dace* Rhinichthys cataractae Creek Chub* Semotilus atromaculatus White Sucker* Catostomus commersoni Alabama Hogsucker* Hypentelium etowanum Northern Hogsucker* Hypentelium nigricans Spotted Sucker* Minytrema melanops Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum River Redhorse* Moxostoma carinatum Black Redhorse* Moxostoma duquesnei Golden Redhorse* Moxostoma erythrurum Blacktail Redhorse* Moxostoma poecilurum Sicklefin Redhorse Moxostoma sp. sicklefin redhorse Snail Bullhead* Ameiurus brunneus Black Bullhead* Ameiurus melas Yellow Bullhead* Ameiurus natalis GWRD Stream Survey Team Tolerance Ranking INT Feeding Guild IN Species Category BFS Drainage Basin COO Federal Status State Satus INT IN BFS TEN E OM COO IN BFS COO, TEN HWI IN BFS TEN GE COO, TEN Catostomidae IN BFS TEN IN BFS COO IN BFS COO, TEN IN BFS COO, TEN IN BFS TEN INT IN BFS COO, TEN R INT IN BFS COO, TEN IN BFS COO, TEN IN BFS COO INT IN BFS TEN C E Ictaluridae GE COO, TEN** GE COO, TEN GE COO, TEN A4 Marcinek April 2011 Species Brown Bullhead* Ameiurus nebulosus Flat Bullhead* Ameiurus platycephalus Channel Catfish* Ictalurus punctatus Speckled Madtom* Noturus leptacanthus Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris Rainbow Trout* Oncorhynchus mykiss Brown Trout* Salmo trutta Brook Trout* Salvelinus fontinalis Southern Studfish* Fundulus stellifer Mosquitofish* Gambusia sp. Mottled Sculpin* Cottus bairdi Banded Sculpin* Cottus carolinae White Bass Morone chrysops Striped Bass Morone saxatilis Shadow Bass* Ambloplites ariommus Rock Bass* Ambloplites rupestris Redbreast Sunfish* Lepomis auritus Green Sunfish* Lepomis cyanellus GWRD Stream Survey Team Tolerance Ranking Feeding Guild GE Species Category Drainage Basin COO, TEN Federal Status State Satus GE TEN** GE COO, TEN BI BFS COO CR COO, TEN Salmonidae CR EXOTIC CR EXOTIC INT CR COO**, TEN Fundulidae IN COO Poeciliidae GE COO, TEN Cottidae GE BFS COO, TEN GE BFS COO, TEN Percichthyidae CR COO**, TEN CR COO Centrarchidae INT CR SF COO INT CR SF TEN IN SF COO**, TEN** GE A5 SF COO, TEN Marcinek April 2011 Species Warmouth* Lepomis gulosus Bluegill* Lepomis macrochirus Longear Sunfish* Lepomis megalotis Redear Sunfish* Lepomis microlophus Spotted Sunfish* Lepomis punctatus x miniatus Redeye Bass* Micropterus coosae Smallmouth Bass* Micropterus dolomieu Spotted Bass* Micropterus punctulatus Largemouth bass* Micropterus salmoides White crappie Pomoxis annularis Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Greenside darter* Etheostoma blennioides Holiday darter* Etheostoma brevirostrum Greenfin darter* Etheostoma chlorobranchium Coosa darter* Etheostoma coosae Etowah darter* Etheostoma etowahae Greenbreast darter* Etheostoma jordani Redline darter* Etheostoma rufilineatum Rock darter Etheostoma rupestre GWRD Stream Survey Team Tolerance Ranking Feeding Guild CR Species Category SF Drainage Basin COO, TEN Federal Status State Satus IN SF COO, TEN IN SF COO, TEN IN SF COO, TEN IN SF COO CR COO, TEN** CR TEN CR COO, TEN CR COO, TEN CR COO, TEN CR COO, TEN Percidae IN BFS TEN INT IN BFS COO E IN BFS TEN T IN BFS COO INT IN BFS COO E E INT IN BFS COO IN BFS TEN IN BFS COO R A6 Marcinek April 2011 Species Cherokee darter* Etheostoma scotti Tolerance Ranking Feeding Guild IN Species Category BFS Drainage Basin COO Federal Status T State Satus T Speckled darter* Etheostoma stigmaeum IN BFS COO Trispot darter* INT IN BFS COO E Etheostoma trisella Wounded darter INT IN BFS TEN E Etheostoma vulneratum Banded darter* Etheostoma zonale IN BFS TEN Yellow perch* Perca flavescens CR EXOTIC Tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca IN BFS TEN E Goldline darter* Percina aurolineata INT IN BFS COO T E Gilt darter* Percina evides INT IN BFS TEN Mobile logperch* Percina kathae IN BFS COO Blackbanded darter* Percina nigrofasciata BI BFS COO Bronze darter* Percina palmaris BI BFS COO Dusky darter Percina sciera BI BFS TEN R Olive darter Percina squamata INT BI BFS TEN R Bridled darter* Percina kusha INT BI BFS COO E *Collected by GAWRD Stream Survey Team Pollution Tolerance: HWI = headwater intolerant; INT = intolerant Feeding Guild: CR = carnivore; GE = generalist; HB = herbivore; OM = omnivore; IN = invertivore; BI = benthic invertivore; PR = parasitic Species Category: BFS = benthic fluvial specialist; SF = sunfish species; Drainage Basin: COO = Coosa; TEN = Tennessee; EXOTIC = introduced to Georgia; ** introduced to basin Status: E = endangered; T = threatened; R = rare; C = of concern GWRD Stream Survey Team A7 Marcinek April 2011 Appendix B Blue Ridge Ecoregion Maximum Species Richness Graphs, Metrics 1 - 6, for the Coosa and Tennessee Basins B1 Number Native Species EXAMPLE. Maximum species richness graph. Maximum species richness (denoted by dashed line) drawn by eye, and the area below trisected to determine the cutoffs for scoring breaks (Lyons 1992). Sites falling on the line are scored up. Actual graphs are truncated at the y-axis, as sites with drainage basin areas < 1 mi2 are not to be scored using these criteria . Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B2 Number Native Species Metric 1 Coosa. Total number of native species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B3 Number Native Species Metric 1 Tennessee. Total number of native species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B4 Number Benthic Fluvial Specialist Species Metric 2 Coosa. Total number of benthic fluvial specialist species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B5 Number Benthic fluvial Specialist Species Metric 2 Tennessee. Total number of benthic fluvial specialist species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B6 Number Native Sunfish Species Metric 3a Coosa. Total number of native sunfish species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B7 Number Native Sunfish Species Metric 3a Tennessee. Total number of native sunfish species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B8 Number Native Centrarchid Species Metric 3b Coosa. Total number of native centrarchid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B9 Number Native Centrarchid Species Metric 3b Tennessee. Total number of native centrarchid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B10 Number Native Insectivorous Cyprinid Species Metric 4 Coosa. Total number of native insectivorous cyprinid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B11 Number Native Insectivorous Cyprinid Species Metric 4 Tennessee. Total number of native insectivorous cyprinid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B12 Number Native Round-bodied Sucker Species Metric 5 Coosa. Total number of native round-bodied sucker species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B13 Number Native Round-bodied Sucker Species Metric 5 Tennessee. Total number of native round-bodied sucker species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B14 Number Sensitive Species Metric 6a Coosa. Total number of sensitive species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B15 Number Sensitive Species Metric 6a Tennessee. Total number of sensitive species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B16 Number Intolerant Species Metric 6b Coosa. Total number of intolerant species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B17 Number Intolerant Species Metric 6b Tennessee. Total number of intolerant species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line. Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B18