Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 1210–1235 | Cite as

Application of the ELOHA Framework to Regulated Rivers in the Upper Tennessee River Basin: A Case Study

  • Ryan A. McManamayEmail author
  • Donald J. Orth
  • Charles A. Dolloff
  • David C. Mathews


In order for habitat restoration in regulated rivers to be effective at large scales, broadly applicable frameworks are needed that provide measurable objectives and contexts for management. The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework was created as a template to assess hydrologic alterations, develop relationships between altered streamflow and ecology, and establish environmental flow standards. We tested the utility of ELOHA in informing flow restoration applications for fish and riparian communities in regulated rivers in the Upper Tennessee River Basin (UTRB). We followed the steps of ELOHA to generate univariate relationships between altered flows and ecology within the UTRB. By comparison, we constructed multivariate models to determine improvements in predictive capacity with the addition of non-flow variables. We then determined whether those relationships could predict fish and riparian responses to flow restoration in the Cheoah River, a regulated system within the UTRB. Although ELOHA provided a robust template to construct hydrologic information and predict hydrology for ungaged locations, our results do not suggest that univariate relationships between flow and ecology (step 4, ELOHA process) can produce results sufficient to guide flow restoration in regulated rivers. After constructing multivariate models, we successfully developed predictive relationships between flow alterations and fish/riparian responses. In accordance with model predictions, riparian encroachment displayed consistent decreases with increases in flow magnitude in the Cheoah River; however, fish richness did not increase as predicted 4 years after restoration. Our results suggest that altered temperature and substrate and the current disturbance regime may have reduced opportunities for fish species colonization. Our case study highlights the need for interdisciplinary science in defining environmental flows for regulated rivers and the need for adaptive management approaches once flows are restored.


Environmental flow Water policy Dams Habitat restoration Fish Riparian 



This work was funded by the Cheoah Fund Board, a multi-agency collaboration among Alcoa Power, the USDA Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NC Division of Water Resources-DENR, and other grants provided by the USDA Forest Service. Funding was also provided by the Sigma Xi Grants-In-Aid of Research Program. We thank Mark Cantrell, Chris Goodreau, Steve Fraley, Steve Reid, Jim Mead, Rick Simmons, Paul Leonard, and Andrew Bearden for providing reports, summaries, and data. Suggested revisions on earlier versions of this paper were provided by Mark Cantrell, Paul Angermeier, Emmanuel Frimpong, and Tess Wynn. In addition, comments provided by five anonymous reviewers substantially improved this paper. We also extend gratitude to Tyler Young, Toby Coyner, David Belkoski, Travis Patton, Jason Emmel, McKeever Henley, and Adam Hart for their assistance with field work.

Supplementary material

267_2013_55_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 28 kb)
267_2013_55_MOESM2_ESM.tif (347 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 347 kb)
267_2013_55_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 26 kb)


