The Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy The Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy A report for The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation prepared by: Duncan C. Elkins Sarah C. Sweat Katie S. Hill Bernard R. Kuhajda Seth J. Wenger Anna L. George University of Georgia Tennessee Aquarium River Basin Center Conservation Institute Athens, Georgia Chattanooga, TN Project Advisory Board Susie Adams US Forest Service Paul Angermeier Virginia Tech University Katherine Baer River Network Art Bogan North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences Bob Butler US Fish & Wildlife Service Stephanie Chance US Fish & Wildlife Service Tanya Darden South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Jessica Graham Southeastern Aquatic Resources Partnership Mike Harris US Fish & Wildlife Service Michael LaVoie Eastern Band Cherokee Indians Pat O'Neil Geological Survey of Alabama Peggy Shute US Fish & Wildlife Service Todd Slack US Army Corps of Engineers- Engineer Research & Development Center Matt Thomas Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Citation: Elkins, D. C., Sweat, S. C., Hill, K. S., Kuhajda, B. R., George, A. L., Wenger, S. J. The Southeastern Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. Final Report. Athens (GA): University of Georgia River Basin Center; 2016 Dec. 237p. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following Individuals who contributed data or taxonomic expertise: Susie Adams, Rebecca Bearden, Tyler Black, Art Bogan, Bob Butler, Arnie Eversole, Jeff Garner, Wendell Haag, Don Hubbs, Bob Jones, Jess Jones, Zach Loughman, Stuart McGregor, Guenter Schuster, Jeff Simmons, Chris Skelton, Chris Taylor, Roger Thoma, Bronwyn Williams, Carl Williams, Jim Williams, Jason Wisniewski We would like to thank the following individuals who contributed advice or early draft review: Scot Duncan, Laurie Fowler, Paul Freeman Funding for this project was generously provided by grant number 0102.15.047037 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The project team would like to acknowledge Dave Lawrence, Suzanne Sessine, Jay Jensen, and Jon Scott for their support throughout this effort. Cover Photo Credits: Top: A wavy-rayed lampmussel, Lampsillis fasciola, nestled in the substrate uses its lure to bring fish close. Clinch River. Jeffrey Basinger, Freshwaters Illustrated. Middle: A whitetail shiner, Cyprinella galactura, swims in the Hiwassee river. Jeffrey Basinger, Freshwaters Illustrated. Bottom: Crayfish in the Conasauga River. Jeremy Monroe, Freshwaters Illustrated. CONTENTS EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY 11 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 33 Lack of funding for southeastern aquatic animals and habitats 3 History of Aquatic Conservation Planning and Protection in the Southeast 4 Existing Planning Efforts 6 An Integrated Plan 8 MMEETTHHOODDSS 99 Project Advisory Committee 9 Box 1. Presentations during the project period 10 Defining the Project Area 11 Data Sources and Aggregation 13 Box 2. Issues in Integrating State Wildlife Action Plans 13 Fishes 14 Crayfishes 14 Mussels 16 Priority Calculations 17 RREESSUULLTTSS 1177 Priority Areas for Fishes 17 Priority Areas for Crayfishes 18 Priority Areas for Mussels 20 All Taxa Priority Areas 21 A Parallel Prioritization: Hotspots for Vulnerable Species 26 Sub-Basin Priority by State 27 Alabama 28 Florida 29 Georgia 29 Kentucky 30 Mississippi 31 North Carolina 32 South Carolina 33 Tennessee 34 Virginia 35 Sub-Basin Priority within Sub-Regions (HUC-4) 36 Extinction, Extirpation, and Error Rates 45 SSOOUUTTHHEEAASSTTEERRNN CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN CCAAPPAACCIITTYY AANNAALLYYSSIISS 5511 Capacity Conclusions 55 WWHHAATT DDOOEESS CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN CCOOSSTT?? 5566 CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS 5588 RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS 5599 Citations from the Body of the Report 59 Electronic Data Requests 61 Citations for Vetting of Fish Data 61 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX II:: FFIISSHH,, CCRRAAYYFFIISSHH,, AANNDD MMUUSSSSEELL MMAAPPSS 6655 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX IIII.. NNAAMMEESS OOFF HHUUCC--88 SSUUBB--BBAASSIINNSS IINN TTHHEE SSOOUUTTHHEEAASSTT 7755 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX IIIIII.. PPOOTTEENNTTIIAALL TTHHRREEAATTSS AANNDD MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT AACCTTIIOONNSS FFOORR 1100 PPRRIIOORRIITTYY 79 WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDDSS EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY The Southeastern United States is a global hotspot of freshwater biodiversity, supporting almost two-thirds of the country’s fish species, over 90% of the US total species of mussels and nearly half of the global total for crayfish species. More than a quarter of this region’s species are found nowhere else in the world. Unfortunately, this region is also a hotspot for imperilment. The number of imperiled freshwater fish species in the Southeast has risen 125% in the past 20 years, in part because recent intensive human development of this region is coupled with a low priority for conservation. Scientific research has extensively documented the causes of species imperilment, yet efforts to reverse these trends have been hampered by limited funding and lack of public awareness. Relative to other areas of the United States, the Southeast has little land in national parks or other forms of protected areas and receives a disproportionately small percentage of federal expenditures for endangered species protection; in the case of listed fishes in budget years 2012-2014, Southeastern endemics received approximately 1%, per species, of the amount spent on fishes found elsewhere in the country. This report summarizes an effort to prioritize watersheds within this region to support future conservation investments. We first describe the data sources and methods used to assemble a dataset of almost 1,050 species of fishes, mussels, and stream-associated crayfishes and the locations where they are found, the first entirely data-driven attempt to map these three taxa on a consistent footing across this broad geography. We aggregated these collection points into 290 watersheds, then calculated species richness, imperilment, and endemism scores for each. Working with an advisory team of fourteen respected federal, state, and university biologists, we combined these scores to derive a single overall prioritization for watersheds in the Southeast. While State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) that incorporate detailed surveys of population status and trajectory must continue to guide conservation decisions within individual states, our regional analysis indicates that the highest priority areas are in the Alabama River basin, particularly the Coosa system, and the Tennessee River basin, particularly the Middle- Tennessee. From this list of prioritized areas, we selected ten for further analysis of threats to biodiversity and developed management recommendations to address each. These analyses rely on information drawn from SWAPs supplemented by finer scale watershed or species-specific plans, where available. Our goal was not to identify a definitive set of conservation priorities for the region. Instead, we propose these ten as a tractable set of locations where conservation 1 investments are likely to have a good return. We have also excerpted state- and basin-level prioritizations, for potential use in smaller scale planning, and an analysis highlighting areas with high numbers of vulnerable species where pilot conservation projects might effect rapid recoveries. As an adjunct to the analysis of biodiversity, threats, and management actions, we investigated the capacity of the conservation community across the Southeast using a database of watershed groups assembled by the EPA. Although this analysis was inconclusive due to limitations in the dataset, the groups that did respond to our inquiries appear to be robust and actively engaged in conservation projects across the Southeast. Finally, we assessed what level of investment might be required to achieve meaningful and long-term conservation objectives at the scale of the regional analysis. A useful comparison to get a comprehensive snapshot of is Raccoon Creek in the Etowah River basin of Georgia. Based on a decade of actions by several groups, we conducted a preliminary assessment of the funding that would be sufficient for a comprehensive suite of successful conservation actions (with a heavy focus on acquisition) resulting in good probability of the long-term health of the entire 35,100-acre watershed. This is an important benchmark, but it also important to know that targeted projects that address key threats and opportunities may have disproportionate benefits for a much smaller price tag. While the funding needs are high, there are numerous locations where conservation activities on the ground can still make a meaningful difference to conserve and enhance this globally important resource. 2 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Freshwater ecosystems are in peril across the globe. Almost 6% of the world’s described species live in fresh water, despite the fact that these habitats occupy only 0.8% of the Earth’s surface and freshwater itself is only 0.01% of the earth’s water (Dudgeon et al. 2006). Declines in biodiversity are far greater in fresh waters than in the most terrestrial ecosystems because humans live disproportionately near waterways and extensively modify riparian zones. Even in sparsely populated areas, freshwater ecosystems may be negatively affected by the runoff and refuse of human activity (Sala et al. 2000) or by alterations of hydrology via dams or water diversions (Lehner et al 2011). Almost one-third of known crayfish species are imperiled worldwide (Richman et al. 2015), along with one-third of fish species and nearly three-quarters of mussel species (Williams et al. 1989; Williams et al. 1993; Warren and Burr 1994). In the United States approximately 39% freshwater fish species are at risk of extinction (Jelks et al. 2008) and Burkhead (2012) estimates that the extinction rate for U.S. fishes from 1900-2010 was almost nine hundred times higher than the background extinction rate in preceding millennia. However, these dire figures may be underestimates, as a significant portion of freshwater biodiversity remains uncatalogued or undescribed—so we may be losing species we do not even know exist (Burkhead and Jelks 2000). From the cold, clear mountain streams of the Appalachian Mountains to the bayous of the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain, and from the pocosins of North Carolina to the cave complexes of Kentucky, the lakes, rivers, and streams of the southeastern United States are the most diverse on the North American Continent and arguably the most biologically rich in the temperate world. The region is geologically and topographically diverse, with streams that drain toward the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mississippi River. This diversity of habitats, which were spared the most recent glaciation, has provided the locus for sustained evolutionary diversification (Bulkhead and Jelks, 2000). Global assessments of aquatic biodiversity (Abell et al. 2000, Collen et al. 2014) have repeatedly found that streams and rivers in the southeastern United States contain levels of diversity and endemism that rival the tropics. Approximately half the world’s crayfish species are found in the Southeast (Taylor et al. 2007), as are almost 40% of the world’s freshwater mussel species (91% of mussel species in the US are southeastern; Graf and Cummings 2007, Neves et al. 1997). The southeastern landscape has also been extensively altered by human activities, and these modifications have taken a toll on aquatic species (Benz and Collins 1997). The rate of imperilment may be increasing; the most recent assessment by Warren et al. (2000) assigned an imperiled status to 28% of southeastern fishes and noted that this “represents a 75% increase in jeopardized southern fishes since 1989 and a 125% increase in 20 years.” Lack of funding for southeastern aquatic animals and habitats Although the southeastern United States has the greatest aquatic biodiversity on the continent and in the temperate world, others areas of the country receive far more funds for freshwater aquatic conservation. Federal and state expenditures on federally listed aquatic species in the United States over three fiscal years (USFWS 2012, 2013, 2014) shows lower spending on freshwater aquatic species found solely within the area of this project (290 HUC-8 sub-basins, see Defining the Project Area, below) versus those found solely outside of our area. For 3 example, the vast majority of federally listed freshwater mussels are restricted to the Southeast (50-60 species or 83.3-85.3%) but only receive 61.7-71.5% of funding allocated. Species found solely outside of the Southeast receive 2.3-3.4 times more funding per species. Few freshwater crustaceans (crayfishes included) were federally threatened or endangered in 2012-2014, but a significant percent are present in the Southeast (19.0-21.1, 4 species) yet only receive 2.1-5.0% of funding; species outside of this area receive 4.4-12.5 times the funding per species. Finally, our study area has 35-36 listed species of freshwater fishes (28.8-29.2%) but only receives 0.8- 1.1% of funding. Species outside of the Southeast receive an astonishing 35.3-52.0 times more funding per species. This disparity will continue to grow, as many of the 404 southeastern aquatic species that have been for listing (CBD 2010, USFWS 2011) are ultimately expected to receive federal protection. History of Aquatic Conservation Planning and Protection in the Southeast The need for aquatic conservation in the Southeast has not gone unremarked. In their “Global 200” list of outstanding and representative ecoregions, Olson and Dinerstein (1998) listed Mississippi Piedmont rivers and streams and Southeastern rivers and streams as two of the 18 entries in their category for small rivers and streams. Twelve years later, A World Wildlife Fund report identified 145 sites as priorities for North American freshwater conservation (including Canada and Mexico), of which almost one-third (45) were in the Southeast (Abell et al. 2000). In 2002, The Nature Conservancy produced an extensive assessment of priority areas for conservation in the Southeast (Smith et al. 2002). The analysis and prioritization presented in this report owe a significant debt to these efforts. The existing network of conservation lands is clearly insufficient to preserve the aquatic biodiversity of the Southeast. On the national scale, most protected lands are in the intermountain West (Figure 1), while priority areas for biodiversity conservation are in the Southeast, California and Texas (Jenkins et al. 2015). Protected areas such as the National Parks system provide a foundation, but only support 18% of imperiled fishes nationwide (Lawrence et al. 2011). Of lands in public or private conservation within our project area, just under 3.5% has permanent protection free of extractive uses, with or without disturbance management (GAP program status codes 1 and 2). There is comparatively little federal land in the Southeast—also about 3.5% of the study area—although there are scattered large tracts such as Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Okeefenokee Swamp, and several state and national forests in coastal Florida. Many of these conservation lands belong to the National Parks System, but only about 43% of southeastern fish species are represented within this system, and sometimes only in small numbers (Long et al. 2012). Protected lands also do not encompass the full range of habitats within watersheds in the Southeast (e.g., Thieme et al. 2016), as they are disproportionately at high elevations with limited aquatic biodiversity (Warren et al. 2000). 4 Figure 1. Protected Areas of the US. Source: USGS (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/) If public lands are more foundation than solution for conservation in the Southeast, what other opportunities are present? A number of avenues exist to effect meaningful conservation projects on private lands, including the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which provides expert technical assistance and cost-share incentives directly to private landowners to restore fish and wildlife habitats. Partners projects require that landowners sign a voluntary cooperative agreement with a duration of at least ten years. This program traces its authority back to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and was formally established by the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act, passed in 2006, in which Congress recognized that “it is imperative to facilitate private landowner-centered and results-oriented efforts that promote efficient and innovative ways to protect and enhance natural resources.” The Partners program has expanded from prairie wetlands protection after droughts in the 1980s to include planted grass buffers around the wetlands, upland habitat work, stream restoration, fish habitat and endangered species habitat restoration. It is important to note that primary responsibility for wildlife management before a federal listing is the purview of the 50 states. State fish and wildlife agencies have been particularly successful at projects for conserving game species, typically with funds from hunting and fishing license fees and federal excise taxes. The conservation of the far more numerous non-game species has, since 2000, been funded substantially through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 5