FISHERIES REPORT - TWRA Region 4 Stream Management

Transcription

FISHERIES REPORT
11-01
REGION IV
TROUT FISHERIES REPORT
2010
Prepared by:
James W. Habera
Rick D. Bivens
Bart D. Carter
Carl E. Williams
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
*Visit our website at www.twra4streams.org, where you can download this report and learn
more about TWRA Region IV stream fisheries projects and activities. You can also link to this
site (or the general Region IV site) through the main TWRA website at www.tnwildlife.org.
Cover:
The South Holston Tailwater (South Fork Holston River)—fall 2010. This productive tailwater supports an
exceptional wild brown trout fishery. The 2010 electrofishing catch rate for browns ≥7 inches was 386
fish/hour, the highest obtained since monitoring began in 1999 and over three times more than the best catch
rate for browns in any other Region IV tailwater. Photo by J. Habera.
REGION IV
TROUT FISHERIES REPORT
2010
____________
Prepared by:
James W. Habera
Rick D. Bivens
Bart D. Carter
and
Carl E. Williams
TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
____________
May 2011
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……………………………………………
6
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.3
Briar Creek………………………………………………….
Rocky Fork………………………………………………….
Birch Branch………………………………………………..
Gentry Creek……………………………………………….
Summary……………………………………………………
69
75
78
84
90
Wild Trout Inventory Streams…………………………………….……….. 91
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.5
8
14
21
28
35
41
48
55
62
Sympatric Brook/Rainbow Trout Monitoring Streams…………………… 69
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.4
Bald River……………………………………....................
North River..….…………………………………………….
Rocky Fork……………………………………………….…
Left Prong Hampton Creek ..……………………………..
Right Prong Middle Branch …………….……………..…
Stony Creek …………………………………………….….
Doe Creek......................................................................
Laurel Creek…..…………………………………………....
Beaverdam Creek………………………………………....
Little Doe River…………………………………….……… 91
Simerly Creek……..…………………………………….… 98
McKinney Branch………..………………………….…..… 104
Qualitative Surveys………………………………………………………… 110
Dry Creek…………………………..………..………….………….. 110
Rocky Branch and Simerly Creek………..……………….……… 111
Birchlog Creek……………………….……………….……………. 112
Woodward Branch………………………………….……………… 113
Jenkins Creek………………….…………………….…………….. 113
Little Jacob Creek.………………………………………………… 114
Seng Cove Branch and Cave Spring Branch…….………....…. 115
3.
TAILWATER ACCOUNTS…………………………………………………………. 116
3.1
Sampling Methods and Conditions………………………………………. 116
3.2
Tailwater Monitoring………………………………………………………... 117
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
4.
Norris (Clinch River)………………………………………. 117
Cherokee (Holston River)………………………………… 126
Wilbur (Watauga River)…………………………………… 137
Ft. Patrick Henry (South Fork Holston River)………….. 147
Boone (South Fork Holston River)………………………. 153
South Holston (South Fork Holston River)……………… 160
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………… 171
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….. 173
APPENDIX A: Quantitative Wild Trout Stream Samples 1991-2010………….....……. 183
APPENDIX B: Qualitative Stream Surveys 1991-2010…………………………………. 189
v
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) manages trout fisheries in streams,
tailwaters, and reservoirs in Tennessee. Together, these fisheries provide a popular and
important set of angling opportunities. In 2005, an estimated 160,000 resident anglers made
nearly 1.8 million trout fishing trips in Tennessee while spending approximately $95 million
(Stephens et al. 2005). A subsequent nationwide analysis of trout fishing by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Harris 2010) estimated that there were 95,000 Tennessee trout anglers (age 16
or older) who fished 989,000 days in 2006. Agency management emphasizes habitat
preservation and the maintenance of wild stocks where they occur; however, artificially
propagated trout, produced at four state and two federal hatcheries, are also important for
managing substantial portions of the coldwater resource. Currently, over 500,000 pounds of trout
(~2.3 million fish) are stocked annually to manage Tennessee’s hatchery-supported fisheries
(Fiss and Habera 2006).
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. Wild trout
occur in 9 of Region IV’s 21 counties (primarily those that border North Carolina; Figure 1-1).
Monroe County, which has several wild trout streams in the Tellico and Citico watersheds, is now
part of Region III, although streams such as North River, Bald River, and Tellico River will be
monitored cooperatively by both Regions. Several wild trout streams also occur in Polk County
(Region III) and a few other populations exist in spring-fed streams elsewhere in Tennessee, but
these 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 over 240 km (150 mi) in 114 streams, or about 24% of the stream
length supporting wild trout outside GSMNP. Brook trout occur allopatrically (no other trout
species are present) in about 68% of the stream length they currently occupy.
Wild trout populations reflect the quality and stability of the aquatic systems they inhabit,
as well as associated terrestrial systems. TWRA recognizes the ecological importance of
Tennessee’s wild trout resources (particularly native, southern Appalachian brook trout), along
with their value to anglers and the special management opportunities they offer. The Agency’s
statewide trout management plan (Fiss and Habera 2006) features management goals and
1
strategies designed to conserve wild trout and their habitat while providing a variety of angling
experiences.
Many smaller 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 (290 mi.) of such streams in Region IV by
annually stocking hatchery-produced trout (adults and fingerlings).
Cold, hypolimnetic releases from five Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dams in Region
IV (Norris, Ft. Patrick Henry, South Holston, Wilbur, and Boone) also support year-round trout
fisheries in the tailwaters downstream (Figure 1-2). The habitats and food bases that
characterize these tailwaters provide for higher 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 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 tailwater (Watauga River). The Holston River
below Cherokee Reservoir (Figure 1-2) also supports a tailwater trout fishery, although high water
temperatures during late summer and early fall limit survival.
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 (Figure 1-2). 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
and South Holston reservoirs are regularly stocked with lake trout Salvelinus namaycush and
currently provide good fisheries for this species. Chilhowee reservoir also receives lake trout.
The goal of TWRA’s current Strategic Plan for Streams (TWRA 2006) is to ”protect,
restore, and enhance habitat and water quality in streams and rivers for fishes and other aquatic
life while providing a variety of quality angling opportunities.” Tennessee’s trout fisheries help
provide these opportunities and TWRA would like to supply 1.5 million trips/year to streams and
tailwaters for 165,000 Tennessee residents by 2011 while maintaining a 75% satisfaction level for
success (TWRA 2006). To help meet this objective, wise management of existing opportunities,
as well as development of new ones will be necessary. TWRA’s statewide trout management
plan (Fiss and Habera 2006) addresses several means by which this can be accomplished.
Additionally, acquisition of trout population status and dynamics data (e.g., abundance trends,
size structures, age and growth characteristics, etc.) from streams and tailwaters through
standardized stream survey techniques will continue to be an important strategy for managing
these fisheries.
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.
Sample area
3
Carter
Johnson
Region IV Trout Streams, Tailwaters, and Reservoirs
Boone Tailwater
Ft. Patrick Henry Lake
Ft. Patrick Henry Tailwater
Doe Creek
Stony Creek
South Holston Lake
S. Holston Tailwater
Big
Creek
Hancock
Campbell
Claiborne
Norris
Tailwater
Union
Sullivan
Washington
Ú
Ê
Hamblen
Johnson
Jefferson
Carter
Watauga Lake
Wilbur Lake
Greene
Ú
Ê
Cherokee Tailwater
Knox
Unicoi
ER
Doe River
Wilbur Tailwater
Cocke
4
Rocky Fork
Paint Creek
Trail Fork Big Creek
Sevier
Blount
Loudon
Monroe
Tellico
River
Little
River
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Middle Prong Little
Pigeon River
Chilhowee Lake
Calderwood Lake
Citico Creek
Tellico
Lake
TWRA’s Region IV trout hatcheries:
TEL
Ú
Ê
Laurel
Creek
Hawkins
Grainger
BS
Anderson
Beaverdam
Creek
Erwin (ER)
Buffalo Springs (BS)
Tellico (TEL)—*shifted to Region III in 2010
North River
Bald River
Figure 1-2. Locations of selected trout fisheries managed by TWRA in Region IV. TWRA revised some of its regional
boundaries in 2010, resulting in Scott County being added to Region IV and Monroe County moving to
Region III.
4
2.
WILD TROUT STREAM ACCOUNTS
Fifteen wild trout streams in the Tellico/Little Tennessee, Nolichucky, Watauga, and South
Fork Holston river watersheds were quantitatively sampled during the 2010 field season (June October). The 22 stations sampled on these streams were located in Monroe, 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. Eight other streams were qualitatively surveyed in June to
determine the presence or general status of any wild trout populations (Section 2.5). Additionally,
upper Little Jacob Creek (CNF, Sullivan County) was surveyed in November to determine the
status of the brook trout population 10 years after this restoration project was completed (Habera
et al. 2001).
National Park Service (NPS), USFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Trout Unlimited
(TU) personnel helped sample several of the larger wild trout streams during 2010. 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.
Impacts from the drought conditions that have prevailed in the eastern Tennessee River
valley during most of the past decade were still evident in some wild trout streams in 2010. This,
along with generally poor reproduction in 2009, resulted in wild trout abundances (particularly
biomass) in monitoring streams that remained below normal in many cases and in some cases
were the lowest observed to date. Droughts not only impacts biomass, but can also reduce trout
growth and alter population size structure (Harvey et al. 2006; James et al. 2010). Given the
relatively short generation lengths characteristic of wild trout in southern Appalachian streams
(Habera and Strange 1993), recovery should occur with better year class strength (as in 2010;
Zorn and Nuhfer 2007) and better recruitment associated with more normal stream flows
(McFadden and Cooper 1962).
The following sections provide individual accounts for all wild trout streams sampled
during 2010. A list of all streams sampled quantitatively during 1991-2010 is provided in
Appendix A.
2.1
SAMPLING METHODS
Wild trout stream sampling was conducted with DC-powered backpack electrofishing units
incorporating sealed lead/acid batteries and inverters to produce AC outputs very similar to those
provided by earlier gasoline generator-powered units. Output voltages were 100-600 VAC,
depending upon water conductivity. All quantitative (three-pass depletion) sampling followed
TWRA’s standard protocols (TWRA 1998). Three-pass depletion sampling provides accurate
trout abundance estimates in typical southern Appalachian streams (Habera et al. 2010a), is
endorsed by the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society’s (SDAFS) Trout
Committee, and is widely used by other state and federal agencies in the region. Stocked
rainbow trout, distinguishable by dull coloration, eroded fins, atypical body proportions, and large
5
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 2010 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)
and the new MicroFish 3.0 upgrade for Windows (http://microfish.org/) developed by Jack Van
Deventer (in cooperation with the SDAFS Trout Committee). 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; Lohr and West 1992; Thompson and Rahel
1996; Peterson et al. 2004; Habera et al. 2010a), making separate analysis necessary to avoid
bias. These two groups also roughly correspond to young-of-the-year (YOY or age-0) and adults.
Qualitative benthic samples were collected from Little Doe River, Simerly Creek, and
McKinney Branch in 2010. 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; NCDENR 2006; 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 Bald River, North River, Rocky Fork, Stony
Creek, Left Prong Hampton Creek, Right Prong of Middle Branch, Doe Creek, and Beaverdam
Creek were sampled during 2010. 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 droughts, floods, and other
events.
6
Table 2-1. Common and scientific names of fishes collected during 2010 quantitative trout
stream surveys1.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Minnows
Central stoneroller
Rosyside dace
Warpaint shiner
River chub
Saffron shiner
Tennessee shiner
Mountain redbelly dace
Western blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Clinostomus funduloides2
Luxilus coccogenis
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis rubricroceus
N. leuciodus
Phoxinus oreas
Rhinichthys obtusus
R. cataractae
Semotilus atromaculatus
Suckers
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Black redhorse
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersonii
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma 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
Largemouth bass
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
L. macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
Perches
Greenfin darter
Fantail darter
Snubnose darter
Swannanoa darter
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
E. flabellare
E. simoterum
E. swannanoa
1
Nomenclature follows Nelson et al. (2004) except for E. simoterum, which follows Powers and Mayden
(2007).
2
Undescribed subspecies (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
7
2.2.1 Bald River
Study Area
Bald River is a Tellico River tributary with a forested watershed located in the CNF (Tellico
Wildlife Management Area) in Monroe County. The lower portion of the stream flows through the
Bald River Gorge Wilderness Area. Bald River supports wild populations of rainbow and brown
trout, with an allopatric population of native southern Appalachian brook trout above the falls near
the Brookshire Creek confluence. Brookshire Creek and Henderson Branch (another tributary)
also support brook trout (Strange and Habera 1997).
Shields (1951) described Bald River as a good rainbow trout fishery with an improving
capacity to produce and carry trout, although it was still heavily stocked. In 1970, Bald 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-lure-only gear restriction (Wilkins 1978). The stream was
qualitatively sampled by TWRA in 1988 (Bivens 1989), then three long-term monitoring stations
(Figure 2-1) were established in 1991 and sampled annually through 2000. These stations have
not been sampled since 2005, although a station in the Bald River Gorge was established and
sampled in 2007 (Habera et al. 2008a). Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat
and water quality information are summarized in Table 2-2. Sampling at Station 2 was
discontinued in 2010 because of its proximity to Station 3.
Results and Discussion
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Bald
River stations in 2010 are given in Table 2-3. Total trout densities and standing crops at both
stations, particularly for adult rainbow trout (>90 mm) were substantially reduced compared to the
2005 estimates (Figure 2-2). The biomass estimate at Station 1 was the lowest obtained to date
and no brown trout were collected at Station 3 (none have been captured there since 1999).
Age-0 (YOY) rainbow trout were relatively abundant in the 2010 Bald River samples (Figure 2-3),
but only one legally-harvestable trout (≥229 mm) was collected (Figure 2-3). Reduced
abundances and the lack of larger fish in Bald River in 2010 indicate the lingering effects of the
recent droughts (Habera et al. 2010b).
Management Recommendations
Bald River supports one of the better wild trout fisheries in Tennessee south of GSMNP.
It is obviously capable of producing some trout ≥229 mm, but its relative infertility produces trout
populations characterized by fast growth and high annual (natural) mortality rates. Restrictive
angling regulations provide few benefits in such cases (Kulp and Moore 2005). 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, which might improve production of larger rainbow trout by reducing intraspecific
competition and improving survival for some fish.
8
Bald River Monitoring Stations
Cherohala Skyway
FT 92
Hemlock
Creek
Tellico
River
McNabb
Creek
North River
Bald
River
Falls
Laurel
Branch
Tellico
River
Bald River
Tellico Hatchery
Bald River
Site 1
Kirkland
Creek
Henderson Branch
Site 3
Brookshire Creek
TN
NC
Figure 2-1. Locations of the long-term monitoring stations on Bald River.
9
Table 2-2. Site and sampling information for Bald River in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Station 3
Site Code
420103701
420103703
Sample Date
06 October
06 October
Watershed
Tellico River
Tellico River
County
Monroe
Monroe
Quadrangle
Bald River Falls 140 SW
Lat-Long
35.28667N-84.18444W
35.27417-84.15500W
Reach Number
06010204-12,0
06010204-12,0
Elevation (ft)
1,880
2,000
Stream Order
4
3
Land Ownership
USFS
USFS
Fishing Access
Excellent
Good
Description
Begins ~300 m upstream
of bridge at Bald Ri. Gorge
Wilderness Area boundary.
Begins at first ford upstream of the Henderson
Br. confluence.
Station Length (m)
230
126
Sample Area (m²)
2,783
696
Personnel
12
6
Electrofishing Units
4
2
Voltage (AC)
400
500
Removal Passes
3
3
Mean width (m)
12.1
5.8
Maximum depth (cm)
N/M
68
Canopy cover (%)
45
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
Estimated % of site in pools
45
47
Estimated % of site in riffles
55
53
Visual Hab. Assess. Score
158 (suboptimal)
169 (optimal)
Effort
Habitat
Substrate Composition
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
15
10
Sand
25
20
20
15
Gravel
10
30
20
25
Rubble
15
40
20
30
Boulder
15
5
20
25
Bedrock
20
5
10
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
5.0; low
2.4; low
Temperature (C)
9.0
9.2
pH
N/M
6.8
Conductivity (μS/cm)
10
12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
N/M
N/M
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
N/M
10
10
Table 2-3. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for two stations on Bald River
sampled 6 October 2010.
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
21
21
21
22
131
6.2
0.47
0.47
0.49
75
75
79
RBT >90 mm
61
61
61
63
1,907
31.3
6.85
6.85
7.09
219
219
226
BNT >90 mm
11
12
11
18
240
20.0
0.86
0.79
1.29
43
40
65
W. blacknose dace
140
172
143
201
740
4.3
2.66
2.21
3.11
618
514
722
Creek chub
101
111
101
123
728
6.6
2.61
2.40
2.92
399
363
442
River chub
9
9
9
11
29
3.2
0.10
0.10
0.13
32
32
40
C. stoneroller
1
1
1
1
36
36.0
0.13
0.13
0.13
4
4
4
N. hog sucker
59
66
59
77
1,562
23.7
5.61
5.02
6.56
237
212
277
19.29
17.97
21.72
1,627
1,459
1,855
Totals
403
453
406
516
5,372
Station 3
RBT ≤90 mm
37
40
37
47
171
4.3
2.45
2.29
2.90
575
532
675
RBT >90 mm
19
20
19
24
845
42.3
12.15
11.55
14.59
287
273
345
W. blacknose dace
43
48
43
57
248
5.2
3.56
3.21
4.26
690
618
819
Creek chub
84
88
84
94
734
8.3
10.55
10.02
11.21
1,264
1,207
1,351
28.71
27.07
32.96
2,816
2,630
3,190
Totals
183
196
183
222
1,998
Note: RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout.
11
Bald River
Station 1
Trout Densities
1600
1400
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 531
BNT >90 mm
50
RBT ≤90 mm
1200
RBT >90 mm
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 21.51
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
40
1000
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Trout Standing Crops
60
800
600
30
20
400
10
200
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 3
1600
1400
60
BKT
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
Mean = 921
50
40
1000
kg/ha
Fish/ha
1200
BKT
BNT
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
Mean =25.19
800
600
30
20
400
10
200
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Figure 2-2. Annual trout abundance estimates for the Bald River monitoring stations in
2010. Bars indicate upper 95% confidence limits.
12
Bald River
Station 1
50
Number of Fish
10/6/10
Rainbow
40
Brown
30
Rainbow trout
n= 82
75-231 mm
20
Brown trout
n = 11
105-198 mm
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Station 3
50
Rainbow
10/6/10
Brown
Number of Fish
40
Rainbow trout
n = 56
65-225 mm
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-3. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout from the
2010 Bald River samples.
13
2.2.2
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. Fine sediment can limit survival, growth, and abundance of
rainbow trout, as well as colonization of riffles by other vertebrates such as salamanders (Miller et
al. 1997; Harvey et al. 2009). Recently, the USFS placed rock berms along the road shoulder
adjacent to the river in many areas. These should help control amount of sediment entering the
stream and already appears to be having that effect. 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 these populations are descended from northern (hatchery) stocks
(Strange and Habera 1997).
Native, southern Appalachian brook trout from upper Sycamore Creek were transplanted
to lower McNabb Creek (1,920’ - 2,100’ elevation), another tributary, in 2005. One adult brook
trout was collected by the USFS during their June 2008 survey, none were observed in 2009, and
one age-0 fish was captured in 2010 (J. Herrig, USFS, personal communication). Low pH (<4)
during runoff events that continues to be an issue in McNabb Creek, along with high summer
temperatures and presence of rainbow trout (there is no barrier to prevent encroachment from
North River) may prevent this population from becoming established.
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
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). Hatchery-produced brook trout have been stocked in upper North
River since 2001.
Wilkins (1978) evaluated habitat improvement structures in lower North River in 1954 and
reported a wild rainbow trout biomass of 50.5 kg/ha (45 lbs./acre). This is probably the earliest
quantitative abundance estimate available for a wild trout population in Tennessee. North River
was subsequently sampled (qualitatively) 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. Mean biomass for the lower two sites (<30 kg/ha) are considerably lower than what Wilkins
(1978) reported in the 1950s. Sample site location and effort details, along with habitat and water
quality information are summarized in Table 2-4.
14
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the North
River stations in 2010 are given in Table 2-5. Total trout abundance began to recover somewhat
at stations 1 and 2 in 2010, but remained below long term averages (Figure 2-5). However,
abundance estimates at Station 3 declined for a third consecutive year, falling again to the lowest
levels obtained since monitoring began in 1991 (Figure 2-5). Adult rainbow trout biomass
typically represents the largest portion of total trout biomass in North River, but has consistently
declined recently (Figure 2-5) and is currently at its lowest level since 2002 (stations 1 and 2) or
1991 (Station 3). This is likely related to lingering drought-related impacts and the weak 2009
rainbow trout cohort.
The 2010 cohorts for rainbows and browns were notably stronger than in 2009 as
indicated by the increased numbers of age-0 (YOY) trout in the 2010 North River samples (Figure
2-6). Recruitment to the legally harvestable size (≥229 mm) remains limited as only five trout in
this size range were collected (three rainbows and two browns; Figure 2-6).
Despite the abundance and size structure impacts that remain as a result of the recent
drought and weak year class (2009), North River supports one of the best wild trout fisheries in
Tennessee south of GSMNP. It is obviously capable of producing some trout ≥229 mm, but its
relative infertility produces trout populations characterized by fast growth and high annual
(natural) mortality rates. Restrictive angling regulations provide few benefits in such cases (Kulp
and Moore 2005). 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, which might improve production of larger rainbow trout
by reducing intraspecific competition and improving survival for some fish.
Hatchery-produced brook trout fingerlings have been stocked in upper North River
annually since 2001 (~5,200/year), but no year-to-year carryover of these fish has been observed
to date. Stocking of brook trout in North River will apparently only provide for some limited putgrow-and-take angling opportunities.
Sampling at the North River monitoring stations should continue on an annual basis to
maintain the continuous wild trout population database for this representative stream from the
region south of GSMNP.
15
North River Monitoring Stations
Cherohala Skyway
FT 92
Hemlock
Creek
Tellico
River
Site 1
McNabb
Creek
Laurel
Branch
North River
Site 3
Site 2
Bald
River
Falls
Tellico
River
Bald River
Tellico Hatchery
Bald River
Henderson Branch
Kirkland
Creek
Brookshire Creek
TN
NC
Figure 2-4. Locations of the long-term monitoring stations on North River.
16
Table 2-4. Site and sampling information for North River in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
420103602
Station 3
Site code
420103601
420103603
Sample date
05 October
05 October
05 October
Watershed
Tellico River
Tellico River
Tellico River
County
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Quadrangle
Big Junction 140 SE
Lat-Long
35.33147 N, -84.13520W
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.
of the 1st North Ri. bridge
past McNabb Creek.
of Big Cove Br. confl.;
at ford at FR 2170 gate.
Station length (m)
180
136
100
Sample area (m²)
1,530
1,455
600
Personnel
17
12
6
Electrofishing units
4
4
2
Voltage (AC)
400
400
400
Removal passes
3
3
3
Mean width (m)
8.5
10.7
6.0
Maximum depth (cm)
N/M
N/M
61
Canopy cover (%)
60
70
65
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
scarce
50
57
60
50
43
40
Habitat assessment score
153 (suboptimal)
152 (suboptimal)
160 (optimal)
Effort
Habitat
Pool (%)
Silt
10
Sand
20
Gravel
20
Rubble
Boulder
Bedrock
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
10
5
10
5
15
15
10
15
5
25
20
25
20
35
15
30
30
40
30
35
10
15
20
15
20
15
25
15
5
5
5
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
8.0; low
6.0; low
6.0; low
Temperature (C)
9.4
10.0
10.2
pH
6.9
7.0
N/M
26
20
N/M
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
N/M
N/M
N/M
15
20
N/M
Figure 2-4. Locations of the three long-term monitoring stations on North River.
17
Table 2-5. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for three stations on North River sampled 5 October 2010.
Population Size
Total
Catch
Species
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Mean
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Biomass (kg/ha)
Est.
Density (fish/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
25
27
25
33
134
5.0
0.88
0.82
1.08
176
163
216
RBT >90 mm
33
34
33
37
1,663
48.9
10.87
10.55
11.83
222
216
242
BKT ≤90 mm
1
1
1
1
4
4.0
0.03
0.03
0.03
7
7
7
BNT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
7
10
5.0
0.07
0.07
0.23
13
13
46
BNT >90 mm
7
7
7
8
952
136.0
6.22
6.22
7.11
46
46
52
Creek chub
75
206
75
512
884
4.3
5.78
2.11
14.39
1,346
490
3,346
River chub
200
331
213
449
1,744
5.3
11.40
7.38
15.55
2,163
1,392
2,935
92
124
92
161
421
3.4
2.75
2.04
3.58
810
601
1,052
479
633
1,197
2.2
7.82
6.89
9.10
3,634
3,131
4,137
W. blacknose dace
Rosyside dace
413
556
1
Fantail darter
90
135
--
--
285
2.1
1.86
--
--
Saffron shiner
484
585
536
634
1,024
1.8
6.69
6.31
7.46
3,824
3,503
4,144
Warpaint shiner
117
177
117
243
334
1.9
2.18
1.45
3.02
1,157
765
1,588
882
--
--
C. stoneroller
52
59
52
70
770
13.1
5.04
4.45
5.99
386
340
458
N. hog sucker
54
54
54
56
1,020
18.9
6.67
6.67
6.92
353
353
366
68.26
54.99
86.29
Totals
1,645
2,298
1,686
2,844
10,442
15,019
11,020
18,589
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
30
33
30
40
197
6.0
1.35
1.24
1.65
227
206
275
RBT >90 mm
34
36
34
41
1,543
42.9
10.60
10.02
12.09
247
234
282
BKT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
26
8
4.0
0.05
0.05
0.71
14
14
179
BNT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
15
14
7.0
0.10
0.10
0.72
14
14
103
BNT >90 mm
38
39
38
42
699
17.9
4.80
4.67
5.17
268
261
289
6
6
6
8
66
11.0
0.45
0.45
0.60
41
41
55
230
410
250
570
3,583
8.7
24.63
14.95
34.08
2,818
1,718
3,918
49
61
49
80
217
3.6
1.49
1.21
1.98
419
337
550
186
221
193
249
361
1.6
2.48
2.12
2.74
1,519
1,326
1,711
Creek chub
River chub
W. blacknose dace
Rosyside dace
Saffron shiner
19
19
19
21
7
0.4
0.05
0.05
0.06
131
131
144
Warpaint shiner
50
54
50
61
95
1.8
0.65
0.62
0.75
371
344
419
C. stoneroller
3
5
3
32
77
15.3
0.53
0.32
3.36
34
21
220
N. hog sucker
43
46
43
53
548
11.9
3.76
3.52
4.33
316
296
364
50.94
39.32
68.24
6,419
4,943
8,509
Totals
692
934
719
1,238
7,414
Station 3
RBT ≤90 mm
11
11
11
12
80
7.3
1.33
1.34
1.46
183
183
200
RBT >90 mm
30
31
30
35
1,483
47.8
24.71
23.90
27.88
517
500
583
BKT ≤90 mm
4
4
4
5
19
4.8
0.32
0.32
0.40
67
67
83
BKT >90 mm
1
1
1
1
8
8.0
0.13
0.13
0.13
17
17
17
BNT >90 mm
2
2
2
2
23
11.5
0.38
0.38
0.38
33
33
33
19
20
19
24
126
6.3
2.11
2.00
2.52
333
317
400
28.98
28.07
32.77
1,150
1,117
1,316
W. blacknose dace
Totals
67
69
67
79
1,739
1
Non-descending removal pattern. Population estimate set equal to 1.5 times total ctch (95% confidence limits not calculated).
Note: RBT = rainbow trout; BKT = brook trout; BNT = brown trout.
18
North River
Station 1
Density
BNT ≤90 mm
1800
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
1500
RBT >90 mm
Biomass
60
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean =834
50
40
1200
kg/ha
Fish/ha
2100
900
Mean = 20.32
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
30
20
600
10
300
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 2
2100
1800
60
BKT
Mean = 883
BNT ≤90 mm
50
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
40
Mean = 23.75
RBT >90 mm
1200
kg/ha
Fish/ha
1500
BKT
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
900
30
20
600
10
300
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 3
4500
4000
100
BKT
BNT
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
Mean = 1,756
3500
90
80
Mean = 49.25
70
3000
2500
kg/ha
Fish/ha
BKT
BNT
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
2000
60
50
40
1500
30
1000
20
500
10
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Figure 2-5. Annual trout abundance estimates for the North River monitoring stations.
RBT = rainbow trout, BNT = brown trout, and BKT = brook trout (not included
in means). Bars indicate upper 95% confidence limits (total).
19
North River
Station 1
30
Number of Fish
Rainbow
10/05/10
25
Brown
Brook
20
RBT
n = 58
78-238 mm
15
10
BNT
n= 9
84-363 mm
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
40
Number of Fish
35
Rainbow
10/05/10
Brown
30
Brook
25
RBT
n = 64
70-226 mm
20
15
BNT
n = 40
79-221 mm
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
Length Class (mm)
Station 3
30
Number of Fish
Rainbow
10/05/10
25
Brown
Brook
20
RBT
n = 41
80-248 mm
15
10
BNT
n=2
102-104 mm
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
330
356
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-6. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout from the 2010
North River samples. All brook trout were 73-92 mm.
20
2.2.3
Rocky Fork
Study Area
Rocky Fork is a tributary of South Indian Creek in the Nolichucky River basin and is located
within TWRA’s Rocky Fork Wildlife Management Area in Greene and Unicoi counties. The
watershed is mountainous and forested, with some recent (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 2010 are given in Table 2-7. Station 1 on Rocky Fork was the only annual
monitoring sample in 2010 for which trout abundance estimates (density and biomass) increased
substantially relative to 2009 (Figure 2-8). Estimated rainbow trout biomass at this station
exceeded the long term average and was at its highest level since 2005. Estimated rainbow trout
density also exceeded the long term average and was at its highest level since 2002, primarily
because of the highest abundance of fish ≤90 mm collected to date (Figure 2-8). Interestingly,
both the total rainbow trout density estimate and density of the 2009 rainbow trout cohort (fish ≤90
mm) for 2009 were the lowest obtained since monitoring began. Although density of adult rainbow
trout actually declined 25% from 2009 to 2010, mean weight of these fish doubled (from 25 g to 50
g) during the same time, resulting in the overall biomass increase. Total trout abundance at
21
Station 2 more closely parallels recent trends for other monitoring streams. Strong 2010 cohorts
for both rainbow and brook trout resulted in increased total density relative to 2009, but total
biomass continued to decline in 2010 to the lowest level since monitoring began (Figure 2-8).
Although the mean weight of rainbow trout at Station 2 also increased from 2009 to 2010 (28 g to
45 g), this was neutralized by decreases in rainbow trout catch (23 to 9) and brook trout mean
weight (23 g to 14 g). A more detailed discussion of the relative abundance of brook and rainbow
trout at Station 2 is provided in Section 2.3.2
The 2010 trout cohorts at both stations (Figure 2-9) were substantially more abundant than
in 2009, when only ten trout ≤90 mm were collected at both stations. The characteristic paucity of
fish in the 203-mm size classes and larger was evident again at Station 1 in 2010 (Figure 2-9).
Size distributions for rainbow and brook trout at Station 2 are provided in Section 2.3.2.
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.
The current angling regulations are adequate to protect this resource. The future integrity of the
wild trout fishery in Rocky Fork has now been secured as the property has been purchased by the
Conservation Fund and will ultimately be transferred to public ownership. Monitoring of the Rocky
Fork stations should be conducted annually to maintain the continuity of this important wild trout
database.
22
Rocky Fork Monitoring Stations
Greene Co.
Ft. Davie
Creek
Station 2
Blockstand
Creek
Rocky Fork
S. Indian
Creek
Unicoi Co.
Long
Branch
Broad
Branch
Station 1
Flint Creek
Rocky Fork
Devil Fork
S. Indian
Creek
TN
NC
Figure 2-7. Locations of the two long-term monitoring stations on Rocky Fork.
23
Table 2-6. Site and sampling information for Rocky Fork in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Site code
420103401
420103402
Sample date
16 September
16 September
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)
754
410
Personnel
6
3
2
1
Voltage (AC)
500
600
Removal passes
3
3
Effort
Habitat
Mean width (m)
5.8
4.2
Maximum depth (cm)
88
60
Canopy cover (%)
90
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
62
48
38
52
160 (optimal)
164 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
5
Sand
10
5
10
5
Gravel
20
15
25
35
Rubble
30
35
30
40
Boulder
20
40
25
20
Bedrock
15
5
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
4.7; low
1.3; low
Temperature (C)
15.0
15.2
pH
6.9
6.7
16
12
N/M
N/M
15
5
24
Table 2-7
Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations on Rocky Fork sampled
16 September 2010.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Density (fish/ha)
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Station 1
RBT ≤90 mm
172
185
173
197
511
2.8
6.78
6.42
7.32
2,454
2,294
2,613
RBT >90 mm
64
64
64
66
3,358
52.5
44.54
44.54
45.95
849
849
875
Longnose dace
12
12
12
13
118
9.8
1.56
1.56
1.69
159
159
172
167
177
167
187
527
3.0
6.99
6.64
7.44
2,347
2,215
2,480
18
23
18
38
170
7.4
2.25
1.77
3.73
305
239
504
62.12
60.93
66.13
6114
5756
6644
W. blacknose dace
Mottled sculpin
Totals
433
461
434
501
4,684
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
28
28
28
30
109
3.9
2.66
2.66
2.85
683
683
732
RBT >90 mm
9
9
9
11
407
45.2
9.93
9.93
12.13
220
220
268
BBT ≤90 mm
35
35
35
37
161
4.6
3.93
3.93
4.15
854
854
902
BKT >90 mm
13
14
13
19
196
14.0
4.78
4.44
6.49
341
317
463
21.30
20.96
25.62
2,098
2,074
2,365
Totals
85
86
85
97
873
Note: RBT = rainbow trout and BKT = brook trout.
25
Rocky Fork
7000
Station 1
Density
8000
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 2,338
100
RBT >90 mm
6000
Mean = 42.16
RBT >90 mm
80
5000
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Biomass
120
4000
3000
60
40
2000
20
1000
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 2
8000
7000
BKT ≤90 mm
Mean = 2,624
BKT >90 mm
100
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 48.13
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
RBT >90 mm
80
5000
kg/ha
Fish/ha
6000
120
BKT ≤90 mm
4000
3000
60
40
2000
20
1000
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Figure 2-8. Trout abundance estimates for the Rocky Fork monitoring stations.
RBT = rainbow trout and BKT = brook trout. Bars indicate upper
95% confidence limits (total).
26
Rocky Fork
140
9/16/10
Rainbow trout
n = 236
46-283 mm
Number of Fish
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-9. Length frequency distribution for rainbow trout from the 2010
Rocky Fork sample at Station 1.
27
305
2.2.4
Left Prong Hampton Creek
Study Area
Left Prong of Hampton Creek flows through the Hampton Creek Cove State Natural Area
in Carter County and is a tributary to the Doe and Watauga rivers. A substantial portion of this
area remains in use as livestock pasture, although fencing prevents livestock access to the
stream. Rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), which often dominates the riparian vegetation of
other wild trout streams, is absent along Left Prong. Although the stream was likely inhabited by
brook trout at one time, only an abundant wild rainbow trout population was found by TWRA
during a 1988 survey (Bivens 1989). A subsequent attempt by Dr. J. Nagel (East Tennessee
State University, retired) to establish brook trout by introducing fish from nearby George Creek
was unsuccessful. Later (1999-2000), a cooperative effort by TWRA, Trout Unlimited
(Overmountain Chapter), the USFS, the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, and the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation successfully restored brook trout to the
upper 2 km of Left Prong. It was placed under special regulations in 2001 (three-fish creel limit
for brook trout and single-hook, artificial lures only) to help establish the new brook trout
population. The ineffective modified-culvert fish barrier at the downstream end of the brook trout
re-establishment zone was replaced in 2007 with a new structure that includes a 9’ waterfall
(Habera and Carter 2008; Habera et al. 2008a).
A long-term monitoring station (Station 1) was established on lower Left Prong in 1994
(Figure 2-10). 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 have been
sampled annually since 1996. Sample site location and effort details, 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 three
stations on Left Prong in 2010 are given in Table 2-9. Biomass estimates at Station 1 had been
among the highest obtained for wild rainbow trout anywhere in Tennessee in the mid-1990s, but
then consistently declined through 2002 (Figure 2-11). This trend reversed during 2003-2005
with more normal stream flows, but abundance has again decreased since 2005 (Figure 2-11) in
conjunction with the recent drought. Much of the previous decline in trout abundance at Station 1
(i.e., 1998-2002) was likely related to the dry conditions that prevailed during that time as well.
Additionally, winter floods in this watershed (particularly in 1998) substantially altered pool habitat
at this site (e.g., by partial filling or elimination). Roghair et al. (2002) and Carline and
McCullough (2003) found that flooding in trout streams caused substantial substrate movement
which decreased pool lengths, surface areas, and depths. Consequently, unless these pools are
reformed, it is unlikely that this site will ever be capable of supporting the trout biomass it once
did. Pool depth and quality are correlated with trout abundance (Lewis 1969; Bowlby and Roff
1986) and are important summer and winter habitat features (Matthews et al. 1994; Harper and
Farag 2004). The total trout density estimate for 2010 improved somewhat because of a strong
28
2010 rainbow trout cohort, but biomass declined and adult rainbow trout abundance was at the
lowest level observed since monitoring began (Figure 2-11).
Brook trout abundance (particularly biomass) at Station 2 has not been impacted as much
by the recent drought as rainbow trout abundance downstream. Brook trout biomass estimates at
Station 2 have remained relatively stable since 2003 (Figure 2-11). Habitat alteration (e.g., the
filling of some large pools) at this station associated with the 1998 floods (as at Station 1) will
likely prevent brook trout abundance from reaching the level previously attained by rainbow trout
(78 kg/ha). However, no rainbow trout were captured at this station in 2009 or 2010, indicating
that the new fish barrier is effectively blocking encroachment by rainbow trout from downstream.
Brook trout biomass at Station 3 decreased relative to 2009, but remained near that for rainbow
trout prior to restoration efforts (81 kg/ha; Figure 2-11).
The rainbow trout population size structure at Station 1 indicates few adult fish (>90 mm)
in 2010 and no fish ≥229-mm (Figure 2-12). Only one of these larger fish has been captured
during the past ten years (in 2004) and they were not abundant (a total of four was captured)
during 1994-2000 when biomass was >70 kg/ha. 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 strong 2010 cohorts and
several fish ≥152 mm (legally harvestable), particularly at Station 3 (Figure 2-11).
Development of the brook trout population in upper Left Prong has made it Tennessee’s
premier brook trout fishery. Since fully established in 2003, mean brook trout biomass for the
upper station (101 kg/ha) substantially exceeds the statewide average for other streams (about
21 kg/ha), as well as mean production by the previous rainbow trout population (81 kg/ha).
Although Benjamin and Baxter (2010) found that nonnative salmonids (brook trout in Idaho
streams) exhibited 1.7 times the biomass of the native species they replaced (cutthroat trout), this
does not appear to be the case in Left Prong. Brook trout biomass during 2003-2010 at Station 3
(no flood-altered habitat) has averaged 1.3 times higher than biomass for the previous nonnative
rainbow trout population, even though drought conditions prevailed. This may be related to native
southern Appalachian brook trout being better adapted to and more tolerant of drought conditions
(common during the past decade) than are nonnative rainbow trout. Monitoring data from other
brook/rainbow trout populations such as Rocky Fork (Section 2.3.2) and Gentry Creek (Section
2.3.4) also indicate brook trout have greater drought tolerance compared rainbows. Management
of Left Prong should feature its brook trout fishery and development of this important database
should continue through annual monitoring at all three sites.
Brook trout tissue samples (adipose fin clips) from Left Prong, as well as its three source
populations (George Creek, Clarke Creek, and Toms Branch) were collected in 2010 and sent to
Dr. Tim King (U.S. Geological Survey, Kearneysville, WV). These samples are being analyzed
for evidence of positive assortative mating, where descendants from the original source
populations tend to identify and mate with others of their own kind.
29
Left Prong Hampton Creek Monitoring Stations
Station 1
Barrier
Station 2
Station 3
Figure 2-10. Locations of the three monitoring stations on Left Prong Hampton Creek.
30
Table 2-8. Site and sampling information for Left Prong Hampton Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Site code
420102701
420102702
Sample date
22 July
22 July
420102703
22 July
Watershed
Watauga River
Watauga River
Watauga River
County
Carter
Carter
Carter
Quadrangle
White Rocks Mtn. 208 NE
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)
106
94
100
Sample area (m²)
311
364
330
Personnel
4
6
5
1
1
1
Voltage (AC)
350
450
450
Removal passes
3
3
3
Effort
Habitat
Mean width (m)
2.9
3.9
3.3
Maximum depth (cm)
33
N/M
N/M
Canopy cover (%)
70
90
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
scarce
41
40
43
59
60
57
154 (suboptimal)
157 (suboptimal)
160 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
10
Sand
10
5
10
5
10
10
5
Gravel
40
40
40
25
20
30
Rubble
35
45
20
45
15
35
Boulder
5
10
25
20
25
25
5
5
Bedrock
25
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
0.7; low
0.8; low
0.8; low
Temperature (C)
19.4
18.2
16.7
pH
7.0
6.8
6.8
38
34
27
N/M
N/M
N/M
20
25
20
31
Table 2-9.
Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations on Left Prong Hampton Creek
sampled 22 July 2010.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Weight
(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
64
67
67
73
254
3.8
8.18
8.18
8.92
2,154
2,154
2,347
RBT >90 mm
12
12
12
12
843
70.3
27.11
27.11
27.13
386
386
386
BKT ≤90 mm
2
2
2
2
6
3.0
0.19
0.19
0.19
64
64
64
BKT >90 mm
3
3
3
3
99
33.0
3.18
3.18
3.18
96
96
96
W. blacknose dace
81
83
81
87
266
3.2
8.57
8.33
8.95
2,669
2,605
2,797
Fantail darter
11
12
11
18
23
1.9
0.74
0.67
1.10
386
354
579
47.97
47.66
49.47
5,755
5,659
6,269
Totals
173
179
176
195
1,492
Station 2
BKT ≤90 mm
47
50
44
56
143
2.9
3.92
3.51
4.46
1,374
1,209
1,538
BKT >90 mm
41
41
40
42
1,023
25.0
28.10
27.47
28.85
1,126
1,099
1,154
32.02
30.98
33.31
Totals
88
91
84
98
1,166
2,500
2,308
2,692
BKT ≤90 mm
101
107
101
115
250
2.3
7.58
7.04
8.02
3,242
3,061
3,485
BKT >90 mm
91
92
91
95
2,301
25.0
69.73
68.94
71.97
2,788
2,758
2,879
77.31
75.98
79.99
6,030
5,819
6,364
Station 3
Totals
192
199
192
210
2,551
32
Station 1
Density
10000
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 5,132
RBT >90 mm
140
8000
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 67.85
RBT >90 mm
120
100
6000
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Biomass
160
4000
80
60
40
2000
20
0
0
'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 2
8000
7000
160
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
RBT mean = 4,678
5000
120
100
BKT post-restoration mean = 2,413
kg/ha
Fish/ha
6000
140
4000
3000
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
RBT mean = 78.25
80
BKT post-restoration mean = 28.54
60
2000
40
1000
20
0
0
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 3
160
8000
Fish/ha
6000
5000
BKT post-restoration mean = 5,102
140
120
RBT mean = 3,373
100
kg/ha
7000
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
4000
3000
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
BKT postrestoration
mean =
86.49
RBT mean = 81.11
80
60
2000
40
1000
20
0
0
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Figure 2-11. Trout abundance estimates for the Left Prong Hampton Creek monitoring
stations. RBT = rainbow trout and BKT = brook trout. Stations 2 and 3 were
not sampled in 1999 (brook trout restoration). Bars indicate upper 95%
confidence limits.
33
Station 1
60
Number of Fish
Rainbow
7/22/10
50
Brook
40
Rainbow trout
n = 76
54-225 mm
30
Brook trout
n=5
66-159 mm
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Station 2
60
7/22/10
Number of Fish
50
Brook trout
n = 88
52-185 mm
40
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Station 3
100
Brook trout
n = 192
45-212 mm
7/22/10
Number of Fish
80
60
40
20
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-12. Length frequency distributions for trout from the 2010
Left Prong Hampton Creek samples.
34
2.2.5
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. The current monitoring station (Figure
2-13) 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 2-10.
Catch data and abundance estimates for brook trout sampled at the Right Prong Middle
Branch station in 2010 are given in Table 2-11. The 2010 total density estimate exceeded that for
2009, but only because of the strong 2010 cohort (fish ≤90 mm; Figure 2-14). The density of larger
brook trout (sub-adults and adults) declined in 2010, likely as the result of the extremely weak 2009
cohort. Accordingly, biomass estimates (total and fish>90 mm) decreased relative to 2009 (Figure
2-14). Abundance estimates had been in decline during 2005-2008 as a result of the corresponding
drought, but now appear to have generally stabilized (although below the long-term average for this
stream; Figure 2-14).
Although recruitment from 2009 was obviously limited, several harvestable fish (152-mm size
class and larger) were still present (Figure 2-15). No fish ≥229 mm have been collected at the Right
Prong Middle Branch site, but this is typical for most brook trout populations. Recruitment to larger
size classes should improve in 2011 given the abundant 2010 cohort (Figure 2-15).
No special 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, particular in higher-elevation streams.
35
Right Prong Middle Branch Monitoring Station
Monitoring
Station
Figure 2-13. Location of the long-term monitoring station on Right Prong Middle Branch.
36
Table 2-10. Site and sampling information for Right Prong Middle Branch in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420102801
Sample date
20 August
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Carvers Gap 208 SE
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)
330
Personnel
3
1
Voltage (AC)
200
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
3.7
Maximum depth (cm)
83
Canopy cover (%)
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
40
60
160 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
30
Sand
5
5
Gravel
25
30
Rubble
15
30
Boulder
20
35
Bedrock
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
3.1; normal
Temperature (C)
14.8
pH
6.9
114
N/M
15
37
Table 2-11. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Right Prong Middle
Branch sampled 20 August 2010.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Biomass (kg/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
BKT ≤90 mm
29
29
29
31
91
3.1
2.76
2.76
2.91
879
879
939
BKT >90 mm
25
26
25
30
920
35.4
27.89
26.82
32.18
788
758
909
Totals
54
55
54
61
1,011
30.65
29.58
35.09
1,667
1,637
1,848
Note: BKT = brook trout.
38
Density
5000
BKT ≤90 mm
BKT >90 mm
4000
Fish/ha
Mean = 2,269
3000
2000
1000
0
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Year
Biomass
100
BKT ≤90 mm
80
kg/ha
Mean = 46.86
BKT >90 mm
60
40
20
0
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Year
Figure 2-14. Trout abundance estimates for the Right Prong Middle
Branch monitoring station. BKT = brook trout. Bars indicate
upper 95% confidence limits (total).
39
25
Brook trout
n = 54
52-202 mm
8/20/10
Number of Fish
20
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-15. Length frequency distribution for brook trout from
the 2010 Right Prong Middle Branch sample.
40
305
2.2.6
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), as does the Jones Branch population
in Unicoi County (the lowest known elevation at which brook trout occur in Tennessee).
Shields (1950) considered Stony Creek to provide a fair trout fishery for 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 adult (178-356
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, a 2003 creel survey (Habera et al. 2004) indicated that Stony
Creek had the lowest estimated angler effort for trout (128 h/ha) among the five streams studied. It
also had the lowest trout catch (590), harvest (91), and catch rate (0.19 fish/h) among the study
streams.
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 during 2004-2006 (Figure 2-16) 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 2-12.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Stony
Creek station in 2010 are given in Table 2-13. Total trout catch for the previous three samples at
the Stony Creek monitoring station (2004-2006) have included 42-59% age-0 fish (≤90 mm), while
75% of the trout captured in 2010 were composed of age-0 fish (Figure 2-17). Together, these
41
four samples have produced over 1,100 age-0 rainbow and brown trout (57% of all trout captured).
Consequently, Shields’ previously-mentioned assessment of Stony Creek’s capacity for trout
reproduction is obviously now inoperative. However, recruitment of this reproduction can be
limited during periods of drought, as has been evident recently in several other monitoring streams.
Total trout abundance in 2010 increased relative to the 2006 estimates, primarily as a result of
large numbers of age-0 trout (Figure 2-17). Adult trout biomass was actually somewhat lower
(~8%) in 2010 than in 2006, likely as a result of the drought during the intervening years. The size
structure of the rainbow trout population was imbalanced to a certain degree by the profusion of
age-0 fish and the lack of fish beyond the 229-mm size class, which Stony Creek is quite capable
of producing (Figure 2-18). No sub-adult or adult brown trout (size classes >102 mm) were present
(Figure 2-18), but they have been scarce in previous samples at this site as well.
Stony Creek consistently supports an excellent population of wild rainbow trout, along with
good populations of brook and brown trout as well. Its above-average fertility (alkalinity of 65 mg/L
as CaCO3) also enables it to produce some of Tennessee’s largest wild rainbows and browns.
Accordingly, management of this valuable fishery resource should emphasize wild trout. The
current level of stocking with adult rainbows, while not incompatible with wild trout management,
should not be expanded in scope or scale. The Stony Creek station is now on a three-year
sampling rotation and is next scheduled to be sampled during 2013.
42
Stony Creek Monitoring Station
S. Fork Holston Ri.
Stony
Creek
Sullivan Co.
Johnson Co.
Station 1
Little
Stony
Creek
Stony
Creek
Watauga
River
Doe River
Watauga
Lake
Figure 2-16. Location of the monitoring station on Stony Creek.
43
Table 2-12. Site and sampling information for Stony Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420103501
Sample Date
21 September
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)
1,646
Personnel
10
3
Voltage (AC)
125
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
7.8
Maximum depth (cm)
52
Canopy cover (%)
40
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
55
45
142 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
10
Sand
10
5
Gravel
25
25
Rubble
45
35
Boulder
15
35
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
7.9; low
Temperature (C)
21.1
pH
7.4
149
N/M
85
44
Table 2-13. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Stony Creek
sampled 21 September 2010.
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
276
317
290
344
1,374
4.3
8.35
7.58
8.99
1,926
1,762
2,090
RBT >90 mm
128
129
128
132
4,200
32.6
25.51
25.35
26.14
784
778
802
BNT <90 mm
123
162
123
201
615
3.8
3.74
2.84
4.64
984
747
1,221
BNT >90 mm
4
4
4
6
654
163.5
3.97
3.97
5.96
24
24
36
Rock bass
4
4
4
4
529
132.3
3.21
3.21
3.21
24
24
24
Bluegill
2
2
2
15
48
24.0
0.29
0.29
2.19
12
12
91
W. blacknose dace
328
350
335
365
1,472
4.2
8.94
8.55
9.31
2,126
2,035
2,217
Fantail darter
219
457
219
707
962
2.1
5.84
2.79
9.02
2,776
1,330
4,295
45
68
45
110
141
2.1
0.85
0.57
1.40
413
273
668
Mottled sculpin
350
699
421
977
5,368
7.7
32.61
19.69
45.70
4,247
2,558
5,936
Stoneroller
289
314
297
331
8,035
25.6
48.81
46.19
51.48
1,908
1,804
2,011
15
15
15
15
1,688
112.5
10.26
10.26
10.26
91
91
91
405
81.0
Snubnose darter
N. hogsucker
White sucker
Totals
5
1,788
5
2,526
5
1,888
5
3,212
25,489
45
2.46
2.46
2.46
30
30
30
154.84
133.75
180.76
15,345
11,468
19,512
Stony Creek
Density
5000
BNT ≤90 mm
4000
Mean = 2600
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
Fish/ha
RBT >90 mm
3000
2000
1000
0
'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Biomass
75
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 43.59
BNT >90 mm
60
RBT ≤90 mm
kg/ha
RBT >90 mm
45
30
15
0
'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-17 Trout abundance estimates for the Stony Creek monitoring
station. RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout. Bars
indicate upper 95% confidence limits (total).
46
Stony Creek
160
9/21/10
140
Brown
120
Number of Fish
Rainbow
Rainbow trout
n = 404
45-252 mm
100
80
Brown trout
n = 127
54-386 mm
60
40
20
0
25
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-18. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout
from the 2010 Stony Creek sample.
47
2.2.7
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. Doe Creek 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 and probably originated from eggs planted at the mouth of the stream 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 trout, and some large (>500 mm)
rainbow trout still enter Doe Creek each winter from the lake. Adult rainbow trout are also stocked
during March-June (about 3,300/year) and general (statewide) trout fishing regulations apply. Doe
Creek was surveyed for TWRA by Shields (1950) and later qualitatively sampled by Bivens (1989).
Ironically, Shields (1950) recommended removal of Doe Creek from the trout stream list at that
time because of its limited trout carrying capacity and lack of potential for reproduction. A 2003
creel survey indicated that Doe Creek had the highest estimated trout catch and harvest rates
among the five streams surveyed and was second only to Doe River in terms of estimated angler
effort for trout (Habera et al. 2004).
The current long-term monitoring station on Doe Creek (Figure 2-19) 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 2-14.
Catch data and abundance estimates for all species sampled at the Doe Creek station in
2010 are given in Table 2-15. Rainbow trout abundance consistently decreased during 2005-2008
as a result of the recent drought, but biomass had nearly recovered to the long-term average for
this site (70 kg/ha) in 2010 (Figure 2-20). However, this Doe Creek site has previously produced
~100 kg/ha (1993, 1997, 2004-05), so more improvement in possible.
The 2010 rainbow trout cohort in Doe Creek was more abundant than either of the previous
two years, which should improve recruitment even more in 2011. Otherwise, Doe Creek’s wild
rainbow trout population was relatively well-balanced in 2010 (Figure 2-21), with seven fish in the
229-mm size class or larger (the most since 2004).
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 (Habera et al. 2004). Management of this stream should feature the outstanding
48
wild trout population, and while the current stocking program is not incompatible with wild trout
management, it 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 Mountain City’s 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 (e.g., 2005-2008).
49
Doe Creek Monitoring Station
Shoun
Branch
Timothy
Branch
Lowe
Spring
Doe Creek
Campbell
Creek
Monitoring
Station
Stout
Branch
Howard
Branch
Doe Creek
Figure 2-19. Location of the long-term monitoring station on Doe Creek.
50
Table 2-14. Site and sampling information for Doe Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
4201031001
Sample date
02 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)
858
Personnel
6
3
Voltage (AC)
125
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
6.4
Maximum depth (cm)
55
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)
18.2; normal
Temperature (C)
15.9
pH
7.7
139
N/M
95
51
Table 2-15.
Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for one station on Doe Creek sampled 2 September 2010.
Population Size
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
RBT ≤90 mm
49
54
49
63
315
5.8
3.67
3.31
4.26
RBT >90 mm
166
176
166
186
5,564
31.6
64.85
61.14
4
4
4
9
23
5.8
0.27
0.27
121
170
121
221
583
3.4
6.80
32
39
32
53
72
1.8
0.84
Mottled sculpin
565
1,282
778
1,786
4,193
3.3
48.87
C. stoneroller
140
145
140
152
2,541
17.5
N. hog sucker
2
2
2
2
534
267.0
W. blacknose dace
Fantail darter
Totals
1,079
Est.
1,872
1,292
Upper
C.L.
Est.
Species
Creek chub
Lower
C.L.
Weight
(g)
Total
Catch
2,472
13,825
Note: RBT = rainbow trout.
52
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
629
571
734
68.50
2,051
1,935
2,168
0.61
47
47
105
4.79
8.76
1,981
1,410
2,576
0.67
1.11
455
373
618
29.92
68.69
14,942
9,068
20,816
29.61
28.55
31.00
1,690
1,632
1,772
6.22
6.22
6.22
23
23
23
161.13
134.87
189.15
21,818
15,059
28,811
Est.
Est.
Doe Creek
Density
5000
RBT ≤90 mm
Mean = 2,598
RBT >90 mm
Fish/ha
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Biomass
175
150
Mean = 69.98
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
kg/ha
125
100
75
50
25
0
'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-20. Trout abundance estimates for the Doe Creek monitoring
station. RBT = rainbow trout. Bars indicate upper 95%
confidence limits (total).
53
Doe Creek
100
9/02/10
Rainbow trout
n = 215
70-271 mm
Number of Fish
80
60
40
20
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-21. Length frequency distribution for rainbow trout from the
2010 Doe Creek sample.
54
330
2.2.8
Laurel Creek
Study Area
Laurel Creek is located in Johnson County, just across the Iron Mountains from Beaverdam
Creek. It 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 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
includes a put-and-take fishery for rainbow trout. About 4,100 catchable rainbow trout 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 (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 near Elliot Branch (Figure 2-19) 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
for the fifth time in 2010, and site location and effort details, along with habitat and water quality
information are summarized in Table 2-16.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Laurel
Creek station in 2010 are given in Table 2-17. Total trout abundance (particularly biomass) was
down in 2010 relative to the 2004 survey (Figure 2-23). Reduced numbers of adult trout,
particularly brown trout >300 mm (eight in 2004 vs. three in 2010), caused the decline in biomass
and is likely related to drought conditions during the intervening years. Despite the decline, total
trout biomass in 2010 remained near the long-term average for the site (Figure 2-23). The length
frequency distribution for both rainbow and brown trout were generally well-balanced with relatively
strong 2010 cohorts and several trout in the larger (≥229 mm) size classes (Figure 2-24).
One nonsalmonid species, rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides, was captured for the
first time at the Laurel Creek station. This species is extremely rare in the upper Holston River
system in Tennessee and has only been observed in one other stream (four specimens were
55
collected in Doe Creek in September 2006 and 2007). Mountain redbelly dace Phoxinus oreas
were also collected in the 2010 Laurel Creek sample and have been observed in only one previous
survey from this stream (five specimens were captured in 2001; Habera et al. 2002a). This species
is not native but has been introduced to the upper Tennessee River system in Virginia and its
appearance in Tennessee was predicted by Etnier and Starnes (1993).
Laurel Creek supports an excellent wild trout fishery that is comparable to the one present
in nearby Beaverdam Creek. Future management of Laurel Creek should maintain and feature
this wild trout fishery. The current level of stocking with adult rainbows is not incompatible with wild
trout management, but 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 quality-sized fish. Laurel Creek is
currently scheduled for sampling every third year (next sample in 2013) to continue developing the
database for this important stream.
56
Laurel Creek Monitoring Station
To
Damascus
VA
Laurel
Creek
TN
Elliot
Branch
Taylors
Valley Rd.
Station 1
Owens Branch
Rt. 91
Lyons
Branch
Laurel
Creek
Gentry
Creek
Laurel
Creek
Atchison
Branch
Gentry
Creek
Kate
Branch
TN
Rt. 91
Shingletown
Branch
To Mountain City
Figure 2-22. Location of the monitoring station on Laurel Creek.
57
NC
Table 2-16. Site and sampling information for Laurel Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site Code
420103301
Sample Date
14 September
Watershed
S. Fork Holston River
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)
2,162
Personnel
14
5
Voltage (AC)
200
Removal Passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
13.1
Maximum depth (cm)
138
Canopy cover (%)
45
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
35
65
150 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
10
Sand
20
10
Gravel
15
25
Rubble
15
35
Boulder
20
25
Bedrock
20
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
19.8; low
Temperature (C)
17.4
pH
7.4
131
N/M
75
58
Table 2-17. Estimated fish population sizes, standing crops, and densities (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Laurel
Creek sampled 14 September 2010.
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
30
31
30
35
105
3.4
0.49
0.47
0.55
143
139
162
RBT >90 mm
38
38
38
40
2,339
61.6
10.82
10.83
11.40
176
176
185
BKT ≤90 mm
1
1
1
1
6
6.0
0.03
0.03
0.03
5
5
5
BNT ≤90 mm
22
25
22
33
133
5.3
0.62
0.54
0.81
116
102
153
BNT >90 mm
53
54
53
57
5,926
109.7
27.41
26.89
28.92
250
245
264
Creek chub
17
34
17
100
246
7.2
1.14
0.57
3.33
157
79
463
River chub
137
144
137
152
2,069
14.4
9.57
9.12
2.38
666
634
703
4
4
4
6
9
2.3
0.04
0.04
0.06
19
19
28
52
62
52
78
163
2.6
0.76
0.63
0.94
287
241
361
Rosyside dace
1
1
1
1
5
5.0
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
Mottled sculpin
445
670
545
795
2,445
3.6
11.31
9.07
13.24
3,099
2,521
3,677
Saffron shiner
146
158
146
170
294
1.9
1.36
1.28
1.49
731
675
786
Warpaint shiner
7
7
7
9
66
9.4
0.31
0.31
0.39
32
32
42
Mtn. redbelly dace
4
4
4
6
13
3.3
0.06
0.06
0.09
19
19
28
198
213
200
226
1,520
7.1
7.03
6.57
7.42
985
925
1,045
Fantail darter
37
106
37
348
218
2.1
1.01
0.36
3.38
490
171
1,610
Snubnose darter
33
44
33
66
80
1.8
0.37
0.27
0.55
204
153
305
N. hogsucker
39
43
39
51
3,296
16.6
15.24
2.99
3.92
199
180
236
11
11
11
14
646
58.7
2.99
2.99
3.80
51
51
65
2
3
--
--
11
3.5
0.05
--
--
14
--
--
29
9.7
Longnose dace
W. blacknose dace
Stoneroller
White sucker
1
Green sunfish
Largemouth bass
Totals
3
1,280
3
1,656
3
1,380
8
2,196
19,618
1
0.13
0.13
0.36
90.76
73.16
83.08
14
7,662
59
14
6,386
37
10,160
Laurel Creek
Density
2500
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 954
BNT >90 mm
2000
RBT ≤90 mm
Fish/ha
RBT >90 mm
1500
1000
500
0
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Year
Biomass
70
BNT ≤90 mm
60
Mean = 42.30
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
kg/ha
50
RBT >90 mm
40
30
20
10
0
'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-23. Trout abundance estimates for the Laurel Creek monitoring station.
RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout. Bars indicate upper
95% confidence limits (total).
60
Laurel Creek
40
Rainbow
Brown
30
Number of Fish
9/14/10
Rainbow trout
n = 68
53-240 mm
Brown trout
n = 75
67-400 mm
20
10
0
25
51
76 102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-24. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout from
the 2010 Laurel Creek sample. One 83-mm brook trout was also
captured
61
2.2.9
Beaverdam Creek
Study Area
Beaverdam Creek, one of Tennessee’s best-known wild trout streams, originates in
Johnson County’s Iron Mountains and flows northeast into Virginia. 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 (except in the tributaries), he
recommended a stocking program that included fall fingerlings in the Shady Valley section and a
permit system for managing this stream. 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. Brook trout
populations inhabit 13 Beaverdam Creek tributaries and most 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 regulation 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, brown trout fingerlings are occasionally stocked in upper
Beaverdam Creek (vicinity of Hwy. 421 crossing and upstream) to supplement the wild brown trout
population in that area that is limited by spawning habitat (Habera et al. 2006).
Two long-term monitoring stations (Figure 2-25) 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
2-18.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species collected at the
Beaverdam Creek stations in 2010 are given in Table 2-19. Total trout density substantially
increased at both stations, primarily as a result of strong 2010 brown trout cohorts (Figure 2-26).
Estimated adult rainbow trout (>90 mm) biomass at increased somewhat at both stations in 2010
from what was at the lowest level observed to date in 2009. Total trout biomass estimates were
relatively unchanged from the previous year. Brown trout represented the majority of salmonid
biomass for the fifth consecutive year at Station 1 and sixth consecutive year at Station 2 (and
tenth of the past 12; Figure 2-26). This apparent shift toward brown trout biomass may be related
to the recent droughts—1998-2002 (Habera et al. 2003a) and 2006-2008.
The 2010 brown trout cohorts were substantially more abundant at both stations relative to
2009, and the 2010 rainbow trout cohort was much improved at Station 1 (Figures 2-26 and 2-27).
Perhaps the reduction in the abundance of rainbow trout spawners is becoming a factor at Station
62
2 with respect to year class strength (Zorn and Nuhfer 2007). Despite the continued depression of
total trout biomass in 2010, 26 trout exceeding 229 mm (the minimum size limit for anglers) were
present (Figure 2-27). Most of these were brown trout (22) and most were captured at Station 2
(15). Beaverdam Creek is well known for its large brown trout (>400 mm) and these have been
present in the 2004-2010 samples after being absent during 2001-2003.
Beaverdam Creek supports one of Tennessee’s best wild trout fisheries, which
management should continue to maintain and emphasize. 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 current fishing regulations are adequate, although there
is no indication that the 229-mm minimum size limit and 3-fish creel limit are beneficial (Kulp and
Moore 2005), especially given the similar wild trout fishery (without special angling regulations) in
nearby Laurel Creek (see Section 2.2.8). Annual monitoring should continue at both stations to
increase our understanding of this important wild trout fishery.
63
Beaverdam Creek Monitoring Stations
VA
TN
Sullivan Co.
Beaverdam
Creek
Johnson Co.
Stillhouse
Branch
Station 1
Haunted
Hollow
Dark
Hollow
Tank
Hollow
Chalk
Branch
Arnold
Branch
Beaverdam
Creek
Maple
Branch
Station 2
Fagall
Branch
Parks
Branch
Birch
Branch
Figure 2-25. Locations of the two long-term monitoring stations on Beaverdam Creek.
64
Table 2-18. Site and sampling information for Beaverdam Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Station 2
Site code
420103201
420103202
Sample date
07 September
08 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.
Station length (m)
200
177
Sample area (m²)
2,540
2,390
Personnel
19
18
4
4
Voltage (AC)
250
250
Removal passes
3
3
Effort
Habitat
Mean width (m)
12.7
13.5
Maximum depth (cm)
110
120
Canopy cover (%)
70
60
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
scarce
50
44
50
56
165 (optimal)
162 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Pool (%)
15
Riffle (%)
Silt
15
Sand
5
5
10
5
Gravel
15
25
15
20
Rubble
30
35
20
30
Boulder
15
30
30
30
Bedrock
20
5
10
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
18.2; low
19.4; low
Temperature (C)
15.9
17.2
pH
7.2
7.1
79
88
N/M
N/M
40
40
65
10
Table 2-19. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring stations on Beaverdam Creek sampled
7 and 8 September 2010.
Species
Total
Catch
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Weight
(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
79
82
79
88
224
2.7
0.88
0.84
0.94
323
311
346
RBT >90 mm
44
44
44
46
2,135
48.5
8.41
8.41
8.78
173
173
181
BNT ≤90 mm
54
58
54
65
258
4.4
1.01
0.94
1.13
228
213
256
BNT >90 mm
River chub
26
26
26
26
2,903
111.7
11.43
11.43
11.43
102
102
102
223
230
223
237
2,936
12.8
11.56
11.24
11.94
906
878
933
Longnose dace
9
9
9
10
92
10.2
0.36
0.36
0.40
35
35
39
Mottled sculpin
563
837
703
911
3,388
4.0
13.34
11.07
14.35
3,295
2,768
3,587
Warpaint shiner
47
52
47
61
229
4.4
0.90
0.81
1.06
205
185
240
Saffron shiner
118
123
118
130
250
2.0
0.99
0.93
1.02
484
465
512
C. stoneroller
172
179
172
187
3,627
20.3
14.28
13.75
14.95
705
677
736
--
--
Tennessee shiner1
Fantail darter
Greenfin darter
Snubnose darter
Swannanoa darter
N. hog sucker
White sucker
Totals
3
4
57
64
9
2.3
0.04
--
--
16
--
--
57
75
97
1.5
0.38
0.34
0.44
252
224
295
5
6
5
15
49
8.2
0.19
0.16
0.48
24
20
59
12
12
12
14
21
1.8
0.08
0.08
0.10
47
47
55
2
2
2
7
8
4.0
0.03
0.03
0.11
8
8
28
34
34
34
36
3,573
105.1
14.07
14.07
14.90
134
134
142
325
325.0
1
1,449
1
1,763
1
1,586
1
1,909
20,125
1.28
1.28
1.28
79.23
75.74
83.31
4
6,941
4
6,244
4
7,515
Station 2
RBT ≤90 mm
31
35
31
44
85
2.4
0.35
0.31
0.44
146
130
184
RBT >90 mm
52
54
52
58
2,789
51.7
11.67
11.25
12.55
226
218
243
BNT ≤90 mm
115
146
115
178
559
3.8
2.34
1.83
2.83
611
481
745
BNT >90 mm
23
23
23
25
4,736
205.9
19.82
19.82
21.54
96
96
105
Creek chub
River chub
Longnose dace
1
1
1
1
16
16.0
0.07
0.07
0.07
4
4
4
106
111
106
118
1,538
13.9
6.44
6.16
6.86
464
444
494
3
3
3
8
20
6.7
0.08
0.08
0.22
13
13
33
13
22
13
58
49
2.2
0.21
0.12
0.53
92
54
243
Mottled sculpin
291
512
339
685
2,226
4.3
9.31
6.10
12.32
2,142
1,418
2,866
Saffron shiner
73
78
73
86
173
2.2
0.72
0.67
0.79
326
305
360
W. blacknose dace
Warpaint shiner
11
14
11
26
79
5.6
0.33
0.26
0.61
59
46
109
C. stoneroller
72
90
72
113
951
10.6
3.98
3.19
5.01
377
301
473
Fantail darter1
25
38
58
1.5
0.24
--
--
159
--
Greenfin darter
8
13
8
40
106
8.1
0.44
0.27
1.36
54
33
167
Snubnose darter
5
5
5
8
9
1.8
0.04
0.04
0.06
21
21
33
Swannanoa darter
N. hog sucker
White sucker
Totals
--
--
--
3
3
3
4
17
5.7
0.07
0.07
0.10
13
13
17
12
12
12
13
704
58.7
2.95
2.95
3.19
50
50
54
127
42.3
3
847
3
1,163
3
870
8
1,473
14,241
1
0.53
0.53
1.42
13
13
33
59.59
53.72
69.90
4,866
3,640
6,163
66
Beaverdam Creek
BNT ≤90 mm
BNT ≤90 mm
60
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
50
1500
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Biomass
70
Mean = 1,080
BNT >90 mm
2000
Station 1
Density
2500
1000
Mean = 33.28
BNT >90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT >90 mm
40
30
20
500
10
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Station 2
2500
70
BNT ≤90 mm
2000
BNT ≤90 mm
Mean = 933
BNT >90 mm
60
RBT ≤90 mm
RBT ≤90 mm
50
RBT >90 mm
1500
kg/ha
Fish/ha
Mean = 36.37
BNT >90 mm
1000
RBT >90 mm
40
30
20
500
10
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Year
Figure 2-26. Trout abundance estimates for the Beaverdam Creek monitoring
stations. RBT = rainbow trout and BNT = brown trout. Bars indicate
upper 95% confidence limits (total).
67
Beaverdam Creek
Station 1
70
9/07/10
60
Rainbow
Number of Fish
Brown
50
Rainbow trout
n = 1230
46-250 mm
40
Brown trout
n = 80
63-353 mm
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Station 2
70
9/08/10
Number of Fish
60
Rainbow
Brown
50
Rainbow trout
n = 83
48-297 mm
40
Brown trout
n = 138
55-424 mm
30
20
10
0
25
51
76
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406
Length Class (mm)
Figure 2-27. Length frequency distributions for rainbow and brown trout from
the 2010 Beaverdam Creek samples.
68
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 2010 to continue tracking changes and trends in the relative abundance of
each species over time. The information obtained through these sympatric-population monitoring
efforts should document the extent to which 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 2-28) 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 2-20.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and all other species sampled at the Briar
Creek station in 2010 are given in Table 2-21. Perhaps no other monitoring stream has been
impacted by the recent droughts as severely as Briar Creek. During the past three years, August
flows have been only 0.4-0.5 cfs. Only six trout were collected in 2010 (Figure 2-29), a 67%
decrease from 2009 and 81% decrease from 2008. Population size structures for 2010 (Figure 229) indicated only one age-0 fish (a brook trout).
Total biomass was just over 6 kg/ha again in 2010 and has averaged only 6.3 kg/ha during
the past three years (Figure 2-30). The 1995-2007 average is 32.5 kg/ha), thus reflecting the
impact of the recent drought. Brook trout relative abundance (biomass) generally increased at the
69
monitoring station during 1995-2002 and exceeded 50% during drought years of 1998-2002
(Figure 2-30). Relative abundance of brook trout biomass fell below 50% in 2003 (as rainbow trout
biomass doubled during 2004-2005 (13.86 to 29.25 kg/ha). The declining trend in brook trout
relative abundance (biomass) reversed during 2006-2008 with the drier conditions, but fell to just
12% in 2010 (Figure 2-30) as the entire trout population was reduced to an estimated six fish.
Briar Creek formerly supported a good wild trout fishery featuring brook trout, but that has
been altered by the recent drought. Fortunately, wild trout populations tend to be resilient and the
Briar Creek fishery should recover with better summer flows for two to three years. Annual
sampling at the monitoring station should continue in order to learn more about brook and rainbow
trout populations under sympatric conditions, particularly their responses to abiotic events
(droughts and floods). 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.
70
Briar Creek Monitoring Station
Straight
Creek
Monitoring
Station
FR 188
Briar Creek
Ramsey
Creek
Dry
Creek
Nolichucky
River
Washington Co.
Unicoi Co.
Figure 2-28. Location of the long-term monitoring station in the brook/rainbow trout
sympatric zone on Briar Creek.
71
Table 2-20. Site and sampling information for Briar Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420102901
Sample date
25 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 right descending stream bank.
Effort
Station length (m)
145
Sample area (m²)
474
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
400
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
3.3
Maximum depth (cm)
85
Canopy cover (%)
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
35
65
158 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
15
Sand
10
10
Gravel
20
30
Rubble
30
40
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
10
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
0.5; low
Temperature (C)
18.4
pH
6.9
33
N/M
20
72
Table 2-21. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Briar Creek sampled
25 August 2010.
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Fish
Wt. (g)
Biomass (kg/ha)
Species
RBT >90 mm
4
4
4
5
232
58.0
5.51
5.51
6.89
BKT ≤90 mm
1
1
1
1
2
2.0
0.05
0.05
BKT >90 mm
1
1
1
1
29
29.0
0.69
W. blacknose dace
113
114
113
117
304
2.7
Totals
119
120
119
124
567
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Weight
(g)
Total
Catch
73
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
95
95
119
0.05
24
24
24
0.69
0.69
24
24
24
7.21
7.25
7.50
2,708
2,684
2,779
13.46
13.50
15.13
2,851
2,827
2,946
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Est.
Briar Creek
10
8/25/10
Rainbow
Rainbow trout
n=4
165-200 mm
Number of Fish
Brook
Brook trout
n=2
64-144 mm
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
240
100
90
80
Total biomass
% BKT density
200
% BKT biomass
70
160
60
120
50
40
30
80
Drought
Drought
20
40
10
0
0
'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-30. Total biomass and relative brook trout abundance at the
Briar Creek monitoring station. Bars indicate upper 95%
confidence limits.
74
Total trout biomass (kg/ha)
Brook trout relative abundance (%)
Figure 2-29. Length frequency distributions for brook and rainbow trout from
the 2010 Briar Creek sample.
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 previously provided in
Figure 2-7 and Table 2-10 in Section 2.2.3.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout sampled at Station 2 on Rocky Fork in 2010
were given in Table 2-11 (Section 2.2.3). Although the YOY were relatively abundant, only 13
adult trout were captured in 2010 (Figure 2-31). Recruitment has been limited at this site in recent
years because of the drought-related conditions and consequently, total trout biomass decreased
again to a new low (21 kg/ha) in 2010 (Figure 2-32). In fact, each of the last three total trout
biomass estimates was <30 kg/ha and, at the time, was the lowest observed since monitoring
began (Figure 2-32). Rainbow trout were responsible for most of the decline in biomass since
2009. Brook and rainbow trout biomass estimates currently remain below even the 1994 estimates
that followed the severe flood in early that year (Figure 2-32).
Rainbow trout are typically more abundant than brook trout in the larger size classes (≥152
mm), and this was the case at Station 2 again in 2010 (Figure 2-31). Nagel and Deaton (1989)
questioned the size advantage rainbow trout were thought to hold over brook trout in Rocky Fork’s
headwaters (Whitworth and Strange 1983) and elsewhere. However, monitoring data from Rocky
Fork and elsewhere have generally verified the tendency of rainbow trout to grow larger than brook
trout in a variety of sympatric situations. This advantage may be lost at times during droughts
(e.g., in 2008; Habera et al. 2009a), when survival and recruitment appear to be impacted more for
rainbow trout than for brook trout.
The relative abundance of brook trout biomass was quite stable at about 40% from 1991
through 1993, but declined rapidly after the flood in early 1994 (Figure 2-32) and associated brook
trout year-class failure (Strange and Habera 1995). Brook trout relative abundance recovered to
the pre-flood level in 1996 and continued to increase thereafter, surpassing 50% in 2000 and 60%
in 2001 (Figure 2-32). This trend coincided with the dry years of 1998-2002 (Habera et al. 2003a),
but reversed afterward (2002-2005; Figure 2-32). The relative abundance of brook trout biomass
increased again with the most recent drought, exceeding 58% in 2008 (Figure 2-32). It is
becoming clearly evident in Rocky Fork and elsewhere that brook trout in populations sympatric
with rainbow trout benefit during droughts in the sense that competitive pressure is reduced as
75
rainbow trout are more markedly impacted. However, cumulative drought effects on recruitment
may reach a point where abundance of both species is reduced to the extent that relative
abundance percentages have little value (e.g., 2009-2010 in Briar Creek [Section 2.3.1], Rocky
Fork, and Birch Branch [Section 2.3.3]).
Even though reduced by the recent drought, upper Rocky Fork continues to support an
important 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, 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.
76
Rocky Fork
Station 2
35
9/16/10
Rainbow
Number of Fish
30
Brook
25
Rainbow trout
n = 37
55-202 mm
20
15
Brook trout
n = 48
65-165 mm
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
100
300
90
Total biomass
80
% BKT biomass
270
% BKT density
240
70
210
60
180
50
150
40
120
Drought
30
20
90
Drought
Flood
60
10
30
0
0
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-32. Total biomass and relative brook trout abundance at the upper
monitoring station (2) on Rocky Fork. Bars indicate upper 95%
confidence limits.
77
Brook Trout Relative Abundance (%)
Figure 2-31. Length frequency distributions for brook and rainbow trout from the
2010 sample at the upper monitoring station (2) on Rocky Fork.
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 2-33) 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 2010
are given in Table 2-25. Trout catch increased from a low of 21 in 2009 to 41 in 2010, primarily
as a result of better reproduction (more YOY); however, recruitment remains depressed and few
adult trout were present (Figure 2-34). Although total trout biomass increased to about 10 kg/ha
in 2010, the one adult brown trout captured (265 mm) was responsible for nearly 40% of this
change. No adult brook trout were present in 2010 and adult rainbow trout biomass also remains
depressed (<5 kg/ha; Table 2-25), indicating that this trout population has been substantially
impacted by the recent drought.
Brook trout relative abundance in terms of biomass generally increased from about 30% in
1995 to over 70% in 2002, with much of the change occurring during the 1998-2002 drought
(Figure 2-35). There was another, although more subtle increase associated with the 2006-2008
drought (Figure 2-35). The steep decline from 2009-2010 is likely related to the cumulative
drought effects on recruitment, as the abundance of both species has been reduced to the extent
that relative abundance percentages have little value (as in Briar Creek [Section 2.3.1] and Rocky
Fork [Section 2.3.3] as well).
The wild trout fishery in Birch Branch is not particularly noteworthy, although it does
include native, southern Appalachian brook trout which should be maintained. Continued
78
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.
79
Birch Branch Monitoring Station
VA
TN
Sullivan Co.
Beaverdam
Creek
Johnson Co.
Stillhouse
Branch
Haunted
Hollow
Dark
Hollow
Tank
Hollow
Chalk
Branch
Arnold
Branch
Beaverdam
Creek
Maple
Branch
Fagall
Branch
Monitoring
Station
Parks
Branch
Birch
Branch
sympatric zone on Birch Branch.
80
Table 2-24. Site and sampling information for Birch Branch in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420102601
Sample date
20 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)
501
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
450
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
3.5
Maximum depth (cm)
78
Canopy cover (%)
95
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
32
68
156 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
10
5
Gravel
30
25
Rubble
40
50
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
1.0; normal
Temperature (C)
17.8
pH
6.5
10
N/M
10
81
Table 2-25. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Birch Branch sampled
20 July 2010.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Biomass (kg/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
21
23
21
29
27
1.2
0.55
0.50
0.69
459
419
579
RBT >90 mm
9
9
9
9
207
23.0
4.13
4.13
4.13
180
180
180
BKT ≤90 mm
19
19
19
19
70
3.7
1.40
1.40
1.40
379
379
379
BNT ≤90 mm
1
1
1
1
3
3.0
0.06
0.06
0.06
20
20
20
BNT >90 mm
1
1
1
1
192
192.0
3.83
3.83
3.83
20
20
20
51
53
51
59
9.97
9.92
10.12
1,058
1,018
1,178
Totals
499
82
Birch Branch
15
Rainbow
7/20/10
Number of Fish
Brook
Brown
10
Rainbow trout
n = 30
44-161 mm
Brook trout
n = 19
64-85 mm
5
Brown trout
n=2
71-265 mm
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
100
100
90
80
Total biomass
90
% BKT density
80
% BKT biomass
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
Drought
Drought
20
20
10
10
0
0
'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-35. Total biomass and relative brook trout abundance at the Birch
Branch monitoring station. Bars indicate upper 95% confidence
limits.
83
Figure 2-34. Length frequency distributions for brook, rainbow, and brown
trout from the 2010 Birch Branch sample.
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
distribution 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 2-36; Strange and Habera
1993) 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 2010 are given in Table 2-27. Although no rainbow trout were collected in 2009,
six were captured in 2010, all of which were sub-adults from the 2009 cohort (Figure 2-37). Total
trout biomass increased in 2010 to near the long-term average (26 kg/ha), primarily as a result of
recruitment by brook trout (Figure 2-38). The low trout abundances in Gentry Creek prior to 2010,
can be attributed to the effects of the recent drought, but the 2010 data indicate that recovery has
begun (unlike in the other brook/rainbow trout monitoring streams).
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; Warren
et al. 2009) and Gentry Creek appears to demonstrate this effect. 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 2-38). However, brook trout relative abundance
(biomass) began a steady increase in 1999 (coinciding with the beginning of the 1998-2002
drought) and exceeded 90% in 2002 (Figure 2-38). Brook trout relative abundance in Rocky Fork’s
sympatric zone also recovered rather quickly after the severe 1994 flood (Section 2.3.2). As more
normal flows returned after 2002, rainbows recovered and brook trout relative abundance began a
general decline similar to that observed at the Briar Creek, Rocky Fork, and Birch Branch
monitoring stations. With the resumption of drought conditions in 2006, brook trout relative
84
abundance once again increased, reaching 100% in 2009 (Figure 2-38). Obviously, some age-0
rainbow trout were present in or near the Gentry Creek site in 2009 as yearlings were captured in
2010 and brook trout relative abundance dropped back to 88% (Figure 2-38). It appears that
Gentry Creek’s brook trout, like those in the other monitoring streams, are capable of long-term
coexistence with rainbow trout and that competition from rainbows can be substantially diminished
during droughts.
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 (particularly their
responses to droughts and floods) 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.
85
Gentry Creek Monitoring Station
VA
TN
Laurel
Creek
Gilbert
Branch
Falls
FT 51
Monitoring
Station
N. Fork Gentry Ck.
Kate
Branch
TN
Gentry Creek
NC
FT 51
Cut Laurel
Branch
Grindstone
Branch
sympatric zone on Gentry Creek.
86
Table 2-26. Site and sampling information for Gentry Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420102301
Sample date
28 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)
410
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
400
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
3.4
Maximum depth (cm)
46
Canopy cover (%)
90
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
34
66
165 (optimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
5
Sand
15
30
Gravel
35
40
Rubble
25
20
Boulder
15
5
Bedrock
5
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
3.2; normal
Temperature (C)
17.3
pH
6.6
13
N/M
10
87
Table 2-27. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Gentry Creek sampled
28 June 2010.
Population Size
Species
Total
Catch
Est.
Lower Upper
C.L. C.L.
Est.
Mean
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Biomass (kg/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Est.
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
BKT ≤90 mm
27
29
27
35
76
2.6
1.86
1.71
2.22
707
659
854
BKT >90 mm
20
20
20
22
768
38.4
18.73
18.73
20.60
488
488
537
RBT >90 mm
6
6
6
6
114
19.0
2.78
2.78
2.78
146
146
146
62
102
62
167
550
5.4
13.40
8.17
22.00
2,488
1,512
4,073
115
157
115
230
36.77
31.39
47.60
3,829
2,805
5,610
Mottled sculpin
Totals
1,508
Note: RBT = rainbow trout; BKT = brook trout.
88
Gentry Creek
30
6/28/10
Rainbow
25
Number of Fish
Brook
20
Brook trout
n = 47
55-212 mm
15
Rainbow trout
n=6
111-136 mm
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
180
100
Total biomass
90
% BKT density
150
% BKT biomass
80
70
120
60
90
50
40
30
20
Drought
Drought
60
Flood
Flood
30
10
0
0
'92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 2-38. Total biomass and relative brook trout abundance at the Gentry
Creek monitoring station. Bars indicate upper 95% confidence
limits.
89
Figure 2-37. Length frequency distributions for brook trout from the 2010
Gentry Creek sample (no rainbow trout were captured).
2.3.5
Summary
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. Additionally, simulated
year-class failures included both species, even though typical late-winter/early-spring floods would
impact year-class strength of brook trout (fall spawners) more severely than rainbow trout (Strange
and Habera 1995, 1996; Warren et al. 2009). Clark and Rose (1997) did not examine drought
effects, which appear to benefit brook trout in sympatric Tennessee populations in the sense that
rainbow trout survival and recruitment are more substantially reduced, thereby suppressing (at
least temporarily) any replacement trends.
Nagel (1991) reported high model-generated probabilities of extinction (56% for 2.5-km
streams, 92% for 0.5-km streams) for small, isolated brook trout populations over 30-year periods
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 probably occur, on average, at intervals of
greater than 5 years, and 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 14-year 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. Adams et al. (2002) observed similar results for nonnative
brook trout in Idaho trout streams, but Waters (1999) found that brown trout, which live longer and
grow larger, essentially replaced native brook trout over a 14-year period in a Minnesota stream.
Complete replacement of brook trout by rainbows in Tennessee streams might only be possible
through unusual circumstances, such as a succession of late winter/early spring floods that
severely weaken or eliminate multiple brook trout year classes. Droughts, such as those during
1998-2002 and 2007-2008, can compensate for brook trout population declines related to floods by
having a greater impact on rainbow trout. This appears to have occurred recently in all four
brook/rainbow trout populations currently being monitored, and nowhere more conspicuously than
in Gentry Creek, where brook trout relative abundance reached 100% in 2009.
Although brook trout relative abundance has fluctuated over the years at the monitoring
stations, it appears that rainbow trout have no particular competitive advantage, thus these species
could exist for many years at some general ‘equilibrium’. Strange and Habera (1998b) and Habera
et al. (2001b) found no broad-scale loss of distribution or inexorable replacement by rainbow trout
in sympatric populations, thus the outlook for Tennessee’s brook trout is much more encouraging
than it was during the latter part of the 20th century. Additional information will be useful for
determining what conditions (e.g., landscape alterations; Stranko et al. 2008) or other events (if
any) eventually enable rainbow trout to eliminate brook trout, thus annual monitoring at the four
stations discussed above should continue.
90
2.4
WILD TROUT INVENTORY STREAMS
The following streams have previously been surveyed and were known to support wild
trout, but have never been quantitatively sampled by TWRA to document abundance. They were
sampled in 2010 to supplement the existing wild trout stream inventory.
2.4.1
Little Doe River
Study Area
Little Doe River is formed by the confluence of Tiger Creek and Simerly Creek in Carter
County. The two primary tributaries originate between Clarke Mountain and Stone Mountain near
the border with Unicoi County. Little Doe River flows northeast ~7 km, becoming a tributary to Doe
River near Hampton, Tennessee. The stream is located entirely on privately owned land and it
flows through a mostly forested watershed with some residential and agricultural use. Shields
(1950) observed that Simerly Creek below the confluence with Tiger Creek was known locally as
Little Doe River and that the entire stream was not trout water because it was too warm and too
heavily silted.
Records indicate that Little Doe River was sporadically stocked with fingerling rainbow trout
during 1967-1983 (1,460 per event). Tiger Creek was stocked much more frequently with both
adult and fingerling rainbow trout during the 1950s through the 1970s. Simerly Creek was also
frequently stocked with fingerling rainbows (and on one occasion browns) during the 1970s
through the 1990s, as well as one time in 2002. None of these three streams is currently stocked.
Little Doe River was surveyed near the confluence with Doe River by TVA in 1994 and
1996 during its Clean Water Initiative (TVA 1998). Only two trout (rainbows) were present in the
1996 survey, although both Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores were good (50-52). TWRA
qualitatively surveyed the upper portion of the stream in June 2009 to determine the presence of a
wild trout population (Habera et al. 2010b). Wild rainbow and brown trout were present, thus a site
in was chosen and sampled in August 2010 to document abundance. This site was located in the
upper portion of the stream at the Willow Lane Bridge (Figure 2-39). Site location and effort
details, along with habitat and water quality information, are summarized in Table 2-28.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and other species sampled at the Little Doe
River station in 2010 are given in Table 2-29. Alkalinity (40 mg/L CaCO3) and pH (7.2) indicated
relatively good productivity in Little Doe River and even though temperature was 20.2 °C, a good
(25 kg/ha) population of wild brown and rainbow trout was present, along with 10 nonsalmonid
species (Tables 2-28 and 2-29). The 2010 cohorts for both trout species were relatively strong (as
in most other streams in 2010) and despite the recent drought, the adult size structure was
relatively well balanced, with five fish >229 mm (including one 421-mm brown trout; Figure 2-37).
91
Benthic macroinvertebrates sampled at the Little Doe River station in 2010 comprised 28
families representing 36 identified genera (Table 2-30). Caddisflies (particularly Cheumatopsyche
and Ceratopsyche), beetles (particularly Psephenus), mayflies (particularly Maccaffertium and
Baetis) and stoneflies (particularly Leuctra), were the most abundant organisms, together
representing about 85% of the sample. Total taxa richness was 46 and EPT taxa richness was 28.
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.
The ability of Little Doe River to support trout has obviously improved since Shields’ (1950)
assessment. It now provides a good wild brown and rainbow trout fishery which may get even
better given time to recover from any lingering drought effects. No changes from the angling
regulations that currently apply (statewide) or in the current stocking program (no stocking) are
necessary.
92
Little Doe River
Sample Site
Tiger Creek
Figure 2-39. Location of the 2010 sampling station on Little Doe River.
93
Table 2-28. Site and sampling information for Little Doe River in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420103001
Sample date
27 August
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Iron Mtn. Gap 208 NW
Lat-Long
36.24249 N, 82.18923 W
Reach number
06010103
Elevation (ft)
1,940
Stream order
4
Land ownership
Private
Fishing access
Good
Description
Site begins under Willow Lane bridge (off US Hwy. 19 E).
Effort
Station length (m)
111
Sample area (m²)
888
Personnel
9
3
Voltage (AC)
150
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
8.0
Maximum depth (cm)
80
Canopy cover (%)
60
Aquatic vegetation
common
39
61
145 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
10
10
Gravel
25
35
Rubble
30
30
Boulder
30
25
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
20.7; normal
Temperature (C)
20.2
pH
7.2
88
N/M
40
94
Table 2-29. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Little Doe River sampled
27 August 2010.
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Species
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
11
11
11
13
32
2.9
0.36
0.36
0.42
124
124
146
RBT >90 mm
12
12
12
12
899
74.9
10.12
10.12
10.12
135
135
135
BNT ≤90 mm
35
44
35
61
186
4.2
2.10
1.66
2.89
495
394
687
BNT >90 mm
8
8
8
9
1,092
136.5
12.30
12.30
13.83
90
90
101
Bluegill
1
1
1
1
4
4.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
11
11
11
155
171
156
186
2,328
13.6
26.21
23.89
28.49
1,926
1,757
2,095
66
77
66
92
263
3.4
2.96
2.53
3.52
867
743
1,036
49
74
--
--
150
2.0
1.68
--
--
833
--
--
3
3
3
4
5
1.7
0.06
0.06
0.08
34
34
45
Mottled sculpin
313
545
372
718
1,935
3.5
21.78
14.66
28.30
6,137
4,189
8,086
Saffron shiner
151
184
155
213
308
1.7
3.47
2.97
4.08
2,072
1,745
2,399
1
1
1
1
2
2.0
0.02
0.02
0.02
11
11
11
Warpaint shiner
22
54
22
182
152
2.8
1.71
0.69
5.74
608
248
2,050
Stoneroller
46
48
46
53
1,103
23.0
12.42
11.91
13.73
541
518
597
24
1,415
61.5
15.93
15.93
River chub
W. blacknose dace
1
Fantail darter
Snubnose darter
Tennessee shiner
N. hog sucker
Totals
23
896
Lower Upper
C.L.
C.L.
Weight
(g)
Total
Catch
Est.
23
1,256
23
911
1,569
9,873
Est.
111.17
1
97.14
16.62
127.89
Est.
259
259
270
14,143
10,258
17,669
95
Little Doe River
25
8/27/10
Number of Fish
20
Rainbow
Brown
15
Rainbow trout
n = 23
50-278 mm
10
Brown trout
n = 43
59-421 mm
5
0
25
51
76 102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432
Length Class (mm)
from the 2010 Little Doe River sample.
96
Table 2-30. Benthic organisms sampled in Little Doe River in 2010 (Field # RDB-2010-28). Total sampling effort was 3 h.
Order
ANNELIDA
Family
Genus / species
Number
0.2
Oligochaeta
1
18.5
COLEOPTERA
Psephenidae
Optioservus larvae
Optioservus ovalis adult
Promoresia elegans larvae & adults
Psephenus herricki larvae & adult
Isotomidae
Isotomurus palustris
Athericidae
Blephariceridae
Chironomidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Atherix lantha
Blepharicera larvae & pupae
larvae
larvae
Antocha
Hexatoma
Tipula
1
10
14
4
5
1
2
Baetidae
Leptophlebiida
Isonychiidae
Acentrella
Baetis
Serratella
Epeorus dispar
Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus
Leucrocuta
Maccaffertium ithaca
Paraleptophlebia
Isonychia
3
20
4
1
6
1
22
3
15
Ancylidae
Pleuroceridae
Ferrissia
Elimia
8
20
Asellidae
Lirceus
2
Gomphidae
Lanthus vernalis
Ophiogomphus mainensis
Stylogomphus albistylus
2
1
1
Leuctridae
Perlidae
Leuctra
Acroneuria abnormis
Paragnetina immarginata
Malirekus/Yugus early instars
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) biloba type
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) proteus type
Elmidae
COLLEMBOLA
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
ISOPODA
ODONATA
PLECOPTERA
1
7.5
15.2
5.7
0.4
0.8
14.4
Perlodidae
Pteronarcyidae
TRICHOPTERA
2
1
8
80
0.2
Ephemerellidae
Heptageniidae
GASTROPODA
Percent
21
10
6
2
16
16
37.0
Brachycentridae
Goeridae
Hydropsychidae
Polycentropodidae
Rhyacophilidae
Uenoidae
Brachycentrus spinae
Micrasema wataga
Goera calcarata larva & pupa
Undetermined pupa
Ceratopsyche alhedra
Ceratopsyche bronta
Ceratopsyche morosa
Ceratopsyche sparna
Cheumatopsyche
Polycentropus
Rhyacophila fuscula larvae and pupa
Neophylax consimilis
Neophylax ornatus
TOTALS
Taxa richness = 46; EPT taxa richness = 28; bioclassification = 4.0 (Good).
97
34
3
2
1
1
1
19
45
61
1
11
2
1
492
100
2.4.2
Simerly Creek
Study Area
Simerly Creek arises near the Carter/Unicoi county line along Hwy. 173 (south of Stone
Mountain) and flows northeast to become, along with Tiger Creek, the source of the Little Doe
River. The stream is located entirely on privately owned land and it flows through a mostly forested
watershed with some residential and agricultural use. Shields (1950) stated in his survey of east
Tennessee trout streams that Simerly Creek was not trout water because it was too warm and too
heavily silted. However, by the 1970s, Simerly Creek was being frequently stocked with fingerling
rainbows (and on one occasion browns) and stocking continued through the 1990s. Simerly Creek
was last stocked in 2002.
A quantitative sample of upper Simerly Creek in 1994 produced a modest wild rainbow trout
biomass estimate of 12.82 kg/ha (Strange and Habera 1995). More recently (June 2009), a
qualitative survey near the confluence with Tiger Creek documented the presence of good wild
rainbow and brown trout populations. Accordingly, a station was established in lower Simerly
Creek (Figure 2-41) and quantitatively sampled in 2010. Site location and effort details, along with
habitat and water quality information, are summarized in Table 2-31.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout collected at the Simerly Creek station in
2010 are given in Table 2-32. Estimated biomass (40.75 kg/ha) and size distribution (Figure 2-42)
indicated the presence of an excellent wild trout population in lower Simerly Creek, despite any
lingering effects of the recent drought. Brown trout comprised 67% of the biomass and most (92%)
of the age-0 trout present (Figure 2-42). Five trout ≥229 mm were collected, indicating relatively
good recruitment to the adult size classes.
Benthic macroinvertebrates sampled at the Simerly Creek station in 2010 comprised 28
families representing 39 identified genera (Table 2-33). Caddisflies (particularly
Cheumatopsyche), mayflies (particularly Baetis), and stoneflies (particularly Leuctra), were the
most abundant organisms, together representing about 84% of the sample. Total taxa richness
was 46 and EPT taxa richness was 30. Based on the EPT taxa richness value and the overall
biotic index at this site (4.2), the relative health of the benthic community was classified as good.
Despite the questionable quality of its trout habitat in the past, Simerly Creek now supports
an excellent population of wild brown and rainbow trout that might be even better under more
normal flow conditions. Extensive stands of the invasive exotic Japanese knotweed Fallopia
japonica have now become established along the margins of lower Simerly Creek. Although
usually considered detrimental, this growth may be improving trout habitat by stabilizing the banks
(reducing sedimentation) and lowering stream temperature by providing riparian shade. No
management changes other than protection of the resource are recommended at this time.
98
Simerly Creek
Sample Site
Tiger Creek
Figure 2-41. Location of the 2010 sampling station on Simerly Creek.
99
Table 2-31. Site and sampling information for Simerly Creek in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420102501
Sample date
15 July
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.22709 N, 82.18990 W
Reach number
06010103
Elevation (ft)
2,010
Stream order
3
Land ownership
Private
Fishing access
Good
Description
Site begins just upstream of 1st bridge (private drive) upstream of conluence with Little
Doe River (~150 m upstream of confluence) along Hwy. 173 (Simerly Creek Rd.)
Effort
Station length (m)
100
Sample area (m²)
510
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
200
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
5.1
Maximum depth (cm)
74
Canopy cover (%)
70
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
43
57
151 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
5
Sand
30
20
Gravel
20
40
Rubble
20
25
Boulder
25
15
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
8.6; normal
Temperature (C)
19.5
pH
7.3
78
N/M
40
100
Table 2-32. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on Simerly Creek sampled
15 July 2010.
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Species
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
RBT ≤90 mm
3
5
3
32
12
2.3
0.23
0.14
1.44
98
59
627
RBT >90 mm
9
9
9
11
667
74.1
13.08
13.08
15.98
176
176
216
BNT ≤90 mm
35
41
35
53
152
3.7
2.99
2.54
3.85
804
686
1,039
BNT >90 mm
12
12
12
15
1,247
103.9
24.45
24.45
30.56
235
235
294
River chub
75
82
75
92
1,311
16.0
25.70
23.53
28.86
1,608
1,471
1,804
7
7
7
7
21
3.0
0.41
0.41
0.41
137
137
137
11
16
--
--
34
2.1
0.66
--
--
314
--
--
Mottled sculpin
127
189
127
254
813
4.3
15.93
10.71
21.42
3,706
2,490
4,980
Saffron shiner
25
26
25
30
65
2.5
1.26
1.23
1.47
510
490
588
C. stoneroller
6
6
6
6
326
54.3
6.39
6.39
6.39
118
118
118
N. hog sucker
8
8
8
10
318
39.8
6.24
6.24
7.80
157
157
196
Hybrid sunfish
5
13
5
95
382
29.4
7.49
2.88
54.76
255
98
1,863
104.83
91.60
172.94
8,118
W. blacknose dace
1
Fantail darter
Totals
323
Est.
414
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Total
Catch
312
605
5,347
1
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
101
6,118
11,862
Simerly Creek
30
7/15/10
Rainbow
Number of Fish
25
Brown
20
Rainbow trout
n = 12
54-264 mm
15
Brown trout
n = 47
62-359 mm
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
from the 2010 Simerly Creek sample.
102
Table 2-33. Benthic organisms sampled in Simerly Creek in 2010 (Field # RDB-2010-25). Total sampling effort was 3 h.
Order
ANNELIDA
Family
Genus / species
Number
0.6
Oligochaeta
3
8.1
COLEOPTERA
Dryopidae
Elmidae
Psephenidae
Helichus adults
Optioservus larva
Optioservus ovalis adult
Psepehenus herricki
3
1
1
37
3.3
DIPTERA
Blephariceridae
Chironomidae
Tipulidae
EPHEMEROPTERA
Blepharicara larva and pupa
Antocha
Dicranota
Hexatoma
Tipula
2
8
2
1
2
2
18.4
Baetidae
Ephemerellidae
Isonychiidae
Baetis
Eurylophella
Serratella sp.
Serratella deficiens
Heptagenia
Leucrocuta
Maccaffertium early instars
Maccaffertium pudicum
Rhithrogena
Stenacron interpunctatum
Isonychia
54
1
2
3
6
1
1
4
8
1
2
12
Pleuroceridae
Elimia
12
Gerridae
Veliidae
Gerris remigis males
Rhagovelia obesa macropterous male
3
1
Corydalidae
Nigronia serricornis
1
Aeshnidae
Gomphidae
Boyeria early instar
1
1
Heptageniidae
GASTROPODA
2.3
0.8
HETEROPTERA
MEGALOPTERA
0.2
0.4
ODONATA
PLECOPTERA
Stylogomphus albistylus
8.9
Leuctridae
Perlidae
Perlodidae
Pteronarcyidae
TRICHOPTERA
Percent
Leuctra
Acroneuria abnormis
Perlesta
Isoperla holochlora
Malirekus hastatus early instars
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) biloba type
23
2
6
1
1
5
5
3
57.1
Brachycentridae
Polycentropodidae
Hydropsychidae
Limnephilidae
Psychomiidae
Rhyacophilidae
Uenoidae
Brachycentrus spinae
Polycentropus
Ceratopshche alhedra
Ceratopshche bronta
Ceratopshche morosa
Ceratopshche sparna
Cheumatopsyche
Pycnopsyche gentilis
Pycnopsyche luculenta group
Lype diversa
Rhyacophila fuscula
TOTALS
103
26
1
9
9
16
78
134
1
5
1
3
12
517
100
2.4.3
McKinney Branch
Study Area
McKinney Branch originates in Carter County on the eastern side of Stone Mountain near
the boundary with Unicoi County. It flows east, becoming a Simerly Creek tributary. The entire
stream is located on privately owned lands that are largely forested, with some agricultural and
residential use. McKinney Branch was qualitatively surveyed in 2009 and found to contain a good
wild rainbow trout population, along with some brown trout (Habera et al. 2010b). No previous
abundance estimates are known to exist for this stream. Shields (1950) did not mention McKinney
Branch in his survey of east Tennessee trout streams, although he did note that Simerly Creek was
not trout water because it was too warm in the summer and too heavily silted. It is possible that
McKinney Branch historically supported some brook trout, although most of the stream is located
below 915 m (3,000’) and it does not appear on any previous brook trout list or inventory. It is now
occupied by rainbow and brown trout and there are no stocking records, thus their source is likely
undocumented stocking or colonization via Simerly Creek and Little Doe River.
A quantitative sample of McKinney Branch was conducted in July 2010 to document the
abundance of its wild trout populations. The sample station was located at an elevation of 716 m
(2,350’) along Piney Grove Road (Figure 2-43). Site location and effort details, along with habitat
and water quality information, are summarized in Table 2-34.
Catch data and abundance estimates for trout and other species from the McKinney Branch
station in 2010 are given in Table 2-35. Estimated total trout biomass (30 kg/ha) was above
average for a stream this size and may be related to its above average fertility/productivity
(alkalinity 35 mg/L CaCO3; pH 7.1). The length frequency distribution indicated a relatively well
balanced population, with abundant 2010 cohorts and some larger adults in the 203-mm and 254mm size classes (Figure 2-44), which has been uncommon in smaller streams following the recent
drought.
Benthic macroinvertebrates sampled at the McKinney Branch station in 2010 comprised 34
families representing 42 identified genera (Table 2-36). Caddisflies (particularly Cheumatopsyche
and Dolophilodes), mayflies (particularly Isonychia and Heptagenia), and stoneflies (particularly
Leucta) were most abundant, together representing about 71% of the sample. Total taxa richness
was 51 and EPT taxa richness was 28. Based on EPT taxa richness and the overall biotic index at
this site (4.0), relative health of the benthic community was classified as good.
McKinney Branch supports a good population of wild trout, although its relatively small size
likely provides only local significance as a fishery. This stream is subject to general statewide trout
angling regulations and no management changes are recommended at this time.
104
McKinney Branch
Sample Site
Figure 2-43. Location of the 2010 sampling station on McKinney Branch.
105
Table 2-34. Site and sampling information for McKinney Branch in 2010.
Location
Station 1
Site code
420102401
Sample date
08 July
Watershed
Watauga River
County
Carter
Quadrangle
Lat-Long
36.21729 N, 82.21702 W
Reach number
06010103
Elevation (ft)
2,350
Stream order
2
Land ownership
Private
Fishing access
Fair
Description
Site is locted along Piney Grove Rd. ~160 m from intersection with Simerly Creek Rd.,
and ~60 m upstream of 1st bridge on Piney Grove Rd.
Effort
Station length (m)
88
Sample area (m²)
312
Personnel
2
1
Voltage (AC)
250
Removal passes
3
Habitat
Mean width (m)
3.5
Maximum depth (cm)
52
Canopy cover (%)
80
Aquatic vegetation
scarce
40
60
136 (suboptimal)
Pool (%)
Riffle (%)
Silt
15
Sand
50
15
Gravel
10
25
Rubble
10
40
Boulder
15
20
Bedrock
Water Quality
Flow (cfs; visual)
2.6; normal
Temperature (C)
19.5
pH
7.1
61
N/M
35
106
Table 2-35. Fish population abundance estimates (with 95% confidence limits) for the monitoring station on McKinney Branch sampled
8 July 2010.
Population Size
Est.
Mean
Biomass (kg/ha)
Lower
C.L.
Weight
(g)
Fish
Wt. (g)
Lower
C.L.
Species
RBT ≤90 mm
22
23
22
27
77
3.4
2.48
2.40
2.94
RBT >90 mm
10
10
10
11
801
80.1
25.67
25.67
BNT ≤90 mm
7
7
7
10
37
5.3
1.19
BNT >90 mm
3
3
3
3
23
7.7
139
143
139
149
392
9
9
9
12
61
W. blacknose dace
N. hog sucker
Totals
190
Est.
195
Upper
C.L.
Density (fish/ha)
Total
Catch
190
212
1,391
107
Lower
C.L.
Upper
C.L.
737
705
865
28.24
321
321
353
1.19
1.70
224
224
321
0.74
0.74
0.74
96
96
96
2.7
12.56
12.03
12.89
4,583
4,455
4,776
6.8
1.96
1.96
2.62
288
288
385
44.60
43.99
49.13
6,249
6,089
6,796
Est.
Upper
C.L.
Est.
McKinney Branch
30
7/08/10
Rainbow
Number of Fish
25
Rainbow trout
n = 32
54-265 mm
Brown
Brown trout
n = 10
70-93
20
15
10
5
0
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
203
229
254
279
305
Length Class (mm)
from the 2010 McKinney Branch sample.
108
Table 2-36. Benthic organisms sampled in McKinney Branch in 2010 (Field # RDB-2010-24). Total sampling effort was 3 h.
Order
ANNELIDA
Family
Genus / species
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
2
8.8
Carabidae
Undetermined larva
Elmidae
Hydraenidae
Psephenidae
Ptilodactylidae
Oulimnius latiusculus larva
Promoresia tardella larva
Undetermined larva
Psephenus herricki
Anchytarsus bicolor
1
1
1
1
28
2
Isotomidae
Undetermined
10
Chironomidae
Dixidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
larvae and pupa
Dixa
larvae
Dicranota
Hexatoma
Tipula
17
2
4
2
1
3
Baetidae
Ephemerellidae
Leptophlebiida
Isonychiidae
Baetis
Drunella early instar
Ephemerella
Serratella deficiens
Ephemera
Epeorus dispar
Heptagenia
Maccaffertium early instars
Maccaffertium medipunctatum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Paraleptophlebia
Isonychia
7
1
2
10
4
3
6
12
6
7
1
2
17
Pleuroceridae
Elimia
11
Gerridae
Aquarius nymphs
2.6
7.5
20.3
Ephemeridae
Heptageniidae
GASTROPODA
HETEROPTERA
2.9
Veliidae
Microvelia nymphs
Rhagovelia obesa adults
Corydalidae
Sialidae
Nigronia serricornis
Sialis
Aeshnidae
Gomphidae
Boyeria vinosa
Gomphus early instar
Gomphus rogersi
Lanthus vernalis
Chloroperlidae
Alloperla
Leuctridae
Perlidae
Leuctra
Acroneuria abnormis
Isoperla holochlora
Malirekus/Yugus early instars
11
1
1.6
2
1
1
2
15.1
PLECOPTERA
Perlodidae
Pteronarcyidae
TRICHOPTERA
1.8
2
2
3
3.1
MEGALOPTERA
ODONATA
Percent
0.5
Oligochaeta
COLEOPTERA
COLLEMBOLA
Number
1
20
6
11
1
16
3
35.8
Hydropsychidae
Limnephilidae
Philopotamidae
Rhyacophilidae
Uenoidae
Ceratopsyche sparna
Cheumatopsyche
Diplectrona modesta
Pycnopsyche luculenta group
Dolophilodes distincta
Rhyacophila fuscula larvae and pupae
Neophylax mitchelli
Neophylax ornatus
TOTALS
109
12
47
1
1
33
18
17
2
7
385
100
2.5
QUALITATIVE SURVEYS
Eight streams were qualitatively surveyed in 2010 to determine the presence and status of
any wild trout populations. Results for these surveys are provided below and all qualitative surveys
conducted since 1991 are summarized in Appendix B.
Dry Creek
Dry Creek is a tributary to North Indian Creek and the Nolichucky River in Unicoi County
(see Unicoi quadrangle map). The upper portion of this stream is located on the CNF. Its
headwaters flow from Rattlesnake Ridge and Nelson Gap. The survey area (see map below)
extended from the Hwy. 107 crossing (36.18087 N, -82.36994 W; elevation 570 m or 1,870‘)
upstream along Dry Creek Road to 36.17448 N, -82.35113 W (elevation 622 m or 2,040’). There
was no water in the stream channel within this 2-km reach when it was checked on 22 June 2010.
.
Sample area
110
Rocky Branch and Simerly Creek
These streams are tributaries to North Indian Creek in Unicoi County (see Unicoi
quadrangle map). Rocky Branch (see map below) flows from Stamping Ground Ridge and is
primarily located on the CNF. The 2010 qualitative survey was conducted on 22 June and covered
the 100-m section upstream of the Hwy. 107 crossing (36.17589 N, -82.29530 W; elevation 738 m
or 2,420’). There was very little water in the channel and no fish were collected or observed.
Simerly Creek is a small stream (~1 m mean width) that flows through pastures where observed on
22 June (36.18453 N, -82.25218 W; elevation 726 m or 2,380’) and has no canopy cover. It was
not electrofished and does not appear to provide trout habitat.
Sample area
Sample area
111
Birchlog Creek
Birchlog Creek is a headwater tributary to North Indian Creek in Unicoi County. Its source
is near Iron Mountain Gap along the Tennessee/North Carolina border (see Iron Mountain Gap
quadrangle map). The site surveyed on 22 June 2010 (see map below) was located ~180 m
downstream of the Hwy. 173 crossing (36.15263 N, -82.24237 W; elevation 933 m or 3,360’).
Birchlog Creek is ~1.5 m wide in this area, but is shallow and silted, with very little pool habitat. No
fish were captured or observed within the 100-m sample site.
Sample area
112
Woodward Branch
Woodward Branch flows west from Catface Mountain near Willen Gap in Johnson County
and becomes a tributary of upper Forge Creek (see Baldwin Gap quadrangle map). A 100-m site
along Hubert Taylor Road (36.47442 N, -81.72249 W; elevation 854 m or 2,800’) was sampled on
15 June 2010 (see map below) and a wild rainbow trout population was present, but abundance
was low. Five adult (178-280 mm) and one age-0 (50 mm) rainbow trout were collected. Western
blacknose dace, creek chubs, and stonerollers were also present. This stream (mean width ~2 m)
has fairly good trout habitat, but there are some siltation problems, which may limit reproduction.
Gap Creek and Upper Gap Creek
These streams are tributaries to the Watauga River and are located near Hampton in Carter
County (see Elizabethton quadrangle map). They are flow through privately owned lands except
for a segment of Gap Creek near Little Mountain that lies within the CNF. The Gap Creek site
(36.26756 N, -82.23016 W; elevation 601 m or 1,970’) was ~70 m in length and was located within
the CNF (see map below). No trout were present; only western blacknose dace and central
stonerollers were collected. Upper Gap Creek (a tributary to Gap Creek) was visually inspected
from 622 m to 634 m elevation (2,040’-2,080’) along Hwy. 362. It was judged to be too small and
its habitat too limited to support trout.
Sample area
McKinney Branch
Jenkins Creek
Jenkins Creek flows southwest from State Line Gap on the Tennessee/North Carolina
border in Johnson County (near Panther Knob), becoming a tributary to upper Roan Creek (see
Zionville quadrangle map). A 150-m site along Hwy. 67 (see map below) was sampled on 15 June
2010 to check for the presence of wild trout. This site (36.35215 N, -81.73884 W; elevation 976 m
or 3,200’) contained a wild rainbow trout population, but abundance was low. Five adult (190-215
mm) and two age-0 rainbow trout were collected, along with western blacknose dace. Given its
elevation, brook trout probably once inhabited Jenkins Creek (prior to the presence of rainbows),
113
although it does not appear on any historic list. Currently, limited pool habitat (quality and quantity)
appears to hinder the capacity of this stream (mean width ~1.5 m) to support trout.
Sample area
Little Jacob Creek
A southern Appalachian brook trout population was restored in ~1 km of upper Little Jacob
Creek (above 756 m or 2,480’ elevation) in 2000 using 180 fish from three Johnson Co. streams
(Habera 2001). This was TWRA’s first attempt to restore a brook trout population without removing
the existing rainbow trout population. An August 2001 follow-up survey indicated that brook trout
had successfully spawned, as 22 age-0 fish were collected along with 61 adult and age-0
rainbows. Another survey in 2003 produced 24 brook trout (12 age-0) and 12 rainbows in the
introduction zone (IZ), as well as six age-0 brook trout downstream. Brook trout (17 adults; 26 age0) were found throughout the IZ during the November 2010 survey, along with only five rainbows
(all adults). Brook trout have survived drought conditions over the past several years to become
well established in Little Jacob Creek, despite the continued (although reduced) presence of
rainbow trout. Work will continue in 2011 to determine brook trout distribution below the IZ.
114
Seng Cove Branch and Cave Spring Branch
These streams flow from the area between Rogers Ridge and Catface Ridge in Johnosn
County and become tributaries of Owens Branch and Laurel Creek (see Grayson quadrangle map
and map below) and were surveyed on 15 June 2010. Seng Cove (mean width ~3 m) was
sampled at a 100-m site along Bishop Road (36.59219 N, -81.72168 W; elevation 854 m or
2,800’). This stream has a relatively high gradient, but few pools. No fish were captured or
observed. Cave Spring Branch (mean width ~1.5 m) was sampled at a 125-m site along Sugar
Creek Road (36.59002 N, -81.72465 W; elevation 838 m or 2,750’). A wild rainbow trout
population was present, but abundance was very low. Three adults (150-230 mm) and one age-0
fish were collected; no other species were present. This stream has relatively good trout habitat
and abundance may increase as flow conditions improve.
Sample area
Sample area
115
3. TAILWATER ACCOUNTS
Tailwater trout fisheries in Region IV (Norris, Cherokee, Wilbur, Ft. Patrick Henry, Boone,
and South Holston) present unique fishery management problems and opportunities for which no
standard solutions or practices apply (Hill 1978). The problems inherent in sampling tailwaters,
such as their large size, fluctuating flows, and the inability to maintain closed populations, make it
difficult at best to collect quantitative data from these systems. Additionally, natural reproduction is
typically insignificant, so most tailwater trout populations are also largely ‘artificial’, with
abundances and size/age-class densities related to stocking rates. Annual tailwater sampling in
Region IV began in 1991 (Bivens et al. 1992), but these initial efforts provided only limited
information. Consequently, TWRA also sponsored more intensive studies focusing on assessment
of trout abundance, the fate of stocked fish, natural reproduction, and angler use in the Norris,
South Holston, and Wilbur tailwaters (e.g., Bettoli and Bohm 1997; Bettoli et al. 1999; Bettoli 1999;
Bettinger and Bettoli 2000; Bettoli 2002; Bettoli 2003a; Bettoli 2003b; Hutt and Bettoli 2003;
Meerbeek and Bettoli 2005; Bettoli 2006; Holbrook and Bettoli 2006; Damer and Bettoli 2008).
3.1
SAMPLING METHODS AND CONDITIONS
Sampling effort for the Norris, Cherokee, and South Holston tailwaters consisted of 10-min
(pedal time) runs at each of 12 monitoring stations with boat-mounted electrofishing systems (120
pulses/s DC, 4-5 amps). All electrofishing on these tailwaters (except Norris) is conducted during
the day with generation by one unit (turbine). Only trout are collected during these efforts.
Tailwater sampling conditions and effort are summarized in the table below.
Tailwater
Norris
Cherokee
Ft. Patrick Henry
Wilbur
Boone
South Holston
1
Year
annual
monitoring
began
Sample time
Stations
Approximate flow
Total effort
(min.)
1999
Night
12
114 m3/s (4,000 cfs)
120
2003
2002
1999
2009
1999
Day
12
Day
4
Day
13
Day
114 m /s (4,000 cfs)
12
120
3
60
3
120
3
60
3
120
88 m /s (3,100 cfs)
1
4
Day
3
71 m /s (2,500 cfs)
88 m /s (3,100 cfs)
71 m /s (2,500 cfs)
An extra site was added in 2010 to help evaluate the Quality Zone.
Dry conditions in the Watauga watershed during 2008 and 2009 resulted in low (below
TVA’s guide curve) water levels in Watauga Reservoir in late winter. Consequently, the Wilbur
tailwater was not sampled in those years because TVA could not provide the necessary flows
during March (before annual stocking efforts began). Adequate flows were available for the Wilbur
tailwater in 2010 and monitoring was resumed.
116
3.2
TAILWATER MONITORING
With the addition of the Boone tailwater to the monitoring program in 2009, six Region IV
tailwater trout fisheries (see Figure 1-2) are now monitored annually. Management plans are
currently in place for the Norris, South Holston, and Wilbur tailwaters. Sampling is conducted each
year in late February or March (except Cherokee) to provide an assessment of the overwintering
trout populations present before stocking begins. The Cherokee tailwater (Holston River) stations
are sampled in the fall (October), as trout survival over the summer is a more important issue for
that fishery. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) for each species at each site (fish/h), as well as means
for each tailwater, are calculated annually to monitor trout abundance trends.
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). Chronic low dissolved oxygen levels and
a lack of minimum flow limited development of the trout fishery (Boles 1980; Yeager et al.1987)
and were addressed by TVA’s Reservoir Release Improvements Program (TVA 1980). 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 that is one of the most heavily fished in Tennessee (Bettoli 2006). Putand-take and put-and-grow 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) and Holbrook and Bettoli (2006) attributed the lack of brown trout
reproduction in the Norris tailwater to poor or dewatered spawning substrate and unsuitable flows
and water temperatures during spawning season. Some of these factors probably limit successful
rainbow trout reproduction as well.
117
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 biomass 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. The
abundance of most cohorts of adult (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).
Trout stocked as adults exhibited energetically inefficient behaviors (e.g., rapid, long-range
movements) which led to poor creel-return rates and survival (Bettinger and Bettoli 2002).
However, high growth rates of stocked rainbow trout (about 20 mm/month) allow the tailwater to
produce quality-sized fish within a relatively short time (Bettoli and Bohm 1997). Growth of stocked
brown trout is slower (12 mm/month; Meerbeek and Bettoli 2005). Fishing pressure on the Norris
tailwater in 2005 was among the highest for observed for Tennessee tailwaters and was
statistically similar to what it had been in 1996 and 2001 (Bettoli 2006). Angler catch rates per
hour and harvest rates per trip in 2005 were also among the highest recorded for any Tennessee
tailwater (Bettoli 2006).
The locations of TWRA’s 12 monitoring station on the Norris tailwater, sampled on 8 March
2010, are provided in Figure 3-1. Additional sample location and effort details are summarized in
Table 3-1.
The 2010 Norris tailwater sample produced 387 trout weighing 109 kg (Table 3-2). The
catch included 155 rainbows (40%), 223 browns (58%) and 9 brook trout (2%). Relative
abundances of brown and rainbow trout by weight were 55% and 44%, respectively. Although the
total catch declined 20% from 2009 (42% for rainbows), there was another increase (2% overall;
29% for browns) in biomass. Overall, rainbow trout ranged from 170-620 mm, browns ranged from
122-760 mm, and brook trout ranged from 227-295 mm. Rainbow trout in the 279- through 356mm size classes (11-14 in.) were most abundant (54%), while 229-305 mm (9-12 in.) browns were
most abundant (recently stocked browns <178 mm excluded; Figure 3-2). Brook trout were
captured at five stations (including Station 8) and to date, annual monitoring has produced no
brook trout >305 mm (12 in.), although there have been angler reports of fish in the 356-406 mm
(14-16 in.) range.
The mean electrofishing catch rate for all trout ≥178 mm (considered fully recruited to the
sampling gear) declined 36% relative to 2009, with most of the change being attributable to
rainbow trout (41% decrease in catch rate; Figure 3-3). As a result, the brown trout catch rate (fish
≥178 mm) nearly exceeded the corresponding rate for rainbow trout. This has occurred only once
previously (1999; Figure 3-3). Despite the lower overall trout catch rate in 2010, the catch rate for
all larger trout (≥356 mm) essentially doubled again relative to 2009 (Figure 3-3). Consequently,
the mean electrofishing catch rate for trout within the new protected length range (PLR) of 356-508
118
mm (14-20 in.) nearly doubled to 22 fish/h in 2010 (Figure 3-3). This is more than a six-fold
increase from 2008, when the PLR was established (Figure 3-3). Additionally, brown trout in 2010
contributed substantially to the PLR catch rate for the first time. The improvement in the PLR catch
rate since 2008 represents substantial progress toward attaining the objective of 28 fish/h (mean
for 2011-2013) established in the current management plan (Habera et al. 2008b).
The Norris tailwater was stocked with 312,000 trout during calendar year 2010 (Figure 3-4).
About 85% (266,000) of these were rainbow trout, most of which (86%) were fingerlings. Another
35,000 (11%) were brown trout. Brook trout (11,000) were also stocked again in the Norris
tailwater in 2010. 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. The average annual stocking rate increased to
about a half million trout per year as provided for by the strategy outlined in the 2002-2006 Norris
tailwater management plan (Habera et al. 2002b). Pre-2002 trout stocking rates are in effect
during the term of the current Norris tailwater management plan (Habera et al. 2008b).
Management Actions and Recommendations
Enhancing the quality of trout angling opportunities available to the variety of anglers who
fish the Norris tailwater continues to be TWRA’s management goal for this fishery. The Agency’s
current (2008-2013) management plan for the Norris tailwater trout fishery focuses on improving
the potential to catch quality-sized (≥356 mm or 14 in.) fish and features a 356-508 mm (14-20 in.)
protected length range (slot limit) regulation as the primary means for attaining this goal (Habera et
al. 2008b). Slot limits have been shown to be effective at improving trout population size structures
(Luecke et al. 1994; Power and Power 1996) and the Norris tailwater regulation appears to be
having the desired effect. No changes are recommended pending evaluation of the current
management strategy.
119
Norris Tailwater
1
5
4
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Figure 3-1. Locations of the Norris tailwater (Clinch River) monitoring stations.
120
Table 3-1. Location and sampling information for the 12 stations on the Norris tailwater, 8 March 2010.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
Coordinates
Reach Number
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
1
420100101
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.22222N-84.09250W
06010207-19,1
79.7
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
2
420100102
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.20466N-84.08651W
06010207-19,1
77.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
3
420100103
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.20370N-84.10006W
06010207-19,1
76.3
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
4
420100104
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.20654N-84.12265W
06010207-19,1
75.6
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
5
420100105
Anderson
Lake City 137 NW 36.20433N-84.12580W
06010207-19,0
74.4
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420100106
Anderson
Lake City 137 NW 36.19722N-84.12778W
06010207-19,0
74.1
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
7
420100107
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.18611N-84.11667W
06010207-19,0
73
602
150 V DC
120 PPS, 5 A
8
420100108
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.17500N-84.11806W
06010207-19,0
72.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420100109
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.16028N-84.12028W
06010207-19,0
70.4
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420100110
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.14681N-84.11853W
06010207-19,0
69.5
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420100111
Anderson
Norris 137 NE
36.14306N-84.11750W
06010207-19,0
69.1
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420100112
Anderson
Lake City 137 NW 36.13151N-84.12628W
06010207-19,0
67.2
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
121
Table 3-2. Catch data for the12 electrofishing stations on the Norris tailwater sampled 8 March 2010.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
799
4,172
652
5,623
4
91
5
100
14
74
12
100
181-406
135-292
260-275
6,895
2,330
405
9,630
46
50
4
100
72
24
4
100
27
26
53
172-352
140-315
6,515
4,144
10,659
51
49
100
61
39
100
Rainbow
Brown
5
3
8
280-344
166-541
1,555
2,010
3,565
63
38
100
44
56
100
Rainbow
Brown
Brook
15
11
1
27
210-385
175-425
295
4,021
3,192
221
7,434
56
41
4
100
54
43
3
100
Rainbow
Brown
2
17
19
296-312
150-461
624
4,074
4,698
11
89
100
13
87
100
Rainbow
Brown
Brook
13
18
1
32
233-376
162-510
257
4,239
6,024
145
10,408
41
56
3
100
41
58
1
100
Rainbow
Brown
Brook
4
15
1
20
235-349
166-414
249
1,161
3,320
146
4,627
20
75
5
100
25
72
3
100
Rainbow
Brown
28
6
34
183-410
196-524
8,930
2,314
11,244
82
18
100
79
21
100
Rainbow
Brown
14
21
35
170-620
210-760
6,040
25,829
31,869
40
60
100
19
81
100
Rainbow
Brown
12
3
15
184-430
160-295
4,186
408
4,594
80
20
100
91
9
100
Rainbow
Brown
175-376
159-309
Totals
10
7
17
2,911
1,581
4,492
59
41
100
65
35
100
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
Total Brooks
155
223
9
170-620
122-760
227-295
47,876
59,398
1,569
40
58
2
44
55
1
Overall
387
108,843
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
Brown
Brook
3
72
4
79
248-315
122-340
227-293
Rainbow
Brown
Brook
22
24
2
48
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
122
Total Weight
(g)
Norris Tailwater
60
Rainbow
Number of Fish
50
Brown
40
30
356-508 mm PLR
20
10
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686 711 737
Length Class (mm)
10
Brook Trout
Number of Fish
8
6
4
2
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
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-2. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Norris tailwater
monitoring stations in 2010.
123
Norris Tailwater
Trout ≥178 mm (7 in.)
300
Rainbow
Brown
Brook
All
CPUE (fish/h)
250
200
150
100
50
0
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'07
'08
'09
'10
'07
'08
'09
'10
Year
70
Rainbow
60
CPUE (fish/h)
Brown
50
All
40
30
20
10
0
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
Year
Trout 356-508 mm (14-20 in.)
70
Rainbow
60
CPUE (fish/h)
Brown
50
All
40
30
Mgt. Plan objective (mean for 2011-2013;
28 fish/h for all trout)
20
10
0
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
Year
Figure 3-3. Mean trout CPUEs for the Norris tailwater samples. Bars indicate
90% confidence intervals.
124
Norris Tailwater
700
Rainbow
Number stocked (x1000)
600
500
400
Brown
Brook
All
1990-2001 average (255,000 total)
300
200
100
0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 3-4. Recent trout stocking rates for the Norris tailwater. Most
stocked fish are rainbows (about 160,000 fingerlings and
37,000 adults each year).
125
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 8,879-km2
(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 area 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 this tailwater has generally been regarded as
supporting a warmwater fish community (Scott et al. 1996; Hill and Brown 1980), TWRA historically
(although infrequently) 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 improvement efforts. Beginning in 1995, trout stocking in the Cherokee tailwater
became more consistent and the stocking rate was increased as water quality improved. The
Cherokee tailwater received 52,000 adult rainbow trout and 7,000 brown trout in 2010. Average
annual stocking rates during the past five years were 51,000 adult rainbows and 14,000 browns
(102-178 mm or 4-7 in.). The stocking policy was changed in 2008 to discontinue the use of
fingerling rainbows because of their low recruitment potential.
The upper 30 km (18.8 mi.) of the Cherokee tailwater, from the dam downstream to the
vicinity of Nance Ferry, is now being managed as a put-and-take and put-and-grow trout fishery. It
has become popular 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, providing the potential
for a quality fishery. However, late summer temperatures can remain above 21° C (70° F) for
weeks, creating a thermal ‘bottleneck’ that severely limits trout survival (i.e., carryover). Along with
the relative scarcity of trout in October electrofishing surveys, the abundance of warmwater species
(e.g., buffalo Ictiobus sp., gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum, and channel catfish Ictalurus
punctatus) indicate that the Cherokee tailwater provides marginal trout habitat during summer and
early fall.
126
The 12 electrofishing monitoring stations on the Cherokee tailwater (Figure 3-5) were
electrofished again in October 2010 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 (measured hourly by Onset StowAway® TidbiTTM
loggers) near Cherokee Dam and at Blue Spring during May-November 2010.
The 12 Cherokee tailwater electrofishing stations produced 11 trout (nine rainbows, two
browns) in 2010 (Table 3-4) and a mean catch rate for fish/h ≥178 mm of 5.5 (Figure 3-6), both of
which are substantial reductions from the previous two years. However, the mean catch rate for
larger trout (≥356 mm and ≥457 mm) increased relative to 2009 (Figure 3-6). Two large rainbows
(500-516 mm) and a 530-mm brown trout contributed to a catch rate for fish ≥457 mm of 2.0 fish/h,
the highest recorded to date (Figure 3-6). Only five of 12 stations produced trout in 2010, and
Station 1 remains as the only site where trout have yet to be captured during monitoring efforts.
Most rainbows collected during monitoring efforts in the Cherokee tailwater have been in the 305381 mm (12-16 in.) size classes, while most browns have been in the 229-305 mm (9-12 in.) range
(Table 3-7).
No trout from the marked (fin clipped) cohort stocked in April and May 2009 (Habera et al.
2010b) were recaptured during the October 2010 monitoring efforts. Mean growth for adult
rainbow trout in the Cherokee tailwater in 2009 (14.1 mm/month) matched or exceeded rates
reported for the Norris (11.9 mm/month; Bettoli and Bohm 1997), South Holston (9-16 mm/month;
Bettoli et al. 1999) and Wilbur (5-7 mm/month; Bettoli 1999) tailwaters, although part (30-42 days)
of the growth occurred at the hatchery before stocking. Cherokee tailwater brown trout growth
(11.9 mm/month) was at the upper end of the corresponding range for the Norris, South Holston,
and Wilbur tailwaters (12, 10, and 7 mm/month; Meerbeek and Bettoli 2005). Despite some better
growth at the hatchery before stocking, trout growth in the Cherokee tailwater is still impressive
considering that water temperatures were likely outside the ideal range for growth for about half of
the 24-week period that the clipped fish had been in the river.
Water temperatures for 2010 (Figures 3-8 and 3-9) recorded near Cherokee Dam and at
Blue Spring (13 km below Cherokee Dam) were generally cooler than in 2009. Maximum daily
temperature exceeded 21° C (70° F) on 28 days near the dam and 52 days at Blue Spring (all
consecutive) during September and October. Daily temperature minima near the dam did not
exceeded 21° C in 2010 (13 days in 2009) and did so on 14 days at Blue Spring (40 days in 2009).
As in previous years, water temperatures in the Cherokee tailwater returned to trout-tolerant levels
(<21° C) by mid-October 2010 (Figures 3-8 and 3-9). On average (2005-2010 data), maximum
water temperature near the dam exceeds 21° C from the last week of August through mid-October
(about 7 weeks; Figure 3-8). Farther downstream (Blue Spring), average (2003-2010) maximum
water temperatures exceed 21° C for an additional week beginning in mid-August (Figure 3-9).
More importantly, that area has no coldwater habitat—average minimum water temperature is >21°
C—for a month (August 28-September 28; Figure 3-9).
127
Electrofishing catch rate differences among years appear to be generally correlated with
water temperature, which in turn is related to variability in flow from Cherokee Dam during JuneOctober. Above average precipitation in some years (e.g., 2003) results in higher average flows
from Cherokee Dam, earlier depletion of cold water stored in the reservoir, and unsuitably warm
tailwater temperatures for long periods of time. The reverse is true during dry years such as 2007
and 2008. Consequently, there is a relatively strong (R2 = 0.71) inverse relationship between water
temperature expressed as the number of days with the maximum ≥24° C at the Blue Spring site
and the log10-transformed electrofishing catch rate (Figure 3-10). Additionally, there is also a
relatively strong positive relationship (R2 = 0.62) between water temperature (days with maximum
≥24° C at Blue Spring) and flow expressed as the number of days during June-October with mean
flow >8,000 CFS (Figure 3-11). If water temperature is expressed as the number of days where
minimum was ≥22° C, there is an even stronger (R2 = 0.85) relationship with flow.
Trout in much of the Cherokee tailwater must, on average, endure about a month each year
(28 August through 28 September) without cold water (i.e., minimum temperatures >21° C;
maximums often reaching 24-25° C). While some trout are able to find thermal refugia such as
groundwater upwellings or cooler tributaries and survive through at least one summer—evident by
the large (>500 mm) fish that do occur—most do not. But despite limited trout carry-over caused
by extended periods with water temperatures exceeding 21° C, the Cherokee tailwater is well
worth managing as a trout fishery. Even with the summer/fall thermal bottlenecks, angling
opportunities are available during most months. The thermal regime and 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 its relatively unique features, the Cherokee tailwater warrants continued
evaluation. More detailed study of trout growth, survival, and angler use would be beneficial. The
12 existing monitoring stations should be sampled annually to further develop the trout fishery
database. Annual temperature monitoring should also be conducted to further document the
relationship among temperature, flow, and trout abundance. Stocking of fingerling rainbow trout
has little value as most of these fish (even if stocked in the fall) would need to survive beyond their
first summer to enter the fishery, but few would be capable of doing so. Most adult stocking should
be conducted in the fall (beginning in November) and winter to maximize the potential for growth
before water temperatures become limiting. Current angling regulations are appropriate for
maintaining this resource and no other management changes are recommended at this time.
128
Cherokee Tailwater
7
2
8
1
6
10
5
11
3
4
9
12
Figure 3-5. Locations of the Cherokee tailwater (Holston River) monitoring stations.
129
Table 3-3. Location and sampling information for the 12 stations on the Cherokee tailwater, 25 October 2010.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
Coordinates
Reach Number
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
1
420103801
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16864N-83.50461W
06010104-3,4
51.8
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
2
420103802
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.17589N-83.51183W
06010104-3,4
51.2
602
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
3
420103803
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.17858N-83.51667W
06010104-3,4
50.9
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
4
420103804
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16244N-83.52933W
06010104-3,4
49.5
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
5
420103805
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16767N-83.53564W
06010104-3,4
49.0
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
6
420103806
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.17978N-83.55542W
06010104-3,4
47.0
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
7
420103807
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.18825N-83.56036W
06010104-3,4
46.2
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
8
420103808
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.17658N-83.56161W
06010104-3,4
44.7
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
9
420103809
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16733N-83.56281W
06010104-3,4
44.0
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
10
420103810
Grainger/
Jefferson
Joppa 155 NE
36.16633N-83.57314W
06010104-3,4
43.5
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
11
420103811
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.16458N-83.58286W
06010104-3,4
42.7
600
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
12
420103812
Grainger
Joppa 155 NE
36.15339N-83.60217W
06010104-3,4
39.5
601
175 V DC
120 PPS, 4-5 A
130
Table 3-4. Catch data for the12 electrofishing stations on the Cherokee tailwater sampled 25 October 2010.
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Total Weight
(g)
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
---
--0
--0
--0
Rainbow
Brown
2
1
3
350-516
268
1,688
196
1,884
67
33
100
90
10
100
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
---
--0
--0
--0
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
---
--0
--0
--0
Rainbow
Brown
4
0
4
250-480
--
2,344
-2,344
100
-100
100
-100
Rainbow
Brown
2
0
2
336-500
--
1,568
-1,568
100
-100
100
-100
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
---
--0
--0
--0
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
---
--0
--0
--0
Rainbow
Brown
1
0
1
330
--
408
-408
100
-100
100
-100
Rainbow
Brown
0
0
0
---
--0
--0
--0
Rainbow
Brown
0
1
1
-530
-1,476
1,476
-100
100
-100
100
Rainbow
Brown
---
Totals
0
0
0
--0
--0
--0
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
9
2
250-516
268-530
6,008
1,672
82
18
78
22
Overall
11
7,680
100
100
Station
1
Species
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
Totals
5
Totals
6
Totals
7
Totals
8
Totals
9
Totals
10
Totals
11
Totals
12
131
Cherokee Tailwater
25
Rainbows
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
20
All
15
10
5
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
Year
20
Rainbows
Browns
All
10
5
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
5
Rainbows
Browns
4
CPUE (fish/h)
CPUE (fish/h)
15
All
3
2
1
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Figure 3-6. Mean trout CPUEs for the Cherokee tailwater samples. Bars
indicate 90% confidence intervals.
132
Cherokee Tailwater
25
Rainbows
Number of Fish
20
Browns
15
10
5
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-7. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Cherokee tailwater
monitoring stations, 2003-2010.
133
Cherokee Tailwater
25
Near Cherokee Dam
2010
Maximum
Minimum
Temperature (C)
20
15
Maximum
temperature
consistently
>21 C (70 F)
10
5
0
Date
30
Near Cherokee Dam
2005-2010
(Mean)
Maximum
Temperature (C)
25
Minimum
20
15
Maximum temperature
consistently >21 C (70 F)
10
5
0
Date
Figure 3-8. Daily temperature maxima and minima for June-November near
Cherokee Dam (~1.6 km below the dam) in 2010 (upper graph) and
during 2005-2010 (mean; lower graph).
134
Cherokee Tailwater
30
Blue Spring
2010
Maximum
Minimum
Temperature (C)
25
20
15
Maximum temperature
10
5
0
Date
30
Temperature (C)
25
Max.
Maximum
Min.
Minimum
Maximum temperature
No coldwater
habitat
Blue Spring
2003-2010
(Mean)
20
15
Minimum
temperature
consistently
>21 C (70 F)
10
5
0
Date
Figure 3-9. Daily temperature maxima and minima for June-November at Blue
Spring (~13 km below the dam) in 2010 (upper graph) and during
2003-2010 (mean; lower graph).
135
Log10 Catch Rate (fish/h ≥178 mm)
Cherokee Tailwater
1.50
y = -0.0325x + 1.192
R² = 0.713
1.20
0.90
0.60
0.30
0.00
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Days with Maximum Temperature ≥24 C
Days with Mean Flow >8,000 CFS
Figure 3-10. Inverse relationship between temperature (days during June-Oct.
with maximum ≥24 C at Blue Spring) and October electrofishing
catch rate (log10 fish/h ≥178 mm) for the Cherokee tailwater.
100
y = 0.1707x + 6.0708
R² = 0.6241
80
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Days with Maximum Temperature ≥24 C
Figure 3-11. Relationship between flow and temperature (days during June-Oct.
with maximum ≥24 C at Blue Spring) for the Cherokee tailwater.
136
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 substantial natural
reproduction, particularly by brown trout (Banks and Bettoli 2000; Holbrook and Bettoli 2006).
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 3-12). A two-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), but water quality improvements and TWRA’s stocking program
combined to created one of the finest trout fisheries in the state by the 1990's. 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. However, toxic runoff associated with a fire
at the North American Corporation in February 2000 destroyed the trout fishery in the 16-km (10mile) river section downstream of Elizabethton (Habera et al. 2001a). Restoration of the trout
fishery began that year and was complete by 2005 (Habera et al. 2006). 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 2003a).
The 12 monitoring stations on the Wilbur tailwater (Figure 3-12) were not sampled during
2008 and 2009 because of insufficient water in Watauga Reservoir to provide the necessary
tailwater flows in March. Adequate flows were available in 2010 and sampling of these
monitoring stations was conducted on 12 March 2010. An additional station (10.5; Figure 3-12)
was added in 2010 to help evaluate the QZ as prescribed in the current Wilbur tailwater
management plan (Habera et al. 2009b). Data from this station will be used only for comparison
of electrofishing catch rates in the QZ with those at the other stations in the Wilbur tailwater.
Location and sampling effort details for these stations are provided in Table 3-5.
The 12 original Wilbur tailwater electrofishing stations produced 382 trout weighing over
86 kg in 2010 (Table 3-6). Increases in both total catch (45%) and biomass (12%) occurred since
the previous sample (2007). The 2010 catch included 282 browns (74%), 100 rainbows (33%),
and no brook trout. With the exception of 2001 (immediately following the fish kill), brown trout
have been the predominant species in the Wilbur tailwater (as in the South Holston tailwater).
137
Bettoli (1999) estimated that browns represented 60% of overwintering trout density in the Wilbur
tailwater during 1998-1999. Since 2001, the relative abundance of brown trout has been in the
66-78% range. Most brown trout in the 2010 sample (62%) were in the 203-305 mm length and
with one exception (533 mm), all size classes from 102 mm (4 in.) through 584 mm (23 in.) were
represented (Figure 3-13). Browns were also responsible for all of the increase in total biomass
observed in 2010, as rainbow trout biomass actually decreased 10% from 2007. Rainbow trout
ranged from 149-398 mm and most (77%) were in the 203-279 mm length groups (Figure 3-13).
Total catch rates for all trout in each size class (≥178 mm, ≥356 mm, and ≥457) increased
relative to 2007, reaching the highest levels observed since monitoring began in 1999 (168 fish/h,
20 fish/h, and 6.5 fish/h, respectively; Figure 3-14). These catch rates exceeded the
corresponding objectives (130 fish/h, 14 fish/h, and 3.3 fish/h, respectively; Figure 3-14) from the
current Wilbur tailwater management plan (Habera et al. 2009b). Additionally, the brown trout
catch rate for the upper tailwater (stations 1-7)—where a wild brown trout fishery is now the
objective—was 153 fish/h, well above the management plan objective of 130 fish/h. The largest
catch rate increase was for trout ≥457 mm, which rose 86% from the 2007 level. Brown trout
were primarily (≥178 mm size class) or completely (larger fish) responsible for this increase
(Figure 3-14). No rainbow trout ≥457 mm have been collected since 2005 (Figure 3-14) and only
one has been collected since 2003, although rainbows in this size range are relatively uncommon
in most Region IV tailwaters. Weiland and Hayward (1997) observed that failure of rainbow trout
to reach large sizes in some tailwaters may be related to diet overlap among size class and
limited capacity to intraspecifically partition food resources (in contrast to brown trout). The
current catch rate for trout ≥356 mm in the Wilbur tailwater is intermediate among Region IV
tailwaters and is exceeded by corresponding catch rates for the Norris, South Holston, and Boone
tailwaters (currently 27-46 fish/h).
Catch rates for trout ≥356 mm in the QZ (Stations 10, 10.5, and 11) have been relatively
similar to catch rates for this size group at the other 10 stations in most years since 1999 (Figure
3-15). Catch rates for these larger trout were actually higher outside the QZ in three of nine years
for which data are available, and there is substantial overlap of the upper 90% confidence limits
for both areas each year (Figure 3-15). These data do not indicate that the special regulations in
the QZ (356-mm minimum size limit, two-fish creel limit, artificial lures only) are enhancing the
abundance of larger trout in that area, but any true difference will be difficult to statistically confirm
because of the small number of sample sites it contains (a third site was added in 2010).
Additional monitoring data should help determine if the QZ can provide anglers who fish this area
with higher catch rates for trout ≥356 mm.
The Wilbur tailwater was stocked with 94,000 trout in 2010 (89,000 rainbows, 5,000
browns; Figure 3-16). Rainbow trout stocking rates complied with the current Wilbur tailwater
management plan (50,000 fingerlings and 40,000 catchables; Habera et al. 2009b). The 2010
brown trout stocking rate was below the current management plan recommendation (15,000/year)
because of a shortage at Dale Hollow, but these fish were stocked in the lower portion of the
tailwater (downstream of Hwy. 400) in compliance with the current management plan. Brook trout
stocking was discontinued in 2009 (after eight years) because of their poor performance related
138
to extremely low survival (0.1 – 4.4% over 100 d), slow growth (4-15 mm per month), and
excessive predation by brown trout (Damer and Bettoli 2008).
The goal of the current Wilbur tailwater management plan (effective through 2014) is to
maintain the quality trout fishery that now exists throughout the tailwater concurrent with
increasing fishing pressure and the variety of anglers who use this resource (Habera et al.
2009b). Basic management objectives are to maintain (or improve) the overall abundance and
size structure of this tailwater’s trout populations, manage for a wild brown trout fishery in the
upper half of the tailwater, and to ensure that the QZ is providing a quality trout fishery (Habera et
al. 2009b). The thriving brown trout population in the Wilbur tailwater has resulted in the first two
objectives currently being met, while the third continues to be evaluated.
It is recommended that angling regulations currently applicable to the Wilbur tailwater be
maintained during the term of the current management plan (2009-2014). However, if providing
anglers who fish the QZ with higher catch rates for trout ≥356 mm remains as the management
goal for this area, then the special regulations that apply there may need to be adjusted during a
future management plan term. To date, electrofishing catch rates in the QZ do not indicate higher
abundances of trout in this size class.
139
Wilbur Tailwater
12
Stony Creek
CSX RR
Smalling
Bridge
11
10.5
Wash.
Carter
Co.
Co.
Watauga
River
5
7
6
4
3
Hunter
Bridge
2
10
Doe River
Siam Bridge
9
Watauga
River
1
8
Quality Zone
(special regs. apply)
Figure 3-12. Locations of the Wilbur tailwater (Watauga River) monitoring stations
Station 10.5 was added in 2010 to help evaluate the Quality Zone (also
includes Stations 10 and 11).
140
Table 3-5. Location and sampling information for the 13 electrofishing stations on the Wilbur tailwater, 12 March 2010.
Station
Site Code
County
1
420100301
Carter
2
420100302
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
600
300 V DC
120 PPS, 3 A
420100303
Carter
06010103-19,0
30.3
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
4
420100304
Carter
06010103-18,0
29.5
600
300 V DC
120 PPS, 3 A
5
420100305
Carter
06010103-18,0
28.4
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420100306
Carter
06010103-18,0
27.0
600
300 V DC
120 PPS, 3 A
7
420100307
Carter
06010103-12,2
25.9
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
8
420100308
Carter
Johnson City 198 SE 36.33222N-82.26694W
06010103-12,2
22.4
600
300 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420100309
Carter
06010103-12,0
21.8
601
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420100310
Carter
06010103-12,0
20.0
600
300 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10.5
420100311
Carter
06010103-12,0
19.4
602
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420100312
Carter
06010103-10,0
18.7
600
400 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420100313
Carter
06010103-10,0
17.3
600
300 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Station 10.5 was added in 2010 to help evaluate the Quality Zone (also includes Stations 10 and 11).
141
Table 3-6. Catch data for the 13 electrofishing stations on the Wilbur tailwater sampled 12 March 2010.
%
Total
Size Range
Total Weight
Abundance
Station
Species
Catch
(mm)
(g)
(number)
1
%
Abundance
(weight)
Rainbow
Brown
4
47
51
238-354
110-332
976
6,198
7,174
8
92
100
14
86
100
Rainbow
Brown
5
40
45
220-273
125-475
762
7,474
8,236
11
89
100
9
91
100
Rainbow
Brown
0
28
28
-127-516
-6,369
6,369
-100
100
-100
100
Rainbow
Brown
12
32
44
149-293
115-565
1,899
4,958
6,857
27
73
100
28
72
100
Rainbow
Brown
8
35
43
204-354
102-459
1,425
6,187
7,612
19
81
100
19
81
100
Rainbow
Brown
4
31
35
235-368
109-502
951
8,689
9,640
11
89
100
10
90
100
Rainbow
Brown
5
10
15
236-401
151-466
1,464
3,705
5,169
33
67
100
28
72
100
Rainbow
Brown
17
14
31
204-353
175-510
3,300
6,340
9,640
55
45
100
34
66
100
Rainbow
Brown
9
8
17
185-271
187-464
1,152
2,070
3,222
53
47
100
36
64
100
Rainbow
Brown
14
9
23
220-345
182-429
2,746
3,010
5,756
61
39
100
48
52
100
Rainbow
Brown
13
3
16
193-356
269-473
2,599
1,601
4,200
57
13
70
45
28
73
Rainbow
Brown
16
1
17
239-398
324
4,878
335
5,213
94
6
100
94
6
100
Rainbow
Brown
230-277
158-585
Totals
6
27
33
1,108
10,489
11,597
18
82
100
10
90
100
Total Rainbows1
Total Browns1
100
282
149-401
102-585
20,661
65,824
26
74
24
76
Overall totals1
382
86,485
100
100
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
Totals
5
Totals
6
Totals
7
Totals
8
Totals
9
Totals
10
Totals
10.5
Totals
11
Totals
12
1
Overall totals do not include Station 10.5, which was added in 2010 to help evaluate the Quality Zone (also includes Stations 10 and 11).
142
Wilbur Tailwater
60
Rainbow
50
Number of Fish
Brown
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
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-13. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Wilbur tailwater
monitoring stations in 2010 (excluding Station 10.5).
143
Wilbur Tailwater
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
250
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
150
Mgt. Plan Objective
(130 fish/h)
Browns
200
All
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
100
50
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
30
Rainbows
25
Mgt. Plan Objective
(14 fish/h)
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
All
20
15
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
10
5
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Trout ≥457 mm (18”)
10
Rainbows
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
8
Mgt. Plan Objective
(3.3 fish/h)
All
6
4
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
2
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Figure 3-14. Mean trout CPUEs for the Wilbur tailwater samples. Bars
144
Wilbur Tailwater
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
80
70
CPUE (fish/h)
60
Quality Zone
Other sites
50
40
Fish Kill
(Station 8-12)
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Figure 3-15. Mean trout CPUEs for trout ≥356 mm from the Quality Zone (QZ;
sites 10, 10.5, and 11) and the other ten sites on the Wilbur
tailwater. Bars indicate 90% upper confidence limits.
145
Wilbur Tailwater
500
450
400
Rainbows
Browns
Brook
All
350
Fish kill
300
250
1990-1999 (pre-fish kill)
average (89,000 total)
200
150
100
50
0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 3-16.
Recent trout stocking rates for the Wilbur tailwater. About
40,000 catchable rainbow trout, 50,000 fingerling rainbows, and
15,000 brown trout will be stocked annually during the current
management plan term (2009-2014).
146
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 (Figure 3-17) has been managed as a put-andtake and put-and-grow trout fishery with annual stockings of both adult and fingerling rainbow trout.
Sub-adult (152-178 mm) brown trout have also been stocked since 1996. This tailwater is of
particular 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 produced 61 trout weighing 27.5
kg in 2010 (Table 3-8). This was a 43% decline in numbers and 38% weight compared with 2009.
The 2010 catch was comprised entirely of rainbow trout for the first time since monitoring began in
2002. These ranged from 183-503 mm and fish in the 254-305 mm (10-12 in.) size classes were
most abundant (Figure 3-18). The absence of brown trout in 2010 was particularly surprising as
they were more numerous in the 2009 catch (42) than in any previous year. The mean catch rate
for all trout ≥178 mm decreased again to 61 fish/h, a 45% decline since 2008 (Figure 3-19). The
mean catch rate for larger trout (≥356 mm) has decreased even more (62%) over the past two
years and is now at 14 fish/h (Figure 3-19). The catch rate for the largest trout (≥457 mm) has
remained relatively stable during the past three years (2 to 3 fish/h), but these fish remain much
less abundant than they were in 2002-2003 (13-15 fish/h; Figure 3-19) and it remains unclear what
factors are involved. Recent stocking rates have been variable, but do not appear to be
responsible, as they have been comparable to or higher than rates prior to 2002 (Figure 3-20).
About 15,500 trout (5,000 browns) were stocked in 2010. On average, 22,000 rainbow trout and
10,000 browns have been stocked annually during the past five years.
Despite its relatively small size, the Ft. Patrick Henry Tailwater provides an excellent trout
fishery with the potential for producing large, extremely well conditioned trout (mean Wr for rainbow
trout = 110; mean Wr for brown trout = 106). 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. More focused management should be
possible with the acquisition of additional monitoring data and a better understanding of this
fishery.
147
3
4
1
2
Figure 3-17. Location of the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater (South Fork Holston River)
monitoring stations.
148
Table 3-7. Location and sampling information for the four stations on the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater, 19 March 2010.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
1
420100501
Sullivan
Kingsport
188 SE
2
420100502
Sullivan
3
420100503
4
420100504
Coordinates
Reach Number
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, 4.5 A
Sullivan
Kingsport
188 SE
36.50583N-82.52306W 06010102-4,0
7.4
902
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, 4.5 A
Table 3-8. Catch data for the four electrofishing stations on the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater sampled 19 March 2010.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
8,058
100
100
-8,058
0
100
0
100
6,396
100
100
-6,396
0
100
0
100
277-503
6,008
100
100
--
-6,008
0
100
0
100
260-459
7,060
100
100
--
-7,060
0
100
0
100
27,522
100
100
0
0
100
100
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
20
246-445
Brown
0
20
--
Rainbow
17
183-429
Brown
0
17
--
Rainbow
11
Brown
0
11
Rainbow
13
Brown
Totals
0
13
Station
1
Species
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
Total Rainbows
61
183-503
Total Browns
0
--
Overall totals
61
Total Weight
(g)
-27,522
149
25
Rainbow
Number of Fish
20
Brown
15
n = 61
183-503 mm
10
5
0
152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-18. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Ft. Patrick
Henry tailwater monitoring stations in 2010.
150
CPUE (fish/h)
200
180
Rainbows
160
Browns
All
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
80
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
70
Browns
60
All
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
35
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
30
Browns
25
All
20
15
10
5
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Figure 3-19. Mean trout CPUEs for the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater samples.
Bars indicate 90% confidence intervals.
151
100
90
Rainbows
Browns
80
All
70
60
2006-2010 average (32,000 Total)
50
40
30
20
10
0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 3-20. Recent trout stocking rates for the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater.
The average annual stocking rate during the past five years
(2006-2010) was 32,000 (total).
152
3.2.5
Boone (South Fork Holston River)
Study Area
Boone Dam impounds a 1,782 ha (4,400 acre) reservoir (Boone Lake) on the South Fork of
the Holston and Watauga Rivers in Sullivan and Washington counties near Johnson City and
Kingsport. Boone Lake receives the South Fork Holston and Wilbur tailwaters, two of Tennessee’s
premier trout fisheries. A short (~1 km) tailwater exists downstream of Boone Dam at the upper
end of Ft. Patrick Henry Lake. The dam has three autoventing turbines which help improve
dissolved oxygen levels in the water released from Boone Dam. This tailwater and Ft. Patrick
Henry Lake provide coldwater habitat and the lake has been stocked annually with ~9,800 adult
rainbow trout since 1990. Few investigations of the trout fishery in the lake or tailwater have been
conducted over the years, thus TWRA developed an interest in evaluating the existing trout fishery.
Consequently, the tailwater was surveyed at base flow (no generation) and with one generator on
in May 2008 and found to support a good rainbow trout fishery along with a few brown trout. The
presence of brown trout was interesting, given that the only record of any brown trout stocking in
this tailwater prior to 2008 was 5,000 fingerlings released in 1956. The browns collected in 2008
likely passed down from the South Holston or Wilbur tailwaters upstream, or they may be the result
of natural reproduction. Three small rainbow trout (58-85 mm) were collected during the 2008
sample at base flow, indicating that there is some successful reproduction by this species in the
Boone tailwater (or its tributaries). Given these results, four electrofishing stations (Figure 3-21)
were established and sampled in 2008 (600 s/station) and the Boone tailwater was added to the
annual monitoring program in 2009 (effort increased to 900 s/station). Sample site locations and
effort details are summarized in Table 3-9.
