Jump to content


Save the Spring Pygmy Sunfish


61 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Elassoman_*

Guest_Elassoman_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 11:55 AM

Attention all NANFANS,

One more of our treasured freshwater fishes is in dire straights. Please see the attached petition to the USFWS to list this species as endangered. Right now, construction is underway by the city of Huntsville which will increase the risk of sewage contamination to Beaverdam Creek (its only remaining population). Additionally, the Huntsville Times published an article today that the city is optioning to annex 1,500 acres surrounding the springfed wetlands, in order to promote construction of an automotive manufacturing facility. This poses an obvious threat via chemical runoff and groundwater recharge limitation, but also could include destruction of riparian vegetation. I've personally watched the extirpation of the Pryor Branch population over the last three years, and I think we need to do all we can to prevent exinction at Beaverdam Creek. Please read the attached petition to get the scoop, and contribute any ideas to help out here on the forum. We may also want to write a collaborative letter to mayor Battle and the engineering department. Thank you!!

Mike Sandel

Attached Files



#2 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 12:04 PM

Mike is right. This is the classic pattern of extinction via habitat destruction. If the Beaverdam Creek population is destroyed, there's nowhere for this species to go because of their specific habitat needs (i.e., a limestone spring system running from an aquifer through a swampy drainage). About half of their original habitat was destroyed by inundation from dam impoundments over the 20th century. Conservation Fisheries and maybe others are arking the species but that will probably prove to be too little in the long term with no available habitat. Other vulnerable species in this system include flame chubs, tuscumbia darters and possibly some snails such as the slender campeloma. This is the face of the current mass extinction event.

#3 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 12:14 PM

If you are serious about saving this taxon and other with, then someone needs to be looking into founding more populations (I presume "arking"). Even if you win this fight it not going to mean much over the longer term, such a small natural population is likely over time to be taken out by some natural or more obvious human related event.

If you are forced into a compromise, consider having your devlopers put a good pile of resources / monies into investigating alternative locations and sustainable land management practices.

#4 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 12:26 PM

The original plan for much of this land was a VW plant, but mercifully Tennessee agreed to give away more than Alabama so that plant's in Chattanooga. The likely prognosis is for an expansion of subdivisions from the east. Unlike much of the country, Huntsville's economy is still expanding due to the growth of defense industries associated with Redstone Arsenal. The Beaverdam Creek system is just north of the I-565 corridor defining the easiest route of suburban sprawl along with industrial expansion. So that's a big pressure to deal with. And the other big pressure is the likely lack of suitable alternative habitat for the species. It's almost as specific as, say, the devil's hole pupfish. And then you get into questions of what happens to a different stream or spring system if you introduce a new species into it, even one like the spring pygmy that seems benign because it's so small and almost cute.

With all that, Centrarchid is right that the best option is to negotiate some surviving habitat surrounded by areas with minimized threats such as overapplication of herbicides and insecticides. I hope we can!

#5 Guest_Elassoman_*

Guest_Elassoman_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 01:09 PM

Thanks for the quick replies. I briefly want to advocate for preservation of native habitat as opposed to founding new populations, at least in the immediate future, as the springs (Beaverdam, Moss, Horton and Thorsen) are still viable habitat. There are very few alternative places that could even be considered for translocation, because most have already been altered beyond recognition. We've witnessed some of the potential pitfalls of reintroduction already at Pryor Spring. There are many complications involved with translocation, as published recently in fisheries (attached fisheries article pages 529-545). I'm not saying we should rule it out completely, only that it should be the last resort. We've still got a chance to restore and preserve the necessary habitat, provided we can muster the legal, monetary, and/or political incentives.

Attached Files



#6 Guest_Dustin_*

Guest_Dustin_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:05 PM

Mike I was at SFC and got to sign the petition. I also get to hear quite a bit of discussion in regards to current negotiations with the land owner and it sounds like a very unsteady situation. What can NANFA do, if anything, to help with this?

#7 Guest_Elassoman_*

Guest_Elassoman_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:30 PM

Dustin,

First, thanks for signing the petition! I think the NANFA organization could play a role by drafting a short position letter to USFWS. Although we are not a professional organization, we have many professionals on board, and if the ESA board receives similar letters from AFS, SFC, and ASIH, it may give them some perspective on the significance of this situation. Also, since we are in a non-professional role, we are the perfect place to start a spinoff local group, such as a "friends of...". This situation desperately needs local people to voice their opinions, and someone to organize them. I'm about two hours away, so I'm not the ideal point man for a "friends of..." group. However, we may have members who are willing to get it started.

Regarding the landowner, he has been in negotiation with USFWS and TNC for over a year to put Beaverdam Spring into a conservation easement. However, the type locality (Moss Spring) has been for sale on the limestone county website all the while http://www.edpa.org/...munits=english. This 1,322 acre site is adjacent to Beaverdam Swamp, which he could profit from putting into easement. If the site next door were to become the automotive manufacturing facility that Huntsville is seeking, it is unlikely that the easement would be enough to protect the fish in the long term, at least not without some legal regulation. At this point, all the cards are on the table, and there is no need to dance around whether or not the landowner will donate his land to easement. His intentions are clearly to make a profit, either by selling his land to Huntsville, by deceiving and milking USFWS, or both. Additionally, he is only one of the five or six landowners involved. While we wait for him to make up his mind, the other landowners have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with selling out to Huntsville. In my opinion, there has been too much focus on meeting this one landowner's needs, rather than getting the job done. He is going to make his money whether we protect the critical habitat or not, so we might as well get some laws on paper and get local people involved in habitat restoration/protection.

#8 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:34 PM

This whole mess sounds like a chess game were all the key pieces are being sacrificed defensively for the king (last best habitat). What is needed is to restore degraded habitats (change out some pawns for better pieces)?

#9 Guest_Elassoman_*

Guest_Elassoman_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:36 PM

Keep reading.

Edited by Elassoman, 03 December 2009 - 02:47 PM.


#10 Guest_Elassoman_*

Guest_Elassoman_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:41 PM

To put this all in perspective, here is a map I made for SFC in November. SPS localities are in blue, extirpated localities are hollow blue, city limits are shown in pastel colors, development sites are in yellow, and the new sewer manholes are dots along beaverdam creek. Toyota has yet to bite on the megasite, and Volkswagen diverted to Chattanooga. However, the Sewell site was in the Huntsville Times this morning, and is set to be purchased and planned for a car factory.

Whoops. Nevermind. I just realized it is probably not a good idea to post the last known species localities on a public server. Hopefully all who saw that are of sound mind and good intentions.

Edited by Elassoman, 03 December 2009 - 02:52 PM.


#11 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:53 PM

Could the developers / auto-makers, if they were to go forward to build around hollow bluedots, during their contruction and operation, restore the adjacent habitats suitability for SPS? Putting forward positive options, from the developers position, might keep preservationist from being painted as simply an impass to progress.

#12 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:05 PM

There is some regional precedent for commercial developers protecting at least a small amount of critical aquatic habitat. Outside Florence, AL, ~100 km to the west of the spring pygmy sunfish range, there is a small city/industry managed park around Buffler (a.k.a. King) Spring and its spring run which is home to tuscumbia darters and flame chubs, and is the kind of bubbling limestone spring you have to see to believe. This could be a model for preserving the crucial spring habitats and hopefully arranging to protect them from catastrophic pollution events. The root of the problem around Beaverdam Creek is that land is cheap, so it's conceivable to build big, sprawling industrial complexes. With that same low price structure it would seem to be possible to negotiate a deal to leave some small part of it untouched. And hopefully that would make a difference.

#13 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:30 PM

There is some regional precedent for commercial developers protecting at least a small amount of critical aquatic habitat. Outside Florence, AL, ~100 km to the west of the spring pygmy sunfish range, there is a small city/industry managed park around Buffler (a.k.a. King) Spring and its spring run which is home to tuscumbia darters and flame chubs, and is the kind of bubbling limestone spring you have to see to believe. This could be a model for preserving the crucial spring habitats and hopefully arranging to protect them from catastrophic pollution events. The root of the problem around Beaverdam Creek is that land is cheap, so it's conceivable to build big, sprawling industrial complexes. With that same low price structure it would seem to be possible to negotiate a deal to leave some small part of it untouched. And hopefully that would make a difference.


NANFA could promote something like Fundulus mentions above. A different voice with a different angle that also has preservation and outreach as concerns by private individuals, in contrast with an agency or professional organization with apparent financial incentive for their position.

#14 Guest_Elassoman_*

Guest_Elassoman_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:39 PM

NANFA could promote something like Fundulus mentions above. A different voice with a different angle that also has preservation and outreach as concerns by private individuals, in contrast with an agency or professional organization with apparent financial incentive for their position.


My thoughts exactly, Centrarchid!

#15 Guest_Kanus_*

Guest_Kanus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:12 PM

If no better options are available, it seems feasible to think about planning with the architects/engineers to preserve the habitat by using good ole riparian buffer zones and responsible stormwater management practices. Even if development does encroach on the habitat, it would be much better to work with developers to give the fish a "friendly neighbor" rather than pouring every resource into legislation (at least at this point in the game) or altogether stopping development. We definitely need to look at this from all angles if we really want to help the situation.

Elassoman,

I sent the chair of my university's biology department (a fellow fish guy) that petition and asked him to forward it along to any professional contacts. I'd encourage anyone else to do the same, as this will not be a widely publicized fight, so most likely work of mouth and networking will be instrumental in gaining advocates for the protection of this habitat.

#16 Guest_Amazon_*

Guest_Amazon_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:10 PM

Someone needs to get a liscense and start breeding them, then at least there will still be some alive if it does happen.

#17 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 08:19 PM

They are already being bred (the "arking" mentioned by Fundulus). But captive populations are little good without good habitat for them to be returned to.

I had not realized that E. alabamae was quite in such bad condition. Are easements or land purchases a feasible approach to long-term protection? If so, it might be possible to get the Nature Conservancy involved, especially since the habitats house a suite of rare species; they seem to prefer protecting endangered assemblages. Convincing people to lay off the water table will be hard, especially with the 2007 drought so fresh in everyone's memory.

#18 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 08:33 PM

It's funny you should mention The Nature Conservancy. They've been involved in a slow-motion negotiation with the primary landowner off&on for years. This landowner is now demanding more than $30 million for about 1500 (I think) acres, after saying for years that because the land had been in his family for several generations that he was too attached to it to sell (when only single digit million dollars were offered). Obviously the land is worth that much if someone gives it to him, but he certainly has stars in his eyes on the subject. It was largely because he was talking to TNC and Fish & Wildlife over the years that no petition was filed to extend ESA protection to the species. Now that the guy is bolting for the big score, Mike and others filed a petition a month ago to list the species.

#19 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 09:09 PM

Is there a "fast track" process for ESA candidate species under such imminent threat? It sounds like the fish may be gone before the normal listing process could take effect. Another question: how widespread have the searches for other populations been? Some of their weedy-limnocrene associates occur well upstream (Eurycea aquatica complex) and downstream (Tuscumbia darter) in the Tennessee drainage.

*EDIT* I misremembered; the northeastern E. aquatica complex populations are in the Coosa, not the Tennessee, drainage. Still, it might be worthwhile to look in springs upstream, say in the Paint Rock drainage and lower Sequatchie Valley.

#20 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 09:26 PM

Yeah, ESA listings are often not so fast. I'm not sure of how to apply for a fast-track decision, although I have great faith that having a lawyer involved would help. There's a 70 year-plus history of people looking for this species in on & off spurts. Its original range extended north to the Tennessee line, but various dam projects with a surprising amount of land being inundated along flooded tributaries destroyed existing habitat. Its rediscovery in 1973 by David Etnier lead to more searches, which since have only extended its range somewhat downstream in Beaverdam Creek. I think Mike has been looking for it elsewhere, but I leave it to him to describe his experiences. Phylogenetically the species is an oddball, not very closely related to other Elassoma species, but again I'd defer to Mike to tell that story and any implications.

Habitat associates can be a moving target in my experience with flame chubs. Sometimes I think that tuscumbia darters would be a good one, but tuscumbias have a fairly small range. Rosyside dace can be another one, and the same with both black and Tennessee darters. But those are all tendencies rather than rules.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users