fisheries management in the upper chattahoochee river ... · river, buford dam and morgan falls...

21

American Fisheries Society Symposium 62:21–35, 2008© 2008 by the American Fisheries Society

Fisheries Management in the Upper Chattahoochee River Basin in Response to Water Demands

James m. Long*National Park Service

1978 Island Ford Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30350, USA

Christopher r. martinGeorgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division

2123 U.S. Highway 278, SE, Social Circle, Georgia 30025, USA

Abstract.—The Upper Chattahoochee River (UCR) basin is typical of many river systems in the southeastern United States. A warmwater system with high biodiversity, the creation of impoundments for human water use has altered water quality and quantity and, in some reaches, converted it into a coldwater system. To recover lost fishing opportunities, nonnative trout (Salmonidae) were introduced into the system and a popular fishery developed. Recent drought, human population growth, and increased water use has resulted in changes in the fish populations and fisheries management objectives in the UCR basin. As water allocation discussions continue among the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, the future of the fishery in the UCR basin is unknown. This paper describes the changes in fisheries management in the UCR basin during the last century in relation to impoundment and increased water use in the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta, Georgia.

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

IntroductionFor almost 200 years, water resources in the Upper Chattahoochee River (UCR) ba-sin have been altered for human uses, espe-cially in areas surrounding Atlanta (Figure 1). Natural flowing water was harnessed for power production in Chattahoochee River tributaries prior to alteration of the main stem. Beginning in the early 1800s, mill dams on Chattahoochee River tributaries were constructed to divert water from the natural channel into raceways to produce power (Gerdes et al. 2007). Not until the early 1900s was the first dam on the Chatta-hoochee River constructed for hydroelectric power (Stallings 2005). As a result, native

fish communities and their associated fisher-ies were altered at each of these projects.

The UCR basin is part of the larger Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) ba-sin, which is the second-most impounded system in the southeast, with 1,417 dams re-corded in the National Inventory of Dams (USACOE 2005). The degree of alteration of the UCR basin is emblematic of the en-tire ACF. A better understanding of the cu-mulative effects of these habitat alterations on fisheries is needed.

Fisheries in the basin are affected by metropolitan Atlanta due to increased wa-ter use and urbanization. Atlanta is the 11th largest metropolitan area in the nation with a population of approximately 3.5 million in 2000 (ARC 2005). As the Atlanta metropoli-tan population increased, water consumption

22 Long and martin

and treated wastewater assimilation needs has risen and has led to alterations to water quantity and quality. An ancillary effect of an urbanizing metropolitan area is the alter-ation to the hydrologic cycle due to increases in the amount of impervious surfaces (Cen-ter for Watershed Protection 2003). All of these factors have lead to alterations to the fish community in the Chattahoochee River basin and how those fisheries were managed. In this paper, we discuss the effects of cur-rent and past water regulation on the fisher-ies of the UCR basin, primarily in the area below Buford Dam. Examples will be used to demonstrate these effects and will focus on two species in the river and in one tributary (Big Creek). We then discuss how fisheries management in the UCR basin has evolved

in the face of changing water uses through time.

Description of the River BasinsUpper Chattahoochee River Basin

The UCR basin drains an area of 6,294 km2 in the Blue Ridge Mountains and Piedmont physiographic provinces of Georgia (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000; Figure 1). Flowing approximately 163 km from the mountain headwaters to just south of Atlanta, the lower 77-km stretch below Buford Dam was designated a unit of the National Park Ser-vice (NPS) as Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in 1978 (Public Law 95–344). The upper portion of the basin con-sists mostly of undeveloped areas whereas

Figure 1. Map of the Upper Chattahoochee River basin depicting dams in Big Creek and the Chattahoochee River, the city of Atlanta, and the extent of the Atlanta metropolitan area (At-lanta metro).

23fisheries management in the ChattahooChie river

the lower portion contains the developing metropolitan Atlanta area. There are two main-stem dams that regulate flow in the river, Buford Dam and Morgan Falls Dam, which are discussed in more detail below.

Big Creek Watershed

The Big Creek watershed is an area of ap-proximately 259 km2 located entirely in the Piedmont province in Georgia (Camp Dresser and McKee 2001; Figure 1). At the confluence with the Chattahoochee River, Big Creek is a fourth-order stream with an average flow of 5.10 m3/s (Graf and Plewa 2006). The watershed is rapidly urbaniz-ing, predicted to be 86% developed by 2020 (Camp Dresser and McKee 2001). Mill dams in the lower 4.1 km have affected fish popula-tions in the tributary and the Chattahoochee River and are discussed later in the paper.

A Brief History of Impoundments

A long history of impoundment exists in the UCR basin, beginning in the mid-1830s. Changes to fisheries in the UCR basin re-sulted from mill dam construction in Big Creek and hydropower dam construction on the main-stem Chattahoochee River. Most of these dams were built before fishery regulations or investigations became com-monplace (Redmond 1986; Nielsen 1993) so effects of dams on fish populations at the time were unknown. However, some of these changes are now apparent. Figure 2 provides a brief chronology of dam build-ing in the basin.

Roswell Mill Dam

The Roswell Manufacturing Company is one of the best remaining examples of mill dams in Georgia as well as one of the old-est (Gerdes et al. 2007). Beginning in 1838, the company produced cotton yarn and rope with power provided by damming a portion

of Big Creek (Figure 1), a large tributary of the Chattahoochee River, and diverting the running water into an elevated wooden flume to turn a water wheel. By 1854, Ro-swell Manufacturing Company had installed at least one other dam (Gantt and Howard 2004). Currently, only the 1854-era dam re-mains intact, approximately 2.01 km from the confluence with the Chattahoochee River, forming a reservoir of approximately 1.74 surface-ha (Graf and Plewa 2006), and impeding fish migration upstream.

Ivy Mill and Laurel Mill Dam

Below the Roswell Mill Dam, approximately 1.58 km downstream and 0.43 km from the Chattahoochee River, is the Ivy (Laurel) Mill dam, constructed as part of the Ivy Mills manufacturing complex in 1856 (Gerdes et al. 2007; Figure 1). The mill was powered with water diverted into a wooden flume to a water wheel. The dam and its diversion of water resulted in the near dewatering of this stretch of Big Creek to its confluence with the Chattahoochee River, impeding migra-tion of fish. Sometime between 1917 and 1938, the dam at Laurel Mills breached and was never rebuilt (Graf and Plewa 2006), re-sulting in the rewatering of the lower reach of Big Creek and re-establishing connec-tions between fish populations.

Morgan Falls Dam

Morgan Falls Dam was the second hydro-electric project to be constructed in Georgia, the first in the UCR basin (Stallings 2005). The dam was completed in 1904 and became fully operational in 1905, producing 10.5 kW of electricity entirely for the Georgia Railway and Electric Company (the precur-sor to Georgia Power Company, the current owners of the dam). After Buford Dam was constructed upstream in 1956 (see below), the city of Atlanta requested that Georgia Power modify Morgan Falls Dam to help

24 Long and martin

Figure 2. Timeline of changes in the fishery (left-hand side of figure) and water manipulation activities (right-hand side of figure) in the Upper Chattahoochee River basin from ca 1830–2005.

attenuate daily fluctuating flows due to hy-dropower production (Georgia Power et al. 2004; Stallings 2005). In 1960, Morgan Falls Dam was increased in height by 1.83 m, in-creasing the extent of the backwater of its reservoir to 11.27 km from the dam with a

surface area of 272 ha. The increase in reser-voir elevation resulted in the inundation of the lower portion of Big Creek. Additional upgrades since its construction have made the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric a 16.8-MW facility.


Buford Dam

Congress authorized the construction of Bu-ford Dam by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers (USACOE) in 1946 (USACOE 2006a) for the purposes of flood control, navigation, power, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). In 1956, the gates to Buford Dam were closed and its reservoir, Lake Sidney Lanier, was dedicated in 1957. Full pool was reached in 1959 with a surface area of 15,388 ha and a storage of 2.36 3 107 m3, which is one of the largest reservoirs in the state (USACOE 2005). Buford Dam impounds approximately 98% of all the stored water in the UCR basin and 47% in the entire ACF river basin (USA-COE 2005).

Buford Dam is a 126-MW hydropower-peaking facility, releasing up to 283 m3/s of water during daily peak demands for elec-tricity and releasing a minimum of 15–17 m3/s during other times (Nestler et al. 1986; Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000; Geor-gia Power et al. 2004). In addition, Buford Dam releases water from the perpetual cold-water hypolimnion of Lake Lanier, which has resulted in the elimination of many na-tive warmwater species downstream in the Chattahoochee River for approximately 77 km, including 19 km below Morgan Falls Dam. As a result, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) has managed this stretch of the Chattahoochee River as a stocked trout (Salmonidae) fishery ever since as mitigation for the lost native fisheries.

Because of increasing demands for wa-ter, allocations for water among the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are in dispute (USACOE 1998) and much of that water is sought from Lake Lanier (McMahon and Stevens 1995; Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000; USACOE 2006b). In short, states down-stream desire more water from the UCR, whereas the metropolitan Atlanta area has sought more water for its own use.

Tailwater Trout Fishery

The introduction of nonnative trout to the Chattahoochee River began in 1959 when a group of local anglers contributed $50 each toward the purchase of 10,000 fingerling rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss from a North Carolina hatchery, which were stocked (along with 2,000 brown trout Salmo trutta fingerlings given as gratis) into the Chatta-hoochee River approximately 35 km below Buford Dam without state knowledge or approval (D. Pfitzer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [retired], personal communication). The first official record of trout stocking was by the Georgia Game and Fish Com-mission and occurred in the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam on August 15, 1960 and consisted of 2,450 rainbow trout between 13 mm total length (TL) and 20 mm TL (Georgia Fish and Game Commis-sion, unpublished data). Since that time, con-siderable changes in the stocking program have occurred based on differing manage-ment objectives through time and location in the river. The management of the tailrace is generally divided into two main areas: be-tween Buford and Morgan Falls dams and below Morgan Falls Dam (Table 1). In 2003, the annual economic benefit of the tailwa-ter trout fishery to the Atlanta metropolitan area was estimated to be more than $7.8 mil-lion (Klein 2003).

Trout Fishery between Buford and Morgan Falls

Since the inception of trout stocking by the state of Georgia began in 1960, this sec-tion of the river has been managed largely as a put-and-take fishery (Hess 1980; Mar-tin 1985a; Klein 2003). During the 1960s, rainbow trout was the predominant species stocked, followed by brown trout and some brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis (Table 1). During the 1970s, trout stocking increased

26 Long and martin

due to the construction of Buford Trout Hatchery in 1975–1976 (Hess 1980; Table 1). Since, the management of the trout fish-ery in this part of the river has changed very little. The goal of a put-and-take fish-ery has been achieved by stocking catchable-size trout (230 mm TL average) to provide for maximum harvest. To further that goal, creel surveys (Hess 1980; Martin 1985a; Klein 2003), investigations into hatchery strain performance (Martin 1985b; Klein 2003), fishing method restrictions (e.g., ar-tificial lures only section), and stocking rate modifications have occurred (Table 1). The most notable changes to the trout fishery program in this section of the river is that brook trout stocking ceased in 1999 due to poor performance (i.e., poor survivorship and harvest by anglers; Martin 1985b) and that brown trout stocking was suspended in 2005 because they have been found to be reproducing naturally (C. R. Martin, unpub-lished data; Table 2).

In the late 1980s, the manager of the Bu-

ford Trout Hatchery observed young-of-year (YOY) brown trout. In 1998, redds were suc-cessfully located and YOY brown trout subse-quently collected (Martin, unpublished data). In 1998, GADNR began sampling three fixed sites between Buford and Morgan Falls dams annually for brown trout YOY in late March to early April for the purpose of documenting in-river reproduction. In 2003, electrofishing time was standardized to estimate year-class strength, which has been variable (Table 2).

Table 1. History of trout stocking in the Chattahoochee River below Buford and Morgan Falls dams, Georgia (P. Thompson, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data). Ranges of sizes stocked are in parentheses. TL = total length.

Number Management Time period Species Size (TL; mm) stocked goal

Buford Dam1959 Brown and rainbow trout 75 12,000 Unauthorized1960–1970 Rainbow, brown, and 230 (228–406) 550,992 Put-take brook trout1971–1979 Rainbow, brown, and 230 (228–406) 913,697 Put-take brook trout1980–2004 Rainbow and brown trout 230 (228–406) 4,951,424 Put-take2005–2006 Rainbow trout 230 (228–406) 301,895 Put-take2005–2006 Brown trout None None Wild

Morgan Falls Dam1971–1973 Brook and brown trout variable 63,837 Experimental1974–1990 Brown trout 75 (75–150) 1,059,552 Put-grow-take1991–1999 Brown and rainbow trout 75 (75–150) 915,312 Put-grow-take2000–2006 Brown and rainbow trout 230 (228–406) 812,001 Delayed harvest

Table 2. Electrofishing catch per effort (CPE; hours) of juvenile, wild brown trout in the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam (C. Martin, GADNR, unpublished data).

Year CPE

2003 46 2004 92 2005 46 2006 64 2007 224 Mean 94.4


As a result, interest in the possibility of a self-sustaining brown trout fishery developed. Beginning in 2005, brown trout stocking was suspended to evaluate the potential to sustain a wild trout fishery (Martin, personal com-munication). In 2007, natural reproduction was three to four times greater than observed in other years (Table 2).

Trout Fishery below Morgan FallsThe trout fishery below Morgan Falls Dam began much later than below Buford Dam, with the introduction of 25,000 152-mm-TL brook trout in 1971 (P. Thompson, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, unpub-lished data; Table 1). Afterwards, the trout program in this section of the river consisted mainly of stocking brown trout fingerlings (75 mm TL). With the operation of Buford Trout Hatchery beginning in 1975, increased trout stocking occurred below Morgan Falls Dam. Beginning in 1977, the brown trout fishery was managed as a put-grow-and-take

fishery by stocking from 10,000 to 75,000 fingerlings once per year (Biagi and Martin 1992). Beginning in 1991, rainbow trout fin-gerlings (150 mm TL) were added to create additional fishing opportunities and the pro-gram was managed consistently through the fall of 2000 (Thompson, unpublished data).

In 1989, after several years of drought (Figure 3), a summer rain event caused water temperatures to increase near 27.58C, which resulted in the loss of the trout fishery below Morgan Falls Dam (Biagi and Martin 1992; Biagi and Brown 1997). Lack of discharge from Buford Dam for an extended period of time, coupled with a high level of impervious surfaces from urbanization, led to the rapid runoff of the storm waters to the river, ex-acerbating the temperature rise from the rain event and the resultant trout kill. Since that time, multiple mortality events have been reported, which eventually led to the imple-mentation of delayed harvest regulations for this section of the river in 2000.

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Palm

er H

ydro

logi

cal D

roug

ht In

dex

Drought

Severe drought

Figure 3. Palmer hydrological drought index for Georgia from 1960 to 2006. Data were sum-marized from files available from the National Climate Data Center (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) Internet at www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.phdist.txt (accessed April 12, 2007).

28 Long and martin

Beginning in 2000, the trout manage-ment program below Morgan Falls Dam adapted to the new higher temperature re-gime in the river (Figure 4) by implementing

delayed harvest management. The intent of delayed harvest is to allow catch-and-release angling only from November 1 through May 14, when water temperatures are suit-

Figure 4. Daily minimum and maximum water temperatures between 1976 and 2005 in the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam (top figure) and at the water intake at Atlanta (near the terminus of the Upper Chattahoochee River, bottom figure). Data are from long-term monitor-ing sites by the U.S. Geological Survey obtained from the Internet at waterdata.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/dv/?referred_module = sw (accessed August 20, 2007). Only approved data for comparable days were used to construct the figure. The years 1976 and 2005 represent similar hydrologic conditions (mild to moderate wetness), with Palmer hydrological drought index scores of 2.1 and 2.9, respectively (see Figure 3).


ably low and trout survival is high. During this time, bimonthly stockings of catchable-size (95% 228 mm TL and 5% from 305 to 406 mm TL) brown and rainbow trout are made. The lack of harvest enables stocked trout to grow and be caught and released multiple times. The remainder of the year (May 15–October 31), when the likelihood of warmwater events is high, trout stocking ceases and harvest is allowed.

The Return of the Native Warmwater Shoal Bass FisheryShoal bass Micropterus cataractae is the most recently described species of black bass (Centrarchidae; Williams and Burgess 1999) and is a fluvial-habitat specialist, inhabiting shoals (areas with large rocks that is shallow with high flow) of large rivers and tributar-ies of the ACF River basin (Figure 1). As a fluvial-habitat specialist, dams have had a large impact on this species. Dams reduce shoal habitat upstream due to flooding and cause local extinctions and fragment popula-tions (Guenther and Spacie 2006; Dakin et al. 2007). Furthermore, dams reduce habi-tat downstream by altering hydrology and habitat suitability (Williams and Burgess 1999). As early as the first dams appeared in the UCR basin in the 1830s, shoal bass have been affected, even if unknown at the time.

Shoal Bass in the Chattahoochee River

Shoal bass were largely extirpated from the Chattahoochee River for 35 km above and 77 km below Buford Dam after Lake Lanier was formed and coldwater discharge began (Gil-bert and Reinert 1978; Hess 1980; Hess and Ober 1981; Mauldin and McCollum 1992; Williams and Burgess 1999). Based on the chronology of dam formation in the basin (Figure 2), it is apparent that many tribu-tary populations were affected as well (Graf

and Plewa 2006; Dakin et al. 2007). For ex-ample, the Roswell and Ivy mill dams would have eliminated essential shoal habitat and prevented migration into Big Creek since the 1850s (Graf and Plewa 2006; Dakin et al. 2007). Only since the breaching of Ivy Mill Dam sometime between 1917 and 1938 would shoal bass have been able to repopu-late the lower Big Creek area, where they have been known to occur since 1978 (Hess et al. 1981). Shoal bass in Big Creek have not been found above Roswell Mill Dam (Hess et al. 1981).

Following the first of several trout kills in 1989 in the Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam, interest in reestablish-ing the native shoal bass increased. In 2003, the GADNR and NPS began stocking age-0 fish (25–75 mm TL) annually in the spring to restore the population to historical levels and to provide additional sport fishery op-portunities. Before the restoration program, shoal bass in the Chattahoochee River were rarely observed during fishery surveys. Gil-bert and Reinert (1978) documented only three shoal bass (0.07% of the total fish abundance) during electrofishing surveys of an 18-km stretch of the Chattahoochee River immediately below Buford Dam. Hess (1980) recorded shoal bass as representing 0.2% of the total fish community in 77 km of the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam and only found in the lower 7 km. In the lower 7-km reach, shoal bass still com-prised a minority, less than 0.6%, of the total abundance of fish. Mauldin and McCollum (1992) found no shoal bass in their 64-km electrofishing survey of the Chattahoochee River below Atlanta.

Since stocking in 2003, the numbers and extent of shoal bass have increased in the Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam (Georgia Power and GeoSyntec Con-sultants 2006; Dakin et al. 2007; Martin and J. M. Long, unpublished data). The GADNR

30 Long and martin

and NPS have monitored the abundance of shoal bass at stocking sites downstream from Morgan Falls Dam annually since 2003. Shoal bass have been present at every site since and increasing in abundance (Table 3).

While stocking shoal bass appears suc-cessful, natural shoal bass immigration into the area might also have occurred. Based on length-at-age data (Dakin et al. 2007), fish larger than 213 mm TL in 2005 would have been greater than 2 years old and thus too old to have been a result of stocking age-0 fish that began in 2003. Georgia Power and GeoSyntec Consultants (2006) surveyed three downstream areas of the Chatta-hoochee River below Morgan Falls dam in spring 2005 and found that more than 66% of the shoal bass were larger than 213 mm TL (Figure 5). Nine percent of the shoal bass were found immediately below Mor-gan Falls Dam, 76% were found 8 km down-stream, and the remaining 15% were found

12.5 km downstream, indicating an upstream increase in occurrence since the 1970s (Hess 1980). In addition, Georgia Power and Geo-Syntec Consultants (2006) found that shoal bass comprised approximately 9% of the abundance of the total fish community, com-pared to the less than 1% documented in the 1970s by Hess (1980).

The extent of the shoal bass fishery has yet to be evaluated. There are many reports on fishing Web sites (e.g., www.gofishgeor-gia.com and www.georgia-outdoors.com/forum/index.php?) that document anglers pursuing shoal bass, and a recent creel sur-vey by GADNR will be finished by 2008, but few other data exist on the popularity of this species for angling in the UCR basin. In the past, shoal bass have been identified as a harvested species (Hess 1980; Hess and Ober 1981) but not quantified apart from “bass” in aggregate, which has been reported to be 1% of total harvest. The predominant spe-

Table 3. Numbers of shoal bass stocked and electrofishing catch rates (N/h) at various sites in the Chattahoochee River downstream of Morgan Falls Dam (MFD), 2003–2007. Shoal bass were stocked as young of year (25–75 mm TL) in the spring (April–June) and captured by boat electrofishing in fall (October) (C. Martin, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, unpub-lished data). NA = not applicable.

Distance below MFD (km) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Number stocked0 0 13,752 23,633 2,241 11,4124 28,816 0 0 0 08 28,816 13,752 23,633 2,241 11,41213 0 13,752 23,633 2,241 11,413Total 57,632 41,256 70,899 6,723 34,237

Catch rate0 8.0 8.0 22.0 8.0 NA4 NA NA NA NA NA8 4.0 34.0 38.0 48.0 NA13 2.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 NATotal 4.7 18.0 23.3 21.3 NA


cies of the “bass” in aggregate is largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (Hess 1980), indi-cating that shoal bass harvest has been much less than 1% of total harvest historically. The year after the first trout kills occurred (1989), there was a large redirection of an-gling effort from trout to warmwater spe-cies, especially largemouth bass (Biagi and Martin 1992), suggesting that the angling public is willing to accept warmwater spe-cies (such as shoal bass) in lieu of trout. For instance, in 1988, total effort in the Chatta-hoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam was estimated at 47,795 angler-hours with a har-vest of 2,481 trout and 172 largemouth bass. In 1990, similar effort was estimated (44,896 angler-hours) but fish species harvest was transposed (568 trout and 2,475 largemouth bass). Results from the latest GADNR creel survey will help quantify the current extent to which anglers are pursuing shoal bass and help manage this new fishery. However, long-term increases in water temperature in the Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam are likely to continue to benefit

shoal bass to the detriment of trout (Figure 4) requiring additional management.

Shoal Bass in Big Creek

Shoal bass in Big Creek, presumed to have been present before mill dams were con-structed in the 1830s, were then affect-ed by damming and allowed to mix with Chattahoochee River populations after the Ivy/Laurel Mill dam breached sometime between 1917 and 1938 (Figures 1 and 2; Graf and Plewa 2006; Dakin et al. 2007). Afterward, this population in Big Creek was isolated to less then 2 km of habitat from other populations in the Chattahoochee River after Buford Dam was constructed in 1956 and Morgan Falls was enlarged in 1960. The isolation of this population into such a short segment of suitable habitat, coupled with the expected level of urban-ization in the basin at 86% by 2020 (Camp Dresser and McKee 2001; Graf and Plewa 2006) is threatening this population. When discovered in 1978 (Hess et al. 1981), it was

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

50 75 100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

Total length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

Nonstocked

Figure 5. Length–frequency histogram of shoal bass captured in the Chattahoochee River below Morgan Falls Dam in May 2005 (M. Abney, Georgia Power, unpublished data). Fish larger than 213 mm TL were considered too large to have been a result of stocking (Dakin et al. 2007).

32 Long and martin

recommended that angling be restricted in this small population.

Dakin et al. (2007) assessed the genetic integrity of this population in comparison to populations above Lake Lanier and below Morgan Falls Dam and found that the Big Creek population had significant divergence from these other populations and suffered from low genetic diversity. Stochastic pro-cesses and further habitat degradation via urbanization threaten the continued exis-tence of this population.

The Future Fishery in the BalanceWater use by the Atlanta metropolitan area has altered native fish communities by al-tering the hydrology and water quality of the natural UCR system. These changes oc-curred before modern environmental regu-lations, fishery assessment methods, and the taxonomic descriptions of many fish species. The installation of Buford Dam for flood control, drinking water, and electricity (and other purposes) appeared to have had the largest impact by creating a large res-ervoir and an artificially cold tailwater en-vironment that has led to the development of an economically beneficial, yet nonnative, trout fishery. However, due to the increas-ing extent of urbanization of Atlanta and subsequent increases in water temperature, the trout fishery in the lower portion of the basin now appears to be reverting back to a warmwater fishery.

Land use in the Atlanta metropolitan area has changed dramatically since the 1990s. From 1990 to 1999, 496,312 ha of land was developed for residential use at a rate of 27 ha/d (ARC 2004). It is anticipated that another 263,000 ha will be developed in the next 25 years. Urbanization results in the replacement of riparian canopy cover with impervious surfaces, which lead in in-creases in sedimentation and water tempera-

tures (Meyer et al. 2005). The urbanization of Atlanta is implicated in the increased water temperatures in the UCR basin below Morgan Falls Dam (Figure 4), resulting in trout kills beginning in 1989, but also en-abling the return of the native shoal bass (Biagi and Brown 1997; Georgia Power et al. 2004). Since 1976, daily maximum water temperatures in the Chattahoochee River have increased by as much as 48C. More im-portantly, these water temperature increases are exceeding the thermal limit for trout survival in the lower portion of the UCR (~258C; Biagi and Brown 1997).

While the urbanization of the Atlanta metropolitan area may be improving shoal bass habitat in the Chattahoochee River in the short term, it will likely impair the populations that continue to persist in the large tributaries, such as Big Creek. The Big Creek basin is one of the most rapidly ur-banizing areas in the Atlanta area, expected to be more than 80% urban-developed by 2020 (Camp Dresser and McKee 2001). The extent of urbanization is expected to lead to increased sedimentation, in-channel loss of fish habitat, and altered hydrology. The ur-banization impact is greater for this popula-tion of shoal bass because of the extent of hydromanipulation in the system during the past 150 years. Without the past reductions in shoal habitat and physical barriers due to damming in Big Creek and the Chatta-hoochee River, this population would not be as susceptible to extirpation due to its cur-rent genetic bottleneck (Dakin et al. 2007).

The growth of the metropolitan Atlanta area is further affecting water manipulation of the UCR basin through recommendations for reallocation of water storage in Lake Lanier to be used for nonhydroelectric pur-poses (McMahon and Stevens 1995; USA-COE 1998, 2006b). In opposition, state and local governments downstream of Atlanta are asking for more water to be allowed to


flow downstream, rebuffing the reallocation formulae being proposed to benefit Atlanta users (USACOE 1998). This situation is ex-acerbated because of the recent increased frequency of droughts (Figure 3), resulting in the desire to allocate even more storage of water behind Buford Dam.

Additionally, many metro-Atlanta municipalities are increasing their water withdrawals and discharging more treated wastewater. In 1917, water withdrawal from the Chattahoochee River at the Atlanta Wa-terworks intake averaged 72 million liters per day (MLD); in 1998, the plant was per-mitted to withdraw more than 517 MLD (Kunkle and Vana-Miller 2000). In 2006, the USACOE (2006b) issued a notice of intent to draft an environmental impact statement to assess proposed water withdrawals from Lake Lanier at an average annual rate of 645 MLD and from the Chattahoochee Riv-er downstream of Buford Dam at an aver-age annual rate of 1.4 billion liters per day. Water withdrawal from the Chattahoochee River is exacerbated by the fact that the state of Georgia does not require a permit for withdrawing water at a rate less than 378,541 L/d. In 2003, the National Park Service (unpublished data) documented 114 unpermitted water intake pipes in the Chat-tahoochee River. It is estimated that less than 30% of water withdrawn is returned to the river (Crisp and Timmerberg 2005), suggesting that many unpermitted intakes can have a large cumulative effect on water quantity and quality. Relative to discharge, Gwinnett County has recently received a permit to discharge 151 MLD of treated wastewater into the hypolimnion layer of Lake Lanier, generating concern that dis-charge water temperature may increase in the Buford Dam tailrace (CH2MHill 2007), while Fulton County is proposing to double their wastewater discharge directly into the Chattahoochee River to 57 MLD (www.ful-

tonec.com/overview.html). Simultaneously withdrawing more water while increasing treated wastewater discharge has the poten-tial to seriously alter the environment for fish, especially temperature, that occur in the tailrace.

The urbanization of Atlanta, particu-larly the dispute for water quantity, will defi-nitely have an impact on the fishery compo-sition below Buford Dam, especially below Morgan Falls Dam. The composition of the fish community as it is affected by en-vironmental variables is arguably the most important factor guiding fisheries manage-ment. Should more discharge be required from Buford Dam, more coldwater will be released, resulting in favorable conditions for a tailwater trout fishery. However, less discharge from Buford Dam will likely favor a shoal bass fishery. How the angling public will perceive these changes are unknown at this time. The future of this fishery is de-pendent upon the outcome of water alloca-tion in the basin.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank A. Reynolds at Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, D. Pfitzer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (retired), and P. Thompson of GADNR Burton Trout Hatchery for providing data and discussions relative to the development of this paper. We thank A. Reynolds, J. Durniak (GADNR), J. Biagi (GADNR), M. Maceina (Auburn Uni-versity), and two anonymous reviewers for providing comments that improved this manuscript. The views and conclusions con-tained in this document are those of the au-thors and should not be interpreted as rep-resenting the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government or the State of Georgia. Men-tion of trade names does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government or the State of Georgia.

34 Long and martin

References

ARC (Atlanta Regional Commission). 2004. Re-gional development plan technical report, Atlanta. Available: www.atlantaregional.com/html/317.aspx (May 2008).

ARC (Atlanta Regional Commission). 2005. How the region compares. Available: www.atlan-taregional.com/documents/ATLANTAR-EGIONCOMPARISONS.PDF (May 2008).

Biagi, J., and C. R. Martin. 1992. The effect of three stocking rates on growth, survival, and angler success and harvest of brown trout on a 27 kilometer section of the Chattahoochee River. Georgia Department of Natural Re-sources, Final Report F-26–19, Atlanta.

Biagi, J., and R. P. Brown. 1997. Upper tempera-ture tolerance of juvenile and adult brown and rainbow trout tested under flowing con-ditions. Georgia Department of Natural Re-sources, Final Report F-26–25, Atlanta.

Camp Dresser & McKee. 2001. Big Creek wa-tershed study, master plan. Final Report to the Cities of Alpharetta, Cumming, and Roswell, as well as Cherokee, Forsyth, and Fulton Counties, Georgia.

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems. Center for Watershed Protection, Water Protection Research Monograph 1, Ellicott City, Maryland.

CH2MHill. 2007. Environmental assessment for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Easement and Section 10/404 permit decisions for placement of water reclamation facility dis-charge pipeline and diffuser in Lake Sidney Lanier, Gwinnett County, Georgia. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama.

Crisp, M. W., and D. Timmerberg. 2005. The state of the Chattahoochee River—a call to action. In K. Hatcher, editor. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Confer-ence. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens.

Dakin, E. E., B. A. Porter, B. J. Freeman, and J. M. Long. 2007. Genetic integrity of an isolated population of shoal bass (Micropterus cata-ractae) in the Upper Chattahoochee River ba-sin. National Park Service, Natural Resource

Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR—2007/366, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

Gantt, M. E., and R. W. Howard. 2004. Phase I archeological resources survey, Vickery Creek pedestrian bridge abutment, Roswell, Georgia. Report 03–185-020 of R.S. Webb and Associates to City of Roswell, Georgia.

Georgia Power and GeoSyntec Consultants. 2006. Morgan Falls Hydro, FERC Project No. 2237. Fisheries and aquatic resources. Resource Study Report to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Georgia Power, Southern Company Hydro Ser-vices, and GeoSyntec Consultants. 2004. Morgan Falls Hydro, FERC Project No. 2237. Pre-Application Document to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washing-ton, D.C.

Gerdes, M., S. Messer, and T. Jones. 2007. Chatta-hoochee River National Recreation Area, his-toric resource study. National Park Service, Southeast Region, Final Report, Atlanta.

Gilbert, R. J., and R. E. Reinert. 1978. Fishes in the Buford Dam tailrace, August through December 1977. Report of Georgia Coop-erative Fishery Research Unit to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama.

Graf, W. L., and T. M. Plewa. 2006. Channel change in Big Creek, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Report of Uni-versity of South Carolina to National Park Service, Atlanta.

Guenther, C. B., and A. Spacie. 2006. Changes in fish assemblage structure upstream of im-poundments within the Upper Wabash River basin, Indiana. Transactions of the Ameri-can Fisheries Society 135:570–583.

Hess, T. B. 1980. An evaluation of the fishery resources of the Chattahoochee River be-low Buford Dam. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Final Report F-26–7, Atlanta.

Hess, T. B., A. C. Mauldin, II, and G. L. Walker. 1981. Evaluation of some important river systems within the Walton District of the East Central Region: Middle Chattahoochee Tributaries. Georgia Department of Natu-ral Resources, Final Report, Atlanta.

Hess, T. B. and R. D. Ober. 1981. Recreational use surveys on two Georgia rivers. Pages 14–20


in L. A. Krumholz, editor. The warmwater streams symposium: a national symposium of fisheries aspects of warmwater streams. Southern Division American Fisheries Soci-ety, Lawrence, Kansas.

Klein, L. 2003. Investigation of the trout fishery in the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. Georgia Department of Natural Re-sources, Final Report F-66, Social Circle.

Kunkle, S., and D. Vana-Miller. 2000. Water re-sources management plan: Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Georgia. National Park Service, Final Report, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Martin, C. 1985a. Creel survey of the Chatta-hoochee River and an evaluation of the ef-fects of poor fall water quality on trout. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Final Report F-26–12, Atlanta.

Martin, C. 1985b. Hatchery and field perfor-mance of six trout strains stocked as catch-ables in the Chattahoochee River, Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Final Report F-26–12, Atlanta.

Mauldin, A. C., II, and J. C. McCollum. 1992. Sta-tus of the Chattahoochee River fish popula-tion downstream of Atlanta, Georgia. Geor-gia Department of Natural Resources, Final Report F-26–23, Atlanta.

McMahon, G., and P. Stevens. 1995. Storage anal-ysis for the ACF, ACT and Savannah River basins. Pages 295–301 in K. Hatcher, editor. Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Re-sources Conference. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecoloyg, Athens.

Meyer, J. L., K. L. Jones, G. C. Poole, C. R. Jack-son, J. E. Kundell, B. L. Rivenbark, E. L. Kramer, and W. Bumback. 2005. Implica-tions of changes in riparian buffer protec-tion for Georgia’s trout streams. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Final Re-port, Athens.

Nielsen, L. A. 1993. History of fisheries manage-ment in North America. Pages 3–31 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisheries management in North America, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Nestler, J. M., J. Fritschen, R. T. Milhous, and J. Troxel. 1986. Effects of flow alterations on trout, angling, and recreation in the Chat-tahoochee River between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek. U.S. Army Engineer Wa-terways Experiment Station, Technical Re-port E-86–10, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Redmond, L. C. 1986. The history and develop-ment of warmwater fish harvest regulations. Pages 186–195 in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, editors. Reservoir fisheries man-agement: strategies for the 80’s. American Fisheries Society, Southern Division, Reser-voir Committee, Bethesda, Maryland.

Stallings, F. P. 2005. Morgan Falls Project, 100 years of energy: historic hydro-engineering report, Fulton and Cobb counties, Georgia (FERC #2237). Report of Brockington and Associates, Inc. to Georgia Power, Atlanta.

USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1998. Water allocation for the Apalachicola-Chatta-hoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin; Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Main Report, Mobile, Alabama.

USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2005. National Inventory of Dams. Avail-able: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm.

USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2006a. Lake Sidney Lanier History. Avail-able: lanier.sam.usace.army.mil/history.htm (February 2007).

USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2006b. Notice of intent to prepare draft environmental impact statement for the proposed implementation of interim wa-ter storage contracts associated with the Southeastern Federal Power Customers Settlement Agreement, at Lake Sidney La-nier/Buford Dam, Georgia. Federal Register 71:116(16 June 2006):34901–34902.

Williams, J. D., and G. H. Burgess. 1999. A new species of bass, Micropterus cataractae (Te-leostei: Centrarchidae), from the Apalachi-cola River basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 42(2):80–114.

fisheries management in the upper chattahoochee river ... · river, buford dam and morgan falls...

Documents