  1. Abell R, Theime ML, Revenga C, Bryer M, Kottelat M, Bogutskya N, Coad B, Mandrak N, Contreras Balderas S, Bussing W, Stiassny MLJ, Skelton P, Allen GR, Unmack P, Neseka A, Ng R, Sindorf N, Robertson J, Armiho E, Higgins JV, Heibel TJ, Wikramanayake E, Olson D, López HL, Heis RE, Lundberg JG, Sabaj Pérez MH, Petry P (2008) Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience 58:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  3. Anderson KE, Paul AJ, McCauley E, Jackson LJ, Post JR, Nisbet RM (2006) Instream flow needs in streams and rivers: the importance of understanding ecological dynamics. Front Ecol 4:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angermeier PL, Schlosser IJ (1989) Species–area relationship for stream fishes. Ecology 70:1450–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthington AH, Rall JL, Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ (2003) Environmental flow requirements of fish in Lesotho rivers using the DRIFT methodology. River Res Appl 19:641–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river systems. Ecol Appl 16:1311–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auble GT, Friedman JM, Scott ML (1994) Relating riparian vegetation to present and future streamflows. Ecol Appl 4:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barinaga M (1996) A recipe for recovery? Science 273:1648–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bisson PA, Montgomery DR, Buffington JM (2006) Valley segments, stream reaches, and channel units. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 23–49Google Scholar
  10. Bovee KD, Lamb BL, Bartholow JM, Stalnaker CB, Taylor J, Henriksen J (1998) Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geological Survey Information and Technology Report 1998-0004Google Scholar
  11. Brandt SA (2000) Classification of geomorphological effects downstream of dams. Catena 40:375–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caissie D (2006) The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Fresh Biol 51:1389–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA, Ives AR, Brooks SS (2005) Diversity–productivity relationships in streams vary as a function of the natural disturbance regime. Ecology 86:716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CGCMR (Committee on the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research), Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geoscience, Environment and Resources, National Research Council (1999) Downstream: adaptive management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River ecosystem. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Colwell RK (1974) Predictability, constancy, and contingency of periodic phenomena. Ecology 55:1148–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooke SJ, Bunt CM, Hamilton SJ, Jennings CA, Pearson MP, Cooperman MS, Markle DF (2005) Threats, conservation strategies, and prognosis for suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: insights from regional case studies of a diverse family of non-game fishes. Biol Conserv 121:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dieterman DJ, Galat DL (2004) Large-scale factors associated with Sicklefin Chub distribution in the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dilts E, Bearden A, Leonard P (2003) Tapoco Hydroelectric project technical memorandum: Cheoah River substrate supplementation program—baseline substrate assessment. Report of Entrix Consultants to U.S.Forest Service, AshevilleGoogle Scholar
  21. Eaton JG, Scheller RM (1996) Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnol Oceanogr 41:1109–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etnier DA, Starnes WC (1993) The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  23. Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 52:483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. FERC (Federal Energy Regulation Commission) (2005) Order approving settlement and issuing new license. FERC, Project No. 2169-020, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. FERC (Federal Energy Regulation Commission) (2006) Order approving Cheoah River bypassed reach gravel enhancement plan. FERC, Project No. 2169-036, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Frimpong EA, Angermeier PL (2009) FishTraits: a database of ecological and life-history traits of freshwater fishes of the United States. Fish 34:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giraudox P (2012) Package ‘pgirmess’. Reference manual. Accessed 15 July 2012
  28. Gordon ME, Moorman JR (2001) Glochidial host for Alasmidonta raveneliana (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacol Rev 31:33–35Google Scholar
  29. Gordon ND, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL, Gippel CJ, Nathan RJ (2004) Stream hydrology. An introduction for ecologists, 2nd edn. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  30. Haponski AE, Marth TA, Stepien CA (2007) Genetic divergence across a low-head dam: a preliminary analysis using logperch and greenside darters. J Gt Lake Res 33:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrelson CC, Rawlins CL, Potyondy JP (1994) Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-245, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  32. Henriksen JA, Heasley J, Kennen JG, Nieswand S (2006) Users’ manual for the hydroecological integrity assessment process software (including the New Jersey Assessment Tools). US Geological Survey Report 2006-1093Google Scholar
  33. Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson CR, Pringle CM (2010) Ecological benefits of reduced hydrologic connectivity in intensively developed landscapes. BioScience 60:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jackson DA, Peres-Neto PR, Olden JD (2001) What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities—the roles of biotic, abiotic and spatial factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:157–170Google Scholar
  36. Karr JR (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fish 6:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karr JR, Fausch KD, Angermeier PL, Yant PR, Schlosser IJ (1986) Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  38. Kashiwagi MT, Miranda LE (2009) Influence of small impoundments on habitat and fish communities in headwater streams. Southeast Nat 8:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller AE, Augspurger T (2005) Toxicity of fluoride to the endangered unionid mussel, Alasmidonta raveneliana, and surrogate species. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 74:242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kendy E, Apse C, Blann K (2012) A practical guide to environmental flows for policy and planning with nine case studies in the United States. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed 18 July 2012
  41. Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ, Olden JD, Mackay SJ, Stein JL, Marsh N (2010) Classification of natural flow regimes in Australia to support environmental flow management. Fresh Biol 55:171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. King AJ, Ward KA, O’Connor P, Green D, Tonkin Z, Mahoney J (2010) Adaptive management of an environmental watering event to enhance native fish spawning and recruitment. Fresh Biol 55:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knight RR, Gregory MB, Wales AK (2008) Relating streamflow characteristics to specialized insectivores in the Tennessee River Valley: a regional approach. Ecohydrology 1:394–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kondolf GM, Vick JC, Ramirez TM (1996) Salmon spawning habitat rehabilitation on the Merced River, California: an evaluation of project planning and performance. Trans Am Fish Soc 125:899–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Konrad CP, Warner A, Higgins JV (2012) Evaluating dam re-operation for Fresh conservation in the sustainable rivers project. River Res Appl 28:777–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kowalski KT, Schubauer JP, Scott CL, Spotila JK (1978) Interspecific and seasonal differences in the temperature tolerance of stream fish. J Therm Biol 3:105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krause CW, Newcomb TJ, Orth DJ (2005) Thermal habitat assessment of alternative flow scenarios in a tailwater fishery. River Res Appl 21:581–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindsey J (2012) Statistical libraries: nonlinear regression and repeated measurements. Accessed 10 July 2012
  49. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  50. Maier HR, Burch MD, Bormans M (2001) Flow management strategies to control blooms of the cyanobacterium, Anabaena circinalis, in the River Murray at Morgan, South Australia. Regul River Res Manag 17:637–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McCargo J, Peterson J (2010) An evaluation of the influence of seasonal base flow and geomorphic stream characteristics on Coastal Plain stream fish assemblages. Trans Am Fish Soc 139:29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCartney M (2009) Living with dams: managing the environmental impacts. Water Pollut 11:121–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCully P (1996) Silenced rivers the ecology and politics of large dams. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. McManamay RA, Orth DJ, Dolloff CA, Cantrell MA (2010) Gravel addition as a habitat restoration technique for tailwaters. N Am J Fish Manag 30:1238–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McManamay RA, Orth DJ, Dolloff CA (2012a) Revisiting the homogenization of dammed rivers in the southeastern US. J Hydrol 424–425:217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McManamay RA, Orth DJ, Dolloff CA, Frimpong EA (2012b) A regional classification of unregulated streamflows: spatial resolution and hierarchical frameworks. River Res Appl 28:1019–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Menhinick EF (1991) The fresh fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  58. Merz JE, Setka JD (2004) Evaluation of a spawning habitat enhancement site for Chinook salmon in a regulated California River. N Am J Fish Manag 24:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. NatureServe (2010) Digital distribution maps of the Freshwater fishes in the conterminous United States. Version 3.0. Accessed 15 Nov 2011
  60. Normandeau et al (2001) Cheoah River temperature analysis supplement to Flow Regime and Aquatic Habitat Assessment for the Cheoah River, Part II. Report to Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., TN, December 2001Google Scholar
  61. Normandeau et al (2002a) Flow regime and aquatic habitat assessment for the Cheoah River downstream of Santeetlah Reservoir, North Carolina. Part 1. Report to Alcoa Power Generating, Inc, TN, April 2002Google Scholar
  62. Normandeau et al (2002b) Final report for aquatic study 1: Reservoir and Tailwater Fishery Assessment, Tapoco hydroelectric project FERC No. 2169. Report to Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., TN, January 2002Google Scholar
  63. Olden JD, Naiman RJ (2010) Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows assessments: modifying dam operations to restore Freshwater ecosystem integrity. Fresh Biol 55:86–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palmer MW, White PS (1994) Scale dependence and the species–area relationship. Am Midl Nat 144:717–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Peoples BK, Frimpong EA (2011) Among-pass, interregional, and single- versus multiple-season comparisons of detection probabilities of stream fishes. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:67–83Google Scholar
  66. Petty MA, Ruble CL, Rakes PL, Shute JK (2011) Propagation and reintroduction of wounded darters, Etheostoma vulneratum, in the Cheoah River, North Carolina. Final report to NC Division of Water Resources (Contract No. DENR 3481), Cheoah Fund, Raleigh, NC, January 4, 2011Google Scholar
