Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 182, Issue 1–4, pp 57–71 | Cite as

Spatial Distribution of Acid-sensitive and Acid-impacted Streams in Relation to Watershed Features in the Southern Appalachian Mountains

  • T. J. Sullivan
  • J. R. Webb
  • K. U. Snyder
  • A. T. Herlihy
  • B. J. Cosby


A geologic classification scheme was combined with elevation to test hypotheses regarding watershed sensitivity to acidic deposition using available regional spatial data and to delimit a high-interest area for streamwater acidification sensitivity within the Southern Appalachian Mountains region. It covered only 28% of the region, and yet included almost all known streams that have low acid neutralizing capacity (ANC ≤20 μeq l−1) or that are acidic (ANC ≤0). The five-class geologic classification scheme was developed based on recent lithologic maps and streamwater chemistry data for 909 sites. The vast majority of the sampled streams that had ANC ≤20 μeq l−1 and that were totally underlainby a single geologic sensitivity class occurred in the siliceous class, which is represented by such lithologies as sandstone and quartzite. Streamwater acid-base chemistry throughout the region was also found to be associated with a number of watershed features that were mapped for the entire region, in addition to lithology and elevation, including ecoregion, physiographic province, soils type, forest type and watershed area. Logistic regression was used to model the presence/absence of acid-sensitive streams throughout the region.


acid neutralizing capacity acidification Appalachian Mountains geology streamwater watershed 


  1. Bailey, R. G. (1995). Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States (2nd edn.). Misc. Publ. No. 1391. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  2. Brewer, P. F., Sullivan, T. J., Cosby, J., & Munson, R. (2000). Acid deposition effects to forests and streams in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Air and Waste Management. Utah: Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  3. Bricker, O. P., & Rice, K. C. (1989). Acidic deposition to streams. Environmental Science & Technology, 23, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryce, S. A., Omernik, J. M., & Larsen, D. P. (1999). Ecoregions: A geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management. Environmental Practice, 1, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulger, A. J., Cosby, B. J., & Webb, J. R. (2000). Current, reconstructed past and projected future status of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) streams in Virginia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57, 1515–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clow, D. W., & Sueker, J. K. (2000). Relations between basin characteristics and stream water chemistry in alpine/subalpine basins in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Water Resources Research, 36, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cosby, B. J., Ryan, P. F., Webb, J. R., Hornberger, G. M., & Galloway, J. N. (1991). Mountains of western Virginia. In D. F. Charles (Ed.), Acidic deposition and aquatic ecosystems, regional case studies (pp. 297–318). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. DeWalle, D. R., Dinicola, R. S., & Sharpe, W. E. (1987). Predicting baseflow alkalinity as an index to episodic stream acidification and fish presence. Water Resources Bulletin, 23, 29–35.Google Scholar
  9. Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R, Church, M. R., Wigington, P. J. Jr., Webb, J. R., & Sale, M. J. (1993). The effects of acid deposition on streams in the Appalachian Mountain and Piedmont region of the mid-Atlantic United States. Water Resources Research, 29, 2687–2703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hosmer, D. W., Jr., & Lemenshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, N. M., Driscoll, C. T., Eaton, J. S., Likens, G. E., & McDowell, W. H. (1981). “Acid Rain,” dissolved aluminum and chemical weathering at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 45, 1421–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaufmann, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., Mitch, M. E., Messer, J. J., & Overton, W. S. (1991). Chemical characteristics of streams in the Eastern United States: I. Synoptic survey design, acid-base status and regional chemical patterns. Water Resources Research, 27, 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch, D. D, & Dise, N. B. (1985). Sensitivity of stream basins in Shenandoah National Park to acid deposition. Water-Resources Investigations Report 85–4115. Prepared in cooperation with University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences. Richmond, VA: US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  14. Melack, J. M., Stoddard, J. L., & Ochs, J. A. (1985) Major ion chemistry and sensitivity to acid precipitation of Sierra Nevada Lakes. Water Resources Research, 21, 27–32.Google Scholar
  15. Norton, S. A. (1980). Geologic factors controlling the sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to acid precipitation. In D. S. Shriner (Ed.), Atmospheric sulfur deposition (pp. 521–531). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.Google Scholar
  16. Omernik, J. M. (1995.) Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management. In W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making (pp. 49–62). Boca Raton, FL: LewisGoogle Scholar
  17. Omernik, J. M., & Bailey, R. G. (1997). Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(5), 935–949.Google Scholar
  18. Omernik, J. M., & Griffith, G. E. (1991) Ecological regions versus hydrological units: Frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(5), 334–340.Google Scholar
  19. Peper, J. D., Grosz, A. E., Kress, T. H., Collins, T. K., Kappesser, G. B., Huber, C. M., et al. (1995). Acid deposition sensitivity map of the Southern Appalachian Assessment Area: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. US Geological Survey On-line Digital Data Series Open-File Report 95–810.Google Scholar
  20. Peters, N. E., & Driscoll, C. T. (1987). Hydrogeologic controls of surface-water chemistry in the Adirondack region of New York State. Biogeochemistry, 3, 63–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter, M. S., Rosenfeld, J., & Parkinson, E. A. (2000). Predictive models of fish species distribution in the Lackwater Drainage, British Columbia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Puckett, L. J., & Bricker, O. P. (1992). Factors controlling the major ion chemistry of streams in the blue ridge and valley and ridge physiographic provinces of Virginia and Maryland. Hydrological Procedure, 6, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramsey, F. L., & Schafer, D. W. (2002). The statistical sleuth. A course in methods of data analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbery.Google Scholar
  24. SAMAB (Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere) (1996). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5. Atlanta: USDA Forest Service, Southern Region.Google Scholar
  25. Silsbee, D. G., & Larson, G. L. (1982). Water quality of streams in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Hydrobiologia, 89, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sullivan, T. J., Cosby, B. J., Webb, J. R., Snyder, K. U., Herlihy, A. T., Bulger, A. J., et al. (2002). Assessment of the effects of acidic deposition on aquatic resources in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Report prepared for the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI). Corvallis, OR: E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Sullivan, T. J., Cosby, B. J., Herlihy, A. T., Webb, J. R, Bulger, A. J., Snyder, K. U., et al. (2004). Regional model projections of future effects of sulfur and nitrogen deposition on streams in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Water Resources Research, 40(2), W02101 doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003WR001998.
  28. Webb, J. R. (1999). Synoptic stream water chemistry. In A. J. Bulger, B. J. Cosby, C. A. Dolloff, K. N. Eshleman, J. R. Webb, & J. N. Galloway (Eds.), Shenandoah National Park: Fish in sensitive habitats (pp. 1–50). Project Final Report for US National Park Service, Volume II.Google Scholar
  29. Webb, J. R., Cosby, B. J., Deviney, F. A., Jr., Galloway, J. N., Maben, S. W., & Bulger, A. J. (2004). Are brook trout streams in western Virginia and Shenandoah National Park recovering from acidification? Environmental Science & Technology, 38, 4091–4096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Webb, J. R., Deviney, F. A., Galloway, J. N., Rinehart, C. A., Thompson, P. A., & Wilson, S. (1994). The acid-base status of native brook trout streams in the mountains of Virginia; a regional assessment based on the Virginia trout stream sensitivity study. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. J. Sullivan
    • 1
  • J. R. Webb
    • 2
  • K. U. Snyder
    • 1
  • A. T. Herlihy
    • 3
  • B. J. Cosby
    • 2
  1. 1.E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc.CorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations