Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams

Assessment

United States Region 3 EPA/903/R-00/015

Environmental Protection Philadelphia, PA 19103 August 2000

Agency www.epa.gov
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 pa per
ii Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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.

Notice
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment iii

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.

Foreword
iv Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

Acknowledgements

EPA Region III

DeMoss, Tom

Donaghy, Bob

Eaton, Richard

Green, Jim

Kanetsky, Chuck

Lorentz, David

Passmore, Maggie

Petrone, Frank

Preston, Ron

Rose, Carole

Walbeck, Eric

EPA-NHEERL/AED

Bradley, Pat

Pheiffer, Tom

EPA-NHEERL/WED

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

OAO Corp.

Burch Johnson, Colleen

Cappaert, Marlys

OAO Corp.

Cassell, Dave

Comeleo, Pam

Hjort, Randy

Pierson, Sue

Rosenbaum, Barb

Oregon State University

Herlihy, Alan

Urquhart, Scott

Dynamac Corp.

Bryce, Sandy

Hughes, Bob

Woods, Alan

Seniors in Environmental

Employment

Hails, Marge

TAI Corp.

Brewer, Sandy

Herrin, Lori

Kneipp, Ann

McMullen, Dennis

Scopel, Darren

Smith, Mark

Wirts, John

Yeardley, Roger

USFWS

Drummond, Mike

Jenkins, Felton

McGowan, Peter

Pitt, Leslie

Delaware

Maxted, John

Maryland

Boward, 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

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
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment v

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 MidAtlantic 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

Executive Summary

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, watersheds, or at the state level. These different

perspectives help us see and understand

what is and what is not working and why.
vi Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Some of the implications for protecting,

managing and restoring streams in the

Highland region included:

F You can’t play the game without a

scorecard.

F You can’t develop a scorecard using

existing monitoring networks.

F A single indicator only tells part of

the story.

F Chemical indicators don’t tell the

whole story.

F Just one management perspective is

not enough.

F 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.

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. At the state level, West Virginia had

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 Western Appalachian

ecoregion did have 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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment vii

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 INSECTASSEMBLAGES................................................................ 12

COMPARISON OF FISH AND AQUATIC INSECT SCORES ........................ 13

STRESSORS ........................................................................................ 15

ACIDIFICATION OF STREAMS ...................................................................... 16

NUTRIENT RUNOFF ......................................................................................... 18

PHYSICAL HABITATALTERATION ............................................................... 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
viii Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

Table of Contents (cont)
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 1

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 regions 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 CarolinaTennessee-Virginia state borders in the south

(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 hardwood 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 enjoy 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

INTRODUCTION

*Terms in the glossary are bolded at first usage.

This report

assesses Highland

stream condition

and ranks

stressors.
2 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

Figure 1. Road construction can contribute suspended

sediment to streams during and following rain storms.

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.

Photo courtesy of EMAP
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 3

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

competitors), that are

acting in, and on, the

stream ecosystem. Stream

condition can be determined

by assessing appropriate

biological indicators (Table 1),

or combinations of these

indicators, called indices.

Information on the ecological condition of

streams is supplemented by measurements of

other stream characteristics, especially those

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 major environmental

perturbations (e.g., habitat modification, mine

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 Protection Agency (EPA)

Region III, the EPA Environmental 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

Highlands. All of the

crews had been trained to

use identical sampling

methods, so that comparisons 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 Highlands. It is

intended to answer, as directly as possible, the

question, What is the condition of Highland

streams?

Historic assessments of

stream quality were

limited and too

narrowly focused on

chemicals.

Photo courtesy of EMAP
4 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

Purpose

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.

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.

Purpose

Chemical criteria and standards established for envionmental and

human health; nutrients and contaminants affect aquatic insects and

fish

Sedimentation can smother algae and plants, aquatic insects, and fish

feeding and spawning areas.

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

Different land uses can adversely affect stream biology, chemistry,

and physical habitat

Indicators of Condition

Fish

Aquatic insects

Indicators of Stress

Water chemistry

Stream channel sedimentation

Riparian habitat

Fish tissue contaminants

Watershed condition

Table 1

Examples of ecological indicators measured in Highland streams.

In this assessment, stream

condition is defined by the

health of the living organisms.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 5

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

below point 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

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 a way 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 objective 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 III and the states to develop a

regional statistical survey of streams, with

the goal of providing statistically unbiased

estimates of stream condition throughout

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.

EPAs EMAP develops indicators

and other research tools to track

status and trends in the condition of

the nations ecological resources.

These resources include estuaries,

wetlands, inland lakes and streams,

forests, and mixed landscapes.
6 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

4

1

1 1

1

1

1 1

2 22 2

3

3

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.)

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, just as the

subsample of individuals in a public 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
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 7

(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

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).

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.

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.

Leaves, Debris, Clear Water,

Canopy Covered, Small Fish, if

any fish

Aquatic Plants, Surface

Exposed to Sunlight,

Game Fish

Turbid, Floating

Algae, Larger Fish,

Navigation,

Recreation

Small streams are an

important Highland

resource. 63% of the

stream miles are in

headwater streams.
8 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 9

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 inhabit the

streams. Throughout this report, ecological

condition - good, fair, or poor - is determined

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, andan

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 firstorder 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

ECOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS

Biological organisms

integrate all of the

stressors to which they are

exposed. Their health

defines stream condition.

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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sport fish 

Fish, but no sport fish

No fish caught

(42,830 miles) (13,770 miles) (7,800 miles)

1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order

% Stream Length
10 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 -

providing a sufficient variety of foods, clean

bottom gravel for spawning, and a habitat

with diverse forms of fish 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 of fish metrics are:

the number of fish 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, its 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, wed want to know how far away from this distribution (or how extreme) a

temperature needs to be before wed consider it to be unhealthy. In the case of body

temperature, we might have very high confidence that weve 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 25th 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

1st 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 11

The definition of biotic integrity

described above introduces the

concept of natural conditions against

which each streams 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 25th

percentile of this distribution (72) is the

value we use to distinguish sites that

are in good condition from those in fair

condition. The 1st 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

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% of the stream length was in fair condition,

Using fish indicators, almost

twice as many Highland

stream miles were in poor

condition (31%) as in good

condition (17%).

Figure 7. Fish IBI scores in Highland streams showing the

proportion of the 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.
12 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

(Ephemeoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera),

and caddisflies (Trichoptera); 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 leastdisturbed 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 condition. 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.

Photo courtesy of EMAP
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 13

For the Highlands region as a whole, 25% of

the stream length was in good condition with

respect to the EPT index (i.e., 25% of the

stream miles had 17 (riffles) or 6 (pools) or

more EPT species present). 48% of the

stream length was in fair condition, and 27%

was in poor condition (Figure 9).

COMPARISON OF FISH AND

AQUATIC INSECT SCORES

Differences between estimates of ecological

condition based on fish and aquatic insects

are expected, because these two groups of

organisms respond to

different disturbances in

the environment. This

expectation is borne

out in this Highlands

assessment, where fish

IBI scores indicated

about 31% of the

Highland stream length

was in poor condition

(using the best attainable

reference perspective),

while the EPT index

indicated about 27% of

the stream miles were in

poor condition (Table 2).

Such differences can be

attributed to a number of

factors. As already

stated, fish and aquatic

insects are expected

to respond differently

to stresses, and the

differences in the relative

scores of the fish and

aquatic insect scores in

different areas of the region (where different

stresses are known to dominate) may be

indicative of this.

Using insect indicators,

27% of Highland stream

miles were in poor

condition and 25% in

good condition.

Figure 9. About 25% of the Highland stream miles are in good

condition based on the aquatic insect index (EPT). 48% were in

fair condition and 27% were in poor condition. (Note: management

can also occur within watersheds, which are shown here in different

shades and discussed in a later section.)
14 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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.

Highlands Region

Good

Fair

Poor

Not Estimated

Aquatic Insects

25

48

27

0

Area

% Stream Miles in Poor Condition

Table 2

Comparison between fish index scores and aquatic insect scores for the condition of stream

miles in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.

Fish Index

17

36

31

16

Both fish and insect

indices indicate over

25% of Highland

stream miles are in

poor condition.

Although there are differences, both indices

indicate over one quarter of all stream miles

in Highland streams are in poor condition.

Why?
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 15

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.

STRESSORS

Figure 10. Land use classified from satellite imagery showing

the complex mosaic of ecological systems in the Highlands.
16 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

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.

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 dont 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 μeq/L], is a measure of the

streams 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

Photo by Alan Herlihy
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 17

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 vs Mine Drainage

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.
18 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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).

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

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 μeq/L are

susceptible to episodic acidification. These

streams may experience fish kills and

changes to their insect communities during

short-term pulses of acid rain runoff. 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).

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 sedimentation and toxic

metal contamination (metals reside primarily in

bottom sediments in non-acidic streams).

Figure 13. Proportion of stream miles that are

affected by mine drainage. Coal is found in some

Appalachian areas.

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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 19

Highland streams, with about 90% of the

stream length having concentrations less than

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

there are for phosphorus, although EPA is

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 (15:1) typical of undisturbed

sites. This gave us nitrogen thresholds of

750 (for the division between good and fair

condition) and 1,500 ppb (for the division

between fair and poor condition).

Figure 15. Total Phosphorus concentrations

in most Highland streams are low (<50 ppb)

or moderate (50-100 ppb).

Highland Region

Overall

Fair

Good

Poor

90%

5% 5%

Stream nutrient

concentrations in the

Highlands are in the

good quality range

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.

Chronic problems

with acid rain and

mine drainage

still persist in

Highland streams.

Photo courtesy of EMAP
20 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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.

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 trees 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) meanHighland Region

Overall

Good

Fair

Poor

85%

10% 5%

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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 21

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 of human 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

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 measures 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, agriculture, 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

Figure 17. Removing trees, shrubs and other tall grasses from stream banks

contributes to poor riparian habitat.

Photo courtesy of EMAP
22 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

streams 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

both human beings and fish-eating wildlife from

chemical contaminants that can be concentrated

in fish 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

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

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.

Highland Region

Overall

Good

Fair

Poor

48%

28%

24%

Figure 18. Riparian habitat quality for Highland streams.

24% of stream miles were in poor condition and 48%

were in good condition for riparian habitat quality.

Almost 25% of

Highland stream miles

have poor riparian

habitat and excess

channel sedimentation.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 23

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 of fish tissue

collected to do the analyses (Figure 20). The

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).

Figure 19. 25% of stream miles had poor quality

while 35% had good instream habitat based on

excess sedimentation.

Highland Region

Overall

Good

Fair

Poor

35%

40%

25%

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.

About 10% of stream

miles had fish

contaminated by

organic chemicals.
24 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

we classified as moderately disturbed, while a

score of 5 indicated a heavily disturbed

watershed.

 For the 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).

The kinds of watershed disturbance that

contribute to watershed condition scores

also produce the signals that we associate

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.

Highland Region

Overall

No Contaminants

Contaminated Fish Tissue

No Fish Data

4%

52% 44%

Figure 22. For the Highlands, 45% of the stream

miles were in watersheds that were minimally

disturbed, 30% moderately disturbed, and 25%

were highly disturbed.

Highland Region

Overall

Minimally Disturbed

Moderately Disturbed

Heavily Disturbed

45%

30%

25%

25% of Highland

stream miles were in

heavily disturbed

watersheds.

WATERSHED DISTURBANCE

With increased population growth, a more

mobile population, and the economic pressures

of development, the effects of human 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 watersheds 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 watersheds that were heavily disturbed (crop

production, urban development, mining, oil

drilling, stream channelization, etc.). For the

purposes of this assessment, we classified

watersheds with condition scores of 1, 2 or 3

as minimally disturbed. Those with scores of 4
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 25

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 of fish does not

necessarily mean the streams are in poor

One of the goals of the 1972 Clean Water

Act was to restore and maintain the biological

integrity of the Nations 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

Definition of Designated Use

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.

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
26 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

Figure 24. Overall ranking of stressors influencing the condition of Mid-Atlantic Highland streams.

Channel Sedimentation 25%

Riparian Habitat 24%

Mine Drainage 14%

Acidic Deposition 11%

Fish Tissue Contamination 10%

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient) 5%

Non-native Fish 32%

0 10 20 30

% Stream Miles

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient) 5%

Figure 23. About 32% of the stream miles

throughout the Highlands contain nonnative fish,

including species stocked and managed for sport

fisheries.

Highland Region

Overall

Native Fish Only

0 - 10% Non-native Fish

>10% Non-native Fish

No Fish

51%

19%

13% 17%
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 27

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).

Habitat destruction is a

major stressor in

Highland streams.
28 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 29

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

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

arent made at the scale or

perspective of the Highlands

as a whole.

One of the major 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.

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.

Ecoregional differences

play a major 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.

ECOREGIONS, WATERSHEDS, AND STATES:

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON STREAM CONDITION

An ecoregion

perspective helps us to

understand why

streams respond to

various human

disturbances as they

do and which

management

solutions might be

applicable.
30 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

Atlantic

Ocean

Ecoregions

Ridge and Blue Ridge

North-Central Appalachian

Valley

Western Appalachian

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).
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 31

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 maplebeech-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.

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

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 of fish, 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

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?

Western

Appalachian

Valley

Ridge

and

Blue Ridge

Highland Region

Overall North-Central

Appalachian

16% 17%

31% 36%

Good

Fair

Poor

No Fish

Caught

15%

10%

10%

43% 32%

28%

44%

14%

14%

22%

37%

31%

32%

30%

35%

3%

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.
32 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

Highland Region

Overall

Good

Fair

Poor Western

Appalachian

Valley

Ridge

and

Blue Ridge

North-Central

Appalachian

25%

48%

27%

33%

43%

24%

46%

40%

14%

16%

48%

36%

2%

61%

37%

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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 33

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)

Fish Tissue Contamination

Acidic Deposition

Riparian Habitat

Channel Sedimentation

Mine Drainage

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)

Fish Tissue Contamination

Acidic Deposition

Riparian Habitat

Channel Sedimentation

Non-native Fish

Non-native Fish

Mine Drainage

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)

0 10 20 30

% Stream Miles

0 10 20 30 40

% Stream Miles

Ridge

and

Blue Ridge

North-Central

Appalachian

Valley

Western

Appalachian

28 28

34

0

2

16

3

15 40

38

28

24

0

7

20

19

5

0

8

5

1

1

19

10

31

24

24

12

1

2

36

Figure 28. Ranking of stressors by ecoregion based on proportion of stream miles scored as

impaired or with poor quality.

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 l

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 NorthCentral 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).

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.
34 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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

Western Appalachians (Figure 27). Fish

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

Figure 29. The Valley ecoregion extends from eastern

Pennsylvania southwesterly through southwestern

Virginia and contains productive agricultural land.

Photo by Jim Omernik
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 35

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.

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

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.
36 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 37

Highland Region

Overall

Good

Fair

Poor

No Fish

Caught

KanawhaUpper Ohio

AlleghenyMonongahela

Chesapeake

16% 17%

31% 36%

7% 11%

51%

31%

25%

39%

23%

13%

12% 21%

26%

41%

Figure 31. Fish IBI scores for streams in the Highland portions of three watersheds.

Strong differences in the condition of fish assemblages exist among the three

watersheds.

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.

ALLEGHENY-MONONGAHELA WATERSHED

The Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join

at Pittsburgh, PA to form the Ohio River
38 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

Good

Fair

Poor

Highland Region

Overall

KanawhaUpper Ohio

AlleghenyMonongahela

25%

48%

27%

27%

51%

22%

Chesapeake 32%

48%

20%

14%

50%

36%

Figure 32. EPT scores for streams in three Highland watersheds.

(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

(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

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

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
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 39

Figure 33. Ranking of stressors among streams in three Highland watersheds. While the general

ranking of stressors is similar, there were differences among watersheds.

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)

Fish Tissue Contamination

Acidic Deposition

Riparian Habitat

Channel Sedimentation

Non-native Fish

Mine Drainage

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)

Fish Tissue Contamination

Acidic Deposition

Riparian Habitat

Channel Sedimentation

Non-native Fish

Mine Drainage

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)

0 10 20 30 40

% Stream Miles

0 10 20 30 40 50

% Stream Miles

Chesapeake

KanawhaUpper Ohio

AlleghenyMonongahela

25 6

28

20

26

19

2

2

46

12

3

11

5

2

7

31

30

30

21

7

9

13

0

20

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
40 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

aquatic insect index is particularly sensitive to

channel sedimentation, which likely explains

why there were a greater proportion of

stream miles scored in

poor condition with this

index. Again, this reinforces

the importance of using

multiple indicators or

indices to determine stream

condition.

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 KanawhaUpper 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,

and restoration. In many instances, the

management units for the states also are

ecoregions and watersheds. Because West

Virginia is fully within the

boundaries of the Highlands and most of Pennsylvania 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) and aquatic insect indices (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

Stream miles in poor

condition ranged

from 23% in the

Chesapeake

watershed to 41% in

the Kanawha-Upper

Ohio watershed.

Habitat

destruction was a

major stressor in

all watersheds.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 41

Good

Fair

Poor

Highland Region

Overall

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

25%

48%

27%

25%

48%

27%

20%

55%

25%

Figure 35. Comparison of aquatic insect scores for Pennsylvania and West Virginia

streams.

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.

Highland Region

Overall

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

Good

Fair

Poor

No Fish

Caught

16% 17%

31% 36% 13% 14%

46% 27%

13%

20%

23%

44%
42 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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.

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)

Fish Tissue Contamination

Acidic Deposition

Riparian Habitat

Channel Sedimentation

Mine Drainage

Total Phosphorus (Nutrient)

Fish Tissue Contamination

Acidic Deposition

Riparian Habitat

Channel Sedimentation

Non-native Fish

Non-native Fish

Mine Drainage

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)

Total Nitrogen (Nutrient)

0 10 20 30 40 50

% Stream Miles

Pennsylvania

West

Virginia

19

21

16

14

15

9

8

46

18

26

13

14

1

15

1

22

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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 43

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.
44 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 45

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, lets suppose that if less

than 10% of the streams are scored in poor

ecological condition we can tolerate the

situation. We dont 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

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, lets

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 unacceptable  that

pulls all this

information

Overall,

Highland

stream

condition is

poor.

Scorecards

integrate stream

condition and

stressors.

DEVELOPING A SCORECARD:

SUMMARIZING STREAM CONDITION
46 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

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.

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 area in which

ecological condition is not poor is the Ridge &

Blue Ridge ecoregion, where ecological

condition is fair.

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.

Physical habitat

destruction is the

greatest potential

stressor.
47 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment

Condition &

Stressor Ranking Valley

Ecological Conditions

Chesapeake

Ridge &

Blue Ridge

AlleghenyMonongahela Highland Region Western Appalachian NC- Appalachian Ka

Upp

Habitat

Fish ContaminantsWater Quality

Potential StressorsBiological

- Non-Native Species

- Mercury- Carcinogens

- Total Nitrogen- Total Phosphorus

- Acid Rain

- Mine Drainage- Riparian Streambank

- Channel Sedimentation

- Aquatic Insects

- Fish 31 30 43 31 14

27 37 24 36 14 20 22

25 28 25 6 38 10 28

24 28 31 34 5 28

32 19 31 46 19 36 40

10 7 12 16 5 5 19

4 6 8 0 0 4 15

4 1 72 0 2 15

11 0 24 2 8 11 26

6 1 22 20 1 3

14 24 24 0 0 3 20

12

Ecoregions Watersheds 

23 31 

Table 3. Scorecard for Mid-Atlantic Highland Streams.

Note: Green = <10% of stream miles ranked as poor. Yellow = 10 to 25% of stream miles ranked as poor. Red = >25% of stream milespecies are managed in some streams so they are ranked as neutral.*Fish ContaminantsGreen = <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
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 49

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Some of the management implications

from assessing the ecological condition of

Highland streams are:

F You cant 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.

F You cant 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.

F 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.

F Chemical indicators dont tell the

whole story. Biological indicators

and indices integrate across physical

and chemical indicators.

F 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.

F You cant 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.
50 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment 51

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.
52 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment 53

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL READINGS

Technical Journal Articles in Support of the Highlands stream report:

Boward, D., Kazyak, P., Stranko, S., Hurd, M., and Prochaska, A (1999). From the Mountains

to the Sea: The State of Marylands 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 of fish 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., and R.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., ONeill, 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.
54 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

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 Assessment 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 resources 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 nations 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(1):22-29.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment 55

Other MAIA Reports:

Jones, K.B., K.H. Riitters, J.D. Wickham, R.D. Tankersley, R.V. ONeill, 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
56 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
57 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

APPENDIX B: STREAM POPULATION

ESTIMATES
58 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

STATE

West

Virginia

13

20

58

56

57

87

86

98

93

41

43

64

Appendix B: Table B1. Percent of stream miles in good condition or affected by potential stressors for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, four Highland ecoregions, three watersheds, and two states.

Constituents

Fish IBI1

EPT Index1

Nonnative Fish2

Fish Tissue Contamination3

- Carcinogens

- Mercury

Mine Drainage4

Acidic Deposition4

Total Nitrogen6

Total Phosphorus5

Riparian Habitat

Instream Habitat

Watershed Condition1

MID-ATLANTIC

REGION

17

25

48

46

52

86

89

85

90

48

35

45

North-Central

Appalachians

15

33

52

66

70

76

76

93

97

40

50

52

Chesapeake

25

32

59

47

48

97

89

85

95

52

31

45

AlleghenyMonongahela

11

27

42

59

64

81

74

91

89

58

48

47

Kanawha-Upper

Ohio

12

14

57

48

57

79

94

83

83

39

29

48

ECOREGION

1 % stream miles in good condition

2 % stream miles without nonnative 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

Ridge &

Blue Ridge

28

46

61

36

41

100

92

98

95

92

47

77

Valley

23

16

52

37

53

100

98

70

89

19

27

18

Western

Appalachians

4

3

37

41

41

76

100

68

74

35

21

2

WATERSHED

Pennsylvania

14

25

46

53

59

84

86

73

84

46

33

35
59 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

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.

Constituents

Fish IBI1

EPT Index1

Nonnative Fish

Fish Tissue Contamination

- Carcinogens

- Mercury

Mine Drainage

Acidic Deposition

Total Nitrogen2

Total Phosphorus3

Riparian Habitat1

Instream Habitat1

Watershed Condition1

MID-ATLANTIC

REGION

36

48

10

5

28

40

30

North-Central

Appalachians

32

43

5

2

28

40

21

Chesapeake

39

48

8

4

36

44

35

AlleghenyMonongahela

51

52

7

9

14

46

17

KanawhaUpper Ohio

26

50

17

4

31

41

30

ECOREGION

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 100 > TP > 50 ug/L EPA guideline

Ridge &

Blue Ridge

44

41

<1

4

3

26

13

Valley

37

48

15

8

48

45

48

Western

Appalachians

32

61

24

6

37

51

4

WATERSHED

Pennsylvania

46

48

19

8

34

48

27

West

Virginia

20

55

2

2

33

39

28

STATE
60 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

STATE

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.

Constituents

Fish IBI1

EPT Index1

Nonnative Fish2

Fish Tissue Contamination3

- Carcinogens

- Mercury

Mine Drainage4

Acidic Deposition4

Total Nitrogen6

Total Phosphorus5

Riparian Habitat

Instream Habitat

Watershed Condition1

MID-ATLANTIC

REGION

31

27

31

10

4

14

11

4

5

24

25

25

North-Central

Appalachians

43

24

36

12

8

24

24

2

1

31

10

27

Chesapeake

23

20

31

5

4

3

11

7

2

12

25

21

AlleghenyMonongahela

31

22

46

19

14

20

26

2

2

28

6

36

KanawhaUpper Ohio

41

36

20

9

0

21

7

17

13

30

30

22

ECOREGION

1 % stream miles in poor condition

2 % stream miles with nonnative fish

3 % stream miles with at least one constituent above human health carcinogen criteria or above mammalian mercury criteria

4 % stream miles affected

5 % stream miles with TP>100 ug/L EPA guideline

6 % stream miles with TN > 3,000 ug/L, based on TP guideline

Ridge &

Blue Ridge

14

14

19

5

0

0

8

1

1

5

28

10

Valley

31

36

40

16

0

0

2

15

3

34

28

35

Western

Appalachians

30

37

19

7

6

24

0

24

20

28

38

31

WATERSHED

Pennsylvania

27

27

44

15

9

16

14

8

9

21

19

38

West

Virginia

44

25

26

1

0

13

14

1

5

26

18

9
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment 61

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 (1) determination of the

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 earths 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.

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY
62 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

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 earths 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.
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment 63

Metric: A measurement or mathematical

function used to represent some property or

feature of living organisms. For example, the

number of fish 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 (μg/kg) or

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

ppm: Parts per million; equivalent to

micrograms per gram (μg/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.
64 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

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

areas 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.