  67. Poff NL (1996) A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an examination of scale-dependence in some hydrological descriptors. Fresh Biol 36:71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Poff NL, Ward JV (1989) Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure—a regional-analysis of streamflow patterns. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1805–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Poff NL, Zimmerman JZH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Fresh Biol 55:194–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Rogers KH, Meyer JL, Stanford JA (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision-making. Front Ecol Environ 1:298–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Poff NL, Olden JD, Merritt DM, Pepin DM (2007) Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5732–5737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O’Keeffe JH, Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Fresh Biol 55:147–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. R2 (R2 Resource Consultants, Inc) (2003) Tapoco Hydroelectric Project Technical Memorandum: Cheoah River substrate supplementation. Report to U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  75. Rakes PL, Shute JR, Shute PW (1999) Reproductive behavior, captive breeding, and restoration ecology of endangered fishes. Environ Biol Fish 55:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reid SM, Mandrak NE, Carl LM, Wilson CC (2008) Influence of dams and habitat condition on the distribution of redhorse (Moxostoma) species in the Grand River watershed, Ontario. Environ Biol Fish 81:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Richhter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP (1996) A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10:1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Richter BD (2011) River and Lakes-Global Fresh Program: improving dams for people and nature. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed 31 Mar 2011
  79. Richter BD, Warner AT, Meyer JL, Kim Lutz (2006) A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Res Appl 22:297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Richter BD, Davis MM, Apse C, Konrad C (2012) A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res Appl 28:1312–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ries KG, Crouse MY (2002) The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3: a computer program for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods for ungaged sites, 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  82. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific northwest watersheds. N Am J Fish Manag 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. N Am J Fish Manag 28:856–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rosenberg DM, McCully P, Pringle CM (2000) Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. BioScience 50:746–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rosgen DL (1994) A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Scott ML, Friedman JM, Auble GT (1996) Fluvial patterns and establishment of bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Scott ML, Auble GT, Friedman JM (1997) Flood dependency of cottonwood establishment along Missouri River, Montana, USA. Ecol Appl 7:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sowa SP, Annis G, Morey ME, Diamond DD (2007) A gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. Ecol Monogr 77:301–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stevens MHH, Okasanen J (2012) Permutation Multivariate Analysis of Variance. adonis{vegan}. Accessed 11 July 2012
  90. Stewart-Oaten A, Murdoch WM, Parker KR (1986) Environmental impact assessment: “pseudoreplication” in time? Ecology 67:929–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL, Comer P, Czech B, Kautz R, Landon L, Mehlman D, Murphy K, Ruckelshaus M, Scott JM, Wilhere G (2005) How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55:835–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl 19:397–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Toner M, Keddy P (1997) River hydrology and riparian wetlands: a predictive model for ecological assembly. Ecol Appl 7:236–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Trush WJ, McBain SM, Leopold LB (2000) Attributes of an alluvial river and their relation to water policy and management. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:11858–11863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Underwood AJ (1994) On beyond BACI: Sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol Appl 4:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) (2011) National inventory of dams. US Army Corps of Engineers. Accessed 24 June 2011
  97. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) (1994) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Appalachian elk toe determined to be an endangered species. Fed Reg 59:60324–60334Google Scholar
  98. USGS (US Geological Survey) (2012) PRESENCE 5.3 and GENPRES software. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Accessed 7 Nov 2012
  99. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Blackburn Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  101. Watts RJ, Ryder DS, Allan C, Commens S (2010) Using river-scale experiments to inform variable releases from large dams: a case study of emergent adaptive management. Mar Fresh Res 61:786–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wehrly KE, Wiley MJ, Seelbach PW (2003) Classifying regional variation in thermal regime based on stream fish community patterns. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:18–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wollock DM, Winter TC, McMahon G (2004) Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environ Manag 34:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wolman MG (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Trans Am Geophys Union 35:951–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wootton JT, Parker MS, Power ME (1996) Effects of disturbance on river food webs. Science 273:1558–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan A. McManamay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Donald J. Orth
    • 2
  • Charles A. Dolloff
    • 3
  • David C. Mathews
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fish and Wildlife ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest Service, Department of Fish and Wildlife ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.Tennessee Valley AuthorityKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations