FISHERIES REPORT - TWRA Region 4 Stream Management

Transcription

FISHERIES REPORT
05-02
REGION IV
TROUT FISHERIES REPORT
2004
Prepared by:
James W. Habera
Rick D. Bivens
Bart D. Carter
Carl E. Williams
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
*Visit our website at www.twra4streams.homestead.com/32700.html, where you can download
this report and learn more about TWRA Region IV stream fisheries projects and activities. You
can also link to the Region IV streams site through the main TWRA website at
www.tnwildlife.org.
Cover:
Region IV TWRA personnel, along with the assistance of Overmountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited personnel,
electrofish Stony Creek (Carter County) in October 2004. Stony Creek supports populations of rainbow,
brook, and brown trout and is one of Tennessee’s best wild trout streams. Photo courtesy of Roy Hawk.
REGION IV
TROUT FISHERIES REPORT
2004
____________
Prepared by:
James W. Habera
Rick D. Bivens
Bart D. Carter
and
Carl E. Williams
TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
____________
April 2005
This report contains progress and accomplishments for the following TWRA Projects:
"Stream Survey".
Development of this report was financed in part by funds from Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration
(Public Law 91-503) as documented in Federal Aid Project FW-6 (4321, 4350, and 4351)
This program receives Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap. If you believe you have been
discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further
information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
20240.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2.
WILD TROUT STREAM ACCOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
2.1
Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
2.2
Long-Term Monitoring Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.2.10
2.3
North River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paint Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocky Fork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doe River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Left Prong Hampton Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Right Prong Middle Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stony Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doe Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laurel Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Beaverdam Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
15
22
29
36
44
50
56
63
70
Sympatric Brook/Rainbow Trout Monitoring Streams . . . . . . . . . .
77
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.4
Briar Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocky Fork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Birch Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gentry Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
83
86
91
97
Other Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
3.
98
104
111
118
125
130
TAILWATER ACCOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
3.1
Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
3.2
Tailwater Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
4.
Meadow Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Fork Citico Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gulf Fork Big Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Camp Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shell Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Qualitative Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Norris (Clinch River) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cherokee (Holston River) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wilbur (Watauga River) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ft. Patrick Henry (South Fork Holston River) . . . .
South Holston (South Fork Holston River) . . . . . .
133
142
148
158
165
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
174
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
APPENDIX A: Wild Trout Streams Sampled Quantitatively during 1991-2004 . . . 183
v
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) manages trout fisheries in streams,
tailwaters, and reservoirs in Region IV. Some of these fisheries, such as the South Holston and
Watauga tailwaters, have gained regional and even national prominence because of their quality.
Aesthetically pleasing surroundings are essential components of others, such as our mountain
wild trout streams. Together, Tennessee’s trout fisheries provide a popular and important set of
angling opportunities. Agency management emphasizes habitat preservation and the
maintenance of wild stocks where they occur. However, artificially propagated trout, produced at
six state and federal hatcheries, are also important for managing substantial portions of
Tennessee’s coldwater resource.
The Blue Ridge physiographic province of eastern Tennessee contains about 1,000 km
(621 mi) of coldwater streams inhabited by wild (self-sustaining) populations of rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss, brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, and brown trout Salmo trutta.
Tennessee's wild trout primarily occur within the nine counties that border North Carolina, as well
as parts of Sullivan and Washington counties (Figure 1-1). Small populations may exist
elsewhere (e.g., in a few spring-fed streams throughout the state), but would represent a small
fraction of the resource. The Tennessee portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
(GSMNP) in Cocke, Sevier, and Blount counties contains another 395 km (245 mi) of wild trout
streams. Most of Tennessee's wild trout resource outside GSMNP is located within the U.S.
Forest Service's (USFS) 253,000-hectare (625,000-acre) Cherokee National Forest (CNF).
However, a substantial portion (~30%) occurs on privately owned lands and includes some of the
State's best wild trout streams.
Rainbow trout, native to Pacific-drainage streams of the western U.S., and brown trout,
native to Europe, were widely introduced into coldwater habitats during the past century and have
become naturalized in many Tennessee streams. Brook trout are Tennessee's only native
salmonid and once occurred at elevations as low as 490 m (1,600 ft) in some streams (King
1937). Brook trout now inhabit about 237 km (148 mi) in 106 streams, or about 24% of the
stream length supporting wild trout outside GSMNP. Brook trout occur allopatrically in about 68%
of the stream length they currently occupy.
Wild trout populations reflect the quality and stability of the aquatic systems they inhabit,
which is linked to the quality and stability of associated terrestrial systems. TWRA recognizes the
ecological importance of Tennessee’s wild trout resources, along with their value to anglers and
the special management opportunities they offer. The Agency’s Streams and Rivers Strategic
Plan (TWRA 2000) acknowledges the continued need for trout population, habitat, and angler use
data. Such information is essential to ensure that wild trout resources are protected and that
appropriate management strategies can be developed and employed while maintaining angler
satisfaction. TWRA has been intensively involved in obtaining and utilizing this information since
1990.
1
Many smaller Tennessee streams with unregulated flows can support trout fisheries, but
are limited by marginal habitat or levels of natural production insufficient to meet existing fishing
pressure. TWRA maintains trout fisheries in about 467 km of such streams in eastern Tennessee
by annually stocking hatchery-produced trout (fingerlings and adults).
Cold, hypolimnetic releases from four Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dams in Region
IV (Norris, Ft. Patrick Henry, South Holston, and Wilbur) also support well-established, yearround trout fisheries in the tailwaters downstream (Figure 1-2). Tailwater rivers generally have
habitats and food bases that can support large carrying capacities and allow trout to grow larger
than they normally do elsewhere. Tailwaters are typically stocked with fingerlings in the early
spring and adult fish (catchables) throughout the summer. Adults supplement the catch during
peak angling season and by fall, fingerlings have begun to enter these fisheries. Recruitment of
natural reproduction (mostly by brown trout) contributes substantially to the fishery in the South
Holston tailwater and, to a lesser extent, in the Wilbur (Watauga River) tailwater. Brook trout
fingerlings were added to the Wilbur tailwater stocking program in 2001 and may provide another
facet to this popular fishery. A tailwater trout fishery has also developed in the Holston River
below Cherokee Reservoir (Figure 1-2), although water temperatures may limit angling
opportunities during late summer and early fall in some years.
Reservoirs that stratify during summer months and have water that is suitable for trout
below depths normally occupied by warmwater species are termed "two-story" fisheries. These
reservoirs must have a zone with water below 21°C and a minimum dissolved oxygen
concentration of 3.0 mg/L (Wilkins et al. 1967). Seven two-story reservoirs in Region IV
(Calderwood, Chilhowee, Tellico, Ft. Patrick Henry, South Holston, Wilbur, and Watauga) have
such zones and create an additional trout resource. These reservoirs are stocked with adult-size
trout (typically rainbows) during the late fall and winter when reservoir temperatures are uniformly
cold, and piscivorous warmwater predators are less active. Watauga Reservoir is regularly
stocked with lake trout Salvelinus namaycush and provides Region IV’s best fishery for this
species. Chilhowee Reservoir is also stocked with lake trout and Calderwood Reservoir has
received them in the past.
The goal of TWRA’s current Streams and Rivers Strategic Plan (TWRA 2000) is to
”protect, restore, and enhance stream and river fisheries while providing a variety of quality
angling opportunities.” Tennessee’s trout fisheries help meet that goal by supporting over a
million trips a year by more than 100,000 anglers (resident and nonresident). TWRA would like to
increase the use of streams and rivers by 2006 to 2.5 million fishing trips/year by 250,000
Tennesseeans while maintaining a 70% level of satisfaction for success and overall recreational
experience (TWRA 2000). To help meet this objective, new trout fishing opportunities, as well as
proper management of existing opportunities, will be necessary. Acquisition of basic trout
population data (e.g., abundances, size structures, age and growth characteristics, mortality
rates, etc.) through standardized stream survey techniques will continue to be an important
means for meeting these needs.
2
Wild Trout Distribution
Map Location
Sullivan
Wild trout distribution
Washington
Greene
Unicoi
Cocke
Sevier
Blount
Monroe
Polk
Figure 1-1. Primary wild trout distribution in Tennessee.
3
Carter
Johnson
Trout Tailwaters and Reservoirs
KY
Ft. Patrick Henry Lake
S. Fork Holston River (Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater)
S. Fork Holston River
(S. Holston tailwater)
VA
S. Holston Lake
Bristol
Kingsport
Elizabethton
Watauga River
(Wilbur tailwater)
Watauga Lake
Clinch River
(Norris tailwater)
Wilbur Lake
Holston River
(Cherokee tailwater)
Knoxville
Tellico Lake
Chilhowee Lake
Calderwood Lake
NC
GA
Figure 1-2. The five tailwater and seven reservoir trout fisheries in Region IV.
4
2.
WILD TROUT STREAM ACCOUNTS
Eighteen wild trout streams in the Tellico/Little Tennessee, French Broad, Nolichucky,
Watauga, and South Fork Holston river watersheds were quantitatively sampled during the 2004
field season (June - October). The 26 stations sampled on these streams were located in
Monroe, Cocke, Greene, Washington, Unicoi, Carter, and Johnson counties. Eight stations were
located on privately owned land, three were located on State-owned land (Hampton Cove State
Natural Area), and the others were located in the CNF (Appendix A). Additionally, six streams
were qualitatively surveyed to determine the presence or general status of any wild trout
populations.
The National Park Service (NPS), USFS, TVA, and Trout Unlimited personnel helped
sample several of the larger wild trout streams during 2004 involved. Such cooperation permits
larger projects to be undertaken and serves as an important means for communication among the
agencies managing wild trout populations and habitat in Tennessee. Maintenance of interagency
cooperation and coordination of sampling activities and reporting is one of the strategies for
addressing the information needs outlined in TWRA's current Streams and Rivers Strategic Plan
(TWRA 2000).
The following sections provide individual accounts for all wild trout streams sampled
during 2004. A list of all streams sampled quantitatively during 1991-2004 is provided in
Appendix A.
2.1
SAMPLING METHODS
Sampling in wild trout streams was primarily conducted with gasoline-powered AC
backpack electrofishing units (125-650 VAC, depending upon water conductivity) as in previous
years. New units incorporating a DC power source (battery with a built-in inverter to produce AC
output) was also used for several samples, including South Fork Citico Creek in the Citico Creek
wilderness area. All quantitative (three-pass depletion) sampling followed TWRA’s standard
protocols (TWRA 1998). Three-pass depletion sampling is recommended by the American
Fisheries Society, Southern Division Trout Committee's Standardized Sampling Guidelines for
Wadeable Trout Streams and is widely used by the other state and federal agencies working with
wild trout in the region. Stocked rainbow trout, distinguishable by dull coloration, eroded fins,
atypical body proportions, and large size (usually >229 mm), were noted on data sheets but were
not included in any analyses. A list of the common and scientific names of all fish collected
during 2004 sampling efforts in wild trout streams is provided in Table 2-1.
Removal-depletion data were analyzed with MicroFish 3.0 (Van Deventer and Platts
1989). Trout ≤90 mm in length were analyzed separately from those >90 mm. Trout in the
smaller size group tend to have lower catchabilities (Strange and Habera 1992-1998a), making
separate analysis necessary to avoid bias. These two groups also roughly correspond to young5
Table 2-1. Common and scientific names of fishes collected during 2004 trout stream surveys1.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Minnows
Central stoneroller
Rosyside dace
Spotfin shiner
Warpaint shiner
River chub
Saffron shiner
Western blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Clinostomus funduloides2
Cyprinella spiloptera
Luxilus coccogenis
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis rubricroceus
Rhinichthys obtusus
Rhinichthys cataractae
Semotilus atromaculatus
Suckers
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Black redhorse
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersonii
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxoxtoma duquesnei
Trouts
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Brook trout
Sculpins
Mottled sculpin
Cottidae
Cottus bairdii
Sunfishes
Rock bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
Perches
Greenfin darter
Fantail darter
Swannanoa darter
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma swannanoa
1
Nomenclature follows Nelson et al. (2004).
Undescribed subspecies (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
2
6
of-the-year (YOY or age-0) and adults. Otoliths (five per 25-mm class) were obtained from wild
rainbow trout from Tellico River, North River, Bald River, South Fork Citico Creek, Rocky Fork,
Doe River, Stony Creek, Doe Creek, Laurel Creek, and Beaverdam Creek in 2004. These will be
analyzed by a graduate student at the University of Tennessee as part of a cooperative effort
during 2004 and 2005 to further assess growth and longevity.
Qualitative benthic samples were collected from Camp Creek, Gulf Fork Big Creek, and
South Fork Citico Creek in 2004. These samples were obtained, identified, and processed as
described in Habera et al. (2003a). Nomenclature for aquatic insects follows Brigham et al.
(1982), Louton (1982), Stewart and Stark (1988), Etnier et al. (1998), and Wiggins (1996). Taxa
richness and relative abundance estimates were the primary objectives of the benthic sampling.
Taxa richness reflects the relative health of the aquatic community and biological impairment is
reflected by the absence of pollution- sensitive taxa such as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT). Bioclassification of streams, based on overall taxa tolerance values and EPT
taxa richness, is from criteria developed for the Blue Ridge mountain ecoregion by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR 1995; Lenat
1993). Benthic results are reported in table format with the appropriate stream accounts.
2.2
LONG-TERM MONITORING STREAMS
Long-term monitoring stations established on North River, Paint Creek, Rocky Fork, Doe
River, Left Prong Hampton Creek, Right Prong of Middle Branch, Stony Creek, Doe Creek, Laurel
Creek, and Beaverdam Creek were sampled during 2004. Some of the more important
information obtained from the long-term monitoring efforts includes documentation of annual
variability in wild trout abundance, estimates of annual mortality (total), and evaluation of the
effects of floods and other environmental events.
2.2.1
North River
Study Area
North River is a Tellico River tributary in the CNF (Tellico Wildlife Management Area) in
Monroe County. A gravel road (FR 217) parallels the stream for nearly its entire length and
provides excellent access for anglers, but also provides a substantial amount of sediment that is
carried into the stream by runoff. North River supports wild rainbow and brown trout, while its
headwaters (Sugar Cove Branch and Meadow Branch) contain allopatric brook trout populations.
Other North River tributaries supporting brook trout are Big Cove Branch and Roaring Branch, but
all populations in the watershed are descended from northern (hatchery) stocks (Strange and
Habera 1997).
Shields (1951) noted good to excellent populations of stream-reared rainbow trout in
North River and judged that it was becoming one of the best streams of the Tellico area.
However, management at that time emphasized a put-and-take fishery and the stream was
7
heavily stocked. In 1970, North River was officially designated as a wild trout stream subject to a
three-fish creel limit, a 229-mm minimum size limit, and a single-hook, artificial-lures-only gear
restriction (Wilkins 1978). A creel survey (Bates 1997) in upper North River estimated an
average angling effort of 512 hrs/ha and a catch rate of 1.47 fish/hr. Because of the high release
rate (96%, Bates 1997), the estimated annual fishing mortality (exploitation) rate was low (4.7%,
Strange and Habera 1997).
North River was qualitatively sampled by TWRA in 1988 (Bivens 1989). Three long-term
monitoring stations (Figure 2-1) were established in 1991 and have been sampled annually since
then. Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are
summarized in Table 2-2.
Results and Discussion
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the North
River stations in 2004 are given in Table 2-3. Total trout standing crops at stations 1 and 2 were
relatively unchanged compared to 2003, while there was a decline at Station 3 (Figure 2-2). A
decrease in adult rainbow trout standing crop was responsible for much of that change. Total
trout densities and standing crops have typically fallen below the 14-year average at Site 3 since
1997 and have generally declined since 1991. No particular habitat changes are evident at this
site, so it is unclear why trout abundance has declined there. Several brook trout from the
stocking in May 2004 were captured at Site 3 and one was captured at Site 1. Electrofishing
efforts to capture rainbow trout for otoliths in upper North River in August also produced several
of these brook trout. Survival of brook trout stocked during 2004 was apparently much better
than in previous years, possibly because of the larger size (127 mm) of the fingerlings used.
However, despite improved survival, condition of the brook trout collected at the monitoring sites
was relatively poor (mean K = 0.81).
Fifteen trout ≥229 mm (including eight rainbows) were collected in North River in 2004
(Figure 2-3), while eleven (two rainbows) were captured in 2003 (Habera et al. 2004) and only
two were present in the 2002 samples (Habera et al. 2003a). The largest rainbows (≥229 mm)
represented about 11% of the total adult catch in 2004 while previously, less than 5% of adult
rainbow trout in North River samples have been ≥229 mm and often, the proportion was near
zero. Recent increases in the abundance of larger trout are at least partially a result of better
recruitment associated with the end of the 1998-2002 drought (Habera et al. 2003a). Age-0
(YOY) rainbow and brown trout were abundant in the 2004 North River samples (Figure 2-3). In
fact, the density of rainbow trout ≤90 mm (which is an index of YOY abundance) exceeded all
previous samples at Station 1 and exceeded all samples since 1995 at Station 2 (Figure 2-2).
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 52 wild rainbow trout from North River
identified fish up to age 4 but, because of drought-related effects, did not include any specimens
over 204 mm. Consequently, 47 rainbow trout were collected from North River in August 2004 as
part of the new cooperative effort with the University of Tennessee to obtain additional growth
8
and longevity information (particularly for larger fish) based on otoliths. An additional set of
rainbow trout otoliths will be collected from North River in 2005.
Management Recommendations
North River supports one of the best wild trout fisheries in Tennessee south of GSMNP
and should continue to be managed as such. North River is obviously capable of producing trout
≥229 mm, but focusing harvest entirely on these fish (as current angling regulations do,
particularly in the case of rainbow trout) might actually limit the quality of the fishery. An
alternative management strategy might be to reduce the size limit to 178 mm (7 in.) and raise the
creel limit to five fish. This would transfer some (possibly most), of the harvest to the more
abundant size groups. Additionally, harvesting some of the smaller fish might also increase
production of larger rainbows by reducing competition and improving growth rates for some fish.
Sampling at the North River monitoring stations should be conducted annually to provide a
continuous wild trout population database for a stream in this region.
Brook trout were stocked extensively in North River during the 1960s and 1970s, but
those efforts involved catchable-sized fish (178-305 mm). Recent efforts to establish a brook
trout fishery in upper North River (2001-2003) through fingerling stockings have been relatively
unsuccessful, possibly because of the small size of the fish used (76 mm) and early stocking
dates (January and early February). It appears that larger (127 mm) brook trout fingerlings
stocked in May (as in 2004) will promote better survival. Brook trout fingerling stocking should
continue in this manner for a few more years to determine if they can again provide a viable
supplement to North River’s trout fishery.
9
North River Monitoring Stations
Cherohala
Skyway
Hwy. 165
Hwy. 165
Hemlock
Creek
McNabb
Creek
Station 1
Round Mtn.
Branch
Laurel
Branch
North River
Station 2
Tellico River
North River Rd.
Station 3
North River
Big Cove Branch
Tellico River Rd.
Green
Cove
Branch
Spivey Creek
Green
Cove
Rough
Ridge
Creek
Pheasant
Branch
Green Cove
Pond
Tellico River
Tellico
Hatchery
FR 126
Figure 2-1. Locations of the three long-term monitoring stations on North River.
10
Table 2-2. Site and sampling information for North River in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
420042902
Station 3
Site Code
420042901
420042903
Sample Date
29 September
29 September
29 September
Watershed
Tellico River
Tellico River
Tellico River
County
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Quadrangle
Bald River Falls 140 SW
Bald River Falls 140 SW
Big Junction 140 SE
Lat-Long
35.33147 N, 84.13520 W
35.32111 N, 84.12892 W
35.31752 N, 84.09528 W
Reach Number
06010204-54,0
06010204-54,0
06010204-54,0
Elevation (ft)
1,760
1,880
2,070
Stream Order
3
3
3
Land Ownership
USFS
USFS
USFS
Fishing Access
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Description
Site ends 100 m downstream of Hemlock Br.
confluence.
Begins ~40 m upstream
of the 1st North Ri. bridge
past McNabb Creek.
of Big Cove Br. confl.;
at ford at FR 2170 gate.
Effort
Station Length (m)
180
136
100
Sample Area (m²)
1,746
1,646
670
Personnel
12
8
4
Electrofishing Units
4
4
2
Voltage (AC)
500
500
600
Removal Passes
3
3
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
9.7
12.1
6.7
Maximum depth (cm)
87
95
90
Canopy cover (%)
60
70
65
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
scarce
Estimated % of site in pools
48
65
54
Estimated % of site in riffles
52
35
46
Visual Hab. Assess. Score
153 (suboptimal)
147 (suboptimal)
161 (optimal)
Substrate Composition
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
5
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
5
Sand
15
10
25
20
15
5
Gravel
15
30
15
20
20
35
Rubble
30
40
20
30
35
40
Boulder
20
15
10
15
20
15
Bedrock
15
5
25
15
5
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
49.5; normal
26.2; normal
23.2; normal
Temperature (C)
15.6
15.6
15.6
pH
6.9
6.9
6.9
Conductivity (µS/cm)
24
20
19
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
N/M
N/M
N/M
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
20
15
15
11
Table 2-3. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for three stations on North River
sampled 29 September 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Mean
Standing Crop (kg/ha)
Biomass
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
94
116
94
141
586
5.1
3.36
2.75
4.12
664
538
808
RBT >90 mm
67
69
67
74
2,735
39.6
15.66
15.20
16.78
395
384
424
BKT >90 mm
1
1
1
1
21
21.0
0.12
0.12
0.12
6
6
6
BNT ≤90 mm
7
7
7
8
41
5.9
0.23
0.23
0.27
40
40
46
BNT >90 mm
9
9
9
10
1,677
186.3
9.60
9.60
10.67
52
52
57
110
110
110
111
355
3.2
2.03
2.03
2.03
630
630
636
Warpaint shiner
11
16
11
37
48
3.0
0.27
0.19
0.64
92
63
212
Saffron shiner
14
14
14
15
54
3.9
0.31
0.31
0.34
80
80
86
Creek chub
84
84
84
86
438
5.2
2.51
2.51
2.56
481
481
493
River chub
70
76
70
85
531
7.0
3.04
2.81
3.41
435
401
487
259
261
259
265
884
3.4
5.06
5.04
5.16
1,495
1,483
1,518
C. stoneroller
66
68
66
72
1,334
19.6
7.64
7.41
8.08
389
378
412
Fantail darter
70
83
70
100
209
2.5
1.20
1.00
1.43
475
401
573
5,112
66.4
29.28
28.90
30.42
441
435
458
80.31
78.10
86.03
5,675
5,372
6,216
W. blacknose dace
Rosyside dace
N. hog sucker
Totals
76
938
77
991
76
938
80
1,085
14,025
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
49
54
49
63
337
6.2
2.05
1.85
2.37
328
298
383
RBT >90 mm
51
57
51
67
1,787
31.4
10.86
9.73
12.78
346
310
407
BNT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
15
15
7.5
0.09
0.09
0.68
12
12
91
BNT >90 mm
31
34
31
41
1,741
51.2
10.58
9.64
12.75
207
188
249
9
9
9
12
20
2.2
0.12
0.12
0.16
55
55
73
17
18
17
22
53
2.9
0.32
0.30
0.39
109
103
134
Creek chub
6
6
6
7
54
9.0
0.33
0.33
0.38
36
36
43
River chub
29
34
29
45
454
13.3
2.76
2.34
3.64
207
176
273
111
117
111
125
260
2.2
1.58
1.48
1.67
711
674
759
6
6
6
8
717
119.5
4.36
4.36
5.81
36
36
49
33.05
30.24
40.63
W. blacknose dace
Warpaint shiner
Rosyside dace
N. hog sucker
Totals
311
337
311
405
5,438
2,047
1,888
2,461
Station 3
RBT ≤90 mm
29
32
29
39
195
6.1
2.91
2.64
3.55
478
433
582
RBT >90 mm
42
44
42
49
2,094
47.6
31.25
29.84
34.81
657
627
731
BKT >90 mm
14
16
14
24
433
27.1
6.46
5.66
9.71
239
209
358
BNT >90 mm
3
3
3
4
243
81.0
3.63
3.63
4.84
45
45
60
31
38
31
53
257
6.8
3.84
3.15
5.38
567
463
791
48.09
44.92
58.29
1,986
1,777
2,522
W. blacknose dace
Totals
119
133
119
169
3,222
Note: RBT = rainbow trout, BNT = brown trout, and BKT = brook trout.
12
North River
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
1750
1500
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 773
1183
1029
1018
932
799
793
623
614
521
467
500
RBT >90 mm
40
1151
898
750
Mean =19.45
BNT >90 mm
50
RBT ≤90 mm
1250
1000
Trout Standing Crops
60
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Station 1
Trout Densities
2000
31.25
30
20
543
27.07
20.15
21.09 20.52
19.07
17.05
16.74
13.99
12.85
10.86
250
9.17
10
244
28.85
23.64
0
0
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'91
'04
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Year
Station 2
60
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
1750
1500
Mean = 941
1414
Fish/ha
1334
1250
40
1126
1000
750
1340
1279
1157
938
893
818
753
693
Mean =24.37
34.29
31.04
28.26
26.64
20.31
22.18
20.70
23.69
23.58
'03
'04
19.32
14.04
447
412
32.19
30.70
30
20
530
500
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
50
kg/ha
2000
14.19
10
250
0
0
'91
'92 '93
'94
'95 '96
'97 '98
'99 '00
'01
'02 '03
'91
'04
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
Year
Year
Station 3
4000
100
BKT
BNT
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
3500
Mean = 1,928
80
2897
2755
70
2473
2500
2114
2008
1809
2000
1849
1596
1519
kg/ha
Fish/ha
3000
1767 1772
1550
1520
1419
1500
BKT
BNT
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
90
64.15
Mean =52.56
66.71
60
66.18
53.75
58.93
57.10
53.42 53.36
50.17 48.44
50
44.25
44.37
37.69 37.25
40
30
1000
20
500
10
0
0
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'91
'04
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
Year
Year
Figure 2-2. Annual trout abundance estimates for the North River monitoring stations.
RBT = rainbow trout, BNT = brown trout, and BKT = brook trout.
13
'03
'04
North River
Station 1
Rainbow Trout
80
9/29/04
9/29/04
n = 161
67-249 mm
60
Number of Fish
Number of Fish
70
109
50
Brown Trout
20
40
30
20
15
n = 16
80-416 mm
One 147-mm
brook trout
was also
collected.
10
5
10
0
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
25
305
51
76 102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Length Class (mm)
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
20
80
9/29/04
9/29/04
n = 100
70-231 mm
60
Number of Fish
Number of Fish
70
50
40
30
20
15
n = 33
85-310 mm
10
5
10
0
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
25
305
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356
Length Class (mm)
Length Class (mm)
Station 3
20
80
9/29/04
Brown trout
n = 71
68-242 mm
60
Number of Fish
Number of Fish
70
50
40
30
20
9/29/04
Brook trout
15
Brown trout
n=3
163-213 mm
Brook trout
n = 14
110-182 mm
10
5
10
0
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
25
Length Class (mm)
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-3. Length frequency distributions for rainbow, brown, and brook trout from the
2004 North River samples.
14
2.2.2
Paint Creek
Study Area
Paint Creek begins in the Bald Mountains of Greene County along the North Carolina
border and flows 42 km southwest to its confluence with the French Broad River. Over threefourths of Paint Creek is located within the CNF, including all of the lower 19 km. The upper
portion of the stream (upstream of Highway 70) is mostly privately owned with residential and
small-scale agricultural land uses. Wild trout populations occupy almost the entire length of Paint
Creek, with rainbows being present in the upper reaches and brown trout predominating
downstream. Two tributaries (Little Paint Creek and Sawmill Branch) contain a total of 5 km of
brook trout water. The Sawmill Branch population is of native, southern Appalachian origin, and
the Little Paint Creek population is of mixed origin (Strange and Habera 1997). Both populations
are the result of USFS restoration efforts.
Paint Creek has a long history as a quality trout fishery. Shields (1950) described the
portion of Paint Creek downstream of Highway 70 as “one of the finest [trout] streams of the
upper East Tennessee area”. He noted that Little Paint Creek, Grassy Branch, and Sawmill
Branch provided for excellent reproduction, thus making stocking in that area unnecessary.
Lower Paint Creek’s initial trout fishery probably featured rainbows (put-and-take), but by 1950
the stream was well known for its large brown trout (Shields 1950). Paint Creek’s browns were
also reproducing by 1950, making it the only such population in the southern Appalachians known
to Shields at that time.
Paint Creek continues to support a good wild brown trout population, but to meet angling
demand, the portion from the USFS campground downstream is still managed as a put-and-take
fishery. About 7,800 catchable rainbows are stocked each year, primarily during February-June.
The section (including tributaries) between the campground and the upper USFS boundary (near
Highway 70) was placed under a 229-mm minimum length limit and single-hook, artificial-luresonly restriction in 1994 to emphasize the wild trout fishery. More recently (2001), a delayed
harvest area was established (October-February) downstream of the campground. Additional
stockings of catchable rainbows are made during this time and only artificial lures may be used in
the designated area (all trout must be released).
Paint Creek was qualitatively sampled near the confluence with Little Paint Creek in 1986
(USFS) and 1987 (USFS/TWRA). These efforts were part of a study sponsored by the American
Fisheries Society’s Southern Division Trout Committee to evaluate stocking of half-wild brown
trout in North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee streams. However, the Tennessee data were
not included in the final report (Borawa 1990). Paint Creek was quantitatively sampled in 1992
(current Station 2; Bivens et al. 1993; Strange and Habera 1993), 1994 (Strange and Habera
1995), and 1995 (near current Station 1; Bivens et al. 1996; Strange and Habera 1996). The
2004 monitoring stations (Figure 2-4) were also sampled in 2002 and 2003. Site location and
effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in Table 2-4.
15
Only trout were collected and processed at the Paint Creek stations in 2004; all other
species were noted, but were not collected (as in 2002 and 2003). Catch data and abundance
estimates for trout sampled at the Paint Creek stations in 2003 are given in Table 2-5. No
rainbow trout were collected at Station 1 again in 2004 (three were captured there in 2002). Total
density and standing crop decreased again at both stations (as in 2003) primarily as a result of
decreases in adult brown trout abundance (Figure 2-5). Trout standing crop at Station 1 fell
below the 1995 level (11.66 kg/ha) and to the 1995 level (18.04 kg/ha) at Station 2. Given that
stream flows have been more normal during the current monitoring period, it is uncertain why
trout abundance is declining in Paint Creek. Species composition and relative abundance of the
non-salmonid fish community was similar to what was present in 2002.
Size distributions for Paint Creek brown trout in 2004 indicated the presence of YOY,
particularly at Station 2 (Figure 2-5). Sixty percent of the adult brown trout at Station 1 were ≥229
mm and 32% of the adult brown trout at Station 2 exceeded 229 mm (the minimum size limit in
this part of the stream. Such size structures suggest inconsistent recruitment of age-0 brown
trout.
Paint Creek provides both a good fishery for wild brown trout and a very popular put-andtake fishery for rainbow trout. The delayed harvest regulations will likely increase the use and
popularity of the hatchery-supported fishery. The management strategy now in place offers
something for just about any type of trout angler, thus no changes are recommended at this time.
The USFS has begun repairs to the road (FR 41) along Paint Creek and the campground, which
were severely damaged by the flood in 2001. Completion of these repairs will greatly improve
access to the stream. Beginning in 2007, the Paint Creek monitoring stations are scheduled for
sampling in three-year blocks (at two-year intervals) to continue developing this stream’s
database.
16
Paint Creek Monitoring Stations
Hwy. 70
Hwy.107
Hwy. 70
Paint Creek
Paint Creek
Campground
Station 2
Hwy.107
Paint Creek
FR 41
Little Paint Creek
FR 31
Station 1
FR 54
Rough Branch
Paint Creek
FR 41
TN
FR 31B
Grassy
Branch
Ricker Branch
Sawmill
Branch
NC
FR 31
Brushy
Branch
TN
French Broad River
Figure 2-4. Location of the monitoring stations on Paint Creek.
17
NC
Table 2-4. Site and sampling information for Paint Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Site Code
420042601
420042602
Sample Date
15 September
15 September
Watershed
French Broad River
French Broad River
County
Greene
Greene
Quadrangle
Hot Springs 182 NE
Hot Springs 182 NE
Lat-Long
35.96560 N, 82.86275 W
35.97094 N, 82.82432 W
Reach Number
06010105-71,0
06010105-71,0
Elevation (ft)
1,470
1,890
Stream Order
4
3
Land Ownership
USFS
USFS
Fishing Access
Good
Good
Description
of Waders Picnic Area
(old campsite).
Ends ~20 m upstream of
first trail ford below confl.
with Little Paint Creek.
Effort
Station Length (m)
189
206
Sample Area (m²)
1,644
1,895
Personnel
11
10
3
3
Voltage (AC)
300
300
Removal Passes
3 (trout only)
3 (trout only)
Mean width (m)
8.7
9.2
Maximum depth (cm)
97
120
Canopy cover (%)
70
40
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
58
60
42
40
138 (suboptimal)
145 (suboptimal)
Habitat
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
10
10
Sand
10
10
20
15
Gravel
10
20
10
20
Rubble
15
35
15
25
Boulder
15
25
5
15
Bedrock
40
10
40
25
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
19.5; normal
15.2; normal
Temperature (C)
17.2
18.9
pH
7.2
7.3
51
50
N/M
N/M
35
30
18
Table 2-5.
Estimated trout population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for two stations on Paint
Creek sampled 15 September 2004. Other species observed are listed along with their relative abundances.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (Fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
BNT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
2
6
3.0
0.04
0.04
0.04
12
12
12
BNT >90 mm
5
5
5
5
919
183.8
5.59
5.59
5.59
30
30
30
5.63
5.63
5.63
42
42
42
Longnose dace
Common
W. blacknose dace
Common
Warpaint shiner
Common
Saffron shiner
Present
Creek chub
Common
River chub
Common
C. stoneroller
Abundant
Fantail darter
Common
Greenfin darter
Present
Swannanoa darter
Common
N. hogsucker
Common
Totals (trout)
7
7
7
7
925
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
7
14
7.0
0.07
0.07
0.26
11
11
37
RBT >90 mm
5
5
5
8
47
9.4
0.25
0.25
0.40
26
26
42
BNT ≤90 mm
12
12
12
14
66
5.5
0.35
0.35
0.41
63
63
74
BNT >90 mm
24
24
24
26
3,285
136.9
17.34
17.34
18.78
127
127
137
Redbreast sunfish
12
12
12
13
112
9.3
0.59
0.59
0.64
63
63
69
18.60
18.60
20.49
290
290
359
Longnose dace
Common
W. blacknose dace
Common
Creek chub
Abundant
C. stoneroller
Abundant
Greenfin darter
Present
Swannanoa darter
Common
N. hogsucker
Present
Totals (trout)
43
43
43
55
3,412
Note: RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout.
19
Paint Creek
Station 1
Trout Densities
600
500
50
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
Mean = 138
40
Mean =12.89
300
kg/ha
Fish/ha
400
272
30
19.59
20
200
14.69
144
11.66
10
95
100
5.63
42
0
0
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
Year
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Station 2
600
50
BNT ≤90 mm
500
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 311
BNT >90 mm
477
40
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
34.79
RBT >90 mm
400
329
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Mean =23.70
BNT >90 mm
300
227
212
30
23.95
20
18.04
18.01
200
10
100
0
0
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
Year
'00
'01
'02
'03
'92
'04
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
Year
Figure 2-5. Annual trout abundance estimates for the Paint Creek monitoring stations.
RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout.
20
'02
'03
'04
Paint Creek
Station 1
20
9/15/04
Brown trout
n=7
73-378 mm
Number of Fish
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
381
406
432
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
20
Number of Fish
9/15/04
Brown trout
n = 36
63-364 mm
15
7 Rainbow trout
(86-100 mm)
were also
collected
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
381
406
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-6. Length frequency distributions for brown trout from the 2004 Paint
Creek samples.
21
2.2.3
Rocky Fork
Study Area
Rocky Fork is a tributary of South Indian Creek and the Nolichucky River. It is located
within the Rocky Fork Wildlife Management Area in Greene and Unicoi counties. The privately
owned watershed is mountainous and forested, with ongoing (although relatively limited) logging
activity. The middle and lower reaches of Rocky Fork support an excellent wild rainbow trout
population. The upper portion (above 3,000') has both brook and rainbow trout. Three tributaries
(Blockstand Creek, Broad Branch, and Fort Davie Creek) also contain brook trout, but all four
populations have hybridized with hatchery fish introduced over the years (Strange and Habera
1997).
Shields (1950) noted that rainbow trout growth and production in Rocky Fork was quite
good and described the portion from Fort Davie Creek downstream (12.9 km) as carrying a large
crop of fish. However, the stream was intensively managed as a put-and-take fishery with
hatchery-produced rainbow and brook trout for many years (Bivens et al. 1998). Management
was changed in 1988 to feature the wild trout fishery. A three-fish creel limit was added to the
special regulations already in place (229-mm minimum length limit and single-hook, artificial-lures
only). Stocking was also discontinued except in the 1.7-km segment upstream of the confluence
with South Indian Creek. About 2,500 catchable rainbow trout are stocked in this area each year.
Because the former regulations tended to favor the harvest of brook trout over wild rainbow trout,
which seldom exceed 229 mm (Nagel and Deaton 1989; Habera et al. 1999-2001a; 2002a;
2003a), another change was made to focus harvest on rainbow trout. The size limit for rainbow
trout in Rocky Fork and its tributaries was removed in 1991 and the creel limit was raised to
seven fish, of which only three can be brook trout.
TWRA qualitatively sampled Rocky Fork in the 1980s (Bivens 1989; Bivens and Williams
1990). Quantitative sampling began in 1991 when two long-term monitoring stations (Figure 2-7)
were established. These stations have been sampled annually since 1991. Site location and
effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in Table 2-6.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Rocky
Fork stations in 2004 are given in Table 2-7. Trout abundance in Rocky Fork increased at both
stations in 2004, resulting in total density and standing crop estimates that were very similar to
the corresponding long-term averages (Figure 2-8). Increases in adult rainbow trout abundance
were responsible for most of the changes at Station 1, while adult brook trout were largely
responsible for the standing crop increase at Station 2. A more detailed discussion of the relative
abundance of brook and rainbow trout at Station 2 is provided in Section 2.3.2
The size distribution for rainbow trout at Station 1 in 2004 indicated another strong YOY
cohort, as well as the typical paucity of fish in the 229-mm size class and larger (Figure 2-9).
Size distributions for rainbow and brook trout at Station 2 are provided in Section 2.3.2.
22
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 68 wild rainbow trout from Rocky Fork
identified fish up to age 8 (251 mm) but, because of drought-related effects, included only three
specimens over 220 mm. Consequently, 38 rainbow trout were collected from Rocky Fork in
October 2004 as part of the new cooperative effort with the University of Tennessee to obtain
additional growth and longevity information (particularly for larger fish) based on otoliths. An
additional set of rainbow trout otoliths will be collected from Rocky Fork in 2005.
Rocky Fork provides a good fishery for wild rainbow and brook trout which future
management should emphasize. Because the stream is relatively long (>13 km) and access is
limited to foot travel, it provides an ideal setting for anglers seeking a more solitary experience.
Even though current angling regulations are adequate to protect the resource and the brook trout
population in the upper portion of the stream has been relatively stable over the past few years
(Section 2.3.2), the future of this wildlife management area is somewhat doubtful. The extent to
which the current landowners will develop it or permit access is unknown and recent increases in
TWRA’s cost for leasing the area has led to difficulty securing sufficient funds. Annual monitoring
of Rocky Fork should be conducted as long as possible to maintain the continuity of this important
wild trout database.
23
Rocky Fork Monitoring Stations
Unicoi Co.
Greene Co.
Ft. Davie
Creek
Broad
Branch
Rocky Fork
Big Branch
Station 2
Long Branch
Rocky Fork
Blockstand Creek
Flint Creek
Station 1
Rocky Fork
S.Indian
Creek
TN
NC
Rt. 352
Devil Fork
S. Indian
Creek
Figure 2-7. Locations of the two long-term monitoring stations on Rocky Fork.
24
U.S. 23
Table 2-6. Site and sampling information for Rocky Fork in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Site Code
420043101
420043102
Sample Date
05 October
05 October
Watershed
Nolichucky River
Nolichucky River
County
Unicoi
Greene
Quadrangle
Flag Pond 190 SE
Flag Pond 190 SE
Lat-Long
36.04801 N, 82.55889 W
36.06758 N, 82.59608 W
Reach Number
06010108
06010108
Elevation (ft)
2,360
3,230
Stream Order
4
3
Land Ownership
Private (TWRA WMA)
Private (TWRA WMA)
Fishing Access
Good
Limited
Description
Ends ~10 m upstream of
of the blue gate.
confl. with Ft. Davie Ck.
Station Length (m)
130
100
Sample Area (m²)
988
410
Personnel
5
2
2
1
Voltage (AC)
600
650
Removal Passes
3
3
Effort
Habitat
Mean width (m)
7.6
4.1
Maximum depth (cm)
100
80
Canopy cover (%)
90
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
58
48
42
52
162 (optimal)
164 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
5
Silt
Sand
10
10
5
Gravel
15
25
25
35
Rubble
35
35
30
40
Boulder
10
30
25
20
Bedrock
30
10
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
15.1; normal
6.2; normal
Temperature (C)
12.3
9.2
pH
6.9
6.7
16
9
N/M
N/M
10
10
25
Table 2-7.
Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations
on Rocky Fork sampled 5 October 2004.
Population Size
Total
Catch
Species
Est.
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
67
82
67
102
315
3.8
3.19
2.58
3.92
830
678
1,032
RBT >90 mm
126
153
127
179
4,007
26.2
40.56
33.68
47.47
1,549
1,285
1,812
BKT ≤90 mm
1
1
1
1
6
6.0
0.06
0.06
0.06
10
10
10
Longnose dace
9
10
9
16
159
15.9
1.61
1.45
2.57
101
91
162
58
65
58
76
334
5.1
3.38
2.99
3.92
658
587
769
12
18
--
--
141
7.8
1.43
W. blacknose dace
1
Mottled sculpin
Totals
273
329
262
374
4,962
--
--
182
--
--
50.23
40.76
57.94
3,330
2,651
3,785
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
29
30
29
34
126
4.2
3.07
2.97
3.48
732
707
829
RBT >90 mm
23
23
23
24
991
43.1
24.17
24.17
25.23
561
561
585
BKT ≤90 mm
7
24
7
200
106
4.4
2.59
0.75
21.46
585
171
4,878
BKT >90 mm
35
35
35
36
895
25.6
21.83
21.83
22.48
854
854
878
51.66
49.72
72.65
2,732
2,293
7,170
Totals
94
112
94
294
2,118
1
Non-descending removal pattern. Population estimate set equal to 1.5 times total catch (95% confidence limits not calculated).
Note: RBT = rainbow trout and BKT = brook trout.
26
Rocky Fork
Station 1
Trout Densities
5000
4500
RBT ≤90 mm
4000
RBT >90 mm
Mean =42.84
RBT >90 mm
2919
3000
80
3005
2793
2671
kg/ha
Fish/ha
100
3393
3500
2379
2500
2047
2000
1500
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 2,381
4077
120
1678
1302
2040
1885
1663
67.02
60
40
1419
58.02
55.83
38.43
35.46
45.84
43.66 42.01
37.10
37.41
43.75
35.83
34.06
23.45
1000
20
500
0
0
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
Year
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Station 2
120
6000
5400
Mean = 2,682
4811
4800
3880
3600
3000
80
3368
3177
2742
2940
2541
2732
2727
2388
2400
1891
2021
1213
1200
79.78
74.70
74.17
70.44
66.19
60
40
1800
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
Mean =53.11
100
kg/ha
Fish/ha
4200
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
59.61
51.66
50.62
29.33
48.34
34.28
33.03
38.40
33.02
1121
20
600
0
0
'91
'92
'93
'94 '95
'96
'97 '98
'99
'00
'01 '02
'03
'91 '92
'04
'93 '94 '95
'96 '97
'98 '99
'00 '01 '02
Year
Year
Figure 2-8. Trout and non-salmonid abundance estimates for the Rocky Fork monitoring
stations. RBT = rainbow trout and BKT = brook trout.
27
'03 '04
Rocky Fork
80
10/05/04
70
Rainbow trout
n = 193
55-224 mm
Number of Fish
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-9. Length frequency distributions for rainbow trout from the 2004
Rocky Fork sample at Station 1.
28
305
2.2.4
Doe River
Study Area
Doe River begins on Iron Mountain in Carter County and flows through forested,
residential, and agricultural areas to its confluence with the Watauga River. Part of the
headwater area lies within the CNF and the stream also flows through Roan Mountain State Park.
The upper 2.8 km of Doe River previously supported a mixed population of native, southern
Appalachian brook trout and rainbow trout beginning at 909 m (2,980') elevation (Strange and
Habera 1997). A 2003 qualitative survey of the monitoring station near the Cove Creek
confluence (3,250’) produced only one brook trout (Habera et al. 2004); however, eight tributaries
in this area are still inhabited by native, southern Appalachian brook trout (Strange and Habera
1997). Between Cove Creek and the town of Roan Mountain, Doe River supports some of
Tennessee’s finest populations of wild rainbow and brown trout. Interestingly, Shields (1950)
acknowledged that this part of Doe River could provide a hatchery-supported trout fishery, but
was not capable of producing many trout on its own.
TWRA continues to maintain a put-and-take fishery for stocked rainbow trout in Doe River,
primarily to help meet angler demand in the Roan Mountain State Park vicinity. About 5,900
catchable rainbows are stocked in this area each year, primarily during February-June. The
entire stream is subject to general trout angling regulations. A roving creel survey conducted in
2003 (Habera et al. 2004) documented the importance of the wild and stocked trout fisheries in
Doe River, as it had the highest estimated angler effort for trout (459 h/ha) and highest estimated
total trout catch (2,002) among the five streams studied (Beaverdam Creek, Laurel Creek, Doe
Creek, Doe River, and Stony Creek). Additionally, estimated trout harvest (354) and total trout
catch rate (0.29 fish/h) for Doe River were only surpassed by those for Doe Creek (Habera et al.
2004).
A sample site was established downstream of Roan Mountain State Park (Figure 2-10) in
1996 to document wild trout abundance in Doe River (Bivens et al. 1997; Strange and Habera
1997). This site was sampled again in 1998 to assess the effects of the severe flood that
occurred in the Doe River watershed in January 1998 (Habera et al. 1999). It was added to the
monitoring stream set for three years beginning in 2002. In addition to the monitoring station in
the brook/rainbow trout sympatric zone mentioned above (sampled during 1995-1999), one other
quantitative sample was obtained upstream of the Park (3,070’) in 1995 (Strange and Habera
1996). Site location and effort details for the 2004 sample, along with habitat and water quality
information, are summarized in Table 2-8.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Doe
River station in 2004 are given in Table 2-9. Total trout abundance estimates for 2004 were
similar to those for 2003 (Figure 2-11). Although brown trout had dominated biomass because of
the presence of several large fish during 1996-2002, rainbow trout biomass exceeded that for
29
brown trout again in 2004 (Figure 2-11). Non-salmonid abundances, however (particularly
minnows and suckers), decreased substantially again to the lowest levels observed since
sampling began (Figure 2-11). While it remains unclear what factors caused the decline in nonsalmonid abundance in 2003, the 2004 decrease was likely related to high flows associated with
the passage, during a two-week period in September, of the remnants of two hurricanes through
upper east Tennessee and western North Carolina. Trout abundances may have been reduced
by these events as well, but the remainder was similar to what was present in 2003.
Rainbow and brown trout population size structures were relatively well balanced again
and indicated the presence of a strong 2004 cohort (Figure 2-12). Several fish in the 229-305
mm size range were present for both species and two 381-457 mm (15-18”) brown trout were
also captured (Figure 2-12). Doe River continues to support one of the best wild trout in
Tennessee, in terms of both quantity and quality.
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 70 wild rainbow trout from Doe River
identified fish up to age 3 but, because of drought-related effects, included only four specimens
over 254 mm. Consequently, 39 rainbow trout were collected from Doe River in July 2004 as part
of the new cooperative effort with the University of Tennessee to obtain additional otolith-based
growth and longevity information, particularly fro larger fish (≥229 mm), which Doe River routinely
produces. An additional set of rainbow trout otoliths will be collected from Doe River in 2005.
Doe River supports an outstanding fishery for wild rainbow and brown trout that future
management should emphasize. The hatchery supported trout fishery in Doe River is also very
popular (74% of anglers surveyed in 2003 approved of stocking the stream); however, while the
current level of stocking with catchable-size rainbows is not incompatible with wild trout
management, such stocking should not be expanded in scope or scale. It is recommended that
sampling of the Doe River monitoring station be continued in three-year blocks at two-year
intervals beginning in 2007 to further develop the database for this valuable resource.
30
Doe River Monitoring Station
Walnut
Mtn. Rd.
U.S. 19E
Doe River
George
Creek
Roan
Mountain
Buck Creek
U.S. 19E
Rt. 143
Shell
Creek
Station 1
Hampton
Creek
Doe River
Roan
Mountain
State Park
Sugar
Hollow
Creek
Rt. 143
Heaton
Creek
L. Prong
Hampton
Creek
Figure 2-10. Location of the monitoring station on Doe River.
31
Table 2-8. Site and sampling information for Doe River in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042801
Sample Date
23 September
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
White Rocks Mtn. 2084 NE
Lat-Long
36.18243 N, 82.07546 W
Reach Number
06010103-50,0
Elevation (ft)
2,640
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Good
Description
Site begins just upstream of garage at parking area upstream of bridge at Xmas tree
farm (near Roan Mountain State Park boundary).
Effort
Station Length (m)
187
Sample Area (m²)
2,300
Personnel
20
4
Voltage (AC)
300
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
12.3
Maximum depth (cm)
180
Canopy cover (%)
40
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
41
59
158 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
Sand
10
5
Gravel
15
15
Rubble
40
60
Boulder
15
10
Bedrock
20
10
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
55.6; normal
Temperature (C)
12.5
pH
7.3
66
N/M
30
32
Table 2-9. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Doe
River sampled 23 September 2004.
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Lower
C.L.
Biomass
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Species
RBT ≤90 mm
21
27
21
43
163
6.0
0.71
0.55
1.12
RBT >90 mm
109
116
109
125
6,764
58.3
29.41
27.63
BNT ≤90 mm
3
3
3
6
18
6.0
0.08
BNT >90 mm
34
35
34
39
5,431
155.2
W. blacknose dace
34
42
34
58
79
Warpaint shiner
13
13
13
14
158
Saffron shiner
132
153
133
173
255
River chub
165
177
165
189
C. stoneroller
140
152
140
Fantail darter
12
27
12
Swannanoa darter
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Total
Catch
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
117
91
187
31.68
504
474
543
0.08
0.16
13
13
26
23.61
22.94
26.32
152
148
170
1.9
0.34
0.28
0.48
183
148
252
12.2
0.69
0.69
0.74
57
57
61
1.7
1.11
0.98
1.28
665
578
752
2,163
12.2
9.40
8.75
10.03
770
717
822
164
4,097
27.0
17.81
16.43
19.25
661
609
713
105
72
2.7
0.31
0.14
1.23
117
52
457
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Est.
4
4
4
4
15
3.8
0.07
0.07
0.07
17
17
17
N. hog sucker
25
26
25
30
2,881
110.8
12.53
12.04
14.45
113
109
130
White sucker
6
6
6
8
440
73.3
1.91
1.91
2.55
26
26
35
Black redhorse
10
10
10
11
3,015
301.5
13.11
13.11
14.42
43
43
48
Smallmouth bass
12
12
12
13
1,567
130.6
6.81
6.81
7.38
52
52
57
438
73.0
Rock bass
Totals
6
726
6
809
6
727
9
991
27,556
33
1.90
1.90
2.86
119.80
114.31
134.02
26
26
39
3,516
3,160
4,309
Doe River
Trout Densities
2000
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
1200
Mean = 810
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
175
150
Mean =77.71
119.61
125
1076
kg/ha
Fish/ha
1600
200
927
826
800
786
102.62
100
75
55.33
57.15
53.81
'03
'04
50
432
400
25
0
0
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'95
'04
'96
'97
'98
Non-Salmonid Densities
Minnows
Suckers
Darters
Bass
25000
Mean = 11,758
'02
Minnows
Suckers
Darters
Bass
300
20594
250
18636
15000
'01
Non-Salmonid Standing Crops
350
kg/ha
Fish/ha
20000
'00
Year
Year
30000
'99
12114
10000
Mean =141.63
203.10
206.53
200
150
130.17
102.37
100
65.99
4385
5000
50
2730
0
0
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'95
Year
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
Year
Figure 2-11. Trout and non-salmonid abundance estimates for the monitoring station
on Doe River. RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout.
34
'03
'04
Doe River
50
Rainbow trout
n = 130
73-310 mm
9/23/04
Number of Fish
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
25
9/23/04
Number of Fish
20
Brown trout
n = 37
73-469 mm
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-12. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout from the
2004 Doe River samples.
35
2.2.5
Left Prong Hampton Creek
Study Area
Left Prong Hampton Creek flows through the Hampton Cove State Natural Area in Carter
County and is a tributary to the Doe and Watauga rivers. The watershed is largely forested,
although a substantial portion around the lower half of the stream is still in use as livestock
pasture. Rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), which often
dominate the riparian vegetation of other wild trout stream, are absent along Left Prong Hampton
Creek. Although the stream was probably inhabited by brook trout at one time, it recently
supported an abundant population of wild rainbow trout. The stream was checked for brook trout
by TWRA in 1988 (Bivens 1989), but none were located. Brook trout from nearby George Creek
were later introduced (Dr. J. Nagel, East Tennessee State University, retired), resulting in the
establishment of a few fish. In 1997, TWRA entered into an agreement with Trout Unlimited
(Overmountain Chapter), the USFS, and the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy to
restore brook trout in the upper 2 km of Left Prong Hampton Creek. Efforts to remove rainbow
trout from this area were completed in 1999 and southern Appalachian brook trout from three
area streams (George Creek, Clarke Creek, and Toms Branch) were introduced that September.
To assist in the establishment of the new brook trout population, Left Prong Hampton Creek was
placed under special regulations in 2001 that permit the harvest of only three brook trout and
require single-hook, artificial lures.
A long-term monitoring station (Station 1) was established on lower Left Prong Hampton
Creek in 1994 (Figure 2-13). Stations 2 and 3 were added in 1996 to better represent the upper
portion of the stream, which has a higher gradient and more canopy cover. All three stations
were sampled in 2004. Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat and water
quality information are summarized in Table 2-10.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the three
stations on Left Prong Hampton Creek in 2004 are given in Table 2-11. Standing crop estimates
at Station 1 had been among the highest obtained for wild rainbow trout anywhere in Tennessee
in the mid-1990s, then consistently declined through 2002 (Figure 2-14). However, this extended
decline appeared to stabilize in 2003 and begin to reverse in 2004 (Figure 2-14). Additionally,
density increased substantially in 2004, primarily because of the profuse 2004 cohort, yielding the
second highest estimate ever obtained at this site (Figure 2-14). Much of the previous decline in
trout abundance at Station 1 since 1997 was likely related to the dry conditions that prevailed
during that time. However, flooding in this watershed (particularly in 1998) substantially altered
habitat at this site (e.g., by eliminating pools), thus it may never be capable of supporting the trout
abundance it once did. Non-salmonid abundance at Station 1 has been much more stable than
trout abundance since 1997; however, recent estimates (2003 and 2004) have been the lowest
measured to date (Figure 2-14).
36
Brook trout are firmly established and reproducing in the restoration area, and the
population at Station 3 continued to expand in 2004 (Figure 2-15). Brook trout standing crop at
Station 2 (~37 kg/ha) was relatively unchanged from 2003, but is well above the statewide
average for other Tennessee populations (about 21 kg/ha). The standing crop estimate at Station
3 increased to over 115 kg/ha in 2004 and is the highest ever obtained by TWRA for a
Tennessee brook trout population. Brook trout abundance in the upper portion of Left Prong
Hampton Creek has reached and exceeded the average abundance for rainbow trout prior to
restoration efforts (81 kg/ha; Figure 2-15). Consequently, the upper portion of Left Prong
Hampton Creek now supports what is likely the highest brook trout standing crop in Tennessee.
The population size structure at Station 1 confirms the presence of an exceptionally strong
2004 cohort of rainbow trout (Figure 2-16). Only 1998 produced a larger rainbow trout year class.
One fish in the 229-mm size class was collected in 2004 (Figure 2-16), representing the first fish
of this size captured since 2000. However, larger rainbows have never been abundant at this site
(<3% of the adult catch has included fish ≥229 mm each year; Habera et al. 2003a). Because of
relatively light fishing pressure on this stream, it is unlikely that the lack of larger fish is a result of
harvest. Size structures for the brook trout populations at stations 2 and 3 indicate the presence
of 2004 cohorts and several fish ≥152 mm (legally harvestable), particularly at Station 3 (Figure 216).
The development of the southern Appalachian brook trout population in upper Left Prong
Hampton Creek has made it Tennessee’s premier brook trout fishery. Future management
should, of course, feature this fishery and annual monitoring of brook trout population, as well as
the rainbow trout population downstream, should continue for the purpose of developing the
corresponding database.
The capture of YOY and adult rainbow trout at Station 2 in 2002 and 2003 and angler
reports of rainbows in this area led to an electrofishing effort in October 2003 to control rainbow
trout in the brook trout restoration zone. Forty-five rainbow trout (34 adults and 11 YOY) were
removed during this effort, mostly from the first 470 m upstream of the barrier (Habera et al.
2004). Because 28 more rainbow trout were captured and removed from Station 2 in 2004
(including 26 YOY), more electrofishing (with two units) to control rainbow trout was conducted in
early December 2004. This effort included the lower 785 m of the restoration zone and produced
24 more rainbows (15 YOY and 9 adults, all within the first 600 m). It seems likely now that the
culvert barrier is not effectively preventing rainbow trout invasion from downstream.
Consequently, without annual electrofishing efforts to remove rainbow trout (which are not
planned), much or all of the current brook trout population could eventually become sympatric
with rainbow trout. Therefore, it is now apparent that the culvert barrier will soon need to be
replaced with a more substantial structure if reinvasion is to be eliminated and an allopatric brook
trout maintained.
37
Left Prong Hampton Creek Monitoring Stations
Doe River
Roan Mountain
Buck Creek
U.S. Hwy. 19E
Hampton
Creek
Shell Creek
Hwy. 143
Doe River
Heaton
Creek
L. Prong
Hampton
Creek
Sugar
Hollow
Creek
Station 1
Barrier
Station 2
Brook trout
restoration
area
Station 3
TN
NC
Figure 2-13. Locations of the three monitoring stations on Left Prong Hampton Creek.
38
Table 2-10. Site and sampling information for Left Prong Hampton Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Site Code
420041901
420041902
420041903
Sample Date
20 July
20 July
20 July
Watershed
Watauga River
Watauga River
Watauga River
County
Carter
Carter
Carter
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.15132 N, 82.05324 W
36.14673 N, 82.04917 W
36.13811 N, 82.04473 W
Reach Number
06010103
06010103
06010103
Elevation (ft)
3,080
3,240
3,560
Stream Order
2
2
2
Land Ownership
State (Hampton Cove)
Fishing Access
Good
Good
Good
Description
of the first culvert.
Begins 50 m upstream of
the barrier culvert.
Begins 880 m upstream of
the upper end of Site 2.
Station Length (m)
109
94
100
Sample Area (m²)
273
357
280
Personnel
2
3
3
1
1
1
Voltage (AC)
300
500
500
Removal Passes
3
3
3
Effort
Habitat
Mean width (m)
2.5
3.8
2.8
Maximum depth (cm)
47
N/M
68
Canopy cover (%)
70
90
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
scarce
42
40
47
58
60
53
158 (suboptimal)
150 (suboptimal)
156 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
5
5
10
5
10
15
5
Gravel
45
35
40
25
20
30
Rubble
40
50
20
45
15
35
Boulder
5
10
25
20
25
25
5
5
Bedrock
20
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
2.2; normal
N/M
1.2; normal
Temperature (C)
16.0
15.2
13.7
pH
7.0
7.0
6.9
37
31
25
N/M
N/M
N/M
20
20
20
39
Table 2-11.
Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations
on Left Prong Hampton Creek sampled 20 July 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
146
150
146
156
382
2.5
13.99
13.37
14.29
5,495
5,348
5,714
RBT >90 mm
36
36
36
36
1,452
40.3
53.19
53.19
53.14
1,319
1,319
1,319
W. blacknose dace
30
31
30
35
138
4.5
5.05
4.95
5.77
1,136
1,099
1,282
4
6
--
--
21
3.5
0.77
1
Fantail darter
Totals
216
223
212
227
1,993
--
--
220
--
--
73.00
71.51
73.20
8,170
7,766
8,315
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
26
27
26
31
65
2.4
1.82
1.75
2.08
756
728
868
RBT >90 mm
2
2
2
2
200
100.0
5.60
5.60
5.60
56
56
56
BKT ≤90 mm
5
5
5
7
17
3.4
0.48
0.48
0.67
140
140
196
BKT >90 mm
38
38
38
38
1,036
27.3
29.02
29.02
26.78
1,064
1,064
1,064
36.92
36.85
35.13
2,016
1,988
2,184
Totals
71
72
71
78
1,318
Station 3
BKT ≤90 mm
15
15
15
17
70
4.7
2.50
2.50
2.85
536
536
607
BKT >90 mm
119
120
119
123
3,164
26.4
113.00
112.20
115.97
4,286
4,250
4,393
115.50
114.70
118.82
4,822
4,786
5,000
Totals
134
135
134
140
3,234
1
40
Station 1
Trout Densities
10000
RBT ≤90 mm
8000
Mean = 5,388
7934
RBT >90 mm
Mean =76.22
RBT >90 mm
150
6333
5963
125
5344
kg/ha
Fish/ha
6000
5911
RBT ≤90 mm
175
6814
6080
200
4903
3766
4000
3816
118.37
113.73
93.85
100
98.08
77.24 78.72
75
2304
71.17
50
2000
67.18
51.10
32.69
35.81
25
0
0
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
04
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
Year
Minnows
12000
'00
'01
'02
'03
04
Year
Non-Salmonid Standing Crops
Non-Salmonid Densities
15000
'99
70
Mean = 3,844
Mean =15.46
Minnows
60
Darters
Darters
9000
kg/ha
Fish/ha
50
7798
6407
5733
6000
40
32.69
30
27.52
4700
3902
3806
3000
18.50
20
3112
2232
524
16.97
10.8
8.62
10
1356
16.13
15.45
12.68
2721
4.79
5.82
'03
04
0
0
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'94
04
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
Year
Year
Figure 2-14. Trout and non-salmonid abundance estimates for Station 1
on Left Prong Hampton Creek. RBT = rainbow trout.
41
'01
'02
Fish/ha
5000
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
RBT Mean = 4,698
6000
5340
4511
4243
120
2817
3000
2529
2094
2016
80
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
RBT Mean =78.31
100
BKT Mean = 2,027
4000
140
kg/ha
8000
7000
Station 2
Trout Densities
86.15
77.88
70.90
BKT Mean = 27.48
60
40
2000
31.38
35.59
36.92
'03
04
23.48
20
708
1000
10.03
0
0
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'96
04
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
Year
Year
Station 3
140
8000
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
7000
5724
4843
5000
4000
RBT Mean
= 3,373
3000
2697
120
4844
100
4822
BKT Mean =73.07
BKT < 91 mm
BKT > 90 mm
RBT < 91 mm
RBT > 90 mm
115.50
107.07
91.97
83.13
kg/ha
Fish/ha
6000
BKT Mean = 4,040
3469
80
79.48
RBT Mean
= 81.11
68.23
60
2580
40.07
40
2000
23.21
1000
1000
20
0
0
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
04
'96
Year
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
Year
Figure 2-15. Trout abundance estimates for Stations 2 and 3 on Left Prong Hampton
Creek. RBT = rainbow trout and BKT = brook trout. Stations 2 and 3
were not sampled in 1999 (the year RBT were removed).
42
'03
04
Station 1
Number of Fish
50
Rainbow trout
n = 182
41-240 mm
7/20/04
40
30
126
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
Number of Fish
50
Brook trout
n = 43
62-192 mm
7/20/04
40
30
Rainbow trout
n = 28
44-216 mm
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Station 3
50
Number of Fish
7/20/04
Brook trout
n = 134
48-206 mm
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-16. Length frequency distributions for trout from the 2004
Left Prong Hampton Creek samples.
43
305
2.2.6
Right Prong Middle Branch
Study Area
Right Prong Middle Branch is a headwater tributary to the Doe and Watauga rivers. Its
Roan Mountain watershed is forested and located largely within the CNF in Carter County. The
stream contains an allopatric population of native, southern Appalachian brook trout upstream of
State Route 143. Statewide trout angling regulations apply. Bivens (1979) surveyed the stream
and provided the first documentation of its brook trout population. This site (Figure 2-17) was first
sampled in 1994 (Strange and Habera 1995) and was added to the monitoring program in 1997
to represent a high-elevation (above 4,000’ or 1,220 m) native brook trout population. Sample
site location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in
Table 2-12.
Catch data and abundance estimates for brook trout sampled at the Right Prong Middle
Branch station in 2004 are given in Table 2-13. Brook trout abundance increased substantially
from the 2003 estimates, with density and standing crop approaching the levels initially measured
in 1994 (Figure 2-18). This change could be a reaction to more normal flows following the
termination of the extended drought in 2002. Brook trout standing crop at this site remains well
above the statewide average (21 kg/ha).
Size structure was relatively well balanced in 2004, with a strong 2004 cohort and several
harvestable fish (152-mm size class and larger; Figure 2-19). Although no fish in the 229-mm
size class or larger have been collected at the Right Prong Middle Branch site, this is typical for
most brook trout populations.
No particular management of Right Prong Middle Branch is suggested at this time other
than protection of the resource. Because of the small size of this stream and its relative
obscurity, angling pressure is probably light; therefore, the current angling regulations are
adequate. Sampling at the monitoring station should continue in order to increase our
understanding of brook trout population dynamics.
44
Right Prong Middle Branch Monitoring
Doe River
Rt. 143
Heaton
Creek
Panther
Branch
Doe River
Duck
Branch
Toms
Branch
Cove
Creek
Little
Cove
Creek
Rt. 143
Five
Poplar
Branch
Monitoring
Station
Middle
Branch
R. Prong
Middle
Branch
Rt. 143
TN
NC
TN
Rt. 261
NC
Figure 2-17. Location of the long-term monitoring station on Right Prong Middle Branch.
45
Table 2-12. Site and sampling information for Right Prong Middle Branch in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042301
Sample Date
18 August
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.12007 N, 82.09574 W
Reach Number
06010103
Elevation (ft)
4,070
Stream Order
1
Land Ownership
USFS
Fishing Access
Limited
Description
Begins at head of small island
~270 m upstream of Rt. 143.
Effort
Station Length (m)
90
Sample Area (m²)
243
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
300
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
2.7
Maximum depth (cm)
74
Canopy cover (%)
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
44
56
160 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
25
Sand
10
5
Gravel
25
30
Rubble
15
30
Boulder
20
35
Bedrock
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
0.3; normal
Temperature (C)
12.8
pH
6.8
89
N/M
15
46
Table 2-13. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on
Right Prong Middle Branch sampled 18 August 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
BKT ≤90 mm
25
25
25
26
76
3.0
3.13
3.13
3.21
1,029
1,029
1,070
BKT >90 mm
48
48
48
50
1,510
31.5
62.14
62.14
64.81
1,975
1,975
2,058
Totals
73
73
73
76
1,586
65.27
65.27
68.02
Note: BKT = brook trout.
47
3,004
3,004
3,128
5000
Densities
BKT ≤90 mm
4000
3518
3461
3262
Fish/ha
Mean = 2,669
BKT >90 mm
3004
2838
3000
2571
2283
2020
2000
1063
1000
0
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
04
Year
100
Standing Crops
BKT ≤90 mm
Mean = 51.98
BKT >90 mm
80
73.93
kg/ha
65.79
65.27
60
54.82
47.63
40
44.77
43.30
39.09
33.19
20
0
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
Year
Figure 2-18. Trout abundance estimates for the Right Prong Middle
Branch monitoring station. BKT = brook trout.
48
04
30
Number of Fish
Brook trout
n = 73
55-210 mm
8/18/04
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-19. Length frequency distribution for brook trout from
the 2004 Right Prong Middle Branch sample.
49
305
2.2.7
Stony Creek
Study Area
Stony Creek originates on Cross Mountain along the border of Johnson and Carter counties
and flows nearly 30 km along the southeast edge of Holston Mountain to become a tributary to the
Watauga River (Wilbur tailwater) in Carter County at Hunter (near Elizabethton). Except for the
upper 5.3 km, which are on the CNF, Stony Creek flows through privately owned land, much of
which is being used for small-scale agricultural and residential purposes. Six tributaries to Stony
Creek, as well as 2.6 km of upper Stony Creek itself (beginning at 2,460’ or 750 m), support brook
trout. Only the Stony Creek, North Fork Stony Creek, and Pole Branch populations consist of
native, southern Appalachian fish (Strange and Habera 1997). The brook trout population in one
tributary (Furnace Branch) extends down to 1,750’ (534 m) and, along with the Jones Branch
population in Unicoi County, represents the lowest elevation at which brook trout occur in
Tennessee.
Shields (1950) considered Stony Creek to provide fair trout fishing from stocked fish. He
noted that carry over was potentially good, but also that reproduction was limited, confined to the
extreme headwaters, and not sufficient to contribute much to the fish yield. Stony Creek now
supports, in addition to the brook trout in its headwaters, excellent populations of wild rainbow and
brown trout which extend downstream nearly to the confluence with the Watauga River. It has also
been stocked annually since 1951 with various combinations of fingerling and catchable brook,
brown, and rainbow trout. The most recent brook trout stocking occurred in 1961 and browns were
last stocked in 1997. Currently, the stocking program in Stony Creek comprises catchable (178356 mm) rainbow trout, which have been stocked at the rate of 2,750/year since 1990. Fingerling
rainbows were last stocked in 1991. Despite the excellent wild trout populations, long-term
stocking program, and good access, the 2003 creel survey (Habera et al. 2004) indicated that
Stony Creek had the lowest estimated angler effort for trout (128 h/ha), trout catch (590), trout
harvest (91), and trout catch rate (0.19 fish/h) among the five streams studied.
Previous quantitative sampling efforts on Stony Creek are limited. A station within the
brook trout zone on upper Stony Creek was quantitatively sampled in 1992 (Strange and Habera
1993) and two monitoring stations further downstream were established and sampled in 1995
(Strange and Habera 1996). The Stony Creek site sampled in 2004 (Figure 2-20) was the
upstream station (Station 2) from 1995. It begins behind the Stony Creek Volunteer Fire
Department and ends just beyond the confluence with Laurel Branch. Sample site location and
effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are given in Table 2-14.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Stony
Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-15. The total catch of rainbow trout and brown trout in
2004 far exceeded the corresponding values for the 1995 sample (78 rainbows and 12 browns). In
particular, YOY trout, as by indicated by fish ≤90 mm, were substantially more abundant in 2004
50
than in 1995 (11 rainbows and 2 browns). More adults were captured in 2004 as well, resulting in
substantially higher abundance estimates for the 2004 samples. Total trout density in 2004 (2,751
fish/ha) was over four times higher than in 1995 (585 fish/ha), and even if fish ≤90 mm are ignored,
the 2004 trout density is still over twice as high as in 1995. Total trout standing crop in 2004 (48.33
kg/ha) was 59% higher than in 1995. Given that the relative abundance of rainbow and brown
trout was similar between 1995 and 2004 (87% vs. 89%), and that there were fewer large trout in
the 2004 sample compared with 1995 (two 254-356 mm rainbows vs. six in 1995; one 394 mm
brown trout vs. two 359-539 fish in 1995), it is unclear why overall trout abundance increased so
much. No changes in water or habitat quality were apparent. The size structure of the rainbow
trout population, aside from the profusion of YOY was relatively well balanced, while many subadult and adult brown trout size classes (152-229 mm fish) were missing (as they were in 1995).
The rest of the fish community present at the Stony Creek site in 2004 was similar to what
was reported in 1995 except for the absence of telescope shiners Notropis telescopus. The 1995
sample produced 69 telescope shiners, but this species was not collected in 2004. Additionally,
the sculpins collected in 1995 were separated into mottled sculpins Cottus bairdii and banded
sculpins C. carolinae. Because of the difficulty associated with differentiating these species in the
field, this was not done in 2004. Overall, the estimated density (22,869/ha) and standing crop
(128.01 kg/ha) of non-salmonids (minnows, suckers, sculpins, and darters) were higher in 1995
than in 2004 (Table 2-15).
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 52 wild rainbow trout from Stony Creek
identified fish up to age 2 but, because of drought-related effects, included only four specimens
over 229 mm and none over 256 mm. Consequently, 36 rainbow trout (up to the 356-mm size
class) were collected from Stony Creek in June 2004 as part of the new cooperative effort with the
University of Tennessee to obtain additional otolith-based growth and longevity information,
particularly for larger fish (≥229 mm), which Stony Creek routinely produces. An additional set of
rainbow trout otoliths will be collected from Stony Creek in 2005.
Stony Creek supports a lengthy distribution of excellent of wild brook, rainbow, and brown
trout populations. Additionally, its fertility (alkalinity of 65 mg/L as CaCO3), undoubtedly enables it
to produce some of Tennessee’s largest wild trout (particularly rainbows). Accordingly,
management of this valuable fishery resource should emphasize wild trout. The current level of
stocking with catchable-size rainbows, while not incompatible with wild trout management, should
not be expanded in scope or scale. The 2004 monitoring station should be sampled again in 2005
and 2006, then in three-year blocks at two-year intervals beginning in 2009 to continue developing
the database for this stream.
51
Stony Creek Monitoring Station
Sullivan Co.
Carter Co.
Hwy. 91
Holston
Laurel
Branch
Mountain
Furnace
Branch
Miller
Branch
Mill
Creek
Stony Creek
Sullivan Co.
Carter Co.
Hwy. 91
Little
Stony
Creek
Monitoring
Station
Dry Run
Stony Creek
Carter Co.
Hwy. 19E
Hwy. 91
Johnson Co.
Watauga River
Elizabethton
Figure 2-20. Location of the long-term monitoring station on Stony Creek.
52
Table 2-14. Site and sampling information for Stony Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420043201
Sample Date
06 October
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Carter 207 NE
Lat-Long
36.41442 N, 82.07841 W
Reach Number
06010103-39,0
Elevation (ft)
1,860
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Good
Description
of bridge at Stony Ck. VFD
Effort
Station Length (m)
211
Sample Area (m²)
1,857
Personnel
14
3
Voltage (AC)
125
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
8.8
Maximum depth (cm)
85
Canopy cover (%)
40
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
36
64
142 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
Sand
10
5
Gravel
30
25
Rubble
50
35
Boulder
15
35
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
29.3; normal
Temperature (C)
15.3
pH
7.7
108
N/M
65
53
Table 2-15. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Stony Creek
sampled 6 October 2004.
Species
Total
Catch
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Lower
C.L.
Biomass
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Density (Fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
189
221
196
246
1,082
4.9
5.83
5.17
6.49
1,190
1,055
1,325
RBT >90 mm
217
235
220
250
6,441
27.4
34.68
32.46
36.89
1,265
1,185
1,346
BNT ≤90 mm
35
39
35
48
201
5.1
1.08
0.96
1.32
210
188
258
BNT >90 mm
16
16
16
17
1,251
78.2
6.74
6.74
7.16
86
86
92
1
1
1
1
15
15.0
0.08
0.08
0.08
5
5
5
W. blacknose dace
308
396
342
450
1,331
3.4
7.17
6.26
8.24
2,132
1,842
2,423
Sculpins
469
724
583
865
4,844
6.7
26.09
21.03
31.21
3,899
3,139
4,658
Saffron shiner
31
31
31
33
92
3.0
0.50
0.50
0.53
167
167
178
C. stoneroller
412
441
424
458
10,780
24.4
58.05
55.71
60.18
2,375
2,283
2,466
Fantail darter
121
476
121
1,402
1,019
2.1
5.49
1.37
15.85
2,563
652
7,550
Snubnose darter
31
32
31
36
86
2.7
0.46
0.45
0.52
172
167
194
N. hogsucker
35
35
35
37
1,806
51.6
9.73
9.73
10.28
188
188
199
White sucker
4
4
4
9
188
47.0
1.01
1.01
2.28
22
22
48
503
100.6
Longnose dace
Rock bass
Totals
5
1,874
5
2,656
5
2,044
8
3,860
29,639
2.71
2.71
4.33
159.62
144.18
185.36
Note: RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout; sculpins (C. bairdii and C. carolinae ) were not separated.
54
27
27
43
14,301
11,006
20,785
Stony Creek
200
10/06/04
Number of Fish
175
Rainbow trout
n = 406
55-359 mm
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
25
51
76 102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Length Class (mm)
60
10/06/04
Number of Fish
50
Brown trout
n = 51
66-394 mm
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Length Class (mm)
2004 Stony Creek sample.
55
2.2.8
Doe Creek
Study Area
Doe Creek is a spring-fed tributary to Watauga Reservoir in Johnson County. It flows
through privately owned land, much of which is being used for agricultural and residential
purposes. It is probably best known for the trophy rainbow trout fishery it supported during the
1950s and 1960s. That fishery was provided by a fall-spawning stock of fish from Watauga
Reservoir that probably originated from eggs planted at the mouth of Doe Creek in 1954 (Bivens
et al. 1998). Although the trophy fishery disappeared in the early 1970s, Doe Creek still supports
one of Tennessee’s finest populations of wild rainbow. Doe Creek is also stocked with catchable
rainbow trout, primarily during March-June (about 3,300/year), and is subject to general trout
fishing regulations. It was surveyed for TWRA by Shields (1950) and later qualitatively sampled
by Bivens (1989). Ironically, Shields (1950) recommended that Doe Creek be removed from the
trout stream list because of its limited trout carrying capacity and lack of potential for
reproduction. The creel survey conducted in 2003 (Habera et al. 2004) indicated that Doe Creek
was second only to Doe River in terms of estimated angler effort for trout (422 h/ha) and
estimated trout caught (1,824 stocked and wild). Additionally, Doe Creek had the highest
estimated trout harvest (521 stocked and wild) and catch rate for all trout (0.34 fish/h) among the
five streams surveyed (Habera et al. 2004).
The current long-term monitoring station on Doe Creek (Figure 2-22) was established in
1993 and has been sampled annually since then. It is located along Highway 67 and ends just
below the confluence with the outflow from Lowe Spring, which is an important source of cold
water for Doe Creek. Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality
information are given in Table 2-16.
Catch data and abundance estimates for all species sampled at the Doe Creek station in
2004 are given in Table 2-17. Rainbow trout density and standing crop increased substantially
relative to the 2003 estimates (Figure 2-23). The 2004 density (5,211 fish/ha) was the highest
obtained to date and includes 1,708 fish/ha ≤90 mm, which is the highest density estimated to
date for this size group (which is an index of YOY abundance). Standing crop nearly doubled
from the 2003 estimate, exceeding 100 kg/ha for the first time since 1997 (Figure 2-23). It is not
clear what caused such a large and abrupt increase in rainbow trout abundance, but it is not an
artifact of a change in sample area (as in 2002; Habera et al. 2003a). Given this increase and the
large 2004 cohort, it will be of interest to determine if this higher abundance can be maintained.
Doe Creek’s rainbow trout population structure in 2004 was relatively well balanced,
except perhaps for the almost extraordinarily strong 2004 cohort (Figure 2-24). The catch of fish
in ≥229-mm remained at 11 fish (as in 2003), although the proportion of the adult catch
represented by these fish fell from 22% (2003) to about 16%. Prior to 2000, fish ≥229 mm
typically made up 10-20% of the adult catch at this site (Habera et al. 2003a).
56
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 62 wild rainbow trout from Doe Creek
identified fish up to age 3 but, because of drought-related effects, included only one specimen
over 229 mm and none over 256 mm. Consequently, 41 rainbow trout (up to the 381-mm size
class) were collected from Doe Creek in July 2004 as part of the new cooperative effort with the
University of Tennessee to obtain additional otolith-based growth and longevity information,
particularly for larger fish (≥229 mm), which Doe Creek routinely produces. An additional set of
rainbow trout otoliths will be collected from Doe Creek in 2005.
Doe Creek is one of Tennessee’s most popular and productive wild trout streams and
TWRA is committed to protecting its quality. The hatchery supported trout fishery in Doe Creek is
also quite popular, as more angling effort was expended there targeting stocked trout (171 h/ha)
and more stocked trout were harvested (417) than at any of the other four streams surveyed
(Habera et al. 2004). Additionally, 88% of anglers surveyed in 2003 favored stocking in Doe
Creek (Habera et al. 2004). Management of this stream should feature the outstanding wild trout
population; the current level of stocking with catchable-size rainbows, while not incompatible with
wild trout management, should not be expanded in scope or scale. Annual monitoring at the
station near Lowe Spring should continue and may help identify any impacts related to water
withdrawals (0.5 million gallons per day) from the spring (which began in 2002). TWRA opposes
any increase in the amount of water withdrawn and remains concerned that removal of a
substantial portion of the spring’s flow could impact Doe Creek’s wild rainbow trout population,
particularly during dry years.
Attempts to verify angler reports that some large rainbow trout from Watauga Lake still
ascend Doe Creek during the winter months to spawn were unsuccessful in 2002 and 2003.
Another attempt in December 2004 targeting several locations upstream of the Highway 67/167
junction produced five fish in the 550-650 mm size range (three males and two females). It is
unknown if these fish are from the Kamloops eggs and fingerlings planted in 2001 or if they
originate from other rainbows stocked in the lake. In any case, while these large lake-run fish do
not appear to be abundant, they do provide a unique aspect to Doe Creek’s trout fishery.
Large rainbow trout (spawners from Watauga Lake) captured in Doe Creek in December 2004.
57
Doe Creek Monitoring Station
Shoun
Branch
Andy
Branch
Spear
Branch
Campbell
Creek
Timothy
Branch
Hwy. 67
Lowe
Spring
Doe Creek
Monitoring
Station
Stout
Branch
Howard
Branch
Doe Creek
Hwy. 67
Figure 2-22. Location of the long-term monitoring station on Doe Creek.
58
Table 2-16. Site and sampling information for Doe Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042701
Sample Date
16 September
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Johnson
Quadrangle
Doe 214 NW
Lat-Long
36.42709 N, 81.93725 W
Reach Number
06010103-37,0
Elevation (ft)
2,210
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Good
Description
Site ends at small dam
just below Lowe spring.
Effort
Station Length (m)
134
Sample Area (m²)
925
Personnel
6
3
Voltage (AC)
200
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
6.9
Maximum depth (cm)
80
Canopy cover (%)
45
Aquatic vegetation
common
40
60
156 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
10
Sand
10
15
Gravel
25
25
Rubble
20
35
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
20
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
19.3; normal
Temperature (C)
14.6
pH
7.6
152
N/M
85
59
Table 2-17.
Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for one station on Doe Creek
sampled 16 September 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Density (fish/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
147
158
147
169
867
5.5
9.37
8.74
10.05
1,708
1,589
1,827
RBT >90 mm
303
324
309
339
8,646
26.7
93.47
89.19
97.85
3,503
3,341
3,665
W. blacknose dace
177
297
1,133
4.8
12.25
9.18
15.41
2,562
1,914
3,211
168
237
Mottled sculpin1
671
1,007
--
--
3,681
3.7
39.79
C. stoneroller
171
174
171
178
7,566
43.5
81.79
Fantail darter1
42
63
--
--
153
2.4
1.65
N. hogsucker
1
1
1
1
165
165.0
1.78
1.78
1.78
11
11
11
240.10
189.31
208.80
21,232
8,704
10,638
Totals
1,503
1,964
805
984
22,211
1
-80.42
--
-83.71
--
10,886
1,881
681
Note: RBT = rainbow trout.
60
-1,849
--
-1,924
--
Doe Creek
5000
Fish/ha
4000
5211
Densities
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 2,405
RBT >90 mm
3786
3000
2530
2281
2408
2140
2309
1895
1865
2000
1781
1468
1194
1000
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
175
Standing Crops
Mean = 73.03
RBT ≤ 90 mm
150
RBT >90 mm
125
kg/ha
102.84
103.77
102.56
100
81.43
69.35
75
74.61
66.90
70.13
63.59
54.29
50.65
50
36.18
25
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Figure 2-23. Trout abundance estimates for the Doe Creek monitoring
station. RBT = rainbow trout.
61
Doe Creek
225
Rainbow trout
n = 450
60-301 mm
9/16/04
Number of Fish
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-24. Length frequency distribution for rainbow trout
from the 2004 Doe Creek sample.
62
305
330
2.2.9
Laurel Creek
Study Area
Laurel Creek is located in Johnson County, just across the Iron Mountains from
Beaverdam Creek. It also flows northeast into Virginia where it is joined by Beaverdam Creek (in
Damascus) and becomes a major tributary to the South Fork Holston River. The 3.1-km segment
from the state line upstream lies within the CNF. The watershed consists of a mixture of forested,
agricultural, and residential lands upstream of the portion on the CNF. Laurel Creek is very
similar to Beaverdam Creek in terms of its size, flow, water quality, fish community, and the
excellent wild rainbow and brown trout fishery it supports. Six tributaries contain brook trout
populations and five of these are of native, southern Appalachian heritage (Strange and Habera
1997). Management of this stream also includes a put-and-take fishery for rainbow trout. About
4,100 catchables are stocked each year during March-June. Unlike most of Beaverdam Creek,
Laurel Creek and its tributaries are subject to general, statewide trout angling regulations, which
include a seven-fish creel limit, no bait restrictions, and no size limits for rainbow or brown trout.
Shields’ (1950) assessment of Laurel Creek was that it carried more large trout than
Beaverdam Creek despite heavy fishing pressure, but natural reproduction was poor, especially
for brown trout. Bivens and Williams (1990) qualitatively surveyed Laurel Creek for TWRA in
1989 (just upstream of the state line) and reported good populations of wild rainbow and brown
trout with adequate reproduction. Later, quantitative samples were conducted near the
confluence with Elliot Branch (on CNF) in 1993 and upstream near the confluence of Atchison
Branch (private land) in 1994 (Bivens et al. 1994; Strange and Habera 1994, 1995). Excellent
wild trout populations were present in each case, and brown trout standing crop exceeded 100
kg/ha at the upstream site (Strange and Habera 1994). The 1993 Laurel Creek site (Figure 2-25)
was shortened by 10 m, a fifth electrofishing unit was added, and it was included in the long-term
monitoring program in 2001 to obtain more information about this important wild trout fishery.
This station was sampled in 2004 because the originally scheduled 2003 sample was cancelled.
Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are
summarized in Table 2-18.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Laurel
Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-19. Even though estimated adult rainbow trout density
increased substantially in 2004 (relative to 2002), large decreases in YOY and adult brown trout
density resulted in a decline in overall trout density (Figure 2-26). This decline in brown trout
numbers caused relative abundance to shift back in favor of rainbow trout in 2004 (as in 1993;
Figure 2-26). Browns had become the predominant species at this station in 2001 and 2002, as
well as at Station 2 on Beaverdam Creek and Station 1 on Tellico River during the recent drought.
Despite the decline in density, however, total trout standing crop increased 52% from 2002 to
2004, primarily as the result of recruitment of the abundant 2001 and 2002 cohorts (Habera et al.
2004). The modal size of adult brown trout shifted from 178 mm in 2002 (Habera et al. 2004) to
254 mm in 2004 (Figure 2-27), making it possible for fewer (but heavier) fish to increase standing
63
crop. The capture of a large brown trout in 2004 (521 mm, 1,578 g) was also a factor as few
larger browns (none in excess of 342 mm and 372 g) were captured in 2002. The modal size of
adult rainbow trout also increased from 178 mm to 203 mm, helping increase their contribution to
total standing crop.
Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout in 2004 (Figure 2-27) were
well-balanced for each species, with strong 2004 cohorts and several fish (particularly brown
trout) in the larger size classes (229 mm and above).
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 69 wild rainbow trout from Laurel
Creek identified fish up to age 5 but, because of drought-related effects, included only seven
specimens over 229 mm and none over 254 mm. Consequently, 36 rainbow trout (up to the 279mm size class) were collected from Laurel Creek in July 2004 as part of the new cooperative
effort with the University of Tennessee to obtain additional otolith-based growth and longevity
information, particularly for larger fish (≥229 mm). An additional set of rainbow trout otoliths will
be collected from Laurel Creek in 2005.
Laurel Creek supports an excellent wild trout fishery at least as good as the one present in
nearby Beaverdam Creek. The creel survey completed in 2003 (Habera et al. 2004) indicated
that while anglers spent more effort targeting wild trout in Beaverdam Creek (1,190 h) than in
Laurel Creek (601 h), total angling effort for all trout (wild or stocked) was nearly identical for the
two streams (3,210 h in Beaverdam vs. 3,294 h in Laurel). This is likely related to the angling
regulations that apply to each stream. Beaverdam Creek has a section that is specially-regulated
for wild trout and fewer of the anglers fishing that stream favored stocking (56%) than in Laurel
Creek (79%). While future management of Laurel Creek should maintain and feature wild trout,
the current level of stocking with catchable-size rainbows is not incompatible with wild trout
management. However, stocking should not be expanded in scope or scale. The general
angling regulations currently in place can also be maintained; in fact, their presence on Laurel
Creek provides evidence that restrictive size limits (e.g., the 229-mm minimum in effect on
several streams) are not necessary to sustain viable wild trout populations or to provide qualitysized fish. The monitoring station should be sampled in three-year blocks at two-year intervals
beginning in 2006 in order to further develop the Laurel Creek database, as well as our general
understanding of wild trout population dynamics.
64
Laurel Creek Monitoring Station
Rt. 91
Damascus
Whitetop Laurel Creek
Hwy. 58
Beaverdam
Creek
Laurel
Creek
Rt. 91
VA
TN
Rt. 133
TaylorsValley Rd.
Monitoring
Station
Elliot
Branch
Owens Branch
Laurel Creek
Beaverdam
Creek
Lyons
Branch
Rt. 91
Gentry
Creek
Laurel Creek
Kate
Branch
Gentry
Creek
Shingletown
Branch
Hoot Owl
Hollow
Atchison
Branch
TN
Laurel Creek
Rt. 91
To Mountain City
Figure 2-25. Location of the long-term monitoring station on Laurel Creek.
65
NC
Table 2-18. Site and sampling information for Laurel Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042501
Sample Date
07 September
Watershed
County
Johnson
Quadrangle
Laurel Bloomery 214 SE
Lat-Long
36.60163 N, 81.75058 W
Reach Number
06010102-25,0
Elevation (ft)
2,210
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
USFS
Fishing Access
Excellent
Description
Site begins ~10 m upstream of confluence with Elliot Branch (at
wood duck box on LBD).
Effort
Station Length (m)
165
Sample Area (m²)
2,261
Personnel
15
5
Voltage (AC)
200
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
13.7
Maximum depth (cm)
150
Canopy cover (%)
50
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
35
65
148 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
15
Sand
10
10
Gravel
15
25
Rubble
20
35
Boulder
20
25
Bedrock
20
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
26.2; normal
Temperature (C)
17.6
pH
7.4
136
N/M
80
66
Table 2-19.
Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations on Laurel
Creek sampled 7 September 2004.
Species
Total
Catch
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Lower
C.L.
Biomass
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Density (Fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
18
19
18
24
114
6.0
0.50
0.48
0.64
84
80
106
RBT >90 mm
78
79
78
82
3,857
48.8
17.06
16.84
17.70
349
345
363
BNT ≤90 mm
1
1
1
1
6
6.0
0.03
0.03
0.03
4
4
4
BNT >90 mm
73
75
73
80
9,771
130.3
43.22
42.07
46.10
332
323
354
3
5
3
32
62
12.3
0.27
0.16
1.74
22
13
142
63
66
63
72
431
6.5
1.91
1.81
2.07
292
279
318
Mottled sculpin
898
1,972
1,391
2,553
10,091
5.1
44.63
31.38
57.59
8,722
6,152
11,291
Saffron shiner
161
305
161
467
862
2.8
3.81
1.99
5.78
1,349
712
2,065
5
5
5
6
48
9.6
0.21
0.21
0.25
22
22
27
Longnose dace
W. blacknose dace
Creek chub
River chub
90
100
90
112
1,340
13.4
5.93
5.33
2.38
442
398
495
C. stoneroller
331
417
366
468
10,205
24.5
45.13
39.66
50.71
1,844
1,619
2,070
Fantail darter
98
146
98
204
356
2.4
1.57
1.04
2.17
646
433
902
Snubnose darter
21
33
21
67
85
2.6
0.38
0.24
0.77
146
93
296
N. hogsucker
59
65
59
75
6,544
100.7
28.94
26.28
33.40
287
261
332
White sucker
9
9
9
10
1,498
166.4
6.63
6.63
7.36
40
40
44
Bluegill
1
1
1
1
6
6.0
0.03
0.03
0.03
4
4
4
Largemouth bass
1
1
1
1
4
4.0
0.02
0.02
0.02
4
4
4
200.27
174.20
228.74
Totals
1,910
3,299
2,438
4,255
45,280
67
14,589
10,782
18,817
Laurel Creek
2000
Densities
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
1600
Mean = 1,020
Fish/ha
1320
1164
1200
827
769
800
400
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
75
Standing Crops
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
60
60.81
45
kg/ha
Mean = 44.22
38.29
37.82
39.95
30
15
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Figure 2-26. Trout abundance estimates for the Laurel Creek monitoring
station. RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout.
68
Laurel Creek
40
Rainbow trout
n = 96
49-273 mm
9/7/04
Number of Fish
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
40
9/7/04
Brown trout
n = 74
86-521 mm
Number of Fish
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508
Length Class (mm)
2004 Laurel Creek samples.
69
2.2.10 Beaverdam Creek
Study Area
Beaverdam Creek originates in the Iron Mountains and flows northeast into Virginia. It is
probably one of Tennessee’s best-known wild trout streams. The watershed is largely forested
(much is CNF), although there is substantial agricultural and residential land use in the Shady
Valley area. Shields (1950) described Beaverdam Creek as providing excellent rainbow trout
water. However, because there was no reproduction in the main stream, he recommended a
stocking program (including fall fingerlings in the Shady Valley section) and a permit system for
managing Beaverdam Creek. He made no mention of a brown trout fishery at that time. Later,
Bivens (1988), and Bivens and Williams (1990) conducted qualitative surveys of Beaverdam
Creek for TWRA and documented excellent wild rainbow and brown trout populations. Eleven
tributaries contain brook trout, most of which are of native, southern Appalachian heritage
(Strange and Habera 1997).
Management of Beaverdam Creek as a put-and-take fishery was changed in 1988 to
emphasize wild trout. A three-fish creel limit was added to the 229-mm minimum size limit and
single-hook, artificial-lures-only regulations already in place on the 10-km section between Tank
Hollow Road and Birch Branch (in the CNF). Stocking was also discontinued within this area.
Outside the special regulations zone, about 4,700 catchable rainbow trout are stocked each year
during February-June. Additionally, 5,000-10,000 brown trout fingerlings were stocked in upper
Beaverdam Creek (vicinity of Hwy. 421 crossing and upstream) in 2001, 2002, and 2004 to
supplement the limited wild brown trout population in that area.
Two long-term monitoring stations (Figure 2-28) were established in 1991 on the portion
of Beaverdam Creek within the CNF and have been sampled annually since then. Sample site
location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in
Table 2-20.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species collected at the
Beaverdam Creek stations in 2003 are given in Table 2-21. Trout abundance increased
substantially at both stations relative to the 2003 estimates (Figure 2-29). Large increases in
YOY abundance (particularly rainbows) caused most of the overall density increases, although
most other groups increased as well (Figure 2-29). Total trout standing crop estimates at both
stations rose above the corresponding long-term averages, primarily as a result of increased
adult rainbow trout biomass (Figure 2-29). The trend toward higher relative proportions of brown
trout biomass during 1998-2002, which might have been related to the drought (Habera et al.
2003a), fully reversed at both stations in 2004 (Figure 2-29). A similar shift in the relative
abundance of brown and rainbow trout biomass occurred at the Laurel Creek monitoring station
(Section 2.2.9).
70
Strong 2004 cohorts, particularly for rainbow trout, were present at both stations and the
population size structures were otherwise generally well balanced (Figure 2-30). Beaverdam
Creek is well known for its large brown trout, but these have been uncommon in monitoring
samples from recent years. No brown trout >409 mm (16.1 in.) had been collected at either
station since 2000, but a 460-mm was captured at Station 1 in 2004 (Figure 2-30).
Cooper’s (2003) analysis of growth and longevity of 41 wild rainbow trout from Beaverdam
Creek identified fish up to age 3 but, because of drought-related effects, included only one
specimen over 229 mm and none over 254 mm. Consequently, 32 rainbow trout (up to the 279mm size class) were collected from Beaverdam Creek in July 2004 as part of the new cooperative
effort with the University of Tennessee to obtain additional otolith-based growth and longevity
information, particularly for larger fish (≥229 mm). An additional set of rainbow trout otoliths will
be collected from Beaverdam Creek in 2005.
Beaverdam Creek supports some of Tennessee’s finest wild trout populations and future
management should continue to maintain and emphasize the fisheries these provide. The
current stocking program is not incompatible with wild trout management, but there should be no
expansion of the area or number of catchable trout currently stocked. The importance of the wild
trout fishery was supported by anglers’ responses to a question in the 2003 creel survey (Habera
et al. 2004) regarding stocking. Beaverdam Creek anglers indicated that they did not favor
stocking more frequently (26%) than anglers at any of the other four streams studied. The
current fishing regulations are adequate, although there is no indication that the 229-mm
minimum size limit and 3-fish creel limit are biologically significant, especially given the wild trout
fishery (without special regulations) in nearby Laurel Creek (Section 2.2.9). Annual monitoring
should continue at both stations to increase our understanding of Beaverdam Creek’s wild trout
populations.
71
Beaverdam Creek Monitoring Stations
VA
VA
TN
TN
Rt. 133
Sullivan Co.
Backbone
Branch
Johnson Co.
Stillhouse
Branch
Beaverdam
Creek
Station 1
Haunted
Hollow
Backbone
Rock
Dark
Hollow
Tank
Hollow
Arnold
Branch
Chalk
Branch
Station 2
Maple
Branch
Beaverdam
Creek
Fagall
Branch
Rt. 133
Parks
Branch
Birch
Branch
Flat
Spring
Branch
Figure 2-28. Locations of the two long-term monitoring stations on Beaverdam Creek.
72
Table 2-20. Site and sampling information for Beaverdam Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Site Code
420042401
420042402
Sample Date
02 September
03 September
Watershed
County
Johnson
Johnson
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.59176 N, 81.81847 W
36.56576 N, 81.87315 W
Reach Number
06010102-23,0
06010102-23,0
Elevation (ft)
2,160
2,440
Stream Order
4
4
Land Ownership
USFS
USFS
Fishing Access
Excellent
Excellent
Description
Begins at Tank Hollow
Begins at Hwy. 133 mile
Rd. near Backbone Rock.
marker 5 near Arnold Br.
Effort
Station Length (m)
200
177
Sample Area (m²)
2,540
2,071
Personnel
18
14
4
4
Voltage (AC)
250
250
Removal Passes
3
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
12.7
11.7
Maximum depth (cm)
100
120
Canopy cover (%)
70
60
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
40
42
60
58
165 (optimal)
162 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
10
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
5
5
10
5
Gravel
15
25
15
20
Rubble
40
35
25
35
Boulder
15
30
30
30
Bedrock
20
5
10
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
28.5; normal
19.9; normal
Temperature (C)
18.6
16.1
pH
7.3
7.3
74
85
N/M
N/M
40
45
73
5
Table 2-21. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations on Beaverdam
Creek sampled 2 and 3 September 2004.
Total
Catch
Species
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Lower
C.L.
Biomass
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Density (fish/ha)
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
115
154
115
195
654
4.2
2.57
1.90
3.22
606
453
768
RBT >90 mm
72
79
72
89
4,625
58.5
18.21
16.58
20.50
311
283
350
BNT ≤90 mm
8
8
8
10
54
6.8
0.21
0.21
0.27
31
31
39
BNT >90 mm
19
19
19
20
3,659
192.6
14.41
14.41
15.17
75
75
79
Longnose dace
31
36
31
47
510
14.2
2.01
1.73
2.63
142
122
185
W. blacknose dace
1
1
1
1
2
2.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
Mottled sculpin
690
1,595
1,008
2,182
5,811
3.6
22.88
14.29
30.93
6,280
3,969
8,591
Warpaint shiner
29
30
29
34
93
3.1
0.37
0.35
0.41
118
114
134
Saffron shiner
River chub
C. stoneroller
1
Fantail darter
Greenfin darter
56
62
56
72
179
2.9
0.70
0.64
0.82
244
220
283
196
247
208
286
2,843
11.5
11.19
9.42
12.95
972
819
1,126
168
175
168
183
6,958
39.8
27.39
26.32
28.67
689
661
720
152
228
--
--
431
1.9
1.70
24
63
24
221
546
8.7
2.15
-0.82
--
898
--
--
7.57
248
94
870
Snubnose darter
31
64
31
158
211
3.3
0.83
0.40
2.05
252
122
622
Swannanoa darter
21
22
21
26
142
6.5
0.56
0.54
0.67
87
83
102
N. hogsucker
23
23
23
25
2,800
121.7
11.02
11.02
11.98
91
91
98
9
9.0
Rock bass
Totals
1
1,637
1
2,807
1
1,815
1
3,550
29,527
0.04
0.04
0.04
116.25
98.68
137.89
4
11,052
4
7,145
4
13,975
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
48
54
48
64
333
6.2
1.61
1.44
1.92
261
232
309
RBT >90 mm
85
85
85
87
5,641
66.4
27.24
27.24
27.89
410
410
420
BNT ≤90 mm
17
17
17
18
111
6.5
0.54
0.54
0.56
82
82
87
BNT >90 mm
34
34
34
36
2,557
75.2
12.35
12.35
13.07
164
164
174
Longnose dace
28
33
28
44
405
12.3
1.96
1.66
2.61
159
135
212
W. blacknose dace
Mottled sculpin
10
10
10
12
32
3.2
0.15
0.15
0.19
48
48
58
603
866
744
988
3,636
4.2
17.56
15.09
20.04
4,182
3,592
4,771
Warpaint shiner
15
28
15
79
116
4.1
0.56
0.30
1.56
135
72
381
Saffron shiner
72
78
72
87
204
2.6
0.99
0.90
1.09
377
348
420
1
1
1
1
8
8.0
0.04
0.04
0.04
5
5
5
Creek chub
River chub
197
211
199
223
2,603
12.3
12.57
11.82
13.24
1,019
961
1,077
C. stoneroller
77
79
77
83
1,646
20.8
7.95
7.73
8.34
381
372
401
Fantail darter
81
128
81
193
243
1.9
1.17
0.74
1.77
618
391
932
Greenfin darter1
24
36
--
--
255
7.1
1.23
Snubnose darter
13
18
13
36
39
2.2
0.19
Swannanoa darter
-0.14
--
174
0.38
87
--
--
63
174
8
32
8
295
192
6.0
0.93
0.23
8.55
155
39
1,424
N. hogsucker
15
15
15
16
2,590
172.7
12.51
12.51
13.34
72
72
77
White sucker
1
1
1
1
70
70.0
0.34
0.34
0.34
5
5
5
4
4.0
Bluegill
Totals
1
1,330
1
1,727
1
1,449
1
2,264
20,685
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
99.91
93.24
114.95
8,339
6,996
10,932
74
Beaverdam Creek
Station 1
Trout Densities
2500
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
2000
70
Mean = 1,001
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
60
1972
50
Mean = 34.32
1391
1252
1023
953
1000
1250
1239
946
940
852
kg/ha
Fish/ha
43.22
1500
37.82
40
33.38
37.75
36.14 35.25 35.17 36.52
31.92 31.10 32.07
35.40
29.84
30
24.88
736
20
555
500
450
449
10
0
0
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'91
'04
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Year
Station 2
2500
70
BNT ≤90 mm
2000
60
RBT ≤90 mm
50
1734
1108
kg/ha
1500
1135
1079
955
1000
870
851
722
703
Mean = 34.69
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
Fish/ha
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 912
BNT >90 mm
917
31.38
30
26.93
41.74
39.24
37.03
36.50
42.32
41.14
39.92
40
35.36
32.36
30.32
29.09
22.38
798
20
772
589
RBT >90 mm
537
500
10
0
0
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
Year
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
Year
Figure 2-29. Trout abundance estimates for the Beaverdam Creek monitoring
stations. RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout.
75
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Beaverdam Creek
Station 1
40
80
Rainbow trout
n = 187
44-290 mm
9/2/04
60
9/2/04
30
Number of Fish
Number of Fish
70
50
40
30
Brown trout
n = 27
79-460 mm
20
10
20
10
0
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
51
76 102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457
Length Class (mm)
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
40
40
Rainbow trout
n = 133
62-285 mm
9/3/04
30
Number of Fish
Number of Fish
30
9/3/04
20
10
0
Brown trout
n = 51
66-320 mm
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381
Length Class (mm)
2004 Beaverdam Creek samples.
76
2.3
SYMPATRIC BROOK/RAINBOW TROUT MONITORING STREAMS
Four streams (upper Rocky Fork, Briar Creek, Birch Branch, and Gentry Creek) are
currently being monitored annually with the objective of documenting how (or if) rainbow trout
eventually replace brook trout in areas where the two species occur sympatrically. These
streams were sampled again in 2004 to continue tracking changes and trends in the relative
abundance of each species over time. The information obtained through these sympatricpopulation monitoring efforts should document whether or not brook and rainbow trout are
capable of long-term coexistence.
2.3.1
Briar Creek
Study Area
Briar Creek is a Nolichucky River tributary in Washington County that flows from Buffalo
Mountain through a forested watershed located within the CNF. It contains 4.7 km of brook trout
water (southern Appalachian) beginning at an elevation of about 652 m (2,140') (Strange and
Habera 1997). Rainbow trout are present throughout the stream to its confluence with Dry Creek.
Dr. J. W. Nagel (East Tennessee State University, retired) introduced brook trout in 1983 after
thinning the rainbow trout population in a 1.37-km reach during 1983-1986. A total of 114
southern Appalachian brook trout (mixed ages) were transplanted from East Fork Beaverdam
Creek, George Creek, and Tiger Creek during 1983-1984 (Nagel 1986). A reproducing brook
trout population became established in the introduction zone by 1986 and began to spread
upstream and downstream into areas from which no rainbow trout were removed (Nagel 1991).
Briar Creek is currently subject to general, statewide trout angling regulations.
A station at 662 m (2,170') was quantitatively sampled in 1992 to check the brook trout
population status in the original introduction zone (Strange and Habera 1993). This site
contained 27% brook trout, but several were removed for genetic analyses (Kriegler et al. 1995).
Therefore, a new site (Figure 2-31) was established at 671 m (2,200') and annual monitoring
began in 1995 (Strange and Habera 1996). Site location and effort details, along with habitat and
water quality information are summarized in Table 2-22.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Briar
Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-23. Rainbow trout abundance (particularly YOY)
increased substantially in 2004 while the brook trout abundance declined (YOY) or remained
relatively unchanged. Population size structures for brook and rainbow trout in 2004 (Figure 232) indicate the presence of a strong 2004 rainbow trout cohort and a greater abundance of
rainbow trout in the larger size classes (152 mm and up).
Brook trout have become well established in Briar Creek since their re-introduction in
1983. Their relative abundance at the monitoring station generally increased during 1995-2002,
and brook trout relative abundance (standing crop) exceeded 50% during 1998-2002 (Figure 277
33). However, brook trout relative abundance (standing crop) has fallen below 50% since 2002
and was at its lowest level to date (38%) in 2004.
Briar Creek supports a good wild trout fishery (featuring brook trout) that should be
maintained. Annual sampling at the monitoring station should continue in order to track the brook
trout population and improve our general understanding of sympatric brook and rainbow trout
populations. No efforts to remove rainbow trout or enhance brook trout should occur in upper
Briar Creek while this monitoring is underway so that only natural processes can be studied.
78
Briar Creek Monitoring Station
Straight
Creek
FR 188
Briar Creek
Monitoring
Station
Dry
Creek
Rd.
Ramsey
Creek
Dry
Creek
Washington Co.
Unicoi Co.
U.S. 19/23
Figure 2-31. Location of the long-term monitoring station in the brook/rainbow trout
sympatric zone on Briar Creek.
79
Table 2-22. Site and sampling information for Briar Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042201
Sample Date
03 August
Watershed
Nolichucky River
County
Washington
Quadrangle
Erwin 199 NW
Lat-Long
36.22825 N, 82.38883 W
Reach Number
06010108
Elevation (ft)
2,200
Stream Order
3
Land Ownership
USFS
Fishing Access
Good
Description
This site is located along the adjacent road (USFS 188) and is marked
with a tag on a hemlock on the left stream bank (looking upstream).
Effort
Station Length (m)
145
Sample Area (m²)
653
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
350
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
4.5
Maximum depth (cm)
93
Canopy cover (%)
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
45
55
158 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
10
5
Gravel
30
35
Rubble
30
40
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
10
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
4.5; normal
Temperature (C)
17.2
pH
6.8
24
N/M
15
80
Briar Creek sampled 3 August 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
38
52
38
79
114
2.2
1.75
1.28
2.66
796
582
1,210
RBT >90 mm
15
15
15
15
791
52.7
12.11
12.11
12.11
230
230
230
BKT ≤90 mm
15
15
15
16
49
3.3
0.75
0.75
0.81
230
230
245
BKT >90 mm
17
17
17
19
503
29.6
7.70
7.70
23.10
260
260
291
W. blacknose dace
36
38
36
43
153
4.0
2.34
2.21
2.63
582
551
658
121
137
121
172
1,610
24.65
24.05
41.31
2,098
1,853
2,634
Totals
81
Briar Creek
40
Number of Fish
8/3/04
Rainbow
Brook
30
Rainbow trout
n = 53
45-216 mm
20
Brook trout
n = 32
62-204 mm
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Brook Trout Relative Abundance (%)
Figure 2-32. Length frequency distributions for brook and rainbow trout from
the 2004 Briar Creek sample.
100
90
Density
Standing Crop
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Drought
Flood
10
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Figure 2-33. Relative brook trout abundance at the Briar Creek monitoring
station.
82
2.3.2
Rocky Fork
Study Area
Rocky Fork is part of the general long-term monitoring program (Section 2.2) and was
described in Section 2.2.3. The upper portion of Rocky Fork (Figure 2-7, Section 2.2.3) is
primarily in Greene County and contains 3.2 km of brook trout water beginning at 914 m (3,000')
elevation (Strange and Habera 1997). Shields (1950) reported that upper Rocky Fork, Fort Davie
Creek, and Blockstand Creek carried large populations of small brook trout. All subsequent
surveys of upper Rocky Fork during the 1960s and 1970s (reviewed by Bivens 1984)
documented the presence of excellent brook trout populations, along with wild rainbow trout.
Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality information were
summarized in Table 2-6 (Section 2.2.3).
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout sampled at Station 2 on Rocky Fork in
2004 were given in Table 2-7 (Section 2.2.3). Total trout abundance increased somewhat at
Station 2 relative to the 2003 estimates (Figure 2-8, Section 2.2.3).
Population size structures for brook and rainbow trout indicated the presence of YOY for
both species (Figure 2-34), although young rainbow trout were more abundant in 2004. Rainbow
trout were more abundant than brook trout in the larger size classes (178 mm and up) in 2004
(Figure 2-34), but this has typically been true of previous samples (Strange and Habera 1997,
1998a; Habera et al. 1999, 2000, 2001a, 2002a, 2003a, 2004). Nagel and Deaton (1989)
questioned the size advantage rainbow trout were thought to hold over brook trout in Rocky
Fork’s headwaters (as determined by Whitworth and Strange 1983) and elsewhere. However,
based on monitoring data from Rocky Fork and other streams, there is little doubt that rainbow
trout tend to grow larger than brook trout in a variety of sympatric situations.
The relative abundance of brook trout standing crop was quite stable at about 40% from
1991 through 1993, but began to decline after the flood in early 1994 (Figure 2-35) and
associated brook trout year-class failure (Strange and Habera 1995). Rainbow trout appeared to
be replacing brook trout at Station 2 on Rocky Fork in 1995, but brook trout abundance recovered
to the pre-flood level in 1996 and continued to increase. Brook trout relative abundance (standing
crop) began to increase in 1999, surpassed that of rainbow trout in 2000, and exceeded 60% in
2001 (Figure 2-35). This increase coincided with the drought that occurred during 1998-2002
(Habera et al. 2003a). Following the drought (2003-2004), brook trout relative abundance
(standing crop) has dropped back between 40% and 50%, which is similar to the 1991-1993
range (Figure 2-35). Because rainbow trout have been in this portion of Rocky Fork for many
years, it appears that, despite temporary disruptions (e.g., the 1994 flood and recent drought), the
two species tend to re-establish a basic equilibrium in terms of relative abundance.
83
Upper Rocky Fork supports an excellent fishery for wild rainbow and brook trout that
future management should protect and emphasize. The angling regulations currently in place
include a three-fish creel limit for brook trout and no size limit for rainbow trout, and are adequate
for this purpose. Annual monitoring at Station 2 should continue for the purpose of improving our
understanding of sympatric brook and rainbow trout interactions and gauging the ability of
rainbows to replace brook trout. It is recommended that no efforts to remove rainbow trout or
enhance brook trout be initiated in upper Rocky Fork while this monitoring is underway so that
only natural processes can be studied.
84
Rocky Fork
Station 2
Number of Fish
30
25
Rainbow trout
n = 52
60-216 mm
20
Brook trout
n = 42
75-228 mm
10/5/04
Rainbow
Brook
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-34. Length frequency distributions for brook and rainbow trout from the
2004 sample at the upper monitoring station (2) on Rocky Fork.
100
90
Density
Standing Cro p
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Drought
Flood
10
0
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
Year
Figure 2-35. Relative brook trout abundance at the upper monitoring station (2)
on Rocky Fork.
85
2.3.3
Birch Branch
Study Area
Birch Branch is a Beaverdam Creek tributary in Johnson County that flows through a
mountainous, forested watershed primarily within the CNF (the lower 0.8 km is on private land). It
contains 3.9 km of native, southern Appalachian brook trout water beginning at an elevation of
811 m (2,660') (Strange and Habera 1997). Allopatric brook trout occupy the upper 2.3 km of this
distribution (Bivens et al. 1985). In addition to wild rainbow trout, some brown trout are also
occasionally present, particularly near the confluence with Beaverdam Creek. Birch Branch is
subject to general, statewide trout angling regulations.
Birch Branch was previously surveyed by TWRA (1960s) and the USFS (1970s) to
document the presence of brook trout (Bivens 1984). Bivens (1984) recommended construction
of a barrier in the lower portion of the stream and removal of the encroaching rainbow trout. This
has not been done, thus providing an opportunity to monitor population trends in the sympatric
zone. A station at 872 m (2,860') containing 97% brook trout was quantitatively sampled during
brook trout distribution surveys in 1991 (Strange and Habera 1992). A site further downstream at
823 m (2,700') with more rainbow trout (Figure 2-36) was established and annual monitoring
began in 1995 (Strange and Habera 1996). Sample site location and effort details, along with
habitat and water quality information are summarized in Table 2-24.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout sampled at the Birch Branch station in 2004
are given in Table 2-25. Total trout standing crop generally declined from 21 kg/ha in 2001 to
about 12 kg/ha in 2003, but returned 21 kg/ha in 2004. Abundant YOY rainbow trout were
present in 2004, but the size structure for this species was truncated at the 127-mm size class
(Figure 2-37). The 2004 brook trout cohort was less abundant, but the overall size structure was
more balanced, with a few fish in the 178-mm and 203-mm size classes (Figure 2-37).
Brook trout relative abundance in terms of standing crop generally increased from about
30% in 1995 to over 70% in 2002, with much of the change occurring during the 1998-2002
drought (Figure 2-38). Brook trout relative abundance (standing crop) has declined somewhat
since 2002, but has remained above 50%.
The wild trout fishery in Birch Branch is not particularly remarkable, but it is valuable
because of the presence of native, southern Appalachian brook trout. Future management
should focus on maintaining this population. Continued monitoring at the Birch Branch station will
help further our understanding of brook and rainbow trout interactions in sympatry and gauge the
ability of rainbows to replace brook trout. It is recommended that no efforts to remove rainbow
trout or enhance brook trout be undertaken in Birch Branch while this monitoring is underway so
that only natural processes can be studied.
86
Birch Branch Monitoring Station
VA
VA
TN
TN
Rt. 133
Sullivan Co.
Backbone
Branch
Johnson Co.
Beaverdam
Creek
Stillhouse
Branch
Haunted
Hollow
Backbone
Rock
Dark
Hollow
Tank
Hollow
Arnold
Branch
Chalk
Branch
Maple
Branch
Beaverdam
Creek
Fagall
Branch
Rt. 133
Monitoring
Station
Parks
Branch
Birch
Branch
Flat
Spring
Branch
sympatric zone on Birch Branch.
87
Table 2-24. Site and sampling information for Birch Branch in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420041801
Sample Date
19 July
Watershed
County
Johnson
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.55610 N, 81.86937 W
Reach Number
06010102
Elevation (ft)
2,700
Stream Order
2
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Good
Description
This monitoring station ends at the USFS boundary markers (at first trail crossing).
Effort
Station Length (m)
144
Sample Area (m²)
504
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
450
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
3.5
Maximum depth (cm)
62
Canopy cover (%)
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
46
54
155 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
10
5
Gravel
30
25
Rubble
40
50
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
0.9; normal
Temperature (C)
15.2
pH
6.6
14
N/M
10
88
Birch Branch sampled 19 July 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
31
31
31
32
37
1.2
0.73
0.73
0.76
615
615
635
RBT >90 mm
16
16
16
18
312
19.5
6.19
6.19
6.96
317
317
357
BKT ≤90 mm
5
5
5
5
21
4.2
0.42
0.42
0.42
99
99
99
BKT >90 mm
20
20
20
21
645
32.3
12.80
12.80
13.46
397
397
417
BNT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
2
51
25.5
1.01
1.01
1.01
40
40
40
74
74
74
78
21.15
21.15
22.61
1,468
1,468
1,548
Totals
1,066
Note: RBT = rainbow trout, BKT = brook trout, and BNT = brown trout.
89
Birch Branch
30
Number of Fish
7/19/04
Rainbo w
B ro o k
Rainbow trout
n = 47
37-150 mm
20
Brook trout
n = 25
70-203 mm
2 Brown trout
(131-145 mm)
were also
collected
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-37. Length frequency distributions for brook and rainbow trout
from the 2004 Birch Branch sample.
100
90
Density
80
Standing Crop
70
60
50
40
30
20
Flood
Drought
10
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
Year
Figure 2-38. Relative brook trout abundance at the Birch Branch
monitoring station.
90
'03
'04
2.3.4
Gentry Creek
Study Area
Gentry Creek is a tributary of Laurel Creek in Johnson County and flows through a
mountainous, forested watershed primarily within the CNF. It has about 6.5 km of brook trout
water beginning at 826 m (2,710') elevation (Strange and Habera 1997). Allopatric, southern
Appalachian brook trout inhabit the stream above a large falls at about 1,024 m (3,360'). Below
the falls is a 4.3-km section containing both brook and rainbow trout. Downstream (from the
USFS boundary to the confluence with Laurel Creek), rainbow trout predominate, although a few
brook trout and some brown trout may be present. All of Gentry Creek’s named tributaries from
Grindstone Branch upstream (i.e., Cut Laurel Branch, Kate Branch, and Gilbert Branch) also have
native, southern Appalachian brook trout populations (Strange and Habera 1997). The entire
watershed is currently under general statewide trout angling regulations.
Gentry Creek was surveyed by TWRA in the 1960s and by the USFS in the 1970s to
document the presence of brook trout (reviewed by Bivens 1984). Bivens (1984) recommended
that a barrier be constructed below Grindstone Branch and rainbow trout removed from the area
upstream. This has not been attempted to date and the USFS has no stated plans to do so, thus
providing an opportunity to monitor population trends in the sympatric zone. A station at 963 m
elevation (3,160') in the sympatric zone was sampled in 1992 (Figure 2-39; Strange and Habera
1994) and was added to the annual monitoring program in 1996. Sample site location and effort
details, along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in Table 2-26.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and other species sampled at the Gentry
Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-27. Total trout abundance (density and standing crop)
decreased again in 2004 to the lowest level observed since monitoring began (18.48 kg/ha).
Only one adult rainbow trout was captured again in 2004 (as in 2003), along with three YOY
(Figure 2-40), but rainbows are typically quite small (<50 mm) and just beginning to recruit to the
sampling gear at this time of year in Gentry Creek. Brook trout YOY abundance was limited in
2004, but the population size structure was otherwise relatively well balanced, with some fish in
the 178-mm and 203-mm size classes.
Floods have been implicated in the alteration of species composition in favor of rainbow
trout where they occur sympatrically with brook trout (Seegrist and Gard 1972; Nagel 1991) and
this may have happened in Gentry Creek. Two floods occurred in this watershed after the 1992
sample and by 1996, trout abundance had changed from predominantly brook trout to
predominantly rainbow trout (Figure 2-41). However, brook trout relative abundance began a
steady increase in 1999 (coinciding with the beginning of the drought), exceeded 90% in 2002,
and remained there in 2003 and 2004 (standing crop) (Figure 2-41). Brook trout relative
abundance in Rocky Fork’s sympatric zone recovered rather quickly after the severe 1994 flood
(Section 2.3.2) and despite floods in two consecutive years, it appears that Gentry Creek’s brook
trout have also recovered and are capable of long-term coexistence with rainbow trout.
91
Gentry Creek supports a quality wild trout fishery featuring brook trout that management
should maintain and emphasize. Continued monitoring at the Gentry Creek station will be
important to further understand brook and rainbow trout interactions in sympatry and to gauge the
ability of rainbows to replace brook trout. It is recommended that no efforts to remove rainbow
trout or enhance brook trout be initiated in Gentry Creek while this monitoring is underway so that
only natural processes can be studied.
92
Gentry Creek Monitoring Station
Laurel
Creek
Greer
Branch
Falls
Gilbert
Branch
Hwy. 91
Gentry
Creek
Gentry Creek
FT 51
Dry
Branch
Monitoring
Station
N. Fork Gentry Creek
Kate
Branch
FT 51
Gentry Creek
FR 123
Cut Laurel
Branch
Grindstone
Branch
Atchison
Branch
TN
NC
sympatric zone on Gentry Creek.
93
Table 2-26. Site and sampling information for Gentry Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420041601
Sample Date
30 June
Watershed
County
Johnson
Quadrangle
Grayson 219 SW
Lat-Long
36.55928 N, 81.71131 W
Reach Number
06010102-27,0
Elevation (ft)
3,180
Stream Order
2
Land Ownership
USFS
Fishing Access
Excellent
Description
This monitoring station ends at the eighth crossing by the adjacent trail (beginning at the
parking area near Cut Laurel Branch).
Effort
Station Length (m)
122
Sample Area (m²)
525
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
500
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
4.3
Maximum depth (cm)
67
Canopy cover (%)
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
37
63
161 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
Sand
10
5
Gravel
35
30
Rubble
35
40
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
5
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
6.2; normal
Temperature (C)
13.3
pH
6.5
14
N/M
10
94
Gentry Creek sampled 30 June 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
3
3
3
4
Trace
0.1
Trace
0.01
0.01
57
57
76
RBT >90 mm
1
1
1
1
86
86.0
1.64
1.64
1.64
19
19
19
BKT ≤90 mm
4
4
4
9
14
3.5
0.27
0.27
0.60
76
76
171
BKT >90 mm
22
25
22
33
870
34.8
16.57
14.58
21.87
476
419
629
Mottled sculpin
42
176
42
810
1043
5.9
19.87
4.72
91.03
3,352
800
15,429
Totals
72
209
72
857
38.35
21.22
115.15
3,980
1,371
16,324
2,013
Note: RBT = rainbow trout; BKT = brook trout.
95
Gentry Creek
20
Number of Fish
6/30/04
Rainbow
Brook
15
Rainbow trout
n=4
28-199 mm
10
Brook trout
n = 26
59-212 mm
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-40. Length frequency distributions for brook and rainbow
trout from the 2004 Gentry Creek sample.
100
Density
90
Standing Cro p
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Flood
Flood Flood
Flood
Drought
0
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
Year
Figure 2-41. Relative brook trout abundance at the Gentry Creek
monitoring station.
96
'04
2.3.5
Summary
Data from the monitoring stations discussed above continue to suggest that rainbow trout
may have no particular competitive advantage and could exist for many years at some
"equilibrium" with brook trout. Complete replacement of brook trout might only be possible
through opportunism, such as a succession of late winter/early spring floods that severely
weaken or eliminate brook trout year classes (rainbow trout cohorts are affected less; Strange
and Habera 1995, 1996).
Clark and Rose (1997) recognized that replacement of brook trout by rainbow trout has
not been explained by the conventional theory involving a niche shift induced by the presence of
a superior competitor. Their modeling documented the importance of year-class failures (e.g.,
those caused by floods), but predicted that rainbows would not replace brook trout if such failures
occurred infrequently (intervals of 10-20 years). Even with year-class failures at 3-year intervals,
it required 80 years for a simulated brook trout population to be eliminated. However, Nagel
(1991) modeled small, isolated brook trout populations for 30-year periods and reported high
probabilities of extinction (56% for 2.5-km streams, 92% for 0.5-km streams) with year class
failures at 5-year intervals and no sympatric rainbow trout.
TWRA’s monitoring indicates that trout year class failures related to floods or other events
probably occur, on average, at an interval of between 3 and 10 years, but the local extinction
probabilities projected by Nagel (1991) have not been observed (Strange and Habera 1998b).
Additionally, while Larson et al. (1995) observed fluctuations in rainbow trout density over a 14year period (which included a large flood) and they displaced brook trout at times as the most
abundant species in the lower part of the study stream, brook trout were never eliminated.
Furthermore, Clark and Rose (1997) included both species when a year-class failure occurred in
their simulations, but typical late-winter/early spring floods would likely affect only brook trout
reproduction. This could be expected to provide long-term advantages for rainbows, as might
have been the case in upper Doe River (Habera et al. 2000, 2004), but monitoring data from
Rocky Fork and Gentry Creek suggest no such benefit. Therefore, it would seem to require an
unusual circumstance (perhaps three or four successive year-class failures) to facilitate
replacement or extinction of brook trout populations. However, droughts such as the one that
occurred throughout east Tennessee during 1998-2002 may help compensate for brook trout
population declines related to floods by having a greater impact on rainbow trout. This appears to
have happened in Rocky Fork, Birch Branch, and Gentry Creek (Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.4).
It remains unclear what conditions or events (if any) enable rainbow trout to eventually
eliminate brook trout, thus monitoring at the four stations discussed above (and occasionally Doe
River) should continue. Currently, the outlook for Tennessee’s brook trout populations is much
more positive than it was a decade ago (Habera et al. 2001b).
97
2.4
OTHER STREAMS
These streams or stream segments typically have not previously been sampled, although
qualitative surveys may have been conducted (e.g., to check for brook trout). Primary objectives
were to document species composition and abundance (quantitative samples) or to determine the
presence or absence of wild trout (qualitative samples).
2.4.1
Meadow Branch
Study Area
Meadow Branch arises near Stratton Gap along the Tennessee/North Carolina border in
Monroe County and joins Sugar Cove Branch near Round Mountain for form North River. Its
mountainous, forested watershed lies entirely within the CNF. Shields (1951) did not include
Meadow Branch in his survey of trout streams in the Tellico River watershed. He did, however,
report that a good population of adult trout (presumably rainbows) was present, although
fingerlings were scarce, in North River at the confluence of Sugar Cove Branch and Meadow
Branch. He also indicated that half of the fish from observed during that survey were stream
reared (i.e., wild). Shields (1951) also recommended that all of the upper tributaries of North
River (including Meadow Branch) be stocked with 700 fingerling rainbow trout each year.
Shields (1951) made no specific mention of brook trout in Meadow Branch or any of the
tributaries to North River, but a TWRA list of brook trout streams transmitted to the USFS in 1970
(compiled by P. Wilkins and based on R. Tatum’s survey) included Meadow Branch and Roaring
Branch (a Meadow Branch tributary). TWRA, the USFS, and TVA cooperated on a project in
1991 to remove rainbow trout (with rotenone) from 2.6 km (1.6 mi.) in lower Meadow Branch and
establish an allopatric brook trout population. A similar project was completed in 1.9 km (1.2 mi.)
of Sugar Cove Branch the preceding year. Meadow Branch’s brook trout were determined to be
of hatchery origin in 1991 (Strange and Habera 1992) and currently occupy a 3.2 km (2.0 mi.)
section of the stream beginning at a falls at about 854 m (2,800’). Roaring Branch contains
another 1.1 km of hatchery-origin brook trout. If no brook trout were present at the time of
Shields’ survey (1951), these populations were established through stocking from Tellico
Hatchery. TWRA’s records indicate that about 9,000 catchable brook trout and 10,000 fingerlings
were released in Meadow Branch during 1952-1968. Roaring Branch was also stocked with over
2,200 brook trout (mostly catchables) from Tellico Hatchery during 1955-1964. Meadow Branch
is currently under wild trout management (no stocking), with a three-fish creel limit and a singlehook, artificial-lures-only gear restriction.
Prior to 2004, quantitative surveys of Meadow Branch were conducted in 1991 and 1995.
The 1991 sample site (Strange and Habera 1992) was located in the upper portion of the stream,
above the brook trout restoration zone. The three 1995 stations (Strange and Habera 1996) were
located in the restoration zone and were sampled to evaluate development of the brook trout
population in this area. The 2004 effort included the middle and upper stations (2 and 3) sampled
in 1995 (Figure 2-42) and was conducted to determine the current status of the brook trout
98
population (nearly 13 years after the restoration project). Sample site location and effort details,
along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in Table 2-28.
Catch data and abundance estimates for brook trout (no other species were present)
sampled at the Meadow Branch sites in 2004 are given in Table 2-29. Brook trout abundance at
both stations was near the statewide average (21 kg/ha; Habera et al. 2003a). Additionally,
standing crop estimates at the 2004 stations, which correspond to stations 2 and 3 in 1995, were
quite similar to the earlier estimates (see below).
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
1995
7.08
12.82
28.41
2004
--
22.16
20.19
The abundance of YOY at both stations indicated successful natural reproduction during
the previous spawning season, and several harvestable fish (152-mm size class and larger) were
also present (Figure 2-43).
Meadow Branch now supports a wild brook trout fishery that is easily accessible to
anglers. Brook trout have become firmly established in the restoration area and should need
little future attention. The current angling regulations are adequate for maintaining this resource,
thus no management changes are recommended. The 2004 (or 1995) stations might be sampled
again periodically to check the status of the brook trout population.
99
Meadow Branch
Hwy. 165
(Cherohala Skyway)
TN
NC
Hwy. 165
Round Mtn.
Branch
Sugar Cove
Branch
McNabb
Creek
Meadow
Branch
Laurel
Branch
Sample
Stations
North
River
Rd.
2
North River Rd.
Hwy. 165
FR 61
1
Roaring
Branch
North River
Big Cove
Branch
NC
TN
Tellico
River Rd.
Tellico
River
Sycamore Creek
Figure 2-42. Location of the 2004 sampling station on Meadow Branch.
100
Table 2-28. Site and sampling information for Meadow Branch in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Site Code
420041501
420041502
Sample Date
22 June
28 June
Watershed
Tellico River
Tellico River
County
Monroe
Monroe
Quadrangle
Big Junction 140 SE
Big Junction 140 SE
Lat-Long
35.32181 N, 84.05932 W
35.32466 N, 84.05161 W
Reach Number
06010204-54,0
06010204-54,0
Elevation (ft)
3,200
3,400
Stream Order
2
2
Land Ownership
USFS
USFS
Fishing Access
Good
Good
Description
Site 2 from 1995; begins
~250 m upstream of the
conf. w/ Roaring Branch
Site 3 form 1995; begins
~50 below a small trib.
entering from the LBD
Station Length (m)
100
106
Sample Area (m²)
440
530
Personnel
2
2
1
1
Voltage (AC)
400
400
Removal Passes
3
2 (rain prevented 3rd pass)
Effort
Habitat
Mean width (m)
4.4
5.0
Maximum depth (cm)
75
71
Canopy cover (%)
80
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
49
38
51
62
140 (suboptimal)
151 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
35
5
35
Sand
35
10
25
10
Gravel
5
20
10
25
Rubble
5
20
10
30
Boulder
5
30
15
35
Bedrock
15
15
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
2.5; normal
N/M
Temperature (C)
15.3
14.6
pH
6.9
6.9
26
26
N/M
N/M
15
15
101
Table 2-29.
Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations on
Meadow Branch sampled 22 and 28 June 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
BKT ≤90 mm
28
28
28
30
140
5.0
3.18
3.18
3.41
636
636
682
BKT >90 mm
16
16
16
16
835
52.2
18.98
18.98
18.98
364
364
364
22.16
22.16
22.39
1,000
1,000
1,046
Totals
44
44
44
46
975
Station 2
BKT ≤90 mm
28
28
28
29
112
4.0
2.11
2.11
2.19
528
528
547
BKT >90 mm
25
25
25
25
958
38.3
18.08
18.08
18.07
472
472
472
20.19
20.19
20.25
1,000
1,000
1,019
Totals
53
53
53
54
1,070
Note: BKT = brook trout.
102
Meadow Branch
Station 1
25
6/22/04
Brook trout
n = 44
52-211 mm
Number of Fish
20
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
25
6/28/04
Brook trout
n = 53
55-200 mm
Number of Fish
20
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-43. Length frequency distributions for brook trout
from the 2004 Meadow Branch samples.
103
279
305
2.4.2
South Fork Citico Creek
Study Area
South Fork Citico Creek originates near Strawberry Knob on the Tennessee/North
Carolina border and flows northwest between Brush Mountain and Sassafras Ridge to its
confluence with North Fork, forming Citico Creek (a Tellico Reservoir tributary). The entire South
Fork Citico Creek watershed (Monroe County) is located within the CNF’s Citico Creek
Wilderness area. Shields (1951) described South Fork Citico Creek as supporting the largest
population of harvestable rainbow trout of any stream in the area. The section upstream of Falls
Branch was reported to have a density of 3,000 rainbows/mile and a need for more angling
pressure. Downstream of this area, Shield (1951) noted siltation problems associated with at
logging operation and recommended stocking of adult fish as far upstream as was accessible by
vehicle. TWRA’s stocking records indicate that South Fork Citico Creek was stocked with over
43,000 catchable rainbow trout during 1952-1976 (about 1,900/year). Catchable brook trout were
also stocked during 1952 (884), 1953 (1,650), and 1965 (545). South Fork Citico Creek does not
currently support brook trout, but Fall Branch supports 4.2 km (2.6 mi.) of hatchery-origin brook
trout. Shields (1951) did not mention the presence of brook trout in Falls Branch—only rainbows
in its lower section. The brook trout population currently inhabiting Falls Branch is likely the result
of the brook trout stocked there by TWRA in 1955 (400 fingerlings) and 1958 (500 adults).
South Fork Citico Creek had not been sampled recently by TWRA because gasolinepowered electrofishing gear cannot be used in the wilderness area. However, the recent
acquisition of several DC-powered electrofishing units (Section 2.1) made quantitative sampling
possible for this stream. Accordingly, a site near Ike Camp Branch (Figure 2-44) was identified
and sampled in September 2004 to characterize the wild trout population present. Site location
and sampling effort details, along with habitat and water quality information are summarized in
Table 2-30.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the South
Fork Citico Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-31. The existing wild rainbow trout
population (23.57 kg/ha) was somewhat below average (29 kg/ha; Habera et al. 2003a) in terms
of abundance, but a strong 2004 cohort was present, along with several fish in the 203-mm and
229-mm size classes (Figure 2-45). A sample of 35 rainbow trout was retained as part of the
cooperative effort with the University of Tennessee for otolith-based age and growth analysis.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were also sampled at the South Fork Citico site in 2004 and
comprised 26 families representing 29 identified genera (Table 2-32). The most abundant
organisms were caddisflies, stoneflies, and mayflies, which together represented 84% of the
sample. Total taxa richness was 40 and EPT taxa richness was 26. Based on the EPT taxa
richness value and the overall biotic index at this site (4.0), the relative health of the benthic
community was classified as good.
104
South Fork Citico Creek supports a good wild rainbow trout population that ranks it among
the better streams south of GSMNP. Additionally, it provides anglers with a wilderness trout
fishing opportunity. It is currently subject to wild trout angling regulations (three-fish creel, 229mm minimum size limit, and single-hook artificial lures only), which are considered adequate for
maintaining the resource. No management changes are recommended at this time.
105
FR 26
Citico
FR 59
Citico Rd.
(FR 35-1)
Creek
TN
Indian
Boundary
Lake
North
Fork
Sample Site
Citico
Ike
Camp
Branch
Citico Creek
Wilderness
South
Creek
Eagle
Branch
Hwy.
165
Fork
Grassy
Branch
Citico
Creek
Falls
Branch
Hwy. 165
TN
NC
Figure 2-44. Location of the 2004 sampling station on South Fork Citico Creek.
106
NC
Table 2-30. Site and sampling information for South Fork Citico Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420043001
Sample Date
30 September
Watershed
Little Tennessee River
County
Monroe
Quadrangle
White Oak Flats 140 NE
Lat-Long
35.39343 N, 84.07751 W
Reach Number
06010204-62,0
Elevation (ft)
1,880
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
USFS
Fishing Access
Good
Description
Begins ~200 m upstream of the confluence with Ike Camp Br.
(in the Citico Creek Wilderness Area).
Effort
Station Length (m)
160
Sample Area (m²)
1,680
Personnel
13
3
Voltage (AC)
500
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
10.5
Maximum depth (cm)
100
Canopy cover (%)
70
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
50
50
169 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
Sand
5
Gravel
20
30
Rubble
25
35
Boulder
35
20
Bedrock
25
15
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
25.3; normal
Temperature (C)
13.4
pH
6.7
15
N/M
10
107
Table 2-31. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for one station on South Fork
Citico Creek sampled 30 September 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
124
133
124
143
706
5.3
4.20
3.91
4.51
792
738
851
RBT >90 mm
89
94
89
101
3,254
34.6
19.37
18.33
20.80
560
530
601
106
130
106
155
836
6.4
4.98
4.04
5.90
774
631
923
38
42
38
50
212
5.1
1.26
1.15
1.52
250
226
298
29.81
27.43
32.73
2,376
2,125
2,673
Longnose dace
W. blacknose dace
Totals
357
399
357
449
5,008
108
120
9/30/04
Rainbow trout
n = 213
58-233 mm
Number of Fish
100
80
60
40
20
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-45. Length frequency distribution for rainbow trout from
the 2004 South Fork Citico Creek sample.
109
305
Table 2-32. Benthic organisms sampled in South Fork Citico Creek in 2004 (Field # RDB-093004-25). Total sampling effort was 3 h.
Order
Family
Genus / species
Number
Percent
0.6
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
2
8.0
COLEOPTERA
Elmidae
Psephenidae
Promoresia tardella larvae and adults
Stenelmis adults
Psephenus herricki
14
2
12
Atherix lantha
3
8
8
3
6.3
DIPTERA
Athericidae
Chironomidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Hexatoma
11.1
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae
Baetis
Ephemerellidae early instars
Heptageniidae
Rithrogena
Stenonema early instars
Stenonema pudicum
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia
15
10
4
5
4
1
0.3
HETEROPTERA
Gerridae
Gerris remigis 1 male
1
Corydalidae
Nigronia serricornis
3
Chloroperlidae
Peltoperlidae
Perlidae
Sweltsa
Peltoperla
Acroneuria abnormis
Acroneuria carolinensis
Eccoptura xanthenes
Paragnetina immarginata
Isogenoides hansoni
Isoperla
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) proteus type
1
19
10
3
1
32
4
6
7
0.9
MEGALOPTERA
23.6
PLECOPTERA
Perlodidae
Pteronarcyidae
49.3
TRICHOPTERA
Apataniidae
Brachycentridae
Glossosomatidae
Goeridae
Hydropsychidae
Limnephilidae early instar
Philopotamidae
Rhyacophilidae
Apatania
Micrasema burksi
Glossosoma
Goera sp. cf. fuscula
Arctopsyche irrorata
Ceratopsyche pupa
Ceratopsyche alhedra
Ceratopsyche macleodi
Ceratopsyche slossonae
Ceratopsyche sparna
Cheumatopsyche
Diplectrona modesta
Dolophilodes distinctus
Rhyacophila carolina
Rhyacophila fuscula
Rhyacophila torva
TOTALS
Taxa richness = 40; EPT taxa richness = 30; bioclassification = 4.0 (Good).
110
3
35
1
9
14
1
61
1
12
1
4
12
1
10
1
6
1
351
100
2.4.3
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Study Area
Gulf Fork Big Creek originates north of Snowbird Mountain near the Tennessee/North
Carolina border in Cocke County and is a tributary to the French Broad River. The entire stream
is located on private land. Shields (1950) considered the portion of Gulf Fork Big Creek upstream
from its confluence with Raven Branch to be an excellent rainbow trout stream. He reported a
density of 2,000 harvestable trout per mile in the lower portion of the “Gulf” (the upper 9.6 km or 6
mi. of Gulf Fork Big Creek) and noted that no stocking was necessary in that area. Although
Shields (1950) does not mention them, two headwater tributaries of Gulf Fork Big Creek (Brown
Gap Creek and Middle Prong Gulf Creek) currently support 5.2 km (3.3 mi.) of native, southern
Appalachian brook trout.
The trout fishery in Gulf Fork Big Creek has been substantially supported with hatchery
fish over the years. Catchable rainbow trout have been stocked annually since 1951
(~1,600/year), primarily downstream of the Gulf. Fingerling rainbow and brown trout have
occasionally been stocked as well. While the success of stocking fingerling rainbow trout is
difficult to assess, (wild rainbows have long existed in this stream), no self-sustaining brown trout
population ever developed. However, because of its size and abundance of forage species, Gulf
Fork Big Creek appears to offer the potential to support a wild brown trout population.
Consequently, TWRA initiated a new effort to establish brown trout in Gulf Fork Big Creek by
transplanting ~150 wild fish (YOY through 330 mm) from Beaverdam Creek and Laurel Creek in
September 2001. An additional 80 wild browns from Doe River were transplanted to the same
portion of Gulf Fork Big Creek in September 2002.
One site on Gulf Fork Big Creek, located at 756 m (2,480’) near the confluence with Deep
Gap Creek, was previously sampled in 1993 and identified a small (about 8 kg/ha) wild rainbow
trout population (Strange and Habera 1994). Another quantitative sample was planned for 2004
to evaluate the success of the brown trout introductions and to check the abundance of the wild
rainbow trout population further downstream. A site in the introduction zone (Figure 2-46) was
established and sampled in July. Site location and effort details, along with habitat and water
quality information, are summarized in Table 2-33.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species collected at the Gulf
Fork Big Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-34. Four adult brown trout (original
transplants) were captured in a qualitative survey (~400 m) of the introduction zone in July 2002,
but no YOY were found. Another qualitative survey of the same area in June 2003 produced two
adults and five YOY (70-80 mm). Two more adult browns (one was 420 mm) and three YOY (8289 mm) were captured during the depletion sample (129-m site) in July 2004. Because of the
large individual captured (an original transplant), brown trout standing crop (11.96 kg/ha) equaled
that of the wild rainbow trout present (11.92 kg/ha). While there was an abundance of YOY
rainbow trout, only eight adults were captured (Figure 2-47). This might indicate a recruitment
111
bottleneck (which seems to be somewhat characteristic of other area streams) that could be a
factor for any new brown trout population.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were also sampled at the Gulf Fork Big Creek site in 2004
and comprised 37 families representing 53 identified genera (Table 2-35). The most abundant
organisms were caddisflies, stoneflies, true flies (dipterans), and mayflies, which together
represented about 78% of the sample. Total taxa richness was 60 and EPT taxa richness was
39. Based on the EPT taxa richness value and the overall biotic index at this site (4.5), the
relative health of the benthic community was classified as good.
Brown trout are now surviving and reproducing in a portion of Gulf Fork Big Creek, but it is
not yet possible to determine whether or not a self-sustaining population will become established.
Ideally, a wild brown trout population will develop and expand beyond the introduction zone,
adding a new facet to the trout fishery in Gulf Fork Big Creek. If brown trout can utilize the
abundant food source (i.e., forage fish) and adapt to the existing habitat conditions, they might
actually be more successful than the existing rainbow trout population has been. Periodic
qualitative monitoring is recommended every 2-3 years at the 2004 station to track the progress
of this project. At this point, it is unlikely that any additional transplant stocking would be
warranted. This stream is currently subject to general trout angling regulations, which are
adequate for maintaining the resource and no changes are recommended.
112
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Chestnut
Mtn.
Raven
Branch
Gulf
Baker
Branch
Tom
Creek
John
Mtn.
Fork
Grassy Fork
Sample site and
brown trout
introduction
zone
Big Bull
Mtn.
Big
Rag
Mtn.
Creek
Rich
Mtn.
Moss Camp
Creek
Cates
Creek
Middle
Prong Gulf
Creek
Deep
Gap Creek
Brown
Gap Creek
TN
TN
NC
NC
I-40
Figure 2-46. Location of the 2004 sampling station on Gulf Fork Big Creek.
113
Table 2-33. Site and sampling information for Gulf Fork Big Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042001
Sample Date
23 July
Watershed
French Broad River
County
Cocke
Quadrangle
Waterville 173 SE
Lat-Long
35.82189 N, 83.04703 W
Reach Number
06010105-4,0
Elevation (ft)
2,170
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Good
Description
Site ends about 25 m downstream of the Rag Mountain Rd.
bridge.
Effort
Station Length (m)
129
Sample Area (m²)
851
Personnel
6
2
Voltage (AC)
500
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
6.6
Maximum depth (cm)
95
Canopy cover (%)
80
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
54
46
149 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
10
5
Gravel
20
25
Rubble
35
35
Boulder
25
35
Bedrock
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
17.3; normal
Temperature (C)
17.8
pH
7.0
16
N/M
15
114
Table 2-34. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the station on Gulf Fork
Big Creek sampled 23 July 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L.
C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
125
161
126
196
397
2.5
4.67
3.70
5.76
1,892
1,481
2,303
RBT >90 mm
9
9
9
10
617
68.6
7.25
7.25
8.06
106
106
118
BNT ≤90 mm
3
3
3
4
17
5.7
0.20
0.20
0.27
35
35
47
BNT >90 mm
2
2
2
2
1,001
500.5
11.76
11.76
11.76
24
24
24
39
50
39
70
310
6.2
3.64
2.84
5.10
588
458
823
207
234
213
255
499
2.1
5.86
5.26
6.29
2,750
2,503
2,996
Mottled sculpin
78
130
78
206
1,037
8.0
12.19
7.33
19.37
1,528
917
2,421
Warpaint shiner
1
1
1
1
12
12.0
0.14
0.14
0.14
12
12
12
Creek chub
1
1
1
1
17
17.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
12
12
12
River chub
4
4
4
4
302
75.5
3.55
3.55
3.55
47
47
47
C. stoneroller
42
44
42
49
800
18.2
9.40
8.98
10.48
517
494
576
Fantail darter
51
89
51
161
140
1.6
1.65
0.96
3.03
1,046
599
1,892
Greenfin darter
2
2
2
15
18
9.0
0.21
0.21
1.59
24
24
176
N. hogsucker
7
7
7
8
472
67.4
5.55
5.55
6.34
82
82
94
571
737
578
982
8,663
6,794
11,541
Longnose dace
W. blacknose dace
Totals
5,639
Note: RBT = rainbow trout; BNT = brown trout.
115
66.27
57.93
81.94
Gulf Fork Big Creek
80
7/23/04
Number of Fish
70
Rainbow
Brown
Rainbow trout
n = 134
44-232 mm
60
50
Brown trout
n=5
82-420 mm
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76 102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-47. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brook
trout from the 2004 Gulf Fork Big Creek sample.
116
Table 2-35. Benthic organisms sampled in Gulf Fork Big Creek in 2005 (Field # RDB-072304-18). Total sampling effort was 3 h.
Order
Family
Genus / species
Number
Percent
0.7
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
3
8.7
COLEOPTERA
Helichus adults
Optioservus larva
Promoresia tardella adults
Psephenus herricki
4
1
23
10
Atherix lantha
Blepharicera pupae
Antocha
Dicranota
Hexatoma
Tipula
8
2
33
1
1
5
1
1
Isonychiidae
Baetis
Drunella tuberculata
Ephemerella
Eurylophella
Serratella
Ephemera
Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus
Heptagenia
Stenacron pallidum
Stenonema
Isonychia
4
2
16
2
2
1
1
2
2
5
3
Ancylidae
Pleuroceridae
Ferrissia
Elimia
12
26
Gerridae
Gerris remigis male and female
2
Corydalidae
8
Aeshnidae
Gomphidae
Boyeria grafiana
Gomphus (Genus A) rogersi
Lanthus vernalis
Stylogomphus albistylus
2
5
1
1
Chloroperlidae
Leuctridae
Peltoperlidae
Perlidae
Sweltsa
Leuctra
Peltoperla
Acroneuria carolinensis
Paragnetina immarginata
Paragnetina sp.
Perlesta
Isoperla holochlora
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) biloba type
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) proteus type
1
3
15
2
9
1
3
5
23
17
Dryopidae
Elmidae
Psephenidae
11.9
DIPTERA
Athericidae
Blephariceridae
Chironomidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
9.2
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae
Ephemerellidae
Ephemeridae
Heptageniidae
8.7
GASTROPODA
0.5
HETEROPTERA
1.8
MEGALOPTERA
2.1
ODONATA
COLEOPTERA
18.1
DIPTERA
Perlodidae
Pteronarcyidae
38.4
EPHEMEROPTERA
Brachycentridae
Glossosomatidae
Goeridae
Hydropsychidae
COLEOPTERA
Lepidostomatidae
Leptoceridae
Limnephilidae
Philopotamidae
Polycentropodidae
DIPTERA
Rhyacophilidae
Uenoidae
Brachycentrus spinae
Micrasema
Glossosoma
Goera pupa
Arctopsyche irrorata
Ceratopsyche sparna
Cheumatopsyche
Diplectrona modesta
Lepidostoma
Ceraclea flava
Pycnopsyche guttifer/scabripennis group
Pycnopsyche luculenta group
Nyctiophylax
Polycentropus
Rhyacophila carolina larva & pupa
Rhyacophila fuscula
Neophylax consimilis
117
15
1
3
1
1
61
4
2
4
3
4
18
7
3
2
2
4
33
437
100
2.4.4
Camp Creek
Study Area
Camp Creek originates near the junction of Greene Mountain and Reynolds Ridge in
Greene County and is a tributary to the Nolichucky River. The upper 1.9 km (1.2 mi.) of Camp
Creek lies within the CNF, while the remainder flows through private land being used for
agricultural and residential purposes. Large springs along the valley floor provide the main
source of water for Camp Creek (Shields 1950). Shields (1950) regarded Camp Creek as having
a limited amount fishable water (in the lower portion of the stream) that produces “some nice
trout”. While he described this stream as having no capacity for trout reproduction, he also
considered it to have “good carrying ability” because of by the volume of cold water provided by
the springs. Shields (1950) recommended that stocking be continued to maintain the fishery and
TWRA’s records indicate that Camp Creek has been stocked annually since 1951. Rainbow trout
(adults and fingerlings), brown trout (adults and fingerlings), and brook trout (adults) have been
used over the years, although catchable rainbows (~3,000/year) represent the bulk of the fish
released.
Upper Camp Creek was qualitatively surveyed by TWRA in 1988 to evaluate its fish
community (Bivens 1989). A 91-m sample section at 424 m (1,390’)--near Caney Branch-produced four fingerling rainbow trout that might have been the result of natural reproduction.
Given that basic water quality conditions were quite suitable for trout, Bivens (1989) attributed the
poor existing population to limited reproduction caused by the lack of spawning habitat (silty,
sandy substrate with little to no gravel). Little had changed in this area by August 2003, when
another qualitative survey (~250 m) produced five adult wild rainbow trout (170-300 mm) and six
YOY (Habera et al. 2004). Water temperature was ideal (14.6 ºC), although spawning habitat
was still poor. However, another qualitative survey further downstream in 2003 (near the
confluence with Water Fork) revealed the presence of an excellent wild rainbow trout population
(a 250-mm wild brown trout was also captured). A quantitative sample at this site (Figure 2-48)
was conducted in July 2004 with the assistance of the Cherokee Chapter of Trout Unlimited.
Location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality information, are summarized in
Table 2-36.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and other species collected at the Camp
Creek station in 2004 are given in Table 2-37. The total rainbow trout standing crop estimate
(40.48 kg/ha) places Camp Creek well above the statewide average for other wild rainbow trout
populations (28.91 kg/ha; Habera et al. 2003a). The size structure of the Camp Creek population
was excellent, with abundant YOY, sub-adults, and adults, including numerous fish ≥229 mm
(Figure 2-49). Spawning habitat and fish cover (particularly in the form of pools) is much better in
this portion of Camp Creek as compared with the upper section. Water quality conditions
(particularly temperature) also remain quite suitable for trout in lower Camp Creek (Table 2-36),
and its fertility (alkalinity of 100 mg/L CaCO3 makes it ideal for supporting a substantial trout
118
population with excellent growth. Rainbow trout have obviously taken advantage of these
features some time since Shields’ (1950) survey and are now prospering in lower Camp Creek.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were also sampled at the Camp Creek site in 2004 and
comprised 33 families representing 33 identified genera (Table 2-38). The most abundant
organisms were caddisflies, mayflies, and true flies (dipterans), which together represented about
84% of the sample. Total taxa richness was 42 and EPT taxa richness was 26. Based on the
EPT taxa richness value and the overall biotic index at this site (4.3), the relative health of the
benthic community was classified as good.
Lower Camp Creek supports an excellent wild rainbow trout population that future
management should maintain and emphasize. In fact, the abundance and size structure of Camp
Creek’s rainbow trout would rank it among Tennessee’s best wild trout fisheries, including
Beaverdam Creek, Stony Creek, Rocky Fork, and North River. Accordingly, no stocking of
rainbow trout fingerlings is necessary in lower Camp Creek (e.g., downstream of the Dry Creek
confluence) and the stocking of catchable trout in this area should not be increased. Most
stocking in Camp Creek should focus on the upper portion of the stream, where spawning habitat
and cover are limiting factors. No brown trout were collected in the 2004 sample and only one
was captured in the 2003 qualitative survey. Occasional stockings of brown trout might be
beneficial for helping maintain this facet of the Camp Creek trout fishery. Establishment of a wild
brown trout fishery in lower Camp Creek might be accomplished by transplanting wild fish (as in
Gulf Fork Big Creek). This stream is currently subject to general trout angling regulations, which
are considered adequate for maintaining the resource. No management changes are
recommended at this time.
119
Camp Creek
College
Creek
Holley
Creek
Hwy. 107
Simpson
Island
Brown Bridge
River
Hwy. 351
Nolichucky
Sentelle Rd.
Creek
Hwy. 351
Sample
Site
Camp
Wolf
Branch
Water
Fork
Camp
Creek
Figure 2-48. Location of the 2004 sampling station on Camp Creek.
120
Middle
Creek
Table 2-36. Site and sampling information for Camp Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420041701
Sample Date
13 July
Watershed
Nolichucky River
County
Greene
Quadrangle
Greystone 190 SW
Lat-Long
36.11814 N, 82.74211 W
Reach Number
06010108-49,0
Elevation (ft)
1,305
Stream Order
4
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Fair
Description
Begins ~20 m below confl. with Water Fork (~120 m upstream
of Sentelle Rd. bridge)
Effort
Station Length (m)
167
Sample Area (m²)
1,570
Personnel
11
3
Voltage (AC)
125
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
9.4
Maximum depth (cm)
95
Canopy cover (%)
85
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
32
68
138 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
20
15
Gravel
15
20
Rubble
35
50
Boulder
25
15
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
40.2; normal
Temperature (C)
17.2
pH
7.4
174
N/M
100
121
Table 2-37. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the station on Camp
Creek sampled 13 July 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L.
C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
44
48
44
56
245
5.1
1.56
1.43
1.82
306
280
357
RBT >90 mm
84
86
84
90
6,169
71.7
39.29
38.36
41.10
548
535
573
W. blacknose dace
369
397
379
415
1163
2.9
7.41
7.00
7.67
2,529
2,414
2,643
Mottled sculpin
477
608
544
672
2,845
4.7
18.12
16.29
20.12
3,873
3,465
4,280
1
1
1
1
5
5.0
0.03
0.03
0.03
6
6
6
12
12
12
15
241
20.1
1.54
1.54
1.92
76
76
96
C. stoneroller
703
770
741
799
8,209
10.7
52.29
50.50
54.45
4,904
4,720
5,089
Snubnose darter
106
127
106
149
219
1.7
1.39
1.15
1.61
809
675
949
1
1
1
1
2
2.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
6
6
6
N. hogsucker
58
60
58
65
1,423
23.7
9.06
8.76
9.81
382
369
414
White sucker
24
25
24
29
1,028
41.1
6.55
6.28
7.59
159
153
185
2
2
2
7
77
38.5
0.49
0.49
1.72
13
13
45
Green sunfish
21
32
--
--
236
7.4
1.50
--
--
204
Lamprey
17
34
17
100
276
8.1
1.76
0.88
5.16
217
108
637
1,919
2,203
2,013
2,399
132.72 153.01
14,032
12,820
15,280
Spotfin shiner
Creek chub
Swannanoa darter
Rock bass
1
Totals
22,138
1
141.00
--
Note: RBT = rainbow trout; lampreys were Lampetra sp. ammocoetes.
122
--
Camp Creek
50
7/13/04
Rainbow trout
n = 128
64-296 mm
Number of Fish
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-49. Length frequency distribution for rainbow trout from the
2004 Camp Creek sample.
123
305
Table 2-38. Benthic organisms sampled in Camp Creek in 2004 (Field # RDB-071304-55). Total sampling effort was 3 h.
Order
Family
Genus / species
Number
Percent
2.6
COLEOPTERA
Macronychus glabratus adult
Optioservus ovalis larvae and adults
Psephenus herricki
1
5
4
Athericidae
Chironomidae
Empididae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Atherix lantha
Tipula
10
14
1
4
1
Baetidae
Caenidae
Ephemeridae
Heptageniidae
Baetis
Caenis
Ephemera
Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus
Stenacron interpunctatum
Stenonema early instars
Stenonema ithaca
Isonychia
Paraleptophlebia
16
3
3
12
6
45
7
19
2
Physidae
Pleuroceridae
Elimia
1
18
Veliidae
Rhagovelia obesa male and female
2
Corydalidae
Sialidae
Sialis
3
2
Aeshnidae
Cordulegastridae
Gomphidae
Boyeria vinosa
Cordulegaster maculata
Gomphus (Genus A) rogersi
9
1
2
Leuctridae
Peltoperlidae
Perlidae
Pteronarcyidae
Leuctra
Peltoperla
Paragnetina media
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) biloba type
7
5
1
2
Brachycentridae
Glossosomatidae
Hydropsychidae
Brachycentrus spinae
Glossosoma
Ceratopsyche bronta
Ceratopsyche morosa
Ceratopsyche slossonae
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche betteni/depravata
Elmidae
Psephenidae
7.9
DIPTERA
29.7
EPHEMEROPTERA
Isonychiidae
Leptophlebiidae
5.0
GASTROPODA
0.5
HETEROPTERA
1.3
MEGALOPTERA
3.1
ODONATA
3.9
PLECOPTERA
45.9
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
Hydroptilidae pupa
Leptoceridae
Limnephilidae
Philopotamidae
Uenoidae
Triaenodes pupa
Pycnopsyche guttifer/scabripennis group
Pycnopsyche luculenta group
Neophylax consimilis
Neophylax etnieri
124
32
1
22
2
6
76
15
1
1
1
2
3
6
7
381
100
2.4.5
Shell Creek
Study Area
Shell Creek flows north from Hump Mountain (between Big Ridge and Bear Ridge) on the
Tennessee/North Carolina border in Carter County and is a tributary to Buck Creek and the Doe
River. Most of Shell Creek lies above 915 m (3,000’) and the entire stream is located on private
land which is forested or is being used for residential or small-scale agricultural purposes. The
lower portion of the stream (below about 976 m [3,200’]) flows though livestock pastures and fields
that likely allow it to warm too much to be suitable for trout. Shields (1950) indicated that Shell
Creek had some trout water on its upper end, but was rapidly warmed and silted as it flowed
through the previously mentioned open areas. He also reported that there was no trout
reproduction and a heavy level of fishing pressure. Later, Whitworth and Strange (1979) included
Shell Creek in their brook trout surveys, but found only rainbows there at that time. TWRA’s
records indicate occasional stockings of Shell Creek with rainbow trout fingerlings (average of
1,000 per effort) during 1952-1986. Fingerling (2,000) and adult (100) brook trout were also
stocked in 1952 and 1953. No trout have been stocked by TWRA since 1986.
Information provided by an angler in 2003 regarding the potential presence of brook trout in
upper Shell Creek prompted a qualitative survey of this area and Doll Branch (Section 2.4.6) in
June 2004. Although no brook trout were located during this effort, an exceptional wild rainbow
trout population was found in Shell Creek at 1,049 m (3,440’). A quantitative sample was planned
for this portion of the stream (Figure 2-50) was conducted in July. Location and effort details,
along with habitat and water quality information, are summarized in Table 2-39.
Catch data and abundance estimates for the Shell Creek sample in 2004 are given in Table
2-40. The rainbow trout standing crop estimate for this sample (129 kg/ha) was the second highest
obtained for any wild trout population since quantitative sampling began in 1991. Only the 1997
sample for rainbow trout from upper Roan Creek (179 kg/ha; Strange and Habera 1998) exceeded
it. The size structure of the Shell Creek rainbow trout population was also excellent, comprising an
abundance of YOY and numerous fish in the 203-mm and 229-mm size classes, as well as two fish
in the 330-mm size class (Figure 2-51). Water quality characteristics for upper Shell Creek (Table
2-39) are, at most, moderately suggestive of above-average fertility, thus it is not completely clear
why this stream supports such an abundance of wild trout.
Shell Creek supports an outstanding wild rainbow trout population that future management
should emphasize. Apparently this population became established through TWRA’s fingerling
stockings some time after Shields’ surveys in 1950. Obviously, no additional stocking is
necessary. Despite the abundance and size of the trout in Shell Creek, it probably has only local
importance as a trout fishery because of its size, location, and lack of access. This stream is
currently subject to general trout angling regulations, which are considered adequate for
maintaining the resource.
125
Shell Creek
Doe River
Roan Mountain
Buck Creek
U.S. Hwy. 19E
Shell Creek
Hampton
Creek
Hwy. 143
Doe River
Heaton
Creek
Shell
Creek
Sugar
Hollow
Creek
Sample
Site
L. Prong
Hampton
Creek
TN
NC
Figure 2-50. Location of the 2004 sampling station on Shell Creek.
126
Table 2-39. Site and sampling information for Shell Creek in 2004.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420042101
Sample Date
28 July
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.15193 N, 82.03641 W
Reach Number
06010103-16,2
Elevation (ft)
3,430
Stream Order
2
Land Ownership
Private
Fishing Access
Poor
Description
Begins ~300 m below
confl. with Doll Branch
Effort
Station Length (m)
114
Sample Area (m²)
456
Personnel
5
1
Voltage (AC)
400
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
4.0
Maximum depth (cm)
78
Canopy cover (%)
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
50
50
139 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
20
Sand
15
10
Gravel
20
40
Rubble
25
30
Boulder
20
20
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
2.6; normal
Temperature (C)
16.4
pH
7.1
35
N/M
20
127
Table 2-40. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the station on Shell
Creek sampled 28 July 2004.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass Fish
(g)
Wt. (g)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
97
120
97
145
314
2.6
6.89
5.53
8.27
2,632
2,127
3,180
RBT >90 mm
111
113
111
117
5,568
49.3
122.11
120.01
126.49
2,478
2,434
2,566
Totals
208
233
208
262
5,882
129.00
125.54
134.76
128
5,110
4,561
5,746
Shell Creek
80
7/28/04
70
Rainbow trout
n = 208
36-349 mm
Number of Fish
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-51. Length frequency distribution for rainbow trout from the
2004 Shell Creek sample.
129
330
2.4.6
Qualitative Surveys
Six streams were qualitatively surveyed in 2004 using backpack electrofishing gear to
determine the status of various trout management projects or to check for the presence of wild
trout populations. The results of these surveys are summarized below.
Dark Hollow, Haunted Hollow, and Stillhouse Branch
These three streams are small tributaries, entering from the northwest, of Beaverdam
Creek on the CNF in Johnson County (see Laurel Bloomery quadrangle map). Only Stillhouse
Branch had enough flow and potential fish habitat when surveyed in mid-June to warrant
electrofishing. A 150-m sample of the stream segment (averaging 1.0-1.5 m wide) beginning at
the confluence with Beaverdam Creek (36.58458 N, 81.83003 W) produced numerous YOY
rainbow trout, eight sub-adult rainbows (100-150 mm), and one sub-adult brown trout. Stillhouse
Branch appears to support a resident wild trout population, but is generally too small to provide
much of a fishery. It may also be important as a spawning and nursery stream for rainbow and
brown trout from Beaverdam Creek.
Upper Laurel Creek
In addition to the monitoring station inside the CNF boundary (Section 2.2.9), Laurel
Creek was also sampled near the confluence with Atchison Branch at ~747 m (2,450’) in 1994
(Strange and Habera 1995) and produced an estimated 100 kg/ha of wild brown trout. However,
no information existed regarding any wild trout populations in the 6.4 km of Laurel Creek
upstream of this area. An 80-m section of Laurel Creek near its confluence with Flatwood Branch
(36.52622 N, 81.80172 W), ~5 km upstream of the 1994 site, was electrofished in June to check
for wild trout. Although flow, water temperature, and habitat seemed suitable for trout, none were
collected or observed. Blacknose dace, stonerollers, creek chubs, white suckers, fantail darters,
and snubnose darters were abundant. Despite the apparent lack of a resident wild trout
population in this part of Laurel Creek, it is possible that brown trout from farther downstream use
it during the spawning season. Flatwood Branch and Shingletown Branch were also visually
checked, but both are very small streams that flow through open fields and pastures with little or
no canopy cover (or potential for supporting trout).
Doll Branch
Doll Branch is a headwater tributary to Shell Creek (Section 2.4.5) and was surveyed in
June, along with upper Shell Creek, to determine the presence of brook trout or any other wild
trout population. A 100-m section of Doll Branch (36.15115 N, 82.02994 W) at ~1,134 m (3,720’)
was electrofished and produced only two adult rainbow trout (200-230 mm). Only about 1.5 km of
Doll Branch remains above this point, much of which is probably too small to support trout;
therefore, it is unlikely that brook trout (or many more rainbow trout) exist upstream of the area
surveyed.
130
Buck Ridge Branch
Buck Ridge Branch is a headwater tributary to Beaverdam Creek in Shady Valley
(Johnson County). A 200-m section of this stream near 976 m (3,200’; 36.49639 N, 81.96272 W)
was sampled in July at the request of a landowner, who indicated that brook trout might be
present. No brook trout were observed, but a wild rainbow trout population of average
abundance for a stream this size (~2 m in mean width) was found throughout the area surveyed.
Additionally, one wild brown trout and one stocked rainbow trout (most likely from Beaverdam
Creek) were also collected.
131
3.
TAILWATER ACCOUNTS
Hill (1978) recognized that tailwater trout fisheries in the Tennessee Valley present unique
fishery management problems and opportunities for which no standard solutions or practices
apply. The difficulties inherent in sampling tailwaters (i.e., large waters, fluctuating flows, the
inability to maintain a closed population, etc.) make it difficult at best to collect quantitative data
from these systems. Most tailwater trout populations are also largely "artificial", with abundance
and age-class densities dependent upon stocking rates and, typically, little or no significant
natural reproduction. Annual tailwater sampling in Region IV began in 1991 (Bivens et al. 1992),
but the initial efforts provided only basic information such as species composition, catch per unit
effort (CPUE) estimates, and size distributions from a few stations. Because TWRA had
insufficient information for managing the increasingly popular trout fisheries in the Clinch, South
Fork Holston, and Watauga river tailwaters, more intensive studies focusing on assessment of
trout abundance, the fate of stocked fish, and angler use were conducted (Bettoli and Bohm
1997; Bettoli et al. 1999; Bettoli 1999; Bettinger and Bettoli 2000). Region IV’s two other tailwater
trout fisheries—Ft. Patrick Henry (South Fork Holston River) and Cherokee (Holston River)—are
also increasing in importance and popularity. Additional information for managing these fisheries
is now being obtained through annual monitoring.
3.1
SAMPLING METHODS
The electrofishing stations and sampling protocols for the Norris, South Holston, and
Wilbur tailwaters in 2004 were those established by Bettoli and Bohm (1997), Bettoli et al. (1999),
and Bettoli (1999). Sampling effort consisted of a 10-min (pedal time) run at each station with a
boat-mounted electrofishing system (120 pulses/s DC, 4-5 amps). All electrofishing on these
tailwaters occurred during periods of generation by one unit (turbine). The Norris and Cherokee
tailwaters were sampled at night with flows of ~114 m3/s (4,000 CFS). The South Holston and
Wilbur tailwaters were sampled during the day at flows of ~71 m3/s (2,500 CFS) because of
safety considerations. Only trout were collected during these efforts.
Because of the limited amount of trout habitat in the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater, both
shorelines and the mid-channel area were electrofished with boat-mounted systems (120
pulses/s DC, 5 amps) from the dam to the river bend approximately 1.8 km downstream. This
area was partitioned into two contiguous stations on each bank (four total). Daily operations at
Ft. Patrick Henry dam typically consist of repeated cycles where one unit generates for 1 h (~88
m3/s or 3,100 CFS), then is off for 2 h. Electrofishing efforts on the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater are
conducted during the day with one unit generating.
3.2
TAILWATER MONITORING
TWRA began sampling the Norris and South Holston tailwaters in 1999 (Habera et al.
2000) and the Wilbur tailwater in 2000 (Habera et al. 2001a). These tailwaters are monitored at
132
12 stations each year in February and early March to provide an assessment of the overwintering
trout populations present before stocking begins. The four Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater monitoring
stations (established in 2002) are also sampled in early March each year. The Cherokee
tailwater (Holston River) stations (established in 2003) are sampled in the fall, as trout survival
over the summer is a more important aspect of that fishery.
3.2.1
Norris (Clinch River)
Study Area
The Clinch River originates in southwestern Virginia and enters Tennessee in Hancock
County. Norris Dam impounds the Clinch River 197 km (122 mi) downstream in Anderson
County, forming 13,846-ha (34,213-acre) Norris Reservoir. Hypolimnetic discharges created
coldwater habitat and rainbow trout were stocked in the tailwater shortly after completion of the
dam in 1936 (Tarzwell 1939). The Tennessee Game and Fish Commission stocked trout during
1950-1970 and managed the river as a year-round fishery (Swink 1983). Because chronic low
dissolved oxygen levels and a lack of minimum flow limited development of the trout fishery
(Boles 1980; Yeager et al.1987), TVA began a Reservoir Release Improvements Program (TVA
1980) to address these problems. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were improved initially by
fitting the turbines with a hub baffle system (Yeager et al. 1987). Later (1995 and 1996), both
turbines were replaced with a more efficient autoventing system (Scott et al. 1996), which
maintains dissolved oxygen around 6 mg/L. A minimum flow of 5.7 m3/s (200 CFS) was
established in 1984 and has been maintained since then by a re-regulation weir located about 3.2
km (2 mi) downstream of the dam (Yeager et al. 1987). The weir was upgraded in 1995 to
increase its holding capacity and improve public access (Bettoli and Bohm 1997).
Improvements in dissolved oxygen and minimum flows increased the abundance and
distribution of benthic invertebrates, as well as trout carrying capacity and trout condition (Yeager
et al. 1987; Scott et al. 1996). The Norris tailwater currently supports a 20-km (12.5-mi) fishery
for rainbow and brown trout before entering Melton Hill Reservoir. Put-and-take and put-andgrow management is accomplished by annually stocking both fingerling and adult trout. Bettoli
and Bohm (1997) documented a small amount of natural reproduction by rainbow trout, but
recruitment to the tailwater fishery was considered to be minimal. Some of this natural
reproduction may come from Clear Creek, which large rainbow trout enter to spawn each winter.
Banks and Bettoli (2000) attributed the lack of brown trout reproduction in the Norris tailwater to
poor spawning substrate and unsuitable flows during spawning season. These factors probably
limit successful rainbow trout reproduction as well.
The first intensive study of the Norris tailwater trout fishery was conducted between 1995
and 1997 (Bettoli and Bohm 1997). Results of that investigation indicated that the river supported
an overwinter standing crop of 112 kg/ha composed of about 80% rainbow trout and 20% brown
trout. Among other Tennessee tailwaters, only South Holston and Wilbur had higher trout
biomass estimates at that time (Bettoli 1999). Bettoli and Bohm (1997) reported a relatively low
return rate for stocked rainbow trout (19%) and very few brown trout were observed in the creel.
133
The abundance of most cohorts of catchable (208-330 mm) rainbow trout stocked in the tailwater
was found to be limited more by natural mortality than by angler harvest, thus the fishery is
primarily supported by fingerling rainbow trout stocking (Bettoli and Bohm 1997; Bettinger and
Bettoli 2000). High growth rates of stocked trout (about 20 mm/month for rainbows) allow the
tailwater to produce quality-sized trout within a relatively short time (Bettoli and Bohm 1997).
Fishing pressure on the Norris tailwater in 2001 (Bettoli 2002) was similar to what it had been in
1996-1997 (Bettoli and Bohm 1997), although mean trout catch rates per hour and per trip
decreased relative to the previous survey.
The locations of TWRA’s 12 monitoring station on the Norris tailwater are provided in
Figure 3-1 and additional sample location and effort details are summarized in Table 3-1.
The 12 Norris tailwater stations produced 266 trout weighing 115 kg in 2004 (Table 3-2).
The catch included 225 rainbows (85%) and 41 browns (15%). Relative abundance of brown
trout was 26% by weight. The total catch for 2004 was down 38% from 2003 (the highest catch
produced since monitoring began), but the total biomass sampled was down only 12%. Rainbow
trout ranged from 176-610 mm, browns ranged from 195-693 mm. Most rainbow trout were in the
203-406 mm length groups, while most browns were in the 229-356 mm length groups (Figure 32). Substantial growth and recruitment of rainbow trout was indicated by a shift in the modal size
groups from 229-279 mm in 2003 to 279-356 mm in 2004. Notwithstanding decreases in the
number of fish in each size class, brown trout size population size structure did not change much
relative to 2003.
The mean catch rate for rainbow trout ≥178 mm (considered fully recruited to the sampling
gear) in 2004 dropped back to the lowest level since 2000 and the corresponding catch rate for
brown trout was the lowest obtained since TWRA began annual monitoring in 1999 (Figure 3-3).
Brown trout were more abundant than rainbows in 1999 (72%), but rainbow trout catch rates have
subsequently increased and the relative abundance brown trout has dropped below 50%.
However, despite the general declines in total brown trout catch rates and relative abundances
since 1999, catch rates for larger trout (≥356 mm) have simultaneously increased (Figure 3-3).
The CPUE for trout ≥356 mm in 2004 was the highest observed to date (42.7 fish/h) and has
been steadily increasing since 2001 (Figure 3-3). This trend for trout is primarily the result of
increasing catches of large rainbows. In fact, since 2000, most of the trout in this size group have
been rainbows. Browns typically dominate the larger size classes (≥356 mm) in other Region IV
tailwaters, and they still dominate the catch of trout ≥457 mm (18 in.) in the Norris tailwater,
although their advantage over rainbows was small in 2004 (Figure 3-3). The catch rate for
browns ≥457 mm has been relatively steady at about 3.5 fish/h since 2001.
The Norris tailwater was stocked with 437,000 trout during calendar year 2004 (Figure 34). About 72% (313,000) of these were rainbow trout, most of which (89%) were fingerlings.
About 22% of the rainbow trout fingerlings (mean length, 38 mm or 1.5 in.) and 74% of the brown
trout fingerlings (mean length, 33 mm or 1.3 in.) stocked in 2004 were produced at the Eagle
134
Bend Hatchery. On average, over a quarter million (255,000) 102-330 mm (4-13 in.) trout (85%
rainbows) were stocked in the Norris tailwater each year during 1990-2001 (Figure 3-4)—the
highest stocking rate of any Tennessee tailwater. Stocking rate increases since 2001 are related
to recommendations provided in the Norris tailwater management plan (Habera et al. 2002b).
Management Actions and Recommendations
TWRA’s management goal for the Norris tailwater is to enhance the quality of trout
angling opportunities available to the variety of anglers who fish there. The Agency’s current
management plan for the Norris tailwater trout fishery (Habera et al. 2002b) features increased
stocking rates for rainbow and brown trout fingerlings, along with several other actions intended
to ultimately fulfill the management goal for this extremely valuable trout fishery. The prescribed
annual stocking rates for 2002-2005 are 296,000 rainbow trout (260,000 fingerlings) and 120,000
brown trout.
The Norris tailwater trout fishery will be evaluated by electrofishing the 12 established
monitoring stations each year in late February (or early March) to determine catch rates
(abundances) and size structures and evaluate progress toward management plan objectives.
The primary objectives for enhancing the Norris tailwater are to increase monitoring catch rates
for trout ≥178 mm (7 in.) and ≥356 mm (14 in.) 25% (relative to the 2000-2002 average) by 2005
(Habera et al. 2002b):
Objective
CPUE (fish/h)
2000-02 average
By 2005
By 2006
≥178 mm
161
200
200
≥356 mm
24
30
30
≥457 mm
6.4
--
8
An additional objective for 2006 is to increase the catch rate for trout ≥457 mm (18 in.) by 25%
(Habera et al. 2002b). If the catch rate objectives for 2005 can be achieved, then the basic
management strategy of the plan will be considered successful and the increased stocking rates
will be maintained. Mean catch rates for trout ≥178 mm (7 in.) exceeded 200 fish/h in 2003, but
fell back below this level in 2004. However, mean catch rates for trout ≥356 mm (14 in.)
exceeded the management plan objective in 2003 and 2004, while the catch rate for trout ≥457
mm (18 in.) approached the management plan objective in 2004 (Figure 3-3).
If increased stocking rates and other actions identified in the management plan do not
result in achievement of the plan’s goal, then other options (e.g., those summarized by Bettoli
2001) will be considered. It is recommended that the general, statewide trout angling regulations
currently applicable to the Norris tailwater be maintained during the remainder of the existing
management plan’s term (through 2006).
135
Norris Tailwater
Hwy. 441
Norris Lake
Norris Dam
4
I-75
Hwy. 25
Miller
Island
3
Coal
Creek
1
Clear Creek
Weir
2
5
Massengill
Bridge
Peach
Orchard
6
Hwy. 441
7
8
Hwy. 61
Cane
Creek
I-75
9
Clinch River
Hwy. 25
10
Llewellyn
Island
Hwy. 61
Hinds
Creek
11
12
Eagle Bend
Hatchery
CLINTON
Figure 3-1. Locations of the Norris tailwater (Clinch River) monitoring stations.
136
Table 3-1. Location and sampling information for the 12 stations on the Norris tailwater, 23 February 2004.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
Coordinates
Reach Number
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
1
420040101
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.22222N-84.09250W
06010207-19,1
79.7
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
2
420040102
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.20466N-84.08651W
06010207-19,1
77.2
612
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
3
420040103
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.20370N-84.10006W
06010207-19,1
76.3
603
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
4
420040104
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.20654N-84.12265W
06010207-19,1
75.6
602
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
5
420040105
Anderson
Lake City 137 NW 36.20433N-84.12580W
06010207-19,0
74.4
601
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420040106
Anderson
Lake City 137 NW 36.19722N-84.12778W
06010207-19,0
74.1
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
7
420040107
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.18611N-84.11667W
06010207-19,0
73
601
150 V DC
120 PPS, 5 A
8
420040108
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.17500N-84.11806W
06010207-19,0
72.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420040109
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.16028N-84.12028W
06010207-19,0
70.4
610
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420040110
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.14681N-84.11853W
06010207-19,0
69.5
608
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420040111
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.14306N-84.11750W
06010207-19,0
69.1
604
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420040112
Anderson
Lake City 137 NW 3613151.N-84.12628W
06010207-19,0
67.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
137
Table 3-2. Catch data for the 12 electrofishing stations on the Norris tailwater sampled 23 February 2004.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
2,700
100
0
100
100
0
100
176-610
274
12,571
227
12,798
96
4
100
98
2
100
43
8
51
196-478
294-582
17,758
4,869
22,627
84
16
100
78
22
100
Rainbow
Brown
15
3
18
254-370
283-370
4,733
1,060
5,793
83
17
100
82
18
100
Rainbow
Brown
14
4
18
266-435
276-314
5,628
991
6,619
78
22
100
85
15
100
Rainbow
Brown
7
1
8
204-426
259
2,496
191
2,687
88
13
100
93
7
100
Rainbow
Brown
20
6
26
214-407
195-415
6,208
1,821
8,029
77
23
100
77
23
100
Rainbow
Brown
12
2
14
227-446
292-315
4,310
555
4,865
86
14
100
89
11
100
Rainbow
Brown
14
2
16
228-413
230-686
4,149
4,401
8,550
88
13
100
49
51
100
Rainbow
Brown
11
10
21
204-430
286-693
4,634
14,246
18,880
52
48
100
25
75
100
Rainbow
Brown
19
1
20
224-410
298
6,601
246
6,847
95
5
100
96
4
100
Rainbow
Brown
176-525
262-415
Totals
40
3
43
13,335
1,279
14,614
93
7
100
91
9
100
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
225
41
176-610
195-693
85,123
29,886
85
15
74
26
Overall
266
115,009
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
3
0
3
408-469
Rainbow
Brown
27
1
28
Rainbow
Brown
Species
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
Totals
5
Totals
6
Totals
7
Totals
8
Totals
9
Totals
10
Totals
11
Totals
12
138
Total Weight
(g)
2,700
Norris Tailwater
40
Rainbow Trout
n = 225
Number of Fish
35
Range: 176-610 mm
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686 711 737
Length Class (mm)
40
Brown Trout
n = 41
Number of Fish
35
Range: 195-693 mm
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686 711 737
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-2. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Norris tailwater
monitoring stations in 2004.
139
Norris Tailwater
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
250
Rainbows
Browns
All
2006 Objective (All)
CPUE (fish/h)
200
150
100
50
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
50
Rainbo ws
CPUE (fish/h)
40
B ro wns
A ll
30
20
10
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Trout ≥457 mm (18”)
12
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
10
Browns
All
8
6
4
2
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Figure 3-3. Trout CPUEs for the Norris tailwater samples.
140
2004
Norris Tailwater
550
Number stocked (x1000)
500
450
Rainbows
Browns
All
2002-2005 Objective (416,000 Total)
400
350
300
2002-2005 Rainbow Trout Objective (296,000)
250
200
150
2002-2005 Brown Trout Objective (120,000)
100
50
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Figure 3-4. Recent trout stocking rates for the Norris tailwater.
Most stocked fish are fingerlings (about 37,000
catchable rainbow trout are stocked each year).
141
3.2.2
Cherokee (Holston River)
Study Area
Cherokee Dam impounds a 12,272 ha (30,300 acre) reservoir (Cherokee Reservoir) on
the Holston River near Morristown. The dam is located about 83 km (52 mi.) upstream of the
confluence of the Holston and French Broad rivers in Knoxville and the reservoir has an 8,879km2 (3,428-mi.2) watershed. Historically, low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels (Higgins 1978) and
the lack of a minimum flow in the Cherokee tailwater impacted its aquatic communities. TVA
established, as part of its release improvements program, a minimum flow of 9.2 m3/s (325 cfs) in
1988, then began to address low DO levels in 1995 (Scott et al. 1996). Dissolved oxygen levels
in the tailwater were improved by installation of a liquid oxygen injection system in the forebay of
the reservoir and through turbine venting aided with hub baffles (Scott et al. 1996). These
improvements have helped TVA meet the DO target of 4.0 mg/L in the tailwater and as a result,
fish and macroinvertebrate communities have substantially improved.
Seasonal temperature regimes, in addition to water quality and quantity problems, have
been an impediment to fisheries management in the Cherokee tailwater (Hill and Brown 1980).
Pfitzer (1962) characterized temperatures as being too cold for warmwater fishes in the spring
and too warm for trout in the summer. Although the tailwater has generally been considered to
support a warmwater fish community (Scott et al. 1996; Hill and Brown 1980), TWRA has
occasionally stocked trout there. Records from TWRA’s Erwin hatchery indicate that a total of
39,000 rainbow, brown, and brook trout (including both fingerlings and catchable fish) were
stocked in the tailwater during 1951-1955. Subsequent stockings with fingerling brown trout in
1974 and fingerling rainbows in 1993 likely had limited success as they took place prior to TVA’s
water quality improvements. Beginning in 1995, trout stocking efforts in the Cherokee tailwater
became more consistent and the number of fish stocked increased as water quality improved.
The Cherokee tailwater received a total of 226,000 trout in 2004, including 152,000 fingerling
rainbow trout and 30,000 brown trout. Fingerling and catchable rainbow trout have been stocked
annually since 1999 at an average rate of 88,300/year and 35,300/year, respectively. Brown trout
fingerlings have been stocked annually since 2001 at an average rate of about 35,900/year.
The upper 30 km (18.8 mi.) of the
Cherokee tailwater, from the dam
A large brown trout from the 2004
Cherokee tailwater sample.
downstream to the vicinity of Nance Ferry, is
now being managed as a put-and-take and
put-and-grow trout fishery. This tailwater is
quickly gaining popularity among area
anglers and appears to be drawing some
pressure away from other Region IV
tailwaters (particularly the Clinch River).
Because of the warmer water and abundant
food supply (particularly caddis flies), trout
grow extremely well and provide the potential for producing a quality trout fishery.
142
The 12 electrofishing monitoring stations on the Cherokee tailwater (Figure 3-5) were
electrofished again in October 2004 to evaluate the trout fishery following the elevated
temperatures of summer and early fall. Sample site locations and effort details are summarized
in Table 3-3. Temperature data were also collected at two sites during March-December 2004.
The 12 Cherokee tailwater electrofishing stations produced 10 trout in 2004 (Table 3-4),
whereas only two trout were captured during the 2003 sampling efforts. The 2004 catch
comprised five rainbow trout and five brown trout, yielding a mean catch rate for the 12 stations of
5.0 fish/h ≥178 mm (7 in.). Catch rates for trout ≥356 mm and ≥457mm were 2.5 and 1.0 fish/h,
respectively. As in 2003, high water temperatures in the tailwater during summer and fall of 2004
(Figure 3-6) were most likely responsible for the scarcity of trout in the October electrofishing
samples. However, despite the warm temperatures in 2003 (Habera et al. 2004), some brown
trout stocked in 2001 and 2002 survived and continued to grow well, as indicated by the 405-542
mm fish collected in 2004. Water temperatures during the summer and early fall of 2004
(measured hourly by Onset StowAway® TidbiTTM loggers) were similar to those in 2003.
Temperature exceeded 20 °C from mid-August through early October at two sites (13 km and 19
km below the dam) and did not remain below 20 °C until late October (Figure 3-6). During a
three-week period from 27 August through 16 September, water temperatures averaged 23.2 °C
(73.8 °F) at both sites and often reached 24-25 °C (Figure 3-6). The warm water temperatures
during 2004, as in 2003, were likely related to above average precipitation and above average
flows from Cherokee dam necessary to maintain proper reservoir levels. Warmwater species
(e.g., buffalo Ictiobus sp., gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum, channel catfish Ictalurus
punctatus) were abundant, indicating that the Cherokee tailwater probably provides marginal trout
habitat during the summer and early fall of most years.
Despite the low trout catch rates during the 2003 and 2004 sampling efforts, the Cherokee
tailwater is well worth managing as a trout fishery. Even though temperature-induced summer/fall
bottlenecks appear to limit carry-over, rainbow and brown trout exceeding 508 mm (20 in.) have
been produced and angling opportunities should be available during most months. The thermal
regime and, to an extent, benthic community of the Cherokee tailwater make it more like a natural
trout stream than other Tennessee tailwaters. The abundance of trichopterans (particularly
Cheumatopsyche spp.; Habera et al. 2004) undoubtedly enhances trout growth and prolific
caddis hatches during the spring provide excellent flyfishing opportunities. Because of these
features, it warrants more detailed study of trout growth, survival, and angler use. The 12
monitoring stations should be sampled again in 2005 to further evaluate the post-summer/fall
condition of the trout fishery. Additional temperature monitoring should also be conducted for at
least another 1-2 years to document conditions during years with more normal flows. The current
angling regulations are considered appropriate for maintaining this resource. Current stocking
rates should be maintained and no management changes are recommended at this time.
143
Cherokee Tailwater
Hwy. 11 W
Buffalo
Creek
Hwy. 92
7
Cherokee
Dam
Indian Ridge Rd.
6
3
2
8
10
11
9
Indian
Cave
5
1
Cherokee
Lake
Blue
Spring
12
4
Mill Spring
Creek
Nance
Ferry
Hwy. 92
McBee
Island
Jefferson City
Hwy. 11 E
Figure 3-5. Locations of the Cherokee tailwater (Holston River) monitoring stations.
144
Table 3-3. Location and sampling information for the 12 stations on the Cherokee tailwater, 19 October 2004.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
Coordinates
Reach Number
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
1
420043401
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16864N-83.50461W
06010104-3,4
51.8
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
2
420043402
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.17589N-83.51183W
06010104-3,4
51.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
3
420043403
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.17858N-83.51667W
06010104-3,4
50.9
603
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
4
420043404
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16244N-83.52933W
06010104-3,4
49.5
622
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
5
420043405
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16767N-83.53564W
06010104-3,4
49.0
605
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420043406
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.17978N-83.55542W
06010104-3,4
47.0
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
7
420043407
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.18825N-83.56036W
06010104-3,4
46.2
607
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
8
420043408
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.17658N-83.56161W
06010104-3,4
44.7
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420043409
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16733N-83.56281W
06010104-3,4
44.0
604
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420043410
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16633N-83.57314W
06010104-3,4
43.5
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420043411
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.16458N-83.58286W
06010104-3,4
42.7
609
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420043412
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.15339N-83.60217W
06010104-3,4
39.5
631
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
145
Table 3-4. Catch data for the12 electrofishing stations on the Cherokee tailwater sampled 19 October 2004.
Station
1
Species
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
2
Rainbow
Brown
0
1
1
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
272-337
264
351
376
493
493
0
100
100
0
100
100
922
922
0
100
100
0
100
100
2,281
2,281
0
100
100
0
100
100
100
0
100
100
0
100
0
1
1
463
Rainbow
Brown
0
2
2
405-542
Rainbow
Brown
1
0
1
Rainbow
Brown
1,772
3,871
50
50
31
69
5,643
100
100
868
175
1,043
368
0
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
11
1
0
1
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
10
100
0
100
0
Totals
9
368
100
0
100
0
0
0
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
8
83
17
100
0
Totals
7
75
25
100
0
0
0
0
Totals
6
%
Abundance
(weight)
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
5
0
0
0
%
Abundance
(number)
Total Weight
(g)
3
1
4
Totals
4
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
3
Total
Catch
391
536
536
0
0
0
0
Totals
0
0
0
0
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
5
5
Overall
10
Totals
12
Rainbow
Brown
272-391
264-542
146
Cherokee Tailwater
30
Blue Spring (RM 44.0)
Temperature (C)
25
20
15
10
5
23
-M
ar
6Ap
r
20
-A
pr
4M
ay
18
-M
ay
1Ju
n
15
-J
un
29
-J
un
13
-J
ul
27
-J
u
10 l
-A
ug
24
-A
ug
7Se
p
21
-S
ep
5O
ct
19
-O
ct
2N
ov
16
-N
ov
30
-N
ov
14
-D
ec
28
-D
ec
0
Date
30
Indian Cave (RM 40.0)
20
15
10
5
ar
6Ap
r
20
-A
pr
4M
ay
18
-M
ay
1Ju
n
15
-J
un
29
-J
un
13
-J
ul
27
-J
u
10 l
-A
ug
24
-A
ug
7Se
p
21
-S
ep
5O
ct
19
-O
ct
2N
ov
16
-N
ov
30
-N
ov
14
-D
ec
28
-D
ec
0
23
-M
Temperature (C)
25
Date
Figure 3-6. Hourly temperatures at two sites in the Cherokee tailwater (Holston River)
during March-December 2004. The Blue Spring site is about 13 km (8 mi.)
below Cherokee Dam and the Indian Cave site is about 19 km (12 mi.)
below the dam.
147
3.2.3
Wilbur (Watauga River)
Study Area
The Watauga River flows northwest from the mountains of northwestern North Carolina
into Carter County, Tennessee. It is impounded near Hampton, forming Watauga Reservoir
(2,603 ha). Most of the reservoir’s watershed (1,213 km2) is forested and much of the Tennessee
portion lies within the CNF. Wilbur Dam is located 4.5 km (~3 mi.) downstream of Watauga Dam
and impounds a small reservoir. The Watauga River below Wilbur Dam supports a 26-km (16mi.) fishery for rainbow and brown trout before entering Boone Reservoir. Surface area of the
tailwater at base flow is 135 ha (Bettoli 1999). Put-and-take and put-and-grow fisheries are
provided by annually stocking fingerling and adult trout, although there is some natural
reproduction, particularly by brown trout (Banks and Bettoli 2000). General trout angling
regulations apply except in a ‘Quality Zone’ (QZ) extending 4.2 km (2.6 mi.) between Smalling
Bridge and the CSX Railroad Bridge near Watauga (Figure 3-7). A 2-fish creel limit and 356-mm
minimum size limit are in effect within the QZ and only artificial lures may be used.
The Watauga River between Elizabethton and Boone Reservoir has a long history of
degradation (Bivens 1988). Biological surveys during 1970-1982 documented the presence of
only the most pollution-tolerant aquatic life (Mullican and Leming 1970; McKinney et al. 1987).
Consequently, few angling opportunities existed at that time. Reductions in effluent toxicity from
point sources resulted in recovery of macroinvertebrate and fish communities in the lower portion
of the river by the mid to late 1980's. This recovery prompted TWRA to implement a stocking
program and later to establish the QZ in 1989. By the 1990's, water quality improvements and
TWRA’s stocking program had created one of the finest trout fisheries in the state. Bettoli (1999)
estimated that the capacity of the Watauga River to overwinter trout (122 kg/ha) was second only
to the South Fork of the Holston River in Tennessee. Unfortunately, toxic runoff resulting from a
fire at the North American Corporation in February 2000 destroyed the trout fishery in the 16-km
(10-mile) river section downstream of Elizabethton (Habera et al. 2001a). This area includes the
QZ, which had been providing improved opportunities for catching larger trout (Habera et al.
1999, 2000; Bettoli 1999). Despite the nearly complete trout kill, the river’s benthic community
was not substantially impacted (Habera et al. 2001a). Restoration of the trout fishery began later
in 2000 (Habera et al. 2001a) and is now essentially complete. A creel survey of the Wilbur
tailwater during March-October 2002 indicated a 50% increase in fishing pressure since 1998,
making it one of the most heavily fished trout streams in Tennessee (Bettoli 2003).
The 12 monitoring stations on the Wilbur tailwater (Figure 3-7) were electrofished by
TWRA on 17 March 2004. Location and sampling effort details for these stations are provided in
Table 3-5.
The 12 Wilbur tailwater electrofishing stations produced 278 trout weighing over 60 kg in
2004 (Table 3-6). The catch included 201 browns (72%) and 77 rainbows (28%). Brown trout in
the Wilbur tailwater (as in the South Holston tailwater) have typically been more abundant than
148
rainbows. Bettoli (1999) estimated that browns represented 60% of overwintering trout density in
the Wilbur tailwater during 1998-1999, but they declined to 31% in 2001 (13% in the fish kill zone;
Habera et al. 2002a). Since 2001, the relative abundance of brown trout has been in the 69-78%
range. Brown trout ranged from 124-533 mm in the 2004 sample and most fish were in the 229305 mm length groups (Figure 3-8). Rainbow trout ranged from 192-434 mm and most were in
the 203-254 mm length groups (Figure 3-8). The mean CPUE for all trout ≥178 mm (7 in.) was
130 fish/h and has been relatively stable since 2002, despite some fluctuation in the individual
catch rates for rainbow and brown trout (Figure 3-9). Mean catch rates for larger trout (≥356 mm
and ≥457 mm) were relatively unchanged compared to 2003 (Figure 3-9) and typically remain
below those obtained for the Norris and South Holston tailwaters.
The total trout catch rate (≥178 mm) dropped to 2.4 fish/h in the fish kill zone (stations 812) in 2000, then peaked at 198 fish/h at these stations in 2001 (Figure 3-10) because of stocking
associated with restoration efforts. Trout catch rates (≥178 mm) decreased after 2001 as
stocking rates generally declined and appear to have stabilized around 100 fish/h (somewhat
above the pre fish-kill level (Figure 3-10). Additionally, catch rates for larger trout (≥356 mm and
≥457 mm) in the fish-kill zone have also returned to pre fish-kill levels (Figure 3-10). Brown trout
well in excess of 500 mm were present in the lower portion of the river prior to the fish kill, but it
will likely require a few more years to produce detectable numbers of trout in this size range.
About 158,000 trout were stocked in the Wilbur tailwater in 2004 (Figure 3-11). Most of
these (54%) were rainbows and stocking rates were reduced to comply with the Wilbur tailwater
management plan (50,000 fingerlings and 40,000 catchables; Habera et al. 2003b). Additionally,
30,000 brown trout and 54,000 127-mm (5-in.) brook trout were also stocked in 2004. Previously
(1990-1999), about 89,000 trout were stocked annually in the Wilbur tailwater. Most of these
(89%) were rainbow trout and most of the rainbows stocked (60%) were fingerlings. Trout
stocking rates increased following the February 2000 fish kill to about 244,000 (68% rainbows)
per year (Figure 3-11). This included an average of about 50,000 catchable rainbows per year.
Emphasis was placed on fingerlings (particularly in the fish kill zone), as they exhibit the best
growth and have the best chance for long-term survival in the river (Bettoli 1999). Brook trout
fingerlings were added to the stocking program in 2001 and will be stocked annually through
2008 (Habera et al. 2003b). Although anglers have reported catching some brook trout, none
have been captured during annual monitoring. This is likely a result of poor survival associated
with the small size of many of the brook trout stocked prior to 2004 (~25 mm).
A management plan for the Wilbur tailwater was implemented in 2004 and will be in effect
through 2008 (Habera et al. 2003b). The goal of the plan is to complete the restoration of the
trout fishery in the fish kill zone and to maintain a quality trout fishery throughout the tailwater
concurrent with increasing fishing pressure and the variety of anglers who use this resource
(Habera et al. 2003b). Put-and-take management with catchable rainbow trout will continue, but
greater emphasis will be placed upon put-and-grow fisheries for rainbow, brown, and brook trout.
149
The management plan’s basic objectives are to re-establish the abundance and size
structure of the trout fishery in the fish kill zone, optimize rainbow trout stocking rates, and
establish a brook trout fishery (Habera et al. 2003b). The first objective will be met if
electrofishing catch rates average at least 67 fish/h, 9.6 fish/h and 1.2 fish/h for trout ≥178 mm,
≥356 mm, and ≥457 mm, respectively, in the fish kill zone during 2004-2008. It appears that
these catch rates have been attained and will only need to be maintained (or improved). The
second objective will require reductions in the fingerling and catchable rainbow trout stocking
rates to about 40,000 and 50,000 fish, respectively (accomplished in 2004). The need for these
reductions is supported by the lack of a sustained increase in rainbow trout electrofishing catch
rates at higher stocking rates, the continued predominance of brown trout in the overwintering
trout population, and the need to allow for the establishment of a brook trout fishery. Additionally,
Bettoli (1999) considered the stocking rate too high at that time because of relatively poor
rainbow trout survival and condition. The third objective will be met if a mean catch rate of at
least 5 fish/h (≥178 mm) is achieved during the March 2008 electrofishing samples. This
approximates catching one brook trout per monitoring station. The recommended brook trout
stocking rate is 40,000/year during 2004-2008 and the use of at least 127-mm fish (5-in.) is
advised to improve survival. If brook trout can survive and grow as rainbow and brown trout
fingerlings do, they will provide a unique dimension to the Wilbur tailwater trout fishery.
It is recommended that angling regulations currently applicable to the Wilbur tailwater be
maintained during the term of the current management plan (2004-2008).
150
Wilbur Tailwater
US 19E
CSX RR
12
Hunter Bridge
Hwy. 91
Hwy. 37
Hwy. 400
11
4
7
Fish kill
5
Smalling
Bridge
Stony Creek
3
Watauga
River
2
6
Hwy. 321
10
Quality Zone
(special regs. apply)
8
Siam Bridge
ELIZABETHTON
9
Doe River
Hwy. 91
US 19E
Hwy. 321
Figure 3-7. Locations of the Wilbur tailwater (Watauga River) monitoring stations.
151
Wilbur Dam
1
Table 3-5. Location and sampling information for the 12 electrofishing stations on the Wilbur tailwater, 17 March 2004.
Station
Site Code
County
1
420040401
Carter
2
420040402
3
Quadrangle
Coordinates
Reach Number
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
Elizabethton 207 SW 36.35194N-82.13306W
06010103-19,0
33.0
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Carter
06010103-19,0
32.0
608
500 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
420040403
Carter
06010103-19,0
30.3
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
4
420040404
Carter
06010103-18,0
29.5
619
500 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
5
420040405
Carter
06010103-18,0
28.4
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420040406
Carter
06010103-18,0
27.0
604
500 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
7
420040407
Carter
06010103-12,2
25.9
603
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
8
420040408
Carter
Johnson City 198 SE 36.33222N-82.26694W
06010103-12,2
22.4
622
500 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420040409
Carter
06010103-12,0
21.8
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420040410
Carter
06010103-12,0
20.0
601
500 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420040411
Carter
06010103-10,0
18.7
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420040412
Carter
06010103-10,0
17.3
612
500 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
152
Table 3-6. Catch data for the12 electrofishing stations on the Wilbur tailwater sampled 17 March 2004.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
212
6,764
6,976
2
98
100
3
97
100
318
216-376
245
7,672
7,917
3
97
100
3
97
100
228-376
3,570
3,570
0
100
100
0
100
100
4
29
33
225-302
125-533
835
6,814
7,649
12
88
100
11
89
100
Rainbow
Brown
6
46
52
238-354
124-408
1,327
9,179
10,506
12
88
100
13
87
100
Rainbow
Brown
0
11
11
235-368
2,465
2,465
0
100
100
0
100
100
Rainbow
Brown
0
5
5
165-479
2,317
2,317
0
100
100
0
100
100
Rainbow
Brown
18
5
23
230-284
338-465
2,339
2,850
5,189
78
22
100
45
55
100
Rainbow
Brown
26
5
31
192-260
249-321
3,225
1,080
4,305
84
16
100
75
25
100
Rainbow
Brown
5
7
12
219-284
148-327
765
965
1,730
42
58
100
44
56
100
Rainbow
Brown
15
2
17
266-434
326-482
5,674
1,470
7,144
88
12
100
79
21
100
Rainbow
Brown
1
3
4
282
159-357
172
558
730
25
75
100
24
76
100
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
77
201
192-434
124-533
14,794
45,704
28
72
24
76
Overall totals
278
60,498
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
Brown
1
41
42
296
200-351
Rainbow
Brown
1
34
35
Rainbow
Brown
0
13
13
Rainbow
Brown
Species
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
Totals
5
Totals
6
Totals
7
Totals
8
Totals
9
Totals
10
Totals
11
Totals
12
Totals
153
Total Weight
(g)
Wilbur Tailwater
Rainbow Trout
50
n = 77
Range: 192-434 mm
Number of Fish
40
30
20
10
0
76
102
127 152
178 203 229 254
279 305
330 356
381 406 432
457 483
508 533
559 584
610 635
660 686
Length Class (mm)
Brown Trout
Number of Fish
50
n = 201
Range: 124-533 mm
40
30
20
10
0
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-8. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Wilbur tailwater
monitoring stations in 2004.
154
Wilbur Tailwater
250
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
Rainbo ws
CPUE (fish/h)
200
B ro wns
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
A ll
150
100
50
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
Year
25
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
Rainbo ws
CPUE (fish/h)
20
B ro wns
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
A ll
15
10
5
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
6
CPUE (fish/h)
Trout ≥457 mm (18”)
Rainbows
5
Browns
All
4
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
3
2
1
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
Figure 3-9. Trout CPUEs for the Wilbur tailwater samples.
155
Wilbur Tailwater Fish-Kill Zone
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
225
200
CPUE (fish/h)
175
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Trout ≥356 mm (14”) and ≥457 mm (18”)
12
≥356 mm
≥457 mm
CPUE (fish/h)
10
8
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
6
4
2
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 3-10. Trout CPUEs for the fish-kill zone on the Wilbur tailwater.
156
Wilbur Tailwater
500
Rainbows
Browns
Brook
All
450
400
Fish kill
350
300
250
1990-1999 (pre-fish kill) average (89,000 total)
200
150
100
50
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Figure 3-11. Recent trout stocking rates for the Wilbur tailwater. Most
fish stocked were rainbow trout fingerlings (particularly postfish kill). About 32,000 catchable rainbow trout were
stocked annually during 1990-1999 (pre-fish kill) and about
50,000 catchable rainbows have been stocked annually
since 1999.
157
2004
3.2.4
Fort Patrick Henry (South Fork Holston River)
Study Area
Ft. Patrick Henry Dam impounds a
small (362 ha) reservoir (Ft. Patrick Henry
Lake) on the South Fork of the Holston River
near Kingsport. Downstream of the dam, the
river flows through urban and industrial settings
where much of the natural riparian zone has
been altered. The upper 4.7 km (2.9 mi.) of the
Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater has been managed
as a put-and-take and put-andgrow trout
fishery with annual stockings of both catchable
The Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater.
and fingerling rainbow trout. Sub-adult (152178 mm) brown trout have also been stocked since 1996. This tailwater has received little
attention previously, but is of interest to TWRA because of the quality trout fishery that has
developed there. Sample site locations and effort details are summarized in Table 3-7.
The four Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater electrofishing stations (Figure 3-12) produced 55 trout
weighing 13.5 kg in 2004 (Table 3-8). The catch comprised 20 rainbows (36%) and 35 browns
(64%). Rainbow trout ranged from 244-369 mm, brown trout ranged from 230-308 mm, and fish
in the 254- and 279-mm size groups were most common for both species (Figure 3-13). None of
the larger (>400 mm), well-conditioned trout present in 2002 and 2003 were captured in 2004.
Despite an increase in the mean catch rate for brown trout ≥178 mm in 2004, there were
substantial declines in mean catch rates for rainbow trout, as well as for all trout ≥356 mm and
≥457 mm (Figure 3-14). Previously, mean CPUEs for larger trout (≥356 mm; ≥457 mm) in the Ft.
Patrick Henry exceeded those obtained for other Region IV tailwaters (Habera et al. 2003a and
2004). It is not clear what caused the catch rate decreases in 2004, but stocking rates were not
responsible, as they have increased since 2002 (Figure 3-15). About 22,000 rainbow trout (45%
fingerlings) and 9,500 browns have been stocked annually since 1996.
Ft. Patrick Henry is Region IV’s smallest and probably most obscure tailwater trout fishery,
although it appears to have a comparatively unique potential for producing large trout
(notwithstanding their absence from the 2004 samples). This offers anglers the opportunity to
catch trophy-sized fish, such as the 7.07-kg (15.56-lb.) rainbow trout that held the state record for
this species during part of 2002. This fishery is currently subject to statewide trout angling
regulations and no changes are recommended at this time. The current trout stocking rates
should be maintained and the four sampling stations should be sampled annually to obtain
information useful for the future management of this fishery.
158
Ft. Patrick Henry Tailwater
VA
TN
N. Fork Holston River
Hwy. 23
Hwy. 36
Hwy. 11W
Hwy. 11W
S. Fork Holston
Hwy. 36
Hwy. 93
Rt. 355
Holston River
I-181
Kingsport
Long
Island
Hwy. 126
Hwy.
126
Ft. Patrick Henry Lake
3
Sample
stations
1
4
2
Hwy. 93
Ft. Patrick Henry Dam
Hwy. 36
I-81
I-181
Rt. 347
Figure 3-12. Location of the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater (South Fork Holston River)
monitoring stations.
159
Table 3-7. Location and sampling information for the four stations on the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater, 5 March 2004.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
1
420040201
Sullivan
Kingsport
188 SE
2
420040202
Sullivan
3
420040203
4
420040204
Coordinates
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
36.49972N-82.51278W 06010102-4,1
8.0
900
200 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Kingsport
188 SE
36.49917N-82.51278W 06010102-4,1
8.0
900
225 V DC
120 PPS, 5 A
Sullivan
Kingsport
188 SE
36.50583N-82.52306W 06010102-4,0
7.4
900
200 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Sullivan
Kingsport
188 SE
36.50556N-82.52333W 06010102-4,0
7.4
900
225 V DC
120 PPS, 5 A
160
Reach Number
Table 3-8. Catch data for the four electrofishing stations on the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater sampled 5 March 2004.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
1,327
40
37
267-304
2,297
3,624
60
100
63
100
2
255-280
465
33
34
Brown
4
6
255-307
905
1,370
67
100
66
100
Rainbow
7
267-365
2,590
54
64
6
13
264-297
1,434
4,024
46
100
36
100
5
255-369
1,545
24
34
16
21
230-308
Totals
2,934
4,479
76
100
66
100
Total Rainbows
20
244-369
5,927
36
44
Total Browns
35
230-308
7,570
64
56
Overall totals
55
13,497
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
6
244-293
9
15
Rainbow
Species
Rainbow
Brown
Totals
2
Totals
3
Brown
Totals
4
Rainbow
Brown
161
Total Weight
(g)
Rainbow Trout
16
Number of Fish
n = 20
Range: 244-369 mm
12
8
4
0
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
381
406
432
457
483
508
533
559
584
610
635
660
Length Class (mm)
Brown Trout
16
Number of Fish
n = 35
Range: 230-308 mm
12
8
4
0
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
381
406
432
457
483
508
533
559
584
610
635
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-13. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Ft. Patrick
Henry tailwater monitoring stations in 2004.
162
660
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
100
Rainbows
Browns
All
CPUE (fish/h)
80
60
40
20
0
2002
2003
2004
Year
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
60
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
50
Browns
All
40
30
20
10
0
2002
2003
2004
Year
Trout ≥457 mm (18”)
20
CPUE (fish/h)
Rainbows
Browns
All
15
10
5
0
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 3-14. Trout CPUEs for the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater samples.
163
100
90
Rainbows
Browns
80
All
70
60
1990-2004 average (28,000 Total)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Figure 3-15. Recent trout stocking rates for the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater.
The average annual stocking rate was 28,000 trout during
1990-2004.
164
3.2.5
South Holston (South Fork Holston River)
Study Area
The South Holston tailwater extends approximately 22.5 km (13.7 mi.) between the
headwaters of Boone Reservoir and South Holston Dam. The tailwater was created in 1951
when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) completed construction of the dam at South Fork
Holston River Mile (SFHRM) 49.8 in Sullivan County, Tennessee. The reservoir upstream of the
dam has a drainage area of 1,821 km2 and extends upstream for 38.1 km into Washington
County, Virginia. Much of the watershed is forested and includes portions of the CNF
(Tennessee) and the Jefferson National Forest (Virginia). The tailwater has an average width of
61 m and a surface area of about 137 ha.
Turbine discharges from South Holston Dam historically experienced a period of low DO
during summer and fall. While this DO depression was not as severe as those in other TVA
tailwaters, it was not beneficial to the trout fishery. To address concerns about low DO levels and
a lack of minimum flow in the tailwater, TVA constructed an aerating labyrinth weir at SFHRM
48.5 as part of its Reservoir Releases Improvement Program. The weir, completed in December
1991, maintains a minimum flow of 2.55 m2/s (90 CFS) in the tailwater and recovers
approximately 40-50% of the oxygen deficit as water passes over it (Yeager et al. 1993). The
turbines are typically pulsed twice daily to maintain the weir pool. Additionally, releases from
South Holston Dam are now being aerated via turbine venting aided with hub baffles. The weir
and the turbine improvements combine to help maintain the target DO concentration of 6 ppm.
The South Fork Holston River tailwater has been managed as a put-and-take and putgrow-and-take trout fishery with annual stockings of both catchable and fingerling rainbow and
brown trout. The first trout stockings occurred in 1952, when fingerling and adult rainbow and
brook trout were stocked. Investigations conducted for TWRA by Bettoli et al. (1999) have
documented substantial natural reproduction (particularly by brown trout) and an overwintering
biomass (80% brown trout) of 170-232 kg/ha. Establishment of a quality zone with special
regulations was considered, but never officially proposed, during 1992-1993. Later, a quality trout
management regulation based on a 406-559 mm (16-22 in.) protected length range (PLR) was
established for the entire tailwater in 2000. All snagging was banned in 1999 and closure of two
major trout spawning areas to fishing (November-January) also became effective that year.
These measures were taken to protect vulnerable large brown trout during the spawning season
and to potentially improve recruitment.
A study of east Tennessee tailwaters conducted in the early 1950's (Pfitzer 1954) included
the South Holston tailwater, but TWRA made no subsequent surveys of the South Holston
tailwater until 1995. Two monitoring sites were established on the South Holston tailwater in
1995 (Bivens et al. 1996) and were sampled annually (summer) through 1998 to begin compiling
a database on the existing fishery. These efforts were replaced in 1999 with the 12 stations
(Figure 3-16) and protocol established by Bettoli et al. (1999). Sample site location and effort
details are summarized in Table 3-9.
165
The 12 sites on the South Holston tailwater produced 467 trout weighing 165.7 kg in 2004
(Table 3-10). The sample comprised 98 rainbows (21%) ranging from 168-600 mm and 369
browns (79%) ranging from 113-589 mm (Figure 3-17). The 2004 catch represents a 21%
increase over the total catch in 2003 and is the largest catch obtained from any Region IV
tailwater since annual monitoring began. Additionally, the proportion of trout within the PLR (406559 mm) increased from 5% in 2003 to
9% in 2004. Seven rainbow trout within
the PLR were captured in 2004 (the most
since five in that size range were
captured in 1999), and the 600 mm (23.6
in.) fish captured at Station 1 is the
largest rainbow captured to date.
Abundance increases in 2004 were
almost entirely attributable to brown trout
A 600-mm rainbow trout from the 2004
and are likely the result of recruitment
South Holston tailwater samples.
from recent strong brown trout cohorts.
The mean CPUE for trout ≥178 mm (total) increased 30% to 228.3 fish/h in 2004 (Figure
3-18). This was the highest catch rate obtained to date for the South Holston or any other Region
IV tailwater. Most of the change was related to the increase in brown trout CPUE (≥178 mm),
which rose nearly 50 fish/h from 2003 to 2004 (Figure 3-18). Mean catch rates for larger trout
also increased substantially in 2004, and both rainbow and brown trout contributed to these
increases (Figure 3-18). Mean CPUEs for trout ≥356 mm (57.7 fish/h) and ≥457 mm (8.0 fish/h)
were the highest obtained for any Region IV tailwater sample since monitoring began (Figure 318). Additionally, the catch rate for trout in the PLR in 2004 (20.4 fish/h) reached the level
present in 1999 (the highest measured for the South Holston tailwater).
The South Holston tailwater was stocked with 90,000 rainbow trout during calendar year
2004 (Figure 3-19). Brown trout were not stocked and the rainbow trout fingerling stocking rate
was reduced to 50,000 in accordance with the South Holston tailwater management plan (Habera
et al. 2003c). Since 1990, about 104,000 trout have been stocked in the South Holston tailwater
each year. This includes 54,000 fingerling rainbow trout, 38,000 catchable rainbows, and 13,000
brown trout annually.
A management plan for the South Holston tailwater was implemented during 2004
(Habera et al. 2003c). The goal of the plan is to maintain a high-quality trout fishery in this
tailwater while providing a variety of opportunities for the anglers who use this resource. Put-andtake and put-and-grow management with catchable and fingerling rainbow trout will continue, but
greater emphasis will be placed upon this fishery’s unique (among Tennessee tailwaters) ability
to produce substantial numbers of wild brown trout.
166
The management plan’s basic objectives are to improve the abundance of large trout in
the fishery, create a brown trout fishery consisting entirely of wild fish, and optimize fingerling
rainbow trout stocking rates (Habera et al. 2003c). The first objective will be met if the mean
CPUE for trout within the PLR (406-559 mm) exceeds 11.7 fish/h (the pre-PLR mean) and
approaches or exceeds 20 fish/h (the 1999 catch rate for 406-559 mm fish) by 2008. This
objective was essentially met in 2004, but it remains to be determined if the abundances present
in 2004 can be maintained or increased. If so, it would suggest that the PLR regulation was
effective. The second objective was partially met by eliminating brown trout stocking in 2004. If
brown trout electrofishing catch rates remain near recent averages (90 fish/h ≥178 mm; 17 fish/h
≥356 mm) during 2004-2008, then this objective will be met. Brown trout abundance was high in
2004, but it will take a few more years to determine what level of abundance brown trout are
capable of sustaining solely through natural reproduction. The third objective will require that the
reduction in the stocking rate for fingerling rainbow trout to 50,000 per year be maintained
through 2008. The need for these reductions is supported by the stability of rainbow trout (≥178
mm) electrofishing catch rates since 1997 despite fingerling stocking rates that ranged from 0 to
139,000 during that same period. The third objective will be met if the current catch rate of about
40 rainbow trout/h (≥178 mm) can be maintained during 2004-2008. Additional incremental
adjustments in the fingerling-stocking rate (up or down) may be necessary after 2008 depending
upon the rainbow trout population’s response.