The four Boone tailwater electrofishing stations produced 109 trout (85 rainbows, 24
browns) weighing 59.9 kg in 2010 (Table 3-10). Rainbows (225-535 mm) represented 95% of the
biomass captured and their size distribution was bimodal, with fish in the 229-279 mm (9-11 in.)
and 356-445 mm (14-18 in.) size classes most abundant (Figure 3-22). Brown trout were added to
the annual Ft. Patrick Henry Lake stocking program in 2008 based on the 2008 survey results and
are becoming well established. While the total trout catch for 2010 was similar to that for 2009
(105), there was a net increase in total weight of 10 kg that was entirely attributable to brown trout.
Brown trout abundance increased from 8% (numbers) and 5% (weight) of the catch in 2009 to 22%
and 26%, respectively, in 2010 (Table 3-10). The browns captured in 2010 ranged from 240-604
mm in 2010 (Figure 3-22) and most would be from the 2008 or 2009 stockings (5,000 203-mm fish
each year). While it is uncertain if the 604 mm (23.8 in.) brown trout was from the recent stockings,
it is likely that some the other browns >350 mm were, indicating the good growth potential for these
fish in this tailwater.
The mean electrofishing catch rate for all trout ≥178 mm from the Boone tailwater increased
slightly to 109 fish/h in 2010 (Figure 3-23). The rainbow trout catch rate actually declined 12%, but
this was more than offset by a three-fold increase in the brown trout catch rate (Figure 3-23).
153
There were also moderate increases in mean catch rates for trout ≥356 mm (to 46 fish/h) and ≥457
mm (to 9 fish/h)—attributable primarily to brown trout in both cases. The current catch rate for trout
≥178 mm in the Boone tailwater is near the lower end of the range for other Region IV tailwaters
except Cherokee (61-386 fish/h; 2010 data). However, no other tailwater had higher mean catch
rates for trout ≥356 mm and ≥457 mm in 2010.
Stocking of Ft. Patrick Henry Lake (Boone tailwater) historically involved only adult rainbow
trout (9,700/year during 1990-2007; Figure 3-24). Given this tailwater’s potential to produce large
fish, brown trout were added to the program in 2008 and ~4,700 (203 mm) have been stocked
each year since then (Figure 3-24). These fish contributed to the increase in the catch rate for
larger trout observed in 2010. Brook trout (1,000) were also stocked in 2009 to determine if it
might be possible to establish this species as well, but none were captured or observed in 2010.
Since 2008, about 18,000 trout have been stocked annually in the Boone tailwater (Figure 3-24).
The Boone tailwater provides a relatively small trout fishery, but one with the potential, like
the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater, for producing large, well conditioned trout (mean Wr for rainbows =
104; mean Wr for browns = 110). This fishery is currently subject to statewide trout angling
regulations and no changes are recommended at this time. The current trout stocking rates may
be adjusted as more is learned about this tailwater, but the annual stocking program should include
brown trout. Additionally, the four sampling stations should be sampled annually to obtain
information useful for the future management of this fishery.
154
Boone Tailwater
4
3
2 1
Figure 3-21. Location of the Boone tailwater (South Fork Holston River)
monitoring stations.
155
Table 3-9. Location and sampling information for the four stations on the Boone tailwater, 19 March 2010.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
1
420100401
Sullivan
Boone Dam
198 NW
2
420100402
Washington
3
420100403
4
420100404
Coordinates
Reach Number
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
36.44302N-82.43746W 06010102-5,1
18.5
900
200 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Boone Dam
198 NW
36.44344N-82.43823W 06010102-5,1
18.5
900
225 V DC
120 PPS, 4.5 A
Sullivan
Boone Dam
198 NW
36.44589N-82.43883W 06010102-5,1
18.2
900
200 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
Sullivan
Boone Dam
198 NW
36.44589N-82.43887W 06010102-5,1
18.2
900
225 V DC
120 PPS, 4.5 A
Table 3-10. Catch data for the four electrofishing stations on the Boone tailwater sampled 19 March 2010.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
8,518
64
49
8,834
17,352
36
100
51
100
225-482
9,220
77
72
302-450
3,610
12,830
23
100
28
100
18
259-468
11,184
90
84
Brown
2
20
325-478
2,092
13,276
10
100
16
100
Rainbow
23
244-535
15,370
88
94
Brown
240-334
Totals
3
26
1,040
16,410
12
100
6
100
Total Rainbows
85
225-535
44,292
78
74
Total Browns
24
240-604
15,576
22
26
Overall totals
109
59,868
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
21
233-431
Brown
12
33
273-604
Rainbow
23
Brown
7
30
Rainbow
Species
Totals
2
Totals
3
Totals
4
156
Total Weight
(g)
Boone Tailwater
25
Rainbow
Number of Fish
20
Brown
RBT
n = 85
225-535 mm
15
10
BNT
n = 24
240-604 mm
5
0
152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-22. Length frequency distributions for trout from the Boone
tailwater monitoring stations in 2010.
157
Boone Tailwater
225
Rainbows
200
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
175
All
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
Year
100
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
80
Browns
All
60
40
20
0
2008
2009
2010
Year
25
Rainbows
CPUE (fish/h)
20
Browns
All
15
10
5
0
2008
2009
2010
Year
Figure 3-23. Mean trout CPUEs for the Boone tailwater samples. Bars
158
Boone Tailwater
40
Rainbow
35
Brown
Brook
30
All
2008-2010 average (18,800 total)
25
20
1990-2007 average (10,900 adult rainbows)
15
10
5
0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Year
Figure 3-24. Recent trout stocking rates for Ft. Patrick Henry Lake (Boone
tailwater). The average annual stocking rate for all trout since
2008 is 18,800. Prior to 2008 (1990-2007), it was 9,700.
159
3.2.6
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 4050% 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 first trout stockings in the South Holston tailwater occurred in 1952 and included
fingerling and adult rainbow and brook trout. Subsequently, annual stockings of adult rainbow trout
and fingerling rainbow and brown trout maintained put-and-take and put-and-grow fisheries.
Recent investigations conducted for TWRA by Bettoli et al. (1999) documented substantial natural
reproduction (particularly by brown trout) and an overwintering biomass (80% brown trout) of 170232 kg/ha. Later, Meerbeek and Bettoli (2005) measured an overwintering biomass of 207 kg/ha
for brown trout alone during 2003-2004 (highest among all Tennessee tailwaters). Currently, no
brown trout are stocked in the South Holston tailwater because of its excellent wild brown trout
fishery. The rainbow trout fishery continues to be maintained through stocking of adults and
fingerlings.
The potential of the South Fork Holston River’s trout fishery has long been recognized and
establishment of a quality zone with special regulations was considered during 1992-1993, but
never officially proposed. Subsequently, better information regarding this fishery (along with angler
support) led to establishment of a quality trout management strategy based on a 406-559 mm (1622 in.) protected length range (PLR) in 2000. Previously, 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.
160
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 3-25) and
protocol established by Bettoli et al. (1999). Sample site location and effort details are summarized
in Table 3-11.
The 2010 South Holston
tailwater sample produced an
impressive 891 trout weighing 216.5
kg—nearly 500 lbs. (Table 3-12).
Both the total catch and total
biomass represented substantial
increases relative to 2009 (25% and
19%, respectively). Since 2003,
total catch has more than doubled
(from 385) and total biomass has
increased 84%. The 2010 sample
comprised 103 rainbows (12%)
ranging from 132-410 mm and 788
browns (84%) ranging from107-788
mm. The 778 mm brown trout
A 778-mm (30.6-in.) brown trout weighing 6.4 kg (14.2 lbs.) from the 2010 South
weighed over 6.4 kg (14 lbs) and
Holston tailwater survey.
was the longest (and next-toheaviest) brown taken in any previous Region IV tailwater sample. Total catch and total biomass
for rainbow trout in 2010 actually decreased somewhat (12-17%) relative to corresponding values
for 2009, thus brown trout were responsible for the overall increases that occurred in 2010.
Rainbow trout distribution was bi-modal in 2010, with peaks corresponding to the 203 mm
and 279-305 mm size classes (Figure 3-26). Brown trout size distribution was strongly bi-modal,
with peaks corresponding to the 152-178 mm and 254-305 mm size classes (Figure 3-26), which
likely correspond to the 2009 and 2008 cohorts. The 2009 size distribution for browns had very
similar modes and comparison with the 2010 data suggest only a modest level of recruitment into
the size classes approaching the PLR (330, 356, and 381 mm) during the past year. Additionally,
recruitment into the PLR since 2009 was also limited. Trout within the PLR were captured at 9 of
the 12 monitoring stations in 2010 and only one was a rainbow. Only 28 rainbow trout within the
PLR have been captured during annual monitoring since the PLR became effective in 2000 (mean,
2.8/year).
The mean CPUE for trout ≥178 mm (total) approached 400 fish/h in 2010 (Figure 3-27) and
continues to be the highest overall catch rate for any Region IV trout tailwater. The mean catch
161
rate for brown trout ≥178 mm exceeded 300 fish/h (Figure 3-27) and is well above the objective set
forth in the current South Holston tailwater management plan as being adequate to sustain that
fishery(135 fish/h; Habera et al. 2009c). The rainbow trout catch rate (48 fish/h ≥178 mm)
remained near the management plan objective (50 fish/h). The catch rate for trout ≥356 mm, which
are considered to be “quality” sized fish, peaked in 2005 at 72 fish/h, but has fallen back in recent
years—to 40 fish/h in 2010 (Figure 3-27). However, this exceeded the corresponding catch rate
(trout ≥356 mm) for the all other Region IV tailwaters in 2010 except Boone (46 fish/h). The catch
rate for trout in the PLR (406-559 mm) has also declined from its peak in 2006 (29 fish/h) to 14
fish/h in 2010, but remains above the pre-PLR level (8 fish/h in 2000; Figure 3-27). Although mean
relative weights (Wr) for brown trout 178-405 mm (below the PLR) and 406-529 mm (within the
PLR) have typically ranged from 90-100, they have also tended to decline since 2005 (Figure 328). This may indicate that the increasing abundance of fish in the river is beginning to affect
condition (and possibly recruitment).
The catch rate for fish exceeding the upper PLR boundary (i.e., ≥559 mm) has remained
low, ranging from 0.5-2.0 fish/h since 2000. If the PLR can produce and maintain higher
abundances of 406-559 mm fish, it seems likely that more fish ≥559 mm could also be expected as
a byproduct. Trout in this size class would have the protection of a one fish/day creel limit, so any
abundance increases should be relatively sustainable. However, these large trout may use
habitats or have behaviors (e.g., migration to Boone Lake after spawning) that make them less
vulnerable to our standard sampling procedure. Additional monitoring and research may provide a
clearer understanding of the PLR’s benefits in this regard.
The South Holston tailwater was stocked with 91,000 rainbow trout in 2010 (41,000 adults
and 50,000 fingerlings; Figure 3-29). These stocking rates are consistent with the current
management plan (Habera et al. 2009c). Brown trout stocking was discontinued in 2004 (Figure 329) in accordance with the corresponding management plan’s objective of conversion to a wild
brown trout fishery (Habera et al. 2003b). The annual rainbow trout fingerling stocking rate was
also reduced to 50,000 beginning in 2004 in accordance with that management plan and appears
to be sufficient. During 1990-2003, about 105,000 trout were stocked in the South Holston
tailwater each year, including 54,000 fingerling rainbow trout, 38,000 adult rainbows, and 13,000
brown trout (Figure 3-29).
The three primary objectives from the previous (2004-2008) South Holston tailwater
management plan (Habera et al. 2003b) – improvement of large trout abundance, creation of a wild
brown trout fishery, and optimization of fingerling rainbow trout stocking rates – were achieved
during that plan’s term (Habera et al. 2009b). The special angling regulations (i.e., the 406-559
mm PLR) and spawning sanctuaries now in effect were instrumental in achieving that plan’s
objectives and ultimately attaining the management goal for the tailwater. Accordingly, there is a
high rate of support among anglers for the current regulations on the South Holston tailwater,
including 86% for the spawning refuges and 82% for the PLR (Bettoli 2007). Overall, 77% of
162
anglers rated TWRA’s management of the South Holston tailwater a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 (poor) to
5 (excellent) during the most recent survey (Bettoli 2007).
The goal of the new South Holston tailwater management plan (2009-2014) remains
unchanged – to continue to maintain a high-quality trout fishery while providing a variety of
opportunities for the anglers who use this resource (Habera et al. 2009c). TWRA will seek to attain
the goal by featuring the exceptional wild brown trout fishery that has developed, while continuing
to sustain the rainbow trout fishery with annual stocking of adults (put-and-take management) and
fingerlings (put-and-grow management). Stocked adult rainbow trout remain important part of the
overall management strategy as a substantial portion of anglers on this tailwater use bait (51%;
Bettoli 2007) and likely target these fish. It is evident that natural reproduction is quite capable of
sustaining and even expanding the South Holston tailwater’s brown trout fishery, while hooking
mortality related to the use of bait is not significant. Carline et al. (1991) observed similar
characteristics in another wild brown trout fishery where stocking was eliminated and restrictive
angling regulations were enacted (although bait was not prohibited). Objectives for meeting the
management goal during 2009-2014 are to maintain mean electrofishing catch rates of 135 brown
trout/h ≥178 mm, 50 rainbow trout/h ≥178 mm, and 25 trout/h within the PLR (Habera et al. 2009c).
Achievement of these objectives will further validate the effectiveness of the PLR and associated
regulations and the basic management strategies for this tailwater. It is recommended that angling
regulations now applicable to the South Holston tailwater be maintained during the term of the
current management plan (2009-2014) to permit accurate evaluation of progress toward the
objectives described above.
A research project directed by Dr. Phil Bettoli at Tennessee Tech was initiated in 2009 to
study the movements of large brown trout in the South Fork Holston River / Watauga River / Boone
Lake system. This information should provide a better understanding of the abundance and
behavior of these fish and help guide future management strategies.
163
South Holston Tailwater
Labyrinth
Weir
2
6
1
3
5
7
4
Bottom Creek
8
Weaver Pike
Bridge
9
Webb Bridge
Spawning area
closed to fishing
Nov.-Jan.
10
11
12
Spawning area
closed to fishing
Nov.-Jan.
Figure 3-25. Locations of the South Holston tailwater (South Fork Holston River) monitoring stations.
164
Table 3-11. Location and sampling information for the 12 stations on the South Holston tailwater, 10 March 2010.
Station
Site Code
County
Quadrangle
1
420100201
Sullivan
Holston Valley
206 SE
2
420100202
Sullivan
3
420100203
4
Coordinates
River Mile
Effort (s)
Output
36.5236N-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
420100204
Sullivan
Holston Valley
206 SE
36.50417N-82.11111W 06010102-13,2
46.4
601
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
5
420100205
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.51250N-82.12778W 06010102-13,2
45.3
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
6
420100206
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.51389N-82.14444W 06010102-13,2
44.2
603
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
7
420100207
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.50972N-82.14861W 06010102-13,2
43
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
8
420100208
Sullivan
Bristol 206 SW
36.49528N-82.18056W 06010102-13,2
40.6
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
9
420100209
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.48194N-82.20556W 06010102-13,2
38.6
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
10
420100210
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.47917N-82.20833W 06010102-13,2
38.4
603
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
11
420100211
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.47778N-82.21528W 06010102-13,1
38
600
250 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
12
420100212
Sullivan
Keenburg
207 NW
36.46556N-82.22083W 06010102-13,1
37.1
600
150 V DC
120 PPS, 4 A
165
Reach Number
Table 3-12. Catch data for the12 electrofishing stations on the South Holston tailwater sampled 10 March 2010.
%
Abundance
(number)
%
Abundance
(weight)
4,229
0
4,229
100
0
100
100
0
100
139-307
118-395
1,478
11,286
12,764
9
91
100
12
88
100
5
92
97
132-360
107-385
1,296
16,066
17,362
5
95
100
7
93
100
Rainbow
Brown
0
74
74
-127-531
0
16,042
16,042
0
100
100
0
100
100
Rainbow
Brown
4
85
89
285-367
143-462
1,370
12,671
14,041
4
96
100
10
90
100
Rainbow
Brown
8
76
84
174-365
145-778
1,915
23,688
25,603
10
90
100
7
93
100
Rainbow
Brown
15
84
99
146-335
130-519
3,491
24,695
28,186
15
85
100
12
88
100
Rainbow
Brown
20
41
61
200-349
168-434
3,976
13,440
17,416
33
67
100
23
77
100
Rainbow
Brown
6
65
71
144-361
150-540
1,528
16,689
18,217
8
92
100
8
92
100
Rainbow
Brown
6
67
73
177-410
123-506
2,478
23,354
25,832
8
92
100
10
90
100
Rainbow
Brown
15
67
82
173-361
158-470
2,950
15,906
18,856
18
82
100
16
84
100
Rainbow
Brown
262-328
163-535
Totals
2
65
67
530
17,466
17,996
3
97
100
3
97
100
Total Rainbows
Total Browns
103
788
132-410
107-778
25,241
191,303
12
88
12
88
Overall totals
891
216,544
100
100
Station
1
Total
Catch
Size Range
(mm)
Rainbow
Brown
15
0
15
216-386
--
Rainbow
Brown
7
72
79
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
166
Total Weight
(g)
150
Rainbows
n = 103
Range: 132-410 mm
Rainbow
Number of Fish
125
Brown
Browns
n = 788
Range: 107-778 mm
100
75
Protected slot:
406-559 mm
(16-22”)
50
25
0
102 127 152 178 203 229 254 279 305 330 356 381 406 432 457 483 508 533 559 584 610 635 660 686 711 737 762
Length Class (mm)
Figure 3-26. Length frequency distributions for trout from the South Holston
tailwater monitoring stations in 2010.
167
Trout ≥178 mm (7”)
500
Rainbows
400
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
All
300
Management plan
objective for brown
trout (135 fish/h)
200
100
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Trout ≥356 mm (14”)
100
Rainbows
80
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
All
60
40
20
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Trout 406-559 mm (16-22”)
50
Management plan
objective (25 fish/h)
Rainbows
40
Browns
CPUE (fish/h)
All
30
Protected length range
(406-559 mm)
established
20
10
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Figure 3-27. Mean trout CPUEs for the South Holston tailwater samples.
Bars indicate 90% confidence intervals.
168
120
Mean Wr (Brown trout)
PLR (406-522 mm)
Under PLR (178-405 mm)
110
100
90
80
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Figure 3-28. Mean relative weights (Wr) for brown trout from the South
Holston tailwater. Bars indicate 90% confidence intervals.
169
250
Rainbows
Browns
200
All
150
1990-2003 average (105,000 Total)
100
50
0
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
Year
Figure 3-29. Recent trout stocking rates for the South Holston tailwater.
170
'10
4.
SUMMARY
Twenty-two stations on 15 wild trout streams in the Tellico/Little Tennessee, Nolichucky,
Watauga, and South Fork Holston river watersheds were quantitatively sampled during 2010.
Overall, 572 quantitative (three-pass depletion) samples have been conducted in 150 different
wild trout streams in 11 east Tennessee counties since 1991. Monitoring stations on Bald River,
North River, Rocky Fork, Left Prong Hampton Creek, Right Prong Middle Branch (high-elevation,
allopatric brook trout), Stony Creek, Doe Creek, Laurel Creek, and Beaverdam Creek were
sampled in 2010. Eight other streams were qualitatively sampled to check for the presence of
any wild trout. Overall, qualitative surveys have been conducted in 94 streams since 1991.
Drought-related impacts were still evident in some wild trout monitoring streams in 2010
and, along with generally poor reproduction in 2009, produced some of the lowest biomass
estimates observed to date. However, abundance in several streams had nearly recovered to
near-normal levels.
Monitoring data from sympatric brook/rainbow trout populations continue to indicate that
drought impacts brook trout relative abundance (particularly biomass) less than that of rainbow
trout. Although the abundance of both species declines during droughts, rainbow trout are
affected (i.e., recruitment is reduced) more substantially, thus benefiting brook trout. For
example, brook trout relative abundance reached 100% in Gentry Creek monitoring station in
2009 and remained near 90% in 2010. Long-term co-existence seems possible for these
species, with drier periods (e.g., 1998-2002; 2007-2008) favoring brook trout and wetter periods
(e.g., 2003-2005) or floods (e.g., 1994) favoring rainbow trout.
Although the 2010 mean electrofishing catch rate for trout ≥178mm in the Norris
tailwater declined 36% relative to 2009, the catch-rate within the 356-508 mm (14-20 in.) PLR
nearly doubled to 22 fish/h. Since the PLR was established in 2008, there has been more than a
six-fold increase in the catch rate for fish in this size range. The management plan objective for
the PLR is a mean catch rate of 28 fish/h for 2011-2013, thus progress continues to be made
toward its achievement. The overall catch rate for brook trout was 4.5 fish/h, with fish captured at
five of the 12 monitoring stations. All brook trout captured to date have been <305 mm (12 in.),
suggesting that few are holding over beyond their first year.
Water temperatures for 2010 (June-November) near Cherokee Dam and at Blue Spring
(13 km below Cherokee Dam) were cooler than in 2009. Maximum daily temperature exceeded
21° C (70° F) for 28 consecutive days near the dam and 52 consecutive days at Blue Spring
(September through mid-October). Daily minima did not exceed 21° C near the dam and did so
on 14 days at Blue Spring. Based on eight years of monitoring data, there is, on average, no
coldwater habitat (minimum daily temperature is ≥21° C) in the Blue Spring area for one month
(August 28-September 28) each year. Despite the cooler temperatures in 2010, trout catch rates
declined relative to those for 2008 and 2009, although electrofishing catch rates have tended to
be higher in years with cooler water. Examination of this linkage revealed a relatively strong (R2
= 0.71) inverse relationship between water temperature (expressed as the number of days with
maximum temperature ≥24° C at Blue Spring) and log10-transformed electrofishing catch rate.
171
Monitoring resumed on the Wilbur tailwater in 2010 as the necessary flows were
available during March. These stations were not sampled in 2008 or 2009 because adequate
flows were not available. Total electrofishing catch rates for each trout size class (≥178 mm,
≥356 mm, and ≥457 mm) increased relative to 2007, reaching the highest levels observed since
monitoring began in 1999 (168 fish/h, 20 fish/h, and 6.5 fish/h, respectively). These catch rates
exceeded the corresponding objectives (130 fish/h, 14 fish/h, and 3.3 fish/h, respectively) from
the current Wilbur tailwater management plan. The brown trout catch rate for the upper tailwater
(153 fish/h at stations 1-7) exceeded the management plan objective of 130 fish/h for sustaining a
self-supporting fishery. A new station (10.5) was established in the Quality Zone (QZ) and
sampled in 2010 to help evaluate its effectiveness. Catch rates for trout ≥356 mm in the QZ
(Stations 10, 10.5, and 11) have been relatively similar to catch rates for this size group at the
other 10 stations in most years since 1999.
The 2010 catch for the Ft. Patrick Henry tailwater was comprised entirely of rainbow
trout for the first time since monitoring began in 2002. The absence of brown trout was
particularly surprising as they had been more numerous in the 2009 sample (42) than in any
previous year. The mean catch rates for all trout (≥178 mm) and for larger trout (≥356 mm)
decreased again in 2010, although the catch rate for the largest trout (≥457 mm) has remained
relatively stable during the past three years (2 to 3 fish/h). These fish remain much less abundant
than they were in 2002-2003 (13-15 fish/h) and it remains unclear what factors are involved.
Recent stocking rates do not appear to be responsible, as they have been comparable to or
higher than rates prior to 2002.
Brown trout were added to the Boone tailwater (Ft. Patrick Henry Lake) stocking
program in 2008 based and are becoming well established. Brown trout abundance increased
from 8% (numbers) and 5% (weight) of the catch in 2009 to 22% and 26%, respectively, in 2010.
The mean electrofishing catch rate for all trout ≥178 mm from the Boone tailwater increased
slightly to 109 fish/h in 2010, with the 12% decline in the rainbow trout catch rate more than offset
by a three-fold increase in the brown trout catch rate. While the current catch rate for trout ≥178
mm in the Boone tailwater is near the lower end of the range for other Region IV tailwaters except
Cherokee (61-386 fish/h; 2010 data), no other tailwater had higher mean catch rates for trout
≥356 mm and ≥457 mm in 2010.
The 2010 South Holston tailwater sample produced an impressive 891 trout (84%
browns) weighing 216.5 kg—nearly 500 lbs.—in 2010. Since 2003, total catch has more than
doubled (from 385) and total biomass has increased 84%. The mean CPUE for trout ≥178 mm
approached 400 fish/h (>300 brown trout/h) in 2010 and continues exceed that for any Region IV
trout tailwater. However, recruitment into the 406-559 mm (16-22 in.) PLR during the past two
years has been limited. Consequently, the catch rate for trout in the PLR has declined from its
peak in 2006 (29 fish/h) to 14 fish/h in 2010, but remains above the pre-PLR level (8 fish/h in
2000).
172
REFERENCES
Adams, S. B., C. A. Frissell, and B. E. Rieman. 2002. Changes in distribution of nonnative brook
trout in an Idaho drainage over two decades. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 131:561-568.
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.
Benjamin, J. R., and C. V. Baxter. 2010. Do nonnative salmonines exhibit greater density and
production than the natives they replace? A comparison of nonnative brook trout with
native cutthroat trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:641-651.
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.
Bettinger, J. M., and P. W. Bettoli. 2002. Fate, dispersal, and persistence of recently stocked
and resident rainbow trout in a Tennessee tailwater. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 22:425-432.
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. 2002. Clinch River creel survey results: March-October 2001. Fisheries Report
No. 02-01. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W. 2003a. 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. 2003b. Survey of the trout fishery in the South Fork of the Holston River, MarchOctober 2002. Fisheries Report No. 03-06. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Nashville, Tennessee.
Bettoli, P. W. 2006. Clinch River creel survey results: April-October 2005. Fisheries Report No.
06-08. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
173
Bettoli, P. W. 2007. Surveys of the trout fisheries in the Watauga River and South Fork of the
Holston River: March-October 2005. Fisheries Report No. 07-07. Tennessee Wildlife
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
Bivens, R. D. 1989. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1988. Tennessee Wildlife
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., 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.
Bivens, R. D., B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 1998. Region IV trout fisheries report: 1997.
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.
174
Bowlby, J. N., and J. C. Roff. 1986. Trout biomass and habitat relationships in southern Ontario
streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:503-514.
Brigham, A. R., W. U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, editors. 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes
of North and South Carolina. Midwest Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois.
Carline, R. F., T. Beard, Jr., and B. A. Hollender. 1991. Response of wild brown trout to
elimination of stocking and to no-harvest regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 11:253-266.
Carline, R. F., and B. J. McCullough. 2003. Effects of floods on brook trout populations in the
Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 132:1014-1020.
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.
Damer, J., and P. W. Bettoli. 2008. The fate of brook trout stocked in the Watauga River below
Wilbur Dam. Fisheries Report No. 08-03. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
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.
Fiss, F. C., and J. W. Habera, editors. 2006. Trout management plan for Tennessee 2006-2016.
Habera, J. W., and R. J. Strange. 1993. Wild trout resources and management in the southern
Appalachian Mountains. Fisheries 18(1):6-13.
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
175
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, and B. D. Carter. 2003b. Management plan for the South Holston
tailwater trout fishery 2004-2008. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 2008b. Management plan for the
Norris Tailwater trout fishery 2008-2013. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, and B. D. Carter. 2009b. Management plan for the Wilbur tailwater
trout fishery 2009-2014. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, and B. D. Carter. 2009c. Management plan for the South Holston
tailwater trout fishery 2009-2014. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
Habera, J. W., M. A. Kulp, S. E. Moore, and T. B. Henry. 2010a. Three-pass depletion sampling
accuracy of two electric fields for estimating trout abundance in a low-conductivity stream
176
with limited habitat complexity. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:757766.
Habera, J. W., R. D. Bivens, B. D. Carter, and C. E. Williams. 2010b. Region IV trout fisheries
Habera, J. W., and B. D. Carter. 2008. Access denied: keeping the rainbows out of Left Prong.
Tennessee Wildlife 31(6):21-24.
Harper, D. D., and A. M. Farag. 2004. Winter habitat use by cutthroat trout in the Snake River
near Jackson, Wyoming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:15-25.
Harris, A. 2010. Trout fishing in 2006: a demographic description and economic analysis
(addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation). Report 2006-6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.
Harvey, B. C., R. J. Nakamoto, and J. L. White. 2006. Reduced streamflow lowers dry-season
growth of rainbow trout in a small stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
135:998-1005.
Harvey, B. C., J. L. White, and R. J. Nakamoto. 2009. The effect of deposited fine sediment on
summer survival and growth of rainbow trout in riffles of a small stream. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 29:434-440.
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.
Holbrook, C., and P. W. Bettoli. 2006. Spawning habitat, length at maturity, and fecundity of
brown trout in Tennessee tailwaters. Fisheries Report No. 06-11. Tennessee Wildlife
Hutt, C. P., and Bettoli, P. W. 2003. Recreational specialization, preferences, and management
attitudes of trout anglers utilizing Tennessee tailwaters. Fisheries Report No. 03-01.
James, D. A., J. W. White, and S. R. Chipps. 2010. Influence of drought conditions on brown
trout biomass and size structure in the Black Hills, South Dakota. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 30:791-798.
177
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.
Kulp, M. A., and S. E. Moore. 2005. A case history in fishing regulations in Great Smoky
Mountains National Park: 1934-2004. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
25:510-524.
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.
Lewis, S. L. 1969. Physical factors influencing fish populations in pools of a trout stream.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98:14-19.
Lohr, S. C., and J. L. West. 1992. Microhabitat selection by brook and rainbow trout in a
southern Appalachian stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:729736.
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.
Luecke, C., T. C. Edwards, Jr., M. W. Wengert, Jr., S. Brayton, and R. Schneidervin. 1994.
Simulated changes in lake trout yield, trophies, and forage consumption under various slot
limits. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:14-21.
Matthews, K. R., N. H. Berg, D. L. Azuma, and T. R. Lambert. 1994. Cool water formation and
trout habitat use in a deep pool in the Sierra Nevada, California.
McFadden, J. T., and E. L. Cooper. 1962. An ecological comparison of six populations of brown
trout Salmo trutta. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91:53-62.
Meerbeek, J., and P. W. Bettoli. 2005. Survival, growth, condition, and diet of stocked brown
trout in five Tennessee tailwaters. Fisheries Report No. 05-05. Tennessee Wildlife
178
Miller, S. D., D. H. Van Lear, A. R. Abernathy, D. H. Barwick, B. C. Dysart III, and T. H. Wood.
1997. Sedimentation impacts on resident rainbow trout in a high-gradient southern
Appalachian stream. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 51:199-208.
Nagel, J. W. 1986. Brook trout / rainbow trout headwaters competition studies. Research
progress report submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee.
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.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2006.
Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. Division of Water Quality,
Environmental Sciences Section, Biological Assessment Unit.
Peterson, J. T., R. F. Thurow, and J. W. Guzevich. 2004. An evaluation of multipass
electrofishing for estimating the abundance of stream-dwelling salmonids. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 113:462-475.
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.
Power, M., and G. Power. 1996. Comparing minimum-size and slot limits for brook trout
management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:49-62.
Powers, S. L., and R. L. Mayden. 2007. Systematics, evolution, and biogeography of the
Etheostoma simoterum species complex (Percidae: Subgenus Ulocentra). Bulletin of the
Alabama Museum of Natural History 25:1-23.
179
Roghair, C. N., C. A. Dolloff, and M. K. Underwood. 2002. Response of a brook trout population
and instream habitat to a catastrophic flood and debris flow. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 131:718-730.
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.
Stephens, B., L. Didier, M. Fly, B. C. English, and J. Menard. 2005. Fishing expenditures and
economic impact: fall 2005. University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture, Knoxville,
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.
Strange, R. J., and J. W. Habera. 1998a. Wild trout project: 1997 annual report. Publication No.
180
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.
Stranko, S. A., R. H. Hilderbrand, R. P. Morgan II, M. W. Staley, A. J. Becker, A. RoseberryLinclon, E. S. Perry, and P. T. Jacobson. 2008. Brook trout declines with land cover and
temperature changes in Maryland. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
28:1223-1232.
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
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1980. Improving reservoir releases. TVA Office of Natural
Resources and Environmental Development, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998. Holston watershed biological condition of streams
1993-1997. Clean Water Initiative report, TVA, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 1998. Stream survey protocols. Tennessee
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2006. Strategic plan 2006-2012. Tennessee
Thompson, P. D., and F. J. Rahel. 1996. Evaluation of depletion-removal electrofishing of brook
trout in small Rocky Mountain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
16:332-339.
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.
Warren, D. R., A. G. Ernst, and B. P. Baldigo. 2009. Influence of spring floods on year-class
strength of fall- and spring-spawning salmonids in Catskill Mountain streams. Transaction
of the American Fisheries Society 138:200-210.
Waters, T. F. 1999. Long-term trout production in Valley Creek, Minnesota. Transaction of the
181
Weiland, M. A., and R. S. Hayward. 1997. Cause for the decline of large rainbow trout in a
tailwater fishery: too much putting or too much taking? Transaction of the American
Fisheries Society 126:758-773.
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, and 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.
Zorn, T. G., and A. J. Nuhfer. 2007. Influences on brown trout and brook trout population
dynamics in a Michigan river. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society
136:691-705.
182
APPENDIX A
Quantitative Wild Trout Stream Samples
1991-2010
183
Table A-1. Wild trout streams sampled quantitatively during 1991-2010.
Stream
Primary
Total
County
Location
Year
species1
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
Tellico River2
Monroe
CNF
1993,95-02, 06
RBT/BNT
28
Bald River3
Monroe
CNF
1991-00, 05, 07, 10
RBT/BNT/BKT
37
Kirkland Creek
Monroe
CNF
1991
RBT
1
Henderson Branch
Monroe
CNF
1996
RBT/BNT/BKT
2
Brookshire Creek
Monroe
CNF
1996
BKT
3
North River
2
Monroe
CNF
1991-10
RBT/BNT
60
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
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
South Fork Citico Creek
Monroe
CNF
2004
RBT
1
North Fork Citico Creek
Monroe
CNF
2003
RBT
1
Slickrock Creek
Monroe
CNF
2007
BNT
1
Little Slickrock Creek
Monroe
CNF
2007
BNT
2
Parson Branch
Blount
Private
1993
RBT
1
Total streams = 18
Total samples =
158
French Broad River
Brown Gap Creek
Cocke
Private
1991
BKT
1
1
Middle Prong Gulf Creek
Cocke
Private
1991
BKT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Cocke
Private
1993, 04, 08
RBT/BNT
3
Deep Gap Creek
Cocke
State Forest
2005
RBT
1
Cocke
CNF
1996, 2001
RBT
2
Wolf Creek
Cocke
CNF
1993
RBT
2
Sinking Creek
Cocke
Private
1999
RBT
1
Tobes Creek
Cocke
Private
2006
RBT
1
Indian Camp Creek
Cocke
Private
2007
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
184
Table A-1 (cont.). Wild trout streams sampled quantitatively during 1991-2010.
Stream
Primary
Total
County
Location
Year
species1
samples
Greene
CNF
1999
BKT/BNT
1
Greene
CNF
92, 94,95,02-04, 08
BNT/RBT
11
French Broad River (cont.)
Sawmill Branch
Paint Creek
2
Total streams = 14
Total samples =
29
Nolichucky River
Camp Creek
Greene
Private
2004
RBT
1
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
Briar Creek2
Washington
CNF
1992,95-10
RBT/BKT
17
Straight Creek
Washington
CNF
2003
BKT
1
Ramsey Creek
Washington
Private
1996
RBT
1
Sinking Creek
Washington
Private
2007
RBT/BNT
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
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
Painter Creek
Tumbling Creek
Unicoi
Private
1995
RBT
1
Big Bald Creek
Unicoi
Private
1996
RBT
1
Little Bald Creek
Unicoi
Private
2007
RBT
1
Spivey Creek
Unicoi
Private
2007
RBT
1
Rice Creek
Unicoi
Private
1995
RBT
1
Sams Creek
Unicoi
Private
2002
RBT
1
Mill Creek
Unicoi
CNF
1996
RBT
1
185
Primary
Total
County
Location
Year
species1
samples
Higgins Creek (“Upper”)
Unicoi
Private
2006
RBT
1
Big Branch
Unicoi
Private
1996
RBT
1
Dry Creek
Washington
CNF
1997
RBT
1
Unicoi
Private
2009
RBT
1
Unicoi/Greene
Private
1991-10
RBT/BKT
40
Stream
South Indian Creek (upper)
Rocky Fork
2
Total streams = 40
Total samples =
102
Watauga River
Sinking Creek
Washington
Private
2007
RBT/BNT
1
Little Cove Creek
Carter
Private
2008
RBT/BKT
1
Panther Branch
Carter
CNF
1996
BKT
1
Five Poplar Branch
Carter
Private
2000
RBT
1
Toms Branch
Carter
Private/CNF
1991, 09
BKT
2
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
Stony Creek
Carter
CNF
1992, 95, 04-06, 10
RBT/BKT/BNT
7
Little Stony Creek
Carter
CNF
1992
BKT
1
Lindy Camp Branch
Carter
CNF
2008
BKT
1
Little Laurel Branch
Carter
CNF
1992
BKT
1
Vaught Creek
Johnson
Private
2005
RBT
1
Furnace Creek
Johnson
Private
1992
BKT
1
Johnson
Private
1993
RBT
1
Carter
CNF
1993
RBT
1
Johnson
Private
1993
RBT/BKT
2
Carter
Private
1994
RBT
1
Carter
CNF
1994, 97-10
BKT
15
Simerly Creek
Carter
Private
1994, 2010
RBT/BNT
2
McKinney Branch
Carter
Private
2010
RBT/BNT
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
Campbell Creek
Little Stony Creek
4
Forge Creek
Heaton Branch
R. Prong Middle Branch
Big Dry Run
2
186
Primary
Stream
1
Total
County
Location
Year
species
samples
Johnson
Private
1995
RBT
1
Doe River
Carter
Private
1995-99, 02-04, 09
RBT/BKT/BNT
12
Little Doe River
Carter
Private
2010
RBT/BNT
1
Heaton Creek
Carter
Private
2000
RBT
1
Buck Creek
Carter
CNF/Private
1997
RBT
2
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
1997
RBT/BKT
2
Bulldog Creek
Johnson
Private
2009
RBT
1
Unicoi/Carter
Private
1998, 02
RBT
2
Carter
State
1994-10
RBT/BKT
45
Johnson
Private
1993-10
RBT
19
Carter
CNF
1991-01, 03, 06, 09
BNT
27
Little Laurel Fork
Carter
CNF
1994
BKT
1
Wagner Branch
Carter
CNF
1993
BKT/BNT
1
Cook Branch
Carter
CNF
2008
BNT
1
Watauga River (cont.)
Slabtown Branch
2
Buffalo Creek
L. Prong Hampton Creek
2
Doe Creek2
Laurel Fork
2
Total streams = 45
Total samples =
171
South Fork Holston River
Little Jacob Creek
Sullivan
CNF
1991, 2000
RBT
2
Fishdam Creek
Sullivan
CNF
1991, 2005
RBT
2
Birch Branch2
Johnson
CNF/Private
1991,95-10
BKT/RBT
17
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
Gentry Creek2
Johnson
CNF
1992,96-10
RBT/BKT
17
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,
07, 10
RBT/BNT
7
Atchison Branch
Johnson
Private
2006
RBT
1
187
Primary
Stream
1
Total
County
Location
Year
species
samples
Goose Creek
Johnson
Private
2006
RBT/BNT
1
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 Creek
Johnson
Private
2001
RBT
1
Beaverdam Creek²
Johnson
CNF
1991-10
RBT/BNT
40
South Fork Holston River (cont.)
Total streams = 26
Total samples =
Total streams (all) = 150
Total samples (all) =
1
RBT = rainbow trout; BNT = brown trout; BKT = brook trout.
2
Monitoring stream.
3I
Includes a site sampled in the allopatric brook trout zone Bald River in 1992; monitoring Site 2 was discontinued in 2010.
4
Watauga Lake tributary.
188
105
572
APPENDIX B
Qualitative Stream Surveys
1991-2010
189
Table B-1. Streams sampled qualitatively during 1991-2010 to determine the presence of wild trout.
Stream
Watershed
County
Location
Coordinates
Survey date
Wild trout
present¹
Monroe
Private
35.26978, -84.26283
Jul-96
None
Hiwassee/Ocoee River
Coker Creek
Hiwassee River
Wolf Creek
Hiwassee River
Polk
CNF
35.16522, -84.38135
May-99
RBT/BNT
Smith Creek
Hiwassee River
Polk
CNF
35.15135, -84.42420
Nov-99
RBT
None
Total streams = 3
Tellico/Little Tennessee River
Wildcat Creek
Tellico River
Monroe
CNF
35.29894, -84.25793
Jul-96
Natty Creek
Wildcat Creek
Monroe
CNF
35.31705, -84.22875
Jul-96
None
Tobe Creek
Wildcat Creek
Monroe
CNF
35.29990, -84.22923
Jul-96
None
John Creek
Cocke
Private
35.86611, -83.03250
Jun-01
None
Baker Branch
Cocke
Private
35.86306, -83.03083
Jun-01
Tom Creek
Cocke
Private
35.85306, -83.01806
Jun-01
None
RBT3
Grassy Fork
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Cocke
Private
35.81585, -83.08673
Jun-03
RBT4
Deep Gap Creek
Gulf Fork Big Creek
Cocke
State
35.79321, -83.02074
Oct-06
BKT
Greenbrier Creek
Cosby Creek
Cocke
Private
35.78278, -83.24322
Jun-06
RBT
Indian Camp Creek (lower)
Cosby Creek
Cocke
Private
35.78383, -83.25891
Jun-06
RBT
Cosby Creek
Cocke
Private
35.77938, -83.26361
Jun-06
RBT
Cosby Creek
Cocke
Private
35.77622, -83.26537
Jun-06
RBT, BKT
Cosby Creek
Cocke
Private
37.77337, -83.26657
Jun-06
RBT, BKT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.86167, -83.10541
Jul-07
RBT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.85321, -83.10545
Jul-07
RBT/BNT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.83113, -83.09772
May-07
RBT/BNT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.82385, -83.09162
May-07
RBT/BNT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.83037, -83.05730
May-07
RBT/BNT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.82064, -83.04665
May-07
RBT/BNT
Gulf Fork Big Creek
French Broad River
Cocke
Private
35.81805, -83.04191
May-07
RBT/BNT
Camp Creek
Nolichucky River
Greene
Private
36.07811, -82.76464
Jul-03
RBT
South Indian Creek (upper)
Nolichucky River
Unicoi
Private
36.03568, -82.55163
Jun-05
South Indian Creek (middle)
Nolichucky River
Unicoi
Private
36.05937, -82.52198
Jun-05
RBT
RBT4
South Indian Creek (lower)
Nolichucky River
Unicoi
Private
36.12065, -82.44834
Jul-08
RBT4
Bumpus Cove Creek
Nolichucky River
Unicoi
Private
36.16941, -82.47134
Jul-07
RBT
Bumpus Cove Creek
Nolichucky River
Washington
Private
36.15227, -82.49503
Jul-07
RBT/BNT
Total streams = 3
French Broad River
Total streams = 8
Nolichucky River
Broad Shoal Creek
Nolichucky River
Unicoi
CNF
36.15229, -82.44492
Jun-08
RBT
Long Branch
Nolichucky River
Unicoi
CNF
36.08811, -82.42917
Jun-08
Pete Creek
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
CNF
36.01286, -82.58934
Jun-05
BKT
None2
E. Fork Higgins Creek
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
CNF
35.99601, -82.53006
Jun-05
None2
Little Bald Creek
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.03993, -82.46505
Jun-06
RBT
Spivey Creek (lower)
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.06566, -82.50199
Jun-06
RBT
Spivey Creek (middle)
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.05169, -82.50063
Jun-06
RBT
Spivey Creek (middle)
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.03955, -82.48652
Jun-06
RBT
Spivey Creek (upper)
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.04042, -82.47109
Jun-06
Slip Creek
South Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.02103, -82.50891
Jun-06
RBT
RBT4
190
Table B-1 (cont.). Streams sampled qualitatively during 1991-2010 to determine the presence of wild trout.
Stream
Watershed
County
Location
Coordinates
Survey date
Wild trout
present¹
Nolichucky River (cont.)
Back Creek
Cove Creek
Greene
Private
36.01896, -82.80796
Jun-08
None
Birchlog Creek
N. Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.15263, -82.24237
Jun-10
Simerly Creek
N. Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.18453, -82.25218
Jun-10
None
None2
Rocky Branch
N. Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.17589, -82.29530
Jun-10
None
Dry Creek
N. Indian Creek
Unicoi
Private
36.17448, -82.35113
Jun-10
None (dry)
Hinkle Branch
Stony Creek
Carter
Private
36.40950, -82.09707
May-95
None2
Nidifer Branch
Stony Creek
Carter
Private
36.39768, -82.09988
May-95
None2
Laurel Branch
Stony Creek
Carter
Private
36.41660, -82.07871
May-95
None2
Upper Hinkle Branch
Stony Creek
Carter
Private
36.46905, -82.00466
Jul-07
None
Lindy Camp Branch
Stony Creek
Carter
CNF
36.47081, -81.96968
Jul-07
Campbell Hollow
Doe Creek
Johnson
Private
36.40306, -81.96558
Jun-95
BKT
None2
Dugger Branch
Doe Creek
Johnson
Private
36.39397, -81.96911
Jun-95
None2
Total streams = 15
Watauga River
Stout Branch
Forge Creek
Johnson
Private
36.42797, -81.74439
Jul-97
None
Fall Branch
Forge Creek
Johnson
Private
36.42452, -81.74489
Jun-99
RBT
Jones Branch
Elk River
Carter
Private/CNF
36.20195, -81.98815
Jul-02
None
Doll Branch
Shell Creek
Carter
Private
36.15115, -82.02994
Jun-04
RBT
Doe Creek
Watauga River
Johnson
Private
36.45667, -81.87556
Oct-01
Doe Creek
Watauga River
Johnson
Private
36.44889, -81.89889
Oct-01
None
RBT4
Doe Creek
Watauga River
Johnson
Private
36.44194, -81.90806
Oct-01
RBT4
Sinking Creek (upper)
Watauga River
Carter
Private
36.25559, -82.36470
Jun-06
RBT, BKT, BNT
to
36.25192, -82.36493
Sinking Creek (middle)
Watauga River
Carter
Private
36.26143, -82.36430
Jun-06
RBT, BKT
Sinking Creek (lower)
Watauga River
Carter
Private
36.27966, -82.36838
Jun-06
RBT
Basil Hollow
Watauga River
Washington
Private
36.25134, -82.36456
May-07
RBT
Gap Creek
Watauga River
Carter
CNF
36.26756, -82.23016
Jun-09
Upper Gap Creek
Watauga River
Carter
Private
36.25850, -82.23574
Jun-09
None
None2
Honeycomb Creek
Watauga River
Carter
Private
36.24304, -82.26767
Jun-09
RBT4
Dry Creek
Watauga River
Carter
Private
36.25910, -82.28150
Jun-09
BNT4
Sink Creek
Watauga Ri. (Wat. Lk.)
Johnson
Private
36.36305, -81.99222
Jun-09
None2
Row Branch
Elk River
Carter
Private
36.28869, -82.01325
Jul-07
RBT4
Black Branch
Elk River
Carter
Private
36.28758, -82.01163
Jul-07
RBT/BNT4
Big Flats Branch
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.24634, -82.14575
Aug-06
Morgan Branch
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.17449, -82.02072
Jun-08
RBT
RBT4
Bear Branch
Doe River
Carter
CNF
36.18106, -82.01066
Jun-08
RBT4
State Line Branch
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.16797, -82.00265
Jun-08
RBT4
Hampton Creek (upper)
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.14939, -82.05561
Jun-08
RBT4
Sugar Hollow Creek
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.15694, -82.07053
Jun-08
RBT4
Little Doe River
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.24629, -82.19464
Jun-09
RBT/BNT
Little Doe River
Doe River
Carter
Private
36.22870, -82.18899
Jun-09
RBT/BNT
Simerly Creek (lower)
Little Doe River
Carter
Private
36.22769, -82.18925
Jun-09
RBT/BNT
Furnace Creek
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.48419, -81.79864
Jun-06
Stout Branch
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.36716, -81.83291
Jun-08
RBT
RBT4
191
Table B-1 (cont.). Streams sampled qualitatively during 1991-2010 to determine the presence of wild trout.
Stream
Watershed
County
Location
Coordinates
Survey date
Wild trout
present¹
Jun-08
None
Watauga River (cont.)
Slimp Branch
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.38751, -81.84609
Lunt Branch
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.40488, -81.85349
Jun-08
None (dry)
Big Sandy Creek
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.39884, -81.80691
Jun-08
None (dry)
Cabbage Creek
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.40792, -81.80150
Jun-08
Drake Branch
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.36566, -81.74845
Jun-09
None (dry)
RBT4
Avery Branch
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.36972, -81.87307
Jun-09
None2
Little Dry Run
Roan Ck. (Wat. Lake)
Johnson
Private
36.35489, -81.93736
Jun-09
None2
East Fork (Furnace Creek)
Vaught Creek
Johnson
Private
36.36676, -81.80031
Jun-94
Baker Branch
Big Dry Run
Johnson
Private
36.34010, -81.92116
May-96
None
None2
Morgan Branch
Big Dry Run
Johnson
Private
36.32769, -81.90590
Jun-09
None
Dye Leaf Branch
Big Dry Run
Johnson
Private
36.33538, -81.89473
Jun-09
Jenkins Creek
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.35215, -81.73884
Jun-10
None
RBT4
Woodward Branch
Roan Creek
Johnson
Private
36.47442, -81.72249
Jun-10
RBT4
Total streams = 42
South Fork Holston River
Richardson Branch
Valley Creek
Johnson
CNF
36.61033, -81.67962
Jun-93
None
Beaverdam Creek
S. Fork Holston Ri.
Johnson
Private
36.53244, -81.92330
May-03, Jun-05
RBT/BNT
Beaverdam Creek
S. Fork Holston Ri.
Johnson
Private
36.52050, -81.93219
May-03, Jun-05
RBT/BNT
Beaverdam Creek
S. Fork Holston Ri.
Johnson
Private
36.51664, -81.93763
May-03, Jun-05
RBT/BNT
Laurel Creek
S. Fork Holston Ri.
Johnson
CNF
36.52622, -81.80172
Jun-04
Drystone Branch
Laurel Creek
Johnson
Private
36.52833, -81.77521
May-96
None
None2
Shingletown Branch
Laurel Creek
Johnson
Private
36.54533, -81.77751
Jun-04
None2
Flatwood Branch
Laurel Creek
Johnson
Private
36.52680, -81.80280
Jun-04
None2
Reservoir Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.60295, -81.81103
May-96
None2
Dark Hollow
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
CNF
36.57683, -81.85896
Jun-04
None
Haunted Hollow
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
CNF
36.57662, -81.85151
Jun-04
None
Stillhouse Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
CNF
36.58489, -81.83032
Jun-04
RBT/BNT
Buck Ridge Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.49639, -81.96272
Jul-04
RBT/BNT
Flat Springs Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.54886, -81.88531
Aug-05
McQueen Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.54262, -81.90921
Jun-06
RBT/BNT
RBT4
David Blevins Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.53357, -81.89964
Jun-06
None
Green Mountain Branch
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.50915, -81.91061
Jun-06
RBT
M. Fork Beaverdam Creek
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.49661, -81.93719
Jun-06
RBT, BKT, BNT
W. Fork Beaverdam Creek
Beaverdam Creek
Johnson
Private
36.49064, -81.94230
Jun-06
BKT
Sulphur Springs Branch
Fishdam Ck. (S.H. Lk.)
Sullivan
CNF
36.52238, -82.02516
Jun-05
RBT
Seng Cove Branch
Laurel Creek
Johnson
Private
36.59219, -81.72168
Jun-10
Cave Spring Branch
Laurel Creek
Johnson
Private
36.59002, -81.72465
Jun-10
None
RBT4
Total streams = 23
Total streams (all) = 94
1
RBT = rainbow trout; BNT = brown trout; BKT = brook trout.
2
Visually inspected and judged too small (<1 m wide) or without appropriate habitat to support wild trout.
3
Trout present, but origin questionable; could be the result of fingerling stocking by private individuals.
4
Low abundance.
192

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

Smoked Rainbow Trout - Grindstone Neck of Maine

TROUT FARMING IN LITHUANIA