It is recommended that angling regulations now applicable to the South Holston tailwater
be maintained during the term of the current management plan (2004-2008) to permit accurate
evaluation of progress toward the objectives described above.
167
South Holston Tailwater
Bristol
Hwy. 11E
Rt. 358
Rt.435
Rt. 44
Hwy. 421
Rt. 394
Rt. 44
1
2
6
Labyrinth
Weir
5
Rt. 358
11
S. Fork
Holston River
7
Weaver Pike
Bridge
Spawning area
closed to fishing
Nov.-Jan.
9
10
3
Spawning area
closed to fishing
Nov.-Jan.
8
Webb Bridge
South
Holston
Dam
4
Bottom Creek
HICKORY TREE
Rt. 44
Possum Creek
12
Bluff
City
Figure 3-16. Locations of the South Holston tailwater (South Fork Holston River) monitoring stations.
168
Table 3-9. Location and sampling information for the 12 stations on the South Holston tailwater, 4 March 2004.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
1
420040301
Sullivan
Holston Valley
206 SE
2
420040302
Sullivan
3
420040303
4
Coordinates
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
36.52361N-82.09306W 06010102-14,0
49.5
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Holston Valley
206 SE
36.52500N-82.11528W 06010102-14,0
48
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Sullivan
Holston Valley
206 SE
36.50972N-82.10694W 06010102-14,0
46.8
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
420040304
Sullivan
Holston Valley
206 SE
36.50417N-82.11111W 06010102-13,2
46.4
601
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
5
420040305
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.51250N-82.12778W 06010102-13,2
45.3
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420040306
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.51389N-82.14444W 06010102-13,2
44.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
7
420040307
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.50972N-82.14861W 06010102-13,2
43
602
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
8
420040308
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.49528N-82.18056W 06010102-13,2
40.6
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420040309
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.48194N-82.20556W 06010102-13,2
38.6
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420040310
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.47917N-82.20833W 06010102-13,2
38.4
619
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420040311
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.47778N-82.21528W 06010102-13,1
38
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420040312
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.46556N-82.22083W 06010102-13,1
37.1
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
169
Reach Number
Table 3-10. Catch data for the12 electrofishing stations on the South Holston tailwater sampled 4 March 2004.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
5,345
3,931
9,276
19
81
100
58
42
100
301-361
184-424
832
11,833
12,665
5
95
100
7
93
100
5
42
47
195-336
158-415
1,619
14,327
15,946
11
89
100
10
90
100
Rainbow
Brown
3
52
55
206-249
177-482
339
13,090
13,429
5
95
100
3
97
100
Rainbow
Brown
5
37
42
183-405
173-440
1,657
9,657
11,314
12
88
100
15
85
100
Rainbow
Brown
4
24
28
288-324
161-528
1,068
9,994
11,062
14
86
100
10
90
100
Rainbow
Brown
13
30
43
240-364
182-558
4,025
16,174
20,199
30
70
100
20
80
100
Rainbow
Brown
15
13
28
248-425
249-464
5,501
7,880
13,381
54
46
100
41
59
100
Rainbow
Brown
22
32
54
279-381
185-589
9,285
12,350
21,635
41
59
100
43
57
100
Rainbow
Brown
10
26
36
224-412
205-509
3,934
12,093
16,027
28
72
100
25
75
100
Rainbow
Brown
11
33
44
168-381
113-371
3,055
6,757
9,812
25
75
100
31
69
100
Rainbow
Brown
386-456
209-454
Totals
3
21
24
2,360
8,620
10,980
13
88
100
21
79
100
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
98
369
168-600
113-589
39,020
126,706
21
79
24
76
Overall totals
467
165,726
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
Brown
5
21
26
266-600
211-301
Rainbow
Brown
2
38
40
Rainbow
Brown
Species
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
Totals
5
Totals
6
Totals
7
Totals
8
Totals
9
Totals
10
Totals
11
Totals
12
170
Total Weight
(g)
70
Rainbow Trout
n = 98
Range: 168-600 mm
Number of Fish
60
50
Protected slot:
406-559 mm
(16-22”)
40
30
20
10
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686 711
Length Class (mm)
70
Brown Trout
n = 369
Range: 113-589 mm
Number of Fish
60
Protected slot:
406-559 mm
(16-22”)
50
40
30
20
10
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686 711
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-17. Length frequency distributions for trout from the South Holston
tailwater monitoring stations in 2004.
171
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
250
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
200
Browns
All
150
100
50
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
2003
2004
Year
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
60
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
50
Browns
All
40
30
20
10
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
Trout 406-559 mm (16-22”)
25
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
20
Browns
Protected slot limit
(406-559 mm)
established
All
15
10
5
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Figure 3-18. Trout CPUEs for the South Holston tailwater samples.
172
250
Rainbows
Browns
200
All
1990-2004 average (104,000 Total)
150
100
50
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Figure 3-19. Recent trout stocking rates for the South Holston tailwater.
173
4.
SUMMARY
Twenty-six stations on 18 wild trout streams in the Tellico/Little Tennessee, French Broad,
Nolichucky, Watauga, and South Fork Holston river watersheds were quantitatively sampled
during 2004. Overall, 437 quantitative (three-pass depletion) samples have been conducted in
131 different wild trout streams in 11 east Tennessee counties since 1991. Monitoring stations
on North River, Paint Creek, Rocky Fork, Doe River, Left Prong Hampton Creek, Right Prong
Middle Branch (high-elevation, allopatric brook trout), Stony Creek, Doe Creek, Laurel Creek, and
Beaverdam Creek were sampled again in 2004. Additionally, six streams were qualitatively
sampled to assess the status of their respective wild trout populations.
The relative abundance (standing crop) of brook trout in sympatry with rainbow trout
declined somewhat during 2004 in two of the four streams that are being monitored annually
(Briar Creek and Gentry Creek) and increased somewhat in the other two (Rocky Fork and Birch
Branch). These results continue to indicate that long-term co-existence is possible for these
species, although floods may temporarily upset it.
A native, southern Appalachian brook trout population has been established in Left Prong
Hampton Creek (Hampton Cove State Natural Area) and is particularly abundant in the upper
portion of the restoration area (>100 kg/ha during 2003 and 2004). Because more rainbow trout
(26 YOY, 2 adults) were removed from Station 2 during the July 2004 sampling efforts, another
electrofishing effort (two units) to control rainbow trout was conducted in early December. This
effort involved the lower 785 m of the restoration zone and produced 24 more rainbows (15 YOY
and 9 adults). Given that the culvert barrier appears ineffective in preventing rainbow trout
invasion from downstream, much of the current brook trout population could become sympatric
with rainbow trout without annual maintenance electrofishing. Such efforts are not planned, thus
the barrier will soon need to be improved if allopatric brook trout are to be maintained.
The mean catch rate for trout ≥178 mm (those fully recruited to the sampling gear)
declined 41% in the Norris tailwater (from 221 fish/h in 2003), largely because of a substantial
decrease in the number of brown trout captured. However, mean CPUE for trout ≥356 mm (14
in.) continued to increase, reaching 42.7 fish/h in 2004. Rainbow trout were largely responsible
for this increase, as well as the slight improvement in the catch rate for trout ≥457 mm (18 in.) to
5.9 fish/h. The 2004 catch rate for trout ≥356 mm exceeded the management plan objective (30
fish/h; Habera et al. 2002b).
Although only 10 trout were captured at the monitoring stations on the Cherokee tailwater
(Holston River) in 2004, this was an increase relative to 2003 (only two were captured). The
catch included three large brown trout (405-542 mm) and indicated somewhat better survival
during the elevated temperatures that occur during summer and early fall. Like 2003, 2004 was a
relatively wet year, and increased flows through the dam (required to maintain lake levels) more
quickly depleted the cold water stored in the lake. Consequently, temperatures exceeded 20°C
from mid-August through early October and averaged 23.2°C during 27 August-16 September at
sites located 13 km (Blue Spring) and 19 km (Indian Cave) below Cherokee dam. Additional
monitoring will be necessary to assess the trout fishery during years with lower flows.
174
Mean catch rates for trout from the Wilbur tailwater monitoring stations in 2004 (all sizes)
changed little from those obtained in 2003. In fact, the mean CPUE for trout ≥178 mm has been
relatively stable since 2001. No brook trout were collected. Additionally, catch rates for trout in
the fish kill zone (station 8-12) have returned to (or exceeded) pre fish-kill levels. A management
plan for the Wilbur tailwater (Habera et al. 2003b) was implemented during 2004. The goal of the
plan is to complete the restoration of the trout fishery in the fish kill zone and to maintain a quality
trout fishery throughout the tailwater concurrent with increasing fishing pressure and the variety of
anglers who use this resource. The objectives of the plan are to re-establish the abundance and
size structure of the trout fishery in the fish kill zone (67 fish/h, 9.6 fish/h and 1.2 fish/h for trout
≥178 mm, ≥356 mm, and ≥457 mm, respectively), optimize rainbow trout stocking rates, and
establish a brook trout fishery (5 fish/h ≥178 mm) by 2008. The first objective has been met and
will only need to be maintained.
Although the brown trout catch rate increased from 8 fish/h in 2003 to 35 fish/h in 2004 at
the monitoring stations on the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater (South Fork Holston River), overall
mean catch rates for all size groups of trout (≥178 mm, ≥356 mm, and ≥457 mm) decreased
substantially. None of the larger (>400 mm), well-conditioned trout present in 2002 and 2003
were captured. It is not clear what caused the catch rate decreases in 2004, but stocking rates
were not responsible as they have increased since 2002.
The 12 South Holston tailwater monitoring stations produced 467 trout (79% browns)
weighing 165.7 kg in 2004. This was a 21% increase over the 2003 catch and is the largest
obtained for any Region IV tailwater sample to date. Mean catch rates for all trout size groups
(≥178 mm, ≥356 mm, and ≥457 mm) increased substantially. The mean catch rate for trout within
the 406-559 mm PLR rose to 20.4 fish/h, reaching the level present in 1999 (the highest
measured to date for the South Holston tailwater. The catch rate increases were predominantly
attributable to brown trout, although rainbow trout also contributed to the increases for the larger
size groups. A management plan for the South tailwater (Habera et al. 2003c) was implemented
during 2004. The goal of the plan is to maintain a high-quality trout fishery in this tailwater while
providing a variety of angling opportunities. The plan’s basic objectives are to improve the
abundance of large trout in the fishery, create a brown trout fishery consisting entirely of wild fish,
and optimize fingerling rainbow trout stocking rates. The first objective will be met if the mean
CPUE for trout within the PLR (406-559 mm) exceeds 11.7 fish/h (the pre-PLR mean) and
approaches or exceeds 20 fish/h (1999 catch rate for 406-559 mm fish) by 2008. This was
achieved in 2004. Brown trout stocking was eliminated in 2004 to address the second objective
and maintenance of brown trout electrofishing catch rates near recent averages (90 fish/h ≥178
mm; 17 fish/h ≥356 mm) will indicate achievement. The third objective will require a reduction in
the stocking rate for fingerling rainbow trout to 50,000 per year during 2004-2008 and will be met
if the current catch rate of about 40 rainbow trout/h (≥178 mm) can be maintained.
175
REFERENCES
Banks, S. M., and P. W. Bettoli. 2000. Reproductive potential of brown trout in Tennessee
tailwaters. Fisheries Report No. 00-19. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Bates, B. N. 1997. A creel survey of the Tellico and North rivers: Comparisons between a
stocked and a wild trout stream in Tennessee. M. S. thesis. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Bettinger, J. M., and P. W. Bettoli. 2000. Movements and activity of rainbow trout and brown
trout in the Clinch River, Tennessee, as determined by radio-telemetry. Fisheries Report
No. 00-14. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W. 1999. Creel survey and population dynamics of salmonids stocked into the
Watauga River below Wilbur Dam. Fisheries Report No. 99-41. Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W. 2001. Management alternatives for the trout fishery in the Clinch River below
Norris Dam. Fisheries Report No. 01-04. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Nashville, Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W. 2002. Clinch River creel survey results: March-October 2001. Fisheries Report
No. 02-01. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W. 2003. Survey of the trout fishery in the Watauga River: March-October 2002.
Fisheries Report No. 03-05. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W., and L. A. Bohm. 1997. Clinch River trout investigations and creel survey.
Fisheries Report No. 97-39. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W., S. J. Owens, and M. Nemeth. 1999. Trout habitat, reproduction, survival, and
growth in the South Fork of the Holston River. Fisheries Report No. 99-3. Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bivens, R. D. 1979. Survey of brook trout streams on the Unaka and Nolichucky Ranger
Districts, Cherokee National Forest. Internal project report, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Cleveland, Tennessee.
Bivens, R. D. 1984. History and distribution of brook trout in the Appalachian region of
Tennessee. M. S. thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Bivens, R. D. 1988. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1986-1987. Tennessee
176
Bivens, R. D. 1989. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1988. Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bivens, R. D., R. J. Strange, and D. C. Peterson. 1985. Current distribution of the native brook
trout in the Appalachian region of Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of
Science 60:101-105.
Bivens, R. D., and C. E. Williams. 1990. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1989.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bivens, R. D., M. T. Fagg, and C. E. Williams. 1992. Region IV trout fishery data collection
report: 1991. Fisheries Report No. 93-17. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Bivens, R. D., M. T. Fagg, and C. E. Williams. 1993. Region IV trout fishery data collection
Bivens, R. D., B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 1994. Region IV trout fishery data collection
Bivens, R. D., B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 1996. Region IV trout fisheries report: 1995.
Fisheries Report No. 96-5. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Fisheries Report No. 97-2. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Fisheries Report 98-3. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Boles, H. D. 1980. Clinch River (Norris tailwater) trout fishery investigations 1971-1977.
Fisheries Resources Internal Report (Interim Summary Report). U. S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Borawa, J. C. 1990. Field evaluation of domestic versus half-wild brown trout fingerling
stockings. Pages 72-78 in J. C. Borawa, ed. Brown trout workshop: biology and
management. American Fisheries Society, Southern Division, Trout Committee,
Asheville, North Carolina.
Brigham, A. R., W. U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, editors. 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes
of North and South Carolina. Midwest Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois.
177
Clark, M. E., and K. A. Rose. 1997. Factors affecting competitive dominance of rainbow trout
over brook trout in southern Appalachian streams: implications of an individual-based
model. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:1-20.
Cooper, K. L. 2003. Comparison of scales and otoliths for aging wild rainbow trout from east
Tennessee streams. M. S. thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Etnier, D. A., J. T. Baxter Jr., S. J. Fraley, and C. R. Parker. 1998. A checklist of the trichoptera
of Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 73(1-2):53-72.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 1999. Region IV trout fisheries
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 2001a. Region IV trout fisheries
Habera, J. W., R. J. Strange, and R. D. Bivens. 2001b. A revised outlook for Tennessee’s brook
trout. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76:68-73.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter. 2002b. Management plan for the Norris tailwater trout
fishery 2002-2006. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter. 2003b. Management plan for the Wilbur tailwater trout
fishery 2004-2008. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter. 2003c. Management plan for the South Holston
tailwater trout fishery 2004-2008. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
178
Higgins, J. M. 1978. Water quality progress in the Holston River basin. TVA Division of
Environmental Planning, Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/EP-78/08.
Hill, D. M. 1978. Tailwater trout management. Pages 66-75 in Southeastern trout resource:
ecology and management symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hill, D. M. and S. R. Brown. 1980. The fishery resource of Tennessee Valley tailwaters—
Cherokee. TVA Division of Water Resources, Norris, Tennessee.
King, W. 1937. Notes on the distribution of native speckled and rainbow trout in the streams of
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science
12:351-361.
Kriegler, F. J., G. F. McCracken, J. W. Habera, and R. J. Strange. 1995. Genetic
characterization of Tennessee's brook trout populations and associated management
implications. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:804-813.
Larson, G. L., S. E. Moore, and B. Carter. 1995. Ebb and flow of encroachment by nonnative
rainbow trout in a small stream in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 124:613-622.
Lenat, D. R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of
tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 12(3):279-290.
Louton, J. A. 1982. Lotic dragonfly (Anisoptera: Odonata) nymphs of the southeastern United
States: identification, distribution and historical biogeography. Doctoral dissertation. The
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
McKinney, A. D., D. L. Melgaard, J. A. Wojtowicz, and R. D. Martin. 1987. Restoration of the
Watauga River in upper east Tennessee through reduction in textile mill effluent toxicity.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Mullican, H. N., and E. C. Leming. 1970. Biological conditions of the Watauga River as
presented to the Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board. Tennessee Department of
Public Health, Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board, Nashville, Tennessee.
Nagel, J. W. 1986. Brook trout / rainbow trout headwaters competition studies. Research
progress report submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
179
Nagel, J. W. 1991. Is the decline of brook trout in the southern Appalachians resulting from
competitive exclusion and/or extinction due to habitat fragmentation? Journal of the
Tennessee Academy of Science 66:141-143.
Nagel, J. W., and J. E. Deaton. 1989. Growth and longevity of rainbow trout in two headwater
streams in northeastern Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:912.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J.
D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda,
Mayrland.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). 1995.
Standard Operating procedures: biological monitoring. Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section.
Pfitzer, D. W. 1954. Investigations of waters below large storage reservoirs in Tennessee.
Tennessee Game and Fish Commission, Nashville, Tennessee.
Pfitzer, D. W. 1962. Investigations of waters below large storage reservoirs in Tennessee. D-JR Project F-1-R. Tennessee Game and Fish Commission, Nashville, Tennessee.
Scott, E. M., K. D. Gardner, D. S. Baxter, and B. L. Yeager. 1996. Biological and water quality
responses in tributary tailwaters to dissolved oxygen and minimum flow improvements.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management Services, Norris, Tennessee.
Seegrist, D. W., and R. Gard. 1972. Effects of floods on trout in Sagehen Creek, California.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101:478-482.
Shields, R. A. 1950. A survey of east Tennessee trout streams with recommendations for
management. Internal report, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Shields, R. A. 1951. Streams of the Tellico and Hiwassee Ranger Districts, Cherokee National
Forest. Internal report, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Stewart, K. W., and B. P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of North American stonefly genera (plecoptera).
Entomological Society of America. Volume 12.
Strange, R. J., and J. W. Habera. 1992. Wild trout project: 1991 annual report. Publication No.
R11-2216-76-001-92. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
180
Strange, R. J., and J. W. Habera. 1998a. Wild trout project: 1997 annual report. Publication No.
Strange, R. J., and J. W. Habera. 1998b. No net loss of brook trout distribution in areas of
sympatry with rainbow trout in Tennessee streams. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 127:434-440.
Swink, W. D. 1983. Survey of stocking of tailwater trout fisheries in the southern United States.
Progressive Fish-Culturist 45(2):67-71.
Tarzwell, C. M. 1939. Changing the Clinch River into a trout stream. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 68:228-233.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1980. Improving reservoir releases. TVA Office of Natural
Resources and Environmental Development, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 1998. Stream survey protocols. Tennessee
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2000. Strategic wildlife resources management
plan for the start of a new millennium. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Van Deventer, J. S., and W. S. Platts. 1989. Microcomputer software system for generating
population statistics from electrofishing data--user's guide for MicroFish 3.0. General
Technical Report INT-254. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, Utah.
Whitworth, W. E., and R. J. Strange. 1979. Southern Appalachian brook trout survey project E2-1. Internal project report, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
181
Whitworth, W. E., and R. J. Strange. 1983. Growth and production of sympatric brook and
rainbow trout in an Appalachian stream. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society
112:469-475.
Wiggins, G. B. 1996. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (trichoptera). 2nd edition.
University of Toronto Press, Canada.
Wilkins, L. P. 1978. Wild Trout Stream Survey. Project F-39-R. Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Wilkins, L. P., L. Kirkland, and A. Hulsey. 1967. The management of trout fisheries in reservoirs
having a self-sustaining warm water fishery. Pages 444-452 in C. E. Lane, symposium
chairman. Reservoir Fishery Resources Symposium, Reservoir Committee, Southern
Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Yeager, B. L., D. M. Hill, W. M. Seawell, C. M. Alexander, and R. Wallus. 1987. Effects of
aeration and minimum flow enhancement on the biota of Norris tailwater. TVA Office of
Natural Resources and Environmental Development, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Yeager, B. L., T. A. McDonough, D. A. Kenny. 1993. Growth, feeding, and movement of trout in
South Holston tailwater. Water Management Services, WM-94-003. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Norris, Tennessee.
182
APPENDIX A
Wild Trout Streams Sampled Quantitatively
During 1991-2004
183
Table A-1. Wild trout streams sampled quantitatively during 1991-2004.
Primary
Stream
1
Total
County
Location
Year
species
samples
Polk
CNF
1992
RBT
1
Hiwassee/Ocoee River
Sulphur Springs Branch
Gee Creek
Polk
CNF
1993
RBT
1
Goforth Creek
Polk
CNF
1993
RBT
1
Big Creek
Polk
CNF
1996
RBT
1
Rymer Camp Branch
Polk
CNF
1994
RBT
1
East Fork Wolf Creek
Polk
CNF
1995
RBT
1
Rough Creek
Polk
CNF
1995
RBT
1
Total streams = 7
Total samples =
7
Tellico/Little Tennessee River
2
Monroe
CNF
1993,95-02
RBT/BNT
25
Bald River
Monroe
CNF
1991-00
RBT/BNT/BKT
31
Kirkland Creek
Monroe
CNF
1991
RBT
1
Henderson Branch
Monroe
CNF
1996
RBT/BNT/BKT
2
Brookshire Creek
Monroe
CNF
1996
BKT
3
Tellico River
3
2
Monroe
CNF
1991-04
RBT/BNT
42
Laurel Branch
Monroe
CNF
1997
RBT/BNT
1
Sugar Cove Creek
Monroe
CNF
1995-96
RBT/BKT
3
Meadow Branch
Monroe
CNF
1991,95, 04
BKT
6
Sycamore Creek
Monroe
CNF
1994-95,97-98
RBT/BKT
6
North River
Rough Ridge Creek
Monroe
CNF
1995
RBT/BKT
2
Citico Creek
Monroe
CNF
1996
RBT/BNT
1
Doublecamp Creek
Monroe
CNF
1992
RBT/BNT
2
Monroe
CNF
2004
RBT
1
North Fork Citico Creek
Monroe
CNF
2003
RBT
1
Parson Branch
Blount
Private
1993
Total streams = 16
RBT
Total samples =
1
128
French Broad River
Brown Gap Creek
Cocke
Private
1991
BKT
1
Middle Prong Gulf Creek
Cocke
Private
1991
BKT
1
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Cocke
Private
1993, 04
RBT/BNT
2
Trail Fork Big Creek
Cocke
CNF
1996, 2001
RBT
2
Wolf Creek
Cocke
CNF
1993
RBT
2
Sinking Creek
Cocke
Private
1999
RBT
1
Dunn Creek
Sevier
Private
1993
RBT
1
Little Paint Creek
Greene
CNF
1993
BKT
1
Dry Fork
Cocke
CNF
1994
BKT/RBT
2
Sawmill Branch
Greene
CNF
1999
BKT/BNT
1
Paint Creek
Greene
CNF
1992,94,95,02-04
Total streams = 11
BNT/RBT
Total samples =
184
9
23
Table A-1 (cont.). Wild trout streams sampled quantitatively during 1991-2004.
Primary
Stream
1
Total
County
Location
Year
species
samples
Greene
Private
2004
RBT
1
Nolichucky River
Camp Creek
Granny Lewis Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1991
RBT
2
Clark Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1991
RBT
1
Broad Shoal Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1991
RBT
1
Rock Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1991
RBT/BKT
1
Right Prong Rock Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1998
RBT
1
Jones Branch
Unicoi
CNF
1991
BKT
1
Cassi Creek
Greene
CNF
2003
RBT
1
Sarvis Cove Creek
Greene
CNF
1991, 2003
RBT/BKT
2
Squibb Creek
Greene
CNF
1991, 2003
RBT/BKT
2
Jennings Creek
Greene
CNF
1992
RBT
1
Round Knob Branch
Greene
CNF
1996
BKT
1
Davis Creek
Greene
CNF
1992, 2003
RBT/BKT
2
2
Washington
CNF
1992,95-04
RBT/BKT
11
Straight Creek
Washington
CNF
2003
BKT
1
Ramsey Creek
Washington
Private
1996
RBT
1
W. Fork Dry Creek
Greene
CNF
1992
BKT
1
Dry Creek
Greene
CNF
1992
RBT
1
Higgins Creek (lower)
Unicoi
Private
1992,95
BKT/RBT
2
Red Fork
Unicoi
CNF
1998
RBT
1
Clear Fork
Unicoi
CNF
1993
BKT
1
Briar Creek
Painter Creek
Washington
Private
1993
RBT
1
Sill Branch
Unicoi
CNF
1994
RBT
1
Devil Fork
Unicoi
CNF
1999
RBT
1
Longarm Branch
Unicoi
CNF
1997
RBT
1
Horse Creek
Greene
CNF
1994
RBT
1
N. Indian Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1994-95, 03
RBT/BNT
3
Tumbling Creek
Unicoi
Private
1995
RBT
1
Big Bald Creek
Unicoi
Private
1996
RBT
1
Rice Creek
Unicoi
Private
1995
RBT
1
Sams Creek
Unicoi
Private
2002
RBT
1
Mill Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1996
RBT
1
Big Branch
Unicoi
Private
1996
RBT
1
Dry Creek
Rocky Fork
2
Unicoi
CNF
1997
RBT
1
Unicoi/Greene
Private
1991-04
RBT/BKT
28
Total streams = 35
Total samples =
79
Watauga River
Cove Creek
Carter
Private
1991
BKT
1
Panther Branch
Carter
CNF
1996
BKT
1
185
Primary
Stream
1
Total
County
Location
Year
species
samples
Five Poplar Branch
Carter
Private
2000
RBT
1
Toms Branch
Carter
Private
1991
BKT
1
Middle Branch
Carter
Private
1991
BKT
1
Tiger Creek
Carter
CNF
1991, 99
RBT/BKT
2
Bill Creek
Carter
CNF
1991
BKT
1
North Fork Stony Creek
Carter
CNF
1991
BKT
1
George Creek
Carter
CNF
1991
BKT
1
Clarke Creek
Carter
Private
1992
BKT
1
Watauga River (cont.)
Stony Creek
Carter
CNF
1992, 95, 04
RBT/BKT/BNT
4
Little Stony Creek
Carter
CNF
1992
BKT
1
Little Laurel Branch
Carter
CNF
1992
BKT
1
Furnace Creek
Johnson
Private
1992
BKT
1
Campbell Creek
Johnson
Private
1993
RBT
1
Little Stony Creek4
Carter
CNF
1993
RBT
1
Wagner Branch
Carter
CNF
1993
BKT/BNT
1
Johnson
Private
1993
RBT/BKT
2
Forge Creek
Little Laurel Fork
Carter
CNF
1994
BKT
1
Heaton Branch
Carter
Private
1994
RBT
1
R. Prong Middle Branch2
Carter
CNF
1994, 97-04
BKT
9
Simerly Creek
Carter
Private
1994
RBT
1
Mill Creek
Carter
Private
1994
BKT
1
Furnace Branch
Carter
CNF
2003
BKT
1
Johnson
Private
1994
RBT
1
Camp 10 Branch
Carter
CNF
1995
BKT
1
Trivett Branch
Carter
Private
1996
BNT
1
Sally Cove Creek
Carter
Private
1995
RBT
1
Slabtown Branch
Johnson
Private
1995
RBT
1
Carter
Private
1995-99, 02-04
RBT/BKT/BNT
11
Big Dry Run
Doe River
Shell Creek
Carter
Private
2004
RBT
1
Heaton Creek
Carter
Private
2000
RBT
1
Buck Creek
Carter
CNF/Private
1997
RBT
2
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
1997
RBT/BKT
2
Unicoi/Carter
Private
1998, 02
RBT
2
Carter
State
1994-04
RBT/BKT
27
Johnson
Private
1993-04
RBT
13
Carter
CNF
1991-01, 03
BNT
23
Buffalo Creek
2
L. Prong Hampton Creek
2
Doe Creek
3
Laurel Fork
Total streams = 38
Total samples =
124
South Fork Holston River
Little Jacob Creek
Sullivan
CNF
186
1991, 2000
RBT
2
Primary
Stream
County
Location
1
Year
species
Total
samples
South Fork Holston River (cont.)
Fishdam Creek
Sullivan
CNF
1991
RBT
1
Birch Branch2
Johnson
CNF/Private
1991,95-04
BKT/RBT
11
Johnson Blevins Branch
Johnson
Private
1991
BKT
1
Jim Wright Branch
Johnson
Private
1991
BKT
1
Big Jacob Creek
Sullivan
CNF
1992
RBT
1
Lyons Branch
Johnson
CNF
1992
RBT
1
2
Gentry Creek
Johnson
CNF
1992,96-04
RBT/BKT
11
Kate Branch
Johnson
CNF
2000
BKT
1
Grindstone Branch
Johnson
CNF
1996
BKT
1
E. Fork Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
CNF
1992
BKT
1
Rockhouse Run
Sullivan
CNF
1993
BKT
1
Valley Creek
Johnson
CNF
1993
BKT
1
Heaberlin Branch
Johnson
CNF
1993
BKT
1
Marshall Branch
Johnson
CNF
1999
BKT
1
Laurel Creek2
Johnson
CNF
1993-94, 01-02, 04
RBT/BNT
5
Chalk Branch
Johnson
CNF
1994
BKT
1
Maple Branch
Johnson
CNF
1994
BKT
1
Tank Hollow
Johnson
CNF
2003
BKT
1
Big Creek
Sullivan
CNF
1994
RBT
1
Fagall Branch
Johnson
CNF
1995
BKT
1
Owens Branch
Johnson
CNF
1995
RBT/BNT
1
Roaring Branch
Johnson
Private
2001
RBT
1
Beaverdam Creek²
Johnson
CNF
1991-04
RBT/BNT
28
Total streams = 24
Total samples =
Total streams (all) = 131
Total samples (all) =
1
RBT = rainbow trout; BNT = brown trout; BKT = brook trout.
2
Current monitoring stream.
3
Previous monitoring stream. The entry for Bald River includes a site sampled in the allopatric brook trout zone in 1992.
4
Watauga Lake tributary.
187
76
437

FISHERIES REPORT - TWRA Region 4 Stream Management

Transcription

Similar documents

HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD MEASUREMENTS ON SINTERED SmCo5

Poster example – Oxgang Primary School

Lake Shenandoah County Park and Sports Field Complex

TROUT FARMING IN LITHUANIA

Smoked Rainbow Trout - Grindstone Neck of Maine

2009 West Virginia Statistics

Kootenay Trout Hatchery Field Trips